Planet Hilker

by Josh Marshall at 20 March 2009 0400h

Turtles All the Way Down

From the <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-19/madoff-employee-breaks-silence/">Daily Beast</a> ... <blockquote>An employee who worked in Madoff's legitimate brokerage operations, described by the fraudster in his plea agreement as being "successful and profitable," has told The Daily Beast that they were in fact money losers that acted as a front for his Ponzi scheme. He said that the legitimate businesses, the proprietary and market making arms on the eighteenth and nineteenth floors of Madoff Securities were designed to lure investors in, especially highly-placed figures in society and to fool the SEC into thinking that he had a large and impressive galaxy of businesses.</blockquote> <a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=b2aa730c86cf64b3a001cfc5a0524d3b&p=1"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=b2aa730c86cf64b3a001cfc5a0524d3b&p=1"/></a> <div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/Talking-Points-Memo?a=4VHfUh1f3rg:3zKVLya-OEY:H0mrP-F8Qgo"><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/Talking-Points-Memo?d=H0mrP-F8Qgo" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~4/4VHfUh1f3rg" height="1" width="1"/></content>

by bluegal at 20 March 2009 0330h

Open Thread

The latest New Yorker arrived in my mailbox this afternoon with this fabulous cover art, "OctoRush" by Barry Blitt. I think my neighbors wondered why they heard that lady several doors down yell "Open Thread!"

Open Thread below....

Food: Michelle Obama Plants A White House Garden

by tristero

This is excellent:

On Friday, Michelle Obama will begin digging up a patch of White House lawn to plant a vegetable garden, the first since Eleanor Roosevelt’s victory garden in World War II. There will be no beets (the president doesn’t like them) but arugula will make the cut.

While the organic garden will provide food for the first family’s meals and formal dinners, its most important role, Mrs. Obama said, will be to educate children about healthful, locally grown fruit and vegetables at time when obesity has become a national concern.

In an interview in her office, Mrs. Obama said, “My hope is that through children, they will begin to educate their families and that will, in turn, begin to educate our communities.”...

“The power of Michelle Obama and the garden can create a very powerful message about eating healthy and more delicious food,” said Dan Barber, an owner of Blue Hill at Stone Barns in Pocantico Hills, N.Y., an organic restaurant that grows many of its own ingredients. “I don’t think it’s a stretch to say it could translate into real change.”

This is an unalloyed Very Good Thing. But you folks know the drill by now, right? The entire Village will be shouting elitists! Elitists!

Yeah, well, let's hear what a real fucking Park Avenue- level elitist thinks about food near her home:

Kyu-Sung Choi, a Korean immigrant, thought it would be a good idea to open a 24-hour delicatessen at Park Avenue and 75th Street. Many residents disagreed.

''Do the residents of Park Avenue want to look out the window at vegetables?'' asked Shirley Bernstein, a leader of the opposition. ''They most certainly do not.''

Word of Mr. Choi's plans and the sight of remodeling crews were met with stop-work orders, a complaint filed by the local Community Board, inspectors looking for code violations, and elected officials speaking out against the deli.

Mr. Choi won his case, by the way.

20 March 2009 0330h

C&L's Late Night Music Club with Jimi Hendrix (doing Dylan)

Title: Like a Rolling Stone

Artist: The Jimi Hendrix Experience

We had a great discussion here last week about our favorite Beatles covers. What about Dylan covers? Hendrix's version of "All Along the Watchtower" might be Jimi's best known, but "Like a Rolling Stone" live at Monterey is my favorite Dylan cover, hands down.

What's yours?

by MaxMarginal at 20 March 2009 0300h

Countdown: Special Comment: Bailouts and Corporate Greed-Enough!

CD-Comment-Banks-031909
icon Download | Play icon Download | Play
You Tube

Keith's Special Comment March 19, 2009. He goes after the Banks and all the chaos they have brought down on our heads.

Enough!

Olbermann: To all of you in the Corporate boardrooms.

Stop viewing the public's reaction to this naked, unhindered robbery of the public coffers, and your audacious, immeasurable sense of proprietorship and entitlement stop viewing our anger as some kind of brief impediment, some traffic delay that keeps you from your God-given corporate ballpark sponsorships, and perpetually remodeled offices, and the divine right of $38 million "compensation packages."

You, gentlemen and ladies, and not the good and long-suffering average people of this country, you are fomenting rage in this nation. You are the losers in this equation, and the people are the generous ones; they have not assembled in the streets with pitch-forks and flaming torches. You are the ones perceived — understood in a visceral and even transcendent way — as the committers of what is becoming class economic rape.

And heed this one word before these people grow weary of forgiving you, and instead decide to bring the "good life" — which you have built on their backs — crashing down on top of your heads. When the next boardroom needs re-modeling, or the next bonus paid, or the next jet purchased, remember that one word:

Enough!

And that means you, Citigroup and their leader---Vikram Pandit.

Citigroup confirmed Thursday that it planned to spend about $10 million on new offices for Vikram Pandit, its chief executive, and his lieutenants, saying the project would help it save money over time.

Affidavits filed with the New York Department of Buildings show that Citigroup, which has received $45 billion in government rescue aid, expects to pay at least $3.2 million for basic construction like wall removal, plumbing and fire safety at the bank’s Park Avenue headquarters. That figure does not include expenses like architect fees or furnishings.

‘‘In this environment, it absolutely sends the wrong message,’’ said Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, referring to the office renovations. ‘‘Timing in life is everything.’’

Full transcript below the fold.

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on the latest atrocity from the banks. The vast, engorged, gluttonous multi-national corporations. Whose sneezes can be fatal to our jobs. Whose mistakes can turn us into the homeless. Whose accounting errors can be so panoramic that they can make our economy tremble and force us to hand them billions after billions in a blackmail scheme that has come to be known as "bailout."

Five weeks ago Vikram Pandit, the chief executive officer of Citigroup, went back to Congress, tail seemingly between his legs, and, with entreaty dripping from his voice, announced "I get the new reality and I'll make sure Citi gets it as well."

In point of fact, as Bloomberg News reports today, what Mr. Pandit "got" was a new $10 million executive suite for himself and his key associates.

This is the same Mr. Pandit who said he would show his leadership by accepting compensation of $1 a year. In fact, he then "accepted" a total compensation package for 2008 of $38 million.

Enough!

Mr. Pandit, you're probably just a good actor and a damned liar and a con man. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume instead, that you just can't tell the difference between $1 and 38 million of them. That would certainly explain the maelstrom into which you, and your colleagues at Citi and your counterparts elsewhere, have gotten us, including the vast majority of us who are innocent bystanders.

Your bank says your new $10 million office is part of a global strategy of space reduction that will ultimately save billions. It seems entirely appropriate to remind everyone, sir, that this promise could be fulfilled by Citi saving $2 a year for a billion years.

God knows you guys have pulled off every other accounting trick every dreamt up by immoral man. You, Sir, and the other corporate pirates like you — those who are saved from your obsessive spending and greed and self-aggrandizement by the taxpayer — who then pretend to atone — who then publicly promise good behavior — and who then revert immediately to the rapaciousness that is your only skill.

You, sir, all of you, need to be fired.

Enough!

And Mr. Pandit's corporation should be cut up into little pieces. And when he and the other ultra-millionaires wonder what hit them, we should make sure they are easily reminded. Our representatives should entitle the legislation that ends their moral ponzi schemes, "The Punish Vikram Pandit Act of 2009."

The far right in this country, without the slightest provocation, screams "socialism," and the sheep who follow it, who do not know what the word means and do not know it is only being used because "communism" now rings laughably hollow. In this cry of fire in a crowded unemployment line, there is outrage.

But there is also license. They think this is socialism? There is a million miles of reform to go before we hit socialism but if they're going to call us names whether they apply or not let's give them real reform.

Break up the banks. Regulate the financial industries, to within an inch of their existences. Roll back corporate legal protections. Make liable the officers of corporations, for their debts, and for their deeds. Resurrect the rallying cry of a hundred years past: bust the trusts!

AIG gives "failure bonuses" to the cretins whose dalliances in derivatives brought the company and part of the nation to her knees? Spin off that division whose traders are owed the 165 million in bonuses, under fund it, and cause it to go bankrupt.

Enough!

Let those with bonuses owed, stand in line before a bankruptcy referee, and wind up — just as you and I would — with half a cent on the dollar. Northern Trust fires 450 employees in December. Then takes a billion six in bailout money. Sponsors a golf tournament. Flies hundreds of clients to Southern California for private Oscar Parties including the renting of an airplane hangar and the hiring of the group "Earth, Wind & Fire?"

Enough!

Fire the executives. And fire up the Justice Department to figure out just how much fraud was involved in asking for a billion-six in bailout money when Northern Trust said nothing as the checks were written, even though it knew in advance that millions could be saved by simply cutting the fluff and the trumpery.

Thirteen more companies that took bailouts, signed the mandatory documents that said they owed no back taxes lied turned out, per Congressman John Lewis of Ways and Means today lied — they owe, just among those thirteen firms, 220 million in back taxes?

Enough!

Have the IRS take these companies, immediately, to the tax courts to which the rest of us are liable. And strip those ancient, outdated laws of Corporation, so that the officers of the corporation are personally liable for their companies' debts, just as you or I would be. And if the monopolies of radio or television rear up to support the corporate structure, to say a contract is a contract, even though that isn't true for a union these days, only for an AIG Trader. Take the invisible, unused Sword of Damocles they still fatuously insist hangs over their heads, and make it real.

Enough!

Make sure both sides are heard. Re-regulate the radio and television industries to limit station ownership and demand diversity of management and product. Re-instate the old rules that denied one man all the voices in a public square. End all waivers of multiple ownership of television stations and networks and newspapers in the same market.

And, yes, if a voice of the privileged classes unfairly uses his cable platform to call our neighbors who are the victims of this, "losers" to insist he alone speaks for the real people.

Or if another, indicts without equal time for defense a particular elected official, and then offers himself as a candidate for that very official's seat, in violation of all canons of good or even fair broadcasting then tell the cable industry that the free ride is over and it is time that it too be regulated by the FCC.

Enough!

To all of you in the Corporate boardrooms.

Stop viewing the public's reaction to this naked, unhindered robbery of the public coffers, and your audacious, immeasurable sense of proprietorship and entitlement stop viewing our anger as some kind of brief impediment, some traffic delay that keeps you from your God-given corporate ballpark sponsorships, and perpetually remodeled offices, and the divine right of $38 million "compensation packages."

You, gentlemen and ladies, and not the good and long-suffering average people of this country, you are fomenting rage in this nation. You are the losers in this equation, and the people are the generous ones; they have not assembled in the streets with pitch-forks and flaming torches. You are the ones perceived — understood in a visceral and even transcendent way — as the committers of what is becoming class economic rape.

And heed this one word before these people grow weary of forgiving you, and instead decide to bring the "good life" — which you have built on their backs — crashing down on top of your heads. When the next boardroom needs re-modeling, or the next bonus paid, or the next jet purchased, remember that one word:

Enough!

by Heather at 20 March 2009 0215h

Hearts 'N Minds

by digby

I have to say that I'm confused by all the Republicans fulminating on television today about "shredding the constitution" because the House voted to tax the TARP bonuses at 90%. Why, you'd think they were endorsing the imprisonment of innocent people for years without evidence or something.

Oh wait:

Thousands of Iraqis held without charge by the United States on suspicion of links to insurgents or militants are being freed by this summer because there is little or no evidence against them.

Their release comes as the U.S. prepares to turn over its detention system to the fledgling Iraqi government by early 2010. In the six years since the war began, the military ultimately detained some 100,000 suspects, many of whom were picked up in U.S.-led raids during a raging, bloody insurgency that has since died down.

The effort to do justice for those wrongly held to begin with, some for years, also runs the risk of releasing extremists who could be a threat to fragile Iraqi security.

