- He didn't actually suspend the campaign.
- He didn't do much in Washington while he was there.
- He originally vowed not to debate if there wasn't a deal by Friday. He did debate and
- the deal was reached over the weekend.
- Finally, the deal didn't pass.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
McCain, The Crisis, and Polling
John McCain's campaign has taken a major hit from the failure of the bailout bill. This is particularly interesting because he supported the bill, and actually worked to get House GOP members to vote for it. However, what we may be seeing is a backfire at McCain's calculated suspension of his campaign to go to Washington to help reach a deal.
Monday, September 29, 2008
More Bainbridge
More Bainbridge:
I’ve waffled on the bailout, but the more facts I’ve learned about the current state of the financial sector, the more I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion that this is one of those projects so big and with so much at risk that government intervention is justifiable.Too big to fail is bad public policy. But I’m persuaded that the very real prospect of too many to fail presents an entirely different question. We are faced with a situation in which a systemic credit freeze will take down not just one or two banks, but many, including not just Wall Street but also local and regional banks. In turn, as more banks fail, it will become increasingly difficult for non-financial businesses to borrow. The ripple effect could be disastrous:
The Bailout and The Waltons
Stephen Bainbridge suggests watching the Waltons to prepare for what could be a coming depression. He doesn't seem thrilled that the bailout failed.
Speculative Musings
I'm still trying to make sense of everything that's happened in the last 72 hours. I'm not an economist, so I'm relying on expert's opinion about what would happen, economically, if the bailout wasn't passed. But of equal concern was what would happen, politically, if the bailout was passed. In an ideal world, the taxpayers would have been paid back, and then some, and I was hoping that the profits could have gone against the debt and prevented or at least mitigated future tax increases to pay the debt off later. But we don't live in an ideal world, (because, I suspect, in this ideal world, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in, and I might also have better hair) and what worried me the most was such a sudden expansion of government power following eight years of government encroachment into civil rights. The Republic was never meant to be run this way. Perhaps, politically, the bailout was a bad idea, even if it was a good idea economically (which I'm not yet positive it was.) But if we weigh both worst case scenarios, one where the government gains control over every aspect of our lives, or one where we plunge into another depression, how can one decide the lesser of two evils? Surely, I don't want the government to be all powerful, but I don't like the idea that there will be a repeat depression, which required the massive expansion of governmental power. Perhaps the lesser of two evils WAS giving the government the power to address this now and then rolling back the scales as the aftershocks to the economy ended.
Post Bailout I
I'm still trying to figure out what exactly the bailout means for the markets, but I have to echo Megan McArdle here:
She's right. It seems, from these reports at least, that politicians were more concerned about politicking than about public policy and the common good. If some believed that keeping the government out of the markets now was for the common good, then that is respectable. If they voted no because they're worried about THEIR job security, well, perhaps they don't deserve the job that they currently have at the behest of their constituents. The same goes for anybody who thought that another compromise would have gotten the deal done but didn't try for the compromise so that they had a line of attack against Republicans for the next five weeks.
I didn't think it was possible to be more disgusted with politicians than I usually am, but I find it impossible to express the seething contempt that I feel at this kind of opportunism. I don't mind when they screw with the normal operation of the economy for venal personal gain. But risking a recession in order to get a cut in the capital gains tax? Letting it tank because you can always blame it on the Republicans?
She's right. It seems, from these reports at least, that politicians were more concerned about politicking than about public policy and the common good. If some believed that keeping the government out of the markets now was for the common good, then that is respectable. If they voted no because they're worried about THEIR job security, well, perhaps they don't deserve the job that they currently have at the behest of their constituents. The same goes for anybody who thought that another compromise would have gotten the deal done but didn't try for the compromise so that they had a line of attack against Republicans for the next five weeks.
Bailout Fails
The Bailout has failed to pass in the House. I'm currently doing some research as to what this means, and will report on it later.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
What McCain Did't Do
Greg Sargent:
On reflection, last night's debate is best understood by what McCain failed to do do. With the dynamic of the race hardening daily in Obama's favor, McCain needed to force a moment where Obama's supposed inexperience and lack of global knowledge jarred viewers into a sudden sense that putting him in charge is risky and dangerous -- hence McCain's repetition of that word.He didn't do that. At all.
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Debate
I don't think that this was a game changer for either candidate. Both performed well. Substantially, both landed a few punches. Nothing to knock the other out. What struck me the most, however, was the difference in body language. I found McCain's to be distracting. When Obama was talking, McCain shifted, sighed, and sarcastically smiled a lot. This goes along with what many other people have pointed out: McCain would not look at Obama. He very obviously hold Obama in contempt. He looked angry at times, unable to keep himself composed. Obama, by comparison, appeared to be much more in control of himself. He didn't let his emotions get the better of him, and his voice didn'trise above the level he decided. To be fair, though, I was distracted enough by McCain that I couldn't pay the same amount of attention to Obama. I'm sure that I was not the only one who was distracted by this.
Polls are saying that Obama won. This was my initial reaction, though the more I reflect, the
stronger I feel McCain did. McCain did not appear to be confused or unknowledgeable. He kept
Obama on the defensive for much of the foreign policy portion. But I think that this was actually
good for Obama. It allowed him to defend his positions while illustrating why McCain was wrong. He looked as though he knew what he was talking about, and that was very important, considering that foreign policy was John McCain's perceived strength. Because Obama was able to hold his ground, he showed that he is just as capable as McCain. And because McCain couldn't control his temper, he showed that he cannot always keep his calm under pressure. And this is important. Who would you rather have answering the phone at 3am?
Polls are saying that Obama won. This was my initial reaction, though the more I reflect, the
stronger I feel McCain did. McCain did not appear to be confused or unknowledgeable. He kept
Obama on the defensive for much of the foreign policy portion. But I think that this was actually
good for Obama. It allowed him to defend his positions while illustrating why McCain was wrong. He looked as though he knew what he was talking about, and that was very important, considering that foreign policy was John McCain's perceived strength. Because Obama was able to hold his ground, he showed that he is just as capable as McCain. And because McCain couldn't control his temper, he showed that he cannot always keep his calm under pressure. And this is important. Who would you rather have answering the phone at 3am?
A Dog Chasing Cars
Ezra Klein compares McCain to the Joker. Key Quote:
Over the past few weeks, he's proven himself so erratic and risk-prone that if he can simply modulate his tone and refrain from accidentally asking Lehrer for a fourth-quarter time out or a third lifeline, the audience will be comforted. The expectations are low, and in some ways, that's a victory. But on another level, it's an incredibly damning judgment, and evidence of how far McCain has fallen.
