Better Oratory, But The Same Road


The gradual decline of the middle class has been chronicled in statistics, both in narrative and pictorially. Following is one graph from The Nation> (which, I regret, I was unable to post larger):




The description in the top half reads:

The greater the gap between the rich and everyone else, the more dangerously unstable economies become. In 1928, a year before the U.S. economy nose-dived into depression,the top one-hundredth of 1 percent of U.S. families averaged 892 times more income than families in the bottom 90 percent.

In 1980, the last pre-Reagan year, families in the bottom 90 percent averaged $30,446 in income, after adjusting for inflation, $72 more than the $30,374 comparable families earned in 2006. The top 0.01 percent in 1980 took home an average $54 million, less than one-fifth the $29.6 million average income of the super-rich in 2006.

In 2006 the top 0.01 percent averaged 976 times more income than America's bottom 9 percent.

It is tempting to blame it all on Ronald Reagan, and the gradual descent of the middle class did begin in his Administration. As Eugene Zarecki, who wrote "Reagan," which appeared Monday night on HBO, told Chris Matthews

And so, the heartbreaking part about him and it is in the film a little bit, in part of the whole bigger picture that we showed about him, is that Ronald Reagan, in many ways, presented himself as a friend to main street America. He`d come from the heartland. He`d come from a small town. And yet, at the end of the day, that "Reader`s Digest" America, that`s the very America his policies did the most to hurt.

But if Ronald Reagan was the first President to put his foot down on the middle class, he wasn't the last. In his State of the Union message (transcript and video from The Huffington Post) last month, President Obama maintained

That world has changed. And for many, the change has been painful. I've seen it in the shuttered windows of once booming factories, and the vacant storefronts on once busy Main Streets. I've heard it in the frustrations of Americans who've seen their paychecks dwindle or their jobs disappear — proud men and women who feel like the rules have been changed in the middle of the game.

They're right. The rules have changed. In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there's an Internet connection.

Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They're investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.

So, yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn't discourage us. It should challenge us.

After noting condescendingly "and for many, the change has been painful" (like, maybe unemployment), the President approvingly adds

The rules have changed. In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there's an Internet connection.

That's a hearty endorsement; it's surely encouraging that "any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there's an Internet connection." Better yet, according to Obama- "steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100." Pop the champagne- good-paying jobs with benefits are now lost.

President Obama repeated himself Monday in his message(transcript here) to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stating

But we also know that with the march of technology over the last few decades, the competition for jobs and businesses has grown fierce. The globalization of our economy means that businesses can now open up shop, employ workers and produce their goods wherever there is internet connection. Tasks that were once done by 1,000 workers can now be done by 100, or even 10.

He then added

And the truth is, as countries like China and India grow and develop larger middle classes, it's profitable for global companies to aggressively pursue these markets and, at times, to set up facilities in these countries.

If you believe that presidential candidate Barack Obama, who had promised to re-consider the NAFTA, would re-emerge in the speech, you were overly optimistic. This Barack Obama would go on to promise

As a government, we will help lay the foundation for you to grow and innovate. We will upgrade our transportation and communications networks so you can move goods and information more quickly and cheaply. We will invest in education so that you can hire the most skilled, talented workers in the world. And we'll knock down barriers that make it harder for you to compete, from the tax code to the regulatory system.

Deregulation of the financial industry, highlighted by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, the Financial Services Modernization Act (revoking Glass-Steagall in 2000) and the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act, flourished during the administrations of the last three presidents. For most Republicans- and President Obama- that was not enough, with the President now assuring the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that further "barriers" (i.e., safeguards) will be "knocked down." In return, the President already has demanded that those businesses accept lower taxes.

That was only one element in the corporate-friendly, labor-unfriendly message of the President. Invoking the neo-liberal religion of job training, he asserted "we will invest in education so that you can hire the most skilled, talented workers in the world."

These eager Americans will be trained for jobs which don't exist. Corporate profits reached a record high in the third quarter of 2010, the seventh consecutive quarter in which they grew. The Wall Street Journal reported in December that companies have on hand "$1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of September, up from $1.8 trillion at the end of June, the Federal Reserve said Thursday. Cash accounted for 7.4% of the companies' total assets—the largest share since 1959." Meanwhile, there are an estimated 4.7 workers for every job available.

