The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Barack Obama Page 6 of 13

Politico notices Hispanics Leaving Democrats

This is something I’ve been on about for a while, because the Hispanic activists I know are almost all absolutely livid about Democrats in general and Obama in specific.  The reason isn’t just that comprehensive immigration reform appears dead in the water, it’s that Obama not only continued Bush’s brutal “enforcement only” policy, which breaks up families but has actually ramped it up.

To put it simply, Hispanics are the future of America.  Their population numbers are growing, fast, and Democrats need to sew them up.  And their identification with Democrats is dropping, because Democrats are attacking them.  It is quite common for citizen Hispanics to know undocumented immigrants; for those immigrants to be their friends or even family.  And the outright prejudice that simmers behind anti-immigrant fervor is something they experience in their daily lives.  Seeing Obama and Congressional Democrats pandering to that prejudice—spending more money and sending more men to the border and for raids, is not endearing Democrats to them.

They feel, in a word, betrayed.  And as Politico notes, the Hispanic media has turned on Democrats as a result.

I don’t know why Democrats feel that kicking their own base: women, gays, Hispanics and such, is good politics.  It hasn’t helped them with independents or Republicans, all it has done is demoralize the base in a base election year.

“We’re slightly less bad than the other guys” isn’t much of a slogan.  And in some cases (abortion, immigration), it’s not even clear that it’s actually true.  Democrats added new restrictions on abortion, and have ramped up anti-immigrant enforcement.

Promises are all very nice, but as with the Employee Free Choice Act, DOMA, DADT, and civil liberties, Obama’s rhetoric on Hispanic issues has been opposed to his actions.

Geithner and the White House’s Panglossian Never-Never Land

Amazing:

Geithner endeared himself to Obama and senior White House advisers by advocating a response to the financial crisis that later proved correct.

Seriously, the White House lives in some alternate dimension, some reality known only to the initiates of their esoteric cult, a world where the banks aren’t still lending less, aren’t hurting the recovery by gouging customers, where small banks aren’t still going belly up at a frantic rate, where foreclosures aren’t hitting new highs and where unemployment isn’t still through the roof.

Must be nice to live in the White House’s Panglossian alternate dimension.

Blaming the blogosphere for Democratic Failures

So.  In response to a Politico piece in which the authors and White House whine about the left wing blogosphere not being happy with all of Obama’s “wins” and not caring about potential losses in 2010, Kevin Drum writes:

Here’s the good news: this record of progressive accomplishment officially makes Obama the most successful domestic Democratic president of the last 40 years. And here’s the bad news: this shoddy collection of centrist, watered down, corporatist sellout legislation was all it took to make Obama the most successful domestic Democratic president of the last 40 years. Take your pick.

Here’s the thing.  What matters is whether policy works.  It does not matter if what Obama did was more left wing than anything that’s been done in a while (though in absolute terms I would argue it mostly wasn’t left wing, the health care plan, for example, was essentially a Republican plan from the 90s), what matters is if it was left wing enough (big enough stimulus, smart enough health care plan) to improve people’s lives enough that they noticed.

It wasn’t, and that’s all that matters. Policies such as the stimulus were not done well enough, and everyone from Nobel prize winners with good predictive records like Stiglitz and and Krugman, down to nobodies like me, predicted it at the time.  The President hired the wrong people to give him advice, didn’t even do as much as many of them wanted, and now we all pay the price.

Sometimes half doesn’t work.  Half-assed rarely does.  All Obama’s half assed “left wing” policies have done is discredit the left for another generation.  Combined with the ability of the media, Republicans and hysterical Tea Baggers unable to use a dictionary to define him as a “socialist” this means that Obama’s policies are seen as left wing, and left wing policies are seen to have failed.

I don’t want Obama doing anything I agree with, because he will screw it up and discredit it.  In this respect he is like Bush.  He is poison because he is incompetent at policy.

As for the original Politico post, the hysterical ranting at the peanut gallery the authors clearly don’t even read, says more about them and the White House than it does about the left wing blogosphere they try to blame for Democrats own failures.

Your Liberal Media

So, I’m at the gym, which is the only place I watch TV, and as I’m walking out, I see on CNN, a big headline

Obama, Hitler and Stalin

I have no idea what the hell they were talking about and I didn’t stick around to find out, but as anyone with any sense or media training knows, if you stick those three names together people will start to associate the three no matter what you say.

I suspect it was probably some right wing idiot saying “Obama is just like Hitler and Stalin” and CNN deciding “hey, let’s discuss that.”

Are CNNs producers stupid, or evil?  No wonder Americans believe so many lies.  They are fed propaganda every day.

How’s that Mid Term Looking ?

