US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

max, krugman's column today might be sort of what you're looking for. read "scare-mongers" and "deficit hawks" and "fear-mongers" as "gop status quo" and "koch catamites"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&hp

"By looking for trouble in all the wrong places, our political class is preventing us from dealing with the real crisis: the millions of American men and women who can’t find work."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/06/news/economy/april_jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?hpt=T2
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/06/markets/commodities_oil_silver/index.htm?hpt=T2

hmm

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/06/markets/Markets_newyork/index.htm

The jobs recovery picked up speed in April, as business payrolls swelled and the unemployment rate rose as more people returned to the workforce.

fell, right?

apparently it went up

no, I'm not 100% sure how/why either

i see it went up but it's a confusing sentence

ha

It's back up to nine percent, actually, as more local governments shed employees and kids return from college.

I never really thought about it, but we have Republicans slashing government jobs left and right in the name of trimming waste who then turn around and blame the President for the unemployment rate's increase.

"Why aren't you doing anything to help the 55,000 people I just severed?"

heard on the radio yesterday that the reason the rate went up is because to be counted as "unemployed" you have to be actively seeking work. so as available jobs fell, less ppl became unemployed because they gave up. now that there's an uptick in jobs, unemployment sees a transient increase as well

the total tax burden is at its lowest since 1958

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-05-05-tax-cut-record-low_n.htm

wonder how many questions about that the gop candidates will get asked at their next little debate

The fall in taxes is almost entirely caused by a weak economy rather than lower rates, says Curtis Dubay of the conservative Heritage Foundation. "It's easy to draw the wrong conclusion," he says.

gotta love the heritage foundation

O where is the life that Christopher Cross so fondly sang about

robert reich otm

http://robertreich.org/post/5244220848

Why isn’t Washington paying attention to what most Americans need in the here-and-now economy?

Because the White House and congressional Democrats don’t dare admit how bad the economy continues to be for so many people. They’re holding their breath, hoping the recovery catches fire next year before Election Day.

Republicans don’t dare admit how bad the economy is because they don’t want to increase public spending or strengthen safety nets. And their patrons on Wall Street don’t want to modify mortgages. Republicans would rather Americans believe their big lie that taming the deficit will create jobs and restore the economy.

So what does Reich suggest? Dems are a minority in the House, and there are too many moderate Dems in the Senate. I guess we need to dream that Obama would use his bully pulpit and would twist arms on the Hill to encourage action and counter Republican talking points.

Republicans as part of their big lie regarding the deficit have convinced themselves that the stimulus failed and thus any government public spending will fail. They don't care about the Krugman argument that the stimulus was too small and they don't care about new deal spending arguments either. They've won the mainstream media and much of the public over with these arguments.

Republicans are also confident they will win the Seante in the next elections so they are even more resistant to action.

Senate

it doesn't help right now, but Reich might suggest that the Dems could've done more when they had the majority in both houses.

but they were so convinced that the way to hold both was to do NOTHING, except for the snail's pace on what turned out to be a glass-one-eighth-full healthcare bill.

and yet don't DARE suggest rocking the duopoly boat... useless fantasy etc

max, if you're still interested in posts about oligarchic machinations, here you go

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/06/citizens-united-conservatives-spent/

sorry to be a broken record, but the nastiest skunk in the Obama Administration has taken his act on the road and squeezed out another smelly shit in the Irish petunia patch:

Geithner Blocked IMF Deal to Haircut Irish Debt

hi guys

i would like to read some articles/essays/blog posts about how and why the rich have a disproportionate influence w/ elected officials, and what, if anything can be done to change that.

thank you in advance!