Facing a deep recession (threatening to turn into a depression) when he took office, President Obama punted on the opportunity to upgrade those "transportation and communications networks" with extensive stimulus funding. Now vowing to help business "move goods and information more quickly and cheaply." Obama seems quite comfortable that, as The New York Times has noted, "More so than in the past, many American-based corporations earn a great portion of their profits overseas. And thanks to porous tax laws, these companies return fewer of those profits to American shores than in the past."

Not coincidentally, the President addressed these remarks to the nation's largest lobbying outfit, which has successfully derailed congressional efforts to discourage outsourcing, and whose president has been an avid, vocal supporter of the practice.

So, too, did President Obama repeat in his address to the Chamber his mantra "win the future." But he wants to "win the future" with innovation, education, and corporate de-regulation. Sound familiar? It's the formula the U.S. government adopted during the Reagan presidency and which has been carried forth through the current administration. It has left us with a declining number of good-paying jobs with reduced benefits, and a disintegrating middle class. And that appears to be a concern neither of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, whose members legitimately are focused on their own profits, nor of President Obama.

Share|

Obama, Not Wishing To Offend


Sarah Palin probably is not far to the right of the other possible aspirants for the Repub nomination for president. Whatever their true beliefs, all Republicans now must adhere to a strict, very conservative line.

It's more that the ex-Alaska governor is not very presidential. It's difficult to imagine in the Oval Office someone who has remarked

Where’s the S’mores ingredients? This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day that we should not have dessert.

Would-be presidents really should not be criticizing the food choices of the First Lady of the U.S.A., or even commenting about it. Really, someone hoping to be considered for leadership of the nation burnishes his or her image more by evaluating economic policy, or defense spending, or the tax squeeze on the middle class (or on the upper class, which more concerns Republicans). Even denouncing same-sex marriage is more high-minded than misquoting the President's wife.

Fortunately, we have a president who is an adult, serious, and unafraid of demonstrating leadership. Yes, we have a president who, in his statement to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce this morning, commented

I'm here in the interest of being more neighborly. Maybe we would have gotten off on a better foot if I had brought over a fruitcake when we first moved in.

Brought over a fruitcake when we first moved in. This is the 44th President of the United States, the leader of the Free World, and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces when called into action.

Of course, it would not matter if this were a mere throwaway line, something which would soften up a business community generally antithetical to Democratic presidents, which barely applies to Barack Obama. But it seems- no, it does- reflect the President's approach to the business community: oh, pretty please, I promise to be even nicer in the future (if you in turn will keep the campaign cash coming). One side is playing hardball.

In an interview with the Associated Press, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donahue recently lectured the President:

What's changed now? I would use four words. The election has changed.

Except that before last fall's election, Business Week reported that the Chamber's chief lobbyist

was certain of this much: The President's change agenda was history. There would be nothing like the Affordable Health Choices Act, no more Keynesian spending. "He is going to have to operate differently," Josten said.

Josten did offer a consolation prize: He had suggestions about ways the newly humbled White House could cut some deals with the GOP and still find some legislative victories.

One side is playing hardball. The other side is perusing the Internet for fruitcake recipes.

Share|

Inviting Abuse

CNN's Ed Henry reports

After months of all-out political war with the nation's most powerful business lobby, President Obama appears to be on the verge of launching a dramatic peace offering to the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue.

Two sources familiar with the negotiations tell me that Obama was giving serious consideration to going into the lion's den and delivering a speech at a Dec. 2 jobs summit hosted by Donohue, whose organization just spent tens of millions of dollars trying to bring the President's agenda to a screeching halt by helping to elect more pro-business lawmakers in the midterm election.

"It was my impression they were looking very favorably on the invite," a senior Chamber official told me about the White House, and a senior administration official did not quibble with that account when I checked with the White House on Friday....

"This would show the President will engage people with different views," one senior Democratic strategist told me. "I think it would be a good thing."

In fact, top Democratic strategists tell me senior White House officials like David Axelrod have been working aggressively behind the scenes to help facilitate a chance for Obama to finally bury the hatchet with Donohue and the rest of the business community.

It was only weeks ago, on the eve of the election, that Obama was slamming the Chamber, alleging that the might be using illegal foreign money to influence the midterms - a charge the Chamber vehemently denied.

