Another Obstacle In November
A year and a half after Senator Obama is inaugurated president, the economy is still in the doldrums, the President’s passivity in the face of the worst environmental disaster in history appears to have been a failure, and the GOP reaping rewards from its Policy Of No, Democrats fear the worst for November. In “Sock It to ‘Em, Obama” on The Daily Best website, Eric Alterman observes
Obama needs to get his base excited again and the legislative record, as impressive as it is in historical context, ain’t going to do it…. It’s time he stopped playing nice and made the case to the American people (even though) the dude just doesn’t do “mad” very well.
No he doesn’t, and that may be by design. Salon’s Joan Walsh notes that in his New York Times magazine profile “Democrat in Chief” in The New York Times Magazine, Matt
Bai argues that Obama's team sees "inclusivity, transcendence, a generational break from stale dogmas" as the so-called brand – and there's nothing in that notion that has anything to do with actual political programs, policies or problem solving. That's a little terrifying. Republicans succeeded for most of the last 40 years because they delivered on many of their promises to their base, especially big business, with tax cuts, deregulation and demagoguery against government.
That emphasis worked for Obama in the presidential election and may do so again in his re-election bid, as he and his team have been
more focused on protecting the "brand" that they believe galvanized millions of new voters, young voters and independents in 2008, to potentially realign American politics, than with helping Democrats hold the House and Senate.
This may explain why Obama appears, at best, to be unable (or unwilling) to transfer whatever personal popularity he has left to other Democrats. It's unsurprising, then, that
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats are livid that Obama so frequently excoriates Washington generally, and the "folks up there," rather than calling out Republicans specifically for their obstruction. But bipartisanship is a pillar of the Obama brand, and so is the notion that Washington is "broken," and Obama shows no signs of wanting to ditch either – even as he flails about in an oily ocean, waiting for someone to offer the hand of bipartisanship, which looks increasingly unlikely.
Like those congressional Democrats, Walsh recognizes that Obama puts “his own political fortunes ahead of the party's.” She
wonder(s) if what seemed like an unexpected gift to the Democratic Party – this charismatic, unifying, "transcendent" president – could wind up setting the party back, because the pragmatic, content-free, bipartisan Obama appeal has nothing to do with getting done what Democrats need to do.
There really is no need to wonder. More colorfully, Alterman observes
So Obama won a national election back when we all could believe he was our own private Superman—whatever that happened to be. (I’m not kidding. I bought my kid an Obama-as-Superman T-shirt at the inauguration.) Young people in particular are likely to be disillusioned, (and therefore disaffected). Now that we know he’s smart, savvy, go-along-to-get-along kind of guy who looks a lot like George W. Bush on national security issues and (a slightly reformed) Alan Greenspan on economic ones, it’s rather hard to get excited about the coming congressional elections. After all, we already have a black president, and as B.B. King sang, “The Thrill Is Gone.”
Few Democrats are excited about the upcoming elections, as reflected in the “enthusiasm gap” we keep hearing about. A black president elected, history made, and now "the thrill is gone." This probably was inevitable given that "many Obama-brand voters are all about Obama, and require a gauzy appeal to bipartisanship and transcendence, denuded of practical problem solving -- health care reform, climate change, creating jobs, a fair tax structure ….” It’s tough to get people out to vote for down-ballot candidates when the party leader "is not strongly identified with the politics or programs of the Democratic Party. And the more he polishes the brand by keeping his distance from the party, the less his popularity might help Democrats in the fall."
Walsh is justifiably worried about "the White House's relatively substance-free approach to keeping the Obama brand bright and shiny." Use of bipartisanship as a means to an end, rather than as an end in itself, is designed to alienate as few voters as possible as the White House eyes 2012.
But it is a dangerous approach to mid-term elections, as suggested by a story Representative Marion Berry (D.-AR) tells:
They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.
Hopefully, it will make very little difference. It's not only that Obama has few coattails- he may have negative coattails. (I can't prove it, but remember you heard it- the "downballot anti-obama boomerang effect" here first. Or second.) More generously, and far more eloquently, Walsh concludes
I've been thinking a lot about the whole idea of transcendence that comes up throughout Bai's piece. I have no idea what it means. Contrast the word with the language, and power, behind the civil rights hymn "We Shall Overcome." It's different from "We Shall Transcend." To "overcome" implied patience and perseverance, but also hard work. Transcendence is more passive, it's got religious connotations, I don't know how you "do" it, you might simply have to "be" it. Obama, apparently, is "transcendent." But I don't know if he will help us overcome.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Eric Cantor, Unintentionally Hopeful
By their enemies, you shall know them (or, in this case, it).
A vote against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was not unreasonable for individuals who have been awake the past couple of years and recognize that huge financial institutions must be regulated.
Mark Thoma at CBS Moneywatch observes
This bill is not going to end the problem of too big to fail. If the banking system is threatened, then one way or the other it will be bailed out. The consequences to the economy would be too large to do otherwise. Thus, banks that are big enough to pose a systemic risk enjoy an advantage over other banks. Banks that pose a systemic risk will be assumed to be safer than other banks due to the implicit government guarantee. This gives large banks an advantage over smaller banks that do not, on their own, threaten the financial system if they fail.
In addition, the implicit guarantee gives large banks the incentive to take on too much risk, and this is a reason to regulate the amount of risk they can take (and I don’t think the proposed legislation does enough in this regard).
More comprehensively, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who has been "a lonely voice for sanity in the financial markets," explained
At the start of this process I made clear that I had a simple test for financial reform -- will it stop another financial meltdown? This bill fails that test, and I won't support legislation that fails to protect the people of Wisconsin from the pain of another economic disaster. And I don't need to be lectured about this issue by people who supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for this terrible recession.
I had hoped I would be able to support the legislation, given the clear need for strong reform. I cosponsored a number of critical amendments during Senate consideration of the bill including a Cantwell-McCain amendment to restore Glass-Steagall safeguards, Senator Dorgan's amendment that addressed the problem of "too big to fail" financial institutions, and another "too big to fail" reform offered by Senators Brown and Kaufman that proposed strict limits on the size of those institutions. Each of those amendments would have improved the bill significantly, and each of them either failed or was blocked from even getting a vote.
After that, it wasn't a close call for me. It would be a huge mistake to pass a bill that purports to re-regulate the financial industry but is simply too weak to protect people from the recklessness of Wall Street. That would be like building an impressive-looking dam without telling everyone that it has a few leaks in it. False security is no security at all.
This bill is not going to end the problem of too big to fail. If the banking system is threatened, then one way or the other it will be bailed out. The consequences to the economy would be too large to do otherwise. Thus, banks that are big enough to pose a systemic risk enjoy an advantage over other banks. Banks that pose a systemic risk will be assumed to be safer than other banks due to the implicit government guarantee. This gives large banks an advantage over smaller banks that do not, on their own, threaten the financial system if they fail.
In addition, the implicit guarantee gives large banks the incentive to take on too much risk, and this is a reason to regulate the amount of risk they can take (and I don’t think the proposed legislation does enough in this regard).
(Open Left's Chris Bowers here summarizes both the weaknesses and strengths of the final bill and its deficiencies are detailed here by professor Michael Hudson)
The strongest argument in favor of the legislation, however ironically, comes from a fervent opponent, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. He contends
This legislation is a clear attack on capital formation in America. It purports to prevent the next financial crisis, but it does so by vastly expanding the power of the same regulators who failed to prevent the last one.
This reasoning one hears from professional Republicans, officeholders, pundits, and talk show hosts, though generally not, to their credit, from the conservative rank-and-file. The proposed legislation would strengthen the hand of regulators who enabled the current crisis when they were too weak to regulate industry. Therefore, it must be stopped.
