Banks Bet Greece Defaults on Debt They Helped Hide: "Bets by some of the same banks that helped Greece shroud its mounting debts may actually now be pushing the nation closer to the brink of financial ruin."
(Via NYTimes.)
Empire For Ever: "Occupations are the foreign equivalent of entitlement programs. They never end. Why should Americans be denied basic access to health insurance because the money is going to sustain 50,000 troops in Germany, for Pete's sake, or to tamp down sectarian conflicts that have existed for centuries in a country we had no troops in for all of US history until 2003?"
The Republicans' genius compromise strategy: "
David Leonhardt has a nice piece running through the basic dynamics of not only tomorrow's summit, but health-care reform from here on out. A lot of the piece is a discussion of compromises: What's blocking them, and what's possible yet.
But the difficulty with this discussion is that the GOP has accidentally hit upon a brilliant insight: The best way to guarantee substantive concessions is to refuse to compromise. Think about the plan that Barack Obama and the Democrats have been left with: It's not single payer. There's no public option. It doesn't cover all of the uninsured. It doesn't change the insurance of about 90 percent of the country. It doesn't add to the deficit. It pays for itself with difficult, unpopular and necessary reforms in entitlement programs. It includes a commission to make future reforms of Medicare and Medicaid both easier and less politically dangerous for Republicans.
In fact, the Senate health-care bill looks a lot like Wyden-Bennett -- but smaller, and more incremental, and more respectful of the status quo. That is to say, it looks like a more traditionally conservative incarnation of Wyden-Bennett. And it got that way not because Republicans compromised, but because they didn't compromise.
As Democrats came to realize that they couldn't get Republican votes for the bill by adding policies that Republican senators supported, they began trimming their ambitions in order to keep their caucus together. As they came to realize that they couldn't pass the legislation without their most conservative members, they gave their most conservative members a veto card over the bill's provisions. The result is legislation that's not only much more conservative and incremental than what past presidents have proposed, but is also much more conservative than the major health-care reforms -- namely Medicare and Medicaid -- that past presidents have passed. And Republicans got these substantive concessions not by making a deal, but by not making a deal.
So even putting the political incentive to kill this bill aside, why should Republicans who care about conservative policy think that coming to the table will make for policy they prefer? In a small sense, it's true that they could have gotten more tort reform if they were willing to vote for the bill. But in a larger sense, the bill would have been much more liberal if Democrats expected they could get Republican votes by adding tort reform to the legislation.
"(Via Ezra Klein.)
The Shameful Sixty-Eight: CIA Papers Reveal 68 Members Knew of Torture Program: "
Ever wondered how many members it would take to be told about torture before anyone went public or cried foul? Well, we now know it is somewhere above 68. The CIA has revealed that at least 68 U.S. lawmakers between 2001 and 2007 were briefed on torture. That obviously included many Democrats who later worked to avoid investigating torture and have been relatively silent as the Obama Administration has blocked any prosecution for torture or war crimes.
Judicial Watch has the credit of forcing the documents into the open.
For years, many of us have speculated that the bipartisan effort to avoid any investigation into torture was due to the fear of members that their own complicity and knowledge would be revealed to the public. This latest disclosure supports that theory.
For the full story, click here and here.
"(Via JONATHAN TURLEY.)
The flailing falsehoods of America's war criminals: "
I didnt think it was possible, but former Bush officials -- desperately fighting what they know will be their legacy as war criminals -- have become even more dishonest propagandists out of office than they were in office. At National Review, Bill Burck and Dana Perino so thoroughly mislead their readers about the DOJ report -- rejecting the findings of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) of ethical misconduct against John Yoo and Jay Bybee -- that its hard to know where to begin. They devote paragraph after paragraph to hailing the intelligence and integrity of the reports author, career DOJ prosecutor David Margolis, in order to pretend that he defended Yoo and Bybees work, claiming that Margolis 'officially exonerated Bush-era lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee' and that 'Margolis rejected OPR’s recommendation and most of its analysis.' Perhaps the most deceitful claim is this one:
So, in one corner we have a legal all-star team of Mukasey, Filip, Estrada, Mahoney, Goldsmith [all right-wing Bush lawyers], and Margolis. In the other corner, we have OPR operating far outside its comfort zone and area of expertise. This shouldn’t have been close -- and it wasn’t, on the merits.
Compare that to what Margolis actually said (p. 67):
For all of the above reasons, I am not prepared to conclude that the circumstantial evidence much of which is contradicted by the witness testimony regarding Yoos efforts establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that Yoo intentionally or recklessly provided misleading advice to his client. It is a close question. I would be remiss in not observing, however, that these memoranda represent an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Office of Legal Counsel. While I have declined to adopt OPRs finding of misconduct, I fear that John Yoos loyalty to his own ideology and convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client and led him to adopt opinions that reflected his own extreme, albeit sincerely held, views of executive power while speaking for an institutional client.
Just think about that for a minute. Margolis said that whether Yoo 'intentionally or recklessly provided misleading advice to his client' when authorizing torture -- about the most serious accusation one can make against a lawyer, as it means he deliberately made false statements about the law -- 'is a close question.' Thats the precise opposite of what Burck and Perino told National Review readers about Margolis conclusion ('This shouldn’t have been close — and it wasnt, on the merits').
