PBR Street Gang

Putting a Stake in the Bond-Bubble Brouhaha

2010-08-19T10:53:00.000-07:00

At long last, we're starting to get notable push-back on all of this bond-bubble foolishness.

First, Felix Salmon last night made the quite simple, but cogent, point that low yields are justified by the fundamentals, unlike, say the P/E ratio on Pets.com in 1999:

"Treasury yields are indeed low right now, but that’s largely because the economy is weak."

What a concept!

Then, Richard Barley's Heard on the Street column in today's WSJ drives home the most important point of all in this discussion for investors:

"Suffering a manageable loss on holdings of Treasurys if the recovery continues and yields rise may be preferable to sustaining a large loss on stocks or other risky securities if the Fed fails."

Quite right. There may not be much more upside to bonds, but the downside risk is manageable and far preferable to the risk on the other side.

And we caught a glimpse of that downside today, with a surge in jobless claims to 500k -- in the payroll-survey week, raising the possibility of a negative payroll print in August -- and the drop in Philly Fed's factory index back into negative territory.

This is double-dip stuff here, and the 10-year is right to be at 2.575%.

Updated:

And later today Rosie just straight-up turned a firehose of fact on the bubble-spotting tomfoolery of Jeremy Siegel and Jeremy Schwartz:

The case against the bond market that was made was pretty weak, which goes to show that just because you have the pedigree of being a professor from Wharton doesn’t necessarily mean your call on the Treasury market will prove to be any more prescient than your call on “Stocks for the Long Run.”

Ice cold!

James Ledbetter is a Fucking Moron

2010-08-18T14:46:00.000-07:00

There's not much on the business-news Internet more useless than Slate's Big Money site, where financial writers who couldn't hack it at SmartMoney or Bloomberg sweat desperately to run financial-news stories of the day through Slate's knee-jerk contrarian wringer, to the benefit of no one. (Updated to add: Actually, Big Money seems to be mercifully defunct. The article complained about herein was posted with the "Moneybox" brand.)

Today's example (heck, pretty much every day's example) is James Ledbetter, who today trudges to his keyboard to peck about how he is oh-so-exhausted of this tiresome worry that the U.S. is somehow turning into Japan.

Now, it is perfectly legitimate to argue that the U.S. is not turning into Japan. I'm not even sure I believe it myself. Ledbetter does list some of the legitimate reasons why the U.S. might not be Japan, in the less-edgy lower half of this story.

But as is so often the case with Slate articles, the top of the story and the kicker -- the icing on the bullshit cupcake, as it were -- undermine the entire piece's credibility by toiling to erect a large, shaky strawman that can be heroically chopped down.

In this case, the straw man is the idea, which exists not in reality but in the deadline-harried brain of James Ledbetter, that the very question of whether we're turning into Japan is purely a matter of political slant, and more specifically your ideology vis a vis fiscal stimulus:

Thus, the fear-Japan crowd splits into two basic camps: There are those who point to the Japanese experience to argue that stimulus by definition does not work—or is not worth the level of government debt that it creates. (This camp includes the Reason Foundation and just about any opinion published in the Wall Street Journal.) And there are those who think that we need to fear the Japanese scenario because Japan's stimulus was too little, too late. (Paul Krugman leads this camp.) It's almost comical to have advocates of two completely opposed financial strategies pointing to the same fearful scenario and saying, "We'd better not let that happen!"

Yes, I guess that would be almost comical, if it were based in reality.

The truth is that reasonable people, by which I mean pretty much everybody in the economic mainstream, agree that fiscal stimulus was useful, that the stimulus enacted last year may not have been large enough to create sufficient demand in the economy to avoid a weak recovery, that a second stimulus package will almost certainly be necessary as a result, and that if one is not forthcoming, then the deflationary deleveraging process currently gripping the economy will raise the risk of a Japan-like outcome.

There are lots of other things wrong with his analysis, including:

* His argument that the size of the preceding bubble has anything to do with the depth of the subsequent pain, which completely misses the point; it's not the size of the bubble that matters, but the size of the debt, and that is mountainous.

* His argument that four quarters of economic growth in the U.S. mean deflation can be avoided, which certainly does not preclude deflation; it didn't in Japan's case.

* His argument that the general tidiness of non-financial corporate balance sheets means we can avoid deleveraging ignores the messy balance sheets of everybody else (including the banking sector, which he rightly notes as a potential trouble spot at the end of the article, cutting off this leg of his argument).

But his main point, that the turning-Japanese debate is basically about political ideology, is completely pulled from his ass.

Thomas Hoenig, Menace II the Economy

2010-08-13T17:22:00.000-07:00

How does someone this stupid get to be a Fed President?

Hoenig tells the Times:

I advocate dropping the ‘extended period’ language from the F.O.M.C.’s statement and removing its guarantee of low rates. This tells the market that it must again accept risks and lend if it wishes to earn a return.

Has he not noticed? The market is accepting risks, lending like crazy to good credits that want credit. Rates everywhere are at rock-bottom because there's so much demand to lend.

But that's just about the only good thing going on in the economy now. And there is far more demand to lend than there is to borrow, which is another reason rates are at rock-bottom and the main reason why Fed policy is not going to cause inflation. Push market rates higher by removing the "extended period" language, and even this small amount of lending slows down.

Asshat Trick

2010-08-09T13:22:00.000-07:00

I've been watching Bloomberg TV lately just to avoid the asshats on CNBC. No such luck. Just now, Bloomberg's esteemed panel included Jeremy Siegel, who believes it is always a great time to buy as many stocks as possible; Brian Wesbury, who perpetually sees an economic boom to which nobody else is privy; and Allen Sinai, who was explaining that the corporate tax rate is too high and needs to come down. What, Don Luskin was unavailable? You'll get more useful financial information by going down to the Greyhound bus station and engaging drifters in conversation. The smell would be more tolerable, too.

Park Slope, Crown Jewel of Brooklyn

2007-10-08T09:22:00.001-07:00

I'm working at home today and just watched some scumbag drop his trousers and take a piss right on the sidewalk across the street. He did have the decency to try to hide behind his (apparently purposeless) wheelchair while doing so, but still. For this I pay $2400 a fucking month (and that's below market value)?

Update: My wife reminds me that, just this weekend, there were opened condom wrappers on our stoop. It appeared somebody had just blown the condoms up as balloons and popped them, rather than using them for their intended purpose, but that' still not a great thing to see on the front stoop of your $2400-a-month apartment.

We Hate Our Freedom

2006-01-23T15:28:00.000-08:00

One of President Bush's favorite assertions has long been that the terrorists hate Americans for our freedom. "They hate our freedoms," he said in his famous post-Sept. 11 speech.

Well, apparently, we hate our freedoms, too.

In the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken Jan. 6-8, in answer to the question, "Do you think the Bush Administration has gone too far, has been about right, or has not gone far enough in restricting people's civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?" 40% said "about right," while 19% said "not far enough."

In that same poll, 50% said the NSA's warrantless wiretapping was OK, vs. 46% who said it wasn't.

In the latest Washington Post/ABC News Poll, taken Jan. 5-8, in response to the question,
"What do you think is more important right now -- for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy; or for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats?" 65% said "investigate," vs. just 32% who said "not intrude on privacy."

In that same poll, 64% said the government was intruding on privacy, and 49% said privacy intrusions were justified, vs. 46% who said it was not justified.

In that same poll, 51% said the NSA's warrantless wiretapping was OK, vs. 47% who said it wasn't.

In the latest CBS News poll, taken Jan. 5-8, respondents showed much more concern about violations of civil liberties. But 49% said the NSA's warrantless wiretapping was OK, vs. 48% who said it wasn't, and 49% said there should be no Congressional hearings about it, vs. 46% who said there should.

In the latest Pew Research Poll, taken Jan. 4-8, in response to the question, "What concerns you more about the government's anti-terrorism policies -- that they have not gone far enough to adequately protect the country, OR, that they have gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties?" 46% said "not far enough," vs. 33% who said "too far."

In that same poll, 49% said the NSA's warrantless wiretapping was OK, vs. 48% who said it wasn't.

All of these results, and more, can be found at pollingreport.com.

We get the leaders we deserve.

Back!

2005-06-19T00:03:00.000-07:00

Doug Benson's "I Love the Movies" at BobandDavid.com is back!

Some of his insightful comments on this summer's gutbuster hits:

MADAGASCAR – If I wanted to spend two hours with talking animals, I’d visit my family.

STAR WARS: REVENGE OF THE SITH - I wasn’t bored for a minute. I was bored for 142 minutes!

MONSTER-IN-LAW – Makes me wish I could murder a movie.

THE INTERPRETER – Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman, together for the first waste of time!

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY – I can’t wait to check it out three months from now on a plane!

And check out his generous archives. Some of my favorites:

THE PACIFIER – High-octane fun! If you sniff a gas rag first. (Gas rag not included.)

CONSTANTINE – It’s like THE MATRIX: PART FOUR. No, and thank you!

SIDEWAYS – Paul Giamatti puts the "whine" and the "cunt" in wine country.

NATIONAL TREASURE - If you like comedy, romance and kick-ass action…you should see something else.

SHE HATE ME – She not alone.

DE-LOVELY – De-lousy.

I, ROBOT – I, don’t think so.

SHREK 2 – The ads say, “If you haven’t seen it twice, you haven’t seen it at all!” Since I will never see it at all, it’s like I’ve seen it once!

RAISING HELEN - Perfect for an air-conditioned nap!

ALONG CAME POLLY – I laughed a lot more the first time, when it was called SOPHIE’S CHOICE.

GOTHIKA - The plot twists fly at you faster than you can say, "Where is the exit? Under that green sign that says ‘EXIT’? Great!"

TIMELINE – When you come out of this movie, you’ll feel like you’ve traveled two hours into the future!

Tom DeLay vs. a Sack of Shit

2005-04-11T21:03:00.000-07:00

Hey everybody, it's time for a PBR Street Gang Selebrity (sic) Smackdown!

For our first pair of battling celebrities, we're pitting House Majority Leader Tom DeLay versus a Sack of Shit!

Mr. DeLay is in a whole heap o' trouble because the liberal media hates unborn babies and Terri Schiavo and loves a culture of death and making fun of Christians! A sack of shit is just a sack of shit.

Let's get ready to rrrrrrruuuummbbbllllllllle!!!

Attribute			Advantage
	Tom DeLay	Sack of Shit
Smell	"Just like the Beltway itself," says the WSJ op/ed page	Shit	Shit
Look	Frightens children	Amuses children	Shit
Sound	Texas twang	None	Shit
Taste	Desperation, sweat, money	Shit	Draw
Feel	Leathery, cool	Warm and squishy to dry and crusty	DeLay
Pros	Exchanges oxygen for carbon dioxide, helps plants grow; kills bugs	Decomposes, helps plants grow; attracts bugs	DeLay
Cons	Corrodes democratic institutions, discourse; unwelcome at parties	Unwelcome at parties	Shit

Well, there you have it: despite a late charge by Tom DeLay, in the end he couldn't overcome the sack of shit. And think about it: if you had to choose between hanging out with Tom DeLay or hanging out with a sack of shit, that would be an easy choice, wouldn't it?

Every Sperm is Sacred

2005-04-11T20:38:00.000-07:00

The Pope Would be So Proud

Pope John Paul II was known for being a boffo big hit with the kids, which is why, I suppose, he let Cardinal Law hang out in the Vatican. Great minds think alike! The Holy See is obviously hoping to keep that teen-friendly pope-errific magic alive by letting Cardinal Law do a big super-holy mass this week. If that's any indication of the Vatican's thinking, the new pope should be just as "hip" to the young people as the last pope.

In fact, I've come up with just the perfect new Pope. And no, it's not Cardinal Law, though that's a good idea, reader! My perfect candidate, though, is even better: He absolutely lurves the kiddies, he's used to being on stage, he likes to dress up in ridiculous outfits, and he's just young enough that he can reign over the Catholic church for decades, just like John Paul II.

Meet your new pope ...

Theocrazy

2005-04-03T16:32:00.000-07:00

I've been away for a while, what with holiday traveling and an extremely busy stretch at work.

In the meantime, Terri Schiavo and the Pope have both been escorted from this mortal coil. Thank goodness for both of them.

One of the disturbing things I saw, as the Pope was interminably dying, was an alarming number of people expressing hope for his recovery. The man was 84, in utterly poor health and had experienced septic shock. He couldn't move, couldn't speak, couldn't perform his duties. He was a shell of his once-athletic self. His blood pressure was low, he had a urinary tract infection, he was having trouble breathing, his heart wasn't working right and his kidneys were malfunctioning.

And yet there were many people -- grown people, adults, who you would think would have good sense -- who were praying and hoping that he would stay alive. To what end? Just to make them feel better?

It's stuff like this that almost makes me believe we've turned into a nation of three-year-olds, for whom nothing but a unadulterated happy ending is acceptable. If you watched nothing but cable news, the gruesome Schiavo incident was simply a matter of life and death, with death always a bad thing, just as it was for those people hoping the Pope would keep drawing his ragged breath.

And some of those same ghouls -- George W. Bush, the Catholic church -- who latched on to Schiavo to press for their "culture of life" -- in which making sure a lump of flesh keeps breathing, no matter the cost -- also latched on to the dead Pope's corpse.

In Bush's remarks on the Pope's death, he called the pope "a witness to the dignity of human life." What does that phrase even mean, really? I know what it means in code -- it means the pope defended fetuses and vegetables, in Bush's view.

The human scum occupying the White House, accompanied by his soulless harpy bride, also said: "Throughout the West, John Paul's witness reminded us of our obligation to build a culture of life in which the strong protect the weak." Is that right? The Pope may have done just that, but it sure sounds funny coming out of Bush's mouth. As Carl Bernstein pointed out on Lester Holt's show on MSNBC on Saturday, the Pope regularly took the U.S. to task for its runaway capitalism, which protects the strong and punishes the weak. And Bush is, of course, the current pontiff of runaway capitalism. But hypocrisy or irony has never stopped him from trying to score cheap political points off a dying hunk of flesh before, has it?

Some U.S. Catholic bigwigs got on the news shows and said the same thing, trying to put the icing on the big, bloody Schiavo cake they're all looking forward to eating. At one point, when asked what the Pope's greatest accomplishment was, one Catholic bishop dismissed the whole beating-Communism thing and said his greatest accomplishment was getting sick and taking a long time to die because he demonstrated the dignity of life and suffering and all that.

Schiavo will be the figure on the cross the religious conservatives -- "theo-conservatives," Andrew Sullivan calls them -- use as a rallying point for their crusade to mold the judiciary in their image, and they loaded the Pope's still-warm corpse on another cross to carry in the same effort. As a devout and conservative Catholic, he may not have minded. But the stench of hubris was unbearable.

Fortunately, though, most of the U.S. wants nothing to do with their crusade. Just look at the polls taken around the Schiavo thing. As somebody said on Bill Maher this weekend, secularists and even moderate religious people are the new Silent Majority. Right now, the loonies are making all the noise. They'd better enjoy their victory dance right now. Smear that Schiavo- and Pope-blood on good, you freaks. Because once you run smack-dab into political reality, the only noise you'll be making will be full-throated whines of defeat.

Cognitive Dissonance

2005-03-24T09:36:00.000-08:00

I don't like pulling for somebody to die; and yet I can't help but feel that, if Terri Schiavo would finally die, she and all the rest of us would be out of our misery.

I don't like giving money to a known supporter of the Church of Scientology, but Beck's new album actually sounds pretty good.

Springtime in New York

2005-03-23T16:18:00.000-08:00

Nice.

When I lived down south, I used to hate springtime because it meant sweltering, face-melting heat was just around the corner. Now that I've been in New York for six years, I've learned to welcome spring like ... like ... somebody who really missed spring.

Yet, here it is, spring, and there's an inch-deep layer of Slurpee all over the sidewalks and icy wind peeling the flesh from my bones.

As the kids say, WTF?

Blogs You Should Read

2005-03-23T11:51:00.000-08:00

Caryn at A Picture of Me directed me to this blog, overheardinnewyork.com, which is basically a list of stuff people overhear in New York City. Hours of entertainment here, folks. Some of my favorites, just from the past couple of days:

Conductor: The next stop will be...Hell, I don't even know what it is!

--B train

Guy: You know, when I was doing those breathing exercises, I realized: I don't think I've been able to breathe out of my left nostril since 1995.

--General Store, DUMBO

Customer: I'll have a slice of the eggplant.
Pizza guy: You know that's organic right?
Customer: That's fine. How long have you guys been organic?
Pizza guy: Oh, about 2 weeks now. The white girls are loving it.

--Delancey & Essex pizzeria

Terri Schiavo Will Never Recover

2005-03-23T11:39:00.000-08:00

Sometimes it's easy to get confused in the shitstorm of spin and lazy reporting surrounding the nightmarish Terri Schiavo story. The fact of the matter is that she will never, ever recover, a medical fact not disputed by anybody but her parents, the charlatans who've surrounded them and the lawmakers using a brain-dead woman as a political football.