As part of an agreement between the two countries that took effect Jan. 1, Iraqi authorities have begun reviewing the cases of the detainees to decide whether to free them or press charges. About 13,300 remain behind barbed wire in U.S. custody in Iraq.

But Iraqi judges have issued detention orders to prosecute only 129 of the 2,120 cases they have finished reviewing so far this year -- or about 6 percent, according to U.S. military data. As of Thursday, 1,991 detainees had been freed since Jan. 1.

An Associated Press reporter embedded for two days at Camp Bucca, the largest U.S. detention facility in Iraq, and talked with military officials about preparations to shut it down.

"God willing, God willing," said Layla Rasheed after learning that her son, a former government worker from Baghdad, was likely to be released. "He doesn't have anything to do with terrorists. I don't know why he was picked up."

The military also expects to release another 600 detainees by the end of March, a spokesman said.

The U.S. detention policy has been unpopular in a country where many feel that thousands have been detained without cause, and where the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal will be remembered for a long time.

Iraq's biggest Sunni parliamentary bloc has called for the release of virtually all detainees, arguing that even those who were militants no longer pose a threat because so many Sunni groups have abandoned the insurgency.

"It's very easy to go back and say, 'Well, you rounded up all these innocent people.' Well, innocence has different shades," Brig. Gen. David Quantock, commander of the U.S. detention system in Iraq, said in an interview this week.

One wonders what would happen if American politicians who started a war for no good reason were subject to the same standards (or should I say "shades of innocence.")

"It's not like we have a choice -- it is prosecute or release. So it's a huge undertaking right now to try to find as much evidence as we can. We're not going after all of them, we're going after a certain amount."

These people have been mouldering away in prison for years with no due process. I suppose it's a good thing that the authorities are finally "scrambling" to compile evidence against them but it's hard to see how that is an example of Jeffersonian democracy.

And there are consequences:

One Camp Bucca imam said the majority of detainees are ready to forgive once they are released -- even if they are angry and confused after being held so long.

"Some of them have decided to go outside Iraq to change," said the imam, who identified himself only as Sheik Abdul-Sattar. "Some can say, we can forgive everyone. The majority are like that. The extremists speak of revenge."

It only takes a handful. And I would bet that there are more extremists because of this policy than there would have been without it. Injustice tends to make people very testy.

Meanwhile, back in the states:

Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said Thursday. "There are still innocent people there," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press. "Some have been there six or seven years."

Wilkerson, who first made the assertions in an Internet posting on Tuesday, told the AP he learned from briefings and by communicating with military commanders that the U.S. soon realized many Guantanamo detainees were innocent but nevertheless held them in hopes they could provide information for a "mosaic" of intelligence.

"It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance," Wilkerson wrote in the blog. He said intelligence analysts hoped to gather "sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified."

Of course, we knew that. But it's still helpful to have it confirmed.

Now I know that the absolute worst thing that could ever happen to a person is to have their million dollar bonus taxed at a confiscatory rate for a year. It sends chills down my spine just thinking about it. But I do think it might be just a teensy bit more convincing if those who are having an aneurysm about this assault on the constitution could spare just a little bit of their self-righteousness for the people who ordered the torture and imprisonment of innocent human beings as well.

.

20 March 2009 0130h

Tucker Carlson should go back to the bowtie

Poor Tucker Carlson, even after he had a makeover it still didn't help his nonsensical arguments. His knickers are in a bunch over Jon Stewart's skewering of CNBC's Jim Cramer. He's mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. That evil Jon Stewart needs to be stopped, I say! So Tucker took his complaints to The Daily Beast.

Before Cramer could defend himself, Stewart moved on to a new charge: Cramer and his colleagues at CNBC had known that the financial sector was in imminent danger of collapse, but had pretended otherwise—a ruse that Stewart described as “disingenuous at best and criminal at worst.”

Cramer was sure ready to pounce on the very mean Stewart until he blindsided him with a clever ruse. But a little later Carlson says this:

No matter. Cramer was almost incoherent by this point, cringing and apologetic. Stewart was becoming furious. “I understand you want to make finance interesting,” he said, “but it’s not a fucking game. And I, I, I—when I watch that, I can’t tell you how angry that makes me.”

Are you telling me that the brillant Jim Cramer was incoherent from a diversionary tactic Jon used to trip him up? Hmmm, maybe it was because Jim had no defense and was guilty as charged.

If you didn’t actually see the show, you wouldn’t know any of this, since there is a virtual ban on critical stories about Jon Stewart in the press. Nobody in memory has received a longer free ride. (CNBC stands in such awe of Stewart, the network hasn’t even tried to defend itself, even against his claim that its programming might be criminal.)

The entire cable news media was silent about the Cramer segment. It was like there was a virtual ban (except for CNN's Reliable Sources where Carlson called Stewart a "partisan Hack." Now that was comedy gold.) on this critical story of CNBC and the business world. Yes, the press is way too easy on him. Damn comedian gets away with telling the truth about the Cross Fire's of the TV world. He needs to get the full Gary Condit treatment. Send him to Gitmo and have Cheney waterboard him.

Before Cramer could defend himself, Stewart moved on to a new charge: Cramer and his colleagues at CNBC had known that the financial sector was in imminent danger of collapse, but had pretended otherwise—a ruse that Stewart described as “disingenuous at best and criminal at worst.”

This was even more farther-fetched. A ratings-hungry TV network had the scoop of the decade but decided to sit on it? Why? In order to curry favor with soon-to-be-disgraced corporate executives? It didn’t make sense.

Sure, Stewart is out of his mind because he put together a montage of outrageous behavior of CNBC talking heads after Rick Santelli of CNBC screamed at President Obama not to help the "losers" who would get assistance to try and save their homes: 'Screw them, it's their fault that the housing crisis had happened anyway, so why should we rich and smart people, the winners of our society, chip in?' Blaming homeowners who couldn't pay their mortgages for the housing crisis. And CNBC happens to represent the Wall Street media to most Americans. They cheered him to the high heavens like a Messiah that had come from the Gods.

CNBC simply didn't practice real journalism during the entire sub-prime mortgage crisis and traded in their journalistic integrity because profits were good and the ideology of most on the shows and reporters was geared towards free market capitalism that should never be regulated. There were a few appearances by guests who tried to warn the Kudlow's of the impending doom, but they were practically laughed off the set on opinion shows which featured the infamous: Decagon.

The Daily Show has about 23 minutes or so and uses usually the last third of the show for interviews. Carlson complains that he gave a puff interview with Obama, but he doesn't mention that John McCain was one of his most frequent guests and most of the time he played very nice with him too. But that doesn't count. He has Bill Kristol on every few months and they make him appear a lot of the time look like a normal person with sound ideas, but that doesn't count. No, Jon Stewart is a partisan hack.

I could go on and on taking his rubbish apart, but since he tells you a behind-the-scenes story about Stewart -- after he ripped Crossfire a new one -- I'll tell you a similar little story about Tucker. I met him in the green room of Bill Maher's Real Time on October 21, 2005. I went with Arianna Huffington during the Valerie Plame scandal and he was one of the guest panelists. We met and talked for about 15 minutes about trivial things. The way you do with people you meet for the first time.

He knew my blog when I told him what I did and he complimented me on it. As he talked about California, I was stunned that he was acting like a nice, normal guy too. A charming man who was not a Republican, but simply an ideologue with principles, and he was very friendly. Then it was time for the show to start and he went onstage and acted like a jerk for the entire show. He came back into the green room and said, "That was fun." I was like, "What did you turn into, dude?" He left stage right.

by John Amato at 20 March 2009 0115h

Looks Like Company Severance Plans Are Downsized, Too

In other words, just because employees at your company got decent severance packages in previous rounds of layoffs doesn't mean you can count on it for yourself:

Just a month before a fourth round of layoffs in December, Geonerco Management Inc. reduced its severance plan. Laid-off workers would get just two weeks of pay, rather than a package based on length of service.

"We needed to take every reasonable step to conserve cash to make it through this very tough time," says Greg Szymanski, director of human resources for the Seattle-based real-estate development firm.

Geonerco's policy change is part of a broader effort by some employers to curb severance costs. Some 20% of companies polled in December by Hewitt Associates Inc., a human-resources consulting firm in Lincolnshire, Ill., said they plan to change severance policies and 31% are considering such a move.

For the most part, employers that are downsizing severance packages say they are facing mounting financial pressures. Hewitt's survey found that 43% of firms planning severance-policy changes expect to reduce cash payments, while 21% intend to trim other benefits.

Similarly, a survey conducted earlier this year by Hay Group Inc., shows that 61% of employers planning or considering changes aim to do so by downgrading their offerings to laid-off workers.

by Susie Madrak at 20 March 2009 0100h

NCAA Tournament has begun. Watch it online at CBS for free

And so it has begun. Memphis almost got upset by one of my local teams CS Northridge, but they faded at the end. American is giving Villanova a run for their money, but Villy is closing fast. You can watch all the games online at CBS.com. That's really cool because we're stuck with regional games only. How are your teams doing so far?

by John Amato at 20 March 2009 0055h

March 19, 2009

by Fred Clark at 19 March 2009 2300h

Why AIG Matters

by dday

I didn't think it was necessary to spell out why $165 million dollars in bonuses for individuals who tore down their companies is probably a bad thing. But there does appear to be a mild backlash against the over-the-top nature of the public anger, including from White House officials. And given that the numbers are a fraction of one percent compared to the bailout money AIG took from the government (that will never get paid back) or the Fed's huge program to buy up mortgage-backed securities, they may have a point. So, OK.

Obviously there's a political importance because the nation is following the issue so closely. But far more essential than that is how this is tied to income inequality and the stratifying gap between the rich and poor. Kevin Drum is absolutely correct to note that the standard practice in corporate boardrooms is to call bonuses a reward for performance right up until the moment that the performance tanks, at which point they become necessary for retaining talent.

Of course they got their comp locked down when they saw the storm ahead of them. This is what executives always do. Back during the dotcom bubble, corporations handed out trainloads of cheap stock options even though the practice was heavily criticized. Why? Because the stock market was going up and it was a nearly guaranteed way to make lots of money. After the bust, they suddenly took the criticisms to heart and largely stopped the practice. Why? Because the stock market was going down and it wasn't easy money anymore [...]

What happened at AIGFP is standard practice throughout corporate America. America's corporate titans like to talk endlessly about performance-based pay and how capitalism rewards risk, but in real life compensation packages are almost always constructed to avoid as much risk as possible. If you work in a growing industry, your bonus depends on raw growth rates. If you work in a declining industry, your bonus is linked to relative growth rates. If the market is up, your bonus is paid in stock. If it's not, suddenly deferred comp and increased pension contributions are the order of the day. Heads you win, tails you win.

The AIG traders who got this sweetheart deal are nothing special. Management probably didn't even think twice about it. Of course you switch from performance bonuses to retention bonuses when the market looks stormy. What else would you do?

The decoupling of risk and profit is the issue here. Corporate titans never rise and fall on the merit of their superior intellect, and there has been a great shift to mke sure profits, both personal and corporate, are kept in private hands, while the risk is socialized. When times are flush nobody really cares about or at least pays attention to this; when the same people who wrecked the economy feel entitled to their ungodly profits, people get understandably upset.

And the tone-deafness on this from the Administration, therefore, while striking, does not surprise. The Treasury Secretary is now admitting that he asked Chris Dodd to take out the executive pay caps from the stimulus. His rationale? "We wanted to make sure it was strong enough to survive legal challenge." Actually, they wanted to make sure Wall Street didn't pull the pin out of the grenade.

If they did walk out the door, who would volunteer to work at the Chernobyl of the financial world? And what would become of the mammoth portfolio that remains?

"It would become the biggest naked position on Wall Street," one longtime Financial Products executive said, "and everybody would exploit it." [...]

"Nobody is going to give (the bonus money) back and then stay," said one of the firm's employees. "If they give back the money, then they will walk. And they will walk into the arms of AIG's counterparties."