Moreover, Margolis repeatedly adopted the OPRs findings that the Yoo/Bybee torture memos -- on which the entire American torture regime was constructed and which media elites now embrace in order to argue against prosecutions -- were wrong, 'extreme,' misguided, and the by-product of 'poor judgment.' As Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin so clearly explained, the only thing that saved Yoo in Margolis eyes was that attorney ethical rules have been written by lawyers to protect themselves, and the bar is therefore so low that it basically includes only 'sociopaths and people driven to theft and egregious incompetence by serious drug and alcohol abuse problems.' As a result, Margolis could not ultimately conclude that Yoo -- as shoddy and misleading as his torture authorizations were -- purposely lied because Yoo 'was an ideologue who entered government service with a warped vision of the world in which he sincerely believed.' Does that remotely sound like exoneration?
Burck and Perino also include this, a common myth among American elites who do not believe the rule of law should apply to them:
For years now this principle [that 'honestly held legal and policy opinions are not cause for prosecution or professional discipline'] has been under sustained attack by hard-core left-wing congressional partisans such as Rep. John Conyers and Sen. Patrick Leahy. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine some of the more wild-eyed among them searching for ways to revoke the law licenses of conservative Supreme Court justices. Fortunately, this country is not Venezuela — at least not yet; we should not rest easy.
This oft-repeated notion -- that prosecuting political officials and high-levels lawyers when they commit crimes in office is the hallmark of the 'banana republics' of South and Central America -- is exactly the opposite of reality. As leading political scientists have long documented, the actual hallmark of under-developed and backward nations is the immunity which political elites enjoy from the rule of law no matter how serious their crimes (Thomas Carruthers, Foreign Affairs, 1998: 'Rule-of-law reform [in the Third World] will succeed only if it gets at the fundamental problem of leaders who refuse to be ruled by the law . . . . entrenched elites cede their traditional impunity and vested interests only under great pressure'). What makes a backward country backward is the confederation of elites insisting that investigations and prosecutions are only for the dirty people on the street corner, not for them.
As for the extent to which the U.S. is comparable to Venezuela, lets look to the Bush State Departments 2008 Human Rights report, which calls that country a 'constitutional democracy' and then notes:
Although the constitution states that no person shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment, there were credible reports that security forces continued to torture and abuse detainees. . . .PROVEA reported that in the 12 months prior to September, it received 17 complaints of torture (an increase from 11 the previous year), and 573 complaints regarding cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, a decrease from the 692 cases reported in 2007. PROVEA defines 'torture' as methods used by state security forces to extract information from victims and 'cruel and inhuman treatment' as methods used by members of state security forces in order to punish or intimidate victims. . . .
The government did not authorize independent investigation of torture complaints. Human rights groups continued to question the attorney general and the human rights ombudsman's commitment to oversee neutral investigations. There was no data available on convictions in cases of alleged torture. . . .
A warrant is required for an arrest or detention. . . . . A person accused of a crime may not be detained for longer than the possible minimum sentence for that crime nor for longer than two years, except in certain circumstances, such as when the defendant is responsible for the delay in the proceedings. Detainees were promptly informed of the charges against them. . . . Detainees were provided access to counsel and family members.
So, other than the fact that (a) the number of torture complaints in Venezuela is miniscule when compared to what the U.S. did (there were at least 100 deaths of detainees in U.S. custody alone); (b) all detainees in Venezuela were criminally charged and provided access to counsel and family, and (c) nobody has accused Venezuela of invading and bombing other countries and abducting people off the street and shipping them around the world to be tortured, what is happening in Venezuela actually sounds quite similar to what Burck, Perino and their friends did and continue to advocate and justify.
That Bush officials have to cling to the harsh condemnations of Margolis as 'vindication' reveals just how wretched and lawless their conduct was. Essentially, the current posture of the U.S. to the world is this:
Yes, we implemented a worldwide torture regime that we justified with lawyers' memoranda that were false, wrong, shoddy, lawless, sloppy and extremist, but because those lawyers were such warped radicals, they probably believed what they were saying at the time, so we're going to declare that we had the right to do what we did and are shielded from all consequences, even though we've signed treaties agreeing to prosecute anyone who authorizes torture and demanded that other nations prosecute their own torturers. Besides, we have important things to do and thus want to Look Forward, not Backward.
Doesn't that make you proud?
* * * * *
How will media stars and right-wing polemicists justify their claim that only fringe Far Leftists care about and oppose 'enhanced interrogation techniques' now that General David Petraeus has joined so many other military leaders in resoundingly rejecting the morality, legality and wisdom of those tactics?"
(Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald.)
The GOP's "small government" tea party fraud: "
Theres a major political fraud underway: the GOP is once again donning their libertarian, limited-government masks in order to re-invent itself and, more important, to co-opt the energy and passion of the Ron-Paul-faction that spawned and sustains the 'tea party' movement. The Party that spat contempt at Paul during the Bush years and was diametrically opposed to most of his platform now pretends to share his views. Standard-issue Republicans and Ron Paul libertarians are as incompatible as two factions can be -- recall that the most celebrated right-wing moment of the 2008 presidential campaign was when Rudy Giuliani all but accused Paul of being an America-hating Terrorist-lover for daring to suggest that Americas conduct might contribute to Islamic radicalism -- yet the Republicans, aided by the media, are pretending that this is one unified, harmonious, 'small government' political movement.
