Nice post by Ezra Klein looking at the need to stoke more aggregate demand to lower unemployment. Unlike Wall Street, this economic equation is pretty simple.
We even have good data on what forms of government spending trigger the most aggregate demand -- aid to state and local government (in large part by preventing additional rounds of layoffs), etc. The main complaint, the one the GOP is making, is that this stuff racks up the deficit. The part of me that has functioning memory thinks they're the worst pack of hypocrites I've ever met. The part of me that studied economics thinks that concerns over the short-term deficit are overhyped. The part of me that works in politics thinks that maybe we need to figure out something about this.
But here's the other thing. We know there are government expenditures and revenues that have far weaker effects on aggregate demand, like top marginal tax rates, the estate tax, and a lot of military spending. Essentially, we can offset stimulus spending with changes in these areas, stay closer to deficit neutral, and still induce more aggregate demand, increasing output and decreasing unemployment.
Goldman Sachs accused of fraud "in a civil lawsuit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly intended to fail."
Tim Fernholz: "One note of caution: These are hard cases to prove. Even if Goldman Sachs officials knew how crappy these financial instruments were, they also got solid ratings from the bond-ratings agencies, giving Goldman a real out. If the SEC brought this case, they must have a high level of confidence, but now they need to execute what will undoubtedly be one of the most high-profile financial fraud case since Enron."
FDL's Scarecrow: "This is just the beginning of what looks like many likely civil suits and, one hopes, criminal complaints against Wall Street giants. There have been numerous similar reports recently involving other Wall Street firms that suggest the housing bubble was artificially sustained through fraud long after the market had become saturated under any reasonable, non-predatory lending practices."
A circuit judge strikes down Arkansas law banning unmarried couples from adopting, calling it "unconstitutional":
"Act 1 unconstitutionally burdens non-marital relationships and acts of sexual intimacy between adults by forcing them to choose between becoming a parent and having any meaningful type of intimate relationship outside of marriage, Circuit Judge Chris Piazza ruled in a lawsuit challenging the initiative voters approved in 2008.
"'It infringes upon the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed to all citizens of Arkansas,' he wrote in a two-page order in the suit brought by the ACLU."
The law was aimed to prevent gays from adopting children or acting as foster parents.
* * *
The White House mandates that all family members - including gay and lesbian spouses - have visitation rights to patients at hospitals receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds.
Matt Coles: "As I walked home after reading the memo, I realized that after this order, those 'Hospital Visit Authorizations' and local domestic partnership laws will soon not just be unnecessary. They'll soon be forgotten, not even a historical footnote. So I went home and poured myself a small glass of old whiskey (ok, not that small) to celebrate the irrelevance of something I worked hard on when I was a young lawyer. How sweet it is to become beside the point."
* * *
NSA whistleblower being charged for revealing Bush administration's illegal domestic spying??? You've got to be kidding me!
Glenn Greenwald, of course, is all over this: "The more I think and read about the Obama DOJ's prosecution of NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake, the more I think this might actually be one of the worst steps the Obama administration has taken yet, if not the single worst step -- and that's obviously saying a lot. During the Bush years, in the wake of the NSA scandal, I used to write post after post about how warped and dangerous it was that the Bush DOJ was protecting the people who criminally spied on Americans (Bush, Cheney Michael Hayden) while simultaneously threatening to prosecute the whistle-blowers who exposed misconduct. But the Bush DOJ never actually followed through on those menacing threats; no NSA whistle-blowers were indicted during Bush's term (though several were threatened). It took the election of Barack Obama for that to happen, as his handpicked Assistant Attorney General publicly boasted yesterday of the indictment against Drake."
Quietly taking place over the last 9 months is a strange political phenomenon. Denny Rehberg is spending almost every dollar he raises.