Stop us before we serve the American public! Regulation failed because conservative ideology demanded that it do so, that it be passive in the face of opposition from business. This bill, if Cantor is to be believed, expands their power and thus is destructive.
Thank you, Representative Cantor. You have confirmed that some opponents fear that the financial services industry may no longer have their way with the American people. We can only hope your fear is realized.
By their enemies, you shall know them (or, in this case, it).
A vote against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was not unreasonable for individuals who have been awake the past couple of years and recognize that huge financial institutions must be regulated.
Mark Thoma at CBS Moneywatch observes
This bill is not going to end the problem of too big to fail. If the banking system is threatened, then one way or the other it will be bailed out. The consequences to the economy would be too large to do otherwise. Thus, banks that are big enough to pose a systemic risk enjoy an advantage over other banks. Banks that pose a systemic risk will be assumed to be safer than other banks due to the implicit government guarantee. This gives large banks an advantage over smaller banks that do not, on their own, threaten the financial system if they fail.
In addition, the implicit guarantee gives large banks the incentive to take on too much risk, and this is a reason to regulate the amount of risk they can take (and I don’t think the proposed legislation does enough in this regard).
More comprehensively, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who has been "a lonely voice for sanity in the financial markets," explained
At the start of this process I made clear that I had a simple test for financial reform -- will it stop another financial meltdown? This bill fails that test, and I won't support legislation that fails to protect the people of Wisconsin from the pain of another economic disaster. And I don't need to be lectured about this issue by people who supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for this terrible recession.
I had hoped I would be able to support the legislation, given the clear need for strong reform. I cosponsored a number of critical amendments during Senate consideration of the bill including a Cantwell-McCain amendment to restore Glass-Steagall safeguards, Senator Dorgan's amendment that addressed the problem of "too big to fail" financial institutions, and another "too big to fail" reform offered by Senators Brown and Kaufman that proposed strict limits on the size of those institutions. Each of those amendments would have improved the bill significantly, and each of them either failed or was blocked from even getting a vote.
After that, it wasn't a close call for me. It would be a huge mistake to pass a bill that purports to re-regulate the financial industry but is simply too weak to protect people from the recklessness of Wall Street. That would be like building an impressive-looking dam without telling everyone that it has a few leaks in it. False security is no security at all.
This bill is not going to end the problem of too big to fail. If the banking system is threatened, then one way or the other it will be bailed out. The consequences to the economy would be too large to do otherwise. Thus, banks that are big enough to pose a systemic risk enjoy an advantage over other banks. Banks that pose a systemic risk will be assumed to be safer than other banks due to the implicit government guarantee. This gives large banks an advantage over smaller banks that do not, on their own, threaten the financial system if they fail.
In addition, the implicit guarantee gives large banks the incentive to take on too much risk, and this is a reason to regulate the amount of risk they can take (and I don’t think the proposed legislation does enough in this regard).
(Open Left's Chris Bowers here summarizes both the weaknesses and strengths of the final bill and its deficiencies are detailed here by professor Michael Hudson)
The strongest argument in favor of the legislation, however ironically, comes from a fervent opponent, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. He contends
This legislation is a clear attack on capital formation in America. It purports to prevent the next financial crisis, but it does so by vastly expanding the power of the same regulators who failed to prevent the last one.
This reasoning one hears from professional Republicans, officeholders, pundits, and talk show hosts, though generally not, to their credit, from the conservative rank-and-file. The proposed legislation would strengthen the hand of regulators who enabled the current crisis when they were too weak to regulate industry. Therefore, it must be stopped.
Stop us before we serve the American public! Regulation failed because conservative ideology demanded that it do so, that it be passive in the face of opposition from business. This bill, if Cantor is to be believed, expands their power and thus is destructive.
Thank you, Representative Cantor. You have confirmed that some opponents fear that the financial services industry may no longer have their way with the American people. We can only hope your fear is realized.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Scott Brown For Financial Reform, Sort Of
Scott Brown's Facebook page is replete with comments from individuals angry about the 60th vote he provided in the U.S. Senate in favor of financial reform. Cindi Scott Benton remarks
We have to know... we HAVE to KNOW... what was it that changed your mind on this today??? You said NO... and then said YES??? WTF????????
Michael Wall more simply asks, rhetorically,
You voted for this bill, 2000+ pages of regulation? Why, just why?
Perhaps we can help them. In order to pay for the legislation, a House-Senate conference committee had inserted a provision which
would raise the level of funds the FDIC is required by law to hold in reserves to insure bank customer deposits. The FDIC would increase its so-called reserve ratio from 1.15 percent to 1.35 percent, or $1.35 for every $100 in deposits. The fund is supported through fees on the banking industry.
The change would shift the burden to the largest U.S. banks since the earlier plan would have also assessed hedge funds. Dodd said small banks would be exempt from having to pay for the increase.
As of June 28th, the Massachusetts Republican supported financial reform, which had passed the Senate with his vote after the Volcker Rule was weakened. wherein
Lawmakers agreed to an exemption pushed by Brown, for example, that would allow banks to continue to invest at least a small amount of their capital in hedge funds and private equity. The measure would prohibit a bank from placing more than 3 percent of its capital in such investments.
In English, a blogger at Alternet explains:
Brown demanded that the Volcker Rule—a ban on risky proprietary trading by banks—be watered down. Proprietary trading doesn’t serve any client or help any business, it’s just a naked bet, and when those bets are made through the commercial banking system, they’re subsidized by taxpayer perks (those perks are designed to boost economically productive lending).
One of the biggest banks in Massachusetts is State Street Bank. It’s a pretty boring institution—except for its prop trading operations. Throughout the crisis, it made decent money, and generally didn’t run into any trouble—except from its prop trading operations. State Street’s gambling operations backfired big-time, forcing taxpayers to step in with billions of dollars in bailouts.
What did Brown learn from this episode? Why, that State Street deserves to keep gambling with taxpayer dollars! Prior to Brown’s efforts, the Volcker Rule would have banned any proprietary trading at major banks. After Brown’s efforts, banks can put up to 3 percent of their capital into a proprietary hedge fund. That dealt a tremendous blow to the substance of the reform. When banks sponsor proprietary hedge funds, they collect lots of money from outside investors. If those hedge funds go under, the bank’s reputation is immediately on the line, and it faces a tremendous amount of pressure to bailout other investors in the hedge fund. If they don’t stand behind the hedge fund, investors wonder why, and it can spark a run on the bank.
So even if only a small amount is initially invested in the fund, banks often end up paying out several times their original investment to cover losses (Bear Stearns put about $40 million into a hedge fund and had to pay $3.2 billion when it went under). There are some provisions in the reform bill limiting the degree to which big banks can bailout their hedge funds, but they will be extremely difficult to enforce.
In sum, Brown actively weakened U.S. financial stability, and hit taxpayers with unnecessary fees, and did it all for the express benefit of a handful of special interests.
Still, on June 29th, however, Brown wrote a letter to Senate Committee on Banking Chairman Chris Dodd and House Committee on Financial Resources Chairman Barney Frank vowing to oppose the bill when it came back to the Senate because of the new provision. Of course, the conferees amended the bill to Brown's liking because, in Obamaworld, no bill may be passed without Republican support, even if it means losing the support of progressive Democrats. (Ultimately, this provision was dropped because at the last moment it was found to violate Paygo rules.)
The Administration had a choice. It could have accomodated Democrats Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who wanted the original, powerful Volcker language, and Washington States's Maria Cantwell, who advocated the stronger derivatives language initially proposed. But it chose instead to placate Massachusetts' Scott Brown and Maine's Susan Collins (sound familiar?). And it proved easier to appease an opportunist like Scott Brown, bereft of any ideological underpinning, rather than to demand a bill which would have effectively addressed the abuses of the nation's financial institutions.