The Right is petrified that this fraud will be exposed and is thus bending over backwards to sustain the myth. Paul was not only invited to be a featured speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference but also won its presidential straw poll. Sarah Palin endorsed Ron Paul's son in the Kentucky Senate race. National Review is lavishly praising Paul, while Ann Coulter 'felt compelled [in her CPAC speech] to give a shout out to Paul-mania, saying she agreed with everything he stands for outside of foreign policy -- a statement met with cheers.' Glenn Beck -- who literally cheered for the Wall Street bailout and Bushs endlessly expanding surveillance state -- now parades around as though he shares the libertarians contempt for them. Red States Erick Erickson, defending the new so-called conservative 'manifesto,' touts the need for Congress to be confined to the express powers of Article I, Section 8, all while lauding a GOP Congress that supported countless intrusive laws -- from federalized restrictions on assisted suicide, marriage, gambling, abortion and drugs to intervention in Terri Schiavos end-of-life state court proceeding -- nowhere to be found in that Constitutional clause. With the GOP out of power, Fox News suddenly started featuring anti-government libertarians such as John Stossel and Reason Magazine commentators, whereas, when Bush was in power, there was no government power too expanded or limitless for Fox propagandists to praise.
This is what Republicans always do. When in power, they massively expand the power of the state in every realm. Deficit spending and the national debt skyrocket. The National Security State is bloated beyond description through wars and occupations, while no limits are tolerated on the Surveillance State. Then, when out of power, they suddenly pretend to re-discover their 'small government principles.' The very same Republicans who spent the 1990s vehemently opposing Bill Clintons Terrorism-justified attempts to expand government surveillance and executive authority then, once in power, presided over the largest expansion in history of those very same powers. The last eight years of Republican rule was characterized by nothing other than endlessly expanded government power, even as they insisted -- both before they were empowered and again now -- that they are the standard-bearers of government restraint.
What makes this deceit particularly urgent for them now is that their only hope for re-branding and re-empowerment lies in a movement -- the tea partiers -- that has been (largely though not exclusively) dominated by libertarians, Paul followers, and other assorted idiosyncratic factions who are hostile to the GOPs actual approach to governing. This is a huge wedge waiting to be exposed -- to explode -- as the modern GOP establishment and the actual 'small-government' libertarians that fuel the tea party are fundamentally incompatible. Right-wing mavens like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and National Review are suddenly feigning great respect for Ron Paul and like-minded activists because theyre eager that the sham will be maintained: the blatant sham that the modern GOP and its movement conservatives are a coherent vehicle for those who believe in small government principles. The only evidence of a passionate movement urging GOP resurgence is from people whose views are antithetical to that Party. Thats the dirty secret which right-wing polemicists are desperately trying to keep suppressed. Credit to Mike Huckabee for acknowledging this core incompatibility by saying he would not attend CPAC because of its 'increasing libertarianism.'
These fault lines began to emerge when Sarah Palin earlier this month delivered the keynote speech to the national tea party conference in Nashville, and stood there spitting out one platitude after the next which Paul-led libertarians despise: from neoconservative war-loving dogma and veneration of Israel to glorification of 'War on Terror' domestic powers and the need of the state to enforce Palins own religious and cultural values. Neocons (who still overwhelmingly dominate the GOP) and Paul-led libertarians are arch enemies, and the social conservatives on whom the GOP depends are barely viewed with greater affection. Sarah Palin and Ron Paul are about as far apart on most issues as one can get; the 'tea party movement' cant possibly be about supporting each of their worldviews. Moreover, the GOP leadership is currently promising Wall Street even more loyal subservience than Democrats have given in exchange for support, thus bolstering the government/corporate axis which libertarians find so repugnant. And Coulters manipulative claim that she 'agrees with everything [Paul] stands for outside of foreign policy' is laughable; aside from the fact that 'foreign policy' is a rather large issue in our political debates (Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia), they were on exactly the opposite sides of the most intense domestic controversies of the Bush era: torture, military commissions, habeas corpus, Guantanamo, CIA secrecy, telecom immunity, and warrantless eavesdropping.
Part of why this fraud has been sustainable thus far is that libertarians -- like everyone who doesnt view all politics through the mandated, distorting, suffocating Democrat v. GOP prism -- are typically dismissed as loons and nuts, and are thus eager for any means of achieving mainstream acceptance. Having the GOP embrace them is one way to achieve that (Karl Rove: some 'see the tea party movement as a recruiting pool for volunteers for Ron Pauls next presidential bid . . . . The Republican Party and the tea party movement have many common interests'). Additionally, just as the Paul-faction of libertarians is in basic harmony with many progressives on issues of foreign policy and civil liberties, they do subscribe to the standard GOP rhetoric on domestic spending, social programs and the like.
But that GOP limited government rhetoric is simply never matched by that Partys conduct, especially when they wield power. The very idea that a political party dominated by neocons, warmongers, surveillance fetishists, and privacy-hating social conservatives will be a party of 'limited government' is absurd on its face. There literally is no myth more transparent than the Republican Partys claim to believe in restrained government power. For that reason, its only a matter of time before the fundamental incompatibility of the 'tea party movement' and the political party cynically exploiting it is exposed."
(Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald.)