A Quote From A Former McCain Advisor
"It just proves his campaign is governed by tactics and not ideology. In the end, he blinked and Obama did not. The 'steady hand in a storm' argument looks now to more favor Obama, not McCain," Craig Shirley. (via Andrew Sullivan)
Obama Pulls Ahead
Obama has pulled ahead in several swing state polls, causing CNN to add Michigan to "leaning Obama." FiveThirtyEight.com has several traditional Republican states, Colorado and Virginia, as leaning Obama and puts him at 74.7% odds of winning the election. Key quote:
This puts McCain in the difficult position of having to play catch up. To do so, his campaign would need to be extremely disciplined and consistent for the next month. These are all things that the McCain campaign has not been in the last two weeks.
On the eve of the first Presidential Debate, Barack Obama is perhaps in as strong a position in the polls as he has been all year, now projecting to win the election 74.7 percent of the time. Both the state and the national polls that have come out within the past 48 hours have generally been quite favorable to Obama, and suggest that he may gained an additional point or so above and beyond his "Lehman Leap" from last week.
This puts McCain in the difficult position of having to play catch up. To do so, his campaign would need to be extremely disciplined and consistent for the next month. These are all things that the McCain campaign has not been in the last two weeks.
Bailout Held Up By House Republicans
Apparently, the House Republicans are holding up bailout talks. According to Politico (via Hilzoy), "some House Republicans are saying privately that they'd rather "let the markets crash" than sign on to a massive bailout." While it's understandable that there are concerns about giving this much money for something that may or may not work, to say that a market crash is preferable to a government bailout IS pretty irresponsible. While I'm certainly not qualified to speculate what exactly would happen if the markets crashed, I can say that, historically, market crashes are not a good thing for an economy. And given how globalized economies have become in the last half century, a complete failure of the markets in the world's largest economy would have dire consequences for the world at large. That Republican Congressmen would rather let the markets crash displays either ignorance for America's place in the global economy or utter contempt for Americans and for the rest of the world.
What Is McCain Thinking?
There has been much debate about what the McCain campaign was thinking in saying that it had suspended the campaign (while it didn't actually do this) and trying to postpone the debate. McCain has been extremely inconsistent in the last two weeks, and determining what the real reasons behind anything the campaign does might mean is extremely difficult. The behavior is, to say the least, bizarre. There are some theories, and none of them are particularly encouraging. Whatever the real reason, it reeks of cynicism. I suspect the debate tonight and how it plays out over the next days will provide us a lot of information about which way the election will swing. Right now, the McCain campaign is in free fall, incoherent and increasingly bizarre. Is it possible for McCain to stop the bleeding?
McCain Will Show
I'm surprised, but pleased, by the lack-luster reports of McCain's decision to appear at the debates tonight in Oxford, Mississippi. Despite his weighted efforts to show Americans he will undertake part of the burden to create a solution for the United States' financial crisis, reports show McCain hasn't done a whole lot of contributing... something tells me the meetings and solution-propositions could have continued just fine without him. It's also strange that this take-lead, postpone-debates, economy-first attitude is exuding from the man who admittedly is not strong in economics. Furthermore, his economic advisers did not have much to say in part of their contribution.
Nonetheless, I can't wait to see tonight's debate.
... and thank you to grace us, Sen. McCain.
Nonetheless, I can't wait to see tonight's debate.
... and thank you to grace us, Sen. McCain.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Where O Where did Bushy Go?
I was flipping through channels yesterday around 9PM looking for Bush's address, and didn't find anything.
I was flipping through channels yesterday at 9:19 PM looking for Bush's address, and didn't find anything.
I was flipping through channels yesterday at 9:28PM looking for Bush's address, and found McCain.
I was flipping through channels yesterday around 9:40PM looking for Bush's address, and found Obama.
I was flipping through channels yesterday at 9:48PM looking for Bush's address, and finally found a recap of Bush's address on one channel: CSPAN.
Where has Bush gone?
I was flipping through channels yesterday at 9:19 PM looking for Bush's address, and didn't find anything.
I was flipping through channels yesterday at 9:28PM looking for Bush's address, and found McCain.
I was flipping through channels yesterday around 9:40PM looking for Bush's address, and found Obama.
I was flipping through channels yesterday at 9:48PM looking for Bush's address, and finally found a recap of Bush's address on one channel: CSPAN.
Where has Bush gone?
Palin is NOT Shakespeare
I want to break away from anything current for a moment, and respond to Drew's post "Lies of Palin: We HAVE Seen This Before," because I believe he misread my post. I did liken the Palin saga to Jacobean tragedies: I did not liken her to Shakespeare; I was not being too nice.
The audience is what makes Jacobean tragedies fascinating. The plays were brutal and bloody, there were more casualties during a Jacobean tragedy than any other play genre at the time. Jacobean tragedies left the "dead" actors onstage for the entire rest of the play to display their deaths, and the audiences LOVED IT! People came from any- and everywhere to watch a disgusting tale unwind, and didn't do anything to stop the carnage onstage. There was a moral vision blurred within the play itself, and within the audience watching it.
The key to comparing Palin with Jacobean tragedy is to note that there were NOTHING nice about the plays. They are not the stereotypical "Shakespeare" play (although there is nothing nice about those either,) and they do not reflect the eloquence we tend to associate with playwrights from the 1500s.
Rather, Jacobean tragedies explored the moral reversal I mentioned in my last post (public/private and surface/depth) within the characters, and directly within the audience. Jacobean tragedies started a social phenomenon that removed people from their everyday quaint lives, and stuck them into their sadistic haven. That is what we see the Palin campaign doing with the American audience. Our moral understanding of private and public have been switched, and we like it.
Often, we look at Shakespearean contemporaries in an untouchable light. Considering 500 years difference between the 1500s and now, the names of the remaining playwrights ARE famous and well-respected (although, it was often due to reprinting and editing that made them well-written.) And I would ask you, as a scholar, to remove the social "wow factor" from the time of Shakespeare's contemporaries, so we can look at the real issue- Palin's campaign is a Jacobean tragedy because it is brutally affecting our social morals.
As writers, if we can't compare something brutally disgusting, and morally inept with Shakespeare's contemporaries, what can we do?
**For more information on Jacobean Tragedies, or for a good read, I would recommend starting with Thomas Kyd and read his play "The Spanish Tragedy."**
The audience is what makes Jacobean tragedies fascinating. The plays were brutal and bloody, there were more casualties during a Jacobean tragedy than any other play genre at the time. Jacobean tragedies left the "dead" actors onstage for the entire rest of the play to display their deaths, and the audiences LOVED IT! People came from any- and everywhere to watch a disgusting tale unwind, and didn't do anything to stop the carnage onstage. There was a moral vision blurred within the play itself, and within the audience watching it.
The key to comparing Palin with Jacobean tragedy is to note that there were NOTHING nice about the plays. They are not the stereotypical "Shakespeare" play (although there is nothing nice about those either,) and they do not reflect the eloquence we tend to associate with playwrights from the 1500s.