Really, then, notwithstanding the shock of Scott Brown's right-wing followers, the financial reform bill (now named after Senator Dodd and Representative Frank) followed a similar script to that of health care reform (although the Republican support there ultimately failed to materialize), one highly favorable to their side.
While giving appropriate blame to the Blue Dogs, Open Left's Chris Bowers observed on June 29
Just in case you hadn't noticed, the New England Republican party is, in fact, the governing party of America right now.
Consider Wall Street reform, which is now going back to conference committee in order to appease Scott Brown and Susan Collins.
Consider unemployment benefits and jobs. The bill was defeated at the behest of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Scott Brown. However, now that Snowe has said unemployment extensions should be passed as a stand-alone bill, well, it looks like Congress is going to try and do just that (the House failed to pass such a bill a few minutes ago, but only because it required a two-thirds majority since the rules were suspended).
The country is being run by a regional rump party.
Have no fear, conservatives. All this is occurring with 253 Democrats in the House of Representatives, 59 (once the replacement for West Virginia's Bob Byrd takes the oath of office, expected this coming week) Democrats in the Senate, and the "Si Se Puede" Democrat in the White House. Imagine what will transpire once there is a GOP majority in Congress and/or a Republican president.
Scott Brown's Facebook page is replete with comments from individuals angry about the 60th vote he provided in the U.S. Senate in favor of financial reform. Cindi Scott Benton remarks
We have to know... we HAVE to KNOW... what was it that changed your mind on this today??? You said NO... and then said YES??? WTF????????
Michael Wall more simply asks, rhetorically,
You voted for this bill, 2000+ pages of regulation? Why, just why?
Perhaps we can help them. In order to pay for the legislation, a House-Senate conference committee had inserted a provision which
would raise the level of funds the FDIC is required by law to hold in reserves to insure bank customer deposits. The FDIC would increase its so-called reserve ratio from 1.15 percent to 1.35 percent, or $1.35 for every $100 in deposits. The fund is supported through fees on the banking industry.
The change would shift the burden to the largest U.S. banks since the earlier plan would have also assessed hedge funds. Dodd said small banks would be exempt from having to pay for the increase.
As of June 28th, the Massachusetts Republican supported financial reform, which had passed the Senate with his vote after the Volcker Rule was weakened. wherein
Lawmakers agreed to an exemption pushed by Brown, for example, that would allow banks to continue to invest at least a small amount of their capital in hedge funds and private equity. The measure would prohibit a bank from placing more than 3 percent of its capital in such investments.
In English, a blogger at Alternet explains:
Brown demanded that the Volcker Rule—a ban on risky proprietary trading by banks—be watered down. Proprietary trading doesn’t serve any client or help any business, it’s just a naked bet, and when those bets are made through the commercial banking system, they’re subsidized by taxpayer perks (those perks are designed to boost economically productive lending).
One of the biggest banks in Massachusetts is State Street Bank. It’s a pretty boring institution—except for its prop trading operations. Throughout the crisis, it made decent money, and generally didn’t run into any trouble—except from its prop trading operations. State Street’s gambling operations backfired big-time, forcing taxpayers to step in with billions of dollars in bailouts.
What did Brown learn from this episode? Why, that State Street deserves to keep gambling with taxpayer dollars! Prior to Brown’s efforts, the Volcker Rule would have banned any proprietary trading at major banks. After Brown’s efforts, banks can put up to 3 percent of their capital into a proprietary hedge fund. That dealt a tremendous blow to the substance of the reform. When banks sponsor proprietary hedge funds, they collect lots of money from outside investors. If those hedge funds go under, the bank’s reputation is immediately on the line, and it faces a tremendous amount of pressure to bailout other investors in the hedge fund. If they don’t stand behind the hedge fund, investors wonder why, and it can spark a run on the bank.
So even if only a small amount is initially invested in the fund, banks often end up paying out several times their original investment to cover losses (Bear Stearns put about $40 million into a hedge fund and had to pay $3.2 billion when it went under). There are some provisions in the reform bill limiting the degree to which big banks can bailout their hedge funds, but they will be extremely difficult to enforce.
In sum, Brown actively weakened U.S. financial stability, and hit taxpayers with unnecessary fees, and did it all for the express benefit of a handful of special interests.
Still, on June 29th, however, Brown wrote a letter to Senate Committee on Banking Chairman Chris Dodd and House Committee on Financial Resources Chairman Barney Frank vowing to oppose the bill when it came back to the Senate because of the new provision. Of course, the conferees amended the bill to Brown's liking because, in Obamaworld, no bill may be passed without Republican support, even if it means losing the support of progressive Democrats. (Ultimately, this provision was dropped because at the last moment it was found to violate Paygo rules.)
The Administration had a choice. It could have accomodated Democrats Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who wanted the original, powerful Volcker language, and Washington States's Maria Cantwell, who advocated the stronger derivatives language initially proposed. But it chose instead to placate Massachusetts' Scott Brown and Maine's Susan Collins (sound familiar?). And it proved easier to appease an opportunist like Scott Brown, bereft of any ideological underpinning, rather than to demand a bill which would have effectively addressed the abuses of the nation's financial institutions.
Really, then, notwithstanding the shock of Scott Brown's right-wing followers, the financial reform bill (now named after Senator Dodd and Representative Frank) followed a similar script to that of health care reform (although the Republican support there ultimately failed to materialize), one highly favorable to their side.
While giving appropriate blame to the Blue Dogs, Open Left's Chris Bowers observed on June 29
Just in case you hadn't noticed, the New England Republican party is, in fact, the governing party of America right now.
Consider Wall Street reform, which is now going back to conference committee in order to appease Scott Brown and Susan Collins.
Consider unemployment benefits and jobs. The bill was defeated at the behest of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Scott Brown. However, now that Snowe has said unemployment extensions should be passed as a stand-alone bill, well, it looks like Congress is going to try and do just that (the House failed to pass such a bill a few minutes ago, but only because it required a two-thirds majority since the rules were suspended).
The country is being run by a regional rump party.
Have no fear, conservatives. All this is occurring with 253 Democrats in the House of Representatives, 59 (once the replacement for West Virginia's Bob Byrd takes the oath of office, expected this coming week) Democrats in the Senate, and the "Si Se Puede" Democrat in the White House. Imagine what will transpire once there is a GOP majority in Congress and/or a Republican president.
Talk Of Slavery
Slate's Joan Walsh laments the reaction of the Reverend Jesse Jackson to the reaction of Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert to the departure of NBA superstar Lebron James to the Miami Heat. In a reprehensible press release, the head of Rainbow PUSH coalition wrote:
He speaks as an owner of LeBron and not the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers. His feelings of betrayal personify a slave master mentality. He sees LeBron as a runaway slave. This is an owner employee relationship -- between business partners -- and LeBron honored his contract.
Walsh writes that she "winced" at Jackson's rhetoric and as a "stickler about language" avoids "terms like 'psychological rape,' 'emotional incest,' 'cultural genocide,' 'environmental holocaust' or pretty much any metaphorical variations on the term 'slavery.' All those words have real-world meanings, and to use them as metaphor diminishes that impact."
Well-played, and Walsh obtained statements from "folks I admire" (we're supposed to know they're all black) about the affair. Although there was considerable sympathy for James' assertiveness against a wealthy, paternalistic owner, some of the statements specifically about the promiscuous use of the term "slavery" were on target.
