MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
As many of you have probably already read, GDP growth in the second quarter of 2011 was an anemic 1.3%, falling far short of the projected 1.8% - which itself would have been weak, even if we had hit that number. And growth for the first quarter of this year was revised downward from 1.9% to 0.4%. That's right ... 0.4%.
One has to wonder whether the alleged 1.3% of growth for the second quarter will be revised downward as well when the miserable numbers are recomputed three months from now.
Overall GDP for each of the three years 2008, 2009 and 2010 was also revised downward. Our economic activity was actually smaller in each of those years than previously reported. At the same time, there is actually some evidence in the numbers that the stimulus approach that was adopted in 2009 was beginning to work - before Washington decided to dump fiscal stimulus in favor of debt mania and Hooverite economics.
While the economy founders on the rocks, the White House and the Congress are presently engaged in a debate over which version of a fiscal austerity plan to pass. Whatever version they settle on, the impact will be to reduce incomes and suppress growth even further. Unemployment will either remain where it is, or worsen. We may even see a second recessionary dip.
I have not the slightest idea why Barack Obama is so determined to guarantee he becomes a one-term President. I have no idea why he is repudiating Keynesian common sense and embracing radical conservative economic theories that are proven failures in the laboratory of the real world - both here and in Europe. I have no idea why he is determined to use the recession to administer conservative shock therapy to government programs - treating his own country like some banana republic under the heel of an IMF Washington Consensus smackdown. But at this point, given the bipartisan determination to stifle growth and promote unemployment, the prospect of the US economy showing a turnaround by the fall of 2012 that is dramatic enough to pull the administration's economic performance out of the dumper looks very slight. If the Republicans manage to nominate a moderate businessman like Romney, Obama will surely go down.
But for what it's worth, here is my proposal for the debt impasse: Both parties should realize that no deal is likely to get done in the hostile partisan environment. At the same time, they should recognize that any deal that does get done will further wreck and stifle the economy. What this country needs is a real, serious national debate on long-term economic strategy. What we don't need is posturing and incompetent politicians hammering out some deal around a negotiating table in secret meetings. And surely we can all see by now that Boehner, Obama, Cantor, Ryan and Reid are economic incompetents.
So why don't the two parties agree to raise the debt ceiling for now, and turn the question over to the voters? We now have a primary and general election campaign gearing up for 2012. Let's debate the issues in a serious way. Even those who think that long-term deficit reduction is a vital national need must admit that nothing important hangs on whether action is put off until January of 2013. Let the two parties make their case in the upcoming election season, and then the voters can pick one party or the other to implement a serious plan after the election, without the obstruction of divided government.
Comments
The numbers prove it ... the GOPer stimulus package was successful! Remember, GOPer's have their wired crossed so what they think is good for America is in reality wrong.
What I think you fail to grasp of this debt ceiling debacle is the GOPer's intent all along was to create such a hostile environment. The best way to securing both Houses of Congress and the White House is the run the economy and country hard into the ground while the Democrats just stand there with a stupid expression on their faces not wanting to believe what they are seeing and afraid to do or say anything lest they be targeted in the next election. They're depending on the public to get so PO'd at Democrats, they'll vote for anyone. That way GOPer candidates won't have to campaign on any platform other than promising to fix the mess the Democrats created.
And since their base is dead set against raising taxes on business or the public, then all those social programs since FDR will have a date at the guillotine on the Washington Mall so as to payoff the debt run up by those spend-thrift Democrats.
So the GOPer's solution to divided government is to do away completely with the Democrat Party leaving the GOPer's the only party running all functions of the government permanently.
We have Obama and his insistence on bipartisanship to thank.
by Beetlejuice on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 1:45pm
Actually we be should thanking the American people for giving the House to the Republicans.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 4:02pm
Look at it this way ...
There's about 190 Democrats - give or take a few.
Then there's about 150 conservative GOP'ers - give or take a few.
That leaves roughly 88 tea-baggers- give or take a few.
That's means there are 2 Democrats and 1.5 conservative GOPer to every tea-bagger.
