Obama's to use own money to decorate White House

Amongst the Thains and Pandits of the world using millions of company dollars to decorate his office it is really nice to see our President setting an example that our countries leaders can abide by. The Obama's will not be using the $100k allotted to new Presidents to redecorate the White House to their liking.

The Obamas are using their own money to redecorate the White House residence and Oval Office, the White House confirms, forgoing the $100,000 in federal funds that is traditionally allotted to new presidents for such renovation projects.

The first couple — who made well over $2 million in 2008, largely from book revenues — is also turning down money from the White House Historical Association, the organization that financed a $74,000 set of china for the Bushes.

New presidents have traditionally undertaken extensive redecoration efforts to their personal quarters reflect their own tastes, with a new Oval Office rug tradition ringing in as the priciest item. Former President George W. Bush spent over $60,000 on a new cream carpet designed by Laura Bush in 2000 to replace the deep blue rug that covered the space during the Clinton administration. Obama aides have said the president likes the Bush rug, and does not plan to replace it.

That's an awfully expensive rug. I'm glad someone is showing some fiscal restraint. Certainly the Obama's are free to use more than the 100k they could have, but that's their right...at least they aren't using public money to do it. When you are asking people to give back their bonuses it would probably be a bad showing to accept this money. Kudos.

Obama takes out one failure, GM's CEO resigns

Rick Wagoner, 8 year CEO of General Motors, and all around terrible businessman is going to resign as part of the Obama administrations deal to restructure and support the fledgling company. Wagoner, of course, oversaw the G.M. policy of ignoring environmental standards and gas prices to pump out SUV and truck after SUV and truck without regard. Part of the reason I have been, and remain for a structured chapter 11 bankruptcy guaranteed by the government is because I wanted the government to have the power to tell the rascals who ruined everything to get out. And now it seems they do.

Rush Limbaugh uncomfortable describing flood preventers as "dikes"

This is actually rather funny. I honestly can't tell if it starts as a rail against homosexuals or just his discomfort with saying a flagrant word for a non flagrant reason. But then Rush saves it. He must have realized he was being a bit unclear so he clarified, yup he hates gay people.

Maureen Dowd is still useless

I mean seriously, more than 8 percent of the country is currently unemployed, yet this woman...this utterly pointless woman, is collecting what is likely a handsome paycheck from the premiere journalistic forum in the world. I understand the need for lighthearted news and perhaps even opinion occasionally. Not everything can cover poor children in the Haiti, environmental destruction, or the collapsing economy. However, it should at least contain something. A tidbit of information. A molecule of entertainment. Some semblance of a point. Is that really too much to ask?

Maureen Dowd's last post, literally had zero substance. It barely contained a declarative sentence. I guess...she was tying to make a point about the changing face of those in power, and fails to point out how. The people being given all the money and the breaks seem to be the same white, blue eyed peoples. Her discussion centered around the differences between people with blue eyes and people with brown eyes.

A 2007 University of Louisville study concluded that people with blue eyes were better planners and strategic thinkers — superior at things like golf, cross-country running and preparing for exams — while people with brown eyes had better reflexes, making them good at hockey and football.

Lula’s rant underscored an ancient rivalry.

Lulu is of course the Brazilian President who gained recent notoriety for correctly pointing out,

This [economic] crisis was caused by the irrational behavior of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing

Dowd ends her wonderful foray into irrelevance by saying "With Michelle urging students to aim for A’s and the president promising to make school “cool,” brown eyes may finally — and rightfully — overtake blue as the windows of winners." Not only do all those things have absolutely nothing to do with each other, but it leaves me asking one question, a question that comes to my mind every single time I read a Dowd column. This is the question everyone should be asking themselves after this women clicks the proverbial publish button. They should ask...Maureen, Ms. Dowd....Who cares?

Line of the Day: Ayn Rand Edition

I have never read Ayn Rand, at least not an entire book. I have read passages and I know what it is about and what her purposes are. I am also familiar with the basics of her biography as a rather well off person. To me, this is a great line from John Rogers:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

HA! She would fit in on Wall Street nowadays. A spoiled, whiney, brat with no relevance in reality and no grasp on what happens in the real world, who is so out of touch with how most people live their lives that her words are only heeded by those looking to back their own greedy intuitions.

(H/T: Ezra)

Wall Street Continues to Whine about bonus tax

The Security's Traders Association of New York (STANY) sent their version of Jake Desantis's hissy fit letter to the Capitol today. After grandstanding about the terrors of punishing the richest people in the country for profiting off the destructing of the global economy that they are collectively responsible for, they essentially threaten not to work with the Treasury's plan to recoup the losses and help the industry.