Sportswriter Howard Bryant notes "Unless you're talking about the actual American institution of slavery, or the German National Socialist Party, the terms should never be used. The acts are too heinous, the shadows loom too large, the images are too broad and powerful to have any equivalent." Author Brad Snyder observes "slavery is an inappropriate and ahistorical metaphor to describe the current state of labor relations in professional sports." Author and columnist Toure reasons "if you're becoming rich by willingly doing something you love you're not a slave." Author and comedian Elon James White argues "slavery has zero to do with this and to bring it up with something so trivial when the verdict of the police officer who shot Oscar Grant just came out makes this sillier and downright irresponsible. " Author Debra Dickerson realizes "just as comparing run-of-the-mill morons to Hitler is an insult to the planet, let alone those harmed by WWII, so is comparing Kunta and Kizzy to LeBron." Professor and author Blair LM Kelley explains
Although elements like the draft and trades made from team to team lend themselves to hyperbolic comparison to slavery, it’s a comparison that fails to account for the extreme nature of the lived experience of American slavery.
The enslaved African-American ancestors of most of today’s NBA players suffered from an extreme deprivation of basic rights. Slaves performed the most grueling work for no pay, they were provided only the subsistence necessary to support life. Slaves had no ability to improve their status or the status of their children through hard work. In fact, according to the slave codes that governed Southern states, slaves could not take advantage of the most basic freedoms most Americans take for granted like raising their own children, gathering to worship, learning to read or even entering into the most basic legal contracts. There was certainly an ugly tone in Gilbert’s letter, and such a tone should be condemned.
However, it was just a tone; slavery was an all-encompassing, constitutionally enforced system. LeBron James is a free man. He freely chose to determine where he would work, where he and his family will live and the best way to carve out his own future. None of this has anything to do with slavery.
But wait! The right will not be outdone! Responding to the NAACP's draft statement condemning the "racist" elements of the Tea Party, Tea Party Express chairman Mark Williams made his own comparison to slavery, referring to the NAACP as a "vile, racist organization(s)." Being among "professional race-baiters," "they make more money off of race than any slave trader ever." Because nothing says tolerant and reasonable better than comparing a civil rights organization to a "slave trader" and relegating it to "the trash heap of history."
Williams is a little touchy. But what's the excuse of Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN)? At the Western Conservative Summit in Denver on July 9, Bachman commented “We will talk a little bit about what has transpired in the last 18 months and would we count what has transpired into turning our country into a nation of slaves.” Because nothing says respect for her fellow citizens and confidence in the U.S.A. better than saying we have become "a nation of slaves."
Ridiculous statements have emerged from one longtime leftist activist and one emerging right-wing activist. But Michelle Bachman is a member of the United States Congress- and none of her colleagues even has questioned her remarks. And that tells us something about the modern Republican Party.
Slate's Joan Walsh laments the reaction of the Reverend Jesse Jackson to the reaction of Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert to the departure of NBA superstar Lebron James to the Miami Heat. In a reprehensible press release, the head of Rainbow PUSH coalition wrote:
He speaks as an owner of LeBron and not the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers. His feelings of betrayal personify a slave master mentality. He sees LeBron as a runaway slave. This is an owner employee relationship -- between business partners -- and LeBron honored his contract.
Walsh writes that she "winced" at Jackson's rhetoric and as a "stickler about language" avoids "terms like 'psychological rape,' 'emotional incest,' 'cultural genocide,' 'environmental holocaust' or pretty much any metaphorical variations on the term 'slavery.' All those words have real-world meanings, and to use them as metaphor diminishes that impact."
Well-played, and Walsh obtained statements from "folks I admire" (we're supposed to know they're all black) about the affair. Although there was considerable sympathy for James' assertiveness against a wealthy, paternalistic owner, some of the statements specifically about the promiscuous use of the term "slavery" were on target.
Sportswriter Howard Bryant notes "Unless you're talking about the actual American institution of slavery, or the German National Socialist Party, the terms should never be used. The acts are too heinous, the shadows loom too large, the images are too broad and powerful to have any equivalent." Author Brad Snyder observes "slavery is an inappropriate and ahistorical metaphor to describe the current state of labor relations in professional sports." Author and columnist Toure reasons "if you're becoming rich by willingly doing something you love you're not a slave." Author and comedian Elon James White argues "slavery has zero to do with this and to bring it up with something so trivial when the verdict of the police officer who shot Oscar Grant just came out makes this sillier and downright irresponsible. " Author Debra Dickerson realizes "just as comparing run-of-the-mill morons to Hitler is an insult to the planet, let alone those harmed by WWII, so is comparing Kunta and Kizzy to LeBron." Professor and author Blair LM Kelley explains
Although elements like the draft and trades made from team to team lend themselves to hyperbolic comparison to slavery, it’s a comparison that fails to account for the extreme nature of the lived experience of American slavery.
The enslaved African-American ancestors of most of today’s NBA players suffered from an extreme deprivation of basic rights. Slaves performed the most grueling work for no pay, they were provided only the subsistence necessary to support life. Slaves had no ability to improve their status or the status of their children through hard work. In fact, according to the slave codes that governed Southern states, slaves could not take advantage of the most basic freedoms most Americans take for granted like raising their own children, gathering to worship, learning to read or even entering into the most basic legal contracts. There was certainly an ugly tone in Gilbert’s letter, and such a tone should be condemned.
However, it was just a tone; slavery was an all-encompassing, constitutionally enforced system. LeBron James is a free man. He freely chose to determine where he would work, where he and his family will live and the best way to carve out his own future. None of this has anything to do with slavery.
But wait! The right will not be outdone! Responding to the NAACP's draft statement condemning the "racist" elements of the Tea Party, Tea Party Express chairman Mark Williams made his own comparison to slavery, referring to the NAACP as a "vile, racist organization(s)." Being among "professional race-baiters," "they make more money off of race than any slave trader ever." Because nothing says tolerant and reasonable better than comparing a civil rights organization to a "slave trader" and relegating it to "the trash heap of history."
Williams is a little touchy. But what's the excuse of Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN)? At the Western Conservative Summit in Denver on July 9, Bachman commented “We will talk a little bit about what has transpired in the last 18 months and would we count what has transpired into turning our country into a nation of slaves.” Because nothing says respect for her fellow citizens and confidence in the U.S.A. better than saying we have become "a nation of slaves."
Ridiculous statements have emerged from one longtime leftist activist and one emerging right-wing activist. But Michelle Bachman is a member of the United States Congress- and none of her colleagues even has questioned her remarks. And that tells us something about the modern Republican Party.
Limbaugh Applauds Economic Obstructionism
Rush Limbaugh ranted on Tuesday, July 14
The regime today says that they have "saved or created" three million jobs. Think about how deranged or delusional that is. We know for a fact that just last month alone 652,000 people gave up looking for work, and they want to try to tell us they've "created or saved" three million jobs? So liberalism, leftists, they know how to destroy. They know how to tear down. But they have no clue how to build back. They can't even manage their own disasters. They made their debt, let them lie in it.
A few minutes later Rush would claim "Democrats are in a screaming panic" about losing the House in November and contend
It woulda been worse if we hadn't done the stimulus, it would have been worse. That's all they got, that and bashing Bush. It could have been worse. They have to lie. That they created three million jobs, or saved 'em, or what have you.
That manipulative genius, Rush Limbaugh. He said Democrats claim "it could have been worse" and implies that it is absurd. Not so absurd, according to the Congressional Budget Office in May, as reported by that socialist communist Obama house organ, The Washington Times:
The stimulus law was responsible for funding between 1.2 million and 2.8 million jobs in the first quarter of this year and kept the unemployment rate lower than it would otherwise have been, the Congressional Budget Office said in a new analysis Tuesday.