David Bromwich: Wall Street's Obama Investment: "
A remarkable passage of John Heilemann and Mark Halperin's Game Change has not drawn the attention it deserves. Near the end of the book, the authors discuss a series of conversations in September-October 2008 -- just after the demise of Lehman Brothers -- between Barack Obama and the financial counselors of the Bush administration: Bernanke, Paulson, and others. The talks were initiated by Obama. Once the contact was there, he did not let go.
Here is the relevant paragraph of Game Change (pp. 380-81):
Obama was talking regularly with Fed chair Ben Bernanke and daily, sometimes more often, with Paulson. The treasury secretary was astonished by the candidate's level of engagement. On one occasion, Obama kept his plane on the tarmac for a half hour after the final event of his day, with a long flight ahead of him, so he could finish a conversation with Paulson. On another, Obama called Paulson late at night at home and spent two hours discussing the intricate details of regulatory reform. As much as the substantiveness of the discussions struck Paulson, so did their sobriety and maturity. I'll be there publicly for you at any time, Obama told him. I'm going to be president, and I don't want to inherit a financial system that's collapsed.
Obama has been true to his word. He has been there for them publicly at any time. He has supported their story of the collapse (a story with without villains, and almost without actors) and accepted their recommendations on the proper limits of the remedy.
The phone call with Paulson on the tarmac is only an incident, of course; but it leads directly to the climax of Game Change: the bipartisan White House summit called by John McCain -- an emergency meeting on the economy, at which McCain's dismal performance marked the end of his hopes for victory in November. Heilemann and Halperin strengthen the lights and shadows by marking the contrast between McCain's apathetic demeanor and the perfect command exhibited on this occasion by Barack Obama. He had prepared, in an obvious way, by arranging with House Democrats to speak for the party -- something McCain neglected to do with Republicans. But we now know that Obama did more than perform well; he took over the meeting. It was he who eventually said (as if from the chair): 'Can I hear from Senator McCain?'
Obama's self-possession and exquisite timing -- not consistent traits of his political character -- had a traceable source. He had been schooled for anything that might come at the White House by his conversations with Bernanke, Paulson and the rest. As for President Bush, his attitude toward McCain appears to have been a mixture of bafflement and irritation. It is likely, on the evidence offered by Heilemann and Halperin, that he wanted Obama to be his successor. But that is another and perhaps a smaller story.
One explanation of the Obama-Paulson talks is suggested by Thomas Ferguson's 'investment theory of party competition.' Indeed, that theory unassisted will account for much of what we have seen in the new president's fiscal and economic policies. Big money tends to buy the winning candidate, and the buyers get what they paid for. The banks and the investment houses convincingly supported Obama over McCain, and in the process spent more money than has ever gone to a single candidate. It is only because the Republicans are covetous of taking Wall Street back from Obama that they have stayed clear of the usual target of populism, the conduct and mores of Wall Street itself.
There can be no doubt that Obama believed the story Paulson recounted to him. But he also wanted Paulson to know that he believed it: that was the meaning of the follow-up calls. How then could he have refused Paulson's probable idea -- seconded by Lawrence Summers -- of the only person qualified to succeed him as secretary of the treasury?
Once Obama had shown his nerve at that White House meeting and measured the upshot by the size of the victory in November, it was natural for him to feel gratitude toward those who had done so much and so recently to make it possible. And yet -- this is the insight afforded by Heilemann and Halperin -- long before the reasons for gratitude were apparent, the reforming candidate who spoke with such passion against inequality had bestowed on the great houses of Wall Street his implicit trust and reliance.
And how did they see him? Above all, as a less unstable character than McCain. That was the common view; and what student of human nature will deny its truth? Yet in the weeks before the election, Barack Obama took care to supply his powerful supporters with additional assurance.
The influence of money is seldom a matter of money alone. When Obama first spoke to Paulson in the depth of the crisis of 2008, something besides talk was passing between them. Such pacts, which begin in confidence, are sealed by affection. The new president in 2009, when he looked back on the averted catastrophe and asked for a second trillion to put in the pipeline, may have looked more coolly at the role the bankers played; he may even have thought as Housman did of an army of mercenaries:
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay.
But not all his thoughts are likely have been so unsentimental. The connection between a politician and the financial interests that secure him are deeper than mere utility or selfish purpose.
When Obama says of Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon, 'I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen' -- with artless pride in the fact that he moves in their circles -- we are a long way from John Kennedy during the steel crisis of 1962, after U.S. Steel announced an across-the-board price increase: 'My father always told me that all businessmen were sons-of-bitches, but I never believed it till now.' No, Barack Obama would never say such a thing because he would never think such a thing. It is not that he is in their pocket. They are in his heart."
(Via Huffington Blog.)
Who's in control in the White House?: The message, then, should be clear: If you're looking for who is "in control" of our military and police forces, don't look to the established chain of command and don't look to constitutional provisions that mandate civilian authority over the government bayonet. Look to the most reckless rogues -- it's a good bet they're the ones running the show."
(Via Salon.)