Though the spin and the reporting can create doubt about whether Terri Schiavo is going to return to something approaching normal cognitive function, it can be wiped away by one look at a CT scan of her brain, found here. Per the University of Miami, which provided the link, the large dark regions in the CT scan show "extensive cortical regions filled with spinal fluid." In other words, the regions of her brain containing her memories, emotions and other higher-brain functions have disappeared in the past 15 years and have been replaced with spinal fluid.

She will not recover. Should it be time for her parents to let her go? Like most of the country, I don't believe it's Congress's job to tell them that. In order to avoid being hypocritcal, I'm not going to tell them that, either. But a series of courts have been given that right, and they've told the Schiavos to let go, over and over and over again, based partly on the simple fact that Terri Schiavo will not recover.

The Plot to Keep You Poor and Hated

2005-03-16T19:04:00.000-08:00

The Stupidest Man Alive

I've been busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest lately, so I haven't had much time to post.

But because these topics are so dang important, I want to direct the attention of the two of you who occasionally stop by here accidentally after doing a Google search in France for "double-fisting" to these important items:

First, at TNR, Jonathan Chait explains in a succinct way (subscription may be required) the importance of the Social Security fight -- which I don't think is won yet, not by a long shot -- and the importance of not compromising and not creating private accounts of any kind:

"The consensus among the capital's chattering classes holds that the Social Security debate primarily concerns the program's solvency. Therefore, the questions center around political courage, and the greatest threat is that the parties will not agree on a solution. This consensus is wrong in every particular. In truth, the debate is fundamentally ideological. It does not lend itself to compromise. Despite conservatives' insistence that Social Security faces a "crisis," in reality, the fiscal threat is distant and manageable, while the political threat is immediate and dire. It follows from all this that those who believe in Social Security should make it their highest priority to drive a stake through privatization."

He explains -- and this has been explained before, but it can't be explained often enough -- that Social Security is not designed to give people a "good" rate of return. It's designed to spread risk throughout society, like an insurance policy. Today, we're exposed to risk in our 401(k) plans and outsource-able jobs. We've got plenty of freakin' risk already, making it all the more critical that we have a solid safety net -- security, if you will -- to protect us from utter ruin if the worst happens and our other investments fail.

Second, Digby ties together the threads of what's important about the astonishing nomination of Paul Freakin' Wolfowitz to head the World Bank.

I'll let you read it, but boiled down to its essence, the point is that there's a real danger that Wolfowitz is being brought in to undo some of the World Bank's recent efforts at acting like it gives a crap about the world's poor. Given his history, he's the perfect guy to restore the World Bank to the days when it would purposefully get poor nations into debt by forcing them to give enormous building projects to American conglomerates (Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.) and then use the massive debt as a stick to get them to do our bidding -- making these poor nations indentured servants, if you will. Sounds like a Project for a New American Century, doesn't it?

Weekend Horror Show

2005-03-11T16:16:00.000-08:00

OK, thanks to Gawker, I have stumbled across a site almost as awful as Rotten.com (to which I will not provide a link and contribute to the permanent scarring of the two people who come by here every day).

The horrible site is Awful Plastic Surgery, and man is it awful. And kind of awesome. But mainly awful.

The horrifying freakish noses of Stephen Tyler, the Jacksons and Paris Hilton, the Crypt-Keeper cheekbones of Natalie Ambruglia, the sickening lips of Melanie Griffith, the bad face-lifts of Burt Reynolds, the all-around hideousness of Heidi Fleiss and, God help us all, Farrah Fawcett. ,

And ... heeeere's Mary!!!

Who's hungry?

Oh, and when you're ready for dessert, visit their nightmarish archives.

PopeJokeGate

2005-03-09T11:16:00.000-08:00

Just last night, I read a column by Matt Taibbi from last week's New York Press about the Pope. Specifically, about the Pope dying. More specifically, making fun of the Pope dying. Being a secular humanist damned to h-e-double-hockey-sticks for all eternity, I found Taibbi's extended joke chuckle-worthy, if not exactly brilliant.

Here's just a sample of Taibbi's column, in which he listed the 52 funniest things about the Pope dying:

"51. After death, saggy, furry tits of dead Pope begin inexorable process of melting away into nothingness, like coldest of Sno-cones under faintest of suns."

"47. Upon death, Pope's face frozen in sickening smile, eyes wide open and teeth exposed, like a baboon."

"1. Throw a marble at the dead Pope's head. Bonk!"

You get the idea. This week, Taibbi explained his point, which was fairly obvious:

"'The 52 Funniest Things About the Death of the Pope'" was way over the top, but it was commensurate -— to the 197 consecutive fucking hours of Pope funeral coverage on cable we all know is coming very soon, with every politician on earth with a nose for Catholic votes lining up for a chance to blow into his hanky at the podium.

[...]

"This, incidentally, is what the alternative media is supposed to be for. While all across the major media landscape every public figure -— every politician and every NBA star and every superficially grief-stricken plastic anchorman—will be 'deeply saddened' and hanging his head during the obligatory moment of silence, there has to be someplace where the individual psychopath-loser, i.e. me, can say 'I don't care.' And not necessarily because it's right or wrong to think that way, but because a mandatory opinion held by everybody is no opinion at all. If we can't joke about the pope, then the pope, quite frankly, is not very serious."

This makes perfect sense to me. It made perfect sense to me when I read the article, which fit neatly into a long, long tradition of skewering sacred cows, from Jonathan Swift to National Lampoon. Sacred cows must be allowed to be skewered, or we are doomed as a society.

But, of course, our politicians would have none of that. The wailing and gnashing of teeth was loud and extended. New York Rep. Anthony Weiner called for New Yorkers to take copies of the New York Press, which is distributed for free, and dump them in the trash. That's illegal, of course. Other, more sensible politicians were more subdued. The execrable Chuck Schumer called it "the most disgusting thing I've seen in 30 years of public life" -- seriously? I mean, seriously? -- and Bloomberg, Hillary and a host of other suck-ups took their whacks to score some super-cheap political points. I mean, there's really no downside to bashing a Pope-basher, is there? After all, who doesn't love the Pope????!!!

Actually, I don't love the Pope. I don't give a rat's ass whether the Pope lives or dies. Whenever the Catholic Church is finally buried by its own irrelevance, it won't be soon enough to suit me.

What's more, I resent the interminable media jerk-off we'll be subjected to when he kicks the bucket. I'm sure it won't be as long-lasting or as distasteful as the necrophiliapalooza that followed Reagan's death last year, but it will still be one more thing to distract the mindless media from possibly stumbling across a real story.

But the most sickening aspect of this whole stupid "controversy" is what is says about our society. Right-wingers have for decades cried loud and long about "political correctness," whining that the coloreds and the queers and the womenfolk and the furriners should just suck it up and take a joke every now and then. But Christ on a Cross forbid you should ever so much as look crosseyed at one of their precious, precious religious figures. So it's now OK to make fun of minorities and helpless people, perpetuating damaging stereotypes -- witness the entire, sickening oeuvre of Ann Coulter, who is still allowed to pollute the airwaves of mainstream media -- even as we're well on the road to the day when our self-important religious leaders are issuing fatwahs over every minor slight. Happy day.

Your Tax Dollars at Work, or George W. Bush is a Rat Bastard

2005-03-05T12:56:00.000-08:00

Rat Bastard

When you're filling out your form 1040 this tax season, keep this in mind:

"A new Social Security war room inside the Treasury Department is pumping out information to sell President Bush's plan, much like any political campaign might do. It's part of a coordinated effort by the Bush administration.

"The internal, taxpayer-funded campaigning is backed up by television advertisements, grass-roots organizing and lobbying from business and other groups that support the Bush plan."

After more than four years of these thugs running the country, my outrage meter is more worn-out and desensitized than Jenna Jameson's labia, but it spiked upon reading this.

I am paying my hard-earned tax dollars to help these criminals destroy my retirement security. Sickening.

Who are you, and what have you done with the usual Democratic leadership?

2005-03-04T10:37:00.000-08:00

Harry Reid actually appears to have some chutzpah. In repsonse to Alan Greenspan's unmitigated horseshit about Social Security this week, Mr. Reid said: "I think he's one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington."

Well, slap my mammy!

Ezra Klein points out: "Reid has shattered the consensus that St. Alan is above reproach. "

Amen to that. Klein also goes on to suggest that reporters start treating Greenspan's blather as they treat those of any other party operative: by presenting opposing arguments in the interest of balance. I agree, but I doubt the media are bright enough to understand they're hearing from a political operative when this old geezer mumbles. Many of them still believe Bob Woodward's slack-jawed pronouncement that this glorified bureaucrat is "the Maestro."

I forgive America

2005-03-03T06:16:00.000-08:00

OK, in my previous post, I said I hated America because of the hateful bankruptcy "reform" law slouching toward Bethlehem to be born.

I should correct myself: I hate Congress. America is forgiven, thanks to the results of a New York Times/CBS poll:

"Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues, are increasingly resistant to his proposal to revamp Social Security and say they are uneasy with Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the retirement program, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll."

I still think Bush could end up getting some kind of private account scheme in place, but these numbers are encouraging.

Eat the Poor

2005-03-03T04:47:00.000-08:00

Let me get this straight: the new bankruptcy law will leave loopholes for rich people and corporations, but won't give special protection to the elderly or ill?

This country is despicable. Yes, I do hate America right now.

Time for the ice floe, Greenspan.

2005-03-02T09:41:00.000-08:00

You kids get out of my yard!

Just a day after Republican leaders in Congress groaned that a vote on Social Security destruction would likely not come up in 2005, Alan Greenspan slithers up to the Hill and delivers this:

"Currently, 3-1/4 workers contribute to the Social Security system for each beneficiary. Under the intermediate assumptions of the program's trustees, the number of beneficiaries will have roughly doubled by 2030, and the ratio of covered workers to beneficiaries will be down to about 2."

Oh my God! Sounds like a crisis!!! Whatever shall we do, Uncle Alan?

"Raising national saving is an essential step if we are to build a capital stock that by, say, 2030 will be sufficiently large to produce goods and services adequate to meet the needs of retirees without unduly curbing the standard of living of our working-age population."

Wha? Since when did "raising national saving" become the key to fixing the Social Security crisis?

"Unfortunately, the current Social Security system has not proven a reliable vehicle for such saving. Indeed, although the trust funds have been running annual surpluses since the mid-1980s, one can credibly argue that they have served primarily to facilitate larger deficits in the rest of the budget and therefore have added little or nothing to national saving."

I see, so a huge Social Security surplus is a bad thing. By having money now, we are reducing our ability to have money in the future. Makes perfect sense to me. Just like having a federal budget surplus four years ago was an evil temptation that would sap our productivity and lower our standards of living. Perfectly reasonable.

So, what should we do about this awful problem of a trust-fund surplus?

"In my view, a retirement system with a significant personal accounts component would provide a more credible means of ensuring that the program actually adds to overall saving and, in turn, boosts the nation's capital stock. The reason is that money allocated to the personal accounts would no longer be available to fund other government activities and--barring an offsetting reduction in private saving outside the new accounts--would, in effect, be reserved for future consumption needs."

Ahh, yes: we must destroy the surplus in order to save it. I admire such simplicity. The solution four years ago -- kill the surplus! -- is still the solution today. We should get cracking on this right away. The ball's in your court, Joe Lieberman.

Why isn't this insane geezer on an ice floe?

No Retreat, Baby, No Surrender

2005-03-01T06:09:00.000-08:00

Paul Krugman sounds the battle cry:

"The important thing to remember is why the right wants privatization. The drive to create private accounts isn't about finding a way to strengthen Social Security; it's about finding a way to phase out a system that conservatives have always regarded as illegitimate. And as long as that is what's at stake, there is no room for any genuine compromise. When it comes to privatization, just say no."

He makes a powerful case that has given me pause. I'd been wondering if maybe, just maybe, a reasonable approach might be to raise the payroll tax ceiling, raise the retirement age and then create add-on private accounts. The first two would close any possible financing gap in Social Security. The last would get conservatives to shut the fuck up, already, and act as a hedge against the possibility that maybe, just maybe, they're right that private accounts will bring better returns.

But Krugman argues that any private account, no matter how it's funded, will be a Trojan horse the conservatives will use to destroy Social Security later. That may be so; he assumes the worst of our enemies, and he's probably right to do so. He also points out that, once such a compromise bill got into committee -- a committee that would probably be made up of only GOP lawmakers, as has been the SOP lately -- it might be twisted into unrecognizable and toxic forms. This is a risk that makes me much more nervous than the Trojan-horse argument.

Finally, he also has a love note for Joe Lieberman:

"Why should any Democrat act as a spoiler when his party is doing well by doing good, gaining political ground by opposing a really bad idea? (Hello, Senator Lieberman.)"

No shit. As Steve Gilliard said this week: Joe Lieberman must be stopped.

You Can't Spell "Douchebag" Without "LaVorgna"

2005-02-28T06:09:00.000-08:00

The Wall Street Journal's Mark Whitehouse has an excellent breakdown today (subscription required) of how it's going to be extremely difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, for GDP to grow at the rate the Soc. Sec. trustees assume it will (1.9% per year), at the same time stock returns grow at the rate Chimpy McSmirkalot says they will in order to justify the usefulness of his privatization scheme (6.5% per year).

The story also includes this chart, compiling a list of economists' projections for the average annual stock return rate for the next 44 years:

You'll notice that Joe LaVorgna, who, when the Bush administration says "Bend over," he asks, "How far?" fully agrees with the concept that stocks will return 6.5% per year for the next 44 years. Goodness, what a surprise. I don't know what Jeremy Siegel's deal is, but he's predicting 6%. It's possible he believes economic growth will be stronger than 1.9%. LaVorgna, on the other hand, will fully support the trustees' projection for GDP growth, even as he predicts a tax-cut fueled economic boom that will span the next five-hundred years. He has neither credibility nor shame.

Anyway, that aside, the article is really good. Basically, in order for stocks to grow at the 6.5% per year the administration promises, the economy would have to grow much faster than 1.9% per year. If the economy grows at that rate, then Social Security's problems will be greatly reduced -- perhaps even eliminated.

Seven-Year Bitch

2005-02-26T07:48:00.000-08:00

Seven! Ha ha ha! Seven Years of Solvency! (And yes, I know I'm mixing my vampires)

Josh Marshall notes that Indiana Rep. Chris Chocola -- I wonder how often he gets called "Count." Because that would be hilarious -- and other Republicans are going around claiming that bumping up the level of wages subject to Social Security tax will only extend the life of the program for 7 years.

Josh incomparably points out that this is ... well, not to put too fine a point on it, horse shit.

He points out that a new memo from the Soc. Sec. trustees says that fix would bump the date at which Soc. Sec. receipts start lagging behind Soc. Sec. payments to 2025 from 2018 (their projections). But the trustees also point out that it will extend the ability of the program to pay 100% of benefits until the year 2079 -- the furthest year of the trustees' projections. For all we know, it will take the program further than that.

Josh predicts, rightly so, that we will hear this seven-year marlarkey over and over and over again, probably all over Russert and Matthews and all the other vapid gasbags of the Sunday talk shows. He also wonders, rightly so, whether the Democrats will counter adequately.

If you've been reading Bob Somerby lately, you'll guess they won't.

Lurve Connection

2005-02-25T23:16:00.000-08:00

I'm new to this Hannidating thing, where cryptofascists meet to find that someone special with whom to share a mutual hatred of poor people and intellectual curiosity.

Jesus' General has been making fun of the posts there, which I find just abhorrent. These people are looking for love, damn it. Who are we to point and laugh?

For example, it would be wrong to suggest that this entry by "Greg," 35, of Washington, contains a hidden message:

"So, I am looking for a mentally and physically attractive woman that shares my love of family and romance, and who has a positive outlook on life. I don’t have any baggage to speak of, so you will get a relatively clean slate."

It would be wrong to speculate that, by "baggage to speak of," Greg means "sexual experience." We shouldn't imagine that, by "a relatively clean slate," he means "a dong that has never been inside of a woman."

Yes, this is a serious site, doing serious business. For example, this saucy gentleman:

... appears to have been washed ashore on the beach of your heart, and if you're lucky, he'll let you look in his box ... his box of romance!

But not just any woman can look inside "Mark's" love box. "Mark," age 49, is in an undisclosed location, adding to his air of mystery. If you're going to find the treasure map to Mark's romantic cargo, you'll have to meet the following criteria:

"I am a 49 year old truck driver. Divorced, one daughter, 18, looking for a LADY, 45 to 55 years old, no tatoos, no body piercings except ears, but most importantly NOT LIBERAL (lady and not liberal kind of go hand in hand, don't they?)."

Got that, skanks? Only LADIES need apply!

Anyway, it would be wrong to make fun of this.

Reasons to go on living (musical version)

2005-02-25T22:39:00.000-08:00

There are reasons to go on living. They come in the form of albums soon to be released. Namely:

Spoon: Gimme Fiction. Release Date: May 10.

I've only gotten into Spoon's last two albums (are they still called that?), Girls Can Tell and Kill the Moonlight. Both are near-masterpieces of seething minimalist cool. What does that mean? I'm not sure. But I know it sounds like something a rock critic would say, and I know that Britt Daniel's detached, adenoidal vocals and the assured swagger of the music mask some deeper emotion that touches me. Which is also something a music critic might say. Also, the songs really kick ass.

