As I've said before, Harry Reid is quite possibly the weakest Majority Leader of either party in the last half century, at least.
Now I know why. He's not only a Conservative Democrat. He comes from a Republican state where his re-election is not guaranteed. In short, he has to be careful not to seem "too" Democratic if he wants to stay in office.
Fine. I can understand the instinct for self-preservation. But that does not explain why the Democratic Senate first elected him as Majority Leader and then re-elected him. Except, of course, that Senate Democrats (like the equally cowardly House Democrats) are so afraid of being labeled "partisan" or "liberal" by the media that they don't want a "real" Democrat in the position.
I, quite frankly, am not happy with a Democratic President who thinks that partisanship, action on behalf of a set of firm beliefs, is wrong. That both Pelosi* in the House and Reid in the Senate share this view does not bode well for Democrats like me who believe in traditional Democratic values.
*Pelosi's cowardice and weakness, even with a Democratic majority, has no similar excuse. She comes from a reliably liberal district in one of the most liberal cities in the country.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Burris - the new Junior Senator - Media Missing in Action
One of the things that has most amazed me about the Burris case has been the kid gloves with which this man has been treated.
Everybody, including Harry Reid (not that his judgment means much), insists that Burris is untainted,is a good man.
But Burris ran for Governor 3 times and lost. He also, I believe, ran for Senator and lost. In short, the people of Illinois have repeatedly rejected him.
He knew that the Governor has been accused of trying to sell the Senate seat. He knew that the Senate did not want to seat an appointee of that Governor. But he wanted to be Senator so much that he, apparently (I read or heard this somewhere), put himself forward for the position and accepted the nomination. Think about that.
One can draw only two conclusions about Burris the man, based on this action. Either he is so ambitious, so desirous of becoming Senator that he doesn't care how it looks or how he gets the position or his ethics are so weak (perhaps non-existent) that he simply can't understand why the character of the person appointing him, and the situation under which the appointment was made, taints the appointment. One can't help but wonder what other ethical matters he will be blind to.
Everybody, including Harry Reid (not that his judgment means much), insists that Burris is untainted,is a good man.
But Burris ran for Governor 3 times and lost. He also, I believe, ran for Senator and lost. In short, the people of Illinois have repeatedly rejected him.
He knew that the Governor has been accused of trying to sell the Senate seat. He knew that the Senate did not want to seat an appointee of that Governor. But he wanted to be Senator so much that he, apparently (I read or heard this somewhere), put himself forward for the position and accepted the nomination. Think about that.
One can draw only two conclusions about Burris the man, based on this action. Either he is so ambitious, so desirous of becoming Senator that he doesn't care how it looks or how he gets the position or his ethics are so weak (perhaps non-existent) that he simply can't understand why the character of the person appointing him, and the situation under which the appointment was made, taints the appointment. One can't help but wonder what other ethical matters he will be blind to.
Rich & Holder - Missing the Point
First, in spite of all the ink and air time spent on this issue, I still honestly don't know why the Republicans think the pardon of Rich was the equivalent of a high crime.
Who was this guy? What was the pardon for (what crimes)? Who requested the pardon?
Beyond those important basics, however, Holder's answers appear evasive because he has focused on the fact that the decision "was a mistake". He made assumptions that he should not have made. Etc., etc.
Holder seems to assume that the members of the committee already know all the details (probably true) but the public audience probably doesn't.
What he needs to do and what he has yet to do is to explain how the the process works, how the issue came before him and what criteria he used to approve the pardon. Just saying that he made a mistake or that he made erroneous assumptions, however correct as far as those statements go, simply makes him sound evasive.
I, BTW, believe this is all a red herring raised by Republicans who still hate Bill Clinton and who want to cause trouble for Obama (for whom I did not vote), and seriously doubt that it deserves the attention it has been given (given all the pardons issued by all past Presidents), but it does bother me that Holder seems so locked into planned responses that he is unable to hear what he is being asked and to respond in a way that would explain why he acted as he did.
Who was this guy? What was the pardon for (what crimes)? Who requested the pardon?