The Chamber, Henry charges, "vehemently denied" an 'allegation' made by the President. Slipping by theliberal media unnoticed, however, were the Center for American Progress reports documenting the manner in which the Chamber raises money from foreign corporations, the name and location of the foreign companies, the amount donated, and the partisan attack ads used with the money. (Thank you, Citizens United: aren't you glad you have the same freedom of speech as foreign corporations?) (video from msnbc via americablog.com) Something is not true simply because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it is; as Rachel Maddow explains below, "just printing something somebody says is not news; it's publicity."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

While senior officials like Axelrod and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have publicly tried to downplay any tensions with the business community, I'm told by these Democratic strategists that the administration is privately more concerned than they're letting on about just how politically damaging the image of Obama being anti-business has been.

It was already reported this week that Geithner tried to start brokering a detente of sorts by appearing before the Chamber's board, with the senior official there telling me that the Treasury Secretary's visit was "refreshing" and a good start.

Beyond the political intrigue, the significance is that there has been a lot of pessimism in Washington about whether or not Obama can really get much done in 2011 with a Republican House and a shrunken Democratic majority in the Senate.

But there are signs that Obama may be able to form an unlikely alliance on some key issues with the Chamber of Commerce, which has a lot of sway with incoming Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and could help each side bridge at least some of their differences on economic matters.

Jen Psaki, White House deputy communications director, told me that a lot of the tension with the Chamber was overblown anyway and she believes they will be able to work together on billions in new infrastructure spending the President is trying to secure, as well as Obama's push to double U.S. exports within five years - an idea that Chamber officials diplomatically note was actually first pushed by Donohue.

"The economic recovery is more important than political battles of the past," said Psaki. "There a number of issues that we can see eye to eye on."

Digby quips "think NAFTA, only with social security." That would be part of the agenda, but also this, as Henry continues:

A turning point in this often testy relationship may have been the President's trip earlier this month to Asia. Administration officials credit Donohue with flying to South Korea while Obama was there to try and help the President push along the pending free trade agreement (though it's still stalled), while Chamber officials credit Geithner with literally being available to Donohue at 3 a.m. during the trip to help iron out a sticking point.

During that trip, the President offered a curious argument:

Calling India a creator and not a poacher of US jobs, Obama said the relationship between the countries had evolved to a stage where India was "creating jobs, growth, and higher living standards in both our countries."

According to The Economic Populist (from which the graph below, utilizing data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, is taken) "A working NBER paper, 'Estimating the Impact of Trade and Offshoring on American Workers Using the Current Population Surveys' found a negative correlation between U.S. employment and offshore outsourcing to low wage countries."




Despite the President's apparent comfort with offshoring, the U.S. Chamber is getting ready to undermine Mr. Obama, if past is prologue:

Nevertheless, an Obama speech to Donohue's group would be a dramatic gesture because the White House and the Chamber have been at each other's throats for much of the past two years.

While Donohue supported the stimulus plan as well as the auto bailouts early on in the Obama administration, the cooperation pretty much stopped there. It "went off the rails," in the words of a senior Chamber official, over the President's health care reform.

It's always been known that the Chamber was fighting that plan tooth and nail, but nobody knew just how aggressively until this week, when Bloomberg reported that health insurers gave the Chamber a whopping $86.2 million to battle the plan - a staggering amount.

The Chamber spent tens of millions of dollars more to support Republicans - as well as some conservative Democrats - in the midterm election. Those efforts helped knock the President's party out of power in the House, and weakened his hand in the Senate.

And despite the happy talk now about working together on other issues, let's not forget that the Chamber will be glad to be part of any Republican effort on Capitol Hill to weaken the President's signature health care and Wall Street reform laws.


Digby maintains "I don't think Obama is dumb enough not to realize that they will stab him in the back politically again anyway," which suggests that the President knows he is figuratively being led to slaughter, and is happily acquiescing. True or not, nothing good for the American worker can come of this alliance forged in an economy in serious decline. And that is not only bad for the concept of good jobs in this nation, but also for Obama's presumed party of preference, "shellacked" a few weeks ago over alarm about the economy.

Share|

Twisted Thinking

Washington Post syndicated columnist Dana Milbank believes President Obama should heed the draft proposal of the co-chairmen of The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. He cites vague statements of Republican Representatives Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Dave Camp of Michigan, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and concludes "In those statements are the contours of a deal Obama could strike with Republican lawmakers such as Ryan, the incoming House budget chairman."