Full disclosure: I've already downloaded this album from the Internets, and so far it kicks sick ass. But don't worry, music industry: whenever I download a really good album, I always go and buy the CD like an old-fashioned geezer, and I will be buying this one ASAP on or after May 10.

The Mars Volta: Frances the Mute. Release Date: March 22.

If you've heard them, you either really, really love them or really, really hate them. I'm in the first camp. I know music snobs sniff and say, "Oh it's prog, didn't punk kill this genre decades ago? Oh, I am a lace-wearing foppish dandy. And where is the twee? Where has all the twee gone, long time passing?" I know they say this. But what I say is, "Eat it, foppish dandies." See, the guys in TMV were once in a band called At the Drive In, which was so full of post-punk fury that it simply melted the speakers. So these guys stepping into prog is like Nixon going to China: they've got the cred built up.

And anyway, it's not really prog, smart guys. It's more like Led Zeppelin with extended jams, if it's anything. Go here, and click on "multimedia" and listen to "Drunkship of Lanterns" and tell me it doesn't remind you of Zeppelin, if Zeppelin had picked up a salsa percussionist after Bonham died.

Anyway, I've heard the first single from the album, "The Widow," and it's a fairly simple, slow-burning song, similar to "Televators" on Deloused at the Comatorium. The rest of the album is supposed to be much freakier, but this is pretty decent. I can't wait to hear the rest.

Stephen Malkmus: Face the Truth. Release Date: May 24.

He is, of course, the former front man for Pavement. If you didn't like Pavement, you probably won't like him, though his sound has only gotten smoother and smoother. But then again, if you didn't like Pavement, I don't like you. He has produced some turd-like songs from time to time, both with Pavement and solo, but he has never produced an album that was not essential. I doubt this one will be any different. He's one of the few artists I can think of, along with maybe Radiohead, who have been consistently churning out great music for more than a decade.

Silver Jews: Tanglewood Numbers. Release Date: July Sometime.

This "band" is essentially a solo project of one David Berman, who is brilliant in his own right, so brilliant that he attracts a lot of other brilliant people, including the aforementioned Mr. Malkmus and then a staggering shitload of people for the upcoming album, including Will Oldham and a couple of ex-Pavement members. It's straight-ahead indie stuff, sort of like Pavement or Mr. Oldham or Refrigerator or ... pick your impossibly good indie band. Always excellent, if occasionally a little lazy.

The Face of a War Profiteer

2005-02-23T15:07:00.000-08:00

Uncle "Bucky" Bush

I suppose it's not too surprising, but that doesn't make it any less depressing:

"The Iraq war helped bring record earnings to St. Louis-based defense contractor Engineered Support Systems Inc., and new financial data show that the firm's war-related profits have trickled down to a familiar family name -- Bush.

"William H.T. 'Bucky' Bush, uncle of the president and youngest brother of former President George H.W. Bush, cashed in ESSI stock options last month with a net value of nearly half a million dollars."

Braaaaaaiiiinsss!!!

2005-02-23T14:14:00.000-08:00

Yes, I know it's unfair to make fun of somebody's appearance. Someday I could be caught in a threshing machine and made a hideous freak, like Frank Luntz. All of my children are already doomed to be severely, gruesomely deformed, thanks to all the immature jokes I've made in my life. But this guy deserves it, and hey, what's one more?

Turkeys in the Forex Barn

2005-02-23T09:58:00.000-08:00

It was widely reported yesterday that South Korea's central bank, the world's No. 4 holder of dollar reserves, had decided to "diversify" its holdings, which everybody and their grandmother took as a signal to sell dollars hard:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The dollar tumbled on Tuesday as markets grew concerned about the likely impact of South Korea's plan to diversify its reserves out of U.S. assets, pushing the currency below key technical support levels.

South Korea's central bank, which holds a large chunk of U.S. Treasuries, said on Monday it planned to spread its reserves, which are the world's fourth largest, among a greater variety of currencies.

Since then, however, South Korea has clarified that it had no intention of selling any dollars. Several analysts suggested the same thing yesterday. It would appear that South Korea was simply reiterating an earlier stated policy to seek higher yield in other kinds of bonds, while hanging on to its stockpile of dollars.

Some observers, though, are still skeptical. And the wave of terror that spread through the forex market yesterday is telling -- everybody's waiting for a central bank to start selling dollars.

A commenter to Angry Bear's post today about it had this funny story about how central banks will approach selling their dollar assets:

Hmmm, let me bore you with one of those sickeningly cornpone "down on the farm" stories. When our friends the turkey farmers first took us up for the "tour" we were amazed when they indifferently swung open a 30 ft door, behind which were thousands of turkeys. I asked why the expected charge for freedom did not materialize. Were domesticated turkeys really that stupid?

"Well, they are dumb but not that dumb. They know the door's open, but they are afraid of what might be out there. One or two will go out, then scurry back, but eventually, yes, they all would come out."

Bankers and especially politicians are pretty much the human equivalent of turkeys, as we all can agree. :D The BOK was simply the first turkey to take that tenative step outdoors. That's what's important - this means the door is truly open. The scurrying back is unsurprising because we are dealing with turkeys, not, say, goats.

So the important thing is the state of the door. This is the first sign that it was opened. I think it's stuck that way, personally.

It is a funny story, and that's probably the way it will happen. But it's still not clear that South Korea was actually the first turkey out of the barn. A lot of analysts say the turkeys will be content to stay in the barn. I'm not sure one way or the other, but it is a little scary that a country like South Korea has this kind of power over us. What would happen if China up and decided to dump dollars? Yikes, indeed.

Giblets on Thompson

2005-02-21T10:42:00.000-08:00

Thompson's not dead after all:

"Giblets saw the Good Doctor with his own two eyes just a few hours ago, heading north in the White Whale. He said he was headed up to heaven to shoot God. 'The great bastard's in season and it's long overdue,' the Godfather of Gonzo said as he dusted off his elephant gun."

Shoot him one time for me, Duke.

Thompson on the Bush Administration

2005-02-21T08:09:00.000-08:00

"They are the racists and hate mongers among us -- they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis." -- from a Salon interview two years ago.

God damn, I'll miss him.

Adios, Duke.

2005-02-21T08:03:00.000-08:00

There are no words.

Top Sketch Comedy Shows

2005-02-20T17:17:00.000-08:00

After posting that Mr. Show transcript, I got to thinking. Yessir, I did. "What are the top sketch-comedy TV shows of all time?" I asked myself. I don't know. But first I'll compile a list. And then I'll think about it. Here's the list:

Mr. Show
Chappelle's Show
Saturday Night Live
The State
Upright Citizens Brigade
Fridays
Mad TV
Not Necessarily the News
Hardcore TV
Ben Stiller Show
Kids in the Hall
SCTV

And, though I think it belongs in a class all its own, Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Dinner time. More TK ...

Great Moments in Mr. Show History, Part One

2005-02-20T12:40:00.000-08:00

Take it from me -- I love you!

I recently got all four seasons of Mr. Show with Bob (Odenkirk) and David (Cross) on DVD. A finer television program hath never been produced, methinks.

Because I love the four of you who accidentally stumble across this blog (one the other day while searching for "deepthroating" on Google, according to my high-tech tracking system), as a public service, and to break up the monotony of my tiresome liberal rants, I will be providing for you, stolen directly from unoriginal.com (with some editing by me, and some key moments in bold), transcripts of some of my favorite Mr. Show moments.

So without further adieu, we'll kick it off with a great skit from the second show of the first season:

Commercials of the Future: Updating Globo-Chem's Image:

Cast:

* David (Cross) - One Ad man
* Bob (Odenkirk) - Other Ad man
* John (Ennis) - CEO of Globo-Chem
* Jill (Talley) - Member of the board
* Tom (Kenny, a/k/a Spongebob) - Another member of the board

Bob: [pointing to Globo-Chem's slogan] Gentlemen, this isn't gonna to work anymore.

David: Globo-Chem owns 29% of the globe.

Bob: And your company distributes 1,945 different products.

David: Globo-Chem produces 83 new products per minute.

Bob: But there's a problem, people don't like Globo-Chem and its...2,023 different products.

David: The perception is that this company is a monster.

Bob: A beast.

David: A cold, heartless, smelly behemoth.

Bob: Run by a greedy, fat--

David: fat-headed, fatty pants.

Bob: A fatso.

John: [rises] Who do you think you are?! This company cares! We were in the people business when you were in short pants! My great-great-great grandfather started this company with one single rickety, leaky, hand-crafted slave ship, and a simple motto: "People selling people to people." So, don't tell me that I'm fat!! [sits back down]

David: Did, did we offend you?

Bob: Good!

David: Now we have your attention and we have to win you over.

Bob: Just like you have to win consumers.

John: [pause] Continue.

Bob: Cute, friendly, lovable--

David: Three things you are not. But you know who is?

Bob: Pit-Pat! Globo-Chem's new mascot. [picks up a Pit-Pat doll and hugs it]

David: Pit-Pat! A magical, pan-sexual, non-threatening spokesthing!

Bob: Ladies and gentlemen, we present new ad campaigns for three of your...3,974 different products...watch!

[Cut to commericial.]

Commercials of the Future: Bag Hutch Commercial

Cast-

* John- husband
* Janeane Garofalo- wife

[The set is a kitchen with brown paper bags stuffed in and coming out of cupboards and in drawers. There is a cupboard up front, and a door upstage.]

Bob V.O.: Bags! Bags! Bags! It always seems that you've got too many bags.

Janeane: [To camera] Help me!

Bob V.O.: You can't just throw them away. Now there's new "Bag Hutch!"

["Back Hutch" Brown Cardboard box appears instantly on counter]

[Close up of bags being placed in Bag Hutch as a caption on screen reads Bags must be folded neatly]

Bob V.O.: Bag Hutch is made is especially for bags! And holds up to twelve bags!

[Shots of brown bags instantly disappearing from the cupboards]

[Shot of Janeane placing bags in Bag Hutch as her husband walks in from the door behind and looks around the kitchen amazed]

John: Honey! Where are all the bags?

Janeane: [pointing] In the Bag Hutch.

[John leans over, looks in the Bag Hutch and smiles]

John: No shit!?

[Close-Up of Bag Hutch]

Bob V.O.: Bag Hutch, by Flix, a division of Globo-Chem.

[Pit-Pat mascot floats across the screen]

Pit-Pat: [also Bob V.O.] Take it from me, I love you!

[Back to the board room: The Globo-Chem employees are in shock.]

David: You see him? It's Pit-Pat!

Bob: Oh goodness, isn't he great? Here, watch another one.

[Cut to next commercial.]

Commercials of the Future: Ding Dong Burgers Commercial

[Shots of "Ding Dong King Kong Sing Song Burger Sign", a man eating a burger sped up.]

David V.O.: We went to a real Ding Dong Burger to ask real Ding Dong Burger eaters what they think of the new "Ding Dong King Kong Sing Song" Burger.

[Shot of a booth, with Brian and girlfriend on the same side, both with burgers]

Mary Lynn: It's great! [takes a bite]

Brian: It's so big, it's fucking great.

[another shot of the Ding Dong burger sign]

[shot of family of four in a booth with food on the table, Jill and son seated on left, Tom and daughter sitting on right]

David V.O.: What about you folks?

Jill: Yeah!

[close-up of Tom]

Tom: I can feed the whole family for under $20.

[wide shot of Tom smiling daughter]

[shot of Jill messing up son's hair]

Jill: And with the price of beef going through the fucking roof, that's a deal.

[shot of Bob and David seated, both with burgers and drinks. David, on left, is in a dark suit, dark sunglasses, and a black wig. Bob, on right, with his back to the camera, is in a dark suit, no sunglasses, and a blond wig]

David V.O.: Fellas?

David: [To camera] This cock sucker dragged me down here, I don't know.

[Bob turns and smiles to the camera]

[Close up of Bob]

Bob: [To David] - Just eat the fuckin' thing.

[Close up of David]

David: Fuck you asshole.

[shot of both, Bob turns and smiles to the camera]

[closeup of David's mouth, he takes a bite]

David: Fuck!

[shot of David's whole head and burger]

David: This mother fucker's tasty!

[shot of both]

Bob: I told your fucking ass!

[Bob turns and smiles to the camera, then the Ding Dong Burgers logo comes down over the shot]

David V.O.: Ding Dong Burgers, a Globo-chem company.

[Pit-Pat floats across the screen]

Pit-Pat: Take it from me, I love you!

[Back to the board room.]

Bob: See? He loves you!

Jill: What about the swearing??

Bob: Oh. Here, there's one more.

[Cut to last commericial.]

Commercials of the Future: Techcorp Systems Commercial

[Jay sitting in chair, head in hands]

Jay: God dammit.

Shit.

[walking to window]

Fuck.

[at window]

ASS! Shit! Mother! Cock!

[camera panning out, over mountains, over the globe]

Fuck! Fucky Fuck Fuck!

Bob V.O.: Techcorp Systems, another helpful Globo-Chem company.

[Pit-Pat floats across the screen]

Pit-Pat: Take it from me! I love you!

[Back in the board room: The employees are shocked; John is in a daze.]

Bob: Pit-Paaat!

David: Pit-Pat!

[David opens the door and a life-size Pit-Pat comes in and hugs and squeezes John until David has to pull Pit-Pat away and shove him out the door.]

David: Okay, we have plans for an animated children's program, a breakfast cereal, a line of clothing, a video game, a--

Tom: Excuse me. Excuse me. You still haven't answered the question about the swearing--what about the swearing?

David: Please, let's stick to one subject, here. Okay, Pit-Pat is a magical pixie, who can fly around and--

Jill: You can't have all that swearing; it's offensive.

Bob: Look lady, I don't come down to where you work and slap the dick out of your mouth...

Jill: [outraged] That's it!!

Bob: You're right that's it.

David: That's the new slogan for Grandma Betsy's Biscuit Powder! [uncovers a cardboard poster of a package, with cartoon old woman and beneath her, the slogan "I don't come down to where you work and slap the dick out of your mouth."]

Bob: The world of the future is much cruder than the world of today.

David: In 1994, you couldn't say the word "bitch" or "asshole" on TV -- now it's okay.

Bob: Where do you think we'll be in the year 2000?

David: Are ya interested in staying on the cutting edge?

Tom: Yeah, but what happened to Grandma Betsy? She looks like a man!

[close-up shot of the cartoon]

Bob: She is a man!

David: The fastest growing segment of our population are transsexuals -- they buy and spend for two.

Bob: Look, the world is changing. It's becoming increasingly difficult to insult people and thereby get their attention.

David: Knock knock [knocking on John's head] Who's there? Change. Oh, come on in.

Bob: Oh, I see you brought Globo-Chem with you.

David: Really? I thought that company was run by a greedy, fat, fat-headed, fatty pants!!!

Bob: A fat fuck! [crawls on to the table, gets right in John's face]

David: Is it?!

Bob: Is it?!

[David waves his hand in front of John's eyes.]

David: He's dead.

Bob: Good!

David: That's what you wanted, right?

Jill: Yeah.

Tom: Yupperino. Good job guys.

David: Okay, great. Alright.

Bob: Well, it's what we do.

David: [to John] Did I kill you?! Good, I got your attention. [pushes John's head down to the table.]

Is Rove Deep Throat?

2005-02-19T08:11:00.000-08:00

I tell you, it was this big!

Given the rumors about Scott McClellan frequenting gay bars, I just naturally assumed that he was Gannon/Guckert's ticket into the White House. Now I'm starting to wonder.

Social Security is Dead

2005-02-19T07:42:00.000-08:00

Jump, Mr. President? How high?

For weeks, we've been hearing about how the public isn't on board with Dubya's plan to scrap Social Security. The polls have actually been moving against him on the issue, the more he talks about it.

But public opinion doesn't matter. Public opinion can be molded by savvy propagandists, as those in the White House are.

What matters are votes in the House and Senate, and while those have seemed scarce so far, I believe they are on the way.

First, you had Alan Greenspan, fuckhead partisan hack that he is, telling these gullible lawmakers that private accounts were a good idea.

Of course, as Dean Baker points out, when Greenspan said the Social Security system wasn't working, he was basically criticizing his own handiwork, since he worked up the Social Security "fix" in 1983.

But since when has logic ever stopped Alan Greenspan? This is the same seedy Randian crackpot who just a few years ago said that we needed to slash taxes in order to get rid of a budget surplus.

Let me repeat that: he said we needed to slash taxes in order to get rid of a budget surplus. Can you believe he wasn't laughed out of the country?

But he wasn't laughed out of the country, even though he should have been fired and then tested for Alzheimer's. Instead, gullible lawmakers swallowed his bullshit hook, line, and sinker, enacted big tax cuts, and the rest is history. Now we're talking very seriously about how many programs we need to cut in order to get rid of the budget deficit, with little discussion of reversing the recent tax cuts that caused it.

Our nation is batshit insane, our lawmakers are batshit insane, and when Greenspan tells them private accounts are a good idea, they will listen.

