Sometimes all this activism seems to be vanishing into the void, but I was happy to see that one of my comments on the NYT site garnered 439 "recommendations." It was in response to Paul Krugman's article about the seeming lack of trust in the voting base...
Here it is:
The democrats are laying back, staring at the republicans across a small deep gulch. Across that gulch the republicans are making their static stand. The only argument that these neo neocons can come up with is as follows: "The democrats created this entire economic mess when they assumed power over both houses more than two years back. They (the democrats) would not recognize that there was a building problem and that something needed to be done." I have heard this argument, put forth by one conservative pundit after another, over the past few days. That the argument is total poppycock is kind of besides the point in this media age, wherein no member of the interviewing media will take a stand, do any real investigation or, and this is the real problem, confront bold-faced liars for what they are, right there on the television screen in front of everyone. But I am not unhappy over the direction of this new defense by the neocons. It is identical to the Maginot Line defense thrown up by the French before WWII. What the French learned, the republicans (who are proud not to study any history, or much else for that matter) will learn all over again. A static defense just does not work against a mobile opponent. Not one very well motivated with air and motor capability, anyway. So the democrats are, one and all, remaining silent in facing this new defensive attack. They are waiting for things to get worse. They know they will. The republicans are sitting there, fat, dumb and happy, with all that money squirreled away. Behind their Maginot Line. There exists motivation to counter their argument, one form of their static line. But why go at them that way, on their ground, and at their time. No, the democrats are going to wait until the physical assault becomes overwhelmingly called for. Then countering the verbal defenses will become academic. And that is all coming, and they know it. The republicans think that they can weather the coming storm. They see the clouds on the horizon. They have seen storms before. But they have never seen anything like this storm.
George Bush Jr. was listed as the seventh President from the bottom earlier today. By some sixty prominent historians. Seventh from last. This is humorous because of only one thing. The measurement of George Bush's presidency has only just begun. The tortures his people committed, the murders, the homicides and the breaking of our country, those revelations have only just begun. Hoover (one of the six supposedly below him) is going to look like a rock star two years from now. Harrison, another below him, who served only hours before expiring of pneumonia, will be cannonized in comparison. Six years ago I predicted that the word Bush would go from being a noun to a pronoun and then to a verb. The verb will stand for mean-spirited and willful stupidity in the face of all sound reasoning. To be Bushed, will be the same, a couple of years from now, as falling for the idiotic spiel of a snake oil salesman, or a carnie huckster.
I repeat. This economic downturn is like no other the world has ever seen. It will end in one of two ways (they are both the same but applied in different ways): Either we go after all the people who stole the money and get it back (my idea of threatening and using cruise missiles to force all offshore entities to divulge all their records and money is a great one), or we go bankrupt. As a world. All currency is cancelled. New currency must be issued. The second way is the same as the first, because it cancels the worth of all the squirreled away funds. Anybody coming forward and wanting some sort of 'conversion' to the the new currency must explain where he got all the old stuff! And, oh yes, do not forget the run lately on gold, silver and other commodities. Obama could even fix that. He could decide that the new currency was to be based on the value of, say, turquoise! I like that, as we have a small turquoise and silver mine in New Mexico! Then what do all these people hiding the money and commodities do? Punt.
You will notice that the current 'bailout' bill, and the last 'bailout' bill, and the bank 'bailout' transaction (actually the biggest one, and made by the Fed to the tune of three trillion dollars), all have something in common. They have no provision for the very people they are supposed to help. The people who are paying the tab. Every time those people are to be included in any of these mythical instruments of further theft, the provision that applies to them is scrapped at the last minute. Like the part of this current one's provision to help people keep their homes from foreclosure....and to renegotiate with the banks a to get a better deal. Just look at how hard it was just to get some help to the auto companies. Those companies are still begging and submitting ridiculous plans to rebuild and retool. The banks never submit one thing. In fact, they were instructed, as a part of the first bailout, not to divulge what they were doing with our money at all. Another bill was written later, when the media finally ran just a couple stories about this, to make them tell us what they did with all that money. It failed in committee.