The analysis said the gross domestic product, the measure of the country's economy, was between 1.7 and 4.2 percent higher than it would otherwise have been without the $862 billion program, which passed Congress in February 2009 almost exclusively on the strength of Democratic votes.
As for unemployment, even though the rate hovered around 10 percent during the quarter, CBO said that could have been as high as 11.5 percent without the stimulus.
In a prime example of circular logic, Rush maintains of Democrats (who else?) "They made their debt, let them lie in it."
Admittedly, if it is their debt, they are responsible for it. Unavoidably true- but completely irrelevant, except as manipulation. The implication (not statement) is that Barack Obama- or the Democratic Party- is responsible. (Limbaugh doesn't make it clear to whom or what he is referring. Specification, even mere clarification, is uncomfortable for conservatives, who usually prefer feeling to thinking.) But the Democrats/Obama/Pelosi etc. are neither responsible for most of the current deficit nor for what is expected in the future. Last year, The New York Times explained
Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.
If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.
According to The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the Bush-era tax cuts account for over $700 billion — or nearly 55 percent — of the deficit projected for 2019 under current policies. According to the Congressional Budget Office (graph, below, via CBPP), Bush-era tax cuts will account for a greater share of the projected 2019 deficit than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the recession, the stimulus, and TARP, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac- combined.
Rush, then, could have altered his monologue a bit and made it accurate: The Obama administration has saved or created at least two million jobs. Still, there were 652,000 people who gave up looking for a job last month; many of them need an extension of unemployment benefits, which my party has been blocking. Conservatives know how to oppose; heck, we oppose anything President Obama favors, or which we can accuse him of favoring. We can help the president pull this nation out of the recession facilitated by the last president, end the latter's tax cuts for the wealthy, and then claim credit with the public for helping get the deficit under control.
Either this is good electoral strategy- or this Daily Kos blogger has a point.
Rush Limbaugh ranted on Tuesday, July 14
The regime today says that they have "saved or created" three million jobs. Think about how deranged or delusional that is. We know for a fact that just last month alone 652,000 people gave up looking for work, and they want to try to tell us they've "created or saved" three million jobs? So liberalism, leftists, they know how to destroy. They know how to tear down. But they have no clue how to build back. They can't even manage their own disasters. They made their debt, let them lie in it.
A few minutes later Rush would claim "Democrats are in a screaming panic" about losing the House in November and contend
It woulda been worse if we hadn't done the stimulus, it would have been worse. That's all they got, that and bashing Bush. It could have been worse. They have to lie. That they created three million jobs, or saved 'em, or what have you.
That manipulative genius, Rush Limbaugh. He said Democrats claim "it could have been worse" and implies that it is absurd. Not so absurd, according to the Congressional Budget Office in May, as reported by that socialist communist Obama house organ, The Washington Times:
The stimulus law was responsible for funding between 1.2 million and 2.8 million jobs in the first quarter of this year and kept the unemployment rate lower than it would otherwise have been, the Congressional Budget Office said in a new analysis Tuesday.
The analysis said the gross domestic product, the measure of the country's economy, was between 1.7 and 4.2 percent higher than it would otherwise have been without the $862 billion program, which passed Congress in February 2009 almost exclusively on the strength of Democratic votes.
As for unemployment, even though the rate hovered around 10 percent during the quarter, CBO said that could have been as high as 11.5 percent without the stimulus.
In a prime example of circular logic, Rush maintains of Democrats (who else?) "They made their debt, let them lie in it."
Admittedly, if it is their debt, they are responsible for it. Unavoidably true- but completely irrelevant, except as manipulation. The implication (not statement) is that Barack Obama- or the Democratic Party- is responsible. (Limbaugh doesn't make it clear to whom or what he is referring. Specification, even mere clarification, is uncomfortable for conservatives, who usually prefer feeling to thinking.) But the Democrats/Obama/Pelosi etc. are neither responsible for most of the current deficit nor for what is expected in the future. Last year, The New York Times explained
Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.
If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.
According to The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the Bush-era tax cuts account for over $700 billion — or nearly 55 percent — of the deficit projected for 2019 under current policies. According to the Congressional Budget Office (graph, below, via CBPP), Bush-era tax cuts will account for a greater share of the projected 2019 deficit than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the recession, the stimulus, and TARP, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac- combined.
Rush, then, could have altered his monologue a bit and made it accurate: The Obama administration has saved or created at least two million jobs. Still, there were 652,000 people who gave up looking for a job last month; many of them need an extension of unemployment benefits, which my party has been blocking. Conservatives know how to oppose; heck, we oppose anything President Obama favors, or which we can accuse him of favoring. We can help the president pull this nation out of the recession facilitated by the last president, end the latter's tax cuts for the wealthy, and then claim credit with the public for helping get the deficit under control.
Either this is good electoral strategy- or this Daily Kos blogger has a point.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Popularity No Measure Of Righteousness
It isn't Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or Rahm Emanuel. It isn't Markos Moulitsas, Andrew Sullivan, or the famous, largely nonexistent, "liberal media." It is Rush Limbaugh, in mocking Barack Obama, who frequently refers to the president as "the messiah."
And so it was on June 13 that Limbaugh remarked
People are losing faith in The Messiah, the first messiah that I'm aware of who has had less than 50% approval from the flock. Most messiahs get a hundred percent approval from the flock. This messiah is down below 50% now, which is not a good sign for his Second Coming in November.
Perhaps Rush was referring to his "dittoheads," who would never question their messiah. However, there was at least one messiah doubted by "the flock":
When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
(John 6:60-66, English Standard Version)
It isn't Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or Rahm Emanuel. It isn't Markos Moulitsas, Andrew Sullivan, or the famous, largely nonexistent, "liberal media." It is Rush Limbaugh, in mocking Barack Obama, who frequently refers to the president as "the messiah."
And so it was on June 13 that Limbaugh remarked
People are losing faith in The Messiah, the first messiah that I'm aware of who has had less than 50% approval from the flock. Most messiahs get a hundred percent approval from the flock. This messiah is down below 50% now, which is not a good sign for his Second Coming in November.
Perhaps Rush was referring to his "dittoheads," who would never question their messiah. However, there was at least one messiah doubted by "the flock":
When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
(John 6:60-66, English Standard Version)
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Down With The Unemployed!
It was a fabulous discussion (video below, from Crooks and Liars) Chris Matthews had on Monday with Tom Sherk (to rhyme is tempting) of the Heritage Foundation and Mark Green, who was largely along for the ride. Green is almost always right, and was here, but kept trying to talk about extending unemployment compensation while Matthews and Sherk were arguing about whether American workers are lazy. (Sherk obviously thinks they are, but with an IQ well into the double digits, wasn't about to admit to it.) In italics are the excerpts about these American men and women who don't want to provide for their families but love to just sit around collecting unemployment compensation.
Tom (sic) Sherk is with the Heritage Foundation. He‘s a senior analyst of labor economics. Mark Green of course is former New York City public advocate. And he‘s host of the syndicated radio show “Both Sides Now With Huffington & Matalin.”
Gentlemen, this is one of the issues. Again, we‘re going back to the high school debates I had, like whether we should have the civil rights bill under interstate commerce. Here we go with this baby.
You‘re saying—well, let me ask you Mr. Sherk, do you believe that people are shirking work to take unemployment compensation? They would rather get $300, if you‘re making it, the absolute top of unemployment, rather than take a job for $30,000 or $40,000 a year? You‘re saying that?
JAMES SHERK, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, no, no, that‘s not what I‘m saying.
What unemployment insurance does—and this is the finding of the science. It‘s not just me saying this as a conservative. Alan Krueger—he‘s the assistant secretary of the treasury for Obama—put out papers finding exactly this in his role as an academic economist.