The sense of entitlement to a system that rewards them regardless and shovels massive amounts of money and power in their direction. Heck, we learned today that 13 bailed-out companies owe $220 million in back taxes and lied to Congress about it. OF COURSE they did. That's the system they've created - protections for their corporate bottom line, riches for them personally, crumbs for everyone else. Reaganomics basically set this in motion 30 years ago, and the system has been in place for so long that any alternative path is like the true forms on the outside of the cave instead of the shadows on the inside we think represent reality. But the public knows intuitively that they've been getting a raw deal for decades, and the bonuses are only a small part of the story.

James Galbraith has an amazing piece about the limitations of the Obama economic team to reinvent a new economic ideal, rewarding work instead of wealth, returning the business of finance to its narrow role of facilitating capital flows, etc.

The deepest belief of the modern economist is that the economy is a self-stabilizing system. This means that, even if nothing is done, normal rates of employment and production will someday return. Practically all modern economists believe this, often without thinking much about it. (Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it reflexively in a major speech in London in January: "The global economy will recover." He did not say how he knew.) [...]

Geithner’s banking plan would prolong the state of denial. It involves government guarantees of the bad assets, keeping current management in place and attempting to attract new private capital. (Conversion of preferred shares to equity, which may happen with Citigroup, conveys no powers that the government, as regulator, does not already have.) The idea is that one can fix the banks from the top down, by reestablishing markets for their bad securities. If the idea seems familiar, it is: Henry Paulson also pressed for this, to the point of winning congressional approval. But then he abandoned the idea. Why? He learned it could not work [...]

The government must take control of insolvent banks, however large, and get on with the business of reorganizing, re-regulating, decapitating, and recapitalizing them. Depositors should be insured fully to prevent runs, and private risk capital (common and preferred equity and subordinated debt) should take the first loss. Effective compensation limits should be enforced—it is a good thing that they will encourage those at the top to retire. As Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut correctly stated in the brouhaha following the discovery that Senate Democrats had put tough limits into the recovery bill, there are many competent replacements for those who leave.

Ultimately the big banks can be resold as smaller private institutions, run on a scale that permits prudent credit assessment and risk management by people close enough to their client communities to foster an effective revival, among other things, of household credit and of independent small business—another lost hallmark of the 1950s. No one should imagine that the swaggering, bank-driven world of high finance and credit bubbles should be made to reappear. Big banks should be run largely by men and women with the long-term perspective, outlook, and temperament of middle managers, and not by the transient, self-regarding plutocrats who run them now [...]

This cannot be made to happen over just three years, as we did in 1942–44. But we could manage it over, say, twenty years or a bit longer. What is required are careful, sustained planning, consistent policy, and the recognition now that there are no quick fixes, no easy return to "normal," no going back to a world run by bankers—and no alternative to taking the long view.

The AIG scandal represents a reminder of the way things WERE, when Masters of the Universe ruled the world and dared anyone to challenge them. There are raw economic benefits to getting executive compensation under control - the economic burst that would come from a steep reduction in the inequality gap, with a concurrent stronger middle class, reindustrialization, and the rise of labor unions. But there are even bigger implications. It means wresting control over our country away from the ones who ruined it, who are trying to threaten, cajole and intimidate their way into maintaining control. For two years a campaign captivated America with the promise that the people have power, that mass collective action can create change. But we don't. And the bonus babies have proved it. Now there's a choice, that policymakers will eventually have to make but which can be pressured from the bottom.

Who runs this country?

.

19 March 2009 2330h

Slacktivist

The Immortals

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">It seems <a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090319/HEALTH/903190363/1113">2007 was a record year for births</a> here in the U.S. of A.:<div style="margin-left: 40px;">Forget the baby boom. More babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation's history. ... The 4,317,119 births, reported by federal researchers Wednesday, topped a record first set in 1957 at the height of the baby boom. </div> I'm something of an expert on the demographic implications of the baby boom. I've developed this expertise from copy editing hundreds, probably thousands, of articles* on the effect of the baby boomers' impending retirement on Social Security. Based on what I've learned from those articles, and from closely watching the ongoing political debate over the Future of Social Security, I can say a few things, with confidence, about what this new generation will be like.1. The children of 2007 will live forever.Just like the original baby boomers, the 4,317,119 babies born in the U.S.A. in 2007 will never die. They will work for 65 years, after which they will retire and become a drain on the Treasury and the paychecks of future generations forever and ever and ever.This may seem unlikely, or even a scientific impossibility, but all of the experts on Social Security are agreed on this point. The baby boomers are never to be regarded as a demographic bubble working its way through Social Security system, but rather as a perpetually calamitous drain on that system -- a burden that will never end. I've seen the numbers and read the reports as they detail with remarkable precision the cost to taxpayers due to these baby boomers 50 or 75 or 100 years from now.This is why politicians of both parties agree that Social Security is in Crisis. The baby boom generation is not made up of mere mortals with normal human lifespans. When these immortals retire, as they have begun to do now, the system will be destroyed.Scientists don't fully understand why the baby boomers are immortal, but our best guess is that it has something to do with the sheer size of their generation. The demographic class of 2007 is even bigger, so it seems likely they will be immortal too.2. The children of 2007 will contribute nothing in retirement.In 2072, the 4,317,119 children born in 2007 will retire from the workforce and become a drain on taxpayers, on federal resources and on health care providers. They will become a burden to the system and to their families. A drain and a burden and nothing but.We know this to be true about the children of 2007 even though they haven't retired yet in the same way we know this to be true about the original baby boomers, even though most of them haven't retired yet either.Think about it. The tens of millions of baby boomers now approaching retirement carry with them a wealth of knowledge, education and experience. And now they're about to have vast amounts of free time. So one would think, at first glance, that the retiring baby boomers might be one of this country's greatest assets.But look again at all that literature on the Social Security Apocalypse. Google "boomers + retirement" and see if you can find a single expert or political leader or expert politician who has anything at all good to say about this army of retirees that's about to invade. The consensus is clear: Once they retire, the immortal baby boomers will be a drain and a burden and nothing else.The same, we can guess, will prove to be true of the children of 2007.- - - - - - - - - - - - * Actually, it may have just been the exact same article, read thousands of times. Like every newspaper, we've run that thing at least twice a week for the past decade or so.</div> </content>

TPMtv: The Day in 100 Seconds

by Ben Craw at 19 March 2009 2300h

Brad Delong

Tyler Cowen Wants to Become a Fisherian-Pigovian-Vinerian-Hawtreyan

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Tyler writes: <blockquote> <a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/03/irving-fisher-on-the-liquidity-trap.html">Marginal Revolution: Irving Fisher on the liquidity trap</a>: The very healthy influence of Scott Sumner has induced me to read the Irving Fisher works I had never looked at before.&#160; Wow.&#160; It's Fisher, not Keynes, who is the prophet of our times and the superior analyst of the Great Depression.&#160; Circa 1932, Fisher wrote: <blockquote> ...in the depression of 1929-32, while the volume of deposit currency in member banks was falling 21 per cent, the velocity of it was being reduced by 61 percent....a mere new supply of money, to replace what has been liquidated or hoarded, might fail to raise the price level by failing to get into circulation...a mere increase in M might prove insufficient, unless supplemented by some influence exercised directly on the moods of people to accelerate V -- that is, to convert the public from hoarding. </blockquote> One wishes that Keynes were so clear. And what is the best way to restore confidence and break the liquidity trap?&#160; Restoring confidence in banks, so that a multiplier, working through credit, may be effective again.&#160; Fisher also suggests negative interest on reserves and he outlines in detail how this might be done. That is all from his Booms and Depressions, First Principles, a very sophisticated work.&#160; Pigou, Hawtrey, and Viner are also all worth reading; they are more advanced in their thinking than Keynes was willing to admit. Hail Irving Fisher, still one of the most underrated economists of the 20th century.&#160; By the way, 1936 - 1932 equals 4. </blockquote> Here is what Pigou said about Keynes (after Pigou hqd gotten over his snit, of course): his Marshall lectures, Keynes&rsquo;s General Theory: A Retrospective View: <blockquote> Nobody before [Keynes], so far as I know, had brought all the relevant factors, real and monetary at once, together in a single formal scheme, through which their interplay could be coherently investigated... </blockquote> You need the bond market and the goods market </div> <div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?a=70A5KcP7yGU:MB5ao9myJP8:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?a=70A5KcP7yGU:MB5ao9myJP8:dnMXMwOfBR0"><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?d=dnMXMwOfBR0" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal/~4/70A5KcP7yGU" height="1" width="1"/></content>

by Brad DeLong at 19 March 2009 2300h

Greg ip on Alan Greenspan

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">From the Economist: <blockquote> <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/03/he_had_the_power.cfm">He had the power | Free exchange</a>: ALAN GREENSPAN&rsquo;s defence of the Federal Reserve in the formation of the housing bubble restates a familiar argument&mdash;it raised short-term interest rates but long-term interest rates did not follow, and housing is most sensitive to long-term rates.... Mr Greenspan asserted on a number of occasions that while America might have local housing bubbles, there was no national housing bubble. Yet he now asserts there was a global housing bubble. It has always puzzled me how he could go from seeing local bubbles to a global bubble without at some point diagnosing a national bubble. By failing to diagnose a national housing bubble until it was already well inflated, the Fed under Mr Greenspan escaped the obligation to do anything about it. But had the Fed recognised it, should, or could, it have done anything about it? Mr Greenspan argues that irrespective of whether it should, it could not, because it did not control long-term interest rates. I disagree.... Yes, the linkage between the short- and long-term rates weakened. But at some point, it probably would have reappeared. The Fed could have gotten the long-term rate up had it raised the short-term rate enough. And even if the long-term rate remained stable, the economy, and housing demand, would eventually have wilted as other components of financial conditions tightened. How much is enough? It&rsquo;s hard to say, but perhaps 8% or 10%. The problem is that this would have been so draconian, that the entire economy would have tanked.... This is a legitimate defence of the Fed's actions. But saying the Fed had the power to stop the bubble but chose not to exercise it is different from saying it was powerless.... There was, of course, an alternative between letting the bubble inflate and inviting recession. Had Mr Greenspan and his colleagues concluded housing prices were too high and there was value in taming them, they could have used regulatory tools instead of monetary policy. They could have insisted on a margin requirement for home purchases&mdash;no one could put down less than 20% unless they obtained mortgage insurance. (At the peak of the bubble, the widespread use of second liens made 100% loan-to-value&#160;mortgages without insurance commonplace.) This would have been politically difficult since it would have deprived lots of people the opportunity to own a home.... It would have also contradicted Mr Greenspan&rsquo;s own deregulatory impulses... </blockquote> </div> <div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?a=w2GYTg1s1jQ:Fj7wc2KCF9Q:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?a=w2GYTg1s1jQ:Fj7wc2KCF9Q:dnMXMwOfBR0"><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?d=dnMXMwOfBR0" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal/~4/w2GYTg1s1jQ" height="1" width="1"/></content>

by Brad DeLong at 19 March 2009 2300h

Jim Cramer calls Jon Stewart "naive" to attack the media on CNBC's coverage. What about his support for Lenny Dykstra?

nbc_today_cramer_aig_090319a
icon Download | Play icon Download | Play

Please support our drive to Fix CNBC and sign the petition. Jim Cramer finally commented on his much talked about appearance on The Daily Show after he was left sitting there, almost teary eyed and speechless when he was confronted by Jon Stewart face to face. His remarks on The Today Show just underscored how out of touch this man is and what lengths he'll go to distort the truth. (rough transcript)

Viera: ...you guys had been cheerleaders for the financial bubble, that you had also allowed CEO's to come on the shows and essentially lie to the American public without really challenging them. I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but did he have a point?

Cramer: I don't think so.

Viera: Not on any of this?

Cramer: Well I think it was a naive and misleading thing to attack the media. We weren't behind this. CNBC in particular has been out front on this"

Viera: So you don't think the media bears any responsibility, Jim?