max

― ban drake (the rapper) (max), Friday, May 6, 2011 12:18 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

hey max,

i saw prof. alan brinkley speak once -- hes from columbia university -- iirc he was one of those who made an argument early on about this -- depending on how deep you want to dig i'd recommend getting familiar w/ his stuff here: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/history/fac-bios/Brinkley/faculty.html

max, it's the lobbyists.. i'm not saying they're bad but well, talking to people who work on the legislation and as liasons from the agencies to those who work on the legislation, my impression has been.. lobbyists have a strong influence on the process and everybody knows that this is the case, and you can't just blow them off because they represent powerful and well-connected interests.. it's like basically where does working class joe six-pack have a voice in the process that's going to outweigh the voice of those interests who have players right there on the hill, in contact, with connections and long-running relationships, etc.

it seems to me the interests of the lobbyists who work for corporations in whatever domain is being covered by legislation.. they are likely to align with the rich, basically. i have no idea how you untangle any of this

thx for all this stuff qualmsey/deej/daria! i read an article somewhere a month ago (salon? mother jones?) that cited a couple statistics about how--for example--the top one-third income bracket of a given congressional district/state has measurably disproportionate influence over the decisions of that rep/senator. i cant find the article now but it didnt quite touch on ~why~ this is the case. and i guess in certain ways its obvious--and part of it is about the mechanisms of power like you point out d-g--but i sort of want to see it spelled out as plainly and stupidly as possible. b/c this seems to me to be the biggest problem facing american liberal politics and id like to think abt what steps i should advocate to end it.

campaign finance reform, for one. if all elected officials could only draw from the same limited kitty then the influence of the plutocracy and their lobbyist cronies wouldn't be so profound. (in theory.) as it is, running for office is super-expensive, so pols have to play the game even to get a seat at the big show. and once they're there, they have to keep fundraising like maniacs in order to stay. it's one of the main things they do. keep your eye on this guy

http://www.progressivesunited.org/home/

if that's something you can get behind and advocate, you would be in good company

max: http://users.polisci.wisc.edu/dcanon/104fall10/lindblom.pdf

thx--still though i want to see some "hard" science about this? i mean i have always assumed that campaign finance reform is a big deal but i still want to read about why, not to mention the most effective reforms, the evidence that theyll work, etc

sick iatee thx

Interesting shit maybe goin down in re: Citizens United

some of the usual suspects on the right are getting v. v. aggro about this, if there's one thing they really really hate from Obama it's the spectre of executive orders/signing statements

can Obama sign into law an amendment hereby terminating the existence of the Republican party? plz

there'd still be the Democratic party that that wouldn't solve much WHOA HEY-OOO C WHAT I DID etc

underrated Morbs I have lampooned

To: max
In Re: influence of the rich

It basically comes down to the fact that the rich can hire lots of sharp-minded people who do nothing all day but think about how to increase the influence of their patrons. These include, but are not limited to: lawyers, lobbyists, political consultants and public relations flaks. They also have consolidated their hold on the public media, so they can directly shape public opinion through their employees in those media. Plus, being the hugest source of campaign contributions to politicians, just for good measure.

There you have it in a nutshell.

i think hes heard that before. hes looking for stats & charts & graphs

stats, charts & graphs are very comforting

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-citizens-united

^^ wow, thanks for that link aerosmith. I had not even heard about this and it seems like a smart & needed move to a huge problem

the corporations = people equation isn't even the most chilling precedent set by Citizens United, that concept has been floating in common-law for almost a hundred years now. though it was certainly a wake up call for people to realize that the concept is now effective law, the real hyperspace jump into science fiction with Citizens United is the entire concept that Money is indistinguishable from Free Speech. even as a metaphor, it just doesn't hold, and it is a shocking thing to admit as law because it is a basic admission of Plutocracy, it's a strike at the heart of the Constitution.

and all the cases which have come up since are just deeply impossible to understand due to this metaphorical confusion, like the Arizona law where several Corporations banded together to take out Campaign Fund matching under the pretext that if your opponent gets an infusion of funds every time you buy an advertisement, your Free Speech is inhibited (because why would you even bother to speak if doing so 'strengthens' your opponent?). i.e. if Money equals Free Speech, and speaking gives your opponent Money, which is Power, then Campaign Fund matching discourages Free Speech. That does not follow unless you've already swallowed the metaphor as an operative reality, which they have.