What would that bold, joint statement of Ryan, Camp, and Hensarling be?

This is a provocative proposal, and while we have concerns with some of their specifics, we commend the co-chairs for advancing the debate. We will continue to work toward solutions that help spur economic growth and restrain the explosive growth of government spending.

That means nothing. But for a Republican Party which has argued, incomprehensibly, that only tax cuts are consistent with economic growth, it might mean: No tax increases. On anyone. For any reason. Ever.

Courageously, Coburn remarked "If we do the cuts, I'll go for it. We may have to go for some revenues at some point."

We may have to. At some point. Perhaps when hell freezes over. Maybe then.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce commented "any solution will require commitment and sacrifice on both the spending and revenue fronts." Presumably, the Chamber would support the proposed cuts in Social Security and Medicare, student loans, and the Veterans Administration medical system, as well as revenue increases by raising fees for entering national parks and eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction. Coupled with its aggressive promotion of the offshoring of American jobs, it is an effective program to squash the middle class.

But for Milbank, "the possible results" of cooperation with the Chamber and other political enemies "must be tempting: a balanced budget, a shrinking federal debt, a long-overdue rewrite of the tax code, improving Medicare and Social Security solvency in the long run, and easing health-care costs." First, however, Obama might want to clear that with the Chamber's chief lobbyist, who has vowed to block the agenda of the President, who "is going to have to operate differently." Or with its President, who confidently warns the White House "they are in the second inning" of their battles with its organization.

But if Milbank is right, "The political benefits could be equally enormous: taking over the main issue of the Tea Party and building a good relationship with business." Still, Bloomberg News reports, "the Standard & Poor's Index has risen more than 43 percent since Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 and corporate profits have rebounded almost to the pre-recession peak reached in 2006." And the response from the sector he "could build a good relationship with" if he were just a little more centrist?

Investors are evenly split over their overall impression of the president, though 62 percent of those in the U.S. view him negatively. Worldwide, 63 percent of all respondents say his policies are detrimental to the U.S. investment climate.....

The president gets little credit from investors for measures he oversaw to rescue the economy, including the continuation of a bailout of the financial industry begun under President George W. Bush, an expansion of the help for U.S. auto companies and the enactment of an $814 billion stimulus package. Only 1 of 6 investors says the Obama administration’s policies have been primarily responsible for the performance of the stock market or economy.

Milbank also criticizes congressional leaders because

Democrats in the House are set to keep the same three leaders - Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn - who led them to their historic wipeout. This is the preschool-soccer theory of accountability: Nobody keeps score and everybody gets a trophy. The fallen House speaker seems to speak for a number of her colleagues when she says she has "no regrets" about the past two years.

It is easy to criticize the leadership of Congress, traditionally a very unpopular branch of government. But if the Democratic Party really were to effect the removal from his position their leader most responsible for this "historic wipeout," Joseph Biden soon would be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States.

Share|

George Soros, Evil American


In the Bloomberg Business Week profile he wrote, Devin Leonard observes:

As the waiters circled with warm banana-and-macadamia pudding, the conversation took on a darker tone. Donohue announced that the chamber had been digging into the funding sources of anti-globalization groups that might try to thwart their efforts overseas. "We found that 50 or 60 percent of their money comes from the same person," Donohue said dramatically. He wasn't ready to name names just yet. Instead, he acted like a man with a hand grenade in his pocket who couldn't wait to hurl it. "It's going to be a story," the chamber leader promised. The people sitting around the table seemed baffled. (Later, when asked if he was referring to George Soros, Donohue laughed and said, "That's a pretty good guess.")

It isn't only Tom Donohue, chief of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In October, Glenn Beck spun one of his conspiratorial tales, stating

George Soros, however, while we were like — he was wide awake and he's obviously been busy for many, many years. He's been expanding his influence through groups such as the Tides Foundation. And if you think it's too much to call him the evil emperor from "Star Wars" episode, really more of the "Episode Six" emperor.

If you think it's too much, well, he is the guy who's called for the managed decline of the U.S. dollar. Gee, George, thank you so much. I can't wait for my money to be worth less. Thank you.

See, what he does is buys up everything he can. He buys gold, like, right now, he's buying gold in huge sums, and then he just — he waits for the right time and then he says, I don't know, I think maybe currency is not going to go so well, I'm not sure if I'm going to stay, and he sells and everybody panics, and they collapse. Four times. You're going to go for number five?