Rather, Jacobean tragedies explored the moral reversal I mentioned in my last post (public/private and surface/depth) within the characters, and directly within the audience. Jacobean tragedies started a social phenomenon that removed people from their everyday quaint lives, and stuck them into their sadistic haven. That is what we see the Palin campaign doing with the American audience. Our moral understanding of private and public have been switched, and we like it.
Often, we look at Shakespearean contemporaries in an untouchable light. Considering 500 years difference between the 1500s and now, the names of the remaining playwrights ARE famous and well-respected (although, it was often due to reprinting and editing that made them well-written.) And I would ask you, as a scholar, to remove the social "wow factor" from the time of Shakespeare's contemporaries, so we can look at the real issue- Palin's campaign is a Jacobean tragedy because it is brutally affecting our social morals.
As writers, if we can't compare something brutally disgusting, and morally inept with Shakespeare's contemporaries, what can we do?
**For more information on Jacobean Tragedies, or for a good read, I would recommend starting with Thomas Kyd and read his play "The Spanish Tragedy."**
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Lies Of Palin: We HAVE Seen This Before
Peggy likens the Palin saga to a Jacobean tragedy, filled with lies, deception, and metaphorical bloodshed. And to be sure, the last few weeks certainly have been filled with lies and deception. The reversal that Peggy speaks about, the personal above the public, has been very real. Her family has been paraded in front of us as evidence of her personal virtue all while the McCain campaign struggles to keep out any talk about her public virtues, or lack thereof. Their belief is that the personal IS the public, and that's all the voter needs to know. This race is not about the issues.
But Peggy is being too kind. The most famous author of Jacobean tragedies is, of course, Shakespeare. He is well spoken, fluid, and coherent. His works are considered masterpieces. The characters involved often create or redefine their own archetype. You cannot say any of these things about the McCain campaign.
Rather, I would liken the campaign to a Benny Hill farce. The pick of Sarah Palin is just one example. It seems as though McCain picked her on a whim, with very little vetting. And for the last month, McCain and his senior staff have been chasing after Palin, "Yakety Sax" blaring in the background, trying to cover up her lies and misleading statements, with the occasional stop motion to allow a McCain aide to call the media sexist. When Palin finally did speak, it was clear that she did not know what current US foreign policy was or what John McCain's stance was. Cue "Yakety Sax" and Palin chasing the McCain campaign.
I don't blame Peggy for wanting to compare McCain's campaign to Shakespeare, or any sort of great literature. But the sad truth for McCain is that the campaign isn't mature enough to be considered a Jacobean Tragedy. No, that designation should be left for all time greats such as Richard Nixon. Farcical is the only word to describe what the McCain campaign has become.
But Peggy is being too kind. The most famous author of Jacobean tragedies is, of course, Shakespeare. He is well spoken, fluid, and coherent. His works are considered masterpieces. The characters involved often create or redefine their own archetype. You cannot say any of these things about the McCain campaign.
Rather, I would liken the campaign to a Benny Hill farce. The pick of Sarah Palin is just one example. It seems as though McCain picked her on a whim, with very little vetting. And for the last month, McCain and his senior staff have been chasing after Palin, "Yakety Sax" blaring in the background, trying to cover up her lies and misleading statements, with the occasional stop motion to allow a McCain aide to call the media sexist. When Palin finally did speak, it was clear that she did not know what current US foreign policy was or what John McCain's stance was. Cue "Yakety Sax" and Palin chasing the McCain campaign.
I don't blame Peggy for wanting to compare McCain's campaign to Shakespeare, or any sort of great literature. But the sad truth for McCain is that the campaign isn't mature enough to be considered a Jacobean Tragedy. No, that designation should be left for all time greats such as Richard Nixon. Farcical is the only word to describe what the McCain campaign has become.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Lies of Palin: Haven't we seen this before?
The blurring of Private and Public entities- on all levels. We're seeing it EVERYWHERE: Palin pregnancy scandals, political lies, government stepping in with the economy, not to mention our sick history with reality TV and celebrealities. Sometimes it's easy to tell what has meaning, and what doesn't.
That's because there is a dynamic between the private and public that parallels the dynamic between surface and depth. Circumstantially, we should be able to parallel each pair, and make sense of our priorities in doing so. What we give weight to might not always deserve it, and this throws off the balance between Private/Public and Surface/Depth, resulting in a paradox where nothing can mean anything. Yes yes, this sounds vague, but we can apply it to something: I respond to Drew's blog Lies of Palin.
In terms of a politician, I want the private issues to be known but not exploited, and the public issues to be addressed. In this circumstance, I give private the surface value, and public the depth value. What a politician did in the past, and in their previous experiences, will weigh more to me than whether or not they got oral in the oval office (per say.)
However, the media, and the Palin campaign has told me the opposite: that I'm expected to give weight and depth to Palin's personal issues. I'm supposed to weigh in, and hop aboard the waiting list on a pair of red pumps? I'm supposed to invest emotional time in yet another unwed and underage pregnant teen? I don't think so. Furthermore, as Drew mentioned in his post Lies of Palin, the issues that SHOULD have been made public weren't, and continue to go unaddressed.
Therefore, in my eyes, Palin has flipped the dynamic, that I expect and value, between private/public and surface/depth. And in doing so, created a paradox; how can I possibly care about "Tina Faye glasses"? So we don't care: and in Palin terms, this just means the Republican party can ignore the facts and keep on keeping-on.
"Wait!" you may be shouting, "Haven't we seen this before?!"
Why yes, we have. A flip in the natural and expected relationships between the private/public and surface/depth happens a lot in literature. We can see some disgusting results of it as well:
Welcome to Jacobean tragedy, folks.... our heroes and villains are set. We see lies and deception everywhere. We are told one thing, and expected to feel intuitively different about it. And in true style, we're seeing the brooding of bad blood get exaggerated, but intercepted, only by the carnage-to-be.
But the best part: we all came to see the bloodshed.
That's because there is a dynamic between the private and public that parallels the dynamic between surface and depth. Circumstantially, we should be able to parallel each pair, and make sense of our priorities in doing so. What we give weight to might not always deserve it, and this throws off the balance between Private/Public and Surface/Depth, resulting in a paradox where nothing can mean anything. Yes yes, this sounds vague, but we can apply it to something: I respond to Drew's blog Lies of Palin.
In terms of a politician, I want the private issues to be known but not exploited, and the public issues to be addressed. In this circumstance, I give private the surface value, and public the depth value. What a politician did in the past, and in their previous experiences, will weigh more to me than whether or not they got oral in the oval office (per say.)