There is something in this new bailout bill for the common man, however. It is jobs. Those thieves up there, and the son's and daughter's of thieves, are more than willing to give eight to fifteen dollar an hour jobs out all across the country. Jobs without any benefits. Jobs of meaningless potential and no future whatever. Just when, working class America, are you going to figure this Squire-Peasant relationship thing out and get mad. I mean really mad.
Where the hell is Krugman in all this? Come on out of your little phony economics professor corner Paul! That Pulitzer prize went to your head. Now all you spout are inane platitudes. Why are you not writing a column that broaches on the points I am making here? Because you don't have to anymore. You got the prize. You are now a made man. So much the worse for the rest of us. We only have Maureen Dowd, and she is not quite sure that she wants to run in my company, at all. Gee, I wonder why she has doubts? She has picked up the sword of Excaliber twice in the last three months. Twice only. She had brandished that sword, and called for the hunting down of these murderous financial gurus in their lairs, but then has backed off. Come on out Maureen, and play. Play hard. Play for all the chips. These are about to become survival times, and we need you. It would be okay if Paul joined you, but I don't expect him to get involved in this party.
from-the-chateau-dif.blogspot.com
http://www.themastodons.com
The Bubonic Plague was the scourge of the Dark Ages. Sweeping waves of this disease (referred to as the Black Death) swept through Europe and other parts of the world. A version of this terrible plague (which is totally curable using modern antibiotics) was called Pneumonic. The reason for that is the latin root word, which is all about breath. The black plague could be spread quickly and effectively just by people breathing on one another, or talking to one another. And hence the reason for my usage here.
I do not often take on Krugman. He is one of those idols of mine. An uncommonly logical and solid voice, well researched and well intended. Not unlike the writings of Maureen Dowd, another person I hold in very high regard. However, Krugman is spreading the Pneumonic Plague, using this phrase euphemistically. Maybe, using it analogously would be more accurate. Krugman now holds the prestigious Pulitzer. Not for mouthing off (as in the pundit he certainly is, and is only), but no, he holds it for economics. Why he accepted it under such false circumstance, well, you would have to ask him. For money. For prestige. Just because the guy normally writes really well does not mean he is not human.
Krugman is telling us what Dowd is telling us, just now. That Obama may be in trouble because of his seeming need to act in a bipartisan manner. Because Obama has had some people rejected by background information (they withdraw, as the situation requires, long before they go in front of the confirmation firing squad). And the plague continues to be spread. And nothing gets done about the expanding plague because nobody reports about it. They bob and weave, and even deny. But that elephant sitting there in the living room just sits there. Going nowhere. They are lying about it's existence and it is quite comfortable with that arrangement (the elephant, that is). I am not comfortable at all. And you will soon not be.
What is the elephant? You know in your bones what it is. You know because things are not turning any corner at all. Home values continue to head down. Unemployment continues to head up. Not real fast, but just this slow unstoppable slide and climb. The cost of hotel rooms continues to go down and the ranks of people applying for aide and assistance continue to go up. Day by day. The elephant is the great huge terminal point of this entire economy. By a very few, very quiet group of economists, it is estimated to be about two quadrillion dollars in size. Yes, that is two thousand trillion dollars!!! That is what it would take to bail out all the missing money. To bring things back to where they were a year ago. Our thieves have been just terrific capitalistic thieves. They competed and won it all. From us, the suckers who believed them and let them do it. Or, in many cases, we just refused to believe it.
