Give Brad DeLong credit:

He endorses an Economist essay that (on the whole) says we should not measure economic progress based on what's happening within a country, but by how everyone in the world is affected. Immigration is the focus here, but it could also be applied to outsourcing and other free-trade policies.

WARNING: The essay targets Mickey Kaus, who is not the best spokesman for nationalist/protectionist policies.


posted by Quiddity at 12/30/2010 01:03:00 PM

Obama's call to the Philly Eagles owner:

That expressed gratitude for them hiring Michael Vick, was not politically smart. Animal lovers will be outraged and it doesn't help with any other group out there. Obama would have been well advised not to bring the matter up.

I wouldn't be surprised if he walks back this action.


posted by Quiddity at 12/28/2010 03:19:00 PM

Broken record:

Where have we heard this before? (emp add)

John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate, expressed his belief this week that defense spending should be insulated from the likely wave of budget cuts spurred by a new era of GOP leadership next Congress.

"I think you've got to be just as much on the outlook for waste and fraud in defense spending as anywhere else, but the fact is we're entering a very uncertain period in the world. We've got a lot of threats out there that we're not ready for. Not just nuclear proliferation, but chemical and biological weapons," Bolton said on Fox Business,

Bolton is saying that we have to have a massive defense budget because of all the WMD threats. Presumably on the same scale as the Iraq WMD threat of 2003. Or maybe not.


posted by Quiddity at 12/28/2010 03:15:00 PM

One of the many reasons Palin will not be the Republican nominee:

This is not presidential.

"Where are the s'mores ingredients? This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert," says the woman who speaks with little accountability for her constant flow of sarcasm. Palin's desire to display her facility with put-downs instead of the intricacies of policy may explain why, after two years on the national stage, she is not seen by many as qualified to be president.

It's got to be Romney in 2012.


posted by Quiddity at 12/25/2010 02:16:00 PM

Why it was always hard to be enthusiastic about Clinton (Bill and, to an extent, Hillary):

They had people like Lanny Davis in their entourage:

As the United States continued to push for President Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast to step down, two former Clinton administration officials were trying to present Mr. Gbagbo, who has clung to power despite international condemnation, in a more sympathetic light.

Michael Espy, the former agriculture secretary who is now a lobbyist, has appeared on Ivorian television on behalf of Mr. Gbagbo’s government, while Lanny J. Davis, former chief counsel to President Clinton who was hired by Mr. Gbagbo’s government this month, worked the phones and described himself as a liaison of sorts to the tainted regime. (...)

By all international accounts, Mr. Gbagbo was defeated by Alassane Ouattara in the Nov. 28 runoff vote for president, but Mr. Gbagbo has disputed the election results. (...)

Mr. Davis, who helped defend President Clinton against impeachment, registered with the Justice Department earlier this month as an agent for Ivory Coast who would be paid $100,000 a month to “present the facts and the law as to why there is substantial documentary evidence that President Laurent Gbagbo is the duly elected president as a result of the Nov. 28 elections.” But he insisted in an interview on Wednesday that he viewed himself not as an advocate but as a “conveyor belt” to pass information about Mr. Gbagbo to the administration and the world.

posted by Quiddity at 12/23/2010 08:18:00 PM

The Fox Nation goes after Lisa Murkowski:

Let's see more of this.


posted by Quiddity at 12/23/2010 02:57:00 PM

Christmas sales up?

In the news: Last-minute holiday shoppers boost U.S. sales

More last-minute shoppers flocked to stores this year on the final Saturday before Christmas than last year, but spending is expected to be even higher late this week.

U.S. retail sales on Saturday were up 15.1 percent from last year to $7.58 billion as many people wrapped up their gift buying, research firm ShopperTrak said on Tuesday. This year also benefited from its comparison to the weekend in 2009 when a blizzard hammered the East Coast.

That storm contributed to a 16.5 percent drop to $6.58 billion in so-called "Super Saturday" spending in 2009. This year's totals were below the $7.87 billion Americans spent for the day in 2008, said ShopperTrak, which analyzes the retail industry.(...)

"Now that we are down to the wire, consumers have stepped up their shopping pace, as well as their purchases," ICSC chief economist Michael Niemira said in a statement. "All and all, retail shopping trends are shaping up to be very favorable for holiday sales, as well as December sales performance, for retailers."

Well, that's what they are reporting, but it doesn't match my experiences here in Los Angeles. Foot traffic has been pretty low and the parking lots are not jammed. The Black Friday of the Thanksgiving holiday registered only a 0.3% increase in sales. That seems about right, considering the persistent high unemployment. This recent news about a shopping surge seems overly optimistic.