Cramer: I think there are people that bear so much more responsibility that it's just wrong headed...

Sure, there were a lot of parties responsible for the meltdown of the economy, but that doesn't absolve the news media for turning a blind eye to it, Mr. Jim. Meredith Viera really asked the right questions so good for her and as Cramer bashes Jon Stewart I would like to ask this. Why was he such a coward on the Daily Show when he had the chance to confront Stewart?
Comedy Central makes a good point in there piece : Jim Cramer Attacking Jon Stewart Again From a Safe Distance.
Since Cramer became so outspoken about CNBC's role in the financial crisis, he and Rick Santelli are becoming the poster boy's for it, but Cramer has another huge credibility problem and his name is Lenny Dykstra. Cramer has a lot of juice in the Wall Street world and he promoted Lenny Dykstra like no other. On HBO he said this:

Jim Cramer: “He is one of the great ones in this business. Lenny Dykstra.” HBO: “Lenny Dykstra?” Jim Cramer: “Lenny Dykstra.”

So much so that Lenny was posting his stock picks on The Street. Well, it's now being revealed that Dykstra is possibly a fraud.

(I've jumped around in the text that I quoted.)

Day trading deity Jim Cramer crowned him "One of the great ones in this business." Fortune magazine gushed for six pages over the "fledgling guru" of investing. HBO referred to him as a "prominent, remarkably successful stock investor."

The subject of this breathless coverage is Lenny Dykstra, a former New York Mets and Philadelphia Phillies outfielder who claims a 90%-plus return picking stocks each of the last three years. Yet a close look at Dykstra's portfolio raises doubts about whether the baseball All-Star turned TheStreet.com (nasdaq: TSCM - news - people ) guru has been picking many of those stocks or relying on a seasoned stand-in.

Ending his major league playing days in 1996, Dykstra says he handed his savings to a Wall Street broker who lost half of it when the market melted down a few years later. Dykstra was determined to start making his own investment calls and dove into the pursuit the same aggressive way he played baseball, following 30 investment newsletters at a time. In 2003 he began e-mailing CNBC money mouth Jim Cramer, who added Dykstra to TheStreet.com's stock-picking roster. Soon Dykstra was a financial talking head on Fox News and other channels.

Another reason Doubledown might have gotten cold feet about publishing Dykstra's investment gems is buried on page 15 of its countersuit. There, Doubledown claims, "At Dykstra's insistence, Doubledown began negotiations to pay Richard Suttmeier, a stock analyst, to provide Dykstra with research assistance for the Dykstra Report and who, upon information and belief learned subsequently, provided Dykstra lists of recommended stocks daily."

Who is Richard Suttmeier? A market strategist for financial Web site RightSide Advisors and formerly a contributor to RealMoney.com, a subscription Web site owned by TheStreet.com.

Suttmeier, 64, says he got his Wall Street start trading Treasurys in the 1970s. He later bounced around second-tier investment banks and landed at RightSide in 2006.
---
Suttmeier says that after he did a television appearance several years ago he received a call from Dykstra. "He wanted to learn how to read a [stock] chart," Suttmeier says. "I taught him."
---
Dykstra, who speaks in a slow drawl and now sports a hefty paunch, likewise denies that Suttmeier is picking his stocks. "It's a bald-faced lie. Not even close," he says during a brief interview.

Not even close? FORBES compared Dykstra's buy recommendations as they appeared on TheStreet.com from Apr. 1 through May 1 with those in Suttmeier's weekly Sector Report during the same month and before. Among Dykstra's 17 buys, 11 had appeared days earlier in Suttmeier's newsletter ( see table)...read on

You have to read this entire piece. And there's another article about him that's unflattering to say the least:

There's much more at Men.style.com.gq: YOU THINK YOUR JOB SUCKS? TRY WORKING FOR LENNY DYKSTRA

Jim Cramer wants to call Jon Stewart "naive" for attacking him and CNBC then what is he for promoting Lenny Dykstra? I think "naive" would be the wrong word to use, don't you?

by John Amato at 19 March 2009 2250h

by Steve Benen at 19 March 2009 2230h

Thursday's Mini-Report

THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Not too big a surprise: "The Treasury Department, trying to stabilize the battered auto industry, will provide up to $5 billion in financing to troubled auto parts suppliers who are linked to...

Hey.. Weren't Republicans Protecting Executive Bonuses Two Weeks Ago?

TNR has collected an assortment of quotes from leading Republicans on the hill about executive bonuses and boy are they a doozy. Remember how just a few weeks ago the thought of limiting executive compesation for corporate executives was pure socialism for Republicans?

"I really don't want the government to take over these businesses and start telling them everything about what they can do." Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told ABC News in February, when asked about Obama's proposed limits on executive compensation. Senator Jim DeMint, who attacked the original bailout bill as "pure socialism," characterized executive pay caps as a dangerous government intervention. "I think it's a sad day in America when the government starts setting pay, no matter how outlandish they [sic] are," DeMint told the Huffington Post. "This is just a symptom of what happens when the government intervenes and we start controlling all aspects of the economy." DeMint's right-wing compatriot, James Inhofe, also equated limits on compensation with the demise of the American way. "As I was listening to [Obama] make those statements I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay, and how much to pay?"

by D. Miller at 19 March 2009 2200h

Brad Delong

Government-Run Financial Stabilization Programs on a Pan-Galactic Scale

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">God! Don't let British editors choose your headlines. Just saying. Chris Carroll: <blockquote> <a href="http://voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3255">Punter of last resort </a>: The financial meltdown that shifted into high gear last September has flushed into public view many surprising facts. One of the strangest is the existence, in the economics profession, of a bizarre religious cult. This cult adheres to the dogma that the &ldquo;price of risk&rdquo; is the Holy of Holies that can properly be set only by the immaculate invisible hand of the financial marketplace; and cult members seem to believe, to paraphrase President Lincoln from a rather different context, that &ldquo;If the Market wills that the economic crisis continue until every dollar of economic activity created by the taking of risk shall be repaid by another dollar destroyed by a newfound fear of risk, so it still must be said that the judgments of the Market are true and righteous altogether.&rdquo;... This game brings to mind Joan Robinson&rsquo;s comment that &ldquo;utility maximization is a metaphysical concept of impregnable circularity,&rdquo; and Larry Summers&rsquo;s remark (quoted by Robert Waldmann) that the day when economists first started to think that asset prices should be explained by the characteristics of a representative agent&rsquo;s utility function was not a particularly good day for economic science.... As DeLong&#160;(2008) has recently reminded those of us who are susceptible to the lessons of history (see also Kindleberger&#160;(2005)), the &ldquo;lender of last resort&rdquo; role of the central bank has always been, during a panic, to short-circuit the catastrophic economic effects of a collapse of financial confidence (in today&rsquo;s terminology, &lsquo;an increase in the price of risk&rsquo;). Some economists, of course, view narrative history in the DeLong and Kindleberger mode as irrelevant.... For the numerically inclined, however... controlling a market price of risk is something the Federal Reserve has done since it first opened up shop... the shortest-term interbank lending rate for which data are available (on a consistent basis) from before and after the founding of the Fed. Figure 1b shows the month-to-month changes in this interest rate. The only reason this rate is now viewed as &lsquo;risk-free&rsquo; is that the Fed takes away the risk: <img src="http://voxeu.org/files/image/diShrtAnnPct.PNG" width="500" /> &#160; Do the advocates of the risk-is-holy view really believe that we were better off in a real free-market era when interbank rates could move from 4 percent to 60 percent from one month to the next (as happened in 1873)? And how long do they think such a system would last?... A less extreme version of essentially the same dogma states that while it is acceptable for the central bank to suppress the aggregate risk that would otherwise roil short-term interest rates, the Fed should ignore all other manifestations of financial risk. It is, if anything, harder to construct a coherent economic justification of this point of view than of the strict destructionist view that says the Fed should not exist at all.... [T]here is, at least, a perception that this way of operating is hallowed by time and practice.... But... Robert Barbera, Charles Weise, and David Krisch show... that... the Federal Reserve&rsquo;s choice of the short run interest rate has been powerfully correlated to market-based measures of risk.... Given the Fed&rsquo;s pattern of past responses to risk and economic conditions (as embodied in risk-augmented Taylor rules), the implied value of the short term interest rate right now should be somewhere below negative 3.3 percent (actually even lower, since these projections do not reflect the dire recent news). Since interest rates cannot go below zero, the Fed must do something else to boost the economy. The obvious answer is to do everything possible to rekindle the appetite for risk &#8211; even if that means taking some of that risk onto the Fed&rsquo;s balance sheet.... Let&rsquo;s put it this way: Simple calculations show that the current price of risk as measured by corporate bond spreads amounts to a forecast that about 40 percent of corporate America will be in bond default in the near future. The only circumstance under which this is remotely plausible is if government officials turn these dire forecasts into a self-fulfilling prophecy.... Back when the financial system was almost entirely based on banks, the solution to such a problem was that the Federal Reserve would act as the &lsquo;lender of last resort&rsquo; to quell the panic. In the new financial system where banks are a much smaller share of the financial marketplace than they once were, the Fed&rsquo;s appropriate new role seems clear: It needs to intervene more broadly than before, in public markets (as has already been done for the commercial paper market) as well as for banks... </blockquote> How large a scale are we talking about here? I can't help but think that we are calling for a $4 trillion operation--$4 trillion of bank reserves and Treasury debt created, $4 trillion (at current market values) or risky assets pulled onto the government's balance sheet. Can the U.S. government do this without cracking the U.S. Treasury bond's status as safe asset in the world economy? I think so. But we will see... </div> <div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?a=fKOZzR9AVFw:7SyAfavsz-I:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?a=fKOZzR9AVFw:7SyAfavsz-I:dnMXMwOfBR0"><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?d=dnMXMwOfBR0" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal/~4/fKOZzR9AVFw" height="1" width="1"/></content>

by Brad DeLong at 19 March 2009 2200h

Ah. Supply and Demand Does Work for the Dollar After ALl

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Peter Garnham of the FT: <blockquote> <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f9b252c-146b-11de-8cd1-0000779fd2ac.html">Dollar falls as haven status slips</a>: The dollar resumed its fall against major currencies on Thursday after a sharp sell-off in the previous session following the Federal Reserve&rsquo;s surprise decision to embark on a quantitative approach to monetary policy. The announcement by the Fed on Wednesday that it was to buy $300bn in long-term Treasuries surprised investors who were expecting the central bank to wait to see the effect of previously announced measures to ease credit conditions. Sean Shepley at Credit Suisse said although this final step towards full-on quantitative easing in the US was desirable and ultimately necessary, it went against the grain of recent Fed commentary and came earlier than anticipated. He said the Fed decision was &ldquo;significantly bearish&rdquo; for the dollar for several reasons. &ldquo;The decision will allow the Fed to reverse quickly the shrinkage in its balance sheet that has occurred in recent weeks and will allow the monetary base to begin expanding again,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;The Fed&rsquo;s commencement of significant purchases of US Treasuries probably involves taking foreign investors out of their Treasury holdings, at least indirectly, creating a need for these investors to acquire other US assets or to sell dollars.&rdquo; The dollar, which had its weakest performance against the euro since the creation of the single currency in 1999 in the previous session, fell further on Thursday. The dollar fell 0.7 per cent to $1.3616 against the euro, lost 1 per cent to $1.4451 against the pound , dropped 0.7 per cent to SFr1.1300 against the Swiss franc and eased 1.3 per cent to Y94.72 against the yen... </blockquote> </div> <div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?a=8l5Yv-mv_os:Y3bBx5lznWA:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?a=8l5Yv-mv_os:Y3bBx5lznWA:dnMXMwOfBR0"><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal?d=dnMXMwOfBR0" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal/~4/8l5Yv-mv_os" height="1" width="1"/></content>

by Brad DeLong at 19 March 2009 2200h

Remainder table, here it comes

REMAINDER TABLE, HERE IT COMES.... Former President Bush has never exactly been a book lover, per se, but that won't stop him from hiring a ghost writer playing the role of author for the first time. As widely expected, former...

by Steve Benen at 19 March 2009 2135h

Discordant Lines

by digby

Yesterday, Rahm Emmanuel was quoted saying that the AIG bonus scandal was a distraction and today David Axelrod says,“people are not sitting around their kitchen tables thinking about AIG, they are thinking about their own jobs.”