(Glenn Beck against selling and buying gold? Perhaps General Mills is against the purchase and consumption of cereal.)

The same day, Rush Limbaugh exclaimed "You want to talk a little foreign money in politics? George Soros has admitted to donating $1 million to Media Matters for America."

This led Green Greenwald to note

George Soros, however, is an American citizen, with the full panoply of rights citizenship bestows (including the right to vote or run for office). He's been an American citizen for almost 50 years, since the age of 31 (Business Week: "George Soros became a naturalized American citizen in New York on Dec. 18, 1961, according to the Immigration & Naturalization Service"). He was born in Hungary in 1930, survived German occupation even as numerous Jews died, fled to London after the war to escape Communism, and then began working in New York in 1956. He lived and worked in the U.S. for many years and has given away many millions of dollars in philanthropy to American organizations.

What is it about Soros exactly that leads right-wing commentators -- including their long-time leader, Rush Limbaugh -- to falsely brand this American citizen a "foreigner"? The answer to that question provides substantial insight into the American Right and how they think about many things.

What is it about Soros exactly that leads right-wing commentators.... to falsely brand this American citizen a "foreigner"? It's a great question, with the obvious answer that a) Soros supports liberal causes; and b) the American right has little interest in facts.

Consider, however, an additional reason. A few days earlier, Beck had pledged $10,000 to America's offshoring champ, the U.S. Chamber, successfully urging his listeners also to contribute. That same organization secretly collects funds, as Think Progress has discovered and documented, converting them into ads attacking American politicians who have been cool to the Chamber's objectives- including sending as many jobs as possible abroad. Meanwhile, it opposes efforts to persuade American companies to bring jobs back to the U.S.A.

Greenwald gets to the heart of the matter- or at least attempts to. Perhaps the right is so enraged at Soros, whom it fears is striking the heart of American conservatism, precisely because he is an American citizen.

Share|

This Isn't Going Well

On Thursday, Michael D. Shear blogged in The New York Times

But Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner this week met with Mr. Donohue to discuss international economic issues. And in his post-“shellacking” news conference Wednesday, Mr. Obama came close to conceding the chamber’s main argument, that American businesses have concluded — wrongly, in Mr. Obama’s view — that his policies are antibusiness.

“I think business took the message that, well, gosh, it seems like we may be always painted as the bad guy,” Mr. Obama told reporters. He admitted that relations with the business community had not been “managed by me as well as it needed to be.”

Mr. Obama did not mention the chamber by name, or refer specifically to the public war of words that has dominated the relationship between the chamber and the White House.

But he seemed to suggest that his often-repeated goal of creating “new rules of the road” for business needed to be better balanced against a new appreciation for the need to buck-up firms that are struggling in the faltering economy.

“And so I’ve got to take responsibility in terms of making sure that I make clear to the business community as well as to the country that the most important thing we can do is to boost and encourage our business sector and make sure that they’re hiring,” Mr. Obama said. “And so we do have specific plans in terms of how we can structure that outreach”....

In his remarks, Mr. Obama hinted at a new direction from the White House that could help reassure businesses.

“I think setting the right tone publicly is going to be important,” he said, “and could end up making a difference at the margins in terms of how businesses make investment decisions.”

Maybe that “new tone” will apply in the war between the Chamber of Commerce and the White House as well.

Good luck with that. In a profile for Bloomberg Business Week, Devin Leonard writes that U.S. Chamber of Commerce head Tom Donahue

intends to spend his new political capital by reconfiguring the country's economic policies the same way that large corporations have always wanted to: by cutting taxes, slashing regulation, forging trade deals with foreign countries, and reducing the deficit.

He'd like to start by chipping away at the President's legislative achievements such as health-care and financial reform, which must still be implemented at the regulatory level. In short, the battles between the chamber and the White House are far from over. "Oh, hell no," Donohue laughs. "They are in the second inning" ....

Now, with his strategy having proven effective, Donohue and the chamber are plotting their post-election agenda. A week before the House flipped, R. Bruce Josten, the chamber's silver-maned, Benson & Hedges-smoking chief lobbyist and Mr. Fixit, said that a lot would be unclear after the election, even if the Republicans triumphed. There would be struggles over congressional committee chairmanships and lame-duck shenanigans. But he was certain of this much: The President's change agenda was history. There would be nothing like the Affordable Health Choices Act, no more Keynesian spending. "He is going to have to operate differently," Josten said.

The chamber's chief lobbyist also recommended that the Administration put its support behind a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts. The White House signaled just before the election that the matter would be considered carefully. Josten would also like to see a corporate tax cut and increased federal spending on infrastructure, which would also be a boon to the private sector. The White House has signaled it will mull these over as well.

Even before the election, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, and Michael Steele vowed there would be no compromise. Nevertheless, the day after the election, Barack Obama

offered to sit down with Republican and Democratic leaders to see whether there were areas where they could agree. "I have been willing to compromise in the past and I am willing to compromise going forward," Obama said.


Dustin Ensinger reminds us

Just last month, the Chamber lobbied vigorously to defeat the Creating American Jobs and End Offshoring Act, which would have given companies a two-year payroll tax holiday, reducing the amount of Social Security taxes they would have to pay, for new employees who replace workers doing similar jobs overseas. The bill would have also ended tax provisions that encourage the outsourcing of jobs.

Now, the U.S. Chamber's chief lobbyist, R. Bruce

Josten did offer a consolation prize: He had suggestions about ways the newly humbled White House could cut some deals with the GOP and still find some legislative victories. As he noted, the White House is already working on a trade agreement with South Korea that could be announced as early as next week. That may not endear the President to his union supporters, but the chamber will applaud.

Because if there is always room for Jello, there also is room for destroying American jobs with a trade deal (Ford Motor Company ad below), letting, Dave Johnson explains

Korea export like crazy to the U.S., but not addressing non-tariff barriers that Korea places on bringing U.S.-made goods into their country. (Korea places regulatory and tax barriers to limit imports along with tariff barriers that the trade agreement addresses. So in effect we would be removing our tariff barriers on Korean imports, while they keep their other barriers to our exports.)

Meanwhile, Leonard notes

Donohue and the chamber are plotting their post-election agenda. A week before the House flipped, R. Bruce Josten, the chamber's silver-maned, Benson & Hedges-smoking chief lobbyist and Mr. Fixit, said that a lot would be unclear after the election, even if the Republicans triumphed. There would be struggles over congressional committee chairmanships and lame-duck shenanigans. But he was certain of this much: The President's change agenda was history. There would be nothing like the Affordable Health Choices Act, no more Keynesian spending. "He is going to have to operate differently," Josten said.

At the post-election press conference at which the President offered, yet again, an olive branch to the Party whose primary objective is his defeat, Obama appeared chastened and humbly admitted having been "shellacked."

But the President's adversary- Leonard calls him "Obama's tormentor"- at the U.S. Chamber gloated "You may not know we have our own law firm. It's a public-interest law firm. We sue the federal government of the United States 150 times a year on regulatory issues. By the way, we win a lot."

Share|

Remains To Be Seen

Responding to the "Rally to Restore Sanity" two days earlier in Washington, Keith Olbermann suspended on November 1 his daily "Worst Person in the World" segment. Although Olbermann argued "It is not for ratings and it is not 'get angry first and find a reason later,'" he concluded

It's just that today, given the serious stuff we have to start covering tomorrow, we think it's the right time to do it short-term and then we'll see what happens. And we'll also see if anybody else on TV or radio will do something similar.

Not surprisingly (and as KO probably suspected), there has been no similar attempt at lowering the volume of partisan discourse at the GOP's house organ, FOX News.

Politico had discovered in a federal election commission filing that Olbermann had made a campaign contribution to a U.S. Senate candidate (who was defeated) and to two U.S. House candidates (who were re-elected). Simmi Aujla writes

MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement Friday: “I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election.

Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.

Grijalva, a prominent liberal who was just declared a winner in his race Thursday night, was in a tight contest against tea-party-backed candidate Ruth McClung when he appeared on "Countdown" — one of several appearances he made on the show.

NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover.

Olbermann is not alone in his generosity. As Justin Elliot wrote for salon.com on September 23

Fox News host Sean Hannity gave $5,000 to the political action committee of conservative hero Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., in August, and his wife, Jill, gave another $5,000, Federal Election Commission records show.

The donations were given on Aug. 31 to MICHELEPAC (that's an acronym for Many Individual Conservatives Helping Elect Leaders Everywhere).