He filed for reelection long ago, and had about $700K in the bank leftover from his previous campaign. Since then, has raised $816k and spent $706k. Worse, in the last calendar year, he's spent virtually every nickel that he has raised. For example, his quarterly FEC report, filed last week, shows that in the last quarter he raised 153K and spent 160K. That pattern extends back through the last several quarters. The expenditures are highly gratuitous--huge payments to consultants and operatives and media firms and mail houses and research firms--totally out of line with normal campaign expenditures you'd expect at this point in a campaign, showing absolutely no effort whatsoever to conserve funds.
A new candidate with great fundraising prowess but a poor understanding of how to manage a campaign's finances might engage in careless spending like this. In fact John McCain was bankrupt in late 2007 because he had pissed away money on staff and consultants unnecessarily. It happens. But Rehberg is a veteran campaigner and has not done anything like this before.
It is even more peculiar when you consider that Rehberg is the presumptive challenger to Tester in 2012, and every nickel he can save in this year's race can, under federal law, be carried over to a Senate campaign. Since he probably won't have to spend much against Gopher, McDonald or Gernant, (neither of which has any money in the bank), he would be saving every penny so he could start out against Tester with a giant war-chest.
So why would he be burning through money like he is, with crazy line-items, paying $6K a month to his campaign manager (to a kid who'd probably do it for 2K), $4 grand a month to a media consultant, $6.5K a month to Erik Iverson's consulting firm, IS LLC, and tens of thousands in charges at resorts in Las Vegas and Big Sky and lots of other things like that?
One explanation: He is going to run for Governor.
Under this theory, everything makes perfect sense. He cannot carry over money from a federal campaign to a state campaign. So, rather than hoard money that will not be usable in his next campaign, he's doing a shady, borderline-illegal, but clever thing: overpaying people, his consultants, his campaign staff, firms, etc., essentially using federal money to pre-pay for what he will need when he runs for Governor.
All these people will give him a heavily discounted rate (wink) for their services in 2012, because they will have been previously and handsomely compensated. Heck, they might even work for free (wink) because they like him so much.
And remember, too, that a Gubernatorial candidate can only raise money in $600 increments (per-donor contribution limit), whereas a Congressional candidate can raise in $2300 increments. so to be able to off-load expenses with easy-to-come-by federal campaign cash is a luxury. And yes, it's easy to come by. As we all know, when you are an incumbent Congressman, special interests in DC write you checks even if you don't ask for them. You don't raise money--you simply collect.
So I'm putting down a bet at Ladbrokes. R nominee in 2012 for Gov is Denny Rehberg.
In a bid to shoot down the city of Missoula's newly adopted equality ordinance, NotMyBathroom.com chairman Tei Nash filed a petition Thursday to suspend the law and place it on the ballot.
"It's going to be sent out for referendum so that the public can vote on it," Nash said shortly after submitting the paperwork to the Missoula County Elections Office.
I don't know what this guy has got against gays - especially considering his daughter is gay - but whatever it is, it's serious, and it's going to plague us through the summer.
To succeed in putting the measure to a public vote, NotMyBathroom.com supporters must gather signatures from 15 percent of the voters registered in the city of Missoula. Chief Clerk and Recorder Vickie Zeier said that's 7,391 verified signatures.
Dallas Erickson of Montana HOME - Help Our Moral Environment - said in the past he has collected more than 7,000 signatures in the Bitterroot for another effort. Erickson, of Stevensville, also has been leadingNotMyBathroom.com and is a tireless crusader for his causes.
HOME has statewide membership, including "several" in the Missoula city limits, he said. Erickson said he believes it will be both challenging and possible to gather enough signatures.
"It's not going to be that easy - don't get me wrong," Erickson said. "But I believe it's very doable."
And isn't it interesting that one of the petitions' "spiritual" parents can't even sign this thing? To me, that's the most interesting part of this story - and the part that should p*ss Missoulians off - that opposition to this Missoula ordinance seems to stem from a handful of religious radicals in the Bitterroot. Of course, if they manage somehow to come up with 7,000 signatures (one presumes, by combing through retirement homes), we'll be paying for the referendum. And, yes, I'm a Missoula taxpayer.
Here's the kicker from the story, though: Erickson apparently plans on taking his case to the state legislature, and have them come up with a law to "prevent cities from enacting such ordinances." Ugh. I can't wait.