MATH TIME: If you drop 16.5% and then rise 15.1%, where do you end up? Not down 1.4%, since simple addition does not apply here. From a base of 100, a 16.5% drop puts you at 83.5. An increase of 15.1% from 83.5 gets you 96.1 - a decline of nearly 4% from the 2008 year (and closely matches the $7.58B/$7.87B = 96.3 [ratio of 2010:2008] figures cited elsewhere). So the bottom line is that this season is not terrible, but it's not boffo either.


posted by Quiddity at 12/21/2010 09:25:00 PM

Faith in America:

At the New Republic, there is an article about the Democrats' attempt to woo Christians, which was successful for a while, but has mostly evaporated by now. Of interest is this observation by a commenter:

Sorry, but looking at religious voters from a 19th century social gospel perspective won't do it with today's evangelicals. The parables in Matthew 25 (that's the Gospel of Matthew for you non-Christians) are right out of the social gospel, as is the mission statement for the charitable organization Matthew 25 ("inspired by the Gospel mandate to put our faith into action to care for our neighbor, especially the most vulnerable"). One would think that, after almost 500 years since Martin Luther and the protestant reformation, Democrats would have a better understanding of evangelical Christians. I will offer two hints. First, it's not the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that evangelicals look to for guidance; it's the letters of Paul. Second, forget "good works" (the social gospel) as the basis for living a Christian life; it's faith alone in Jesus as savior that is the one true path ("one way") to the kingdom of God ("justification by faith"). The Democrats' failing with evangelicals has nothing to do with "messaging"; it's due to a fundamental misunderstanding of their faith.

That strikes me as correct. I occasionally check in with evangelical sources (web, radio) and for the most part they adhere to a view that is opposed to the social gospel. As the commenter suggests, they are more driven by what St. Paul wrote - along with Pauline thinkers like Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

That Paul holds so much influence within Christianity has always been something of a puzzle. He never knew Jesus, yet his writings often trump the thoughts and exploits of Jesus and the other apostles (in the four Gospels). The short answer is that Paul has influence because it was his "branch" of Christianity that triumphed over the other variants that were around in the first three centuries.


posted by Quiddity at 12/19/2010 12:05:00 AM

Cartoonist Pat Oliphant on Obama's Deal:

Surprised to see this.


posted by Quiddity at 12/18/2010 11:56:00 PM

Good news everybody!

The Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III, passed 277 - 148.

That's what they called it.


posted by Quiddity at 12/16/2010 10:20:00 PM

Christopher Hayes at The Nation on the Obama Deal:

In an essay, Tax Cuts Forever?, he concludes with this: (emp add)

My sense is that the White House economic and political team is starting to panic as they recognize the stubborn persistence of unemployment. They know the economy needs more stimulus, and that Republicans are loath to allow them to deliver it. Through this deal they were able to secure some stimulative tax cuts, like the payroll tax reduction. Briefing liberal writers, the White House sold the plan as stimulus 2.0. And even if tax cuts for the rich aren't stimulative, it's money into the economy. At this point, the White House will take what it can get.

That's the only way I can see why the 2% cut in Social Security taxes was part of the mix.


posted by Quiddity at 12/14/2010 08:17:00 AM

"some agreement on something"

Bill Clinton in the White House press room today:

So in my opinion, this is a good bill, and I hope that my fellow Democrats will support it. I thank the Republican leaders for agreeing to include things that were important to the president. There's never a perfect bipartisan bill in the eyes of a partisan. And we all see this differently. But I really believe this will be a significant net plus for the country. I also think that in general a lot of people are breathing a sigh of relief that there's finally been some agreement on something.

About the Obama Deal. It's an odd beast. You could make yourself like it, by focusing on some provisions. Or you could make yourself hate it.

It's very hard to analyze since a final judgement - if it passes - will have to wait a couple of years in order to see what tactical positions are established, and exploited, by both sides.


posted by Quiddity at 12/10/2010 07:12:00 PM

Predictable Broder:

You knew he was going to praise Obama's deal with the Republicans:

Future political historians are likely to trace his recovery - and reelection, if that's what happens - back to decisions made in December.

In these past few days, he has regained the economic initiative from the victorious Republicans, separated himself from the left of his own party and staked a strong claim to the territory where national elections are fought and won: the independent center.

... he has begun to regain focus as the pragmatic liberal that he is ...

That is a winning posture for a president seeking a second term.

Obama used his news conference Tuesday to define himself, more clearly than ever before, as a raging moderate ...

This was the best showing for Obama in many months.

posted by Quiddity at 12/08/2010 09:59:00 PM

A comment:

I think Obama gave in this time, but the Repubs will recognize and respect that, and on the next issue go out of their way to give him what he wants. They want nothing more than to reciprocate the good will he has shown them. Next time, the Repubs will agree to do it his way; fair is fair!!

posted by Quiddity at 12/08/2010 09:44:00 PM

The Obama deal:

While I'm not impressed with it, perhaps everybody needs to learn more about how it came about before rendering a judgment. How did the negotiations go? Who was asking for what? What did each side concede, when, and why? Why was Congress out of the loop this time and the White House engaged - the exact opposite of the health care legislative process?

What started out as a simple unemployment extension + keep the middle class cuts in exchange for keeping the upper income cuts, suddenly got much more complex. What I want to know is:

• Where did the cut 2% of FICA taxes come from? That would appear to be something that could be done separately (with support from both parties, even though it carries the risk of becoming permanent and weakening Social Security).
• How did the bargaining on the estate tax go? The Washington Post advocated going to the 2009 schedule of $3.5 million exempt and a 45% rate - which was the lowest of the 10 year period (not counting 2010's no tax). That position, keep the 2009 schedule for estate taxes was considered to be the Republican position by many. How did the Obama deal end up being more generous? It's a mystery.

