Business As Usual - or - a Monday morning scream fest

Excuse me for a moment, I need to scream and throw something at the wall. Why? Because the paychecks collected by the scoundrels of Wall Street are once again bobbing up into the stratosphere. Paul Krugman writes:

There’s a palpable sense in the financial press that the storm has passed: stocks are up, the economy’s nose-dive may be leveling off, and the Obama administration will probably let the bankers off with nothing more than a few stern speeches. Rightly or wrongly, the bankers seem to believe that a return to business as usual is just around the corner.

Oh dear God, don't let us return to business as usual. We're barely surviving this round of "business as usual." I'm afraid to imagine what will happen to families, jobs and businesses (including my own) if the scoundrels are allowed to run free again.

I'm still mad, damn it

By Nancy Jane Moore

On election day, I drank champagne to celebrate victory at last. On inauguration day I cried a couple of times -- and danced a jig in my living room when Bush took off. At last we had change -- real change.

So a few weeks later, why am I still so pissed off?

I'm not mad at President Obama. I don't agree with everything he's done so far, but the only way I could get a president I completely agreed with would be to get elected to the job myself. And I don't want it.

I voted for Obama because he was very smart and very competent, and had a gift for not just saying the right thing at the right time, but for saying something that challenged our expectations. I also liked his ability to take strong stands without completely alienating his opposition. And it was clear that he was a good politician, that he knew that ideological purity sometimes must be sacrificed to get things done.

So far as president, he's been doing what I expected. I feel like the country is in good hands even when I disagree with his approach.

So again, why am I so pissed off?

It's true that the economic collapse is frightening and just gets worse. After months of being annoyed because no one would use the "R" word -- recession -- I'm now annoyed because they're using it so casually, as if the current situation were similar to the recession in the early 1980s, instead of evidence of a complete breakdown in the world financial system that could lead us into a situation worse than the Great Depression.

And with the exodus of the Bushies, the real problems of climate change are at last getting heard -- and they're even scarier than I expected them to be. I won't even go into the civil liberties issues.

But while those things scare the hell out of me, that's not exactly why I'm so pissed off, either.

I'm mad at the media.

Now I don't say that lightly, because my parents were journalists, and of all the myths associated with professions out there, the one I actually believe in is that the press is the Fourth Estate that keeps us honest. (Even though I spent years as a lawyer, I never fully believed in the adversary system, as most lawyers do.)

For reasons I do not comprehend, most major news outlets -- and I'm thinking of NPR, The New York Times, and The Washington Post (the only thing I watch on television news is the weather) -- have decided that "balanced" coverage means allowing right wing Republicans to rant against Obama's programs.

To listen to the people who were cheerleaders for and enablers of the Bush debacle accuse Obama and the Democrats of generational theft because they're trying to do what's necessary to get the country back on stable economic ground makes me furious. And when reporters don't even challenge their statements but just allow them to spew nonsense as if that "balanced" a rational explanation of why the government needs to spend money, I start worrying about my blood pressure and switch off the radio.

Those Republicans are the people who actually committed generational theft, the ones who enthusiastically threw money at the Iraq War, who championed corporate tax cuts and allowed the dismantling of regulatory agencies even as Wall Street was careening out of control, and who not only ignored climate change but denied it to the extent that we've made things worse -- much worse -- over the past eight years. We have to spend money now because they threw it away for eight years.

If it didn't make me so mad to listen to them, the irony of it would be hilarious.

But what makes me madder than having to listen to the bankrupt ideas of the people who did so much damage to our country -- and they better be praying that Obama and good luck will save it, or history is going to name them as responsible for the loss of the United States -- is that the only criticism we're getting of the stimulus package or the next installment of the corporate bailout or any other policy proposed by the administration is from the people who got us into this mess.

I'm sure there are legitimate criticisms of the stimulus package -- not just Republican rhetoric or nit picks about funding one particular program or the other. (The nit picks were mostly silly, anyway. What's wrong with re-seeding the National Mall? It is mostly dirt at the moment and needs attention, and that would be a quick program that would provide lots of entry level jobs.)