Yet the tea-baggers are calling all the shots.
The way I see it, the public gave a vote of confidence to both Democrat and GOPer's with the Democrats in the majority. Only a minority of voters, less than 25% threw their support to the tea-baggers. Actually, it's 20%.
But the tea-baggers claim their speaking for the public as if they won a significant majority, which they didn't.
The real rub is if the GOPers tossed the tea-baggers out of their caucus, they wouldn't hold a majority and the Democrats would be back in charge. Boner knows he needs tea-baggers to hold on as Speaker, however, Cantor is doing everything possible to stick a firecracker up Boner's rear end and light it.
I'm curious to see if the GOPer party will be intact come 3 August.
by Beetlejuice on Sat, 07/30/2011 - 10:28am
Don't blame the American people for that!
Blame that idiot in the White House and his corporate Democratic co-conspirators who, out of pure weakness and cowardice, played footsie with the enemy throughout 2009 and 2010 whose repeated capitulations to Republican demands scuttled whatever chance the stimulus bill had to succeed and made a travesty of the alleged healthcare reform bill. The American people had every right to sit at home and not approve of that kind of pure bullshit from the President. And did he lsten? Did that sink in at all? Hell no! He's just redoubled his efforts at undermining the Democratic Party and destroying Social Security and Medicare. Good thinkin there Barry! Thanks for nothin!
by oleeb on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 3:56am
That's certainly one way to look at it, and the President does share some of the blame for what happened in 2010. But he isn't the one who pulled the levers or stayed home; pissed off dems and indies who allowed their emotions to override their brains, and low/no information voters with encouragement from faux news did that.
So, we are ALL enjoying the fruits of those decisions. Sounds like a bunch of you are gearing up to give us more of the same in 2012.
by stillidealistic on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 12:49pm
C'mon Stili. Enough of the self-righteous indignation. We're all familiar with your voting record of the last 30 years.
by kyle flynn on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 4:00pm
Hopefully whatever it is the conservatives are going to do this go 'round will show people what they have to look forward to with a tea-party controlled government, and a divided government.
In 2012 we will find out if Americans want to fend for themselves. Do they want to let the corporations defile what's left of our pristine land, dismantle the country's safety net for the poor, the elderly, the unemployed and the disabled, let schools quit teaching evolution and just teach creationism, bust what few unions remain and get rid of the middle class once and for all, stop any attempt to protect our food and water supply, take away a woman's right to decide her own reproductive future, and make sure those damn queers stay in the closet where they begin, or worse yet, try to pray them straight...the list goes on.
The dems are not perfect. Not by a long shot. I have been more disappointed by the leaders of my new party than words can express. But they beat the living crap out of the repubs. At least they make an effort to show the good things that government CAN do. But in their (our) dysfunction, we don't do a very good job sometimes, and this is one of them.
For those of you who think the default is the only thing the rating agencies are looking at when making the decision to downgrade our treasury bonds, it isn't. They are also looking at our debt-GDP ratio, which is nearing 100% and is making a lot of investors nervous. Don't forget also that Moody's et al are the same agencies that said the trash the banks were selling was good stuff. THEY are being watched as well. Some of the lesser rating groups have already lowered our bonds to AA because of our debt and our dysfunctional government. The debt, although not as pressing as the debt ceiling IS a problem, like it or not, or at least says the world investment community.
I still trust the dems to make better decisions than the repubs. Not a lot better, but better.
Remember the words of Grover Norquist, the repubs lord and master..."I want to shrink government until it is small enough to drag into the bathroom and drown it." Real patriots we have here.
by stillidealistic on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 2:45pm
I just sent the following message to both of my senators and to my House representative:
With a 1.3% GDP growth rate and a 9.2% unemployment rate, this is no time for an austerity budget. Both parties are on the wrong track, and are poised to plunge us back into recession with their mad fiscal tightening plans.
Raise the debt ceiling now and table the debt issue until January 2013, after the election. Over the next year, we can have a serious national discussion and debate about the economic direction of this country.