I don't think this is correct. I have personally heard people talking about this all over the place. Tune into any radio show --- and not just talk radio, but regular music shows --- and it's being discussed. The polls show that people are outraged. I know that Emmanuel and Axelrod aren't stupid so it's surprising to me that they would fall into the trap of minimizing something that has clearly become the symbol of the wealthy fat cats continuing to exploit the average person even after they wrecked the economy. It's remarkably tone deaf.

I know that it's unpleasant to think about all the hatred pouring forth against wealthy, powerful people. It could, after all, very easily spill over into the political class, who are ... wealthy powerful people. But you can't deal with it by acting as if it isn't happening.

To his credit, Obama has been saying the right things although the Republicans are reaching back to the campaign to try to resurrect the inexperienced celebrity charge and imply that Obama isn't working hard enough (which is rich considering the last president.) I don't honestly think people see it that way, but if they get the impression that he is being dismissive of the anger at AIG, it might be problematic.

Meanwhile, you have the press giving unctuous jerks like Mike Pence hours to flounce about superciliously pretending to be shocked by the rapacious Wall Street greedheads when just a couple of months ago they were saying any socialistic meddling in the magical goodness of private enterprise was tantamount to treason. It's quite the show.

Not that the Democrats are doing any better. Charlie Rangel and Norah O'Donnell just did a full Saturday Night Fever-worthy version of The Hustle in which they both huffed and puffed and danced around each other pretending not to know what the other was talking about. It's quite clear that the Dems are protecting the administration --- and the media knows it. But everything is putting on an act --- the press "insisting" on knowing who put the carve out in the bill and the Democrats responding as if they speak a foreign language and are getting a bad translation.

The whole thing is lame. The specific reasons for protecting the bonuses is still unknown, but we know they did it. At this point it's seems to me that the most logical supposition is that the Big Money Boyz are extorting the US Government, threatening to take the house of cards down with them if they don't get a payoff. Either that, or the Fed and the administration actually believe that the alleged masters of the universe who destroyed the financial system are in great demand at other companies somewhere and will leave the US government without the "skills" it needs to lead the economy out of the crisis if they aren't compensated with million dollar bonuses. And if they actually believe that we are in bigger trouble than we realize.

Update: Jane Hamsher details more of the same in this post. She cites a Roll Call article (subs req.) in which it's revealed that the banking lobbyists are swarming the hill trying to derail any restrictions on compensation. She notes that the lobbyists stand to personally gain from many of these bonus plans, which may explain why they are so energetically engaged.

But there's also a passage in the article that supports the "gun to the head" theory:

The swelling anger on Capitol Hill comes as the Obama administration is expected to roll out its plan to purchase toxic assets from the banks in a public-private partnership.

But any move to slap bonus restrictions on private investors that are part of the partnerships could scare them off, lobbyists said.

“If there is any hint that people investing in [Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility] are subject to those rules, they won’t raise any money,” said Ken Kies, a tax lobbyist and managing director of Federal Policy Group.

And to think we liberals were called treasonous when we opposed the invasion of Iraq. These people are not only unpatriotic, they are running a protection racket.

These asses can't compromise for a short period of time to stabilize the system that's made them millionaires and will make them even more money in the long run unless they can turn an immediate profit at it at taxpayers expense? While the average American worker is losing their jobs and homes, foregoing raises and health care and being asked to dramatically lower their expectations? They're sewing the seeds of their own demise. By being so recalcitrant about these bonuses, they may be making it impossible for Obama to maneuver short of nationalization. That's fine with me --- but I don't think that's what they want.

These people are believing their own hype. Apparently, they think they actually produce something when, in fact, they are simply deal makers, middle men, gamblers and paper pushers. Those things are often useful and always present. But the idea that they are indispensable may be just a tad overstated. And they may just find that out.

.

19 March 2009 2130h

Hannity falsely asserted Dems "voted for those bonuses," while GOP "did not"

On the March 18 broadcast of his radio show, Sean Hannity blamed congressional Democrats for the AIG bonuses, falsely asserting that they voted for the bonuses when they voted for the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd111%3Ah.r.00001%3A" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd111%3Ah.r.00001%3A http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00001:">American Recovery and Reinvestment Act</a> of 2009. Hannity stated, "Now, if you're upset about this, you need to understand something, that there's a reason this happened. Every single Senate Democrat voted for those bonuses. Every -- almost every Democrat in the House voted for those, because they voted for the stimulus bill. And by the way, Republicans did not." In fact, as Media Matters for America has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200903180031?f=h_latest" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200903180031?f=h_latest">documented</a>, the economic recovery act did not require that AIG pay bonuses. Rather, the relevant provision in the act, which was based on an <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd111%3ASP00354%3A" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd111%3ASP00354%3A http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP00354:">amendment</a> by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to award bonuses in the future. In addition, Republicans did not vote against AIG bonuses by voting against the recovery bill, as Hannity suggested they did, since continuing the status quo would not have limited AIG's ability to pay the bonuses. Indeed, if Republicans had succeeded in defeating the recovery bill, the clause restricting the ability of companies to award bonuses in the future would not have become law. Further, 37 of the 38 Senate Republicans who <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fsenate.gov.%2Flegislative%2FLIS%2Froll_call_lists%2Froll_call_vote_cfm.cfm%3Fcongress%3D111%26session%3D1%26vote%3D00064" title="http://senate.gov./legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00064">voted</a> against the final version of the recovery bill previously <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fsenate.gov.%2Flegislative%2FLIS%2Froll_call_lists%2Froll_call_vote_cfm.cfm%3Fcongress%3D111%26session%3D1%26vote%3D00061" title="http://senate.gov./legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00061">voted</a> against the Senate version of the bill, which <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ffrwebgate.access.gpo.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgetdoc.cgi%3Fdbname%3D111_cong_bills%26docid%3Df%3Ah1eas.txt.pdf%23page%3D736" title="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1eas.txt.pdf#page=736">contained</a> the original language of the Dodd amendment. That language stated that companies that received TARP money had to agree to "a prohibition on such TARP recipient paying or accruing any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation during the period that the obligation is outstanding to at least the 25 most highly-compensated employees, or such higher number as the Secretary [of the Treasury] may determine is in the public interest with respect to any TARP recipient" -- without regard to whether those bonuses had been agreed to prior to the enactment of the legislation. From the March 18 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show: <blockquote> HANNITY: And when you consider that AIG got $173 billion in your hard-earned tax dollars, over a thousand times greater than the $165 million in bonuses being reported ad nauseam, the point is more attention is being given to bonuses than bailouts in the first place. There never should've been a bailout of AIG. AIG is getting your money, and in turn billions of those dollars are going to foreign banks, $20 billion as we pointed out yesterday. It's going to foreign hedge funds, we find out. Goldman Sachs is getting $13 billion of this. And I want to emphasize something here. And it -- Barack Obama with a straight face telling the American people that this is all for the benefit of you? How does this benefit you in any way? I don't see -- you know, Democrats for years have complained trickle-down economics doesn't work. So this is trickle-down socialism -- that's not going to work. The idea that we can give the elite few millions and millions of our dollars and that hopefully somehow they might go out and spend some of it? Is that the new trickle-down that they're advocating here? Now, if you're upset about this, you need to understand something, that there's a reason this happened. Every single Senate Democrat voted for those bonuses. Every -- almost every Democrat in the House voted for those, because they voted for the stimulus bill. And by the way, Republicans did not, which provided -- by the way, this provided the legal protection to ensure that these bonuses would be paid. You can also blame Barack Obama. He signed the bill, he insisted the bill be passed. He used all the fear-mongering he could muster to pass this bill in haste, and despite the fact that members of Congress hadn't even read the bill, despite the fact that Obama himself had never read the bill. Remember, he promised to go line by line and read these bills, and eliminate earmarks -- oh, that's right, the omnibus had 9,000 of them. Now, if you think this is government you can count on, if this is the government you want running your health care, if this is the way you think we oughta run Congress, if you think this is a way to lead the nation, then you continue to support these guys. You know, the fact that these Democrats are now howling and feigning outrage about bonuses that they voted for, for a bill that they never read, that they protected as a matter of federal law is just an example of how socialism would work when implemented across the board in this country. And how putting the massive expansion of government is, you know, far and beyond what their top priority is. If you like Chicago politics, if you like European socialism, if you like incompetent government, if you like rewarding all the wrong behavior and punishing all the right behavior, then you've got your government. But this is not good government. This is not about fixing the economy. This is about grabbing as much power as possible and taking over as much of the private sector as they possibly can. And they're so obsessed with this that they're not even reading what laws they're passing. How sick is this? And then they attack as a matter of strategy anybody and everybody who dares to question what it is they're doing and how incompetent they are. All right. We'll get into all this. Got a lot more to get to here today. Mitt Romney's going to weigh in on it coming up at the top of our next hour. </blockquote>

19 March 2009 2116h

TPM Cafe

Presented By:

by Pheedo at 19 March 2009 2100h

A New Frontier Space

<a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/tpmcafe-book-club/"><img src="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/bug-bookclub.jpg"></a> As I was reading not only <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/16/anxiety_and_engagement/">the post</a> but also some items in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0230607543/talkpoimem-20">Cole's book</a> it struck me that we are seeing a new frontier emerge in the encounter (not clash!!) of the US and the larger muslim world. Let me say that this is not the language Cole uses. This is me working off some of his history of the present. I want to emphasize the formation of a frontier zone -a no man's land where the rules of engagement are not established, and where those who interact may bring very different notions about rules of engagement. Each historical frontier is specific -whether the "Far West" of the old Americas, or my argument that today's global cities are a post-colonial frontier space. And so is this emergent frontier zone between the US and the Muslim world, a frontier that spans the globe, involving yes, Iraq and Afghanistan and other critical countries in the US "War against Terror", and all kinds of other countries who have participated in one way or another in the fighting of the last several years. But this frontier space also consists of thick localizations in cities and neighborhoods in the US, and in several European countries, and beyond. Let me underline two markers of such frontier spaces. I think of frontier zones as spaces of imbrication, of mixing, of interdependence. They are not lines where civilizations clash. Secondly, they are spaces where the work of teasing out the rules of engagements/encounters can happen. One of the things I like in Cole's work is the sense that there is work to be done; it is not simply matter of who wins, and if we lose, we are finished. Juan Cole brings to this an engagement with the multiple histories that have been made over time, and shows us that some of these histories are never or rarely part of today's dominant understandings. I think this is extremely important, but also, very useful precisely because this is a time of transitions - in the US, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, to name just some! But beyond all of this, I think there is something else that is becoming visible, even though it may have been taking shape for many years. The making of a new political zone -a frontier zone-- through the emergence of a new political actor at a global stage, where before the norm of liberal democracy reigned as the deserving actor for dominating the global stage, particularly after the end of the Cold War Byline: Saskia Sassen (Columbia University, www.columbia.edu/~sjs2/) blogs on finance for the Huffington Post, and regularly contributes to OpenDemocracy.net. <a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=463fa5b08916a2ad73ef26702add9eaa&p=1"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=463fa5b08916a2ad73ef26702add9eaa&p=1"/></a> <img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/tpmcafe-main/~4/qN2qjsnoYn0" height="1" width="1"/></content>

by Saskia Sassen at 19 March 2009 2100h

by David Kurtz at 19 March 2009 2100h

328-93

The bill to tax back those AIG bonuses <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/house-passes-the-aig-bonus-tax.php">passed overwhelmingly</a> in the House, but the GOP leadership <a href="http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/house-gop-leadership-splits-votes-on-bill-to-tax-back-aig-bonuses/">split</a>. As it turns out, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the minority whip, ended up voting for the bill, despite all his <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/03/no_ideas_no_plan_no_nothing.php">hedging</a> this morning on MSNBC. <a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=2ebe37178e41ada667d3a54a0ef15ed5&p=1"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=2ebe37178e41ada667d3a54a0ef15ed5&p=1"/></a> <a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=2ebe37178e41ada667d3a54a0ef15ed5&p=8"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=2ebe37178e41ada667d3a54a0ef15ed5&p=8"/></a> <a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=2ebe37178e41ada667d3a54a0ef15ed5&p=16"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=2ebe37178e41ada667d3a54a0ef15ed5&p=16"/></a> <a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=2ebe37178e41ada667d3a54a0ef15ed5&p=32"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=2ebe37178e41ada667d3a54a0ef15ed5&p=32"/></a> <div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/Talking-Points-Memo?a=sWF6-ySnbzg:qs4irE-sr0w:H0mrP-F8Qgo"><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/Talking-Points-Memo?d=H0mrP-F8Qgo" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~4/sWF6-ySnbzg" height="1" width="1"/></content>

Beck and NRA's LaPierre warn of insidious Obama plot to grab our guns

Beck-Guns_03-18-09
icon Download | Play icon Download | Play

Watch Glenn Beck much and you're going to get whiplash.