From The Associated Press, today: 'Spain said Monday it was willing to take in five inmates from the American prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, three more than it had announced last month.' Previously: 'European countries yesterday agreed to terms for taking in dozens of detainees from Guantánamo Bay.' 'President Barack Obama won agreement from Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on Monday to accept three prisoners held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.' 'Australian acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard said Friday that her government can accept some of the terror suspects held at the US military prison in Guantanamo Bay.' 'French President Nicolas Sarkozy said his country is willing to accept a Guantanamo Bay detainee after the facility is closed.' 'Britain and the US have agreed on the transfer of ex-British resident Binyam Mohamed from detention in Guantanamo Bay.' 'Latvia has agreed to accept an Uzbek citizen currently held at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay.' 'Portugal has agreed to accept two Syrian prisoners from Guantanamo Bay on humanitarian grounds.' 'Hungarian Prime Minister Gordon Bajnai says his country is prepared to take one prisoner from the United States detention camp at Guantánamo.' 'Ireland has agreed to take in two detainees from the US Guantanamo Bay prison camp.' 'Germany's Interior Minister agreed to consider accepting former inmates from Guantanamo.' 'The Slovak Foreign Ministry says the country has agreed to take in three inmates from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo .' 'Albania has agreed to host more prisoners from Guantanamo.' 'U.S. officials have persuaded the tiny Pacific island nation of Palau to accept some of the Chinese Muslims held at Guantanamo.'
By cowardly contrast, from CBS News, October 1, 2009: 'The House went on record Thursday against allowing detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba to be transferred to the United States, even to face trial or to be jailed in maximum-security prisons . . . If such a ban were to become law, the Obama administration would be hard-pressed to close the Guantanamo Bay prison by January as Obama has promised. Eighty-eight Democrats broke with Obama and House leaders on the nonbinding recommendation, an ominous sign for future votes.' And: 'other Democrats have made it plain they don't want any of Guantanamo's detainees sent to the United States to stand trial or serve prison sentences. We dont want them around, said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.' And: 'Congress flatly barred the release of any Guantanamo prisoner into the U.S. . . . and surrounded with conditions the President’s power to transfer any detainee anywhere in the world.'
* * * * *
Identically: from the AP, yesterday: 'Five Muslims were sentenced Monday to 23 to 28 years in prison in Australia for stockpiling explosive chemicals and firearms for terrorist attacks on unspecified targets . . . .The men, aged 25 to 44, were found guilty last October on charges linked to preparing a terrorist act between July 2004 and November 2005.' Previously: 'LONDON - Three British Muslims accused of helping the suicide bombers who carried out the attacks on London’s transportation system in July 2005 went on trial on Thursday.' 'The trial of 29 people accused of involvement in train bombings that killed 191 people in March 2004 has opened in the Spanish capital, Madrid.' 'DENPASAR, Indonesia (CNN) -- The first suspect charged with the October 12 Bali bombings, which killed over 200 people, has gone on trial in an Indonesian court.' 'MUMBAI: The sole surviving gunman from last years Mumbai attacks, a Pakistani national, on Monday pleaded guilty at his trial, admitting for the first time his part in the atrocity that killed 166 people.'
By cowardly contrast, from McClatchy, February 1: 'Sen. Lindsey Graham plans to introduce a bipartisan bill Tuesday to block funding for civilian trials of five alleged plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001.' And: 'The Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 detainees at the Guantánamo Bay military prison.' And: 'Holder also announced that five other detainees held at the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will be sent to military commissions.'
* * * * *
Home of the Free and Land of the Brave."
(Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald.)
Op-Ed Columnist: What’s Wrong With Us?: "Ignoring the nation’s infrastructure problems imperils public safety, diminishes our competitiveness and results in missed opportunities to create jobs."
(Via NYT > Opinion.)
Budget Lies Aren’t Helping the Deficit: "By David Sirota
For 30 years, Republicans and conservative Democrats have precluded factual debates about spending priorities for fear of antagonizing defense contractors, seniors and the wealthy."
Krugman Says Obama Is ‘Clueless’ About Outrageous Bonuses: "
There are few things, we imagine, that could elicit a heartfelt OMG (make that O.M.G., rather) from certified economics whiz and evident adult Paul Krugman, but President Barack Obama’s latest take on the egregious and profane bonuses of Wall Street executives has clearly tripped that wire in Krugman’s mind. —KA
‘The Conscience of a Liberal’ in The New York Times:
Oh. My. God.
First of all, to my knowledge, irresponsible behavior by baseball players hasn’t brought the world economy to the brink of collapse and cost millions of innocent Americans their jobs and/or houses.
And more specifically, not only has the financial industry has been bailed out with taxpayer commitments; it continues to rely on a taxpayer backstop for its stability
Robert Scheer: Wall Street Wants a Refund: "Take the mask off the Obama candidacy and there was always a deeply disturbing reality that his massive Internet-driven grass-roots contributor base concealed. Obama was the first major-party presidential candidate since Richard Nixon to base his campaign fundraising exclusively on private rather than public funds. But the appearance of all those coins flowing in from the common folk denied the harsh reality that his campaign contributions established him as the darling of Wall Street financiers -- the very folks whose interests he served so faithfully during his first year in office as he endorsed, and indeed expanded, the Bush bailout."
(Via Huffington Blog.)
Robert L. Borosage: Rogue Nation: How Does the US Deal With China?: "
China has surpassed Germany as the world's largest exporter. It is the largest holder of American Treasury bonds, nearly $800 billion. America runs its largest trade deficit by far with China. The low price flood of goods - the Wal-Mart trade - is pervasive. Now the US even runs a growing deficit in advanced technology products.