Krugman and Dowd are not talking or writing about any of this. They have to know. What Obama knows. What both Houses of Congress just have to know, as well. That one trillion dollars is nothing. That eight hundred billion will disappear so fast as to be unnoticed. Just like the last eight hundred billion. Just like the three trillion the Fed gave to the banks. And the banks want three trillion more! Now! These 'baliouts' only buy us time. A month. Two months. Maybe three. And the money keeps being bled right into the pockets of the same people who took it all in the first place. Well, not all. Some of those people are long retired and those people, and their families, are just sitting out there in there multiple residences, with their private jets and limos. They have already invested in solid real gold and other commodities. Look at the street value of gold (what you have to pay if you want to buy an ounce or two of the real 24kt stuff). The 'street' price is almost twenty-five percent more than the price you see in the Wall Street Journal every day! What? That is because the Journal price is artificially fixed. They are doing the Krugman or the Dowd. They are lying too.
I am sorry that we have to go bankrupt. We cannot print a couple of quadrillion greenbacks. Oh, we could, but then our green back would be worth less than a cent. If you think that does not happen then you also do not believe that I actually own a 500 billion dollar Mark from Germany, which was issued near the end of the WWII. It is not even worth anything to a collector even today because they issued so many! If your currency becomes worthless, then the numbers printed on it are meaningless. We are headed there. The only other choice is bankruptcy. Then the cancellation of all existent currency. Then the re-issuance of a new currency backed by something (like gold and the other commodities wealthy people are buys buying up!). Yes, they have figured it out, those wealthy thieving bastards. But they can't tell you. If they tell you then you will get ready too. And then they won't have any gold or other real stuff left to buy.
Either way you look at it our currency is going to take a terminal beating here one day soon. Obama knows that. He also knows he cannot stop it. He also knows that you will still need leadership and some kind of law and order. That is his job. Providing that and making us all understand and feel better as we go through this rather painful 'adjustment.' Forgive Krugman and even Dowd. Yes, they do know better but please remember. This life is not about truth. It is about survival. We learned deception to get food. We used it to keep our species going (like for sex and such). We use it to feel good enough to keep going under the absolute worst of circumstance (by the social devices of religion and patriotism). That Krugman and Dowd are going to survive at a much higher and more comfortable level than you are? That is just part of fate. They are feeling no pain right now. And neither are any of the other people leading us. But they are afraid. They are afraid of your suffering and the results of your coming 'adjustment.' You see, you, the public do not do predictable things when you suffer. French Revolutions and American Revolutions result when you get upset. Of that they are afraid, believe me. As are all of us who know this are.
I am back from the Love is Murder convention. Can you tell? I spoke five times and had a most excellent time. My worst insult was that many people thought I sounded exactly like House on the Fox show. My best compliment is that many people thought I sounded exactly like House on the Fox show. For those of you who read me, I want you to know that I have a publisher for my second book (The Warrior) and that makes me smile. The first book comes out on April 15th, and it is called The Boy. You may not like the voice behind House but I think you will like the books. Honor. Integrity. Justice lost and found. Adventure. Travel and a lot of great mysterious stuff. I am ready to get back to writing more novels and other entertaining commentary. Thank you for missing me on this blogsite for the past few days. I am back!!
Dear President Obama: I am concerned. I am concerned that the "compromise" that is going to emerge from the congress will come up way short largely because the funds are just not there to give our economy the jolt that it needs. I know that you hold bipartisanship way up on your list as one of the noble principles to adhere to. But lets look at the facts. The people who are cutting this legislation short are the very same people who have screwed up this country time after time - the Repubs and the Blue Dog Dems who are Repubs Lite. Now what do you think they are going to say when our economy continues to fail because the soon to be current stimulus fails and possible fails dismally?As citizens continue to loose their lives they will start turning for new answers and guess who is going to step up and promise them "solutions." The very same "jackals" who are hamstringing the bill.You must call this for what it is immediately and explain to the Citizens of this country who have put their faith in you (including myself) how and why this bill is just a first step and that there will be numerous and necessary follow-up bills that will be necessary in the immediate future that will address our severe economic problems.If not, the "Jackals" will most certainly attack you and claim that your failures are due to your policies, not their policies. Your approach is the right approach if it is executed as intended. I think that bipartisanship is secondary to making sure that things get done right. The Repubs are all about making sure that it get done wrong. We can not afford that.