It‘s not a left/right thing. It‘s the finding of the science. It‘s that when you extend the length of unemployment insurance benefits, that workers spend more time unemployed and take longer to find work. But it‘s not because they‘re lazy. It‘s not because they‘re sitting on the dole.
What it does is, it changes the types of jobs they look for. If you‘re unemployed, you would like to find a job near your city in the same type of work and preferably paying close to what you had before. And so when you have got, say, two years of benefits, so those are the jobs you spend the first year or so looking for.
The problem in this downturn is that a lot of the jobs that have been lost, particularly in construction and finance, simply aren‘t coming back. And so you‘re encouraging workers to spend a lot of time looking for jobs that don‘t exist and aren‘t going to exist.
MATTHEWS: OK.
I‘m going to have Mark respond to that.
He makes an intellectual argument there. Let‘s hear your response.
MARK GREEN, FORMER NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC ADVOCATE: This is as much science as Terri Schiavo was alive.
Chris, this is a good debate a century ago. And from Andrew Mellon to Herbert Hoover to Mr. Burns on “The Simpsons,” there have been people who say, don‘t give unemployed benefits because they won‘t work.
The science is that most economists agree some people getting unemployment benefits—they may be very young, they may be professionals with some options—may not seek work because they‘re getting a little benefit.
The overwhelmed percentage are panicked, desperate, can‘t meet mortgage payments, can‘t meet health care payments, can‘t pay for their drugs.
I don‘t know how often Mrs. Angle or Senator Kyl or the economists have been unemployed. People all over the country are putting out feelers for jobs. And there are 20 applicants for every job. And in this desperate situation, unemployment benefit extension does two things.
And it has ever since Keynes and Hoover. It‘s moral, because it gives to people who are largely desperate. And, second, it‘s perfect economics. It‘s countercyclical. The federal government spends money exactly when the economy needs a stimulation because business and consumers aren‘t spending. If there‘s not an overwhelming consensus for this, I don‘t think we should depend on free market, abstract people who say the free market will stop Toyota‘s...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: OK.
(CROSSTALK)
GREEN: ... stop...
(CROSSTALK)
GREEN: ... collapsing, and stop oil—oil spills in the Gulf.
MATTHEWS: You know, it‘s interesting, Mr. Sherk. My son is an actor. And, of course, actors have to get jobs when they‘re not acting. And my son, he goes—shows up for jobs as busboy and things like that, an actor in New York.
By the way, Thomas Matthews. He looks like a movie star, he should be working more often.
And he shows up—and, Mark, you live in New York, you know what it‘s like. They announced a job like at a restaurant for busboys, which is a fairly an entry level job. Not waiter which could be pretty professional obviously, a busboy. The lines go around the corner. They‘re like trying to get an acting job.
How you can say that there aren‘t people looking for work at pretty much at the entry level job? Not the perfect job, the highly or semi-skilled job, but basic work. And these jobs have lines around the corner. Every time a hotel opens, the lines are around the corner for two or three blocks.
Why do you say there aren‘t unemployed people that really want to work out there, who don‘t really want to work? Why do you make that case when every single time you open up a job—
JAMES SHERK, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: I‘m not saying that.
MATTHEWS: -- the lines are incredibly long and they don‘t get the jobs, because there‘s only a few jobs open.
SHERK: I‘m not saying that they don‘t want to work. And I‘m certainly not saying we should get rid of unemployment benefits. It‘s simply a question of how much is appropriate. I think two years—
MATTHEWS: But who are these people in the lines every time a job opens in New York that seems to be reasonably OK? Not even attractive, just OK—a job that exists, and the lines are around the corner. What do you think that is? That phenomenon we‘re looking at?
SHERK: Well, part of that is from the unemployment benefits. The New York economy has been hammered. The financial industry has, you know, taken a heavy toll. A lot of investment banks have gone down. With those investment banks, a lot of the New York economy.
And so, if you want to find a job, a lot of the workers now in New York or unemployed are going to have to move to different state. They‘re going to have to move to, say, Nebraska, or to Texas, or one of the states where the economy isn‘t doing as poorly.
But when you got the two years of benefits, it encourages the workers to look for the jobs in New York instead of looking for the jobs, say, in another state.
MATTHEWS: Do you live in the ivory tower of the universe?
MARK GREEN, FMR. NYC PUBLIC ADVOCATE: Chris—
MATTHEWS: You‘re talking about a guy who‘s got a house, barely able to pay his rent, and you‘re saying take the family and put them on a Graham bus and drive to where? Alaska. Where were you saying they should go to get this busboy job?
GREEN: Chris, appreciate this.
MATTHEWS: Nebraska. You are serious. I got nothing against theory. But that is theory. That‘s not reality.
Go ahead.
GREEN: Here‘s the theory. People in Ohio and Michigan should move to Nebraska because that‘s where the new jobs are. Now, follow this abstract theory. According to him --
MATTHEWS: There‘s a new restaurant in Omaha. Get on the bus.
GREEN: -- we should cut the oil depletion allowance, because that‘s making oil men lazy and they‘re not investing in technology on spills. We should end Medicaid because then the poor will take care of themselves. They‘ll be motivated to be more healthy.
This is insane. Unemployment benefits work in every country and in this country, except for a fringe right-wing who don‘t want it, exactly the economy needs it.
SHERK: I‘m not calling for getting rid of them. I‘m not calling for getting rid of them.
GREEN: You‘re complaining about two years. First, you know that two years is the absolute maximum. Half the people—half the people on unemployment now have been unemployed six months or more.
Bush lost 8 million jobs. He created 2 million in eight years. Clinton created 22 million. Republican economics dug this hole, and now, you don‘t want to help the victims out of it.
MATTHEWS: OK. Let him answer.
GREEN: That‘s very convenient.
MATTHEWS: Mr. Sherk, go ahead. Mr. Sherk, your chance.
SHERK: I was going to say, look, all this government spending from the stimulus hasn‘t worked. What we need to do is—
GREEN: Two to 3 million jobs, say the CBO. Who‘s right, you or the
CBO?
MATTHEWS: Let‘s take the unemployment comp, Mark. And, Mr. Sherk, let‘s take the unemployment comp. Is unemployment compensation overused, underused? Is it a necessity in a modern workplace where you have 10 percent unemployment in the country or not?
This is a real unemployment rate by the way. It‘s an objective fact. It‘s not about how busy or willing you are to take a lower level job. Why do you think, sir, there is almost 10 percent unemployment rate right now? Is it because people won‘t take the lower jobs?
SHERK: That‘s part of it. And that‘s not simply my saying it. The Brookings‘ paper on—the Brookings Institution recently released a paper on economy activity that found that the current unemployment extensions have increased the unemployment rate by about one percentage point. It‘s not most of what‘s going on, but it‘s contributing to it.
And, again, that‘s the Brookings Institution, by no means a conservative institution. That‘s what the science shows.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Mr. Sherk, do you know anybody who‘s out of work?
SHERK: I have several friends who are out of work.
MATTHEWS: OK. See, with some familiarity with that, are they lazy?
SHERK: No, not at all. I‘m not saying that people are lazy.
MATTHEWS: Do they refuse to take jobs below their cut, below their self-esteem? What‘s their problem for being unemployed, as you know them? Because you know them personally. So, tell me, are they the kinds of people that won‘t take jobs that are available because they insist on getting jobs appropriate to their ego?
SHERK: They‘re looking for jobs that match their skills. And they have in mind something in terms of what they‘re looking for. Most people do.
MATTHEWS: Have you told them they‘re living off—they‘re living off the country too much, and to get off unemployment? Have you told that person yet?
SHERK: I am not arguing for getting rid of unemployment benefits.
No one is arguing for that.