The other breakdown is in how Free Speech has become disconnected from accountability, which we see whenever anyone complains when they suffer any repercussions after having said something disagreeable. The thing about Citizen's United is that this is a new form of Free Speech where the speaker remains nebulous and unidentifiable and can lie with no impact on reputation. Obama's signing law would actually bring things a step back closer to Free Speech as we know it, where we actually know the identity of the 'people' / 'corporations' who are 'speaking' / 'spending' at us.

I'm still torn about Citizens United, honestly.

worst soccer club name ever

how are you torn about Citizens United specifically, Alfred? it's a tangled enough knot -- you can't easily dismiss many of the precepts, I have a friend at Brennan Center who's spent much of the last year working on undermining it, including work on that Arizona case, and it's not easy. at the same time, the decision was made with a purpose that seems pretty clearcut and anti-democratic so I'm interested in your conflict over it

as a free speech case, basically.

My decision is very complicated, and not reducible to a Huffington Post blog point. I should point out that before the decision in the past five years, more money has poured into Democratic coffers than GOP ones. Also, I really don't see how things can get much worse regarding corporate control over control. Corporations will find lots of ways to circumvent existing restrictions.

Finally, I'm pretty much an absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment.

Greenwald otm last January:

Ultimately, I think the free speech rights burdened by campaign finance laws are often significantly under-stated. I understand and sympathize with the argument that corporations are creatures of the state and should not enjoy the same rights as individuals. And one can't help but note the vile irony that Muslim "War on Terror" detainees have been essentially declared by some courts not to be "persons" under the Constitution, whereas corporations are.

But the speech restrictions struck down by Citizens United do not only apply to Exxon and Halliburton; they also apply to non-profit advocacy corporations, such as, say, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions, which are genuinely burdened in their ability to express their views by these laws.

well I hear you there. but if more money poured into Democratic coffers during the last five years, you have to admit the balance has now been completely destroyed by the CU decision. that link upthread showing a factor of 10 to 1. Whatever unassailable First Amendment underpinnings the decision rests on, the result was a new form of Free Speech in which the speaker remains anonymous, and this was by design. It's not just that corporations aren't people; it's that they can 'say' things that everyone will hear without anyone being able to know who was speaking.

The concept that Money does not just enable Free Speech but is in and of itself a form of it -- signing that concept into law was a break from the real world, and it obviously made things worse concerning corporate control, I don't think you can shrug it off there. It was a philosophical victory and it was a warped one

This is one of the major problems I have with free speech absolutists (and w/ kantian absolutists in general).

The concept that Money does not just enable Free Speech but is in and of itself a form of it -- signing that concept into law was a break from the real world, and it obviously made things worse concerning corporate control, I don't think you can shrug it off there.

I have to read the decision again; it's been thirteen months since the last time. I don't agree with your conclusion.

I think if it were left unaddressed, the first post-Citizens United presidential election would find many free speech junkies (I include myself among them) having cause to question whether they're willing to extend "speech" to include "money being contributed to political campaigns by corporations." Because if the ruling were to stand as-is, Planned Parenthood & the ACLU are gonna look downright hilarious next to the amount of cash Exxon et al will dump into whichever Republican runs. Citizens United is part of a group attempt, imo, to make Gingrich's dream of the permanent Republican majority a reality.

To me ascribing personhood to a corporation for the purpose of granting it rights seems silly, though I do understand the argument that if a corporation can be held liable for damages, then some form of personhood...accrues? pertains? but yeah - I think undoing CU is a partisan move. But so is CU. There's an uncomfortable meeting of abstract principle & political reality in it. And basically if Bong Hits for Jesus dude gets ruled against then the court doesn't get to dole out free speech to its preferred customers.

btw if you read that case & pay close attn to the majority decision & concurring opinions you'll come to the unescapable conclusion that we are totally fucked

http://i.imgur.com/RmU8a.jpg