But we're not getting those kind of criticisms. Oh, Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman keeps saying the plan isn't Keynesian enough -- that it doesn't spend enough money. But that's only in his column -- I haven't seem much in the way of a detailed analysis of the stimulus addressing whether it provides enough money anywhere else.

And I'm sure some of the "Chicago Boys" (as Naomi Klein refers to them in The Shock Doctrine) have had the nerve to criticize government spending even when it has become obvious that their belief in unfettered markets is at the heart of the problem.

The thing is, while it's clear that we have to undo the deregulation of the business community that began in the Reagan years -- that is, that we have to re-regulate -- I'd like to hear some intelligent discussion of whether this government spending program is the best way to being fixing the financial collapse. I take Krugman very seriously and I am a great admirer of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, but even I suspect that there are good responses out there that do more than regurgitate Keynes. (And it isn't coming from those who scream "free markets" and "tax cuts.")

Good reporters would seek out people with those new ideas. Instead, we're getting coverage of politics that sounds remarkably like coverage of a football game -- second guesses about strategy, name calling -- the kind of reporting that makes me think that political reporters are just sports reporters with pretensions to seriousness. They only care about the game and who wins or loses. That's fine for sports -- that's the point of sports -- but in politics we also care about whether what we're doing works.

And nobody is reporting on the substance.

How are we ever going to solve our problems if the only information we're getting about the key issues of the day is a brief summary of a plan "balanced" by silly rhetoric and an analysis of whether someone's strategy paid off?

Obama & company may be barreling toward more financial disaster

Today's Paul Krugman on why Obama's apparent plan to "save" the banks is a stupid idea:

We can’t afford to squander money giving huge windfalls to banks and their executives, merely to preserve the illusion of private ownership.

Meanwhile, why is anyone giving any credence to free market fundamentalism -- a philosophy that, well, Katrina-ed the entire world's economy?

Pre-stimulus, bipartisan terrors strike the blogosphere

Paul Krugman's column is getting a lot of comment in the lefty blogosphere this morning, largely from folks who agree with Krugman that Obama may be declaring stimulus surrender before the real fight over the plan starts. Like other bloggers, I worry that Obama is emphasizing bipartisanism to the point of self destruction. (Translation: Placating Republicans matters more than finding real solutions.)

On the other hand, I still want to see how this all plays out and what the Obamites actually do. On the other other hand, I applaud my fellow bloggers for bellowing about their concern. If we don't speak up early and often, we won't be able to affect the outcome.

And so life in the Age of Obama begins, 15 days before inauguration.*

Here are some of the more interesting posts I've seen.

Kevin Drum:

Obama's team is so focused on getting a big bipartisan majority for their stimulus legislation that they're negotiating their goals down even before they actually start negotiating

Josh Marshall:

Obama seems to be telegraphing that to a significant degree the fundamental structure of the legislation is being built around accommodating the concerns of Republicans -- members of a political party that are about as unpopular and weak as you can get at the moment

John Aravois:

But don't worry, if we just appease the Republicans this once, they'll stop being mean to us.

------------
*Obviously, the transition to our new prez has been barreling down the tracks for weeks now. With the holidays behind us, though, we've finally gotten beyond questions of who's going to do what in the new administration and into substance. That's why I'm marking today, Jan. 5, as the real start of the Age of Obama. (Remember, you heard it here first.)

Monday Morning Downer: Paul Krugman uses the "D" word

OH, this is cheerful. Paul Krugman writes this morning:

The fact is that recent economic numbers have been terrifying, not just in the United States but around the world. Manufacturing, in particular, is plunging everywhere. Banks aren’t lending; businesses and consumers aren’t spending. Let’s not mince words: This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression.

The good news, and I think there is some, is that Krugman appears to be attempting to scare the bejesus out of us to head off his nightmare -- that Congress and Barack Obama won't act boldly enough to stop Depression 2.0. If that's Krugman's plan, he certainly has succeeded with me. I hereby declare myself to be officially scared to death.

Today's Must Listen: Paul Krugman explains how incompetence & ideology sunk the economy

One of the things I love about economist and columnist Paul Krugman is that he can explain the economic crisis in ways that actually make sense. On Monday he talked about how the "crazy influence of ideology" and the complete and utter incompetence of business executives and the Bush Administration have torpedoed the world economy.