Like his show yesterday on Fox News: Shortly after appealing to the public not to get all hysterical and overwrought about the AIG Bonus Scandal, Glenn Beck got all hysterical and overwrought with Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association about Obama's evil plot to take away our guns.

Of course, this back-and-forth tone shift comes on the heels of Beck's overtly populist appeals to torches and pitchforks that have largely characterized his first couple of months working the audiences at Fox -- alongside the apocalyptic shrieking, weeping, and teeth-gnashing.

But the gun-grabbing segment yesterday was also a big about-face for Beck: Beck and LaPierre worked themselves into a fine frenzy over President Obama's eeeeevil plans for taking away Americans' guns -- no doubt just the first steps that will eventually lead to eradicating the Second Amendment, rounding up gun owners and placing them in FEMA camps, and installing a blue-helmeted United Nations dictatorship in America.

What's inspiring the recent gun moves? Drug-gang violence on the Mexican border. Yet for much of the past month, Glenn Beck has been bugging his eyes out and flecking his camera lenses with spittle, warning Americans about the doom about to descend on them because of the violence on that border. So when the government pays attention to the problem and tries to find practical solutions, Beck attacks that.

A Fox News piece outlines the issue, as the wingnuts see it:

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to re-institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder said. "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

Holder said reinstating the ban would decrease the flow of guns from the U.S. into Mexico. He declined to offer a timeframe for any re-implementation; Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller also declined comment on Tuesday.

But Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, told FOXNews.com that Holder's "argument in general is bizarre."

"It's a delusion to say that diminishing the Second Amendment in America is somehow going to stop these ruthless drug cartels in Mexico."

LaPierre called on Holder and Justice Department officials to uphold existing laws and focus on increasing enforcement along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border, rather than consider additional legislation.

"The answer is to enforce the law on both sides of the border," LaPierre said. "I reject the notion that the reenactment of that ban would have any impact on the Mexican drug cartels."

Yet, in fact, what has the NRA up in arms is that the government in fact is trying to enforce the existing law -- which means cracking down on American gun dealers and gun shows:

U.S. gun stores and gun shows are the source of more than 90 percent of the weapons being used by Mexico's ruthless drug cartels, according to U.S. and Mexican law enforcement officials.

"It's a war going on in Mexico, and these types of firearms are the weapons of war for them," said Bill Newell, the special agent in charge of the Phoenix field division of the ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has primary law enforcement jurisdiction for investigating gun trafficking to Mexico.

"It's virtually impossible to buy a firearm in Mexico as a private citizen, so this country is where they come," said Newell.

LaPierre was adamant on Beck's show that the talk about Americans providing guns for the drug cartels was "a lie". But he offered no evidence at all to support this claim. Meanwhile, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming:

Guns recovered in some of the largest recent weapons seizures in Mexico are being traced deep into the United States — miles from the volatile border — revealing an expanding trafficking network that feeds Mexico's violent drug cartels, according to government documents and U.S. investigators.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives records show 90% of the weapons recovered and traced originate from a growing number of sources spanning from the Northwest to New England. The trafficking routes have created what Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., described earlier this week as an "iron river of guns" flowing to the warring cartels, contributing to about 7,000 deaths in the past 14 months.

Some of the strongest recent evidence of the cartels' expanding gun pipeline:

• Four months after the largest weapons seizure in Mexican history, U.S. investigators have traced 383 of the more than 400 weapons seized from a stash house in Reynosa, Mexico, to 11 states including Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Michigan and Connecticut, according to ATF records.

• Nearly a year after a gunbattle left 13 dead in Tijuana, the seizure of 60 guns has prompted probes in Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Denver.

• The guns, many of them high-powered assault rifles, are streaming across the border at such a pace that some are being recovered in Mexico within days after their purchase in the U.S, according to ATF records.

A student paper in Buffalo manages to ask the pertinent question here:

It's all well and good to talk about the sanctity of constitutional rights, but when our constitutional right to possess AK-47s ends up arming a bloodthirsty criminal organization in a neighboring country thanks to the strength of the American business ethic, doesn't that make us the bad guys?

But don't ask Glenn Beck that. He's likely to spin around and hysterically call for the torch-bearing mob to come get you.

by David Neiwert at 19 March 2009 2100h

Boehner: 'There was no deregulation'

BOEHNER: 'THERE WAS NO DEREGULATION'.... On CNN's "Situation Room" yesterday, Wolf Blitzer, paraphrasing President Obama, told House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), "[H]e seemed to be saying, all those Republicans who want a free market, who want to deregulate, who...

by Steve Benen at 19 March 2009 2045h

AIG measure clears House

AIG MEASURE CLEARS HOUSE.... The House passed its measure today to recoup the controversial AIG bonuses. While there was some question going into the vote as to whether the two-thirds needed for passage would be there, the bill was approved...

by Steve Benen at 19 March 2009 2010h

"This is what's happening to our money": CNBC's Kudlow lights dollar bill on fire

During the March 19 edition of CNBC's The Call, while purporting to describe "the value of our money," co-host Larry Kudlow lit a U.S. dollar bill on fire, destroying part of the bill. In an August 2004 "Answer Desk" <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F7148966%2F" title="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7148966/">article</a>, MSNBC.com senior producer John W. Schoen reported that "turning cash into ashes is a no-no, according to the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing ... this is a violation of Title 18, Section 333, of the United States Code." Title 18, Section 333, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.law.cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2F18%2Fusc_sec_18_00000333----000-.html" title="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000333----000-.html">states</a>: "Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both." In a December 19, 2007, article, PolitiFact.com reported that "Claudia Dickens, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, said it only becomes a violation when it is mutilated so much that it is 'unacceptable to a merchant or vending machine. That's defacing.' " During The Call, Kudlow stated: "The Fed is kicking off its highly anticipated TALF [Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility] program later today. They're just going to throw more money at the economy. This is a day after announcing it will buy long-term treasuries and mortgage-backed securities." After introducing CNBC senior economics reporter Steve Liesman and asking him, "Are we going to do this in unison? You get your dollar bill?" Kudlow lit a U.S. dollar bill on fire, destroying part of the bill: <img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/call-20090319a.jpg" border="0" alt="kudlow1" width="400" height="298" /> <img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/call-20090319b.jpg" border="0" alt="kudlow2" width="400" height="300" /> <img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/call-20090319c.jpg" border="0" alt="kudlow3" width="400" height="299" /> <img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/call-20090319d.jpg" border="0" alt="kudlow4" width="400" height="300" /> Kudlow has stated that he is <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200903020037" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200903020037">considering a run for U.S. Senate</a>. From the March 19 edition of CNBC's The Call: <blockquote> KUDLOW: The Fed is kicking off its highly anticipated TALF program later today. They're just going to throw more money at the economy. This is a day after announcing it will buy long-term treasuries and mortgage-backed securities. Nobody better to report on this one than our great friend, senior economics reporter Steve Liesman. More on the TALF. Are we going to do this in unison? You get your dollar bill? LIESMAN: Oh, no, no, Larry. KUDLOW: All right. You go ahead. LIESMAN: Larry had asked what happened to his money. I said, "Put a lighter to it." But we'll do that later. But Larry, the important thing -- MELISSA FRANCIS (co-host): There you go. Yeah. LIESMAN: Larry asked what's going to happen to his money. KUDLOW: This is the value of our money. This is the value of our money. LIESMAN: Oh my goodness. KUDLOW: That's what's going on. LIESMAN: OK. KUDLOW: All right. I don't want to burn the place up, but unfortunately -- FRANCIS: Yikes. KUDLOW: -- we are going to see a lot of people lighting flame to the U.S. dollar, which is going down in flames. LIESMAN: Well, that's -- that's an interesting debate. FRANCIS: [Inaudible] the fire alarm. LIESMAN: We're going to have that debate later. KUDLOW: Going down in flames. No one is thinking about it. No one is worrying about it. It's going down in flames. LIESMAN: But, Larry, for the moment it looks like an underwhelming start to a program. The Fed and the Treasury hope it will be overwhelming when it comes to kick-starting the consumer credit and the consumer -- and the credit crisis. </blockquote>

19 March 2009 2005h

Teenage Motherhood

by tristero

Due in good part to widespread and taxpayer-financed right wing efforts to suppress information, teach lies and advocate a specious morality - aka, so-called "abstinence-only education" - teenage birthrate has increased for the second consecutive year. Surprise, surprise. Remember: The right is wrong about everything.

There's something enormous missing from this article and it's this: while everyone agrees teenagers having babies is a serious problem, no one in the article explains exactly what the problem is. Why not just "roll with it," as one of the teen mothers in the article suggests?

Here's why. Despite what Republicans would have had you believing during the campaign, teen motherhood in the US is not Bristol Palin. Even though she has a set of truly bizarre parents, Bristol Palin and her baby will always have access to the kind of healthcare, education, and employment opportunities that the typical teen mother can't even imagine. The Post article states:

Experts noted that the U.S. rate remains far higher than that of other industrialized nations.

This is a far reaching, exceedingly tragic problem - it's hardly a lifestyle "choice" - that demands serious attention. The last thing this issue needs is the funding of cartoonish and dangerously ineffective social meddling designed by the worst, and most incompetent, elements of modern American society.

19 March 2009 2000h

HOUSE passes bill to tax 90% of AIG bonuses: Many Republicans voted for it including Eric Cantor

The HOUSE just passed a new bill that will tax 90% of the AIG bonuses and others who receive bail out money.

The House passed a bill on Thursday that would impose punishing taxes on big employee bonuses from firms bailed out by taxpayers.Democrats pressed for the quick action. "The American people demand protection and that's what we're doing today," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
--
A tax expert said there is plenty of precedent for levying punitive taxes on behavior that lawmakers find objectionable. Robert Willens, a corporate tax lawyer in New York, cited the steep excise taxes levied on money paid to firms to keep them from launching hostile takeover bids, known as "greenmail." "You can write very narrowly tailored laws," Willens said. "And they can do it for bonuses already paid."

Republicans as usual cried about the measure as was evident by Crying John Boehner who called it a political circus. I'm sure Limbaugh and Beck will tell their audiences that President Obama will be taxing right wing talk show hosts next.

And Chris Dodd was wrong in the way he handled the bonus issue. Everyone is blaming the economic team, but he should never have misled CNN and the public by declaring he had nothing to do with it. No matter what happened. He waffled his way through the questions Blitzer and Bash asked him about his flip flop. I'm sorry, that wasn't good. All he had to do was say he was looking into it when asked about it a few days ago. I like Chris Dodd a lot and I'm not blaming him personally for the problem, but he did not distinguish himself the last couple of days.