Beyond those important basics, however, Holder's answers appear evasive because he has focused on the fact that the decision "was a mistake". He made assumptions that he should not have made. Etc., etc.
Holder seems to assume that the members of the committee already know all the details (probably true) but the public audience probably doesn't.
What he needs to do and what he has yet to do is to explain how the the process works, how the issue came before him and what criteria he used to approve the pardon. Just saying that he made a mistake or that he made erroneous assumptions, however correct as far as those statements go, simply makes him sound evasive.
I, BTW, believe this is all a red herring raised by Republicans who still hate Bill Clinton and who want to cause trouble for Obama (for whom I did not vote), and seriously doubt that it deserves the attention it has been given (given all the pardons issued by all past Presidents), but it does bother me that Holder seems so locked into planned responses that he is unable to hear what he is being asked and to respond in a way that would explain why he acted as he did.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Sen. Corker - Very Effective and Very Dangerous: My Way or the Highway
1. Corker will run for President.
2. He has proven himself to be incredibly effective as a politician, both in getting what he wants and in putting a positive spin on it. If only Reid had half his skill, the Democratic minority, and majority, might actually have accomplished something these past years. But Conservative commitment to their goals remains much stronger than Democratic commitments to their values. And Ron Gettelfinger is vastly outgunned and out maneuvered by Corker and, quite frankly, does not know how to sell his case. (He continually talks in generalities rather than in the specifics that would strengthen his case).
3. What makes him effective? He clothes his ideological rigidity in a combination of southern charm and seeming reasonableness.
4. What did Corker do that was so effective? First, he put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the UAW by insisting that only 3 words stood between success and failure. And to him, of course, those 3 words were reasonable. He also lied in his news conference, something easy to do because our media don't bother to watch C-SPAN. In the interview I saw on C-SPAN, he insisted that "any date certain" would have been fine. On the floor, he insisted on a date in 2009. In the caucus, apparently, he had insisted on Mar. 31, 2009. And it was "parity" not "competitive" that I heard on the floor. It didn't occur to any of his interviewers to suggest that if it was "only 3 words", he could have ceded. After all, that's what bargaining is: give and take. There were, to him, three key provisions. The UAW accepted the others. But 2 out of 3 wasn't good enough. So Corker essentially told the UAW that "it's my way or the highway", and he sold it in such a way that nobody realized that he, not the UAW, was even more guilty of refusing to bend.
Corker and his fellow Southern Senators made clear during the hearings, which I also watched on C-SPAN ( again, something that nobody at CNN or MSNBC or NBC apparently ever thinks to do)), that they opposed bailouts in general and this one in particular. Corker was forceful in his opinion that Chrysler was just waiting to be bought (rather obviously true) and that GM was doomed to fail. Give him credit for being one of the few Senators/Reps. in the hearings who realized that Ford did not need a loan but simply a line of credit and, then, only in case the recession was even worse than anticipated or one of the other companies failed.
I suspect that those "3 words" were added specifically so the Republicans could torpedo the legislation and blame it on the UAW. And Corker has pretty much succeeded in both objectives. Which is why he is somebody that Democrats should both fear and emulate.
What else was Corker able to do? He was able to laugh at the idea of a "Car Czar" while at the same time taking upon himself the role of a "Car Czar" and a bankruptcy judge. Corker turned himself into judge and jury. He alone understands the reality and he alone knows the solutions. For a man who, at other times, argues strongly against Government micro-management of business (esp. when it comes to environmental matters), that is exactly what he did. And our useless media, of course, let him get away with it.
One last thing: he managed to hide the fact that his plan required GM and Chrysler to prove their viability in 3 months. Given the state of the economy, that is incredibly unrealistic. It was just another way to ensure that GM and Chrysler would fail - and the failure would be seen to be theirs alone, not something helped along the way by the Southern Republicans.
2. He has proven himself to be incredibly effective as a politician, both in getting what he wants and in putting a positive spin on it. If only Reid had half his skill, the Democratic minority, and majority, might actually have accomplished something these past years. But Conservative commitment to their goals remains much stronger than Democratic commitments to their values. And Ron Gettelfinger is vastly outgunned and out maneuvered by Corker and, quite frankly, does not know how to sell his case. (He continually talks in generalities rather than in the specifics that would strengthen his case).
3. What makes him effective? He clothes his ideological rigidity in a combination of southern charm and seeming reasonableness.
4. What did Corker do that was so effective? First, he put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the UAW by insisting that only 3 words stood between success and failure. And to him, of course, those 3 words were reasonable. He also lied in his news conference, something easy to do because our media don't bother to watch C-SPAN. In the interview I saw on C-SPAN, he insisted that "any date certain" would have been fine. On the floor, he insisted on a date in 2009. In the caucus, apparently, he had insisted on Mar. 31, 2009. And it was "parity" not "competitive" that I heard on the floor. It didn't occur to any of his interviewers to suggest that if it was "only 3 words", he could have ceded. After all, that's what bargaining is: give and take. There were, to him, three key provisions. The UAW accepted the others. But 2 out of 3 wasn't good enough. So Corker essentially told the UAW that "it's my way or the highway", and he sold it in such a way that nobody realized that he, not the UAW, was even more guilty of refusing to bend.
Corker and his fellow Southern Senators made clear during the hearings, which I also watched on C-SPAN ( again, something that nobody at CNN or MSNBC or NBC apparently ever thinks to do)), that they opposed bailouts in general and this one in particular. Corker was forceful in his opinion that Chrysler was just waiting to be bought (rather obviously true) and that GM was doomed to fail. Give him credit for being one of the few Senators/Reps. in the hearings who realized that Ford did not need a loan but simply a line of credit and, then, only in case the recession was even worse than anticipated or one of the other companies failed.
I suspect that those "3 words" were added specifically so the Republicans could torpedo the legislation and blame it on the UAW. And Corker has pretty much succeeded in both objectives. Which is why he is somebody that Democrats should both fear and emulate.
What else was Corker able to do? He was able to laugh at the idea of a "Car Czar" while at the same time taking upon himself the role of a "Car Czar" and a bankruptcy judge. Corker turned himself into judge and jury. He alone understands the reality and he alone knows the solutions. For a man who, at other times, argues strongly against Government micro-management of business (esp. when it comes to environmental matters), that is exactly what he did. And our useless media, of course, let him get away with it.
One last thing: he managed to hide the fact that his plan required GM and Chrysler to prove their viability in 3 months. Given the state of the economy, that is incredibly unrealistic. It was just another way to ensure that GM and Chrysler would fail - and the failure would be seen to be theirs alone, not something helped along the way by the Southern Republicans.
Monday, December 1, 2008
FDR Didn't End the Depression: WWII Did
Both liberal and conservative economists seem to agree that WWII ended the Depression. But conservative economists go further. They say that FDR's actions (esp. the WPA programs) were, at best, useless & a waste of money or, at worst, the reason the Depression lasted until WWII.
I see two problems with this. First: the value of the work programs. I'm sure there was some waste, fraud and abuse. But a lot of today's infrastructure, like Eisenhower's highway system in the 1950s, was built under FDR.
Second, they ignore the "why" in the "WWII ended the Depression". I am NOT an economist (I barely survived the basic Econ. courses in graduate school), but, from an economic point of view, what did WWII do?
Well, it took millions of young men our of the civilian labor force and put them to work for the government. Then the government spent a lot of money on all the manufactured goods needed to run the war. It was government money that paid for the planes and tanks and uniforms and food and weapons, etc. And who produced these goods? Well, with a lot of the men doing government work, a whole new class of workers, women, went into the work force. I don't know what the combined number of new military men and new women in the workforce was, but certainly the result was the largest government works program in U.S. history.
So, the Conservatives draw the wrong conclusion. Yes, WWII ended the Depression. But it was precisely because it created an even greater expansion of Federal spending in the private sector. FDR's programs didn't work the miracle because they simply were not big enough.
I see two problems with this. First: the value of the work programs. I'm sure there was some waste, fraud and abuse. But a lot of today's infrastructure, like Eisenhower's highway system in the 1950s, was built under FDR.
Second, they ignore the "why" in the "WWII ended the Depression". I am NOT an economist (I barely survived the basic Econ. courses in graduate school), but, from an economic point of view, what did WWII do?
Well, it took millions of young men our of the civilian labor force and put them to work for the government. Then the government spent a lot of money on all the manufactured goods needed to run the war. It was government money that paid for the planes and tanks and uniforms and food and weapons, etc. And who produced these goods? Well, with a lot of the men doing government work, a whole new class of workers, women, went into the work force. I don't know what the combined number of new military men and new women in the workforce was, but certainly the result was the largest government works program in U.S. history.
So, the Conservatives draw the wrong conclusion. Yes, WWII ended the Depression. But it was precisely because it created an even greater expansion of Federal spending in the private sector. FDR's programs didn't work the miracle because they simply were not big enough.
Bill as Senator?
One of the dumbest speculations, among the endless CDS speculations, is the current gossip about Bill's being appointed to fill out Hillary's term. Apparently, this would solve some political problems for the Governor of New York and keep Bill "out of trouble".
The precedent? Adams. Would he do it? They say "why not"?.
First, it's unlikely that two Presidents could be more different than Adams & Clinton. Second, I suspect that the Congress in Adams' time was a more interesting place to work than the Congress today.
Think about it (something none of the talking heads talking about this have done): Bill Clinton as a junior Senator, stuck on unimportant subcommittees where he will be given two minutes to ask a question?
And can one imagine Clinton in a Senate in which Reid is the Majority Leader? Bill, one of the best arm-twisters around?
It is ridiculous and illustrates nothing so much as the utter vacuousness that characterizes the media, even the "big" media, today.
The precedent? Adams. Would he do it? They say "why not"?.
First, it's unlikely that two Presidents could be more different than Adams & Clinton. Second, I suspect that the Congress in Adams' time was a more interesting place to work than the Congress today.
Think about it (something none of the talking heads talking about this have done): Bill Clinton as a junior Senator, stuck on unimportant subcommittees where he will be given two minutes to ask a question?
And can one imagine Clinton in a Senate in which Reid is the Majority Leader? Bill, one of the best arm-twisters around?
It is ridiculous and illustrates nothing so much as the utter vacuousness that characterizes the media, even the "big" media, today.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
It's Always Hillary's Fault
Surfing into Anderson 360 tonight, I discover that the reason Obama hasn't nominated a Treasury Secretary is that Hillary hasn't made up her mind. Apparently, The Chosen One, the reincarnation of Lincoln and FDR can't do two things at the same time.
And, of course, Obama's super secret, efficient, disciplined, loyal staff are angry because Hillary's people are responsible for all the leaks. I guess they're responsible for the leaks about the Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary and Commerce Secretary, too?
Now, let me see. Obama, President-Elect, CIC, Leader of the Free World, can't "handle" the Clintons. Because, you see, he can't ask her formally to take the position unless he knows she will say yes (um, so what exactly happened with Pritzker? Did he just sort of hint around, like, um, maybe, do you think, maybe, .... and when Pritzker shook her head "no", that was it?) But, he can still, of course, ask Bill to lay bare his entire financial history - just in case, of course, he decides to offer her the job.
I'm not sure who comes out the worst here. These idiotic talking heads or Obama. Couldn't he, like, you know, just issue a statement that he hasn't offered anybody any position in his cabinet and will issue a press statement when he does? No? Too easy?
Quite frankly, the longer this goes on, the more I wonder why Hillary would even want to be in this amateur's cabinet. It's a dead end job, as far as I can tell. She wouldn't be able to run for the Senate again, unless, of course, she moved to another state. Governor? Maybe.
And, of course, Obama's super secret, efficient, disciplined, loyal staff are angry because Hillary's people are responsible for all the leaks. I guess they're responsible for the leaks about the Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary and Commerce Secretary, too?
Now, let me see. Obama, President-Elect, CIC, Leader of the Free World, can't "handle" the Clintons. Because, you see, he can't ask her formally to take the position unless he knows she will say yes (um, so what exactly happened with Pritzker? Did he just sort of hint around, like, um, maybe, do you think, maybe, .... and when Pritzker shook her head "no", that was it?) But, he can still, of course, ask Bill to lay bare his entire financial history - just in case, of course, he decides to offer her the job.
I'm not sure who comes out the worst here. These idiotic talking heads or Obama. Couldn't he, like, you know, just issue a statement that he hasn't offered anybody any position in his cabinet and will issue a press statement when he does? No? Too easy?
Quite frankly, the longer this goes on, the more I wonder why Hillary would even want to be in this amateur's cabinet. It's a dead end job, as far as I can tell. She wouldn't be able to run for the Senate again, unless, of course, she moved to another state. Governor? Maybe.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
GM Bankruptcy - Chap. 11 vs. Chap. 7 - Media Malfeasance
I don't know why I still expect anybody in the national media to do their jobs. Maybe I had just decided that "politics" was different. That I shouldn't expect fair or responsible coverage. But they could still deal with facts in other cases.
Not so. The Detroit 3 are asking for money. The response from the media, and from much of the Congress, is that they should just file for bankruptcy. "Chapter 11 is the solution".
Now, I am not a bankruptcy expert, or even a semi-expert. Hell, I'm an aboslute novice. But there appears to be a major difference between Chapter 11 (reorganization) and Chapter 7 (liquidation)and it is not at all clear that GM could reorganize under Chapter 11. Some people have mentioned a "pre-packaged" Chapter 11 or the Government (!) ensuring warranties, but as far as I can tell none of the talking heads who throw "Chapter 11" around know any more about bankruptcy law than I do.
It seems to me that the consequences of liquidation vs. reorganization are significant, not only for the companies but for the country. Millions could lose their jobs, their health care and, quite possibly, their homes.
I will admit that the executives of the Detroit 3 didn't do their cases any good by their inability to answer simply some basic questions (like how much cash they needed each month) or to explain to the committee members who advocated Chapter 11 the difference between the two types of bankruptcies. But isn't there a business reporter somewhere in the media (print, internet or TV) who could spend a little time researching the issue?
Personally, I'd rather waste 29 million trying to keep those 3 million jobs than just throw the dice and assume that everything will work out. (A couple of CNBC's guest stars on The Big Deal really threw me with their cool assessment that the 3 million would get unemployment benefits!)
A lot of this talk about "let them fail", "let the market clear out all the riff-raff" isn't new. It was last heard en masse in 1929. I'd like to think we learned something, but it appears that Conservative Economists are convinced that the Government caused the Great Depression and want to do it "their" way this time. Oddly enough, only CNBC's Jim Cramer seems to understand that in the current economic situation, ideology is not a good counselor. As he points out: we can punish all these corporate idiots later. It's more than a bit masochistic to send the world into a Depression just to prove that capitalism penalizes failures.
Not so. The Detroit 3 are asking for money. The response from the media, and from much of the Congress, is that they should just file for bankruptcy. "Chapter 11 is the solution".
Now, I am not a bankruptcy expert, or even a semi-expert. Hell, I'm an aboslute novice. But there appears to be a major difference between Chapter 11 (reorganization) and Chapter 7 (liquidation)and it is not at all clear that GM could reorganize under Chapter 11. Some people have mentioned a "pre-packaged" Chapter 11 or the Government (!) ensuring warranties, but as far as I can tell none of the talking heads who throw "Chapter 11" around know any more about bankruptcy law than I do.
It seems to me that the consequences of liquidation vs. reorganization are significant, not only for the companies but for the country. Millions could lose their jobs, their health care and, quite possibly, their homes.
I will admit that the executives of the Detroit 3 didn't do their cases any good by their inability to answer simply some basic questions (like how much cash they needed each month) or to explain to the committee members who advocated Chapter 11 the difference between the two types of bankruptcies. But isn't there a business reporter somewhere in the media (print, internet or TV) who could spend a little time researching the issue?