Krugman was interviewed by Newsweek senior editor and Moneybox columnist Daniel Gross. By the way, Krugman thinks unemployment may go to 10 percent. The current unemployment rate is 6.5 percent. Yikes!

Congratulations Paul Krugman!

My favorite economist has just won the Nobel Prize. I hope this means more governments will listen to him.

A sinking ship?

Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is now comparing the news from Wall Street to the Titanic. This is not making me feel better.

This election isn't about lipstick on a pig

This morning it's worth noting the conjunction of the crisis on Wall Street with the McCain-Palin outrage over Barack Obama's use of a common saying about pigs and lipstick. Our financial system is teetering, and the Republicans are furious over a manufactured, non-existent slight. The issues we confront are too serious for that kind of stupidity.

Here is today's most chilling sentence. From Princeton Economist Paul Krugman:

Will the U.S. financial system collapse today, or maybe over the next few days? I don’t think so — but I’m nowhere near certain

Individualism, community, and social change: Thoughts for 2008

By Nancy Jane Moore

I went to a Patti Smith concert the other night. It did not disappoint: Smith writes great songs and puts herself fully into her performances, so we were treated to high energy and interesting ideas.

The show contained some surprises. In addition to her well-known songs, she did what had to be a brand new one about the death of Benazir Bhutto. After telling a story about her obsession with the opera "Tristan and Isolde" -- never assume that any performer doesn't like other art forms -- she launched into the Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit," which ended with the many 50-somethings in the audience joining in on the "Feed your heads." And her encore included "O Holy Night."

I had a great time. But early on in the evening, when Smith first took the stage and made a political comment, the crowd response bothered me. It wasn't just appreciation; there was something else in the mix, something like obsession. It wouldn't take much to turn a crowd like that into a mob, even the 50-somethings (after all, Smith is also 50-something and those of us among her fans who are no longer young still like to see ourselves as radicals even if we do have safe day jobs).

A good performer -- and Smith is one -- can keep an audience like that hooked without letting it turn into a mob, and she did. But the possibility that a room full of mostly intelligent people ranging in age from 20 to 60-something could turn into a mob mind was there.

I found myself drawing back, refusing to surrender to the whole mob ethic. I don't like crowds, anyway. In the standing-room-only crowd, I made my way upstairs where there were places to stand against a wall and still see the stage. I could not have handled standing on the ground floor surrounded by other people.

I can remember a few times in the past when I have become one with the crowd -- a few political marches from the 1960s and early 70s, the occasional concert (a Leonard Cohen concert that ended on the banks of Austin's Town Lake in 1970 springs to mind). I can't do it anymore. Could be because I'm a writer, an observer by trade. Could just be age. Possibly it might be the onset of wisdom.

Because once the mob mind takes over, individual restraint goes out the window. Even if you have second thoughts, you go along with the crowd. That's what happens in riots -- people who would ordinarily never steal or vandalize or harm another person get caught up in the frenzy. And they do it even when it's not in their personal best interests.

I don't want to give up my individual thinking to a mob. Or to any other kind of group. Not only do I want the freedom to act and think for myself, I want everyone else to have this freedom.

And yet I know something else, something important: The only way to really affect things in this world is to work together.

I am happily single, live alone, and am reasonably self-sufficient. But my freedom is insured by my union (the Newspaper Guild); a number of laws, regulations, and social programs; and a community of friends and family.

My union has made sure I have decent health insurance and job protection, along with many other benefits; my company is better than most, but I don't think they would have been nearly as good to their employees if we weren't organized. Civil rights laws -- themselves brought about by group movements -- have changed things dramatically for women like me. Social Security and Medicare provide a base that was not there before. My friends chip in many ways, from feeding my cat when I travel to providing computer advice to listening to my troubles.

So I argue here for the individual acting as part of the larger community. We need to come together as individuals and work for as a group for the many changes needed in this country. While we should never sacrifice our individuality to the mob, we likewise must sometimes give up our individual desires for goals that benefit the largest number.

It's a conundrum and a constant balancing act, but a necessary one. There are six and half billion people in this world, and all of them have dreams and desires. The more we work together as a group, the more of our people can live their fullest lives.