And now Josh Marshall has seen signs that Lieberman has vibrated back into the Fainthearted Faction. I tell you, this fibrillating vagina is like a lot of the other lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have made noises about protecting Social Security: they're all hedging their bets, with one finger in the air, waiting to see which way the political wind blows. If they can get away with ravaging Social Security, our retirement security, in order to give Bush another rim job, you better believe they will. They can't wait to do it.

And when they do, the Democratic Party will be dead. And I, for one, won't miss it. What a bunch of jackasses. It's time for a new party, a truly progressive party. It may take years in the wilderness, years of Bushian facism, before the tide is ready to turn again, but turn it will. The economic inequity we are creating is sowing the seeds of future change. It won't be pretty, and we could have avoided it, but we chose not to, and we'll suffer the consequences.

In which I actually agree with the WSJ

2005-02-17T06:14:00.000-08:00

It's a rare thing, but today I agree with the Wall Street Journal editorial page:

National ID Party
February 17, 2005

Republicans swept to power in Congress 10 years ago championing state prerogatives, and one of their first acts was to repeal federal speed-limit requirements. Another was aimed at ending unfunded state mandates. So last week's House vote to require costly and intrusive federal standards for state drivers' licenses is a measure of how far the party has strayed from these federalist principles.

More important, it reveals a mindset among some that more enforcement alone will bring better border security and reduce illegal immigration. The bill that passed the House last week and now goes to the Senate is known as the Real ID Act, and the driver's license requirements may not even be the worst part of the legislation. Also included are unnecessary provisions that would make it much more difficult for foreigners to seek asylum in the U.S.

House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who authored the bill, insists that his goal is to reduce the terrorist threat, not immigration. But it just so happens that the bill's provisions have long occupied the wish list of anti-immigration lawmakers and activists. Mr. Sensenbrenner produced a photo of Mohammed Atta during the floor debate last week, arguing that the 9/11 hijackers' ability to obtain drivers' licenses and use them to board airplanes represents a security loophole.

His solution is to force states to issue federally approved drivers' licenses with digital photographs and "machine-readable technology." In theory, states can opt out, but if they do their drivers' licenses will no longer be accepted as identification to board planes, purchase guns, enter federal buildings and so forth. It's not hard to imagine these de facto national ID cards turning into a kind of domestic passport that U.S. citizens would be asked to produce for everyday commercial and financial tasks.

Aside from the privacy implications of this show-us-your-papers Sensenbrenner approach, and the fact that governors, state legislatures and motor vehicle departments have denounced the bill as expensive and burdensome, there's another reality: Even if the Real ID Act had been in place prior to 9/11, it's unlikely that the license provisions would have prevented the attacks.

That's because all of the hijackers entered the U.S. legally, which means they qualified for drivers' licenses. The Real ID Act wouldn't change that. Moreover, you don't need a driver's license to fly. Other forms of identification -- such as a passport -- are acceptable and also were available to the hijackers. Nothing in the Sensenbrenner bill would change that, either.

The biggest impact will be on undocumented workers in the U.S., which is why the immigration restrictionists are pushing for the legislation. But denying drivers' licenses to illegal aliens won't result in fewer immigrants. It will result in more immigrants driving illegally and without insurance.

Mr. Sensenbrenner's claims that tougher asylum provisions will make us safer are also dubious. The last thing a terrorist would want to do is apply for asylum. Not only would he be bringing himself to the attention of the U.S. government -- the first step is being fingerprinted -- but the screening process for applicants is more rigorous than for just about anyone else trying to enter the country. In the past decade, perhaps a half-dozen individuals with some kind of terrorists ties have applied for asylum. All were rejected.

The Real ID Act would raise the bar substantially for granting asylum to people fleeing persecution. But this is a solution in search of a problem. A decade ago the U.S. asylum laws were in fact being abused by foreigners with weak claims who knew they would receive work permits while their cases were pending.

But in 1994, the Clinton Administration issued regulations to curb this abuse. The law now says that asylum seekers cannot receive work permits until they have won their case. Applications per year subsequently have fallen to about 30,000 today from 140,000 in the early 1990s. This was the biggest abuse of the system, and it's been fixed. Raising the barrier for asylum seekers at this point would only increase the likelihood of turning away the truly persecuted.

But the bigger problem with Mr. Sensenbrenner's bill is that is takes our eye off the ball. Homeland security is about taking useful steps to prevent another attack. It's not about keeping gainfully employed Mexican illegals from driving to work, or cracking down on the imagined hordes gaming our asylum system.

President Bush realizes this and is pushing for a guest-worker program that would help separate people in search of employment from potential terrorists. If the Republican Congress doesn't realize that, perhaps a Presidential veto of the Real ID Act would focus its attention.

More on Rehnquist

2005-02-11T14:28:00.000-08:00

Apparently, I'm not alone.

Is that you, Deep Throat?

2005-02-10T14:18:00.000-08:00

Separated at birth?

I'm just catching up to all of this, but John Dean has reported that Bob Woodward has told the Washington Post that "Deep Throat" is ill, and Ben Bradlee said that the mystery man's obituary has already been written and is "in the can" at the Post.

Keith Olbermann suggested this week that Deep Throat's obituary would probably have been "in the can" even if he were not tied to Watergate -- implying that he's had a fairly noteworthly life beyond his Deep Throating.

Olbermann also said, "The man doesn’t want to be identified, and by implication, is not proud of his role in stabilizing the democracy — even though so many others are proud of him."

That would be consistent with a theory advanced this week by blogger Salto Mortale, who speculates that Deep Throat was none other than ...

Drumroll ...

William Rehnquist!

Now, several people have said they think this is just crazy talk. But some things would add up. He was close to people in Nixon's Justice Department, making him privy to inside information -- but he was not too close, seeing as how he had moved to the Supreme Court at the time of the break-in, which could explain how he got some things screwed up, as Dean points out in his op/ed piece. Only the Chief Justice of the Freaking Supreme Court could make sure such a whopping secret was kept for three decades. And only a tool like Rehnquist would feel ashamed for bringing Nixon down. Plus, Rehnquist is very ill, and his obit would certainly be in the can at the Post, even if he were not Deep Throat.

Liars, or just incompetent?

2005-02-10T06:15:00.000-08:00

We lie like other people breathe air.

We already knew that Condoleezza Rice was either a liar or an incompetent with very convenient gaps in her memory.

Today's report from the New York Times revealing that the Sept. 11 Commission knew of dozens of specific warnings given to the FAA before Sept. 11 about the possibility of hijackings in the U.S. includes this tidbit:

"The F.A.A. "had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon," and in 2001 it distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking, the report said."

In Rice's testimony before the Commission, she said, "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons."She and Chimpy have made statements like this over and over again. They do it because it reflects public opinion. Who among us laypeople could have anticipated that such an attack would happen?

But they knew better. The claim has been debunked before, and now it's being debunked again.

Not that it's too shocking, but these people don't care about us. They only care about amassing and holding power. Consider the fact that today's important story about the safety (or lack thereof) at our airports was kept a secret for months and months, in order to help Bush get re-elected.

You Can't Spell "Massive Tool" Without "Malpass"

2005-02-08T06:16:00.000-08:00

Angry Bear commented on Bear Stearns economist David Malpass today, saying, "It seems that Kudlow has outsourced his employment cheerleading to David Malpass." He links to this god-awful NRO commentary by Malpass (what's he doing in the NRO???):

Throughout this economic expansion monthly job growth in the Labor Department’s establishment survey (a.k.a. the payroll survey) has understated the strength of the economy and the labor situation.

First of all, if that's the case, then the beloved household survey, much beloved of the Malpasses and Wesburys of the world, must be really understating job growth -- the rate of change in the household survey has been lagging that of the payroll figures for the past few months (see below chart, stolen from Robert Brusca). Gosh, when will these economic data get on board for the big win?

Malpass continues:

Job growth in the establishment survey hasn’t been a good indicator of the employment situation in recent years. It overstated job growth in the late 1990s and has been reverting to normal this decade.

My, isn't that convenient?

In July 2000, employment in the establishment survey reached an impossibly high 98.3 percent of the household survey. The establishment survey, a complicated statistical sample, did not keep up with changes going on in the U.S. economy and hence overstated jobs.

I guess this is just an NRO hack job, so explanation isn't necessary. But why is it impossible for the establishment survey to reach 98.3% of the household survey? Is that even meaningful? The two are entirely separate surveys. Couldn't this be a mere statistical quirk?

He goes on to suggest that the payroll survey was overestimating job growth in the 1990s because so many people had jobs with big companies, and people changed jobs a lot. Thanks for that, Mr. Economist. Yes, that's correct, the payroll survey reflected that the job market was extremely strong in the 1990s. He then goes on to explain that the payroll survey is underestimating job growth in the 2000s because it's been a time of extreme volatility in job growth and interest rates. Right -- there's been a recession and a bunch of other crazy stuff going on, as anybody who's read a newspaper could tell you. Hence, the job market has been lousy. Again, no PhD necessary.

But Mr. Malpass has a PhD in bullshitting, apparently, as he goes on to explain to us that: "The view that the participation rate in the economy is low or plunging is simply wrong." The labor-force participation rate is 65.8%, and it's been almost that low for much of the past year. Since 1988, during all the times of economic change to which Malpass refers, the participation rate was higher. Suddenly, though, he wants us to forget about all these economic changes, on which he bases his previous flimsy arguments and to accept that turning back the clock to the 1988 rate of labor-force participation is hunky dory.

Nice try, Malpass, but no cigar.

Couldn't happen to a nicer weasel

2005-02-07T13:08:00.000-08:00

Fresh after begging Bush for a new nickname ("Benator" was the pleasing agreement), Ben Nelson was stranded by the White House entourage at the Qwest Center in Omaha, forcing the Fainthearted Senator to beg a ride from a local citizen.

On the SOTU Audience

2005-02-05T09:42:00.000-08:00

OK, I got the info from Gallup. This was, in fact, one of the most partisan audiences in years:

In 2005, the audience was 52-25-22 in favor of Bush's party (vs. Dem and Ind.).
In 2004, the audience was 46-26-28
In 2003, the audience was 40-28-31
In 2002, the audience was 50-25-25

For Clinton:
In 1999, the audience was 40-28-32
In 1998, the audience was 37-30-31
In 1995, the audience was 33-33-34
In 1994, the audience was 41-26-32

In a pre-speech report, Gallup said:

"[A]mid all the pageantry and fanfare associated with the occasion, State of the Union addresses generally do little to help boost a president's ratings. That may be because of the fact that a president's partisan supporters are much more likely to watch the event than are supporters of the opposition party." [Emphasis added.]

"In the 23 cases analyzed here, there are 12 instances in which a president's post-State of the Union approval rating was lower than his rating before the speech, 9 when it was higher, and 2 in which there was no change."

Note: one of the rare exceptions was Bill Clinton's 1998 speech, after which he got a 10-point jump in approval rating, the biggest such bounce since Gallup started keeping track in 1978. You'll also note that the 1998 speech was the last one in which the percentage of viewers from the opposing party broke 30.

Gallup's conclusion:

"Bush has an ambitious second-term agenda, and public support will be a key in getting his proposals passed. However, because those who tune in to hear the speech will skew Republican, it is likely that a disproportionate amount of the viewing audience will already support the Bush agenda."

I rest my case. I'm still nervous.

Bush making headway?

2005-02-05T09:05:00.000-08:00

I'm still extremely nervous about this whole Social Security fight. I've heard over and over again that Bush's chances of success are slim, and I've heard over and over again how the Democrats are united against him.

But they're not really all that united. They're united, they say, against a proposal that will increase the budget deficit. But the Bush plan will actually be revenue neutral, in the long run, though it will involve massive borrowing in the coming decades. More ominously, Lindsey Graham has come up with a plan that would raise payroll taxes and cut benefits and create private accounts. I don't know the details of this, but it sounds like something that the Fainthearted Faction -- at this moment, apparently, Nelson, Lincoln, Baucus and Lieberman -- could get behind. One more Dem senator, and Social Security is done for.

This AP article today starts off sounding very ominous about Bush's chances, quoting Grassley as saying Bush has just a 90-day window to convince the public that there's a problem and that his solution is best.

"The length of the window for the education process might be 90 days," he told Iowa reporters this week. "If we don't see some grass-roots organizing and change of public opinion after 90 days, it's going to discourage people in Congress from moving ahead."

But then they get into some of the details of Graham's plan, and it starts to sound scarily palatable to the Faction.

And the article wraps up with this hair-raising nugget:

The key now, he said, is for the president to continue convincing people the problem is real.

Bush appears to have made some headway. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 66 percent of people who watched his State of the Union speech said his Social Security proposals will move the country in the right direction. That's up from 51 percent of Americans surveyed before the speech. Three in four said Bush made a "convincing case" that the government needs to take action in the next couple of years to change the system.

The telephone survey of 485 speech watchers, conducted Wednesday, had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

But there's one major error in these grafs: post-speech polls have shown that, by a wide majority, most of the people who actually watched Bush's speech were Republicans, and probably die-hard Republicans, at that. Not only was this one of the lowest-rated SOTU speeches in years, but it was also one of the most partisan in decades. I'm having trouble finding the numbers comparing this speech's audience make-up to those of past years, but Gallup said 52% of the audience identified itself as Republican, vs. 25% Democratic and 22% independent. I swear to God I saw an article comparing those numbers to previous years, but I'm having a bitch of a time finding it. Anyway, the AP writer -- Laura Meckler, who otherwise does a better job than her colleague, David Espo -- compares apples to oranges here in an effort to make it look like Bush is making headway. She compares a pre-speech poll of all Americans to a post-speech poll of only speech-watchers, who were mostly Republican. No wonder so many of them were "convinced" by his speech.

To see thee more clearly

2005-02-04T08:12:00.000-08:00

I'm understanding the whole "benefit offset" thing a little better now, thanks to posts from the incomparable Brad DeLong and Matt Yglesias and the twice-linked Paul Krugman piece.

Boiled down to its most basic elements, under the private account scheme, the government is "loaning" you a chunk of your future benefits, giving you a chance to invest it in financial markets. When you retire, though, you'll have to pay that loan back. If you've made more in the market before your retirement than the 3% you would have made anyway, you're a (small) winner. If you've made less, you're a loser. As they say in Atlantic City, good luck!

Quote of the day

2005-02-04T08:09:00.000-08:00

"The answer, presumably, is that his plan will also involve major benefit cuts over and above those associated with private accounts. And it's true that you can improve Social Security's finances with privatization, as long as you also slash benefits - just as you can kill a flock of sheep with witchcraft, provided you also feed them arsenic." -- Paul Krugman

Outreach

2005-02-04T07:33:00.000-08:00

... and thanks to my husband's policies, when you grow up, you'll be saddled with debt, alone in the world and have no retirement security. But stay out of gangs. And don't have sex."

In Today's Times

2005-02-04T06:48:00.000-08:00

A new feature: stuff from today's New York Times!

Condi Keeps Us Guessing
Well, the Condi Rice era of foreign policy is off to a roaring start. Demonstrating the same competence that guided her term as national security advisor, she contradicted her boss just days after his most important speech of the year. Fortunately, she wasn't muddying the waters of any sort of sensitive or important topic or anything; only this small central Asian country called Iran:

"Three European Union countries are trying to negotiate with Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons, and President Bush said in his State of the Union address that he is working with those allies.

"But on Thursday Ms. Rice said Washington would continue to rebuff European requests to take part in directly offering incentives for Iran to drop its nuclear program."

Greetings From Kabul
While we're firing the blowtorch of liberty around the world, we might want to turn back to the first place we liberated, Afghanistan, and use that torch to light some fires so people can keep from fucking freezing to death:

"After eight years of drought, the heavy snows that have blanketed Afghanistan over the past two weeks might seem to be welcome. But for the 4,000 homeless families crammed into tents in several camps around the city, the snow and the cold are bitter reminders that despite billions of dollars in aid and the country's rapid development, thousands of Afghans are still without shelter and the means to survive.

"At worst, for the most vulnerable, they are a death sentence.

"Eighteen people have died since the extreme cold descended on the country two weeks ago, the minister of health, Sayeed Mohammad Amin Fatimie, said in an interview this week. Of the 18 people, 13 died in and around Kabul, including several babies, he said."

...

"An estimated 10,000 homeless people are in Kabul, about 4,000 of them in two squatter camps. In addition, groups of displaced people are living in public buildings and abandoned ruins in as many as 25 locations throughout the city. Most are refugees who have returned from camps in Pakistan in the three years since the fall of the Taliban. Some families have been living all that time in tents, with the men scraping up a little work as porters in nearby fruit markets."

Think of how much good we could have done if only we'd spent our billions on really fixing this country.

Knowledge is King
As usual, Bush's best friend is an ignorant populace:

"'I've been hearing for years now that Social Security was definitely headed for trouble, that it wouldn't be there when I was ready to retire,' said Mrs. Law, a home health care nurse who is 59. 'Last night's speech took that fear away. It was a weight taken off my shoulders.'

Yes, thank goodness Mrs. Law, who has never bothered to find out whether her retirement will be secure, even though it's just a few years away, who has chosen instead to rely on vague scary rumors as the basis for her retirement planning -- thank goodness she will be safe. And I will be paying for it.