However, the media, and the Palin campaign has told me the opposite: that I'm expected to give weight and depth to Palin's personal issues. I'm supposed to weigh in, and hop aboard the waiting list on a pair of red pumps? I'm supposed to invest emotional time in yet another unwed and underage pregnant teen? I don't think so. Furthermore, as Drew mentioned in his post Lies of Palin, the issues that SHOULD have been made public weren't, and continue to go unaddressed.
Therefore, in my eyes, Palin has flipped the dynamic, that I expect and value, between private/public and surface/depth. And in doing so, created a paradox; how can I possibly care about "Tina Faye glasses"? So we don't care: and in Palin terms, this just means the Republican party can ignore the facts and keep on keeping-on.
"Wait!" you may be shouting, "Haven't we seen this before?!"
Why yes, we have. A flip in the natural and expected relationships between the private/public and surface/depth happens a lot in literature. We can see some disgusting results of it as well:
Welcome to Jacobean tragedy, folks.... our heroes and villains are set. We see lies and deception everywhere. We are told one thing, and expected to feel intuitively different about it. And in true style, we're seeing the brooding of bad blood get exaggerated, but intercepted, only by the carnage-to-be.
But the best part: we all came to see the bloodshed.
A Rundown on Paulson's Plan
I was going to post a rundown on the Paulson and Bernanke bailout plan. However, thus far, I've only been able to find paragraphs similar to the following:
This should be scary. It IS scary. After the movement towards socialism last week, the government now wants a blank check to spend $700 billion in tax payers money. Unfettered authority? I understand the need to remove toxic assets from the system, but giving the government unfettered authority over anything tends to end poorly for the citizens of that country. I have no doubt that this is a serious crisis and that something needs to be done. But, like I said last week, this is another flashback in dystopian movies.
Dodd's plan is better. For starters, it gives the US taxpayers equity in the bailout so that should the assets recover, the people will benefit from the sale of the assets. It also creates an oversight board to supervise the Treasury Department's purchases. The board would be consist of the chairmen of the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Securities and Exchange Commission, along with two members of the financial industry chosen by Congress. The board would create a credit review company to review all purchases made by the Treasury.. The Treasury Secretary would be required to give weekly reports about assets bought and sold. Dodd proposes penalizing executives who take "inappropriate risks" by reducing executive severance packages and force executives to give back earnings based on inaccurate accounting measures. Finally, this authority would expire on December 31st, 2009.
First off, again, giving this kind of authority to the Treasurer for any length of time is scary. The abiliity to nationalize companies is a huge expanse in executive power. However, while I'm not an expert on this subject, those who are see very little choice. So, if we must have a bailout, then we must have a bailout.
Dodd's bill hopefully mitigates the dangers the expanse in power creates. It also creates, as I indicated earlier, a disincentive for executives to allow their companies to get to the point where they need a government bailout. If executives face punishment for risky behavior, then they'll have less reason to engage in risky behavior. Under the Paulson plan, there is nothing to discourage executives from letting their company require a government bailout. Like I said earlier, the bailout conditions should be structured like that of the IMF's.
Finally, this post by Hilzoy should be read, as I'm sure it echoes the feelings of many people on the left. Key quote (Hilzoy is quoting Matt Stoller of Openleft.com)
The Bush administration has proposed granting unfettered authority for the Treasury Department to buy up to $700 billion in distressed mortgage-related assets from private firms as part of a program that Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said “has to work.”I have yet to find any other details about this program, and my friends who work on Wall Street don't seem to have any more information to offer me.
This should be scary. It IS scary. After the movement towards socialism last week, the government now wants a blank check to spend $700 billion in tax payers money. Unfettered authority? I understand the need to remove toxic assets from the system, but giving the government unfettered authority over anything tends to end poorly for the citizens of that country. I have no doubt that this is a serious crisis and that something needs to be done. But, like I said last week, this is another flashback in dystopian movies.
Dodd's plan is better. For starters, it gives the US taxpayers equity in the bailout so that should the assets recover, the people will benefit from the sale of the assets. It also creates an oversight board to supervise the Treasury Department's purchases. The board would be consist of the chairmen of the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Securities and Exchange Commission, along with two members of the financial industry chosen by Congress. The board would create a credit review company to review all purchases made by the Treasury.. The Treasury Secretary would be required to give weekly reports about assets bought and sold. Dodd proposes penalizing executives who take "inappropriate risks" by reducing executive severance packages and force executives to give back earnings based on inaccurate accounting measures. Finally, this authority would expire on December 31st, 2009.
First off, again, giving this kind of authority to the Treasurer for any length of time is scary. The abiliity to nationalize companies is a huge expanse in executive power. However, while I'm not an expert on this subject, those who are see very little choice. So, if we must have a bailout, then we must have a bailout.
Dodd's bill hopefully mitigates the dangers the expanse in power creates. It also creates, as I indicated earlier, a disincentive for executives to allow their companies to get to the point where they need a government bailout. If executives face punishment for risky behavior, then they'll have less reason to engage in risky behavior. Under the Paulson plan, there is nothing to discourage executives from letting their company require a government bailout. Like I said earlier, the bailout conditions should be structured like that of the IMF's.
Finally, this post by Hilzoy should be read, as I'm sure it echoes the feelings of many people on the left. Key quote (Hilzoy is quoting Matt Stoller of Openleft.com)
"I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me."
Musings
Do a lot of people actually live on Main Streets in Smalltown, USA? Or are the pols referring to small businesses that operate on Main Street in Smalltown, USA?
Punitive Measures
Ben Bernanke believes that there should be no punitive measures for firms that participate in the bailout. But as Matt Yglesias points out, "if some measure of bailing out is truly necessary then the money will be provided, but it shouldn’t just become handouts for bankers. Punitive measures mean that only firms that genuinely have no alternative will enter into the program, and their corrupt or inept managers will be duly punished."
This is basically how the IMF works for entire countries. The IMF doesn't force itself on countries, but if the countries want to receive loans from the IMF, presumably because their credit is so bad nobody else will lend to them, then they have to meet several preconditions and change the way the economy works in order to get the loans.
While the shape the bailout will take hasn't been set yet, it seems to me that the IMF is probably the best model for it. As Matt says, if there are no punitive measures, then it's just free money, a handout it you will (we all know how much Americans hate handouts) If there are punitive measures then companies will be forced to behave in a more responsible manor, rather than taking risks that they shouldn't take and expect to get free money to fix their mistakes.
This is basically how the IMF works for entire countries. The IMF doesn't force itself on countries, but if the countries want to receive loans from the IMF, presumably because their credit is so bad nobody else will lend to them, then they have to meet several preconditions and change the way the economy works in order to get the loans.
While the shape the bailout will take hasn't been set yet, it seems to me that the IMF is probably the best model for it. As Matt says, if there are no punitive measures, then it's just free money, a handout it you will (we all know how much Americans hate handouts) If there are punitive measures then companies will be forced to behave in a more responsible manor, rather than taking risks that they shouldn't take and expect to get free money to fix their mistakes.
What If
What if Congress had not allowed themselves to be railroaded into rubber stamping the PATRIOT Act or military authority in Iraq?
CNN Vs Palin
For the last three weeks, the McCain campaign has very thoroughly restricted access to Sarah Palin, making it impossible for the press to get any answers from her. So, CNN today decided to restrict Sarah Palin access from its airwaves in response. Seems like a fair trade off. McCain relented.
Obama Leads In Polls
In four current polls – Gallup, Rasmussen, Hotline/Diageo, and Research 2000 – Obama has a slight lead.
The Palin/convention bounce seems to have dissipated.
The Palin/convention bounce seems to have dissipated.
Preemption vs. Prevention
In foreign policy and international law, there is a difference. The American people were not told th difference before the invasion of Iraq. In fact, the invasion was called a war of preemption. However, a war of preemption is "an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes." This is allowed under international law. However, a war of prevention is defined as "initiated under the belief that future conflict is inevitable, though not imminent." In other words, a country is not currently a threat but someday, it could become a threat, and so, war must be waged to prevent this possibility. This is not allowed under international law. It is also known as a war of aggression.
The Bush Administration, of course, changed the meaning of "preemptive war" to "preventative war" to invade Iraq. This is the Bush Doctrine, and as long as it is in effect, America will be looked at as an aggressor nation.
The Bush Administration, of course, changed the meaning of "preemptive war" to "preventative war" to invade Iraq. This is the Bush Doctrine, and as long as it is in effect, America will be looked at as an aggressor nation.
The Bailout
I'm still sorting through the debate on the bailout proposals, and I have to admit, a lot of this is beyond my expertise. I'll try to post some sort of analysis on it later. What I do want to say right now is that I am glad to see that Congress is pushing back against more expansion of executive power. Both Democrats and Republicans alike are resisting the Paulson plan, which would give the government a blank check to purchase bad debts.
Lies of Palin
Andrew Sullivan compiles the list of lies of Sarah Palin. Money quote:
Just for the record, I asked an intern to go back and double fact-check the twelve documented lies that Sarah Palin has told on the public record. These are not hyperbolic claims or rhetorical excess. They are assertions of fact that are demonstrably untrue and remain uncorrected. Every single one of the lies I documented holds up after several news cycles have had a chance to vet them even further.
George Will and Bush Republicanism
He hits the nail right on the head:
It's worth noting that this socialism has also come to power with attacks on the separation of church and state.
Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism.
It's worth noting that this socialism has also come to power with attacks on the separation of church and state.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
We all want to fly.
We forget. In our hustling, emotional, important, unbalanced, average, spiritual, and cynical lives- we forget. We forget to sit down, put our feet up , and open a book. We forget the way a good book can make us feel, can change the way we feel. We forget how a book can capture lessons of a different life, from a different time and place, and bring them right into our hands. We forget that literature is an artifact, a relic, reprinted and rebound, maybe with a new flashy cover, or larger print for older audiences, that is made just for us to open and continue.
I'm going to make it a point not to forget. We can look at the past to better represent our ideas and perceptions of the present. We can take away so much more than joys and laughs, if we put the work into reading literature.
In a world talking and buzzing about politics (and rightfully so,) I think we should put forth our efforts, and refocus our attention on some words of a different time. I'm going to take a look at a short story by Katherine Mansfield written in 1922, The Fly. Written post-World War I, Mansfield's story collects the physical and emotional wreckage left behind, and invites us to compare. We can make striking metaphors of the main characters, and apply their struggles with those of today's political parties, nations at war, and homes in turmoil. Katherine Mansfield was a spectacular writer and admired by Virginia Woolf. Deeply promiscuous and true to her time, Mansfield tore into human experiences, and was able to expose patterns of human emotion.
If you haven't before, or want to again, read Mansfield's short story The Fly.
I know you're twisting and burning in anticipation for me to spell out some comparison; to do the work for you. You want me to tell how the boss is filled with resentment and burdened with the inability to grieve properly, and the fly is a symbol of the pain and grief families and people experience years after a loss, seconds after they've "cleaned" themselves off. Well you're right, and there, I said it.
However, I know Mansfield's story speaks more than metaphors. It speaks to the human condition. How can six years of pent up grief lead to an undoing of the boss's character? Why does he allow himself to go down that road? How many times have we acted destructively because we can't handle how or who we are presently? And how many times have we expected miracles from mortals, in a vain effort to keep ourselves from hearing a reality that tells us, "maybe not this time,"?
"What does this have to do with politics? What does this have to do with the election?" you might be asking yourself- or me for that matter.
But I've set the path to walk down, and you have feet.
You're smart, you can figure it out.
I'm going to make it a point not to forget. We can look at the past to better represent our ideas and perceptions of the present. We can take away so much more than joys and laughs, if we put the work into reading literature.
In a world talking and buzzing about politics (and rightfully so,) I think we should put forth our efforts, and refocus our attention on some words of a different time. I'm going to take a look at a short story by Katherine Mansfield written in 1922, The Fly. Written post-World War I, Mansfield's story collects the physical and emotional wreckage left behind, and invites us to compare. We can make striking metaphors of the main characters, and apply their struggles with those of today's political parties, nations at war, and homes in turmoil. Katherine Mansfield was a spectacular writer and admired by Virginia Woolf. Deeply promiscuous and true to her time, Mansfield tore into human experiences, and was able to expose patterns of human emotion.
If you haven't before, or want to again, read Mansfield's short story The Fly.
I know you're twisting and burning in anticipation for me to spell out some comparison; to do the work for you. You want me to tell how the boss is filled with resentment and burdened with the inability to grieve properly, and the fly is a symbol of the pain and grief families and people experience years after a loss, seconds after they've "cleaned" themselves off. Well you're right, and there, I said it.
However, I know Mansfield's story speaks more than metaphors. It speaks to the human condition. How can six years of pent up grief lead to an undoing of the boss's character? Why does he allow himself to go down that road? How many times have we acted destructively because we can't handle how or who we are presently? And how many times have we expected miracles from mortals, in a vain effort to keep ourselves from hearing a reality that tells us, "maybe not this time,"?
"What does this have to do with politics? What does this have to do with the election?" you might be asking yourself- or me for that matter.
But I've set the path to walk down, and you have feet.
You're smart, you can figure it out.
Friday, September 19, 2008
A Word About "Liberal"
Over the last forty years, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative, synonymous with "unAmerican." As a result, many Democrats have shied away from being called liberal. "Liberalism" is railed against by culture warriors such as Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. However, this is a mischaracterization of the ideology. Liberalism is defined as "a political ideology that seeks to maximize individual liberties."
Today, there are differing views on how best to maximize liberties. One view, referred to as "classical liberalism" seeks to limit the size of the government and allow the individual as much freedom as possible. The other view, popularized in the early 20th century, is "social liberalism" seeks to maximize individual freedoms by improving social conditions, usually through government intervention and regulation. The use of government programs often puts classic liberals at odds with social liberals. For much of the 20th century, "liberals" referred to social liberals and "conservatives" described classic liberals.
Surely, there have always been traditionalists in the United States. In terms of liberalism, there were always people who were more liberal and people who were more conservative. Throughout American history, there were liberals and conservatives in most major parties. For the most part, the broad difference among these people was the best way to preserve and expand the liberal ideal of freedom.
However, over the last twenty years, the Republican Party has skewed towards classic conservativism, which historical has been absolutist in nature. It is unconcerned about the size of the government but obsessed with preserving or restoring traditions. It demands an emensely strong executive branch. It itches to flex its military prowess And we see this with the Bush Administration, which has increased the size of the government, both financially and in terms of executive power and has started a war of prevention. Working to preserve civil liberties has become an unAmerican and "liberal" scheme to ruin the country. We are told to believe that liberalism is a foreign ideology and contrary to American ideals.
However, this ignores history. The United States was founded very specifically on liberal ideals. Liberal theorists such as Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Locke in particular had major influences on the Founding Fathers and their beliefs. The Declaration of Independence reads very much like a John Locke treatise, and the Constitution borrows many ideas from Montesquieu and other liberal writers. Liberalism is at the core of the United States and its institutions. To claim otherwise is factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.
Today, there are differing views on how best to maximize liberties. One view, referred to as "classical liberalism" seeks to limit the size of the government and allow the individual as much freedom as possible. The other view, popularized in the early 20th century, is "social liberalism" seeks to maximize individual freedoms by improving social conditions, usually through government intervention and regulation. The use of government programs often puts classic liberals at odds with social liberals. For much of the 20th century, "liberals" referred to social liberals and "conservatives" described classic liberals.
Surely, there have always been traditionalists in the United States. In terms of liberalism, there were always people who were more liberal and people who were more conservative. Throughout American history, there were liberals and conservatives in most major parties. For the most part, the broad difference among these people was the best way to preserve and expand the liberal ideal of freedom.
However, over the last twenty years, the Republican Party has skewed towards classic conservativism, which historical has been absolutist in nature. It is unconcerned about the size of the government but obsessed with preserving or restoring traditions. It demands an emensely strong executive branch. It itches to flex its military prowess And we see this with the Bush Administration, which has increased the size of the government, both financially and in terms of executive power and has started a war of prevention. Working to preserve civil liberties has become an unAmerican and "liberal" scheme to ruin the country. We are told to believe that liberalism is a foreign ideology and contrary to American ideals.
However, this ignores history. The United States was founded very specifically on liberal ideals. Liberal theorists such as Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Locke in particular had major influences on the Founding Fathers and their beliefs. The Declaration of Independence reads very much like a John Locke treatise, and the Constitution borrows many ideas from Montesquieu and other liberal writers. Liberalism is at the core of the United States and its institutions. To claim otherwise is factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.
Todd Palin Won't Comply With Subpoena
Todd Palin won't comply with the subpoena issued to him, either. More from Glenn Greenwald.
It appears that there's nothing Alaska's legislature can do until January. That's a shame. It would be nice to finally see one of these subpoenas enforced when it really matters. It's obvious that the Palins are just stonewalling until after election day. They're doing so by breaking the law. The law should be enforced. Immediately.
It appears that there's nothing Alaska's legislature can do until January. That's a shame. It would be nice to finally see one of these subpoenas enforced when it really matters. It's obvious that the Palins are just stonewalling until after election day. They're doing so by breaking the law. The law should be enforced. Immediately.
Tony Blaair on The Daily Show
Just watched last night's interview of Tony Blair on The Daily Show. He still ignores a lot of nuances, such as equating al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah as if they were one in the same. Of course, this isn't true. Hezbollah is a Shi'a organization while Hamas and al Qaeda are both Sunni. Also, Hamas and Hezbollah were established to fight Israel, whereas is a fundamentalist religious organization. Indeed, there are many differences between all of these organizations that need to be acknowledged. Putting all Islamic groups under one blanket grouping shows an ignorance of Islam and politics in the Islamic world. Such ignorance is detrimental to American foreign policy goals.
However, it's good to see Tony Blair talking candidly about the topic. Jon Stewart asks hims some hard questions, and he tries his best to answer them straightforwardly. He is not shy about standing up for what he believes in by making actual arguments for his way of thinking, even if the mindset is fundamentally wrong. That's something, as Jon notes, that our president won't do.
However, it's good to see Tony Blair talking candidly about the topic. Jon Stewart asks hims some hard questions, and he tries his best to answer them straightforwardly. He is not shy about standing up for what he believes in by making actual arguments for his way of thinking, even if the mindset is fundamentally wrong. That's something, as Jon notes, that our president won't do.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Foreign Policy Direction
Andrew discusses the direction the Republican Party has gone in regards to its foreign policy — 100% neoconservative. He is correct in saying that the
realist faction — those who believe that our foreign policy should be "reality-based, idealistic within clear realist boundaries, cognizant of America's mounting fiscal collapse, aware of the fact that power politics never ends, chastened by the Iraq fiasco, concerned about reinforcing alliances and maintaining a solid military" have their work cut out for them. He then links to an article in the new online conservative magazine Culture 11 where they advocate a much more Washingtonian foreign policy. The quote he selected is worth quoting in full, and the article itself is a must read:
They go on to say:
This, I believe, should be the central aim of any new Grand Strategy. It is a more conservative Wilsonian foreign policy; it encourages the spread of democracy, but allows for culturally relevant democracies in places that are different from the United States. This is a change from the aggressive Wilsonianism that Bush has advocated. This would position the United States to be a leader on global affairs without unilaterally (and futilely) trying to preserve its current hegemony in a world of many growing powers and without domestic policies being held hostage by foreign policies that are not in the best interests of the country.
Furthermore, the US needs to finally admit to itself that its hegemony is untenable and contra to most of its foreign policy interests. Because of the globalizing economy, there are many emerging powers. Some of these are not democracies. However, if the US seriously believes that democracy is the best form of government, then the way isn't to spread it with the sword, but rather with an effort to discover and foster conditions that allow democratic institutions to grow organically in countries. A more humble foreign policy that doesn't presume that the US has the final say in all matters across the globe would be a good start.
realist faction — those who believe that our foreign policy should be "reality-based, idealistic within clear realist boundaries, cognizant of America's mounting fiscal collapse, aware of the fact that power politics never ends, chastened by the Iraq fiasco, concerned about reinforcing alliances and maintaining a solid military" have their work cut out for them. He then links to an article in the new online conservative magazine Culture 11 where they advocate a much more Washingtonian foreign policy. The quote he selected is worth quoting in full, and the article itself is a must read:
"There are two Washingtonian principles which I believe should serve as the basis for a long overdue audit of U.S. foreign policy, certainly since the end of the Cold War. The first is Washington’s admonition that 'permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded.' t begs the question as to whether the current configuration of U.S. alliances, forged during the Cold War, is still the most optimal way of securing key American priorities.
The second (and here perhaps the Address should be updated from merely referring to Europe to every region of the world) is for the United States to reconsider the level of involvement in the affairs of others: “it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.” Are American interests served by involving the United States in a multitude of regional problems that do not touch directly on our affairs? And do we need to continue to divide the world into categories of “friend” or “foe”, into leagues of “democracies” versus “the autocracies?”
Such is alien to the Washingtonian ethos. The first president took as his guide the following: “Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity and interest.”
They go on to say:
This, by the way, when reinterpreted in 21st century conditions, lays the basis for a renewed U.S. leadership of the community of nations — and works to restore confidence and trust in America’s judgment. Keeping lines of communication open, working to reduce conflicts, and creating conditions for the emergence of more open societies raises the likelihood of other countries remaining as stakeholders in an American-led global order. Washington would have been confused about the call for a “crusade for democracy,” but he and his successors, including John Quincy Adams, would have been very comfortable with the notion of “the great capitalist peace” (to cite the term coined by John Hulsman and Anatol Lieven) — where “all the major states of the world … have or could have a major stake in the stability of the international economy, the international trading system, the international investment system.
This, I believe, should be the central aim of any new Grand Strategy. It is a more conservative Wilsonian foreign policy; it encourages the spread of democracy, but allows for culturally relevant democracies in places that are different from the United States. This is a change from the aggressive Wilsonianism that Bush has advocated. This would position the United States to be a leader on global affairs without unilaterally (and futilely) trying to preserve its current hegemony in a world of many growing powers and without domestic policies being held hostage by foreign policies that are not in the best interests of the country.
Furthermore, the US needs to finally admit to itself that its hegemony is untenable and contra to most of its foreign policy interests. Because of the globalizing economy, there are many emerging powers. Some of these are not democracies. However, if the US seriously believes that democracy is the best form of government, then the way isn't to spread it with the sword, but rather with an effort to discover and foster conditions that allow democratic institutions to grow organically in countries. A more humble foreign policy that doesn't presume that the US has the final say in all matters across the globe would be a good start.
How Far Is Too Far?
Is it fair of the media to target Sarah Palin the way that they have? It makes sense to me. Granted, there seems to be a lot of useless and simply inflammatory information going around, but I suppose that is to be expected when nobody knows anything about the woman. She was a virtual unknown before being chosen as she's only been a statewide elected official for two years in a small state that is not directly connected to the US. She had no prior national exposure, and there's been little reason to give her any, save for her innitial support for the Bridge to Nowhere.
She was a surprise and ridiculous pick. She brings very little to the ticket in terms of governance. She's not widely seen as an expert on much of anything, despite McCain's claim that she knows energy policy better than anybody in the country. She has no foreign policy experience or even any interest in it, as evidenced by her reponse to Charlie Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine.
So no, the press isn't overstepping its bounds by "targetting" her. She was a blank canvas up until three weeks ago, and Americans deserve to know who is going to be their Vice President and potential President. It isn't the press's fault that the McCain campaign didn't vet her enough to prepare for all the stories that have come out since she was anounced. Its the press's job to inform Americans, and her being unavailable for questioning prevented the press from getting any straight talk about who she is and they've filled this vacuum by writing story after story after her. More over, it's their duty to expose her for what she is: an unqualified liar. Both her and McCain have ramped up the lying to an almost pathological level. Reporting this isn't media bias. It's reporting facts proven nearly every time either speak.
She was a surprise and ridiculous pick. She brings very little to the ticket in terms of governance. She's not widely seen as an expert on much of anything, despite McCain's claim that she knows energy policy better than anybody in the country. She has no foreign policy experience or even any interest in it, as evidenced by her reponse to Charlie Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine.
So no, the press isn't overstepping its bounds by "targetting" her. She was a blank canvas up until three weeks ago, and Americans deserve to know who is going to be their Vice President and potential President. It isn't the press's fault that the McCain campaign didn't vet her enough to prepare for all the stories that have come out since she was anounced. Its the press's job to inform Americans, and her being unavailable for questioning prevented the press from getting any straight talk about who she is and they've filled this vacuum by writing story after story after her. More over, it's their duty to expose her for what she is: an unqualified liar. Both her and McCain have ramped up the lying to an almost pathological level. Reporting this isn't media bias. It's reporting facts proven nearly every time either speak.
McCain And Spain
The blogosphere was alive last night, confused about what John McCain meant by saying that he wouldn't meet with the Spanish Prime Minister. Today, his campaign attempted to clear the confusion by confirming that McCain was not committing to meeting with Prime Minister Zapatero. There is no doubt now that McCain was not confused about who he was talking about but was indicating that he would continue cool relations with Spain that the US has had since Zapatero came to power in 2004 and removed Spanish troops from Iraq. This contradicts an earlier pledge to normalize relations with the NATO ally:
This adds to a number of foreign policy inconsistencies and gaffes that McCain has made. Perhaps this isn't quite a gaffe, but it's certainly bad policy. Spain is a NATO ally and the 8th largest economy in the world. Sure, Zapatero is a left to center leader, but it would give us more credibility if we associated with democracies that have different beliefs than us, especially if our Grand Strategy is spreading democracy across the globe (though it's probably safe to say that there is no Grand Strategy.) And since Spain is still fighting with us in Afghanistan, and that's where Osama is, and McCain is committed to following Osama to the gates of hell, it would probably be wise to talk to an ally without preconditions. McCain couldn't have forgotten that al Qaeda is responsible for a major terrorist attack in Madrid, in name if not in personnel. This makes it appear as though the only thing that McCain is actually willing to committ to is winning the White House. I don't think that qualifies as putting your country first.
"I would like for [President Zapatero] to visit the United States. I am very interested not only in normalizing relations with Spain but in obtaining good and productive relations with the goal of addressing many issues and challenges that we have to confront together."
This adds to a number of foreign policy inconsistencies and gaffes that McCain has made. Perhaps this isn't quite a gaffe, but it's certainly bad policy. Spain is a NATO ally and the 8th largest economy in the world. Sure, Zapatero is a left to center leader, but it would give us more credibility if we associated with democracies that have different beliefs than us, especially if our Grand Strategy is spreading democracy across the globe (though it's probably safe to say that there is no Grand Strategy.) And since Spain is still fighting with us in Afghanistan, and that's where Osama is, and McCain is committed to following Osama to the gates of hell, it would probably be wise to talk to an ally without preconditions. McCain couldn't have forgotten that al Qaeda is responsible for a major terrorist attack in Madrid, in name if not in personnel. This makes it appear as though the only thing that McCain is actually willing to committ to is winning the White House. I don't think that qualifies as putting your country first.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
McCain, The Market, and Privatization
Ezra Klein discusses John McCain's history of supporting the privatization of Social Security.