UPDATE: The golden boy, Eric Cantor voted for the bill while Crying Boehner didn't and it received a lot of Republican support. Almost 50% of House Republicans voted for the bill.

The bill passed on a 328-93 vote. In the end, 243 Democrats and 85 Republicans supported the bill, while six Democrats and 87 Republicans opposed it.

Here's the Roll Call vote results and you can see how many Republicans voted with the AIG's of the world. And how can we forget that virtually every single Republican-- including, of course, those currently screaming the loudest, have been harsh critics of every effort to limit executive compensation for companies taking TARP money.

by John Amato at 19 March 2009 1945h

The Republican 'alternative' on AIG bonuses

THE REPUBLICAN 'ALTERNATIVE' ON AIG BONUSES.... House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is drawing fire this afternoon for opposing a measure to recoup AIG bonus money, after complaining all week about how outrageous the bonuses are. House Democrats are on...

by Steve Benen at 19 March 2009 1935h

Crooked Timber

Global Financial Sector Regulation: Why It’s Not Happening

This seems pretty plausible to me.

The opening hours of EU summits can often be a little slow (so can the closing and middle hours of some of them, to be frank). But the sense of calm, even drift, is a little eerie this time. … behind this time of phony war there lurks the prospect of a proper policy fight. Not about stimulus plans, but about future regulation of the financial sector. And, to simplify things, what is really, really going on is that the camp led by France and Germany are determined that Europe’s common position, going into the G20 summit, should be to bang the table and demand an end to light-touch regulation, of the sort that flourished for so long on Wall Street and in the City of London, and which they see as more or less the sole cause of the current mess. But the French and Germans do not trust the British to support that common position. Once the Americans are in the room in London, they fear the British will scuttle away from the European position, side with the Americans, and seek to defend the wheeler-dealers of the City.

The post finishes with some obligatory Economist-style harrumphs about how the unregulated bits of global capitalism aren’t really the problem &c &c, but its analysis of the underlying politics seems spot on. Differences between national regulatory systems are still enormously important, and help explain why we have seen so little international coordination on common frameworks for financial regulation. Not only are differences in regulation associated with different national interests, but also with very different analyses of what the underlying problem is (which of course in part stem from those interests). Abe Newman at Georgetown and I have a paper on historical institutionalism in international relations that talks a lot about the persistence and importance of these national level differences in explaining international outcomes. Our framework (as others, such as Dan Drezner’s) would predict likely stalemate in negotiations of this sort. I honestly hope that we’re wrong (although I suspect that we are not). But even if we are, the problems that the EU faces in coordinating a regulatory response are, of course, dwarfed by the problems of coordinating such a response at the global level, which is where it really needs to take place (but is highly unlikely to, for the reasons given).

by Henry at 19 March 2009 1933h

Fox News' Bream uncritically repeats conservative claim Obama judicial nominee "has ties" to ACORN

Reporting on President Obama's nominee for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, David Hamilton, Fox News Supreme Court reporter Shannon Bream asserted on the March 18 edition of Special Report, "Critics say Hamilton has ties to the liberal activist group ACORN," echoing Pat Robertson's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200903180021?show=1" title="http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200903180021?show=1">assertion</a> on the March 18 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club that Hamilton is "an activist for ACORN." However, Bream did not note that Hamilton's "ties" <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2009%2F03%2F17%2FAR2009031703031.html" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031703031.html">reportedly</a> consist of "raising contributions door-to-door for the advocacy group ACORN for one month after college" in 1979. In addition, the Chicago Tribune's The Swamp <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swamppolitics.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fblog%2F2009%2F03%2Fobamas_first_judge_connected_l.html" title="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/03/obamas_first_judge_connected_l.html">blog</a>, MSNBC's First Read <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ffirstread.msnbc.msn.com%2Farchive%2F2009%2F03%2F17%2F1839965.aspx" title="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/17/1839965.aspx">blog</a> and USA Today's The Oval <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.usatoday.com%2Fcommunities%2Ftheoval%2Fpost%2F2009%2F03%2F64265257%2F1" title="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/03/64265257/1">blog</a> all quoted the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.judicialnetwork.com%2Fcontents%2Fabout%2F" title="http://www.judicialnetwork.com/contents/about/">Judicial Confirmation Network</a> calling Hamilton a "former fundraiser for ACORN" without noting that Hamilton's fundraising for ACORN reportedly took place for one summer 30 years ago after Hamilton finished college and before entering law school. The Washington Times <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2009%2Fmar%2F18%2Fobama-names-first-court-pick%2F%3Fpage%3D2" title="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/obama-names-first-court-pick/?page=2">reported</a>: "After college as a young man, he served one month as a canvasser for ACORN, helping them raise money door to door." Indeed, in the nomination <a href="http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/fox-20090319-bream.pdf" title="http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/fox-20090319-bream.pdf">questionnaire</a> for his 1994 appointment to the Southern District of Indiana, which Right Wing Watch <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rightwingwatch.org%2Fcontent%2Fgreat-and-powerful-acorn" title="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/great-and-powerful-acorn">posted</a> on its website, Hamilton was asked to list every organization he has been associated with since graduation from college. Hamilton listed "Summer 1979 -- fundraiser for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." Further, at no point during Special Report did Bream note that both Indiana senators, Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat Evan Bayh, have expressed support for Hamilton. According to the White House <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fthe_press_office%2FPresident-Obama-Announces-David-Hamilton-for-the-United-States-7th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals%2F" title="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-David-Hamilton-for-the-United-States-7th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals/">press release</a>: <blockquote> "I enthusiastically support the Senate confirmation of David Hamilton for U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hamilton has served the Southern District of Indiana with distinction as U.S. District Court Judge," U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar said. "I was proud to work side by side with Senator Lugar to recommend Judge Hamilton for this lifetime appointment," said U.S. Senator Evan Bayh. "President Obama is right that Democrats and Republicans can work together to put highly qualified jurists on the federal bench. Judge Hamilton is an exceptional jurist who has demonstrated the highest ethical standards and a firm commitment to applying our country's laws fairly." </blockquote> From the March 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier: <blockquote> BAIER: President Obama has made his first judicial appointment. U.S. District Judge David Hamilton has been named to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Correspondent Shannon Bream is here to tell us what this selection reveals about the president's judicial philosophy. Good evening, Shannon. BREAM: Hi, Bret. Well, as the president's first judicial pick, David Hamilton is being scrutinized not only on his own qualifications but also to see what his record says about what kind of judges the president will choose going forward, with the long-term focus on that big prize -- the Supreme Court. Hamilton is an experienced federal judge who has support from Democrats and Republicans and many supporters who say he is a perfect fit. KATHRYN KOLBERT (president of People for the American Way) [video clip]: He's demonstrated his facility with the law, his willingness to apply it on a case-by-case basis, to really be a guardian of the Constitution -- and that's a very, very important role in our society. BREAM: Hamilton's is just the first of many nominations the president will have the opportunity to make, with 52 openings in federal district courts and 15 at the appellate level. Critics say Hamilton has ties to the liberal activist group ACORN and the ACLU, and they're worried the president will pack the courts with others just like him. WENDY LONG (Judicial Confirmation Network legal counsel) [video clip]: He is a real, real left liberal, and it's funny that the White House is trying to portray him as some kind of moderate. If he's a moderate, I shudder to think what we can expect coming down the pike. BREAM: Just days ago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave no hints about which justice could be the next to leave the Supreme Court, but said there could soon be an opening -- Bret. BAIER: Shannon, thank you. </blockquote>

19 March 2009 1928h

Fox News promo falsely claimed Obama "pushes a plan" requiring vets to pay for health insurance

During the March 19 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News aired a promotion for that evening's broadcast of Hannity that falsely claimed: "[President] Obama pushes a plan that could force vets to pay through the roof for health coverage." In fact, the White House has stated it does not support a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2009%2F03%2F18%2FAR2009031803394.html" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR2009031803394.html">provision</a> previously under consideration that would have billed military veterans' private insurance companies for treatment of their combat-related injuries performed at Veterans Administration hospitals. In a March 18 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fthe_press_office%2FStatement-from-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-on-the-Presidents-Strong-Commitment-to-Americas-Veterans%2F" title="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-on-the-Presidents-Strong-Commitment-to-Americas-Veterans/">press release</a>, press secretary Robert Gibbs stated of the "third party billing issue" that "the President has instructed that its consideration be dropped": <blockquote> The President has consistently stated that he is committed to working with veterans on the details of the 2010 VA Budget Proposal. The President demonstrated his deep commitment to veterans by proposing the largest increase in the VA budget in 30 years and calling VSO [veterans service organizations] and MSO [military service organizations] leaders into the White House for an unprecedented meeting to discuss various aspects of the budget proposal. In considering the third party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans; however, the President listened to concerns raised by the VSOs that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans and their families' ability to access health care. Therefore, the President has instructed that its consideration be dropped. The President wants to continue a constructive partnership with the VSOs and MSOs and is grateful to those VSOs and MSOs who have worked in good faith with him on the budget proposal. </blockquote> From the March 19 promo for Fox News' Hannity: <blockquote> ANNOUNCER: This is the thanks they get? Obama pushes a plan that could force vets to pay through the roof for health coverage. Fred Thompson asks: Don't America's heroes deserve better? </blockquote>

19 March 2009 1903h

TPM Cafe

Back To The Issue - Can We Avoid A Quagmire In South Asia?

<a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/tpmcafe-book-club/"><img src="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/bug-bookclub.jpg"></a> There is something about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the question of Zionist influence in American politics that, if you bring it up, dominates the discussion ever after. I stand by my theory of an unprecedented alliance of the Cheney oil interests with the Neoconservatives in getting up the Iraq War. I wonder if Lee Raymond being at the American Enterprise Institute isn't part of a similar phenomenon. But anyway, it is a couple of pages in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0230607543/talkpoimem-20">the book</a>. Doubters should please read the footnotes carefully. So, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0230607543/talkpoimem-20">mine is a book</a> of nearly 300 pages, and while it does advert to such issues, it isn't about that but rather NATO (including US) engagement with the Muslim world. In fact, one rationale for not spending so much time on Israel/Palestine is that they are not a NATO sphere of operation.So I hope I can bring the discussion back to the meat of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0230607543/talkpoimem-20">the book</a>. And, one of the advantages of writing about current affairs is that they often remain current. We've had a lot of news in the past week, about the Obama administration planning to widen its bombing campaign on Pakistan, and rethinking how to do counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. But we've also seen that the political issue that most exercises the Pakistani public is not the neo-Taliban in the small tribal agencies of the northwest, but rather issues in presidential power being too overweening, or in injuries to the rule of law by a military dictatorship, which they want repaired now that the country has returned to civilian democracy. How well do the commentators feel I have explained the background to these crises, and can we avoid a quagmire in South Asia? <a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=ec747c73bbee18ca0da7e6994a1c525c&p=1"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=ec747c73bbee18ca0da7e6994a1c525c&p=1"/></a> <img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/tpmcafe-main/~4/mH2IXVW70MQ" height="1" width="1"/></content>

by Juan Cole at 19 March 2009 1900h

by Josh Marshall at 19 March 2009 1900h

Deep Thought

Volcker? <a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=c930d0e16af138e559341336872e32c1&p=1"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=c930d0e16af138e559341336872e32c1&p=1"/></a> <div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/Talking-Points-Memo?a=FnzPqr2GXc0:uvw-5mv8aeQ:H0mrP-F8Qgo"><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/Talking-Points-Memo?d=H0mrP-F8Qgo" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~4/FnzPqr2GXc0" height="1" width="1"/></content>