Fortunately, most young people in this other article agreed that the plan was risky, though they did manage to find one Alex Keaton type who was gung-ho for privatization:

"'I trust in the market, long term,' Mr. Kotok said. 'I don't trust that an entirely government-run system is going to work.'"

Yes, because the track record of the stock market has been so much more consistent and placid than the track record of social security lo these 70 years or so.

But the article you really need to read is this one.

Same Straw Man, Different Day

2005-02-03T11:15:00.000-08:00

You see, if you disagree with him about Iraq, then you just don't care about terrorism.

Similarly, if you disagree with him about Social Security, then you just don't care about your children's future:

"Bush, in a speech in Fargo, N.D., noted that that Democrats grumbled and groaned at his assertion that Social Security will require higher taxes, big benefit cuts or massive borrowing unless something is done to fix its finances.

"'Some of them didn't see the problem,' the president said at the first stop on a two-day, five-state trip to sell his program."

Also, please note that this article was written by David Espo, a big fan of "personal" accounts (used twice in this article, vs. once for "private"), and I can't even begin to suss out all the horros in this article.

OK, here's one: in the above quote, Espo implies that Democrats groaned because Bush had suggested that tough fixes will be needed if something isn't done to fix SS now. That's not what they groaned about. They groaned when he said, "By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt."

Also, Espo, it might behoove you to note that the very fix Bush is proposing will itself entail massive benefit cuts and borrowing.

I don't know which to be more disgusted by, the misleading statements by Bush or the lazy, incompetent (at best) stylings of Espo.

And of course, no mention from Espo of "benefit offset." But if I don't understand it, I would hardly expect a mouth-breather like Espo to understand it.

Benefit Offsets, or I am Confused

2005-02-03T11:04:00.000-08:00

This is a huge, huge deal. I only wish I understood it fully.

The WaPo article that broke the news is here.

Atrios has some groundbreaking posts about it, here and here.

Now, I don't consider myself to be dumb by any stretch, but nor do I believe that I'm the brightest economic mind in the world, by any stretch of the imagination. I'm an amateur who dabbles, and it usually takes a while for the higher concepts to sink in for me. So far, this one isn't sinking in. Is it really, really possible that they're talking about setting up a system that actually takes away some of the money from our private accounts? Are they really proposing a system that, when normal SS benefits and private account returns are taken together, still provides only half the income we would have gotten by simply staying with the first system? If this is really the case, then this is explosive. Unfortunately, I think somebody else is going to have to figure out a way to explain it to make the rest of us understand it.

Quote of the Day

2005-02-03T10:28:00.000-08:00

From the incomparable Rude Pundit:

"And the Rude Pundit is sick of hearing how "bold" is every fucking thing Bush proposes. If George Bush took a shit in front of the Lincoln Memorial, Orrin Hatch would appear on Fox "News" to declare how bold a shit it was and how mighty a loaf was pinched out and how are the Democrats going to deal with a President who is unafraid to take a dump with a stone Lincoln staring at him."

The whole damn thing is brilliant.

The Times is Trying to Make You Stupid

2005-02-02T22:00:00.000-08:00

The New York Times has a story tonight "explaining" Bush's proposal. It aggressively tries to make you stupid, beginning with the very headline:

"Proposing Private Accounts in Addition to the Safety Net"

BUZZZ! Wrong again, New York Times! What we're discussing here is private accounts instead of a safety net. Thanks for playing, though.

It keeps up the stupidity campaign in the fifth paragraph down, when it discusses the cost of the program: "It will also involve the extent to which guaranteed benefits would be reduced and the cost of moving to a system of personal accounts - more than $700 billion in the next decade and trillions afterward."

BUZZZ! Wrong again, New York Times! Lower in the story, you try to explain this assertion, I think, saying:

"A senior administration official put the cost from 2009 through 2015 at $754 billion - $664 billion to pay benefits and $90 billion for interest on the money borrowed."

Is that where the "more than $700 billion in the next decade" assertion came from? Do you think it might have been worth mentioning that that figure came from the White House? Also, you'll notice that "2009 through 2015" is not a decade. I know you're trying to put a total figure on the costs that will be incurred between 2005 and 2015, but what's the point of that? What's operative here is what costs are incurred during the first decade of the program. Wouldn't it have been more meaningful to talk about those costs? Or did "in the next decade" just roll better off the tongue?

Updated to add: OK, I'm starting to get it: The gradual phasing-in -- the "fiscally responsible" thing Dubya was talking about tonight -- is what makes the cost in 2005-2015 lower, at $700 billion-plus, rather than the $1 trillion usually cited. My reaction, though, is still: so what? How does this really help, aside from delaying less than 30% of the pain until a few years later? The cost will still need to be incurred.

Also, get a load of that picture they're using. You half expect to see a Bible or a hymnal beneath those admonishing hands. Once again, the Bush-as-pastor theme is promulgated. Fitting: we are indeed sinners in the hands of an angry God, with madmen in power and fuckwits for watchdogs.

Depressing

2005-02-02T16:48:00.001-08:00

On the Netscape home page now, the top news story is the SOTU, with the following head and subhead:

Bush: Make Social Security 'Permanently Sound'
Bush challenged Congress to save the costly social program from bankruptcy.

Oh, God, where to begin?

Bush "challenged" Congress. Gosh, what a leader.

He challenged them to "save" SS "from bankruptcy." The "bankruptcy" isn't in quotes, though, so a casual reader will be left with the impression that bankruptcy is indeed what's in store for SS and that it needs saving and that Bush is the only one with balls enough to "challenge" Congress to do something about it.

Oh, and SS is a "costly social program." Just in case you weren't aware of that.

Another egregious statement tonight, from I believe Cokie Roberts -- I saw so many depressing, depressing yammering heads tonight that I've forgotten which one said what nightmarish horror. But I think it was Cokie that said, "He's asking to have a conversation about reform."

He's "asking to have a conversation." Because this conversation has never been had before, apparently, not in the past several decades. Seriously, what he's doing is asking somebody else to do the heavy lifting for him. He's begging Democrats to bail him out and propose some sweeteners that will help this shit sandwich go down. Any Democrat that does that will, hopefully, be politically doomed.

A quick spin around the Web to check the tone of the headlines reveals:

CNN.com: "Bush: Advance the ideal of liberty: President Bush used his State of the Union speech to press home key domestic and international agendas. At home he promised to reform Social Security for future generations. Looking overseas, Bush vowed to spread freedoms around the world while continuing the war on terror, and he pointed to Iraq as a symbol of change."
MSNBC.com: "Once and for all: Bush says nation must fix Social Security."
ABCNews.com: "Bush Urges Congress to Save Soc. Security: President Bush challenged a hesitant Congress on Wednesday to 'strengthen and save' Social Security, saying the nation's costliest social program was headed for bankruptcy unless changed." At least ABC says the "bankruptcy" thing is a quote. But again with the "costliness" of Social Security, and again with the "challenging."
CBSNews.com: "Bush Pitches Social Security Fix: President Bush warned in his State of the Union address that Social Security was headed for bankruptcy unless Congress enacted a permanent fix."
FoxNews.com: "A Great Venture: President Bush lays out plan for Social Security reform, hails Iraqi democracy, puts Iran and Syria on notice."
NYTimes.com: "Bush Says an Overhaul of Social Security Is Essential in Order to Avoid Bankruptcy." That's the banner headline. The main story head and sub-head are: "In Speech, Bush Sketches a Bold Domestic and Foreign Agenda: President Bush laid out details of how he would create individual investment accounts and assure the health of Social Security." The subhead seems to take it for granted that "individual" accounts will assure SS's health. The headline calls his foreign and domestic proposals "bold." Maybe privatizing social security is bold, but I don't recall hearing any particularly bold foreign policies tonight.
washingtonpost.com: "President Makes Case for Social Security Plan: Plan would allow workers under 55 to create private retirement accounts, changes Bush says are needed to protect program that is in danger of bankruptcy."
WSJ.com: Bare bones: "BUSH SHARED the first broad details of his Social Security overhaul, which would divert up to one-third of the system's payroll-tax revenue to individual accounts beginning in 2009."
Yahoo: "Bush Urges Congress to Save Social Security." Again with the "saving."
Google News: "Bush says Social Security revamp may involve cuts: President George W. Bush proposed the biggest overhaul of Social Security since its 1935 creation on Wednesday night in his State of the Union speech ..."

Orwell Would Be So Proud

2005-02-02T16:48:00.000-08:00

In a sneak peek at the smidgen of detail that will be offered tonight by the ~~Panicker in Chief~~ Preznit in his State of the ~~Crisis~~ Union address, David Espo of the AP uses the word "personal" seven times and the word "private" just once, in reference to the accounts Chimpy wants to set up to ~~destroy~~ save Social Security.

Somewhere, Frank Luntz is laughing. And playing with himself. And eating. Somewhere else, George Orwell's grave is empty, because he has spun himself like a corkscrew right out of it and is currently taking a subterranean trip around the globe, spinning, spinning, spinning.

Shameless

2005-01-25T06:18:00.000-08:00

Republicans once again prove they have no shame:

"In a sign of the intensifying political battle over Social Security, the AARP released a nationwide poll Monday indicating deep public skepticism about President Bush's plan for personal accounts.

...

"In a two-page rebuttal, the Republican Party said the AARP's survey relied on slanted wording, misleading questions and an unrepresentative sample of the nation as a whole to come up with its findings."

They complain about "slanted wording"? "Misleading questions"? After all they have done to mislead the public about Social Security? Utterly shameless, as usual.

And of course the AP story has not the slightest hint about what's really happening with Social Security, just that Bush "has called on Congress to enact legislation that will put Social Security on a stronger financial footing." It will put Social Security on a stronger footing? The AP has made that assessment?

As usual, the Republicans are shameless, the media are clueless, and the cycle of life continues.

Social Security's Stalking Horse

2005-01-23T11:09:00.000-08:00

Ve ah gonna take the pension plan and deeze tings and skveeze it and grope it like dis!

A Kos diary entry today mentions a New York Times article on Medicaid privatization in Florida as a possible stalking horse for federal privatization efforts. That may be so.

But an even scarier article was found elsewhere in the Times, desribing Schwarzenegger's efforts to kill the California state pension program.

If the GOP succeeds in California, not only will it eliminate a significant voice for investors' rights, it will give new life to those who want to kill Social Security.

Schwarzenegger is using the same tactics in California that Bush is using on a national level, describing the system as a crisis, "out of control," that needs to be privatized immediately. As with Social Security, experts say the California pension system is actually in very sound shape.

What's more, Calpers, as it is known, has long been a critical advocate for investors' rights, fighting for greater corporate accountability and stricter corporate governance. Conservatives have long despised it and are constantly trying to hurt it. Schwarzenegger's plan could completely kill it.

But perhaps most importantly, this fight could help set the tone for the national fight: "The outcome of the vote in California, pension experts and political analysts say, will not only have an impact on the state pension system, but will also provide an important marker of public opinion on proposed changes to Social Security."

National opponents of Social Security already recognize the importance of this fight, including the usual suspects such as Stephen Moore: "Mr. Moore, who has advised Mr. Schwarzenegger on economic policy and participated in an independent audit of state finances last year, said that California tends to lead the nation on social policy. If California moves from a traditional defined-benefit pension plan to a 401(k)-style defined contribution plan, the nation is likely to follow, he said."

This is a critical fight that we can't allow them to win.

Per the Times, there's a new Greatest Generation

2005-01-22T09:48:00.000-08:00

In a Sunday Week-in-Review piece for the Times about Social Security, John Tierney says:

"As they now take on Social Security, Republicans are counting on a more independent group of Americans, who are comfortable with placing their savings in the financial markets."

Yes, obviously prior generations of Americans were simply weak-hearted and overly dependent on the government teat. You know, those lily-livered generations that weathered the Great Depression, defeated facism and communism and built the greatest military and economic power the world has ever known. And now suddenly they're all, "Oh, I'm scared. Oh, I don't want to risk homelessness by handing my entire life's savings over to Wall Street!" Pussies.

Tierney goes on to write:

"President Bush is careful not to sound that menacing. In his inaugural speech, he promised that the new ownership society would make 'every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny,' but quickly explained that this would provide 'greater freedom from want and fear' - a purposeful echo of the same guarantees that Roosevelt made for the New Deal."

He "explained" that. He "explained" that taking your life's savings to the blackjack table gives you "greater freedom from want and fear." Thanks for clearing that up.

And of course Tierney goes to the usual well for the usual quotes from the usual drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub crowd:

"'Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state,' said Stephen Moore, the former president of Club for Growth, an antitax group. 'If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state.'"

You know, I don't think journalists quote this guy or Grover Norquist enough. I think one or both of these guys should be featured in every article about Social Security and tax reform ever written. If I didn't know better, I'd swear they were being paid by George Soros to make sure Republicans never get their fondest wishes, by scaring the living shit out of anybody who reads their quotes. "Jab a spear through that," indeed. Hell, I want to send Steve a check.

Tierney lists some typical poll responses on Social Security:

"Americans are wary of change. Some polls have found that allowing private Social Security accounts is favored by a majority of Americans, with support especially high among young people, but the support drops when pollsters mention that private accounts could be risky. If asked to choose between a system with private accounts and a system with guaranteed benefits, people tend to prefer the guaranteed payments.

"But then, people also repeatedly tell pollsters they're not sure they can count on guaranteed payments from Social Security. In the New York Times/CBS News poll conducted from Jan. 14 to Jan. 18, only a quarter of the respondents said that Social Security could be fixed with minor changes, while half said it needed fundamental changes and a quarter said it needed to be completely redone."

He doesn't bother to mention any of the facts about Social Security. It's an analysis piece, mainly about process, so perhaps it's not necessary. But it's sort of a glaring omission not to mention that Americans are woefully misinformed -- after all, that's part of the process, and it's something the White House will try to take advantage of, as Andrew Kohut suggests:

"'There's so much softness in response to questions on Social Security because the public hasn't really made up its mind,' said Andrew Kohut, the director of the Pew Research Center. 'There are a lot of conflicting sentiments, and which strain of thinking comes out on top depends on the struggle for public opinion this year.'"

There may be "conflicting sentiments," but there's also just plain old ignorance, on which Bush will try to capitalize, and of which Tierney doesn't take note.

Tierney also focuses a lot on something we already know: that Bush is going to push privatization as a way of reducing the government's role in people's lives:

"Edward H. Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said the way for Mr. Bush to win that fight is to emulate Ronald Reagan.

"'Reagan tapped into a basic American sentiment that frightens the establishment figures, who assumed everyone wants the government to run their lives,' said Mr. Crane, who has been promoting private Social Security accounts for more than two decades. 'That New Deal was a sharp departure from the traditional American respect for the individual. If Bush plays this correctly - and Karl Rove is a very smart guy who's looked at the same polls we have - he can win simply by arguing that a private account gives you control over your retirement instead of making you dependent on 535 politicians.'"

OK, first of all, a government providing retirement security for its citizens is an entirely different animal than a government "running people's lives." In our system, the government invests a small amount of people's money for them in a secure way and then guarantees to return it to them in such a way that enables them to eat and have shelter in their declining years. Some obviously argue that the government temporarily holding and investing a small amount of their money for them is an abhorrent intrusion, but the alternative could be far, far worse, both for the state and for the individuals in it. In other words, if we have armies of old people dying on the streets, how does that benefit either the state or the rugged individualists in it? It'd be like everybody funding their own fire and police protection. Killing Social Security is an extreme libertarian idea that simply isn't practical.

What's more, "respect for the individual" is the basis of, not the antithesis of, Social Security. Every person deserves to have a modest safety net after a lifetime of hard work, even those many of us who are too stupid to figure out how to make money in the stock market, such as myself.

Your So-Called Liberal Media

2005-01-20T21:34:00.000-08:00

Oh, the shame. Mediamatters has a list of the heads who talked to America from the TeeVee during today's coronation festivities.

Sort of amazing, isn't it, that Fox is the only cable news network that featured more Dems today than you can count on one hand. I take it, then, that CNN and MSNBC have decided that about, oh, 49% of the country can go pound sand.

Party Like It's 1994

2005-01-20T20:57:00.000-08:00

In the latest (Jan. 24-31) issue of New York, John Heilemann writes about how the Social Security battle is shaping up to do for the Dems what the health-care battle did for the GOP in 1993:

"In early December, William Kristol went up to Cambridge to deliver the Theodore H. White Lecture at the Kennedy School of Government -- a stem-winder on, what else, “The Meaning of the 2004 Election.” After an hour of talking mainly about the GOP, Kristol was asked in a Q&A to assess the Democrats’ current predicament. In his dry, wry, mordant way, Kristol pointed out that the Republicans had been in similar, and arguably worse, straits in 1993 and 1994—until the epochal battle over the Clinton health-care plan catapulted the party into control of both houses of Congress. Then, quietly, Kristol added, “If I were a Democrat today, I’d be looking at Social Security.”

...

"To any Republican with a sense of history (let alone irony), the possibility that Social Security ’05 could be a replay of health care ’94 (with the partisan polarities reversed) looks all too real, and scary as hell. To Democrats, however, it is, and should be, an opportunity to get up off the mat."

