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

all of the CA legislature's GOP members have taken that pledge. it's worked out real well for them lol

I honestly don't know much about Tom Coburn, but hurray for this:

If you're in Congress right now, and you allow somebody like Grover Norquist to tell you how to vote—you have an opportunity to really fix what's wrong with the country, and if instead you do what special interest groups say—you don't have any business being up here."

I hate Norquist with a passion.

the beef between coburn and norquist has been 'kind of lol, mostly sad'

james fallows getting righteous

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/whats-wrong-with-america-chapter-817-sen-richard-shelby/239967/

Last year, Shelby -- on his own authority, and in pique for a federal contract that didn't go to Alabama firms -- held up the confirmation of some 70 executive branch appointees. It's bad for America that Senate rules make such one-person tyranny possible. But it should be held against Shelby that he was willing to abuse the rules this way, in reckless disregard of the national interest and the destructive wastefulness of making it so arbitrarily difficult to fill public jobs.

Now, as Peter Diamond has recounted in the New York Times, Shelby has, on his own whim, decided that the most recent recipient of the Nobel award in economics (Diamond), doesn't meet the Shelby Test for economic excellence. I'm more skeptical than most people about the "Nobel prize" in economics. Technically, it's not one of the "real" Nobel prizes, and in some cases it has inflated the delusions of economists that theirs is a hard science comparable to physics or biology/medicine. But let's be serious. A career politician with a law degree from the University of Alabama (Shelby has 8 years as a prosecutor, 40 years as a legislator). Versus the economist who has just been recognized with the highest international lifetime-achievement honor that exists in his field -- and whose specialty is studying America's worst economic problem of the moment, chronic unemployment. Hmmm, I wonder which of them might be in a better position to judge the other's street-cred about Fed policy. Yet Senate rules let one willful politician say: No, I think not. Presumably the Nobel committee will soon offer Shelby a standing veto over its selections.

Here's the real question: America is rich and resilient. But is it resilient enough to permit folly and self-destruction of this sort? There is no recourse against Sen. Shelby for his abuse of power except to make sure everyone knows and remembers what he has done. Which is the point of this note.

larry elliott getting apocalyptic about the united states:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/06/us-economy-decline-recovery-challenges

Policy, as ever, is geared towards growth because the great existential fear of the Fed, the Treasury and whoever occupies the White House is a return to the 1930s. Back then, the economic malaise could be largely attributed to deflationary economic policies that deepened the recession caused by the popping of the 1920s stock market bubble. The feeble response to today's growth medicine suggests that the US is structurally far weaker than it was in the 1930s. Tackling these weaknesses will require breaking finance's stranglehold over the economy and measures to boost ordinary families' spending power and so cut their reliance on debt. It will require an amnesty for the housing market. Above all, America must rediscover the qualities that originally made it great. That will not be easy.

this article is strangely overegged for him - he's usually more sober than this. which in itself is a bit alarming.

The high levels of violent crime, epidemic of obesity, addiction to pornography and excessive use of energy may be telling us something: the US is in an advanced state of cultural decadence.

jeez that sounds awful

i know right?? he never writes shit like that. he should probably avoid it in the future.

Cultural decadence in this case means letting The Stupids win.

My friend's appointment was one of many held up for reasons of partisan fuckery (he did get confirmed in the end) but according to the unspoken rues of DC it is considered unseemly to directly challenge people who fuck with appointees purely because they can, so my friend couldn't speak out about what was happening to him.

(not least because i'm pretty sure violent crime has actually been steadily decreasing for the last 20 years. america's "crime" problem is mainly a "prison industrial complex" problem) nice to know that pornography is so rare in britain though.

xpost

I hope all the dangerous ppl stay home watching obese porn

<3

shelby v. diamond: when a nobel ain't enough

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06diamond.html

The high levels of violent crime

Huh? Violent crime is at an all-time low, I thought.

There is no recourse against Sen. Shelby for his abuse of power except to make sure everyone knows and remembers what he has done. Which is the point of this note.

this is OTM & seems like something to actually run with, the tactic of more aggressively, prominently teathering assholes to their voting record rather than feeling that so much more shit is inevitable that you needn't remember what they did last time

trying to deal with the very low support for mid-century keynesian stuff:

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2011/05/tds_strategy_memowhy_cant_the.php

First, simply repeating the traditional Democratic narrative -- regardless of how frequently or emphatically --- will not produce significant attitude change...

Second, doubts about the ability of government to create jobs reflect not only a disbelief in Keynesian remedies for unemployment but also the profound doubts many Americans have about government in general...

Third, attempts to convince the critical group of ambivalent voters have to be based on those voters' distinct way of thinking about political issues - the desire to find a "common sense" middle ground...

Finally, the widespread progressive assumption that job creation should necessarily be just as popular today as it was in the 1950's and 1960's is simply wrong...

...Under these vastly different circumstances, it is just not plausible to argue that the Dems failure to win majority public support for creating jobs is simply the result of inadequate Democratic passion and commitment to the goal.

well, great.

The starting point for this effort, however, must be the recognition that winning majority support cannot be based on simply repeating the standard arguments of the past. The fact that the public continues to strongly support "jobs" or "job creation" on opinion polls does not mean they still support the post-war Keynesian policies that kept unemployment low in the 1950's and 1960's. No amount of rhetoric - no matter how passionate or theatrical - can make this reality disappear.

the Dems and Obama lack the will to make a persuasive argument; I can't be convinced that isn't the crucial element.

blind quote time:

“Government cannot eliminate poverty or provide a bountiful economy or reduce inflation or save our cities or cure illiteracy or provide energy,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/opinion/27Perlstein.html?_r=2&hp

When asked if the White House would use new tactics to regain support for stimulus plans, a White House spokesman said the President has no comment, he does not want to upset the markets.