Besides being a conservative radio and TV host, Hannity's ties to the Republican Party are well known. Earlier this year he was the keynote speaker at the annual fundraising dinner of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

We've reached out to Fox for comment on this, and we'll update this post if we hear back.

Elliot blogged at 9:53 this morning that no comment yet had been received from Fox, which appears to be a part of the GOP's fundraising apparatus. As Media Matters noted in September, Sharron

Angle has been fairly consistent in touting Fox News as part of her national fundraising push. On September 10, Angle wrote that she would appear on Fox News' Hannity as "part of our push" to raise $1 million online; she previously told Fox News reporter Carl Cameron that she needed the press to be her "friend" and allow her to give out the address of her website; and in July, Angle suggested that she frequently appeared on Fox News -- the home of softball Angle interviews -- because they allow her to make fundraising appeals to viewers.

But it's not only Angle. The Washington Post reported in August that Fox News' parent, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., made a $1 million contribution to the Republican Governors Association. In October it made a $250,000 donation to the RGA. Between those two contributions, Newscorp gave $1 million to- wait for it- the United States Chamber of Commerce. That would be the same Chamber which solicited money from foreign- and state- owned companies to run attack ads against candidates, most of them Democrats, who have worked to discourage offshoring of American jobs.

If Jon Stewart is right, all of "cable TV" has the same policy and standards and head(s) will roll at Fox News. If not, we will, finally, understand that there is one liberal cable network and one which is little more than an arm of the Republican Party.

Share|

Assuming Innocence, Facts Optional

It's not just Rush Limbaugh anymore. Generally more sober and sensible members of the media have been parroting the "Democrats have no proof of their charge" accusation pertaining to evidence that the United States Chamber of Commerce has been applying contribution from foreign corporations to the funding of partisan political ads.

Now Charles Krauthammer has gotten into the act. Krauthammer, though a very (neo-) conservative columnist, has sometimes shown signs of thought. In 2008, for instance, he wrote "I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic," which would place him today on the far left of the Republican Party (and persona non grata, if today he were to say he's "agnostic" on anything).

Choosing to "resent an infallibly prescient scorecard of the best and worst of 2010," Krauthammmer selects for "most shameless attack campaign (national)":

President Obama's suggesting that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is secretly using foreign money to fund its campaign ads. There's not a shred of evidence that this is true. When Bob Schieffer asked David Axelrod for evidence, he responded "Well, do you have any evidence that it's not, Bob?"

It wasn't the fault of longtime journalist Schieffer, who rhetorically asked "If the only (chuckles) charge three weeks into the election that the Democrats have to make is that somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming into the campaign, is that the best you can do?" Axelrod could have said "I think the American people are more concerned than are you with foreign interests in India and the Middle East funding political campaigns so that politicians can send American jobs abroad." But he didn't.

Now, the media is enthralled, in denial of the facts, of accusing Democrats of lacking facts. So here are a few, according to the investigation of the Center for American Progress:

- Since 1994, according to a report by Campaign Money Watch, "184,000 jobs were lost to outsourcing in the 22 congressional districts in which the Chamber has spent $4.8 million on political ads."

- Chamber CEO Tom Donohue publicly has endorsed outsourcing and the organization (successfully) fought the Creating American Jobs and End Offshoring Act, which would have discouraged the jobs-killing practice.

- At least 84 foreign companies have donated a total of at least $885,000 to the Chambers' 501(c)(6) account.

- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which plans to spend $75 million this election cycle, could have designated its political action committee to receive the funds. However, PACS have significant disclosure requirements- and the organization's PAC as of October had raised only $161,000 and spent only $64,000.

- While organizations usually collect international funds through a 501(c)(3) account, which is prohibited from using them for political activities, the U.S. Chamber is channeling its money to a 501(c)(6) account, from which funds may be used for such purposes.

Notwithstanding CAP's claim, perhaps the United States Chamber of Commerce is not be diverting funds from abroad to political ads opposing candidates who want jobs to remain in the U.S.A. and support fair trade. And perhaps winter may not come to the Rockies this year.

Share|

Election Season And the U.S. Chamber


Think Progress has asked a lot of (still unanswered) questions about the source of the funding used by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to fund partisan attack ads. This past wee, Ezra Klein of The Washington Post and Chris Matthews of Hardball weighed in on the issue and came up with vastly different conclusions.