Your Loyal Supporter and Concerned Citizen
Eben Goresko
Let’s be honest. We didn’t really expect Congress to come up with a "bold" stimulus plan, did we? But do we agree that NO action will only aggravate our current crisis?
The GOP surprised us when it failed to respond more constructively to the bipartisan overture from Barack Obama. I personally witnessed the precedent-setting bipartisan dinner for his defeated opponent (my photo of the President-elect at the dinner honoring McCain, January 19) and noted the subsequent meetings with Congressional Republicans. And what did we get in the way of proposals from the loyal opposition? More of the dogma-driven, supply-side ideology that contributed to our current mess: tax cuts!
On the other hand, GOP critics have a point: the bill that passed the House and was embraced by Obama essentially is an accumulation of favorite Democratic spending proposals.
What is missing is CHANGE. The CHANGE Obama advocated in his campaign for the Presidency. The CHANGE that won him a resounding mandate to govern for four years. The CHANGE from policies that have worked to benefit few and imperil many. Where are the first steps toward affordable health care, a sustainable green economy and alternative energy? And why are we not moving boldly to address the systemic failures that underlie the current crisis in credit markets?
Obama asked for ideas. And Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, among others, obliged. But what these brilliant men offer is predictable: rationales for orthodox Keynesian solutions and concern about labor market distortions, respectively. More is needed, not just in additional spending, but in fresh ideas that advance the President's policy agenda. So, if suggestions are still welcomed, here is my two-cents worth. And please do keep the CHANGE.
Health Care
Obama has promised the nation affordable health care similar to his own Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), to be available to all by the end of his first term. There is no need to back off this goal. Health care is one of the largest drags on our economy and the stimulus bill provides a real opportunity to begin managing its cost. In addition to the bill’s provisions to help state governments fund Medicare and work projects, I suggest that the federal government reimburse all state and local governments for their employer's share of health care for the rest of this year. In exchange, recipients may not fire government workers and must commit to integrating their health care plans with the existing FEHBP starting in 2010. That provides additional and immediate financial assistance to state and local governments, while paving the way for the establishment of a Public Employees Health Benefits Program. By January 2010, the federal government’s negotiated health care program would expand its base and economies of scale. The next step will be to apply the system to businesses, and subsequently to capture the un- and under-insured.
Energy Independence
Most honest leaders recognize that in due course government will have to produce the substantial additional revenue to pay for the stimulus. But good luck finding a politician willing to propose increasing taxes of any kind. So let me suggest instead a hefty tariff on imported oil to fund the “green economy.” A tariff of 50 percent or more on the landed cost of all imported energy (probably with some form of accommodation for our NAFTA partners) can be justified because of national security as well as the external costs to our environment inherent in the use of fossil fuels. And such a levy would promote conservation, subsidize domestic production, and help to fund and protect our investments in alternative energy. This is a measure that should be welcomed by Republicans who advocate "drill, baby, drill” as well as environmentalists interested in promoting clean energy. The windfall earned by American producers could be invested domestically or taxed as profits. And while there may be a marginal increase of fuel cost at the pump, it will pale in comparison with the amounts we forked over to foreign potentates rather than our own Treasury these past few years, when oil was effectively 200% greater than its current price.
Reestablish a ‘Risk-Free’ Investment Benchmark
Explanations for our current credit crisis and financial market meltdown abound, including the Washington Post's excellent series. But absent from all the expert analyses is any mention of the Treasury Department's October 2001 decision to discontinue issuing 30-year Bonds. That decision, on the heels of 9/11 and the cusp of Bush's costly war on terror, both lowered mortgage yields and prompted increased sales of bundled mortgages marketed as alternative 'risk-free' instruments, which in turn fueled the housing bubble and distorted both government and corporate credit point spreads. Treasury Bond auctions have resumed, but a clear provision to finance America’s recovery through borrowing would repair yield spreads – both between short and long term sovereign debt and in relation to all other debt instruments. Transparent budget financing will help re-establish more realistic risk pricing and global confidence in the US economy. But the 30-year Bond will not regain its position as a benchmark for 'risk-free' long-term investment if Fed meddling in the market, as it proposes to do with its planned purchase of Treasuries from troubled banks. In fact, this central-bankers-gone-wild approach will only create a greater Treasury bubble that will seriously aggravate our problems. Once markets are allowed to properly price the cost and risk of our recovery without Fed manipulation, global confidence in the US economy has a chance to be recover.