It's really worth a read. He points out the many similarities between the Dems of 05 and the GOP of 93/94 -- they are completely out of power, facing a president who thinks he's got more popular support than he really does, a president who's dead-set on an epochal reform that will make or break his presidency. There are some other similarities, but those are enough for starters. Heilemann suggests that, if Dems can show the kind of backbone the GOP showed in 93/94, they can turn the tables of power, as the GOP did back then.

But he also points out some of the differences in the two situations. For one thing, obviously, Bush is beginning his second term, while Clinton was beginning his first. That actually could work to Bush's disadvantage, since many of the people he needs to help him are up for reelection, while he is not. On the other hand, another big difference between the two situations is the fact that the Dems haven't been out of power all that long, while the GOP had by 1993 been in the wilderness for decades. They were hungry, disciplined and had a charismatic leader in Newt Gingrich. Heilemann points out that the Dems have no Newt Gingrich of their own, now, but suggests that perhaps Rahm Emanuel could be one.

Given what Josh Marshall has said about Rahm Emanuel, I'm not so sure about that.

But I do see the Dems as being amazingly disciplined (so far) on this point, perhaps enough that they don't really need a charismatic leader. And they certainly have the intellectual muscle (Bob Rubin, Orszag, others) and grassroots support (BlogPAC and its affiliates) behind them. The only question now is, how far will Bush push this issue? Will he push it far enough that it does him damage, or will somebody talk sense into him before that point?

Also, what is Bill Kristol doing giving pointers to the Dems? Heilemann points out that Kristol is against Bush on this issue and suggests he has some Machiavellian reason for that. What could it be, I wonder? Did Bush snub him somehow? Is he nostalgic for the days when the Republicans were an opposition party? Should be interesting to watch.

Is Lieberman Leaving the Faction?

2005-01-20T20:49:00.000-08:00

Josh Marshall has Joe Lieberman in his Faint-Hearted Faction. But tonight on the Daily Show, he seemed to write his ticket off that island. I don't have a verbatim transcript or anything, but he said something to the effect of "Let's leave Social Security alone. It's one of the best things we've ever done, and we should be able to encourage private investment without altering Social Security." Again, that's not verbatim, but that's the jist of what he said.

I see that Josh has been getting a lot of e-mails from other people about the show, too. I'm taping it tonight, so I can get his exact language. I'm sure the more technologically-advanced people with TiVos will beat me to it.

Anyway, it's very encouraging to see Lieberman line up with the forces of good. More evidence of the dynamic discussed in an article in the new New York magazine. More on that in a minute.

Update: Sure enough, Josh has the TiVo transcript: "Lieberman: Social Security protection - don't fool around with it. It's probably the best thing the government has done in 100 years, getting senior citizens out of poverty - Stewart: You're not just saying that 'cuz you're getting older? Lieberman: (laughs) Yes that's one reason I'm saying it, but if we want to add some extra savings opportunities for baby boomers and those younger, let's find another way to do it without messing around with Social Security."

Econ News, Jan. 20

2005-01-20T13:43:00.000-08:00

Today's reports were middling at best.

First, the Conference Board laid its latest LEI on us, saying it jumped 0.2% in December. That's a hair better than forecast (though I've always been sort of amazed that people can fail to forecast this, since every component in it is known. Then again, who really cares all that much?).

Anyhoo, November's gain was revised upwards, too, helping to ease the painful sting of the five straight months in which the LEI fell, the sort of stumble usually associated with a crappy (if not recessionary) economy.

But should we get all excited? Well, no, says the ubiquitous Ian Shepherdson, who believes January's number will be flat. Meanwhile, the ECRI's weekly index of leading indicators has fallen back below zero.

In the second report, the Philly Fed said its factory index plunged to the lowest level in 18 months, to a 13.2 reading, nearly half the consensus forecast of 25. The Empire State index was down pretty sharply, too. Again, should we care? Well, to the extent it tells us anything about the national factory sector, we should. Lehman Brothers said the number points to a 2-to-3-point drop in the ISM for January. But, I would also ask how much the ISM tells us about the national factory sector. Lately, it seems, not much; ISM has been at levels lately that should be consistent with runaway economic growth, and we sure haven't seen that. Best, in the end, to wait for the actual numbers from the government.

But one more anecdote, from Bob Brusca: "The Fed’s Beige book –- topical up to January 10th, was quite upbeat about manufacturing in general. One exception was the Cleveland Fed. Reports I get from ‘on the ground’ in Michigan suggest that things in that part of the country are not so sweet either."

In a separate e-mail, Brusca also pointed out that Minneapolis Fed President Gary Stern had deviated a bit from the Fed's recent script in a speech today. I can't get a copy of the speech yet, but I'll take Bob's word for it. "Stern says he expects that inflation will remain subdued. He also admits that inflation could pick up but adds that he wouldn’t bet on it," Brusca said.

Interesting, but I don't know if it means much. After all, Mr. Stern is not a voting member of the FOMC.

Hail Satan!

2005-01-20T11:29:00.000-08:00

Spare the Rod, Spoil the Sponge

2005-01-20T06:36:00.000-08:00

The mighty conservative movement marches on.

No, you smirking liberals, it's not ridiculous at all for right-thinking Christians to target for destruction a cartoon sponge who lives in a pineapple under the sea. Not ridiculous at all. As long as our culture is beset with this nautical nonsense, with our impressionable children "dropping on the deck" and "flopping like a fish" -- clearly code words for homosexual activities -- then the terrorists win. Also, the Devil.

Update: James Wolcott has a new name for Mr. Dobson: SpongeDob StickyPants.

Getting our shit together

2005-01-19T11:46:00.000-08:00

It's heartening to see how effectively liberals have rallied in response to Dear Leader's plan to "reform" the Social Security system with a 12-pound sledgehammer. Even Liebermanesque Dems have opposed it, and now lefty bloggers have formed a new site, There Is No Crisis, to help explain to the public that laying waste to their retirement security might not be the best idea ever. Of course, they'll be accused of taking payola from the ghost of FDR or something, but never mind. I'll be linking to it often.

Bush vs. Facts

2005-01-12T14:06:00.000-08:00

I wish I could claim credit for the headline, but that's the brilliant sub-head of a must-read Rex Nutting column (?) today at CBS MarketWatch:

"President Bush made several factual errors Tuesday about Social Security's long-term financing problems at a photo op event designed to educate the public about the retirement system."

It's an awesome, and brief, and non-sleep-inducing read. Print it out and carry it around with you as a talking points memo for future arguments with rabble-rousers who want to destroy Social Security in order to save it.

Thank God guys like this are around. It's sort of sad, though, that so few of them are available that none could be found to work for the Washington Post or the New York Times.

Donaldson caves

2005-01-12T06:10:00.000-08:00

So much for the tougher SEC. From today's Journal:

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William Donaldson, facing business and political criticism for advocating an agenda that some consider too regulatory, is softening his stance on two controversial proposals he initially championed.

In recent weeks, Mr. Donaldson has told SEC staffers and others that he is reconsidering his support for a proposal to overhaul the way stocks are traded in the U.S., according to people who have spoken to him about the matter. The New York Stock Exchange opposes the proposal, and now Mr. Donaldson may back a less-radical plan for overhauling trading rules.

[...]

Mr. Donaldson was brought in as chairman in the aftermath of several corporate scandals to help restore investor confidence and to shore up the SEC's reputation as an effective watchdog. Since then, he has come under fire from fellow Republicans for pursuing a regulatory agenda that some say is out of sync with his party's pro-business stance. He has pushed through significant proposals on mutual-fund governance and hedge-fund regulation with only the backing of the SEC's two Democrats. He also has clashed with his two fellow Republican commissioners on some enforcement issues. Republican anger toward Mr. Donaldson has prompted speculation that he may leave before his term expires in 2007.

In an interview Monday with The Wall Street Journal, President Bush praised Mr. Donaldson for holding corporate wrongdoers accountable but cautioned against regulatory overreach. "You want government to uphold law. What you don't want government to do is to freeze investment. And there's an interesting balance there," President Bush said.

Some within the SEC said the political and business pressure is causing the chairman to tread carefully when considering this latest proposal to revamp stock-trading rules. "Donaldson, as much as possible, is looking for regulatory approaches that get as much support as possible and, at this moment, is not interested in taking on something as controversial" as the plan to revamp stock trading, said an SEC official familiar with his thinking.

[Emphasis added]

Well, that was nice while it lasted.

I'm agnostic on the best-price rule; I just don't know enough about it to know whether it's a good or bad idea. But I do know that there has been a lot of heat on Donaldson lately, for trying to enforce rules that require businesses adhere to only minimal standards of honesty and accountability. Yesterday's WSJ had an interview with Bush in which he made more comments like the one above:

He praised the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for tough policing of misdeeds in corporate America, but warned of a danger of squelching investments by going too far. "We've been through a very difficult period, and the Justice Department and SEC have been doing a very good job of sending a clear signal that if you break the law there will be consequences," he said.
But he also called for "balance," saying: "At the same time we are mindful that a system that can become too onerous is one that makes America not the best place in the world to do business."

Getting the message, Donaldson? Apparently, he did, and he's caved to at least some of their demands. Not a good sign, but not too surprising.

Donkey Rising

2005-01-10T09:32:00.000-08:00

The Democrats are still scratching their heads about their election defeat (pick any one of the past four years or so), but some real important strides are being made:

"We were caught off guard by this perennial Republican attack-dog mentality," says Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a potential 2008 presidential candidate, reflecting on 2004. "We've got to find ways to develop our own."

Good point, Bill! I think we all were caught completely off guard by that surprising Republican attack-dog approach. After all, Republicans have always been downright chivalrous in their approach to elections. Who could forget ...

1972: G. Gordon Liddy tells Richard Nixon he's willing to break into DNC headquarters and get the dirt on Hubert Humphrey. Outraged, Nixon personally drags Liddy before a national television audience and beats him briskly about the face and neck before offering to concede the election. Humphrey declines, and an impressed electorate sends Nixon back to the White House with a resounding triumph.

1988: Lee Atwater tries to make political hay out of the fact that Michael Dukakis once set a scary non-white inmate free to commit scary non-white crimes. An offended George H. W. Bush responds by convincing Ronald Reagan to free several non-white federal convicts, and then he takes the inmates on a trip to King's Dominion, where they ride rides and eat ice cream and don't rape or murder anybody. Everybody has a laugh and learns a little something, too, and Bush wins in a landslide.

2002: GOP operatives, including Ann Coulter, poke fun at Georgia Sen. Max Cleland for only losing three of his limbs in Vietnam. His opponent in that year's senatorial race, Saxby Chambliss, is so ashamed of his associates that he hacks off all of his own limbs and is wheeled to an easy victory over Cleland, the Democratic incumbent.

So who could have seen 2004's dirty GOP tricks coming, except for Bill Richardson, whom we're going to start calling "Ol' Eagle Eye" for his keen powers of observation. With geniuses like Ol' Eagle Eye on the case, Democrats should next win another election in the year never. Start writing your campaign-donation checks now!

Justice is served!

2005-01-10T08:38:00.000-08:00

Great news today, as the heads of four ne'er-do-wells from CBS News rolled into the gutter, where they bumped against the round noggin of Dan Rather, all getting their just desserts for participating in the Memogate fraud last year. PBR Street Gang is thrilled with the electric jolt of white-hot justice and can't wait to see it flow everywhere else it's deserved. For starters, the New York Times newsroom, where Judith Miller continues to hack away, and the Defense Department, where they still let Donald Rumsfeld talk and give orders and stuff. So let's go, justice! Come on!

Any time now!

Is Greg Mankiw lying?

2005-01-10T06:21:00.001-08:00

What brought me out of semi-retirement is this brief story in today's WSJ:

"PHILADELPHIA -- President Bush's top economic adviser, responding to criticism of the administration's plans to shore up Social Security, said the White House isn't seeking to slash retiree benefits, but aims simply to stop the system from showering ever-larger benefits on each new generation of retirees.

"N. Gregory Mankiw said that under current law, Social Security benefits for the average U.S. citizen are set to increase "by over 40%" in inflation-adjusted terms over the next four decades. To pay for such increases, he said, the government would have to raise payroll taxes to levels that could hobble the U.S. economy and make it "more like those of Europe."

(Quote from Mankiw)

"Public opposition to Mr. Bush's proposals for overhauling the Social Security system has grown as details have become known. The seniors group AARP launched a newspaper advertising campaign denouncing a proposal to permit workers to direct some of their payroll taxes into private savings accounts. Critics have also charged that Mr. Bush's proposal to index Social Security benefits to inflation instead of wage increases would reduce benefits by a third over the next few decades.

"Mr. Mankiw, who is chairman of Mr. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, said the government didn't begin to index benefits to wage growth until the late 1970s. Even then, he said, prominent economists were arguing that the system was too generous because wages tend to grow faster than prices. Unless the current system is revamped, he said, the U.S. government by 2018 will be paying out more in benefits than it receives in revenue. By 2042, the system will be "insolvent." If Congress were to wait until then to raise taxes to pay for benefits, payroll taxes would need to increase by about 50%, he said. Tax increases of that magnitude would have "adverse effects on the overall economy.""

First, if you cut the rate of growth of benefits, then you're slashing benefits. Hopefully, the media will notice this. I doubt they will, of course.

Second, saying the system will be "insolvent" in 2042 is overstating it a bit. That's one estimate of when the system will be forced to pay less in benefits. Another estimate, one not made by Bush appointees, predicts that day will come in 2052. In either year, the system will be able to pay 75-80% of full benefits for decades to come. Does that sound like an "insolvent" system?

Finally, I don't know what to make of his claim that payroll taxes would need to increase by about 50%. I will do my damnedest to find out, because that sounds like a lot of bullshit to me, or at least like the usual Mankiw-speak, which is it's bunch of shit molded around a sliver of truth to make a sort of bullshit panini.

I'm back

2005-01-10T06:21:00.000-08:00

I know all zero of you are thrilled!

The economy -- from 'soft patch' to 'rough patch'

2004-10-08T08:18:00.000-07:00

In recent months, happy talk, and nothing but happy talk, has been the order of the day when economists talk about the future of the economy.

Oil at $50 a barrel? The Fed raising interest rates? Terrorism fears abounding, with no end in sight? Why, that must mean the economy is set to accelerate, most economists -- including those at the Fed -- said, with GDP growth jumping to 4 percent in the third quarter and probably higher in the fourth quarter, and with job growth to return to 1990s-style monthly gains of 200,000 or more.

It's almost as if Wall Street economists -- and the Fed -- have been taking a page from the Bush administration's Iraq playbook: keep saying everything's fine, despite all evidence to the contrary.

But at some point, evidence begins to pile up, and it becomes impossible for all but the most pig-headed economists -- here's looking at you, Brian Wesbury, Joe LaVorgna and David Malpass -- to ignore.

Such was the case with the numbers for September job growth.

They were, as usual, weaker than expected. They were actually somewhat stronger than I'd expected -- I was guessing closer to 50,000, while Rich Yamarone was calling for an outright decline -- but economists across the board recognized their weakness.

In fact, the gloomy talk from economists Friday morning seemed out of sync with the severity of the jobs report -- it wasn't that bad. But, of course, when you've been having sunshine blown up your ass for months on end, the slightest bad news feels like a horrible, horrible disappointment, indeed.

That's the reason I chose a long time ago to be a pessimist about pretty much everything -- that way, I'm more often pleasantly surprised, rather than crushingly disappointed. As a Braves fan, this approach has served me well.

In any event, business leaders don't have time for hopeful talk -- they have to worry about the bottom line, and they're not liking what they're seeing, according to a recent survey by the Business Council, a group of U.S. CEOs. Seventy percent of them see GDP growth of about 2 percent in 2005 -- well below the trend rate -- even as they expect oil prices to retreat to $40 a barrel.

"Doesn't Mr. Greenspan talk to these guys?" asked David Rosenberg, who has been one of the lone voices in the wilderness expressing caution. He goes on to say:

"The result sure dovetails with what the Fed staffers told us in the latest Beige Book. Bloomberg News quotes an economist saying 'I don't see how we get to 2 per cent.' These guys actually produce GDP; all we do is forecast it."

Indeed -- and not very well, at that.

Just a brief word about the Atlanta Braves

2004-10-07T13:21:00.000-07:00

YAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

That is all.

OK, just one more thing: I do believe there is some metaphysical reason why all the sports teams I really care about do this sort of thing to me. Look up the football, baseball and basketball records of the University of South Carolina Gamecocks to see what I'm talking about.

The Braves did win a World Series in 1995, but that was a strike-shortened year, about which nobody gave a crap -- including me -- and it did not nearly make up for their previous and subsequent heartbreaking post-season collapses.

As I said, I believe there's a reason for this. I just haven't figured it out yet.

Update: One more word about the Braves:

YAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!

That is all, for now.

Couldn't happen to a nicer pseudo-journalist

2004-10-07T13:19:00.000-07:00

Judith Miller is going to the hoosegow.