Not really. Noone in the White House reads that website.

that rick perlstein remembrance of hubert humphrey is pretty amazing btw

and rose-colored

if you say so

Soon Vice President Humphrey was the spokesman for the president’s unwise war in Vietnam. He took to the role partly out of loyalty, partly out of conviction: to a certain sort of old-line liberal like him, Vietnam was a crusade against imperialist expansionism. To younger “New Politics” Democrats, however, the war embodied the very opposite: a racist assault by an administration that was itself practically imperialist.

did i tell that story about hubert humphrey getting drunk with khrushchev in moscow and khrushchev asking where humphrey was from and then getting up and drawing a circle around minneapolis on the map on the wall of his office and saying "i will tell them to spare the city when the rockets fly"

Morbs, we already recommended Perlstein's considerably more nuanced take on Humphrey in Nixonland. Then there's Robert Caro's Happy Warrior before ossifying into LBJ's butt boy.

The starting point for this effort, however, must be the recognition that winning majority support cannot be based on simply repeating the standard arguments of the past. The fact that the public continues to strongly support "jobs" or "job creation" on opinion polls does not mean they still support the post-war Keynesian policies that kept unemployment low in the 1950's and 1960's. No amount of rhetoric - no matter how passionate or theatrical - can make this reality disappear.

this is some Ph.D.-level gabbnebism.

in fairness, the guy's site is Democratic Strategist -- shit-e-at emptor

did i tell that story about hubert humphrey getting drunk with khrushchev in moscow and khrushchev asking where humphrey was from and then getting up and drawing a circle around minneapolis on the map on the wall of his office and saying "i will tell them to spare the city when the rockets fly"

― difficult listening hour, Monday, June 6, 2011 3:03 PM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

!!

jeez, blame the messenger. the public's understanding of economics is totally upside down. i've got no idea what to do about that long term. but something has to be done about unemployment in the short term

In (a recent) Bloomberg poll, by a nine-point margin, Americans said the better way for the government to create jobs was to cut spending, while smaller numbers opted for "invest[ing] in projects such as high-speed rail, expanding access to broadband Internet," etc. Indeed, several polls suggest that voters judge cutting federal spending to be the single most effective step government can take to create jobs.

So when Democrats argue that the GOP is focused on spending cuts at the expense of job creation, most Americans shake their heads in disbelief, seeing those cuts as exactly the kind of "stimulus" we need.

honestly, my reaction is this: since the suffering-but-unpersuaded are interested in "common sense consensus", it would be a huge plus for the country to have an active, well-organized and loudmouthed "far" left. the money and media universes are strongly tilted against that happening but, as long as we're dreaming... so go morbs go i guess.

not everything Dubya did was poll-tested btw

!!

― ☂ (max), Monday, June 6, 2011 7:30 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark

more wacky anecdotes on "russian leaders" thread

Robert Kuttner suggests a plan for Obama in an American Prospect post (new deal-inspired it appears to me) and then concludes

Obviously, the Republicans will never to agree to a program of large public investment. But Obama ought to propose one. It would be far better, both for Obama and for the country, to have the 2012 election as a referendum on jobs rather than an arcane and counterproductive debate about two brands of budget cutting.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_economic_relapse

In another evidence about how corrupt and moribund the political class and commentariat are, this incessant constriction of "doing something about jobs" and "job plans" without parsing the shorthand (e.g. "Obama needs to something about job creation"). The only way to "create job" is for the government to pump money into the private section, which is so not gonna happen.

And the liberal blog and academic world wants Obama to at least propose something and force the Republicans to knock it down, but Obama's Wall Street leaning econ team thinks its better for him to just say I will cut the deficit differently and slightly less than the Republicans; plus trust me jobs will return.

*section = sector

andrew breitbart hacked anthony weiner's press conference

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1n&tag=watchnow

he just got up at the podium and has been taking questions for 15 minutes

this is bizarrrrrrre

aw it just ended

The starting point for this effort, however, must be the recognition that winning majority support cannot be based on simply repeating the standard arguments of the past. The fact that the public continues to strongly support "jobs" or "job creation" on opinion polls does not mean they still support the post-war Keynesian policies that kept unemployment low in the 1950's and 1960's. No amount of rhetoric - no matter how passionate or theatrical - can make this reality disappear.

this is some Ph.D.-level gabbnebism.

― I-95 Phuck Phace (Eisbaer), Monday, June 6, 2011 3:17 PM (51 minutes ago)

boom

i'm conflicted on humphrey's legacy (i should really read nixonland, this is like the 10th time i've seen it recommended), but i'll always have a soft spot for him - probably the most powerful pharmacist in our history

work has been slow recently so i've found myself reading things i'd usually avoid, but if you want to read something stupid: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06douthat.html

douthat gets under my skin for some reason

an actually good op-ed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06krugman.html

side question: how well-known is krugman among normals? i was talking to my dad, a liberal with a graduate degree in economics, a few months ago and his name came up; he wasn't familiar with him

he was in 'get him to the greek'. so.

ha yes

when he concentrates on explicating economic data, Krugman is unimpeachable, but as a liberal icon he's another scarf wearer who doesn't look at the camera when he's in closeup.

Man, this Weiner guy. At least he's completely owning up, but he so should have seen this coming to such an extent that he should have had this presser on day one.

How long until it's revealed that one or more of his recipients is underage?

so, he's on now? Breitbart was an opener?