Hit a Nerve

We've gotten a lot of really thoughtful (and agitated) reader responses to my earlier post on whether David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel are tone deaf politically on the AIG bonuses mess (my question was narrower: what's the political up-side for the White House of downplaying the bonuses -- but readers took that question and ran with it). We've posted the <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/03/tpm_readers_respond_on_aig_bonuses_-_page_1.php">best ones</a>. <a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=23179f7ccc4d784913823a2580e20701&p=1"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=23179f7ccc4d784913823a2580e20701&p=1"/></a> <div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/Talking-Points-Memo?a=fTSNYaVK9Ys:E6yUzrwQhZk:H0mrP-F8Qgo"><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/Talking-Points-Memo?d=H0mrP-F8Qgo" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~4/fTSNYaVK9Ys" height="1" width="1"/></content>

by David Kurtz at 19 March 2009 1900h

Bigger Than the Both of Us

There's no end of puffed up outrage and opportunistic posturing over the on-going revelation of the AIG bonus scandal. But some line has been crossed. And it's worth thinking really clearly about just what that line is. What is so damaging about this isn't the money -- which is almost trivially small compared to the many hundreds of billions we've already committed. The problem is what appears to be the president's mortifying impotence in the face of bankers and financiers who created the problem. The president speaks and acts for the federal government, which is to say, the American people, who have mobilized more than a trillion dollars and all powers of the state to repair the damage emerging out of the financial sector. And with all that, he's jacked up on a employment agreement between a company the government now owns and derivatives traders who sank the world economy and may quite likely be looking at criminal charges for their activities in the not too distant future? Anyone can look at that and see that the equation of power and accountability is all screwed up. I think the American people have demonstrated over the last six months that they're willing to expand vast sums of money and endure great economic hardship without holding the damage against their political leaders. Effectiveness, in the sense of how long it takes to turn the economy around, is something they seem willing to be flexible on. But not on who's in charge. And that's what's at stake here. As a matter of transparency and truth-telling, what Geithner knew about the bonuses may be significant. But it's really all fine print that is largely beside the point. From Geithner and Summers, and indirectly from Obama, we keeping hearing financial-legal versions of 'It's bigger than the both of us'. Like we're along for the ride, still taking dictates from the people who got us into the mess we're in. There are various specific points you can drill down on. Atrios <a href="http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/03/protection-money.html">grabs</a> this deliciously obnoxious passage from a piece in the Post today ... <blockquote>"Nobody is going to give it back and then stay," said one of the firm's employees. "If they give back the money, then they will walk. And they will walk into the arms of AIG's counterparties."</blockquote> So, give us our money or we'll go to the counter-parties and help them really suck you dry. Even though this ignores the fact that the counter-parties have no actual right to the money. They placed bets with a company that did not have the money to pay off the bets. There's a old-fashioned business solution to that kind of problem -- due diligence. We're paying them off, either in full or in part, out of fear that pulling the plug on these contracts would so destabilize the global economy that paying it is a better solution than not. But we're doing it for us. Not them. They are, at best, collateral beneficiaries. So all the talk of whatever self-serving or legally dubious contracts they penned for themselves two or three years ago are beside the point. Or at least that's the idea. Unless we're actually just chumps and Obama -- via Geithner and Summers -- have simply ceded the running of the whole thing to the people who caused all the problems in the first place. And we are just along for the ride even though we're paying the bill. In this sense, this isn't a distraction. Yes, the dollar amounts are small. And pols across the spectrum are demagoguing the thing for all its worth. But the real issue of who's in control, and whose interests are being served, cuts through every dollar we've dedicated to this project. And when you look closely at the much bigger AIG counter-party issue, the same disconnect is there every bit as much as it is with the bonuses. Whether Geithner and Summers are too close to the people on Wall Street, either through interest or affinity, is an interesting and possibly important question. But fundamentally Obama needs to start showing that he's in charge, that he's operating as the American people's advocate and that he has the power to do it -- which these stories of getting jacked up by some Gordon Gecko wannabes in London just terribly undermines. But to do that, to show that, it has to be true. And that might require some real changes in policy and possibly in personnel too. <a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=d9394998731f6e9f9acf29ff4787f37d&p=1"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=d9394998731f6e9f9acf29ff4787f37d&p=1"/></a> <a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=d9394998731f6e9f9acf29ff4787f37d&p=8"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=d9394998731f6e9f9acf29ff4787f37d&p=8"/></a> <a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=d9394998731f6e9f9acf29ff4787f37d&p=16"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=d9394998731f6e9f9acf29ff4787f37d&p=16"/></a> <a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=d9394998731f6e9f9acf29ff4787f37d&p=32"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=d9394998731f6e9f9acf29ff4787f37d&p=32"/></a> <div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/Talking-Points-Memo?a=ijw4vbhYynI:XW4TyWqHm24:H0mrP-F8Qgo"><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~ff/Talking-Points-Memo?d=H0mrP-F8Qgo" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~4/ijw4vbhYynI" height="1" width="1"/></content>

by Josh Marshall at 19 March 2009 1900h

Holder, medical marijuana, and GOP ire

HOLDER, MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND GOP IRE.... About a month ago, Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters that the Justice Department will no longer raid medical marijuana clubs legally established in states. The announcement fulfills a campaign promise President Obama made...

by Steve Benen at 19 March 2009 1855h

Bayh and the Blue Dogs

BAYH AND THE BLUE DOGS.... When Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) announced the formation of his new "centrist" Senate caucus on MSNBC yesterday, he was a little evasive about his group's membership. For what it's worth, Roll Call had an item...

by Steve Benen at 19 March 2009 1825h

After admitting culpability during Daily Show interview, Cramer now calls Stewart's criticism of CNBC "naïve and misleading"

During the March 19 edition of NBC's Today, Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's Mad Money, asserted of Daily Show host Jon Stewart that "it was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media" for their coverage of the economic recession, just one week after acknowledging that CNBC's reporting deserved criticism during an appearance on The Daily Show. According to Reuters, following Stewart's interview of Cramer, NBC Universal chief executive Jeff Zucker <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2FrbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews%2FidUSN1835152820090318" title="http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1835152820090318">reportedly attacked</a> Stewart over his criticism of CNBC in his March 18 keynote address at the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digitalhollywood.com%2F09MediaSummit%2FMedia09KeynoteOne.html" title="http://www.digitalhollywood.com/09MediaSummit/Media09KeynoteOne.html">McGraw-Hill Media Summit</a> in New York. According to Reuters, Zucker called Stewart "unfair," "absurd," and "completely out of line." Additionally, according to mediabistro.com's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediabistro.com%2Ftvnewser%2Fnbc%2Fmsnbc_producers_asked_not_to_highlight_cramerstewart_111307.asp" title="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/nbc/msnbc_producers_asked_not_to_highlight_cramerstewart_111307.asp">TVNewser blog</a>, an unnamed "tipster" said that MSNBC executives were asked not to air the Stewart interview in their programming the day following Cramer's Daily Show appearance. On Today, co-host Meredith Vieira stated that Stewart accused Cramer and CNBC of being "cheerleaders for the financial bubble; that you also had allowed CEOs to come on the shows and essentially lie to the American public without really challenging them." Viera then asked: "I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but did he have a point?" Cramer responded, "I don't think so." He later said that "it was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media. We -- we weren't behind this. CNBC, in particular, has been out front on this." During the interview, Vieira asked: "So, you don't think the media bears any responsibility, Jim?" Cramer responded: <blockquote> CRAMER: I think that there are people who bear so much more responsibility that it's just wrong-headed -- the politicians, the regulators, the SEC, the lenders, the investment banks. I mean, listen to AIG. I mean, you're going to compare the media to AIG? There's some people who really should get in line to do -- to really take the responsibility. And the media, it's just a naïve focus. It really is, Meredith. </blockquote> However, during his March 12 appearance on The Daily Show, Cramer asserted: "I think that everyone could come in under criticism because we all should have seen it more." Cramer continued: "[A]dmittedly, this is a terrible one, and everybody got it wrong. I got a lot of things wrong, because I think it was kind of a one-in-a-million shot. But I don't think anyone should be spared in this environment." Cramer also stated of CNBC that "we're fair game. We're a big network. We've been out front and we've made mistakes." From the March 19 edition of NBC's Today: <blockquote> VIEIRA: OK, before I let you go, Jim, this is your first appearance here since the appearance on Jon Stewart's show. CRAMER: You noticed? VIEIRA: I noticed -- I noticed that. He was tough on you. You've had a rough week -- he was very tough on you, very tough on CNBC -- basically said that you guys had been cheerleaders for the financial bubble; that you also had allowed CEOs to come on the shows and essentially lie to the American public without really challenging them. I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but did he have a point? CRAMER: I don't think so. I think -- VIEIRA: Not on any of this? CRAMER: Well, I think it was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media. We -- we weren't behind this. CNBC, in particular, has been out front on this. [CNBC senior economics reporter] Steve Liesman broke the first big, big subprime story. [CNBC anchor and reporter] David Faber did the best work that I've seen of any journalist -- print. [CNBC host] Erin [Burnett] has been at the forefront; talked about it so much we used to joke about, "Erin, how often are you going to talk about subprime?" VIEIRA: So, you don't think the media bears any responsibility, Jim? CRAMER: I think that there are people who bear so much more responsibility that it's just wrong-headed -- the politicians, the regulators, the SEC, the lenders, the investment banks. I mean, listen to AIG. I mean, you're going to compare the media to AIG? There's some people who really should get in line to do -- to really take the responsibility. And the media, it's just a naïve focus. It really is, Meredith. VIEIRA: OK, and at the end of the interview you said you were going to try harder in terms of talking to the American public. What did you mean by that? CRAMER: I think everyone has to. This is a crisis where everybody has to re-examine -- you know, that was an attempt, as it was throughout the interview, to take a high road, which I was brought up to think was a good thing to do, and to go in for a discussion. Sometimes high roads aren't well greeted in the media, but I believe that you should always try to do better. I think that that's kind of the fundament of what we all as journalists try to do. VIEIRA: Jim Cramer, thank you very much. Erin Burnett as well. </blockquote> From the March 12 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: <blockquote> STEWART: Let me just explain to you very quickly one thing that I think is somewhat misinterpreted: This was not directed at you, per se. I just want to let you know that. We threw some banana cream pies at CNBC; you got a little, obviously, schmutz on your jacket from it, took exception. CRAMER: I think that everyone could come in under criticism -- STEWART: Right. CRAMER: -- because we all should have seen it more. I mean, admittedly, this is a terrible one, and everybody got it wrong. I got a lot of things wrong, because I think it was kind of a one-in-a-million shot. But I don't think anyone should be spared in this environment. STEWART: So then, if I may, why were you mad at us? CRAMER: No -- STEWART: Because I was under the impression that you thought we were being unfair. CRAMER: No, you had my friend [New York Times business columnist] Joe Nocera on, and Joe called me and said, "Jim, do I need to apologize to you?" I said, "No, we're fair game. We're a big network. We've been out front and we've made mistakes. We've got 17 hours of live TV a day to do." But I certainly -- STEWART: Maybe you could cut down on that. We're going to go away. We're gonna come right back with Jim Cramer, right after this. </blockquote>

19 March 2009 1815h

All grandstanding, no follow through?

ALL GRANDSTANDING, NO FOLLOW THROUGH?.... When Republicans on the Hill decided to pursue the AIG bonus story, with hopes of exploiting it for partisan gain, they had half of a good idea. They would have been far better off, though,...

by Steve Benen at 19 March 2009 1735h

Crooked Timber

The Greatest Living Englishman is Guilty

Most of you have probably seen this when it first aired on BBC 4, but just in case anyone mentioned it I thought I’d link to it anyway. Part 1, part 2 and, perhaps best of all, part 3. Unsurprisingly, he is a man of great discernment, listing Stanley Unwin, Georgette Heyer, Delia Smith and Led Zeppelin. And you’ll never feel bad about swearing again (he makes me feel a bit better about the fact that one of the little monster’s first sentences, when asked to do something, was a very calm and direct, “F**k it, Dadda do it”). Hugh Laurie fans? well, there’s a lot of him in it too.

by Harry at 19 March 2009 1713h