The deal was reached in a surprisingly short time and feels rushed and overstuffed. Almost as if by bringing in many disparate elements, it becomes harder to critique it - because the complexity makes it harder to assess its value (for Democrats and Republicans).


posted by Quiddity at 12/07/2010 07:55:00 PM

Michael Lind in Salon:

Starts out with this:

Most Americans want Social Security to be strengthened and American manufacturing protected. But the conversation among elites inside the Beltway-New York bubble is about cutting Social Security and more one-sided "free trade" deals with mercantilist nations that, unlike the U.S., protect and promote their domestic industries.

Many Americans have come to the conclusion that nobody represents them in Washington anymore. They are right.

He goes on to discuss mass-membership organizations (e.g. unions) as the main reason why. Two weeks ago Frank Rich said Congress is disconnected from the American people, but gave a different explanation: big money in politics.

Whatever the reason, there continues to be frustration by the typical voter with what's going on in Washington and it's not clear what will change that.


posted by Quiddity at 12/07/2010 09:22:00 AM

Expect to hear more about this:

For the next two years, estates up to $5,000,000 will be protected from the estate tax, and the tax rate for the few estates that are taxed will be 35 percent. That's worse than the 2009 estate tax ($3.5 million exemption, 45 percent rate)

[45 percent was the lowest rate after a series of reductions in the last 10 years, not counting this year's zero rate; the exemption grew during the same period to a maximum of $3.5 million]

In this case Republicans got more than an extension of current rates and policies.


posted by Quiddity at 12/06/2010 10:53:00 PM

The defining Obama quote:

"Sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do."

Expect that to be cited a lot in coming years.


posted by Quiddity at 12/06/2010 09:40:00 PM

Joe Scarborough tweets:

Politically, I am stunned the President is extending the tax cuts to millionaires. NYTimes: Bush Tax-Cut Deal Near http://nyti.ms/eiV8Nj

posted by Quiddity at 12/06/2010 09:13:00 AM

The strategy explained:

By extending the tax cuts for the rich, in two more years they will be even richer - which will heighten the contradictions - making the Democrats' charge that "Republicans are defenders of the rich" all that more potent. It's a shrewd political move designed to kick the can down the road until better circumstances prevail. Much like the wildly successful Kansas–Nebraska Act.


posted by Quiddity at 12/06/2010 09:00:00 AM

Speeches:

Jonathan Chait ruminates on the (apparent) failure of the Democrats to pass a tax bill without caving to the Republicans. Of interest is this from a commenter: (emp add)

Obama's failure to lead on this issue is going to be the final straw for a lot of liberals and independents, and for precisely the reason Chait points out. Americans want their president to be a leader. Many of us thought Obama had it in him to be a leader when he was breathing fire on the campaign trail. The Jefferson/Jackson speech he gave in Iowa, the victory speech he gave in SC, the race speech in Philly, the nomination speech--those were moments when he showed more grit and passion than anyone else in politics. That man has completely disappeared. (...) What the hell happened?

Speeches are fine, but they are not enough. You have to also work the halls of Congress. And eve if you believe in the power of speeches, where's the tax-policy speech from Obama?


posted by Quiddity at 12/02/2010 02:29:00 PM

Obama's test:

There a lot of grousing about Obama today. Ezra Klein, John Cole of Balloon Juice (and his commenters), even Kevin Drum is not particularly hopeful.

While Obama has been criticized in the past for not doing enough, his supporters could argue that passing new legislation meant dealing with the 60-vote Senate, along with other procedural hurdles. I never found those arguments convincing, but it was often a subjective call as to whether or not Obama was doing as well as expected (or promised).

But the tax cut extension is a different matter. If there is no action, the taxes go back to the 2000 rates. And Obama holds the veto pen. So he can play hardball and demand only a bill to his liking. Play it out and see what happens.

It looks as if that isn't going to take plce. You can think of a number of explanations why. But the key result will be that Obama will lose a ton of support from Democrats if he treats the tax extension like the other legislation: As if both sides have the same bargaining power.

Watch what happens this month. It will be of greater significance than almost anything else that's happened so far.

UPDATE: Here's an interesting observation by a commenter at Balloon Juice:

Obama is a strict Constitutionalist and he understands what the original intent of the Republic was in having the three branches. He wants to pull power back from the executive and put more into the hands of the legislative, i.e., less rule by fiat than we have seen in almost 200 years. He doesn’t believe in the bully pulpit, he believes the president’s job is to do what the legislative tells him to do. He wants to lead the executive branch, not the nation.

It’s a sweet notion that was relevant at the signing but went out the window soon after the ink dried. He doesn’t get it.

He may be right in believing, accepting my premise, that a less powerful executive is better for democracy but he fails to realize that times have changed.

Not sure I buy it, but it's an intriguing notion.


posted by Quiddity at 12/01/2010 07:30:00 PM