Ward 5 Councilman Dick Haines had some people scratching their heads when he voted "yes" early Tuesday morning for the city's new anti-discrimination law. The alderman's strategy became clearer when he spoke with KGVO radio host Peter Christian Tuesday morning for on-air broadcast. Haines explained to Christian that state and municipal law enables elected representatives who log a "yes" vote to bring legislation up again for formal discussion at a later date.
"I thought, well, this one might be an opportunity to bring back some of the concerns I have with this thing and get them out in front of the public," Haines said during the KGVO interview.
I was one of those head-scratchers. I thought, who knows? Maybe, just maybe, Haines was surprisingly enlightened on civil rights! Fat chance, right? His "yea" vote was simply a deceptive parliamentary trick that allows him to bring up the ordinance again.
Maybe he thought local businesses could benefit from the influx of crazed Bitterrooters' money...
There are two bizarre stories about Rehberg this week. The first one is below, the next one I'll write up in another post.
In the most baffling attempt to score political points based on a tragedy I've ever seen, Rehberg attempts to lure in readers to his hypocritical op-ed that claims he's against government spending by reminding readers of the boat wreck he shirked responsibility for by refusing to designate a sober driver. Read it online in the Clark Fork Chronicle.
Rehberg: Reckless speeds in dangerous waters
by Rep. Denny Rehberg
Long after the unsinkable Titanic settled at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, people asked whether the disaster had been avoidable. Titanic had been the greatest ship the world had ever seen, but hubris excused reckless speeds in dangerous waters and critical warning signs were ignored.
Is it just me, or is this a recklessly bizarre way for Dennis Rehberg to begin an editorial.
Not to mention the fact that--in Rehberg's own words, on his own website--Rehberg has recklessly posted a whopping 406 press releases in support of earmarks during his 10 years in congress: for example here, and only 9 claims that he will supposedly hold the line on spending over the same 10 years.
To put this in perspective, he has 26 press releases tooting his own horn (for example this or this), 80 on ribbon cutting and fluff like this ridiculousness or this, or this, and 5 taking credit for the work of others (claiming to sponsor legislation he only co-sponsored), when the facts show otherwise, on legislation so unpopular that it failed anyway no less.
If Rehberg's priorities line up with what he says is important enough to put out a press release about, holding the line on spending ranks fairly low, down with taking credit for the work of others on failed legislation (both have single digit numbers of releases).
Perhaps Rehberg has been too reckless to realize what message he's been sending out over the years. He certainly doesn't seem to realize the bizarre message he's sending this week.
(Image brazenly stolen from the Missoulian's Twitter feed.)
While we wait in breathless anticipation for the Missoulian's live Tweeting of Missoula's Tax Day protests, here are some facts for Tax Day:
A majority of Americans think the amount of taxes they'll pay this year is fair. And by "majority," I mean more than 60 percent of all Americans, including Republicans. Heck, a plurality of Tea Baggers think their tax rate is fair! Which is especially interesting, given what Tea Baggers (wrongly) think about our nation's taxes.
The total cost of the Republican Congressional obstructionism to the American taxpayer: 1.32 billion dollars. Now, that's what I call "waste."
The "Tea Party Express" - that bus touring around the country and whipping up Tea Baggers everywhere - is not the grassroots rally it's made out to be. It's actually a PAC run by Republican operatives.
Fox News, despite Rupert Murdoch's statement that his network "shouldn't be supporting the Tea Party," is actively participating in Tax Day protests. Sean Hannity is even going so far as front-lining a fundraiser for the Cincinnati Tea Party.
A recent NYTimes/CBS poll confirms what we knew all along: Tea Baggers are predominantly angry old white dudes. Besides hating poor people and blacks, they're a bit delusional. Check out this question from the poll results: "Regardless of your overall opinion, do you think the views of the people involved in the Tea Party movement generally reflect the views of most Americans, or not?" A whopping 84 percent of Tea Baggers said their movement "reflect the views of most Americans," while only 25 percent of Americans said the same thing. And four percent of Americans have actually attended a Tea Bag rally or have given money to Tea Baggers.