Put the attention back on job creation, where it belongs, and drop the debt hysteria.
by Dan Kervick on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 11:01pm
That's a good, concise letter. I'll send some version of it to my reps as well.
by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 07/30/2011 - 9:06am
My version (I added a couple of paragraphs, perhaps unwisely so)
by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 07/30/2011 - 8:22pm
The potential outcomes to the debt ceiling mess now are, broadly speaking, three:
*demand-depressing, unemployment-increasing deficit reduction deal
*default on the US debt
*unilateral invocation of the 14th amendment or some other constitutional provision to avert a default. Beyond the highly problematic precedent this one would set, it likely will lead to serious consideration of impeachment of Obama and will lead to Obama being sued and SCOTUS hearing that case on an expedited basis to obtain resolution.
All 3 of these options, to use a formal phrase, suck out loud.
So I like your "none of the above". You're right--it won't happen. It could happen only if the GOP would agree to it. But they won't.
by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 07/30/2011 - 9:04am
Three increasingly looks like the correct answer.
One and two both guarantee a deepening recession. Which might make Obama a one-termer anyway. Who cares if he risks impeachment? His duty to the country comes first.
Cut the Gordian knot and appeal to the American people to make the right assessment for once. Also gain some much-needed street cred.
by acanuck on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 1:31am
I agree 3 is the least bad answer.
I can hold out hope that Obama has already met with his good friend (disclosure, a former law school professor of mine who I think is brilliant and a really good guy and who I'd hoped would wind up on the Supreme Court one day) Cass Sunstein, who heads the WH regulatory office and is one of the leading constitutional law authorities in this country. That conversation would go like this:
O: Cass, if I need to act unilaterally to avoid a default what are the grounds I invoke that stand the best chance of obtaining the assent of this particular Supreme Court, given what these justices have written and done in their careers?
Also, if partisan politics plays no role in their decision what would you say are the chances that they say the best argument I can give passes constitutional muster?
Get back to me by 1:00 today. Oh, and Cass, if we go that route, will you be the one to make the arguments to the Supreme Court? I wouldn't expect the Solicitor General's Office to be happy with that but if it's my presidency on the line there's no one I'd trust more to give me the best shot than you.
Oh, and Cass? Thanks. (end)
I would not be at all surprised if Obama has talked to folks he trusts, including Sunstein, along very much these lines, in case Congress cannot get a deal. But I really think he will go with a deal, almost any deal, over acting unilaterally. The Republicans probably believe that as well, which will make whatever deal gets done, if there is one, towards the worst end of the spectrum of what's been on the table so far.
by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:42am
It's all over. The terrorists won.
From the beginning the Republican plan was "Either take this knife to government and hack out a lot of the progressive portions, or we will blow up the government."
So right now, the White House and Senate Democrats are putting the final touches on a deal to hack away at progressive government. They will try to present this outcome as a "compromise" in which the hacking away at progressive government is offered in exchange for something. But the only thing given in exchange by the Republicans is their agreement not to blow up the government.
That's like saying that if I hand over to a kidnapper my daughter's college savings in exchange for not killing my daughter, we have settled our disagreement with a compromise.
The terrorists won.
by Dan Kervick on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 10:55am
Unfortunately, Dan, I think you are right. The terrorists won.
So. What do we do now? 2012 will decide whether the country wants to proceed in this direction, or not.
I have a love/hate relationship with politics, mostly because I am not good at gamesmanship. I just want all cards on the table and hash it out, the way they used to do it in the good ol' bad ol' days. But, that's not how they do it in the world of teahadists.
I'm open to suggestions, even if it includes primarying the President (which would be my last resort, but the left needs to have a seat at the table, and it doesn't right now.) The teahadists have proven that they who scream the loudest and dig in the deepest win. Personally, I hate the technique, but what other choice is there?
by stillidealistic on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 2:11pm
Great blog, Dan. Wouldn't it be nice if someone in charge really DID listen?
by CVille Dem on Sat, 07/30/2011 - 10:15am
"I have not the slightest idea why Barack Obama is so determined to guarantee he becomes a one-term President."