China flaunts the rules and the spirit of the 'free trade' global economic order that the US constructed and, under Bill Clinton, invited China to join, granting both permanent normal trading relations and membership in the WTO.
China is a mercantilist nation, largely copying the successful Asian model developed by the Japanese and the Asian tigers. Its communist dictators plan and guide an economy geared to develop through exports. The elements of its model are clear, evident to all who would see, and not often admitted. They include:
An artificially undervalued currency, pegged to the dollar;
An industrial policy that targets 'pillar industries,' using a broad range of subsidies and protections to capture of world markets;
A complicated maze of trade barriers that allows
Systematic pressure on foreign multinationals to invest for export in China and to transfer their most advanced production techniques to China;
Systematic efforts to pirate technology, trade secrets and copyrighted materials;
A system of forced savings that funds investment
In the global economy, China is a rogue nation - with success that breeds envy and imitation. Its system works very well for China, but not for the rest of the world, as respected commentators like Martin Wolf of the Financial Times have pointed out. Fixing Global Finance, 2008 As the IMF warned, the dramatic trade imbalances run by China as a mercantilist nation and the US as the consumer of last resort are destabilizing and unsustainable - and contributed directly to the financial bubble and bust that drove the world into the Great Recession.
This poses a central problem. What do you do when the most successful nation in a trade regime routinely and systematically violates that regime?
You can deny reality. This has been a favored response of the China lobby, arguing that China is really far more open and free market than Japan and other East Asian countries, or trumpeting preposterously that the 'World is Flat,' and there are no alternatives to the Washington consensus.
You can argue that the situation is improving. Successive administrations have claimed that the Chinese will inevitably become more democratic and more free as the economy grows, that the Chinese government has agreed to crack down on piracy, to curb its internal systems of bribes and controls, to let its currency adjust, to increase domestic demand and decrease forced savings. But after twenty years, the routine gets a bit tired. .
You can argue that the situation doesn't matter. This is the favorite trope of the US foreign policy elite.(See most recently, Fareed Zakaria) China and the US have a symbiotic relationship, we're told. They have to keep the dollar strong and cover our deficits. So we benefit by buying more than we produce and getting a flood of cheap products; they benefit by producing more than they buy.
But this too is hard to swallow after twenty years. The imbalances contributed directly to the financial casino that Wall Street opened -- while US workers saw their jobs shipped abroad, their wages fall, and their prospects dim.
The Obama administration, not surprisingly, has tip-toed around this question. Obama led the drive to get the G-20, including China, to set up a process to monitor - and highlight -- excessive trade imbalances. Unlike Bush, Obama accepted the decision of the US Trade Commission in cases concerning Chinese dumping or flooding of our markets. But as under Bush, the Obama Treasury Department ducked calling things by their real name, refusing to certify that China was doing what everyone understands it is doing - manipulating its currency to keep it undervalued.
Now, as the world starts to turn its attention to recovery - however prematurely - the question remains. How will the US handle a rogue nation with policies that are destabilizing for the globe, and ruinous for the American middle class?
At the end of the day, the US will have to have an aggressive trade policy to challenge Chinese mercantilism and a smart industrial policy to revive advanced US manufacturing. We know how to do it - to target a key industry with public supported R and D, smart procurement, planning to build supply chains, subsidies for investment here.
The president rightly says that capturing a lead in the new green industrial revolution is a matter of our nation's basic economic security. Well, consider the way we deal with national security when it comes to the military. There's no parading about free trade. No conservative blather about small government, or getting government out of the way. Here's how the Pentagon's recently published 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review described the Pentagon's industrial policy:
America's security and prosperity are increasing linked with the health of our technology and industrial bases. In order to maintain our strategic advantage well into the future, the Department requires a consistent, realistic, and long-term strategy for shaping the structure and capabilities of the defense technology and industrial bases--a strategy that better accounts for the rapid evolution of commercial technology, as well as the unique requirements of ongoing conflicts.
That strategy includes export controls, procurement policy, and 'a strategic approach to climate and energy.'
China has made new energy a 'pillar industry.' It has deployed the entire range of its mercantilist strategies to make itself the leading manufacturing of solar panels.
If capturing a leading edge of these industries is vital to our nation's economic security, then shouldn't we get serious about an industrial policy that goes far beyond the Pentagon?"
(Via Huffington Blog.)
Wall Street owners angry with their purchase: "
Political science professors could require students to read this article from today's New York Times and little else would be needed to convey the essence of the American political system. The article describes how Wall Street -- which poured massive amounts of money into the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party over the last several years, ensuring unparalleled access and influence -- is now threatening to support the Republicans if Obama keeps saying mean things about them. Wall Street executives are angry that, after duly purchasing the Democrats (they have receipts and everything), the Obama White House is now rousing the dirty rabble with their anti-banker rhetoric:
Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s 'buyer’s remorse' with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street 'fat cats,' they may fight back by withholding their cash.
'If the president doesn’t become a little more balanced and centrist in his approach, then he will likely lose that support,' said Kelly S. King, the chairman and chief executive of BB&T. Mr. King is a board member of the Financial Services Roundtable, which lobbies for the biggest banks, and last month he helped represent the industry at a private dinner at the Treasury Department.