Some fairly depressing news for Dems (via Digby):

Hart and McInturff then looked at the change among the most-interested voters from the same survey in 2008. Although 2010 is a “down-shifting” election, from a high-turnout presidential year to a lower-turnout midterm year, one group was more interested in November than it was in 2008: those who had voted for Republican John McCain for president. And the groups that showed the largest decline in interest? Those who voted for Barack Obama — liberals, African-Americans, self-described Democrats, moderates, those living in either the Northeast or West, and younger voters 18 to 34 years of age. These are the “Holy Mackerel” numbers…

And yes, I fucking told everyone so. (Notice that that post was left to die, because back then serious people knew that the Republicans were dead for a generation so it wasn’t worthy of front page space.)

Why are people so stupid?

During a base election year the smart thing to do is to demotivate the base.  Really. Honest.

Assuming, of course, your main goal is to restore the rich’s wealth, push corporate profits to record highs and to continue war as usual.  And you really don’t care that much what happens in elections, because you personally will be taken care of by the wealthy whose interests you served.

So maybe it’s not Obama and Dems who are stupid.

Actually Afghanistan is a war of choice

Michael Steele’s comments on Afghanistan remind me of my favorite definition of a gaffe: “saying the truth in the worst way possible.”

To whit, Steele said that Afghanistan is a war of Obama’s choosing, and that everyone who’s occupied Afghanistan has come to grief over it.  Now one can quibble a bit over the details of who came to grief and who didn’t, but basically he’s right.  Afghanistan went badly for the Russians and the British, most recently.  There’s a reason Afghanistan is called the “graveyard of Empires” and if the US isn’t careful it’ll be the graveyard of the US empire.

Likewise, yes, this is a war of choice for Obama.  He could have done his review, said “hey, there are almost no al-Q’aeda fighters in Afghanistan anymore, so we won, let’s go home.”  He could have said “fighting in Afghanistan is seriously destabilizing Pakistan, which is far more important than Afghanistan, so let’s go home.”  He could have said “yes, if we leave, some al-Q’aeda camps might spring up but we can always bomb them and anyway there are plenty of failed states where al-Q’aeda can set up camps and we can’t occupy all of them.”

The point is that continuing in Afghanistan was a choice.  Obama could have chosen otherwise.  Not being in Afghanistan will not create an existential threat to the US.

So yeah, Steele was right.  Of course, being the RNC chairman, Steele isn’t allowed to say things that make sense and contradict Republican warmongering.

Now here’s a truth that Steele didn’t tell.  Obama has to stay in Afghanistan because war spending is one of the only reliable forms of stimulus he has.  The economy is in bad shape, and it needs that stimulus.  Since he can’t get a new large stimulus through Congress that means he MUST keep the Afghan war going if he doesn’t want an economic disaster, which would then lead to an electoral disaster.

This is the sad truth of America: the only acceptable form of Keynesian spending is military Keynesianism. Instead of hiring tens of thousands of teachers, building a high speed rail network across the country, refitting every building to be energy efficient and doing a massive solar and wind build-out to reduce dependence on oil, well, the US would rather turn Afghans and Pakistanis into a fine red mist.

That fine red mist is what’s keeping the American economy from going under entirely.  And so, even if it’s the wrong thing to do, even if it’s the graveyard of America’s Empire, the war will continue.

How bailing out the rich created the Depression

The other day, Krugman wrote that we’re in the beginning of a new Long Depression.

Forgive me, but he’s wrong: this isn’t the beginning, it’s been going on for about two years now.

During a Depression there are periods where GDP grows.  There are periods where jobs grow.  It’s just that the periods of job growth don’t last.

There were opportunities to end the Depression before it really dug in its heels.  The last one was at the beginning of Obama’s term.  Kicking out of the Depression required two things.

The first was an adequate stimulus. This didn’t just mean a large enough stimulus, though the one offered was not large enough, it meant one properly constructed.  Tax cuts for ordinary Americans are not stimulative, because folks like banks who have pricing power (you must have a credit card, loans, etc…) will simply take that money away by raising rates and fees.  And it doesn’t mean short term shovel-projects, it means making commitments which will last for years so that businesses, when making plans know that hiring is worth it because those employees will be needed for more than a year or so.

Likewise the US has some serious problems with the structure of the American economy.  The cornerstone of the stimulus had to be reducing US dependence on oil because as long as the US economy is so dependent on oil, full fledged growth is simply not possible.  The days of $20/barrel oil aren’t coming back, and every time the price of oil gets too high, it puts great pressure on the US economy (and every other modern nation.)