So Pay the Bill, and Keep the CHANGE
Barack Obama attended his last inaugural event, the Staff Ball, at the DC Armory on January 21. But he arrived after a performance by the opening act, Arcade Fire. So here are some insightful lysircs from their “Intervention”:
You say it's money that we need As if we're only mouths to feed I know no matter what you say There are some debts you'll never pay
You say it's money that we need
As if we're only mouths to feed
I know no matter what you say
There are some debts you'll never pay
The message is relevant to the stimulus bill now before Congress.
We can act responsibly and cautiously if we:
Pay the Bill and Keep the CHANGE.
Forty years ago, Richard Nixon made a remarkable marketing discovery. By exploiting America’s divisions — divisions over Vietnam, divisions over cultural change and, above all, racial divisions — he was able to reinvent the Republican brand. The party of plutocrats was repackaged as the party of the “silent majority,” the regular guys — white guys, it went without saying — who didn’t like the social changes taking place.
Picture: Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Columnist Page
Reuters Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:01pm
By Anna Ringstrom, Sven Nordenstam and Jon Hurdle
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - U.S. economist Paul Krugman, a fierce critic of the Bush administration for policies that he argues led to the current financial crisis, won the 2008 Nobel prize for economics on Monday.
The Nobel committee said the award was for Krugman's work that helps explain why some countries dominate international trade, starting with research published nearly 30 years ago.
While the research for which he won the prize was not obviously partisan, Krugman is best known as the author of columns and a blog called "The Conscience of a Liberal" for the New York Times. He has long been tipped as a likely winner.
A professor at Princeton University, the 55-year-old Krugman argues that President George W. Bush's zeal for deregulation and loose fiscal policies helped spark the current banking meltdown.
Read more:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49C37520081013?rpc=64
Stephen Views the News 10/2/08
http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/
* Finally, an answer – If you are like me, understanding a number of the underlying causes of the current financial crisis besetting our nation has not been easy, until now. When you need an answer to difficult questions, especially as they pertain to disasters, crises and calamities – go to the folks with God’s cell phone number – the religious-right fundamentalists. “Christian Civil League of Maine Executive Director Michael Heath writes that the financial crisis facing Wall Street is a symptom of America's sinful sexual culture, including the acceptance of gay unions.” With red-faced embarrassment all I can say is, “Why didn’t I think of that?” On second thought, perhaps the red in my face is a reaction to Mr. Heath using the word “civil” in league with his League. Perhaps it is time for the American people to emphatically let these ungodly radical right zealots know they are welcome to believe what they want but, they are most unwelcome to be defining our values and policies. George Bush was their product and John McCain wants to be. Amen.
* Financial Tip of the Week – This advice will not directly benefit individual investors but if you are a business corporation there is no better return on your money than that spent on lobbyists and political campaigns. The Washington Post points out that, “Since 1998, AIG has spent more than $72 million on lobbying and contributed more than $25 million to campaigns. The insurance company received $85 billion from the federal government last month. For this $97 million investment AIG received an 876 percent return. Until America comes to the realization that public financing of elections and congressional ethics reform is instituted, the American citizen will be treated like bubblegum stuck to the bottom of a politician’s wing-tipped shoe. The current financial crisis resulted from the marriage of the financially privileged and the governing class. Forces in this country have tried to focus our attention on something that is none of our business – the issue of gay marriage. Our attention would be better served, no, critically served, to the divorce of the parties that caused this financial meltdown through greed and malfeasance.