'I understand the public outcry,' he continued. 'We have a 17 percent real unemployment rate, people are hurting, and they want to see punishment. But the political rhetoric just incites more animosity and gets people riled up' . . . 'If the president wanted to turn every Democrat on Wall Street into a Republican,' one industry lobbyist said, 'he is doing everything right.'
There are numerous points to note about all of this. First, there simply is no more odious faction inside the U.S. than Wall Street bankers -- and thats saying quite a bit. Just over a year ago, they almost caused a complete global economic collapse -- and did cause extreme economic suffering around the world which continues to this day -- with their sleazy, piggish and lawless behavior. Yet barely a year later, they now turn around and threaten their purchased politicians with punishment if their behavior is meaningfully restricted or even if theyre publicly criticized. In light of what they did -- and are still doing -- they should consider themselves lucky that the public hasnt stormed their homes and offices in mass rage. Far less pernicious behavior has triggered such uprisings in the past, and if the American public hadnt been as ingrained with the passivity and learned helplessness theyve been trained to accept, one would certainly have seen some of that. In a rational, democratically engaged society, multi-million dollar taxpayer-enabled banker bonuses, combined with mass unemployment and home foreclosures (combined with establishment threats to reduce Social Security and Medicare), is not the ideal means for maintaining social order.
Second, stories like this ought to put to rest forever the notion that the Republican Party is some sort of haven for populist anger. As subservient as the Democrats have been to Wall Street -- note that, more than a year later, Wall Street can only complain about 'rhetoric,' not any actual legislation that has been passed -- the Republicans are out there promising Wall Street to be even more loyal servants if theyre given the dog treats that have recently been going to the Democrats:
Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he visited New York about twice a month to try to tap into Wall Street’s 'buyers’ remorse.' 'I just don’t know how long you can expect people to contribute money to a political party whose main plank of their platform is to punish you,' Mr. Cornyn said.
So the GOP is out there successfully pretending in front of the angry tea partiers that they, too, are furious about Wall Streets gorging and domination of Washington, all while simultaneously crawling to Wall Street and pledging to be good little boys and girls -- and to keep the agitated masses at bay -- if Wall Street once again purchases them rather than the Democrats. The only thing more absurd than the Democrats pretending to be the Populist Party of the People is the Republican Partys doing so.
Third, that Wall Street is dissatisfied with the Democrats and the Obama administration reveals how extreme are their expectations of control of the Government. The second-highest-ranking Democratic Senator, Dick Durbin, recently conceded of the Democratic-controlled Congress: 'frankly, bankers own the place.' Its impossible to find a more loyal and attentive servant to bankers than Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. As the NYT article this morning details, Wall Street executives and their lobbyists have virtually unfettered access to the administration and to the President himself. You would think theyd be satisfied with the state of affairs in Washington. Yet so extreme are their perceive entitlements of control that even mere symbolic and rhetorical disobedience from the politicians they own -- he said some mean things about us -- creates a sense of righteous grievance: our government employees do not behave this way toward us and will be punished if it continues.
Finally, marvel at the cowardice, as well as the journalistic shoddiness, evident in these anonymity-based passages:
The expectation in Washington is that 'We can kick you around, and you are still going to give us money,' said a top official at a major Wall Street firm, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House. 'We are not going to play that game anymore.' . . .
'If the president wanted to turn every Democrat on Wall Street into a Republican,' one industry lobbyist said, 'he is doing everything right.'
In essence, Wall Street executives said to David Kirkpatrick, the NYT reporter who wrote this story: 'I want to threaten and criticize the President, but Im too much of a coward to do so with my name attached, so will you let me do it in your paper anonymously'? And Kirkpatrick replied: 'Oh, absolutely; thats what anonymity is for: to let the countrys most powerful people spew venom and issue threats while being shielded and protected by journalists from accountability.' Perhaps one of those nameless executives might have inquired of Kirkpatrick: 'but didnt your newspaper publish very stringent guidelines limiting the use of anonymity in the wake of the Iraq debacle?', to which Kirkpatrick could easily and truthfully have replied: 'oh, those? Please. Nobody worries about that, least of all us. Thats just there to placate the same angry rabble whom youre now ordering your political property to more efficiently pacify.'
"
(Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald.)
What exactly did Bush and Cheney do wrong?: "
(updated below)
As I noted several days ago, it is not only Republicans -- but Democratic and media establishment figures as well -- who clearly crave the preservation of the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism and civil liberties. When Bushs popularity collapsed to historic lows, political and media elites pretended for awhile to object to his administrations fear-based and radical policies as extremist and an assault on 'our values.' But that was all just such a transparent pretense. In those few instances where Obama has rejected the Bush/Cheney template, the outrage and hysteria from Democratic and media voices is pervasive, and is growing louder.
Just look at these illustrative incidents. Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell went on Fred Thompsons radio show yesterday to demand that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be put before a military commission -- at Guantanamo. Over the weekend, Times Joe Klein lambasted the Obama DOJ, and embraced Bushs former CIA and NSA Chief Michael Hayden, by objecting to the criminal charges and Constitutional rights afforded the accused Christmas Day bomber, with Klein decreeing: 'the bomber is an enemy combatant. He doesnt have Miranda rights.' MSNBC personalities Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie chatted yesterday with their boss, MSNBC Washington Bureau Chief Mark Whitaker, all agreeing that the decision to grant civilian trials for 'Terrorists' is 'a pure, self-inflicted wound.' When Najibullah Zazi was arrested for allegedly plotting a serious Terrorist attack, The New Republic's Michael Crowley said he was so frightened by this that he was open to torturing Zazi. Democratic Senators are threatening to join the GOP in cutting off funds for civilian trials. Democratic members of Congress joined with the GOP to prevent even modest reforms of the Patriot Act and other surveillance abuses. City officials compete with one another over who can be the most frightened and terrorized by Terrorists.