On October 11, Ezra Klein tweeted "Real talk: Demanding financial disclosures from the Chamber of Commerce will not help Dems win the election." Well, yes, "demanding financial disclosures from the Chamber of Commerce" is fruitless because the Chamber has demonstrated that it will not admit where the money has come from.

The Center for American Progress already has done the heavy lifting on that, revealing the source of the money the trade organization has received from abroad. What we don't know is where it has gone. Interviewed by Terry Gross of NPR's Fresh Air, Lee Fang, who writes for CAP's thinkprogress.org, contended

disclose who is paying for these ads; although, the bank account - the campaign account, I should say, that's receiving these foreign funds is comingled with American businesses. It's all combined and then used on the $75 million massive campaign or attack campaign, I should say.

Inasmuch as accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals or foreign corporations is prohibited by law in the U.S.A., the charge is a serious one, and conspicuously has not been refuted. The Chamber has said it does not comingle the funds but has not said in what manner and given that money is fungible, there must be serious doubt that it has been segregated.

However, in a Post piece appearing October 12, Klein claims "As far as I can tell, no one who has seriously looked into this thinks it's any more than some election-season hardball from the Democrats." He links to a factcheck.org analysis which, not surprisingly, proves nothing of the sort, asserting that the Democrats have made a serious charge and should prove it.... which, of course, is difficult to do without the Chamber explaining how it has kept foreign-derived funds separate from domestic-derived funds.

Klein, though, writing from a far-off planet, argues

I really wish the Democrats' push on this issue was connected to a serious campaign-finance agenda. They're not going to win any races by calling for more financial disclosure from the Chamber of Commerce, but maybe they could at least unite the party around something like the Fair Elections Now Act.

Probably good policy. But as political strategy, this is beyond naive. What, you might ask, is the "Fair Elections Now Act?" We could check it out via Google or perhaps Democratic office-seekers could explain it to the American people, most of whom would understandably not be as catalyzed by the issue as is Ezra Klein. In a larger sense, few individuals care about campaign financing, or campaign financing reform (except possibly in the abstract, in which elections are not held), unless it is connected to an issue that matters to them.

Enter Chris Matthews, who knows less about the economy or health care financing or a lot of other issues than does Klein, but sometimes is singlularly insightful analyzing politics. As it appeared in the conservative blog Newsbusters (which condemned Matthews' remarks), the Hardball host on October 13 commented (video below)

Let me finish tonight by addressing the challenge Bob Schieffer of CBS News issued to the White House this Sunday. Is that the best that you can do?

Bob was challenging David Axelrod on the White House charge that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was using money it raises from overseas to finance Republican political campaigns.

So, why is it so darn important to the average voter out there, that multinational corporations, some of them based outside of the United States, have their fingers in this election?

How about this -- it`s the central economic issue of our times. Look at how the giant corporations get their profit margins up these days. Are they out there selling hot, new products every consumer wants to get their hands on? Or are they doing the job by cost-cutting, cutting down the number of employees for whom they have to pay those tiresome health packages, those costly pensions and 401 plans? Are they doing it through those highly celebrated productivity gains by substituting robotics for people, by outsourcing the cheaper vendors overseas, over where the price of labor is dirt cheap?

No wonder the multinationals want to gift candidates who love to deregulate, love so-called free markets, love tax structures that lead them as free as possible to continue doing what they`re doing -- the kind of free-willing, cost-cutting that meets the quarterly bottom line.

No wonder the U.S. Chamber`s such a popular lobbying body for the multinational operation, in whatever country, it happens to currently find the best haven.

So, the right answer, is this is best that we can do is, is: is this the best America can do? It`s about jobs, and if all of the American people can talk about this election season as this, I say, keep on talking. You`ve finally got your finger on the pulse of this country. It`s about the economy.

There are approximately 4.7 unemployed Americans for every job available. A bill proposed by Senate Democrats to discourage off-shoring jobs is killed by the vigoroous opposition of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the vote of every single Republican in the United States Senate. Now Ezra Klein is talking about the Fair Elections Now Act, whatever that might be. Chris Matthews is talking about jobs for Americans, not Indians or Chinese. And that is- or would be- the way elections in this country are won, circa 2010.

Visit msnbc.com for