This kind of retroactive, emotional rulemaking negatively impacts the incentive of parties to do business with the government and with firms that partner with the government. Now is the time when Wall Street and the federal government should be working together to implement viable solutions to improve the economy. Reactionary policies, such as H.R. 1586 serve to make businesses leery of such a partnership.

It's hard to quantify how overwhelming stupid this kind of reaction is. If their "hissy fit"-ing is going to extend beyond this into what could amount to deliberate or indirect sabotaging of national recovery plans then they not only deserve to lose their bonuses but perhaps their jobs. Not only did they cause the problems they are threatening to not help fix, but fixing those problems would directly benefit them. They are bitching that they won't receive their promised bonuses. Well, if you want bonuses in the future, you best help get banking back on track, or learn a real trade.

Indeed, based on the letter itself, this may be more than these overpaid buffoons are capable of. Brilliance does not seem to be their strength. As TPM DC points out, the letter itself, sent to the Senate Banking Committee, President Obama and the Treasury contains many spelling and grammatical errors (I understand the apparent hypocrisy of someone who makes so many spelling/grammatical errors himself pointing out others mistakes, but I'm not sending this to the President) including misspelling President Barack Obama's first name. Perhaps, when sending an important letter to the Capitol, you run it through a proof read or two. The letter is after the jump (click them to read).
Continue reading...


It continues...

Mayor Bloomberg pushes for gay marriage in New York

I hesitate to jump for joy when modern day neanderthals finally discover the wheel, so when politicians say they back gay marriage, and therefore equal rights for all, I don't particularly feel a need to congratulate them on a job well done. However, Mayor Bloomberg has been a backer of equal social issues for a while now and he seems to be taking the opportunity of a Democratic governor and state legislature to push for equal rights. It's too bad Mayor Bloomberg does not have the pull to alter Albany politics. Perhaps Chuck Schumer does. Alas, this week Chucky (the proverbial neanderthal mentioned earlier) came out in favor of gay marriage.

I don't think Schumer can do anything. This is a state legislature problem and they have to take care of it. The reason Gay Marriage won't happen in New York, at least this year, is because the Democratic leadership has been held hostage by the Senates "Gang of Three", namely Senators Kruger, Diaz and Espada who threatened the Democratic majority by holding out supporting Republicans it they didn't get their way. Senator Diaz's selling point was not voting on gay marriage. I worked with Senator Diaz. He is a very religious man and I believe a minister. He is also very stubborn and very opportunistic. I hope the leadership has the balls to ignore this foolish man and do the right thing. I'm not holding my breath.

Whiny AIG executive resigns noisily

Do you want to know why there has been an unreasonably large uproar over bonuses being paid to AIG employees? It's because of pompous, out of touch people like Jake Desantis. Mr. Desantis was the Executive Vice President of AIG's Financial Products division. He is being asked to give back his "retention bonus" and might possibly get it taxed at a 90% rate and he is really, really upset about it. We are supposed to feel bad for him.

He whines that his CEO didn't stand up for him. He worked hard and deserves his bonus because he was "in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G", yet he abandons his co-workers who were involved. Did they not work hard too? Mr. Desantis says he will donate his post tax retention bonus to benefit those who are hurting in the economy. I applaud this. However, it stands to prove he does not need the money. What this letter amounts to is a hissy fit, immature tirade being thrown by a very rich and newly privileged person.

Mr. Desantis says, "The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation." You'd think a man with his business experience would understand very basic concepts. If you work for a business, despite how hard you work, and it goes out of business and has no money left, you don't get paid. Mr. Desantis completely misses the point. If it weren't for taxpayer money, he would not be getting ANY bonus at all. AIG does not have any money to pay you, they are borrowing ours. A commenter on the letter said it perfectly, "Hint: If your company accepts tens of billions of dollars from taxpayers, consider your bonus renegotiated." I am terribly sorry you worked very hard all year and the company that promised you money didn't have any left to pay you, that's the risk you take when YOU ACCEPT THE JOB.

You weren't involved in the credit default swaps and your department was profitable, good job. The rest of the company tanked, so you don't get paid, suck it up. Your company played a huge role in bankrupting the global economy, costing millions of Americans as well as those overseas their jobs. They now have to scrape by with no source of income, no prospects, and very little in the form of a safety net. You on the other hand have made it clear you have plenty of money. You received a bonus of over $700,000. Even if you only get to keep 10% of that, you have far more than the rest of us can hope for. Welcome to the real world outside of Wall Street Mr. Desantis. Get used to it.

Mr. Desantis is correct there are more important problems facing out nation than what he is being paid and that the outrage might very well be wildly overblown. Perhaps, if very wealthy, out of touch, spoiled Wall Street executives would not very publically thumb their nose at the real suffering going on around the country, whining about only getting to keep some of their 700g bonus and pawning off blame on their co-workers, the public would put down their pitch forks and work towards solving those problems.

UPDATE

Perhaps Mr. Desantis needs to take a look at this and then try and complain some more.

When will recession end?

The messages were are getting from high ranking economics officials are quite perplexing. When asked whether recent good news from the stock market and specifically Citi Bank meant we were coming out of our now 15 month recession top Obama economic adviser Lawrence Summers said:

I wish I could say that. It’s going to take some time.

Meanwhile at the same time Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the recession would likely come to an end "probably this year". The conflicting opinions only strengthen the idea that the adminstration doesn't yet have a firm grip on the economy and the solutions to our crisis. Which I wish to reiterate, is understandable. The one thing Bernanke and Summers seemed to agree on is that job losses will continue to mount. Summers saying, "We’ve got an economy that’s losing 600,000 jobs a month. It’s probably not going to stop imminently." and Bernanke "warned that the nation's 8.1% unemployment rate will continue to rise."

Bernake, appropriately, seems more concerned with the health and organization of the banking bailout. He is after all the Fed chairman. This leads me to believe positive signs from banking and payments being made through bailouts give him a more sunny outlook than Summers who is probably looking at a broader picture. I for one am not as positive as Bernanke. If I have been reading my Krugman right this is a demand crisis along as a credit freeze. Now Bernanke may be optimistic that lending my unfreeze soon which would be helpful in reinvigorating business, which would in turn curb the job losses. However, I think he's putting the chicken before the egg. Because this is a demand problem, meaning people aren't buying anything mostly because they are unemployed or underemployed, you need to restore jobs before you start restoring the economy. Yes, unfreezing the banks is a first step. But it is not what will get us out of the recession. Re-creating jobs and raising employment is how demand gets out of the gutter, which is eventually what needs to happen. Once you increase the purchasing power of the average American you increase overall demand. This is what will get us out of the recession. This is what the stimulus is aimed at. This is what will "take some time".

Michael Savage likens Obama to Hitler

Rush Limbaugh is not the only out of their mind crazy conservative radio political commentator around looking to make a buck with outrageous falsehoods. Here is the worst of the worst Michael Savage:

The fact of the matter is that Obama may be getting ready to organize his own personal army not of brown shirts but of green shirts. And that is why he has given this street thug Van Jones -- in my opinion a street thug, a man who has specialized in harassing the police themselves -- this all-important job. If Obama should appoint thousands, or more than thousands, of people to the environmental green czar to work for him, and then he deputizes them and then gives them guns, and then gives them federal powers over that of the local police, then you will know that we are repeating history in the United States of America.

You see, there was another man in another country who rose to power on an army of street thugs. And he had a friend named Ernst Romm who headed up an organization called the SA. The SA was a political army which protected the Nazi party leadership. It battled political opponents and terrorized the German people who opposed Hitler. Ernst Romm was an avowed socialist. He rejected capitalism. He pushed for the nationalization of German industry and the redistribution of wealth. It seems that the Obama appointees actually have almost the same exact policies as the Nazi Party did.

What you don't know is that the environment, in this case, is being used by the Obama administration in an attempt to gain control of the US population. The brownshirts, as I said, under Hitler, were used to intimidate Germans who opposed Hitler. My fear is that Obama will be using the greenshirts, these street agitators, in order to control the police and the people.

Now you're not able to talk about this because you don't know who I'm talking about, because the vermin in the media are covering up this very dangerous situation that is going on right in front of your nose.

I imagine when your party is bankrupt of morals, ideas, and voters this is the kind of utterly absurd and fantastical rhetoric you have to turn to. How this man remains on the air after insane comments like this one is beyond me. And yet, there are IDIOTS out there who will continue to listen to him. To compare Obama's green initiatives to Hitler's brown shirts to me is a sure sign of a man who has lost his mind. The only thing they have in common right now is they are the leader of a nation...that is all.

He says:

He pushed for the nationalization of German industry and the redistribution of wealth. It seems that the Obama appointees actually have almost the same exact policies as the Nazi Party did.

This is actually factually incorrect for several reasons and insane for several more. Firstly and I hope most obvious, the most famous policy of the Nazi party was killing people of the Jewish faith. Obama has not blamed anyone and has not called for the death of anybody. Second, Obama has completely resisted nationalization. They have not said they are going to nationalize a single time. In fact they have said multiple times they are NOT going to nationalize. As evidence by the fact that we keep giving money to AIG despite their handing out bonuses and not giving us control. Third, Ernst Rohm, who savage explains was a socialist, and he was, was leader of the SA the quasi-military group who protected Nazi politicians...not a policy maker. Hitler, in fact hated the communists as evidenced by his hatred for Red Russia. He was a Fascist, which is state ownership of everything. Communism on the other hand is the people owning everything equally. The difference is quite noticeable. Moreover, Ernt Rohm was eventually killed by Hitler for his competing views that Hitler would not accept. Putting Rohm's beliefs outside Hitlers and therefore the Nazi parties.

Perhaps me arguing with the facts that Savage falsely espouses lends credence to his claims. I do not mean to do this. He is a maniac. He is delusional. He is morally bankrupt and will saying anything and harm anyone to further his objectives. An Hilzoy points out, everything Savage has said Obama could do or is doing would not be possible. So there are two options for Savage. Either he knows this and is taking his time on the airwaves that the belong to the people of this country and lying directly to them. Or he has gone off the deep end and has separated from reality. Either way, he does not belong spearheading a national radio show. But this is what the Republican Party and our national media has come to.

Obama's Weekly Address: Food and Drug Safety

Food and drug safety is a rarely discussed topic, especially at high levels of government. It's good news that Obama recognized the shortfalls of the past 8 years. The Bush administration did strip the FDA of it's power and funding. It's much like they stripped most other reulatory agencies of as much of their power as they could. This is the Republican strategy of fighting regulatory agencies, welfare and assorted other programs in their disfavor...they starve them. If you don't fund the FDA then they can't work effectively. Things will go wrong and they will be blamed which could possibly lead to it's dismantling. In the mean time, business benefits from a weak regulatory body. This is not limited to the FDA but it is a proud and long tradition of the Republican party. For examples see such things as food stamps, social security, public education, the SEC, etc.

Jim Cramer on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Jon Stewart took direct aim at CNBC last week and Jim Cramer took offense to it. They both got a ton of media attention and tonight Cramer visited the Daily Show for an extra long interview that probably doubled Stewart's ratings. I just got done watching the interview.

Stewart made some good points and some fairly muddled populist points. He painted a picture of us vs. them. Us being those with 401k's and pensions and them being wall street traders. Putting aside for the moment that Stewart himself is a very wealthy individual, he made some decent points. Certainly, a financial news organization could do more than merely take a CEO's word and accept it as the truth. They are after all, a news organization not a corporate reporting agency. Beyond that point it seemed more like a Jon Stewart therapy session than anything else. Stewart accused Cramer himself of knowing what was going on and not doing anything about it. This is unfair. Cramer was working with the system presented to him. The leveraging Stewart had a problem with had been working for a decade and perhaps it was Cramer's job to be cautious, but he also had a duty to make his viewers money if he could.

Indeed, I may be falling for a popular entertainer who is able to present himself as a decent and honest man who in fact may be a cheating dick in real life, but I can't know that. I went in with no sympathy for Cramer and ended up feeling bad for him the entire time. Stewart did present some strange video that seemed to show Cramer in what seemed like a snake like trader version of himself. However, he was a hedge fund manager, that was his job. They are paid to make money with the rules put in front of them. What I saw Stewart do seemed more akin to a public lynching than entertainment. It made me very uncomfortable and frankly made for bad TV. Cramer was brave enough to come on a show that he knew he was going to get whacked on and Stewart didn't have the courtesy to offer him some thanks for appearing. I kept hoping at the end Stewart would apologize to Cramer, not for assailing Cramer's failures, but rather for Cramer becoming the face of a failed news organization and a failed wall street brand. Cramer barely got a chance to speak and almost seemed as if he didn't know what to say. He seemed exhausted and beat down. I honestly don't know why he went on the show. He took a beating. It's hard to feel bad for someone like Cramer, but I think Stewart managed to bring out my sympathy for a man clearly on an island. I honestly hope this is the end to this story.

Obama governing from the left?

Dylan Matthews is helping Ezra out by subbing in during some travel time. Today he is treading a dangerous line. In his post today he unabashedly labels Obama as a pure liberal and governing from that side:

We're barely two months into the new administration, and already a withdrawal from Iraq has been announced, an $800 billion stimulus package has been passed, S-CHIP has been expanded, stem cell restrictions have been lifted, and Guantanamo has been shut down. Say what you will about that, but it's a pretty solidly liberal policy agenda.