And now for some opinions:
John Cole: "This is just a Republican operation, plain and simple, and you'll watch the tea partiers go to bat for their Republican and Wall Street masters the next couple of months as we try to pass Financial reform.
"For chrissakes- the tea party idea came from Rick Santelli- a broker. Anyone who thought these guys were mad at Wall Street was engaging in magical firebagger thinking, and some of us told you that from the get-go."
FDL's Thers: "Probably the best thing that has thus far happened to the Tea Bag Party Movement would be the Tiger Woods fucking a lot mega-scandal, for the simple reason that without Tiger, the Tea Bag Party Movement would be the most tedious, trainwrecky, make-pretend important thing to have made normal people want to kill themselves over ever since the OJ trial or, I don't know, that Peaches Browning shit. I mean, Christ, what is there to say about a "movement" that spendspretty much all of its energy screaming about how it really and for true isn't jam-packed with crazies?
"Well, you can say that it's boring, is what you can say about it, because most of what they do is snivel about how oppressed they are, and that is a very wearying class of behavior to be annoying us with....
"To keep it simple, there's Fox News America, there's Village America, and then there's Fucked-Over America. As a citizen of that latter region, I'm getting pretty damn Fed Up."
Nice writeup of Missoula's anti-discrimination ordinance by the Kaiman's Will Melton:
The main opponents of the measure were so incapable of coming up with a reason to do so that didn't sound wildly homophobic that their arguments came across more as parody. In reality, the proponents of the measure probably found their biggest ally in the ridiculous arguments put forth by those who were against it....
But that's just the point for the opponents; they either cynically lie and fearmonger, hoping that they can confuse people who don't have time to really delve into the issue, or they themselves are hopelessly confused.
The fact of the matter is that there is little legitimate reason to disagree with the ordinance, short of just not liking homosexuals. For the most part, the ordinance merely protects homosexuals from losing their livelihoods and places of living....
I have to say, the level of vitriol and animosity, homophobia and (self?) deception among the ordinance's opponents didn't surprise me, but it certainly shocked me. Absolutely toxic. And completely misleading, whether out of ignorance or malice is moot.
One person in particular who has been the focus of pro-discriminators' ire that I want to laud is the Missoulian's Keila Szpaller. (And bookmark her blog if you already haven't.) Tei Nash, in an editorial on kcei.com, claims Szpaller "discriminated against the side that opposed" the ordinance and "is really a lobbyist for this ordinance it is {sic} plain and clear." Why? Probably because she dared to debunk the inaccuracies passed around by Nash's group.
Too often, the traditional media presents issues in a "he said/she said" fashion - quoting from both sides and letting the reader decide who's argument is more persuasive - and refusing to correct or interpret the opinions based on facts or context. Nash and NotMyBathroom counted on that kind of reporting, hoping the image of child predators stalking Missoula's bathrooms would derail the ordinance, but Szpaller, much to her and the Missoulian's credit, refused to pass on Nash's lies without correction.
Szpaller and the Missoulian were extremely fair in their coverage of the anti-discrimination ordinance. And armed with good information, Missoulians and their leaders overwhelmingly approved of their city council's votes for equality.
This Seth Godwin post really stuck with me, probably because I've been writing a lot about global warming denial and the creepy opposition to anti-discrimination ordinances, from which you hear a lot about "rights" and "freedom":
More and more, businesses and businesspeople talk about their rights.
It seems, though, that organizations and individuals that focus more on their responsibilities and less on their rights tend to outperform.
You're responsible to your community, to your customers, to your employees and to your art. Serve them and the rights thing tends to take care of itself.
Another thought: If I worked at Pepsi, I'd be actively lobbying for the obesity sweet soda tax (a penny an ounce) being proposed in New York. Instead, in a no-surprise knee jerk reaction, almost everyone in the industry is lobbying like crazy to stop it. This is dumb marketing.