Which brings me to partisanship. Paul Krugman has recently written several columns on the subject, setting out his core argument most clearly in this piece on Slate adapted from his recent book, The Conscience of a Liberal. Krugman writes:

What progressives should be focused on now is taking on the political movement that brought Bush to power. In short, what we need right now isn't Bush bashing -- what we need is partisanship.

I don't think he's wrong, but then I pretty much agree with Krugman about the need to take firm stands on so many key issues, from global warming to health care to foreign policy to economic inequality generated by bad tax policy. The meager changes wrought by the current Congress -- despite the public's desire for much more -- are a good argument for taking strong stands. (I realize Congress is hemmed in by the slimmest of majorities in the Senate and the unwillingness of moderate Republicans to jettison the extremists in their party, but stronger stands by the Democratic leadership would have been useful.)

But implicit in Krugman's argument is the idea that the choices are either old-fashioned partisan politics or mealy mouthed bipartisanship. And, interestingly, he seems to think that Barack Obama's search for middle ground is an example of weak bipartisanship that would keep us from attaining the progressive agenda. I gather he thinks John Edwards, and even Hillary Clinton, are more likely to take a strong partisan stand.

Personally, my biggest reservation about Clinton is her willingness to compromise with the right wing for personal political gain (her vote for the Iraq War being the most obvious, but far from the only, example). She is personally polarizing (I fall on the side of liking her rather than hating her), but in her political actions she has always struck me as far too willing to sell out principle.

Edwards is taking a strong partisan stand on economic issues, one I agree with. But what I like best about Obama is his ability to take a strong stand -- against the Iraq War, for affirmative action -- without antagonizing those who disagree with him, something Edwards isn't quite pulling off.

Krugman is dismissing that as old-fashioned bipartisanship, but I don't think it is. I think Obama might be bringing something new into the mix: An ability to take strong liberal stands without losing half the population when he opens his mouth.

I may be reading more into Obama than is actually there. But while Krugman is dead right on the kind of programs the country needs to fix the extreme damage of the Bush administration and the far right in general, I don't think he's right about the old-fashioned partisan approach.

It's possible to take a strong stand for change without slamming the door in the other side's face. It's difficult, in much the same way that it's difficult to retain one's individuality while working in a group, but it's not impossible.

I suspect Krugman would agree with me if I were discussing how the US acts in the world rather than our internal politics. Replacing our hardline US-centric partisanship with negotiation and group effort -- even a flawed group effort -- would do a lot to rein in so-called terrorism and create a more peaceful world.

In a recent post on Ambling Along the Aqueduct, I wrote about two novel series in which the authors are arguing for a new way -- what I would call a wiser way -- of resolving our conflicts: Laurie Marks's Elemental Logic series and L. Timmel Duchamp's Marq'ssan Cycle. Marks, writing fantasy, and Duchamp, in science fiction, are providing us with images of more highly evolved human beings.

Years of Aikido study have convinced me that humans have the capacity to resolve conflicts without excessive violence, that revenge is mostly useless, and that it is possible to take a strong stand without being so rigid that you deny the humanity in your opponent. It is good to see fiction that makes the same points.

I keep hoping to see such wisdom seep into politics.

Why the U.S. can't provide health care for needy children

By Diane Silver

I don't know about you, but I could make do with only $1 million or $2 million a year. I bet I could cut a few corners and still pay my bills with those measly sums. Apparently, though, a mere millionaire's lifestyle doesn't work for certain folks, as The New York Time's Paul Krugman notes today.

Last year, according to Institutional Investor’s Alpha magazine, James Simons, a hedge fund manager, took home $1.7 billion, more than 38,000 times the average income. Two other hedge fund managers also made more than $1 billion, and the top 25 combined made $14 billion.

Why does this matter?

How much is $14 billion? It’s more than it would cost to provide health care for a year to eight million children — the number of children in America who, unlike children in any other advanced country, don’t have health insurance.

That's the Bushies Law: Send more money to those who don't need it by cutting taxes for the superrich and keep yelling about how the U.S. doesn't have the money to take care of our children. Yup, that's America for you. Ignore the poor. Help the rich.

Are you as outraged as I am? Talk about hogs.
---------
Alas, the Krugman column is hidden behind The Time Select paywall.