The second thing which had to be done is to force the banks to actually eat their losses.  Wipe out the shareholders and let the bondholders take their losses.  All the money plunged into the banks (and it was much more than the TARP money, which was the smallest part of it) was wasted.  Banks are not lending, and restoring lending is what the bailouts were sold as doing.  Moreover they have raised borrowing rates and fees on those who need credit most, soaking up money which otherwise would be helping the economy rather than simply being sopped up to plug holes in bank balance sheets.

The trillions of dollars spent attempting to bail out the banks weren’t just wasted, by keeping zombie banks alive they made the situation worse.  Further by not wiping out the wealth of banks and those rich folks who made foolish investments which wrecked the world economy, they created a political problem: to whit, as Durbin said—the banks still own Congress.  (Along with the military industrial complex, pharma and various other monied interests).  Because monied interests still own Congress, they have made it impossible to fix America’s structural problems.

Six percent of GDP could have been saved by doing health care reform properly, but that didn’t happen.  The current “financial reform” bill under consideration is so week that I don’t know of one credible outside analyst who thinks it is sufficient to make sure there isn’t another financial crash, and on and on.

Historically speaking periods of high concentration of wealth only end when the rich lose it in a huge crash.  They are never ended by, say, high marginal taxation—high marginal taxation only occurs after the losses have occurred as those who saw the run-up do their best to make sure it can’t happen again.

That lasts until the generations who saw the mania and crash start dying off and losing power.  So you start seeing really serious decreases in marginal tax rates and slashing of financial regulations when the generations who lived through not just the Great Depression but the Roaring twenties were no longer around.

The cliche that a crisis is an opportunity is, sadly, true.  But it is only an opportunity if you take it.  What politicians, and this includes Obama and Geithner, as well as Bush, Paulson and Bernanke, did, was they protected the rich from their own folly, and made  ordinary people pay for it.  The wealth of the rich has mostly recovered, corporate profits have recovered, but for ordinary people the economy still sucks and there is no reason to believe it isn’t about to start sucking even more.

The financial elites think that what they can do is create an economy with a permanently high unemployment rate and that Americans (and Europeans, for that matter) will put up with it, because what choice do they have?

We are going to have another kick at this can, because the legislation being put in place is not sufficient to prevent another financial crisis.  This is a Depression, and it is not going to go away.

Next time I hope we will consider doing the right thing.  Make those who crash the system take their losses and break the power of the rich over government.

Be very clear, it’s you, or it’s them.  You break their power, or they will continue to push your wages towards parity with China.

And they are very determined it’s not going to be them.

Are you determined it’s not going to be you?

Helping “Terrorists” Engage In Anything Non-Terroristic Can Get You Locked up for 15 Years

You can’t make up bad decisions like this.  Note that this is a 6-3 decision, not a close one:

The law barring material support was first adopted in 1996 and strengthened by the USA Patriot Act adopted by Congress right after the September 11 attacks. It was amended again in 2004.

The law bars knowingly providing any service, training, expert advice or assistance to any foreign organization designated by the U.S. State Department as terrorist.

The law, which carries a penalty of up to 15 years in prison, does not require any proof the defendant intended to further any act of terrorism or violence by the foreign group.

Nor does it require any proof that the organization is a terrorist organization, since a State Department declaration is an administrative act.

The Humanitarian Law Project in Los Angeles had previously provided human rights advocacy training to the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the PKK, and the main Kurdish political party in Turkey.

The Humanitarian Law group and others sued in an effort to renew support for what they described as lawful, nonviolent activities overseas.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists,” said Georgetown University law professor David Cole, who argued the case.

“In the name of fighting terrorism, the court has said that the First Amendment permits Congress to make it a crime to work for peace and human rights. That is wrong,” Cole said.

Got that?  Trying to help an organization do non violent things will get you locked up.

More to the point, as noted earlier, this is clearly a violation of the right of association and the right for free speech.  You get locked up based on who you associate with, not what you’ve actually done, and the decision who you can associate with is a purely administrative act at the sole discretion of the President of the United States.  Any organization the State Department declares a terrorist organization you cannot associate with, period.

This is of a piece with other policies which allow the President to assassinate an American citizen without a trial, to lock people up indefinitely without a trial and so on.  When they President does deign to allow a trial evidence obtained from torture is admissable, and the if the President doesn’t want the accused to know who their accuser is or to see the evidence against them, so be it.

This is, I should emphasize, just a continuation of a trend, a punctuation mark by the Supreme Court in a long line of decisions which have gutted the first amendment, the right to face one’s accuser, the right to due process and so on.  If I were to point to a very bad law that many folks supported who shouldn’t have it would be the RICO statutes, which likewise made simple association a crime.  Since it was “bad people” doing the association (the Mafia) folks didn’t care.

Since it’s bad people, “terrorists”, this time, too many people won’t care.

But if the rights of those you despise aren’t protected, than neither are yours.

Page 6 of 13

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén