This Sunday, David "I see bipartisanship everywhere" Broder writes:
When Congress comes back from its two-week recess, members of both parties will be invited to the White House to celebrate what is, in today's context, almost a miracle: the signing of the Serve America Act of 2009.
Congress adjourned on Friday for the Easter break with the usual sounds of partisan struggle filling the air as the House and Senate rushed to pass the budget resolutions for next year. Nothing that one party proposed found favor with the other. Feelings were, once again, rubbed raw.
But eight days earlier, when the Senate approved a slightly modified version of the House-passed national service act by an overwhelming 79 to 19, the atmosphere was completely different. Democrats were congratulating Republicans and Republicans were praising Democrats. ...
Despite all the goodwill, 19 senators, all Republicans, including the party's two top leaders, voted against the law. The arguments were spurious.
Here is the Senate vote record. Democrats: 100% present YEA (includes Sanders & Lieberman, Dorgan not voting) Republicans: 53% present YEA (non absent)
And what about the House? The vote there was: Democrats: 99% present YEA (1 NAY, 2 absent) Republicans: 40% present YEA (104 NAY, 6 absent)
Bipartisanship is a majority from both parties supporting a bill. That did not happen in the House (and was barely met in the Senate by a mere 2 votes). But because some Republicans voted for a bill, and because Broder pays attention to the Senate and not the House, he declares a victory for bipartisanship.
Top White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers received about $5.2 million over the past year in compensation from hedge fund D.E. Shaw, and also received hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from major financial institutions.
A financial disclosure form released by the White House Friday afternoon shows that Mr. Summers made frequent appearances before Wall Street firms including J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers. He also received significant income from Harvard University and from investments, the form shows.
In total, Mr. Summers made a total of about 40 speaking appearances to financial sector firms and other places, with fees totaling about $2.77 million. Fees ranged from $10,000 for a Yale University speech to $135,000 for an appearance paid for by Goldman Sachs & Co.
Over $100K from Goldman. For a speaking appearance and nothing more.
On Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 39.51 points, or 0.5%, to 8017.59, its highest close since Feb. 9, bringing its advance to 3.1% on the week. That was the fourth straight week of gains, and at 21%, the biggest advance for this kind of four-week streak since May 1933. The broad Standard & Poor's 500 index added 8.12, or 0.97%, to 842.5. For the week, the S&P 500 added 3.3%, and has cut its losses on 2009 to 6.7%. The Nasdaq Composite added 19.24, or 1.2%, to 1621.87, and is now up 2.8% for the year to date.
Today on ABC's Good Morning America, their financial-affairs advisor explained what was happening by using the analogy of a car race. The car that speeds ahead is the Market, followed by Spending, with Employment the last car racing to Recovery. So the conclusion is that the Market tells you where we stand.
While the advisor admitted that this could be a bear rally, her overall opinion was a positive one (citing small upticks in various economic reports).
15 Feb 2009: George Will wrote in the Washington Post:
... according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade ...[i.e. since 1998]
21 March 2009: The Secretary General of the World Metereological Organization wrote in the Washington Post:
It is a misinterpretation of the data and of scientific knowledge to point to one year as the warmest on record -- as was done in a recent Post column ["Dark Green Doomsayers," George F. Will, op-ed, Feb. 15] -- and then to extrapolate that cooler subsequent years invalidate the reality of global warming and its effects.
2 April 2009: George Will wrote in the Washington Post:
[Global] warming ... is allegedly occurring even though, according to statistics published by the World Meteorological Organization, there has not been a warmer year on record than 1998.
Mr. Calculated Risk is a sober type who only allows himself the occasional droll remark. As a rule, he keeps his opinion-level very low, and is always civil (even while the comment threads get raucous). This is the first time I've seen him characterize the stock market as a casino. He's referring to today's big up move, possibly related to the change in accounting that would allow banks to put their own value on their paper, which has the potential of actually reducing transparency (opinions vary).
If I had to guess, CR thinks that there is still some unwinding and fall-out from housing, manufacturing (autos), trade, and government activity (reduced at state and local level), and sees today's market action as not in accord with the 2009-2010 trend. He's up there in years (as am I) and no doubt recalls when real bottoms were in in 1974 and 1982, when everybody was totally disgusted (and disinterested) in stocks. Yes, there's been a lot of hurt in the last 18 months, but there are still strong pockets of "we're on the road to recovery" that indicate that greed hasn't been wrung out of Wall Street. Hence, the casino metaphor.
Once again, George Will has penned a global-warming-skeptic column in the Washington Post. Fave excerpt:
[Global] warming ... is allegedly occurring even though, according to statistics published by the World Meteorological Organization, there has not been a warmer year on record than 1998.
... Will (again) cites the unusually hot year of 1998 to prove that the planet isn't warming. He fails to understand a very basic concept in data that you don't need any particular social science expertise to grasp, which is that trends don't always move in a perfectly straight line. The planet has been getting warmer, and there was an extreme spike in 1998. Both these things can be true.
But back to Will & Yglesias. Matt has been very critical of George and the Post for printing his "lies" (Matt's chacterization). And you know that sometime soon - hopefully today - Yglesias will write an entertaining post on this latest event.
This is one aspect of blogs that's lots of fun.
UPDATE: Yglesias delivers, but also says "I’m beyond caring what Will is thinking or doing here", which may mean less fireworks going forward.
Also, from the comments, a link to various slams on Will (h/t Hodge).
Yglesias has commented on it, but he failed to mention any specific numbers that Paul Ryan detailed in the "GOP's Alternative Budget". Ryan, writing in the Wall Street Journal, proposed that in addition to permanently restoring the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, that people have a choice between that system and another one. What's the other one?
If you are single and make over $50,000 ($100K for couples) the tax on income is 25%.
If you are making not $50 thousand, but $50 million, you can opt for system2 and instead of a marginal rate of 35%*, pay 25%, a savings of five million dollars. (And capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15%, so any taxes on those items is substantially reduced as well.)
We all know that a single person living in a metro area (like Los Angeles) making $50K has, after food, shelter, insurance, and transportation costs, about the same percentage of "spendable money" as the $50 millionaire. So it's logical that they both be taxed at the same marginal rate.
Brilliant. We need more thinkers like Ryan.
* 35% was the Bush top rate. 39% was the Clinton top rate which becomes effective if/when the Bush tax plan expires.
Today on ABC's Good Morning America, in the first hour after the news, they had - to "weighing in on all these facts" - an interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel. O'Reilly helpfully talked about "pinheads in Europe" and how great his cable channel show is doing.
It's not so much that O'Reilly is out there promoting himself. But what does it say about the ABC network? Don't they have anybody there - a journalist or even a "political observer" - to provide perspective?
Interesting to note that O'Reilly was on ABC shortly after he was using his show to harass a private citizen.
This story, Dem Strategists: Sarah Palin Is The New Rush Limbaugh, claims that "the party plans to increasingly elevate Palin in the same manner it has employed Rush for weeks". That's not smart. Limbaugh is the much better foil. Palin is, on the whole*, a nice person. Limbaugh is not.
* Yes, she said some nasty things in speeches, but her general disposition isn't (yet) unremittingly hostile.
Kudos, by the way, to the always fair op-ed page editors at the [Los Angeles] Times. I have written for the Washington Post and the New York Times as well and getting a conservative point of view past their editors without being gutted is virtually impossible.
I’m not a Catholic—and I’m pretty sure I’ll never become one—but I’ve read a fair amount of the writings of Pope Benedict XVI and it’s clear to me the man is a theological genius. I find it amazing that the Vatican could have followed a genuine hero like John Paul II with a mighty mind like Benedict’s.
CODA: Speaking of right-wing radio, on Sean Hannity today, he opined that Europeans were worried that Obama was going to force socialism on them. The horror!
He's not in a leadership position in the Senate. He's not on a critical committee. He's not been part of the dialogue on financial matters. He's already gotten tons of face time over the last eight years, so it's not like he needs more exposure. What's up?