Personally, I'd rather waste 29 million trying to keep those 3 million jobs than just throw the dice and assume that everything will work out. (A couple of CNBC's guest stars on The Big Deal really threw me with their cool assessment that the 3 million would get unemployment benefits!)
A lot of this talk about "let them fail", "let the market clear out all the riff-raff" isn't new. It was last heard en masse in 1929. I'd like to think we learned something, but it appears that Conservative Economists are convinced that the Government caused the Great Depression and want to do it "their" way this time. Oddly enough, only CNBC's Jim Cramer seems to understand that in the current economic situation, ideology is not a good counselor. As he points out: we can punish all these corporate idiots later. It's more than a bit masochistic to send the world into a Depression just to prove that capitalism penalizes failures.
The "Bait and Switch" Bait and Switch
Lately, Conservatives, Republicans, and even a few Democrats (Waters, Ackerman) who should know better have been screaming about Treasury's switch from buying troubled assets (TARP) to capital investment.
Now, it is true that Paulson's initial idea and plea for money was specifically to buy the toxic assets through some kind of auction. Luckily, Congress proved to be smarter. The much maligned 3-page law Paulson proposed, replaced by the equally maligned several hundred page law (loaded with all those goodies people hate) allowed for investment (which is was Europe had started to do).
So, although Paulson was all for TARP, the law specifically allowed him to use capital investment. What I found especially troubling is that some of the Representatives and Senators who are getting all hot and bothered about this "bait and switch" are on the very committees responsible for the legislation. They, supposedly, have heard both Dodd and Frank explain this situation, several times if they had not bothered to read the legislation.
One can only conclude that they are either remarkably stupid, totally disconnected from reality, or just trying to appease or stir up their constituents.
Now, it is true that Paulson's initial idea and plea for money was specifically to buy the toxic assets through some kind of auction. Luckily, Congress proved to be smarter. The much maligned 3-page law Paulson proposed, replaced by the equally maligned several hundred page law (loaded with all those goodies people hate) allowed for investment (which is was Europe had started to do).
So, although Paulson was all for TARP, the law specifically allowed him to use capital investment. What I found especially troubling is that some of the Representatives and Senators who are getting all hot and bothered about this "bait and switch" are on the very committees responsible for the legislation. They, supposedly, have heard both Dodd and Frank explain this situation, several times if they had not bothered to read the legislation.
One can only conclude that they are either remarkably stupid, totally disconnected from reality, or just trying to appease or stir up their constituents.
Friday, November 7, 2008
NMJY (Not My Job Jet)
Well, for the past couple of days CNBC has been opining that Obama, in his first press conference as Pres-Elect had to offer specific plans. And the political reporters have all been saying how important it is that he name at least his Treasury Secretary. They were pleased that he already had a Chief of Staff (as opposed to that awful Bill who didn't name one until January - just reporting, don't know if that date is accurate).
So, what did we get? More campaign fluff, with the ever-present "bi-partisanship", and the new "I am not yet President".
Ok, he's right. The Shrub is still President, the old Congress is still there. But this was also a get-out-of-jail play. And does anybody doubt that her not yet being sworn in would have kept Hillary from setting out her detailed plans? No. Oh, but hey, she's already done that in areas like housing, only I guess that doesn't count because it's not her job. Obama did, however, give us a hint of what his excuse will be if he doesn't get his plan through when he has a plan: partisanship.
Almost forgot: those fast appointments Obama was going to give us? Well, fast means "weeks". Weeks before he is President: about 10.
So, what did we get? More campaign fluff, with the ever-present "bi-partisanship", and the new "I am not yet President".
Ok, he's right. The Shrub is still President, the old Congress is still there. But this was also a get-out-of-jail play. And does anybody doubt that her not yet being sworn in would have kept Hillary from setting out her detailed plans? No. Oh, but hey, she's already done that in areas like housing, only I guess that doesn't count because it's not her job. Obama did, however, give us a hint of what his excuse will be if he doesn't get his plan through when he has a plan: partisanship.
Almost forgot: those fast appointments Obama was going to give us? Well, fast means "weeks". Weeks before he is President: about 10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