Well, one real possibility is that he has sold out those who elected him in exchange for an easy life and wealth after leaving office. I think it's pretty much that simple. This is a man with absolutely no principles at all, a classic climber/sociopath/CEO type who will do anything to get ahead and nothing to help anyone else that isn't primarily intended to help him.
It is becoming glaringly clear that our political, economic, and opinion leaders are so corrupt as to be iredeemable. While the Republicans are pure filth and a threat to the survival of the Republic, our Democratic leaders are the equivalent of the Scottish lords in Braveheart who sell out their own people for additional titles and lands without the slightest twinge of conscience. There will be no deliverance for our country from within this cesspool of corruption we call our political system. It is owned by the very people who destroyed the economy, who choose to make war on the entire Islamic world (and are so stupid they think that's a good idea) and who plan on dismantling every bit of social and political progress there has been in this country since 1932. Barack Obama is one of those Scottish lords who led their people to slaughter and without any hesitation deserted them in their hour of greatest peril and need.
by oleeb on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 3:48am
Still to this day, Obama and the Democrats still spin the mid term elections in THEIR best light.
Never willing to admit they were held accountable by the people who sent them to Washington. They'll always deny it was their fault.
by Resistance on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:53am
If the penalty for not doing everything the far left wanted means that we have to live with everything the far right wants, that seems like a pretty severe penalty to me. But then I never was real fond of the idea of cutting off someone's hand for stealing, or being branded for committing adultery.
by stillidealistic on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 2:29pm
Please stop with the "not doing everything the far left wanted" argument. It's getting really old, and it pisses people off more than you can imagine. First off, what "far left?" And don't cite a bunch of bloggers nobody reads. Were curbing lobbyists, closing Gitmo, ending insurance-company death panels commie/socialist pipe dreams? No, they were things Obama ran on. And ran from, as soon as opposition materialized. Blaming disillusioned voters is BS.
by acanuck on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 3:37pm
At this late hour, I'd settle for doing anything the "far left" wanted.
by kyle flynn on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 3:52pm
Delusion has infected the Democratic party,
We on the left are told, continue to vote for a Democratic Capitalist because the Republican Capitalist is worse.
Stilli at what point will you come to the conclusion, the New Democratic party promotes capitalism over Socialism?
People want Social Security, people want Medicare and the Democrats want your vote; so they give lip service to the programs the people want. Only to get your vote.
The Democrats offer the screwed over working class a choice, a choice that only serves the Capitalist agenda. A last ditch attempt by capitalist controllers to act, as the pressure relief valve.
The Democrat will tell you everything you want to hear, how they are there to protect you, how they feel your pain, they'll offer you a shoulder to cry on, all with one objective, CONTROL THE ANGER, control the venting.
DO NOT ALLOW the working class to rebel; or the system intended to enrich the rich and greedy might lose control. The people without a reign are uncontrollable.
What do you do, if your a member of the Capitalist party and you sense the economy is about to tank, and the Republican Capitalist is going to be removed ?
You find yourself a Democratic Capitalist, who offers the peasants hope, you slow down the boil to a simmer.
Get a democratic presidential candidate to run on how much he feels your pain, how he hates those big bad republicans as much as you do now, and you as the voter can hope the rich and greedy banker class will be reigned in by a Democrat, speaking about Social values; with this disclaimer As long as it doesn't renounce capitalism and socialism will continue to be diminished.
Why would the Democrats change if you continue to vote for the lesser of the capitalists.
Our problem is not between Democrats or Republicans it's Capitalism vs Socialism.
American Socialism IS Social Security and Medicare and this DINO President offered up for sacrifice, the very programs Americans want.
How long before you and others figure it out, Democrats don't want socialism either.
They only want your vote, they only want to offer you hope, they are the pressure relief valve
Democratic Capitalism will sell out Socialism every time. They are opposed to one another.
What makes you think they will change? You'll continue to vote for them, hoping they'll embrace social values more than your typical capitalist will allow?
NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN
So the rest of us that want Social values delivered by our Government; sooner rather than later, like in our lifetime; must vote for Democrats who only care about serving Capitalism?
Obama stood between the bankers and the people who got screwed. He was the pressure relief valve. He was the last best hope for the Capitalists to continue to maintain control, his job was to protect the Capitalists, not the working poor.
The bankers debt was relieved, the working class is still enslaved.
So please, don't throw your vote away; this Capitalist will continue to dismantle social programs, because he really is ideologically opposed.
He's a Democrat a member of one of the two capitalist parties.
by Resistance on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:48pm
Although I disagree that his intentions are as vile as you assert, and I doubt that any other dem President could have affected a better outcome, the results are the same.
You don't know how much it pains me to say that. We the people have been (or at least are poised to be) bent over and you know the rest.
In one tiny little corner of my mind I'm still hoping for a 14th amendment salvo, but everything is pointing against it at this moment. When I'm reading a thriller, this is where I'm tempted (and sometimes succumb to the urge) to turn to the last page, so I can rest assured it turned out okay before reading further. Since I don't have that option at the moment, I'm biting my nails, instead.
by stillidealistic on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 2:20pm
Stilli, I'm not sure it's a nail biter anymore. MSNBC has interrupted it's regular programming to announce an outline of the package deal. A two stage process, 2.7 billion in cuts, but no revenue component. In other words if we want to end the Bush tax cuts we have to first vote Obama back in in 2012. That's a big "if".
By the way, the previously scheduled program interrupted is entitled, "Will you kill for me" -- Charles Manson and his followers"
by Oxy Mora on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 4:33pm
So if and when
Dan at gunpoint surrenders his daughter's college tuition money for the terrorist not killing herthe turkey of a "compromise" passes...The White House and those on both sides of the partisan divide who voted for it will talk about how both sides were very unhappy with parts of it, including themselves. But that what was done was for the good of the country and will go a long way to help us get our financial house in order. It was a tough process, tough to watch, but we showed the American people that both parties can work together and compromise to cut spending and get things done in this town. And, for those who didn't hear it the first time, we showed ourselves able to compromise to cut spending and get things done.
That being the operative word or phrase that David Plouffe has apparently succeeded in getting the President, and perhaps other Democratic elected officials, to believe the slice of independent voters who will decide Obama's re-election fate want to hear above all others. Never mind that it will be a compromise on terms a bit to the right of where the average Republican citizen stands on these matters. It's a compromise! Hooray!
And the public reaction, in the immediate aftermath, will be? Any predictions?
I wouldn't be surprised if in the immediate aftermath the public essentially says this was the least bad option, maybe not a good one, but necessary. There will be some vague sense of an earth-shattering catastrophe having been avoided. And when compared to an earth-shattering catastrophe being averted, a job-killing, economy-wrecking exercise in governmental and societal idiocy whose consequences will not be felt today or tomorrow could look relatively tolerable, I suppose.
I wonder how long, if it ever happens, for public sentiment to change as the job-killing and economy-wrecking damage starts to kick in? Perhaps the dealmakers think if they can stretch out the process of job-killing and economy-wrecking cuts in several stages, as seems to be the scuttle now, it'll be so difficult for 98% of the public to follow that no one will much understand what is going on. Enabling incumbents who voted yes to defend their positions before the voters next year with a passable narrative whose omissions or deceits 98% of their listeners will find themselves unable to detect.
If my investment advisor friend is right we'll see a strong 2-week rally on Wall Street, after which things will return to where they were a week ago.
by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 4:31pm
One thing to remember is that the White House political team probably considers it a plus that progressives are rip-roaring mad at them. Anything that allows Barack Obama to position himself in the center, with the Tea Party on one side and progressives on the other, puts Obama right where he wants to be: and inoffensive cipher and reassuring defender of the status quo.
He can now try to say, "Mr. and Mrs. White America, I am the only thing standing between you and pot-bellied, sweaty, migrant Mexican radicals like Raul Grijalva."
Of course it won't work if the economy stays in the tank.
by Dan Kervick on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:29pm