The benefit of a tax is that it affects you and your competitors at the same time, so you all benefit from doing the right thing, as opposed to having to compete against someone who doesn't care as much as you do.
Once people realize that excessive use of your product makes them sick and then die a long and painful death, it's probably time to stop lobbying and time to start doing something about it. This industry should stop thinking it is in the corn syrup delivery business (which brings nasty side effects along with it) and start focusing on delivering joy in a bottle. Lots of interesting ways to do that without giving up profits.
Speaks directly to the big energy industries banking the climate change denial industry.
Of course, conservative Christians aren't a profitable industry - well, not overtly so - and their goal isn't expanding the bottom line, but there is a definite lack of interest in responsibility and community among Tea Baggers and Bathroom fear mongers.
A correspondent out of the Flathead sent me a spreadsheet making the case that my redistricting analysis is wrong because more Montanans cast conservative votes than liberal ones over the past several cycles, yet Democrats won more seats. This spreadsheet combined votes for Republicans, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists in one column and votes for Democrats and Green Party candidates in another.
It also made me realize that my spreadsheets were based on election night results, not final canvasses. So I updated my spreadsheets and the numbers come out a little bit different, but not radically so. I'll update my old post with the correct numbers.
I made an off-hand reference to third parties because there is no doubt that there has probably been some spoiler factor in Montana. Constitutionalists in particular have mounted campaigns in a few districts where Democrats have won narrowly.
But I think this analysis is off-base for a few reasons. Here's why:
Even including all third party candidates, conservatives are over-represented in the Montana Senate. According to my numbers, Democrats received 203,930 votes for Senate in '06 and '08. Republicans and all other candidates combined received 204,452 votes. Even assuming all "other" votes would prefer a Republican (a very presumptuous position), Democrats are basically at parity (the difference is .12%), yet are distinctly in the minority in the Senate.
We Can't Assume Second Round Preferences. Voters who selected a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist often did that in a district presumably knowing that they could vote for a Republican. They still went third party. Exit data shows all sorts of interesting things about third party voters. But rarely does the exit polling show that these voters stick closely to a traditional left-right analysis of voting habits.
Redistricting Isn't Responsible for Spoiler Effects. This is really the important piece. Third party campaigns are not really a feature of redistricting, except that highly competitive districts should theoretically minimize the incentive for third party candidates. In fact, most large third party vote totals occurred in districts with limited competition. The strongest Constitutionalist vote totals occurred in 2008 in districts that only had one major party candidate. The flip side of this, of course, is that a state could be districted to be highly competitive or highly uncompetitive and third parties could still file and still deny "their side" the seat.
The bottom-line here is still absolutely the same. Montana's election results indicate that we currently have highly competitive legislative elections. Democrats are underrepresented in the legislature based on statewide vote totals. And there is every indication that the highly competitive elections have been good for democracy by fostering high levels of engagement. Meanwhile, third parties are filling gaps, introducing political competition where they can (as are a handful of independent candidates).
The situation: Commercial landlords are up in arms because the governor has exposed the long-known fact that the state, for many, many years, gave super-sweetheart deals to the buddies of Martz and Racicot administrations, in the form of over-market rent contracts to Republican landlords.
The question: Why not a peep from the lobbyist for the Montana Realtors' Association?
The answer: He is John Sinrud, former representative (R-Belgrade), long-time Schweitzer antagonist, and right-wing nut-job. Here is Singer's " greatest hits" of Sinrud.
The dilemma: His politics probably force him to personally agree with Schweitzer here, that you shouldn't be paying $15 a square foot for real estate when you can find $10 on the market. (Republican politicians are finally starting to get in trouble for their extravagant spending, and I'm not even mentioning the Republican National Committee's expense-account party at a bondage club.)
But his real estate mogul clients probably don't agree with this form of fiscal restraint. It must be a terrible pickle for poor John, taking his froth-at-the-mouth-rabidity into the nervous breakdown variety. Plus, I doubt he'll get an audience with the Gov anytime soon to air his clients' grievances...
Another "ouch" for a nut-job. It's a bad time to be a RWNJ in Montana.