* Quote of the Week - "I will oppose the Wall Street bailout plan because though well intentioned, and certainly much improved over the administration’s original proposal, it remains deeply flawed. It fails to offset the cost of the plan, leaving taxpayers to bear the burden of serious lapses of judgment by private financial institutions, their regulators, and the enablers in Washington who paved the way for this catastrophe by removing the safeguards that had protected consumers and the economy since the great depression. The bailout legislation also fails to reform the flawed regulatory structure that permitted this crisis to arise in the first place. And it doesn’t do enough to address the root cause of the credit market collapse, namely the housing crisis. Taxpayers deserve a plan that puts their concerns ahead of those who got us into this mess."-Senator Russ Feingold, October 1, 2008
* Suppose the year is 2009 and at 3:00 AM the phone rings in the White House informing the president of another financial crisis. Do you want Obama or McCain answering the call? NY Times writer Paul Krugman asks and answers this question. One man would be surrounded with clear-thinking advisors and the other’s chief economic advisor is an arch-deregulator. Krugman notes, “to a large extent the poor quality of Mr. McCain’s advisers reflects the tattered intellectual state of his party. Has there ever been a more pathetic economic proposal than the suggestion of House Republicans that we try to solve the financial crisis by eliminating capital gains taxes? (Troubled financial institutions, by definition, don’t have capital gains to tax.)” The article is worth a read.
* Assessing the damage ~ and looking ahead - John McCain is often described as a maverick, impulsive, a gambler. These characterizations came to mind while reading Jill Abramson’s review in the NY Times of Bob Woodward’s new book about Bush, The Final Days. This is Woodward’s fourth book about the Bush administration and Abramson puts the four volumes in context when she writes, “These books offer a chilling lesson in how not to lead. They also describe the tragic pattern of a president who operates impulsively, guided solely by his instincts, abetted but ill-served by advisers who fail in the crucial task of speaking truth to power.” A number of times I have referred to McCain as McBush, implying that a McCain presidency would be more of the same with even greater peril to America since it is already so weakened by the Bush years. This review offers no reason for me to change my mind.
* A break with the past – The Record is a newspaper in Stockton, CA. For the past 72 years, since endorsing Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, this paper has endorsed a Republican for president. Not this year. From the editorial: “For eight years, American politics has been marked by smears, fears and greed… The result is a cynicism every bit as deep as that which infected the nation when Richard Nixon was shamed from office and when Bill Clinton brought shame to the office… This must end, but John McCain can't do it. He can't inspire, nor can he really break from a past that is breaking this nation.” The editorial is interesting and the reasoning is instructive. In order to address the challenges facing our country it is important that we all re-evaluate our propensities.
* What a difference a century makes ~ welcome to the Big Top:
Antedated definition of “Republican”– somebody who believes that the best government is one in which supreme power is vested in an electorate.
Current definition of “Republican” – a circus performer in grease paint, bulbous red nose and baggy pants who, when its mouth opens, spews lies like clowns from a Volkswagen.
The press conference of the House Republicans that followed their vote against a supposedly agreed upon bi-partisan legislation to stabilize Wall Street was laughable. Grown men saying the bill was okay but, they voted against it because Speaker Nancy Pelosi insulted them. The country can flush itself down the financial sewer because their feelings were hurt. On Tuesday we learn that House Republicans not only acted stupid, they lied while doing it.
“The Republican National Committee's new advertisement critical of the Wall Street "bailout" was produced and sent to television stations in key states before the package failed, officials at two stations said.” The ads were also placed before Pelosi’s remarks. I recently noted that people tell lies when they fear the truth. In the case of House Republican toddlers and the McCain campaign, they have reached a point that they do not know the difference between truth and lies. Recall the good old days when a voter tried to be alert for a politician’s lie. In today’s world the challenge is to be alert for a truth.
* “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Albert Einstein
I’m concerned that Barack himself is part of the reason for not widening the gap with McCain. Last week, he gave a speech in which he said, “Back in the 1990s, your incomes grew by $6,000, and over the last several years, they’ve actually fallen by nearly $1,000.”