Weak-eyed devil

2004-10-06T13:47:00.000-07:00

TBogg, in quoting from Heart of Darkness, which was quoted in a review of The Plot Against America, drew a very astute connection (click on the link below to see the connection):

"I've seen the devil of violence and the devil of greed and the devil of hot desire. ... But as I stood on that hillside, I foresaw that in the blinding sunshine of that land, I would become acquainted with a flabby, pretending weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly."

Nice.

Just a note on Wall Street economists

2004-09-15T13:08:00.000-07:00

YAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Here's what I mean. The formerly intelligent people at Lehman Brothers, who several months ago drank some kind of idiot juice, squatted down and, after much grunting, squeezed out this turd today:

The Manpower survey was unchanged at +20, the same level it has been at since the second quarter. This suggests that there will be little acceleration in the rate of job growth. However, because this survey only explains a small portion of the variation in payrolls, payrolls could still increase or decrease within a broad range relative to the last quarter. Nevertheless, this report provides further support to our view on payrolls –- we look for payrolls to average 170,000 during the fourth quarter.

Now put on your thinking caps, Drew Matus and Joe Abate, Lehman Brothers economists, because it's time for Fun With Logic!

In the second, third and fourth-quarter surveys, the Manpower Survey's seasonally adjusted "employment index" has held steady at exactly 20 (though the non-seasonally-adjusted numbers actually worsened in the fourth quarter).

As Drew and Joe point out, you can't make a one-to-one comparison between the Manpower Survey's index and the number of new non-farm payroll jobs counted every month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But, even accounting for that margin of error, you can't deny that the Manpower Survey's clear message is that corporate hiring plans have been the same, more or less, since April.

But those are just the plans, what companies promised or expected to do with hiring when asked, months in advance, by clipboard-toting Manpower employees. Here's what they actually did with hiring, as measured by the BLS' monthly growth in payrolls:

April: 324,000
May: 208,000
June: 96,000
July: 73,000
August: 144,000

Does that look very steady to you? Of course not.

Granted, the average of those 5 numbers is a tidy 169,000 -- almost exactly what Drew and Joe forecast.

But you can't just ignore the obvious deceleration in the numbers between April and July. You can't just ignore the fact that, while the 2Q average rate of job growth was 209,000, the 3Q average rate of growth slowed way down, to 108,000 -- in clear contravention of the Manpower survey's message of stability.

And we can't yet assume that August's number was the start of a new trend upward, which would be necessary to arrive at the job growth promised by Drew and Joe.

In other words, the Manpower survey does not at all "provide further support" for Drew and Joe's view on payrolls, which (I might add) has been consistently and woefully wrong every month but last month, when job growth somehow miraculously managed to meet the cowardly consensus on Wall Street, to which Drew and Joe have clung like tiny monkeys in the highest branch of a swaying baobab tree in a thunderstorm. Don't expect it to happen again, Drew and Joe!

Get in the boat, James Wolcott

2004-09-14T13:16:00.000-07:00

I resisted Mr. Wolcott's blog for a long time. I figured I didn't have time for no frou frou, fancy-pants Van-i-tee Fair celeb-ri-tee blogger, no sir.

But I broke down and read it today and regretted that I'd delayed so long. He's brilliant. I defy you to read the last sentence of this rant without spitting coffee on your computer monitor:

Watching Cheney in inaction, a snapshot phrase popped into my head: "broken-down sidekick."
That's what our vice president is, a broken-down sidekick ready for a lawn sale.
Plopped there on the stage surrounded by loyalty-oathed Republicans--wife Lynne, the honorary den mother of The 'L' Word at his side--Cheney reminded me of Ed McMahon. Not the McMahon of the brassy, highflying Tonight Show years (though George Bush's mannerisms are clearly modeled on Johnny Carson's), but the Ed of the Jerry Lewis telethons and Larry King appearances. A slow-molasses Ed, consumed with bitterness against foes real and imagined, getting through each day on nothing but spite and chocolate eclairs stuffed in his mouth by his evil spouse.

Tracy Morgan voice\\Hilarious!//Tracy Morgan voice

Stuff I missed while I was away

2004-09-13T13:53:00.000-07:00

Hello, imaginary readers. I'm back from the partly-sunny shores of South Carolina. Myrtle Beach, that is. Redneck Riviera.

Here are some of the things I apparently missed while I was on the beach.

Transportation meltdown

Some say New York City has the finest public transportation system in the United States, perhaps even in the whole world. Some also say Pat Buchanan has a lovely singing voice. Believe none of them.

From the New York Times:

Heavy rainfall caused by the remains of Hurricane Frances lashed the New York area today, flooding roads and Manhattan's intricate underground subway network at the peak of the morning rush hour. Hundreds of thousands of commuters were forced to overcome delays or negotiate alternative routes to work.
...
In Manhattan, announcements were blared into the cave-like warren of train lines that criss-cross under the city's streets, telling frustrated commuters standing four-deep at empty tracks that several lines were stalled completely or delayed. Those that did pull into stations were so jam-packed with commuters that embarking was impossible.
...
Dina Florez, a 22-year-old event planner for a marketing firm, did manage to catch the N train at 8:30 a.m., even though it was running on the R line heading to Manhattan.
But it stopped between 25th and 36th Streets. "We were stuck in the tunnel for an hour and 10 minutes," Ms. Florez said. "It was horrible. No one could tell us what was going on. People were crying. Some lady passed out."

Sounds fantastic. Similar bullshit happened in 1999, when Hurricane Floyd hit the area.

But I guess I can accept disruptions associated with major hurricanes every five years or so. No big whoop.

What I can't accept is the fact that any rainfall causes the entire system to seize up. It's to the point now that, if I have to use an umbrella on the way to the train, you can bet I'm going to spend the next hour of my life armpit-deep in sweaty strangers.

The inestimable* Jason Mulgrew put it very well:

I never thought I'd look at another human being and think, "So help me god, if you don't let me on this train, I will murder you with my bare hands and fucking eat you right here in front of all these people." I really think this should be a part of training for US Special Forces. Just before going into battle, they should load about 60 on them onto a subway car, make it go four stops (a half mile) in 45 minutes, all the while have people pushing, shoving, and grunting as they move in and out of the car. Then, let them out of the car, give them guns, and just let them go out. We would have the greatest empire the world has ever seen if we did this.

Something about a typewriter

Apparently, the Interblogweb has been ablaze with furious speculation about whether or not a piece of paper that apparently proves that Fuckhead in Chief didn't show up for his super-cushy National Guard duty in the 1960s is actually a fake, and you can prove it's a fake because the t's on it are crossed in a way that they never would have been in the 1960s or because there's a font in the memo that you can only get with Windows XP or because the letters in Dan Rather's name, if translated into Arabic and then rearranged, spell "Candy-Ass Liberal." I don't know. But I have learned a few things from briefly reviewing the "news" articles related to this "story:"

1. People who believe things they read in the Free Republic are douchebags.
2. "Reporters" in the "media" believe things they read in the Free Republic, and thus are douchebags.
3. George W. Bush is a fly-covered donkey anus.
4. John F. Kerry is also a fly-covered donkey anus.
5. This nation is going to hell, immediately to hell, without passing go or collecting $200.
6. I no longer care.

We are all going to die if John Kerry is elected

I'm very sorry I missed the important news, from our Vice President, the extremely evil and nifty Lord Cthulhu, that a John Kerry presidency (God forbid!) would result in horrific terror attacks, probably in which schoolchildren are implanted with uranium and turned into dirty bombs that reduce all theme parks, Build-a-Bear workshops, old folks' homes, nurseries, pre-schools and stores that sell big-eyed puppies into smoking, radioactive wastelands.

Thank you, Lord Cthulhu, for informing me of this! Fortunately, John Kerry will never be elected, because:

1. See lesson #4 in the previous section of this post; and
2. This nation loves it some sweet, sweet fear! Without Lord Cthulhu slithering and grumbling about, without a religious crackpot in the highest office in the land, without weekly terror alerts, without foreign policies that allow and encourage such friendly, stable nations as North Korea and Iran to build nuclear weapons, we won't know what to do with ourselves. We may screw around and do something dumb like elect a President who enjoys pizza and blow jobs, like the last President.

* -- I don't know what "inestimable" means, exactly. I think it means he can't be estimated.

Bush speech, redux; Oh, and World O'Crap is my hero

2004-09-04T10:01:00.000-07:00

I'll be gone for the next week or so, down in Myrtle Beach, where I'll try to soothe the psychic wounds done to me by relentless thinking about tax laws and Republicans and the like.

Before I go, though, I have to say that I'm feeling a little embarrassed by my previous post, in which I suggested that I might occasionally "like" our boy king.

I think my reaction to his speech was at least in part affected by the fact that my outrage receptors have just been totally worn out after a week of snarling hate from the right. I'm worn down, then the dumb bastard cries a little bit, and suddenly I'm sympathetic.

With a couple of days to think about it, I feel a little sick about being manipulated by his show of emotion. He can cry all he wants, but he sent those men and women to their deaths.

On top of that, he's spent the past week-- OK, the past three years -- standing on the rubble of the World Trade Center, using the deaths of thousands of my fellow New Yorkers to advance his career and his crazy-ass agenda.

So, actually, Dubya, I'm reminded that I don't like you very much at all. Never have.

Anyway, to start my vacation on a much lighter note, I offer up this take on Dubya's speech, from World O'Crap. Here's just a sampler:

During the past four years as your President, I have accomplished many great things. Most notably, 9/11.

We love our First Lady. It's the law.

My brothers and sister are my closest friends. I talk to them once every couple of months. However, I talk to Karen Hughes everyday. See, I pay her to be my friend, and to pretend that I have super powers, and to shut the hell up when I don't want to listen to her. That's why America is the greatest country on earth.

But I believe that the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch. Again, I mean.

In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs. Hey, we could have done it this term, but it's only medical care for kids, so who cares?

Three days after September 11th, I stood where Americans died, in the ruins of the Twin Towers. Where was I on Sept 11th, 12th, and 13th, you ask. None of your damned business!

Since that day, I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. And then I read the comic strips. Garfield is my favorite. I also like to glance at the sports section.

On and on it goes. Go read it. It will make you laugh, it will make you cry, it will make you forget about tax laws and Republicans.

Police State, part deux

2004-09-03T14:38:00.000-07:00

I blurted out a half-baked semi-rant yesterday about how the police have been handling protesters at the RNC.

The Washington Post has now made my blood even boil-ier than before:

Several dozen of those detained said that they had not taken part in protests. Police apparently swept up the CEO of a puppet theater as he and a friend walked out of the subway to celebrate his birthday; handcuffed two middle-aged women who had been shopping at the Gap, and arrested a young woman as she returned from her job at a New York publishing house.

The story has many more examples of our bravest or finest or drinkingest, or whatever the hell they are, in action.

Boy, am I glad I didn't do something stupid like just swinging by MSG to see what was going on.

Bush's speech

2004-09-03T07:30:00.000-07:00

OK, let me get this out of the way right now: Sometimes, I can't help but like George W. Bush.

Yes, he's mean-spirited and shameless and filled with a sense of arrogant entitlement. Yes, he has an adolescent pride in his own ignorance and impatience and provincialism.

But when he teared up last night talking about the families who've lost loved ones in the war, it felt genuine. He's probably a worse actor than Der Gropenator; I doubt he can cry on cue.

His obvious sense of being overwhelmed by the sacrifice these people have made is a feeling I share, just as he obviously shared my sense of frustrated rage in the days after Sept. 11.

But that just means he's a human being with a pulse, and lots of people are -- but lots of people are not qualified to be president of the United States, and this guy sure as hell doesn't deserve to be given another term in that job.

If you need proof, you need look no further than his speech last night.

Despite posting the worst job-creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover, he proposed nothing bold -- as had been promised -- or even particularly constructive. There was more warmed-over mush here than in a high-school cafeteria: For example, please explain to me how an "opportunity zone" is any different from the Clinton-era "empowerment zones?"

Please explain how your plan to privatize social security is any different from your last plan to do that, the one you proposed in 2000, which died on the vine. Please explain how bold of an idea it is to "lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code?" What does that mean? Will you form a committee or something? What will be the practical effect?

As Andrew Sullivan and others have noted, he trotted out an awful lot of spending programs, in addition to revenue-draining permanent tax cuts. I understand that Bush thinks his daughters are a pain in the ass, but does he really have to use out-of-control budget deficits to punish the rest of us, and our children, and our children's children, for the sins of Jenna and Barbara?

To be fair, Kerry has proposed a lot of spending and tax cuts, too, but at the very least he's not promising regressive tax shelters, and he'd raise the top tax rate, and he's expressed a willingness to curb his own plans and instill a little spending discipline, if necessary, to keep the deficit under control. Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton did the same thing. This Bush has shown no such discipline. He's never met a pork spending bill he didn't like.

His heart wasn't really in all this economic stuff anyway. After all, fretting about the economy is for girlie men.

To try to coax the soccer moms back out from under the couch, where Zell Miller had chased them, he had no choice but to trot out such ancient chestnuts as "flex time" and "the soft bigotry of low expectations," but he was really chomping at the bit to get to the bloody, red meat of his speech: what passes for "foreign policy" in the Bush administration.

And there, this bold, forward-looking, transformational president offered ... more warmed-over mush.

Special delivery ... of freedom!

In fact, it's warmed-over, discredited, neo-con mush: we'll be delivering freedom and Democracy to the world, it turns out, whether the world wants freedom or not, because -- of course -- God wants us to:

I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world.

And America is sort of like God's UPS man, delivering big packages of freedom to the world's doorstep.

The only problem with that is, the last place we delivered freedom to is still trying to kill us. With 140,000 of our troops bogged down there, how are we going to deliver freedom to other countries? Stern words? Brain waves?

And let's assume that, somehow, Jeffersonian Democracy does suddenly spring to life in Iraq. Is that going to infect the rest of the Middle East with Democracy Fever? I don't know. Let's take a look at the countries that neighbor another Middle Eastern democracy, Turkey:

Hmm... let's see: Syria, Iran and ... Iraq! Yep, looks like this spreading-democracy thing has a long track record of success.

Where's Poppy?

By the way, the future Mrs. Capt. Willard noticed last night the short shrift Poppy got in the speech. If you happened to be snuffling back tears of patriotic joy at the moment he was mentioned, you might have missed it:

I'm blessed with a sister and brothers who are my closest friends. And I will always be the proud and grateful son of George and Barbara Bush.

My father served eight years at the side of another great American, Ronald Reagan. His spirit of optimism and good will and decency are in this hall and are in our hearts, and will always define our party.

Yep, that's what Poppy contributed to the world: he spawned Dubya and "served" "at the side" of Reagan like a faithful sidekick.

Of course, on second thought, it makes sense for Bush to ignore the fact that his father was also a president, however briefly. After all, we're talking about a guy who flip-flopped, raised taxes and left Saddam Hussein in power. At RNC 2004, that's Kerry-like, treasonous behavior. They probably had to put a Hannibal Lecter mask on Zell Miller any time he got around Poppy, given that track record.

Warning: Iraq re-hashing

Speaking of crazy people, I do have to give Bush credit for wading into the quagmire of Iraq, a fairly taboo subject for much of the rest of the convention:

In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force. We went to the United Nations Security Council, which passed a unanimous resolution demanding the dictator disarm, or face serious consequences. Leaders in the Middle East urged him to comply. After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused, and I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office, a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make. Do I forget the lessons of Sept. 11 and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.

I have to say, this is about as reasonable an explanation as anybody could possibly give for going into Iraq. I didn't think it was necessary at the time, and a lot of other people didn't think it was necessary, either, but I wasn't entirely sure about my opinion.

But there's also little doubt that members of this administration wanted to go into Iraq for months -- in some cases, years -- before Sept. 11, and that the tragedy gave them their excuse. And the administration's credibility about claims that Saddam had WMD was eroded by their relentless effort to misleadingly tie Saddam to al Qaeda and 9/11, in the absence of any evidence.

I doubt very seriously that the decision to go into Iraq was nearly as agonizing as it's described here, not only because of their obvious desire to do so, but also because they obviously believed the war would be a cake walk.

But they were wrong about that, as they were wrong about Saddam's weapons program and about Saddam's involvement with al Qaeda.

What's more, they were willfully, aggressively wrong about how to run "post-war" Iraq, and we and the Iraqis are paying for it with lives, limbs and treasure. Perhaps worse than this, the chaos in Iraq, including our disgraceful treatment of prisoners, has ruined our reputation and inspired a new generation of terrorists.

For how much of this is George W. Bush responsible? It's tough to say, but a guy who claimed he would be a "CEO president" needs to be treated like a CEO: he needs to be fired.

Update: Saletan reacts with a little more relish:

Recession. Unemployment. Corporate fraud. A war based on false premises that has cost us $200 billion and nearly a thousand American lives. They're all hills we've "been given to climb." It's as though Bush wasn't president. As though he didn't get the tax cuts he wanted. As though he didn't bring about postwar Iraq and authorize the planning for it. All this was "given," and now Bush can show up, three and a half years into his term, and start solving the problems some other president left behind.

Saletan's been knocking them out of the park lately.

Barking mad.