And The Washington Posts Richard Cohen -- who was so frightened by Terrorism that he wrote multiple screeds screeching that we must have vengeance on Saddam -- devotes his entire column today to criticizing Obama for putting us In Grave Danger by rejecting a handful of Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies (headlined: 'Obama administration is tone-deaf to concerns about terrorism'):
There is almost nothing the Obama administration does regarding terrorism that makes me feel safer. Whether it is guaranteeing captured terrorists that they will not be waterboarded, reciting terrorists their rights, or the legally meandering and confusing rule that some terrorists will be tried in military tribunals and some in civilian courts, what is missing is a firm recognition that what comes first is not the message sent to Americas critics but the message sent to Americans themselves. When, oh when, will this administration wake up? . . .
No doubt George Bush soiled Americas image abroad with what looked liked vigilante justice and Dick Cheneys hearty endorsement of ugly interrogation measures. But more is at stake here than Americas image abroad -- namely the security and peace of mind of Americans in America. . . . The Obama administration, on the other hand, seems to have bent over backward to prove to the world it is not the Bush administration and will, almost no matter what, ensure that everyone gets the benefit of American civil liberties. But the paramount civil liberty is a sense of security and this, sad to say, has eroded under Barack Obama.
Leave aside that Bush -- like Obama -- also tried some accused Terrorists in civilian trials and some before military commissions. Leave aside that the second-term Bush -- like Obama -- withdrew authorization for waterboarding. Leave aside the factually inaccurate claim that Obama is 'ensuring that everyone gets the benefit of American civil liberties' when he is, in fact, detaining many people without any charges at all and putting many others before military commissions.
Beyond all those factual errors, look at what Cohen is saying: Bush 'soiled Americas image,' but what he did was right, just and necessary, and Obama should follow that -- which is essentially what many Democratic Party and media elites are saying as well. Seriously: if you were a Bush follower, wouldnt you feel as though you were owed a major apology for all the accusations and the fuss that came from Democrats and media figures, accusing you of supporting radical and Constitution-shredding policies when, it turns out, they actually crave those policies in order to feel safe? Doesnt all of this bolster the Republican claim that those attacks on the Bush administration for civil liberties abuses were not due to genuine conviction, but rather for partisan gain (in the case of Democratic officials) and cheap, preening, wet-finger-in-the-air moralizing (in the case of media stars)?
Consider the example of military commissions. When the Bush administration unveiled those, the reaction from Democrats, progressives and media outlets was overwhelmingly and intensely negative, on the ground that military commissions (no matter what rules they followed) were appropriate only for 'battlefield justice,' when there was no other alternative. The consensus was that our normal system of justice -- developed over two hundred years -- was the only just and proper venue to try accused Terrorists, had been proven effective, and beyond that, the perception that we were inventing new and inferior tribunals of justice for Muslims would fuel Terrorism and make us more unsafe. What happened to all of that? Was there a single Democrat or progressive defending military commissions when Bush and Cheney unveiled them as their preferred method for trying Terrorists? Now, suddenly, Terrorists belong in military commissions -- at GITMO? So the defining creations of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld approach are now the centerpieces of the Democratic and media consensus.
All of these attacks on the Obama administration really leave one wondering: what is it exactly that Bush and Cheney did wrong? Was it just the waterboarding (the official authorization for which was withdrawn several years before Bush left office and which, in any event, people like Richard Cohen and Michael Crowley still crave)? Everything else other than the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' was good? What happened to all the profound talk about how they ruined our image in the world and violated our 'core principles' and how we can simultaneously Stay Safe and adhere to our values -- which happened to be a central theme of Obamas successful presidential campaign? How can Democrats and media stars claim to find Bush and Cheney so distasteful as they simultaneously attack Obama for reversing their defining policies in a few isolated instances? In the areas of civil liberties and Terrorism, what exactly did Bush and Cheney do wrong?
UPDATE: Noting this insightful Adam Serwer post -- which equates the willingness of many Democrats and Republicans to scream political epithets they don't really mean (Obama is a foreign, Terrorist-loving socialist; Bush is a Constitution-shredding fascist) -- Atrios writes:
Just adding to the post below, at some point it became clear that the consensus of official Washington, including many Democrats, the scribblers at Kaplan Test Prep Daily, the Great Minds at Very Serious Think Tanks, and guests at Sally Quinn's table dancing parties, is that torture is awesome, the rule of law only applies to Al Gore, Bill Clinton's penis, and all people who don't have important DC jobs, and all it takes to nullify the constitution is to call someone a terraist. I don't know how to change this, and electing the Hopey Changey guy didn't help much. I think they're playing Calvinbill a bit more fairly, but they're still playing it."
(Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald.)
How to Get Our Democracy Back: "Lawrence Lessig: If we want change, we have to change Congress."
(Via The Nation: Top Stories.)