As Paul Krugman notes in his Conscience of a Liberal blog, “Back in the 90s?” Why not, “When a Democrat was president?” “Over the last several years?” Why not, “under Bush?” A prominent Democratic supporter of Sen. Clinton told Krugman that Obama gives him “post-partisan depression.” Indeed, his apparent unwillingness to take such clear and easy shots is starting to seem bizarre.
The professionals at Pollster.com have this as a scarily close and tightening race, with Obama only 2.2 points ahead. Obama needs to fight to win this thing, which is why his low-energy performance last week was disheartening to a lot of Democrats, including me.
Here’s a bit of unsolicited advice to Barack from someone who has covered countless campaigns over the years, and worked on a few: People aren’t hearing you, or your message. As awful as McCain comments on the stump and Republican negative ads are – and they will get worse – the fact is that they are having an impact on voter’s perceptions of you. You need to fight back, not dirty but hard. Slam Bush and the Republican Party by name, more often and more directly. Undercut McCain using his own words, and show how removed from the reality of most people’s real life the man has become.
It’s one thing to be non-partisan when you are president; it can be a highly effective way to lead the country as Ike, JFK and Lyndon Johnson proved. But elections are partisan. They pit one candidate against another. If you don’t explain more clearly and forcefully how an Obama administration would be different from another four years of Bush, you’ll leave many voters confused or concerned.
And then what happens? Concerned voters cast a ballot for safety, even if they do not especially agree with the other fellow.
In the film The Candidate, when the politically naïve Robert Redford character agrees to run for the Senate, he asks Peter Boyle, a professional pol and his would-be campaign manager, for a guarantee that he won’t have to change, alter his message or indulge in typical politics.
Boyle listens, takes a matchbook from his pocket and scribbles something on it before saying, “Sure. Here’s your guarantee.”
On the matchbook, Boyle has written: “You lose.”
Paul Krugman had an excellent Op Ed in the Monday, 7/28/08 NY Times about what more is needed to stabilize the financial sector beyond the housing bill just passed that bails out Fannie and Freddie and provides relief to some who face mortgage foreclosure.
He addressed regulating the now-unregulated sectors of the financial industry as the real structural requirement, and the opposition that is predictable from the institutions that would be newly regulated. Without broadening which institutions are regulated, the markets cannot be stabilized. There will be more abuses in the future, profitable for clever exploiters, that create turbulence.
The web address of Paul Krugman's Op Ed, titled “Another Temporary Fix”, is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/opinion/28krugman.html?th&emc=th
Read this Op Ed and then consider - Krugman's recommendations are addressed to members of the Senate, House, and the President - those of them not "owned" by those very financial institutions that would be regulated. Whom might that be?
With November elections upcoming, this is a crucial question to ask. We know about the two major Presidential candidates' policies regarding whom they will accept money from. What about our Senators and Members of Congress, up for re-election or running for first time election, from both parties?
A policy position to regulate the now-unregulated sectors of the financial marketplace could become part of the Obama campaign and Democratic platform before the election, a foretaste of what changing the way things are done in Washington will look like.
Taking a Party position before this election would upset a lot of Senate and House candidates from both parties. It would also prepare the ground to defend our economy and ourselves by regulation that matches the expansion of banking functions beyond banks in the late 20th and current 21st century.
Is the "game worth the candle"? You bet! Is it possible? That's the 64 zillion dollar question.
Would a Democratic Party position to extend regulation to the rest of the financial sector put incredible pressure on the McCain campaign to do likewise for all sorts of image reasons? Yes. Could the McCain or Republican Party do likewise? - Not probable, considering foxes in charge of chicken coops. Some of their maverick straight shooters might position themselves ready to do the right thing for America and provide needed allies in the Senate. After all, the turbulence in the stock market is painful and ruinous to their base too. It's an American problem, but the "ownership" of our elected officials is and has been by special interests more than by the voters.