2004-09-02T20:51:00.000-07:00

Zell Miller is barking mad. He's barkier than those dogs on his porch.

This futile Googlebombing effort (since nobody's reading!) was inspired by Wonkette.

Dang. No aliens.

2004-09-02T13:47:00.000-07:00

There's been some talk that the SETI@home project has found a signal that could be a transmission from aliens.

The SETI@home project debunks it.

Good thing. We wouldn't want some alien race to discover that we stood a good chance of making a French-looking, UN-loving, mild-wound-in-Vietnam-getting Massachussetts flip-flopper the most powerful man on the planet, now would we?

Police state

2004-09-02T12:26:00.000-07:00

An Indian journalist gets detained at MSG for no apparent reason.

Tourists and onlookers are swept up in a spur-of-the-moment dragnet at the library, again for no apparent reason.

Protesters are being held for 40-48 hours, well past the legal limit, again for no apparent reason.

Welcome to George W. Bush's America, where this guy --

... is considered inspirational.

(AP photo)

Talk about low expectations...

2004-09-02T09:27:00.000-07:00

While we're having fun with transcripts, I thought this little exchange between Jeff Greenfield and Andrew Card on CNN's pre-speech round-table last night was interesting, too:

GREENFIELD: Andy, while we wait perhaps for your boss to show up, job figures are supposed to come out, I think, at the end of this week. Advance word is they are not going to be good. Candidly, is the economy not the soft underbelly of your reelection effort?

CARD: Well, I actually feel that the president put a solid foundation, and the economy and is building on that foundation. It was a foundation of tax cuts, and it was a foundation that had to correct for the corporate governance scandal that we had. And all of that made for an opportunity for to us grow. I actually think the jobs numbers will still show growth, so we won't dip into the negative range. They will show growth.

"Advance word?" I didn't think anybody got an advance peek at the jobs report, except for maybe the president and Alan Greenspan. Could Greenfield be referring to the fairly mediocre level of payroll jobs anticipated by the consensus forecast on Wall Street, about 150,000 or so?

Doesn't sound like it -- the way Greenfield and Card are talking sounds as if it will be worse than that.

In fact, Card's statement would seem to imply that the payroll figure will be extremely bad. Could he be trying to lower expectations, so that when a mediocre number comes, it looks better?

Joe Scarborough talks sense

2004-09-02T08:54:00.000-07:00

Last night, the "journalists" on Chris Matthews' panel giggled with glee at the brutality of the speeches by Miller and Cheney:

JON MEACHAM, MANAGING EDITOR FOR “NEWSWEEK”: If I taught at the Kennedy School, I would take these two speeches as urtext of partisan rhetoric.

I think it was a brilliant tactical night, one of the most brilliant in the age of television.

It somehow took Joe Scarborough to inject some sense into the proceedings:

SCARBOROUGH: I find it remarkable.

We are three days into this convention, and we have been talking all year about how this election is going to be about George W. Bush. The Republicans, with their ad campaigns, the third-party attacks, this convention, three nights into this convention, this convention remains about John Kerry.

I can‘t remember a major presidential election where you have an incumbent that makes the central focus of their convention about the other guy, about the challenger. It is a radical departure from politics as usual. And what does it say about what they think George Bush has done over the past four years, and, more importantly, what the American people think of George Bush?

It says they're worried. And let's hope they've got good reason to be worried.

Zig Zag Zell

2004-09-02T08:48:00.000-07:00

As if his foaming at the mouth on national television and challenging Chris Matthews to a duel didn't convince you, here's another reason to doubt that Zell Miller has any credibility whatsoever:

My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend.

He was once a lieutenant governor – but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.

In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment.

Amazingly enough, this is still posted on Zell Miller's web site.

Link via Atrios and others.

But we have all these tokens!

2004-09-02T07:24:00.000-07:00

Larry King burnished his SCLM street cred last night with a mostly blue-state panel, including BET Nightly News anchor Jacque Reid, MTV news guy Gideon Yago, UNIVISION anchor Jorge Ramos and political guru David Gergen.

Unbalanced? Maybe, but it was a refreshing change from the GOP-fest on Charlie Rose, MSNBC and, of course, Fox News.

I mean, it's not too quaint to suggest that somebody has to give an opposing viewpoint somewhere on cable, is it?

Anyway, an interesting exchange took place during the call-in session, when a woman complained to Reid about how minorities all flock to the Democrats:

CALLER: I'm a registered Democrat but and Jacque your -- your audience is predominantly black and I don't understand what they -- what your audience does not understand. President Bush, who is Condoleezza Rice? Who is Colin Powell and the head of education for the United States is black. How can they say that President Bush is not inclusive of the black race? How can they say he -- he does not try and help the black race?

KING: Before she...

CALLER: And did he not nominate -- this is for Jorge and Jacque, did he not nominate minority judges and who filibustered against them? Who stopped their nomination, the Democrats and I never hear anyone saying anything about it.

KING: All right. We'll start with Jacque and then Jorge -- Jacque.

REID: Well, to answer the question I think that a number of African Americans, the majority, look at the issues. They don't look at things like who is serving in the president's cabinet according to the polls that we've done and other polls that are out there will support this.

A number of African Americans, you know, the Census Bureau just put out poverty numbers, under insured, jobless rate for African Americans is twice that of the rest of the country. When you look at so many social ills that are out there, that resonates with African Americans.

They don't see the Republican Party doing enough and not just with those issues but issues that touch the hearts of African Americans like disenfranchisement when it comes to voting, like affirmative action, like the criminal justice system and the...

KING: So, they don't see -- they see Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell and the secretary of education as just what?

REID: Well, they think it's wonderful, I think. We looked at the most popular African American figures and Colin Powell was number two. They -- but...

KING: Who was number one?

REID: Jesse Jackson. Jesse Jackson was number one.

KING: Jorge, what about there were many, were there not, Latino judges nominated, held up?

RAMOS: Well, what we can say for sure is the following. Mel Martinez (ph) was the housing secretary with President Bush. Rosario Marin was the treasurer. Hector Barreto works with the Small Business Administration. So, definitely President Bush has been working with Latinos.

But more than blaming President Bush because he has really made an effort to reach the Hispanic voters, I think the problem that many Hispanic voters have is with the Republican Party. This is a party that many Latinos link with Proposition 187 in California, of course, against undocumented immigrants.

This is a party that many Hispanics relate with Pete Wilson, who also has taken many positions against undocumented immigrants. This is a party that has among their members Tom Tancredo, the Congressman of Colorado that constantly criticizes both undocumented and legal immigration.

So, it is very difficult to talk about an inclusive party when still the perception that this is a party that does not accept immigrants and among the many Hispanics is widely seem among many Latinos.

Very nicely done by both Reid and Ramos. The GOP can run its handful of minorities in front of the camera as much as it likes; it's not fooling anybody.

Fire bad!

2004-09-02T05:34:00.000-07:00

No, they don't care about the undecideds any more, do they?

That was the conclusion of several pundits last night. The general idea is that the ranks of the undecided are so thin and so likely to break for Kerry that their only hope is to try to get their base as energized as the Democrats are. Zell Miller did a lot to move that ball forward, Cheney a little less so.

It will be interesting to see what Bush does tonight. So far, the economy hasn't been mentioned at all, with the exception of calling economic critics "girlie men," an attempt to inoculate the president against bad econ numbers, but one that would seem to appeal only to people who operate on the emotional level of a 12-year old -- which is to say, many Bush supporters.

Bush will have to mention the economy some -- his campaign has promised as much, anyway. I'm sure he'd rather not mention it at all, but he has to offer new programs to prove he has the "vision thing."

I'm still not sure what to expect on that front. It may be the case that he'll want to keep the ideas fairly small, in order to keep the econ talk to a minimum, because it's anything but his strong point, to say the least.

But a new, bold tax-reform proposal would throw red meat to the base, for sure.

Updated to add: There's a Wall Street Journal article today by Harwood and Hitt saying Bush is still trying to appeal to undecideds, a group they believe is actually leaning to the GOP:

Bush aides suggest that an interest in details is one important characteristic in a candidate for the narrowing group of undecided voters, now estimated by some in the Bush campaign to be as few 6% of those likely to go the polls.

Bush aides say their polls and focus groups suggest the group tends to be consist of moderate to conservative, generally white voters who are likely to be churchgoers. In other words, they have the profile of potential Bush voters.

Odd. That's the exact opposite of what was said last night on CNN -- I believe it was a panel for News Night with Aaron Brown, which actually included John Harwood. The transcript is not available yet, so I can't be sure about that, but if that's so, it's odd that Harwood didn't mention the conclusion of his article. Could it be he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about?

Anyway, the article goes on to say that Bush's polling -- wait, I thought he didn't do that! -- shows that these undecideds also like to hear about specific policy proposals, which is why Bush will lay some out tonight.

It's also why Kerry probably really fucked up by not talking about specifics during the convention.

(That's an AP photo, by the way.)

The new face of the GOP

2004-09-02T05:27:00.000-07:00

Oh, well. So much for the undecideds.

(AP photo)

Tony Soprano to GOP: Drop dead

2004-09-01T15:19:00.000-07:00

From Salon (subscription required, or just watch an ad):

Then James Gandolfini came before the crowd and spoke briefly and pithily. "I can't tell you how mad I am these people are in my city," the actor who plays Tony Soprano bellowed, pointing backward at Madison Square Garden. "I can't tell you how mad I am it took Bush four days to get here after 9/11." And the crowd of New Yorkers -- sheet metal workers, transportation workers, teachers -- erupted.

Vulva puppets!

2004-09-01T15:17:00.000-07:00

'Nuff said.

Things are great!

2004-09-01T13:31:00.000-07:00

From Market News International (sub required, and I don't have one yet -- a friend sent the story):

"U.S. pawnbrokers are reporting a rise in the number of people seeking loans to make critical payments for doctors and utility bills -- and more shoppers hunting down bargains, signs of a struggling economy this summer.

"Most pawnbrokers regard their business as counter-cyclical in that they tend to see more activity when things slow -- as long as they don't slow too much, when all get hurt.

"But among pawnbrokers who see their business moving in a more direct line with the economy's ups and downs, there is also marked evidence of an economy adrift again.

"Either way, pawnbrokers paint a picture of Americans swimming in bills and finding it tougher to pare down debt."

Uh-oh.

This couldn't have anything to do with rising poverty, weak income growth and weak job growth, would it?

Oh, wait, sorry -- I was almost feeling girlie for a second there.

Ben Ginsberg, right-wing bloggers: girlie men all

2004-09-01T12:43:00.000-07:00

Benjamin Ginsberg, partisan hack at law, whines and cries about his unfair treatment in the press, and the right-wing blogosphere is there to help him to the fainting couch.

At a loss for words

2004-09-01T12:32:00.000-07:00

What can I say about Der Gropenator's speech?

I mean, is snark even possible in this situation?

We're talking about an action-movie star, already wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of most Americans and married into one of the wealthiest families in the nation, wagging his Austrian finger at us and informing us that any complaints about the current state of the economy can only possibly be coming from faggotty "girlie men."

There's really no way to approach this, except to shake your head in awe at the spectacle of it.

He even talked about "terminating" terrorism!

Have I finally had a nervous breakdown? Did I wake up in a Simpsons episode?

Others have managed to keep their heads and have done a better job than me: non-girlie-men such as Max Sawicky and Michael Berube. Oh, and of course Fafblog.

Couldn't happen to a nicer team.

2004-09-01T12:31:00.000-07:00

I do think it was unfair of the Browns to go for two when they were already up 20-0.

The Wit and Wisdom of Charlie Daniels, Part III

2004-08-31T13:45:00.000-07:00

"It cannot be denied and it cannot be ignored, there is at this very point in time a vicious and systematic attack on Christianity and all it pertains to.

"I’m quite sure that the A.C.L.U. would deny the fact that that is their intent and that they are involved in this effort up to their toupees but the Bible says to judge someone by their fruits and look at the fruits of the A.C.L.U. which are so well documented that I won’t even go into them." -- Charlie Daniels, from "Soapbox" column entitled "Christian Soldiers," Oct. 27, 2003

"The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska today announced that it would defend a Presbyterian church from a forced eviction by the city.

"'There's no reason for the city to force the Church of the Awesome God from its home, and the city is violating both the First Amendment and federal law in doing so," said Tim Butz, Executive Director of the ACLU of Nebraska." -- ACLU press release, Aug. 11, 2004

Shrill Bill

2004-08-31T13:22:00.000-07:00

William Saletan has got his panties all in a wad about how the Republicans are painting George W. Bush as a big he-man terrorist-killer, even though the President has had less acquaintance with physical danger in his life than the Bubble Boy:

"I don't mean to be unfair to Bush. Vietnam was a lousy war. He wanted a way out, and he found it. But isn't it odd to see Republicans belittle the physical risks Kerry took in battle while exalting Bush's armchair wars and post-9/11 photo ops?"

It's worth a read -- if you're an America-hater, I mean.

Today's economic numbers

2004-08-31T12:12:00.000-07:00

I haven't kept up with this as much as I should have, but we've seen three sets of numbers in the past two days that raise serious doubts about the validity of Alan Greenspan's "soft patch" theory/wish.

On Monday, we learned that, while consumer spending rebounded in July, consumer income growth was extremely weak, up just 0.1 percent, far short of Wall Street expectations and the weakest growth in two years.

The good news in that report was that inflation was tame and June's spending swoon was revised to something a little less disastrous.

The bad news is obvious: consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the economy, and if people aren't making money, they aren't going to spend money, unless they take on more debt, and they've already taken on quite a bit of that.

This morning, we got the Chicago PMI, the read of business activity in the Chicago region. I'm not exactly sure why this gauge is so much more closely watched than the indexes from other regions, but it is, and it showed a sharp slowdown in August.

The Chicago gauge's employment component actually rose a bit -- good news -- but inventories rose, too -- bad news, if shops are getting stuck with a bunch of stuff nobody wants to buy. Production prices rose, too.

Also today, we got the Conference Board's reading on consumer confidence in August. It slumped badly. It's still at a relatively high level, but job prospects have apparently not improved over July or June, when non-farm payrolls posted paltry gains.

I talked to Conference Board economist Delos Smith, who said his boss had gotten about "50 calls" from the White House about the numbers.

And little wonder: the Conference Board's number is the most highly respected in the universe of consumer confidence numbers.

It's also heavily dependent on how consumers feel about job growth and raises the possibility that, when Elaine Chao and Co. roll out their labor market numbers on Friday, they'll show that August was a crappy month to try to find a non-farm job, just as June and July were.

As the always entertaining Bob Brusca said today, ranting in response to those who claim that the comatose weekly jobless claims numbers are a sign of a new job boom:

The trend in job growth is clear: from 353K down to 324K down to 208K down to 78K down to 32K. Any questions?

Is there any REASON for people to think job growth will reverse this pattern? That is, is there a reason other than that such a shift is what is needed to confirm extant economic forecasts? Are there countervailing strong economic reports that say claims data are correct and job trends are wrong?

Friday's report comes the day after the Boy King accepts his party's nomination for a second term. If it's bad, it could crap all over his post-convention "bounce."

Stay tuned.

George W. Bush, master campaigner

2004-08-30T12:14:00.000-07:00

My God, Democrats must be quaking in their boots at the awesome majesty of George W. Bush's political skills.

Cower in fear, laughable mortals, as you witness King George unleash the full power of his strategelogical might!

TREMBLE at his unassailable position on the Iraq war:

David Sanger: So if you had to recalculate — what might you have done differently in this case?

THE PRESIDENT: David, what I am now doing is leading us forward. There will be ample time for people to dissect decision making, what went right or what went wrong.

And that "ample time" is right now, apparently!

THE PRESIDENT: What's important is, is that our strategy was flexible enough to adjust to conditions on the ground as we eventually found them. Remember, we thought there would be flows of refugees, we thought there would be starvation, we thought the oil fields would be destroyed. And none of that happened. And so, therefore, our commanders were given the flexibility to adjust, and that's what you're seeing.

Spin that, Democrats. What we're seeing now is not mass death, destruction, chaos and the gradual diminution of American power. No, what we're seeing is our commanders adjusting to the repercussions of their amazing success!

Second Term, here we come!

But silly David Sanger doesn't quite get the picture:

Sanger: So this — the mistake is specifically what?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's a — it's a miscalculation of the — what the conditions would be like after a swift victory, because we never dreamt it would be that swift. And so the fundamental question is, what are you doing about it? And what we're doing about it is dealing with it. We've got a flexible plan. In other words, a plan —

Sanger: Was it flexible fast enough? I mean ...

THE PRESIDENT: Well, David, that's what historians and that's what people like yourself could judge. The point is, it was flexible.

There you go, David: it was flexible. 'Nuff said!

WEEP with joyful reassurance at his calm leadership on North Korea:

"Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons."

SWOON in awe at his stirring optimism about the war on terror:

"As he prepared to accept his party's nomination for a second term in office this week, President Bush said the war against terrorism must be fought but that it's not likely to ever end.

"'I don't think you can win it,' the president said, when asked if the war on terrorism can be won. 'But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.'"

Yes, George W. Bush: Creating conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.

I'm printing up the bumper stickers now!