Contra European Goodwill
Daniel Kennelly responds to Andrew Sullivan's post about Europe's goodwill torwards Obama and following al Qaeda into Pakistan.
Palin's Staff Won't Comply With Subpoenas
Apparently, Sarah Palin's staff won't comply with subpoenas issued in Troopergate. Maybe I have an incorrect idea of what a subpoena is, but I was sure that if you don't comply, you face punishment.
I'd really like to see SOME legislative body, be it state or federal, issue a subpoena and back it up by punishing those who refuse to comply. When a subpoena is issued, it's not a request. Attendance isn't an option. It's mandatory. The word itself is Latin for "under penalty." Legislative bodies need to start reigning in these executives who clearly believe the law does not apply to them.
Don't tell us that you feel like "Charlie Brown after Lucy moved the football." Don't give us phony outrage. You have the power to make these subpoenas stick. Use it.
I'd really like to see SOME legislative body, be it state or federal, issue a subpoena and back it up by punishing those who refuse to comply. When a subpoena is issued, it's not a request. Attendance isn't an option. It's mandatory. The word itself is Latin for "under penalty." Legislative bodies need to start reigning in these executives who clearly believe the law does not apply to them.
Don't tell us that you feel like "Charlie Brown after Lucy moved the football." Don't give us phony outrage. You have the power to make these subpoenas stick. Use it.
Then again...
Of course, for the most part, the last four years have yielded more government deadlock than actual governance, and one could make the case that the country needs strong unifying leadership to prevent a decline in federal power. Another 4 years of similar leadership could cause such a decline. This could prompt the states to form regional confederacies to deal with problems that the federal government normally would have. Whether that outcome is good or bad depends entirely on where you think government power should rest. If you would prefer to see such problems dealt with on the federal level, then you would want to have a strong leader who could unify the many factions of the country under a common cause.
Then again, this is also usually a flashback scene in those dystopian movies.
Then again, this is also usually a flashback scene in those dystopian movies.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Fed Buys Out AIG
The Fed will be purchasing up to 80% of AIG for an $85 billion loan. And it keeps on crumbling.
I have a couple friends who work at investment banks in New York; one works at Merrill Lynch and another in the mortgage division of UBS. I talked to them both today and they stressed how chaotic everything has been in New York the last couple of days.
On another note, Matt Yglesias points out that the past week has resulted in the nationalization of quite a few very large corporations. And the auto industry is calling the government for help, as well. Matt is right to question how the companies are going to be run. With any luck, they can be removed from the political process and eventually sold off and taken out of government hands. I'm pretty sure that what happened this past week is shown as a flashback in most dystopian movies.
I have a couple friends who work at investment banks in New York; one works at Merrill Lynch and another in the mortgage division of UBS. I talked to them both today and they stressed how chaotic everything has been in New York the last couple of days.
On another note, Matt Yglesias points out that the past week has resulted in the nationalization of quite a few very large corporations. And the auto industry is calling the government for help, as well. Matt is right to question how the companies are going to be run. With any luck, they can be removed from the political process and eventually sold off and taken out of government hands. I'm pretty sure that what happened this past week is shown as a flashback in most dystopian movies.
Obama Files Suit To Prevent Voter Suprression
From the Daily Kos. It's good to see Obama starting early to prevent voter suppression. This is an issue that hasn't received enough attention.
Obama and Pakistan
Andrew on a Hitchens essay about attacking Al Qaeda inside the borders of Pakistan.
Starting a new war right now (even though it would technically be a continuation of the first war) strikes me as a little irresponsible, given the state of the American military and also given that Pakistan is a nuclear power. However, not pursuing the Taliban and allowing them to rebuild in Pakistan seems at least equally irresponsible. The biggest issue, nuclear arms aside, is this being seen as a unilateral action against Pakistan. I suppose that is what will determine whether or potentially provoking Pakistan is irresponsible. Andrew believes that Obama would be well positioned to make sure it isn't unilateral. I hope that ends up being true because the US cannot afford to lose anymore prestige in the world.
Starting a new war right now (even though it would technically be a continuation of the first war) strikes me as a little irresponsible, given the state of the American military and also given that Pakistan is a nuclear power. However, not pursuing the Taliban and allowing them to rebuild in Pakistan seems at least equally irresponsible. The biggest issue, nuclear arms aside, is this being seen as a unilateral action against Pakistan. I suppose that is what will determine whether or potentially provoking Pakistan is irresponsible. Andrew believes that Obama would be well positioned to make sure it isn't unilateral. I hope that ends up being true because the US cannot afford to lose anymore prestige in the world.
Palin in Ohio Today
Palin is in Vienna, Ohio today, giving a speech about the economy. She is talking about how large investment banks used predatory practices against the American people, the federal government failed to defend the public from these companies and their practices, and now they're asking for public bailouts. She talks about "reckless CEOs" and their severances packages. Then, she says, the man to fix this is John McCain.
What she doesn't talk about is that John McCain's chief economic advisor, former senator Phil Gramm, is chiefly responsible for the failure of federal agencies to defend the public, as he the author of the most significant banking deregulation legislation. This leaves it up to the public to figure out how, exactly, will John McCain fix the problem while getting the advice of the guy who wrote the legislation and, incidently, was a lobbyist for Swiss investment bank UBS until this summer. Phil Gramm is clearly a man who has the public interests first and foremost in his mind.
What she doesn't talk about is that John McCain's chief economic advisor, former senator Phil Gramm, is chiefly responsible for the failure of federal agencies to defend the public, as he the author of the most significant banking deregulation legislation. This leaves it up to the public to figure out how, exactly, will John McCain fix the problem while getting the advice of the guy who wrote the legislation and, incidently, was a lobbyist for Swiss investment bank UBS until this summer. Phil Gramm is clearly a man who has the public interests first and foremost in his mind.
McCain's Econ Advisor Roster
While an administration does not usually have a real and immediate impact on the economy (though, in some cases, like that of this past weekend, this isn't always true), it is important to know who will advise a potential president on the economy. Here is a link to McCain's roster. On the whole, I'm not very impressed by the caliber. Phil Gramm is as much at fault for where we are now as any of the bankers, as he is responsible for much of the legislation that rolled back regulations on financial institutions. He also is the man who said that Americans were having a "mental recession." Today, Douglas Holtz-Eakin claimed that McCain was partially responsible for creating the blackberry. Carly Fiorina hid $14.4 Billion of HP's foreign earnings to reduce its tax rate. These are the notables. As I said, I'm not impressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)