A Democratic Party official stance could help achieve voter understanding and consensus among elected Senators and Congress-people. It could clear the way for action next year, so that it will be less of a huge (or grid locked) fight to do what is really necessary, more of a complicated technical development of the appropriate legislation.
After the election, “we the people” cannot change the way things are done in Washington. Before the election – now - is the time we have policy leverage with the candidates we will choose to elect.
Join Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Lawrence Lessig, Van Jones, Darcy Burner, Paul Krugman, Markos Moulitsas, Rick Noriega and many others in Austin for Netroots Nation July 17-20. The third annual gathering of the Netroots will include panels led by national and international experts; identity, issue and regional caucuses; prominent political, issue and policy-oriented speakers; a progressive film screening series; and the most concentrated gathering of progressive bloggers to date. Visit netrootsnation.org for more information and to register.Plus, enter promo code DallasAA at registration and get $75 off the standard price. See you in Austin!We at Dallas Air America are also very pleased to specially welcome Air America host and editor of the AAR web page,, Sam Seder. Sam will be part of the panel entitled From the Written to the Spoken Word: Taking the Leap from Blogging toward Online Radio and Beyond and will also host a special screening of his movie A Bad Situationist. Also from the progressive talk radio world, we welcome Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks. The Turks will be retuning to the XM Radio's America Left (formerly Air America channel #167) in mid July. Come by and say hello to us in booth #304. We will also be blogging live @ http://dallasairamerica.blogspot.com/
For more information please contact: Nancy Cunningham dallasairamerica@gmail.com
My response to Paul Krugman's uncharacteristically innuendo-laden and fact-less column today in the New York Times:
To The Editor:
Many people like myself have great respect for Senator Clinton, but do not feel that the unfairness of “the Clinton rules” means that we should ignore actual problems with her policies and politics (“Hate Springs Eternal,” Op-Ed, February 11).
Her support for the invasion of Iraq, her large contributions from the industries she says she’ll challenge, and her campaign’s track record of distortion and mismanagement, are all legitimate reasons for concern.
But there is another group which claims that an unfair press is attacking their leader, and equates any criticism with unreasoned vitriol. Was it Paul Krugman’s intent to mimic the current occupants of the White House?
Dave Silverstone
There are so many "pundits" out there proclaiming that they know exactly what Barack Obama needs to do now to win the nomination. Collectively, it's pretty ridiculous, but like they say in show biz, all publicity is good publicity, so let them pontificate all they want. I tune them out, for the most part, because one of my primary assessments of Barack Obama the candidate is that he is a man of good judgment.
However, when New York Times columnist Paul Krugman finds something questionable about Obama's campaign strategy, I find it hard to ignore. Mr. Krugman's column, his new book The Conscience of a Liberal, and now his blog of the same name, consistently express an honest and independent-minded viewpoint on a chosen topic, whether or not you agree with his perspective. There's no denying that this is crunch time now, so I think it's very important that we listen carefully to any concerns from such a prominent voice, and make sure that we can respond to them.
Mr. Krugman posted a blog entry this morning called Obama and Social Security that I have linked to here. The posting itself is very brief, three short paragraphs that express dismay at a message that seemed to him out of touch, and more like a Democratic Leadership Council issue than something really organic to Obama's campaign. The link I've provided will also display the reader comments, and there were about 13 of them when I last checked. Some of them are unfair or silly, of course, but some others are thoughtful, and I recommend that you read them as well. There are some strong negative reactions to this strategy, and I would hate to see something like this, of all things, become a source of more serious concern.
Please take a quick look at Paul Krugman's blog, and any other data you might find relevant regarding this issue. I think we can afford to allow the airing of these perspectives, and at this point, I'd say we probably can't afford not to. I want to win, and in the past, I've only won when I've been relatively effective at recognizing and correcting mistakes.
I'm sure there are many sides of this issue I haven't yet fully explored. I'm offering this as a potentially useful part of that process.