MATTHEWS: No, you‘re saying people have too much self-esteem for the lower level jobs. That‘s why they won‘t—they‘re exploiting unemployment compensation too long.
SHERK: What I‘m saying—
MATTHEWS: That‘s what you just said for five to 10 minutes now.
SHERK: What I‘m saying is it changes the type of jobs you look for something near your home.
MATTHEWS: Again, have you told your friends to take lower level jobs?
SHERK: No, if they‘ve been unemployed for a year and a half, yes, I would tell them that.
MATTHEWS: But you haven‘t gotten around to it yet.
SHERK: If those jobs are in New York, I‘m coming back.
MATTHEWS: It‘s kind of hard to do this. I‘m having some fun with you because it‘s a sad story. It‘s easy to tell a guy to go flip hamburgers who‘s been a nuclear scientist. I‘m sorry, it‘s hard.
Anyway, but thank for this.
And, by the way, to get unemployment compensation, you have to prove that you‘ve gone looking for a job. You have to fill out the forms. Every time you go in for another check, you have to go through all this stuff. It‘s not like that they‘re not just writing checks.
Anyway, thank you, James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation. And, Mark Green, thanks for having you on.
GREEN: Thank you.
Sherk, like any good conservative, never has a doubt. Those jobs, he assures us, "in construction and finance, simply aren‘t coming back." There is no explanation of why they aren't coming back, only that they're not. And Sherk is almost giddy about it.
After Sherk claims that he knows people who are unemployed, Matthews asks him "Have you told them they‘re living off—they‘re living off the country too much, and to get off unemployment? Have you told that person yet?"
Sherk hasn't gotten around to it yet, probably because it's easier to describe strangers, rather than people you know, as lazy. He's critical of the long-term unemployed because "they‘re looking for jobs that match their skills" rather than taking a part-time job at minimum wage with few if any benefits.
He's not the only one, of course. That paragon of virtue, former House Speaker Tom DeLay, stated in March "there is an argument to be made that these extensions, the unemployment benefits keeps people from going and finding jobs." Tom Corbett, the Republican running for govenor of Pennsylvania, remarked at a campaign stop on July 9 "People don't want to come back to work while they still have unemployment. They're literally telling him, 'I'll come back to work when unemployment runs out.' That's becoming a problem."
Pennsylvania was the state to whose residents Senator Barack Obama was referring in the infamous "bitter" comment, which won for him widespread criticism for being "elitist." Now, several Republicans (including a prominent Pennsylvanian) have come out of the woodwork, inferring that most Americans who have been employed for a long time are lazy. Democrats should call them on that and make the argument that the GOP has little respect for American workers, refusing even to agree to extend unemployment benefits to them, which would have the added benefit of stimulating the econmy.
Unfortunately, the effectiveness of the argument would be undercut by the support of the accusers for increased migration to the United States by Mexicans, who would perform the jobs which we are assured Americans are unwilling to do. Embracing the American worker is an obvious electoral strategy. Look for Democrats to avoid it.
It was a fabulous discussion (video below, from Crooks and Liars) Chris Matthews had on Monday with Tom Sherk (to rhyme is tempting) of the Heritage Foundation and Mark Green, who was largely along for the ride. Green is almost always right, and was here, but kept trying to talk about extending unemployment compensation while Matthews and Sherk were arguing about whether American workers are lazy. (Sherk obviously thinks they are, but with an IQ well into the double digits, wasn't about to admit to it.) In italics are the excerpts about these American men and women who don't want to provide for their families but love to just sit around collecting unemployment compensation.
Tom (sic) Sherk is with the Heritage Foundation. He‘s a senior analyst of labor economics. Mark Green of course is former New York City public advocate. And he‘s host of the syndicated radio show “Both Sides Now With Huffington & Matalin.”
Gentlemen, this is one of the issues. Again, we‘re going back to the high school debates I had, like whether we should have the civil rights bill under interstate commerce. Here we go with this baby.
You‘re saying—well, let me ask you Mr. Sherk, do you believe that people are shirking work to take unemployment compensation? They would rather get $300, if you‘re making it, the absolute top of unemployment, rather than take a job for $30,000 or $40,000 a year? You‘re saying that?
JAMES SHERK, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, no, no, that‘s not what I‘m saying.
What unemployment insurance does—and this is the finding of the science. It‘s not just me saying this as a conservative. Alan Krueger—he‘s the assistant secretary of the treasury for Obama—put out papers finding exactly this in his role as an academic economist.
It‘s not a left/right thing. It‘s the finding of the science. It‘s that when you extend the length of unemployment insurance benefits, that workers spend more time unemployed and take longer to find work. But it‘s not because they‘re lazy. It‘s not because they‘re sitting on the dole.
What it does is, it changes the types of jobs they look for. If you‘re unemployed, you would like to find a job near your city in the same type of work and preferably paying close to what you had before. And so when you have got, say, two years of benefits, so those are the jobs you spend the first year or so looking for.
The problem in this downturn is that a lot of the jobs that have been lost, particularly in construction and finance, simply aren‘t coming back. And so you‘re encouraging workers to spend a lot of time looking for jobs that don‘t exist and aren‘t going to exist.
MATTHEWS: OK.
I‘m going to have Mark respond to that.
He makes an intellectual argument there. Let‘s hear your response.
MARK GREEN, FORMER NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC ADVOCATE: This is as much science as Terri Schiavo was alive.
Chris, this is a good debate a century ago. And from Andrew Mellon to Herbert Hoover to Mr. Burns on “The Simpsons,” there have been people who say, don‘t give unemployed benefits because they won‘t work.
The science is that most economists agree some people getting unemployment benefits—they may be very young, they may be professionals with some options—may not seek work because they‘re getting a little benefit.
The overwhelmed percentage are panicked, desperate, can‘t meet mortgage payments, can‘t meet health care payments, can‘t pay for their drugs.
I don‘t know how often Mrs. Angle or Senator Kyl or the economists have been unemployed. People all over the country are putting out feelers for jobs. And there are 20 applicants for every job. And in this desperate situation, unemployment benefit extension does two things.
And it has ever since Keynes and Hoover. It‘s moral, because it gives to people who are largely desperate. And, second, it‘s perfect economics. It‘s countercyclical. The federal government spends money exactly when the economy needs a stimulation because business and consumers aren‘t spending. If there‘s not an overwhelming consensus for this, I don‘t think we should depend on free market, abstract people who say the free market will stop Toyota‘s...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: OK.
(CROSSTALK)
GREEN: ... stop...
(CROSSTALK)
GREEN: ... collapsing, and stop oil—oil spills in the Gulf.
MATTHEWS: You know, it‘s interesting, Mr. Sherk. My son is an actor. And, of course, actors have to get jobs when they‘re not acting. And my son, he goes—shows up for jobs as busboy and things like that, an actor in New York.
By the way, Thomas Matthews. He looks like a movie star, he should be working more often.
And he shows up—and, Mark, you live in New York, you know what it‘s like. They announced a job like at a restaurant for busboys, which is a fairly an entry level job. Not waiter which could be pretty professional obviously, a busboy. The lines go around the corner. They‘re like trying to get an acting job.
How you can say that there aren‘t people looking for work at pretty much at the entry level job? Not the perfect job, the highly or semi-skilled job, but basic work. And these jobs have lines around the corner. Every time a hotel opens, the lines are around the corner for two or three blocks.
Why do you say there aren‘t unemployed people that really want to work out there, who don‘t really want to work? Why do you make that case when every single time you open up a job—
JAMES SHERK, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: I‘m not saying that.
MATTHEWS: -- the lines are incredibly long and they don‘t get the jobs, because there‘s only a few jobs open.
SHERK: I‘m not saying that they don‘t want to work. And I‘m certainly not saying we should get rid of unemployment benefits. It‘s simply a question of how much is appropriate. I think two years—
MATTHEWS: But who are these people in the lines every time a job opens in New York that seems to be reasonably OK? Not even attractive, just OK—a job that exists, and the lines are around the corner. What do you think that is? That phenomenon we‘re looking at?
SHERK: Well, part of that is from the unemployment benefits. The New York economy has been hammered. The financial industry has, you know, taken a heavy toll. A lot of investment banks have gone down. With those investment banks, a lot of the New York economy.
And so, if you want to find a job, a lot of the workers now in New York or unemployed are going to have to move to different state. They‘re going to have to move to, say, Nebraska, or to Texas, or one of the states where the economy isn‘t doing as poorly.
But when you got the two years of benefits, it encourages the workers to look for the jobs in New York instead of looking for the jobs, say, in another state.
MATTHEWS: Do you live in the ivory tower of the universe?
MARK GREEN, FMR. NYC PUBLIC ADVOCATE: Chris—
MATTHEWS: You‘re talking about a guy who‘s got a house, barely able to pay his rent, and you‘re saying take the family and put them on a Graham bus and drive to where? Alaska. Where were you saying they should go to get this busboy job?
GREEN: Chris, appreciate this.
MATTHEWS: Nebraska. You are serious. I got nothing against theory. But that is theory. That‘s not reality.
Go ahead.
GREEN: Here‘s the theory. People in Ohio and Michigan should move to Nebraska because that‘s where the new jobs are. Now, follow this abstract theory. According to him --
MATTHEWS: There‘s a new restaurant in Omaha. Get on the bus.
GREEN: -- we should cut the oil depletion allowance, because that‘s making oil men lazy and they‘re not investing in technology on spills. We should end Medicaid because then the poor will take care of themselves. They‘ll be motivated to be more healthy.
This is insane. Unemployment benefits work in every country and in this country, except for a fringe right-wing who don‘t want it, exactly the economy needs it.
SHERK: I‘m not calling for getting rid of them. I‘m not calling for getting rid of them.
GREEN: You‘re complaining about two years. First, you know that two years is the absolute maximum. Half the people—half the people on unemployment now have been unemployed six months or more.
Bush lost 8 million jobs. He created 2 million in eight years. Clinton created 22 million. Republican economics dug this hole, and now, you don‘t want to help the victims out of it.
MATTHEWS: OK. Let him answer.
GREEN: That‘s very convenient.
MATTHEWS: Mr. Sherk, go ahead. Mr. Sherk, your chance.
SHERK: I was going to say, look, all this government spending from the stimulus hasn‘t worked. What we need to do is—
GREEN: Two to 3 million jobs, say the CBO. Who‘s right, you or the
CBO?
MATTHEWS: Let‘s take the unemployment comp, Mark. And, Mr. Sherk, let‘s take the unemployment comp. Is unemployment compensation overused, underused? Is it a necessity in a modern workplace where you have 10 percent unemployment in the country or not?
This is a real unemployment rate by the way. It‘s an objective fact. It‘s not about how busy or willing you are to take a lower level job. Why do you think, sir, there is almost 10 percent unemployment rate right now? Is it because people won‘t take the lower jobs?
SHERK: That‘s part of it. And that‘s not simply my saying it. The Brookings‘ paper on—the Brookings Institution recently released a paper on economy activity that found that the current unemployment extensions have increased the unemployment rate by about one percentage point. It‘s not most of what‘s going on, but it‘s contributing to it.
And, again, that‘s the Brookings Institution, by no means a conservative institution. That‘s what the science shows.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Mr. Sherk, do you know anybody who‘s out of work?
SHERK: I have several friends who are out of work.
MATTHEWS: OK. See, with some familiarity with that, are they lazy?
SHERK: No, not at all. I‘m not saying that people are lazy.
MATTHEWS: Do they refuse to take jobs below their cut, below their self-esteem? What‘s their problem for being unemployed, as you know them? Because you know them personally. So, tell me, are they the kinds of people that won‘t take jobs that are available because they insist on getting jobs appropriate to their ego?
SHERK: They‘re looking for jobs that match their skills. And they have in mind something in terms of what they‘re looking for. Most people do.
MATTHEWS: Have you told them they‘re living off—they‘re living off the country too much, and to get off unemployment? Have you told that person yet?
SHERK: I am not arguing for getting rid of unemployment benefits.
No one is arguing for that.
MATTHEWS: No, you‘re saying people have too much self-esteem for the lower level jobs. That‘s why they won‘t—they‘re exploiting unemployment compensation too long.
SHERK: What I‘m saying—
MATTHEWS: That‘s what you just said for five to 10 minutes now.
SHERK: What I‘m saying is it changes the type of jobs you look for something near your home.
MATTHEWS: Again, have you told your friends to take lower level jobs?
SHERK: No, if they‘ve been unemployed for a year and a half, yes, I would tell them that.
MATTHEWS: But you haven‘t gotten around to it yet.
SHERK: If those jobs are in New York, I‘m coming back.
MATTHEWS: It‘s kind of hard to do this. I‘m having some fun with you because it‘s a sad story. It‘s easy to tell a guy to go flip hamburgers who‘s been a nuclear scientist. I‘m sorry, it‘s hard.
Anyway, but thank for this.
And, by the way, to get unemployment compensation, you have to prove that you‘ve gone looking for a job. You have to fill out the forms. Every time you go in for another check, you have to go through all this stuff. It‘s not like that they‘re not just writing checks.
Anyway, thank you, James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation. And, Mark Green, thanks for having you on.
GREEN: Thank you.
Sherk, like any good conservative, never has a doubt. Those jobs, he assures us, "in construction and finance, simply aren‘t coming back." There is no explanation of why they aren't coming back, only that they're not. And Sherk is almost giddy about it.
After Sherk claims that he knows people who are unemployed, Matthews asks him "Have you told them they‘re living off—they‘re living off the country too much, and to get off unemployment? Have you told that person yet?"
Sherk hasn't gotten around to it yet, probably because it's easier to describe strangers, rather than people you know, as lazy. He's critical of the long-term unemployed because "they‘re looking for jobs that match their skills" rather than taking a part-time job at minimum wage with few if any benefits.
He's not the only one, of course. That paragon of virtue, former House Speaker Tom DeLay, stated in March "there is an argument to be made that these extensions, the unemployment benefits keeps people from going and finding jobs." Tom Corbett, the Republican running for govenor of Pennsylvania, remarked at a campaign stop on July 9 "People don't want to come back to work while they still have unemployment. They're literally telling him, 'I'll come back to work when unemployment runs out.' That's becoming a problem."
Pennsylvania was the state to whose residents Senator Barack Obama was referring in the infamous "bitter" comment, which won for him widespread criticism for being "elitist." Now, several Republicans (including a prominent Pennsylvanian) have come out of the woodwork, inferring that most Americans who have been employed for a long time are lazy. Democrats should call them on that and make the argument that the GOP has little respect for American workers, refusing even to agree to extend unemployment benefits to them, which would have the added benefit of stimulating the econmy.
Unfortunately, the effectiveness of the argument would be undercut by the support of the accusers for increased migration to the United States by Mexicans, who would perform the jobs which we are assured Americans are unwilling to do. Embracing the American worker is an obvious electoral strategy. Look for Democrats to avoid it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Party Of Deception The Huffington Post, gushing about the Kennedy memorial service in Boston last night, exclaimed that Senator Orrin Hatch...
-
In April, President Donald Trump asked French President Emanuel Macron "why don't you leave the EU?" The same month,...
-
This is not about the fraud that is Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Nor is it about the fraud which is Florida Governor Rick Sc...