He calls the claim that Obama is governing from the center as "absurd on it's face".

This kind of recalibrating of the political spectrum is dangerous and undermines progression. He cites the stimulus, closing Guantanamo bay, allowing stem cell research and withdrawing from Iraq as being "liberal". Where do I begin. For one, we are not completely withdrawing from Iraq and Obama's plan is not far off from the Bush administrations plans. Moreover, why is ending a really bad war that is not getting the desired results and is costing us trillions a liberal idea? Second, closing GITMO is a protection of Civil Liberties and the Constitution. This is not a liberal policy, it is an American policy. Thirdly, the stimulus contains one of the largest tax cuts in American history. That's liberal? Fourthly, expanding stem cell research is simply moral. This kind of research will save lives. Preventing it was a crime against the country and the world. Additionally, Obama limited the government funded research to stem cell lines already created, essentially allowing the government to spend money on research Bush didn't condemn. The only difference between the two is government funding.

Obama has expanded the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has enhanced faith based initiatives. He has only slightly improved a very extreme stem cell policy. In an attempt to appease conservatives he watered down the stimulus and included ineffective tax cuts. He has bailed out corporations. He has appointed ,almost unanimously, Clinton era Centrist officials. He has backed Bushes "state secrets" defense in torture. He has refused to investigate or prosecute Bush officials for torture. He has not gone for single payer universal health care, instead hoping for private sector universal coverage. None of this comes from a left agenda. In fact, just yesterday Obama called himself a "new democrat" which is a centrist group within the Democratic party.

This kind of realignment is dangerous. This is precisely what Fox News aims to do every day. As long as you color a Democrat's policy as liberal than anything to the left of that is some sort of extreme liberal. Yes, in comparison with Bushes extreme conservatism, ignorance of the constitution, religious fanaticism, and disregard for the economy, Obama does look liberal...but so does New Gingrich. To say he is governing as a liberal now forces the political spectrum to the right. If it continues things like universal single payer health care, regulation, more stimulus, effective government spending, and safe and responsible diplomacy will be painted as far left extremism. This kind of rhetoric is devastating to a true progressive.

United States shoots down Iranian drone

Why isn't this a bigger deal for most people? I'm probably suffering from a little outside naivety, but shouldn't shooting down drone planes from Iran be a news maker? Perhaps this kind of thing happens more than we think making it un-newsworthy. Apparently Iran has aggressively updated it's unmanned drone fleet increasing it's intelligence and reach. Why are we not informed of this kind of thing? Especially at a time when we are reaching out to Iran diplomatically and when tensions are high in Tehran with President Ahmadinejad's tenuous hold on power as Iran's economy falters continuously. Seems perhaps the networks or the NYTimes should cover this kind of thing. Is that too much to ask?

Pelosi hints at a second stimulus

Anybody who has done their reading knows the stimulus package was not enough. We are in a severe hole and sadly the $750 billion already given out won't be enough to spark the demand side of supply and demand. That is why Speaker Pelosi indicating she is keeping the "door open" to another stimulus is a good idea. All along I wondered why an intellectually sound administration was OK with a stimulus that experts believed wouldn't be big enough. My leading theory is the administration didn't want Americans or Congress for that matter to suffer too much sticker shock. Obama laid the foundation for more stimulus in his state of the nation speech when he indicated we may to spend more. Estimated of the money necessary vary, going anywhere from 0 to 2 trillion dollars. Obviously spending as little is possible is the best outcome, but if we overspend to avoid the worst outcome, I will support it.

Obama claims to be a New Democrat

This is bad news. I have been ranting against centrism for months now as it does nobody any good. The coalition he was talking to when he claimed is full of centrist Democrats. Now I am OK with a centrist if by centrist you mean someone who often falls on either side of the political spectrum on any given issue. There are in fact a few issues I tend to agree with the Republican Party on. But if by centrist you mean someone who takes strong left or right policy and waters it down, like these New Democrats do, then they are an awful brand and terrible for the country.

The New Democrats are the ones that watered down the stimulus. They are the ones fighting the budget. They are the ones abandoning EFCA. They do nobody any good. They are essentially "no" machines who have no ideas of their own. They simply point out why they think others are wrong and force them accept less than potent policy. I hope Obama is just playing to them.

Columbia Journalism school hates blogging

There's this from Daily Intel:

But the push for modernization has also raised the ire of some professors, particularly those closely tied to Columbia’s crown jewel, RW1. “Fuck new media,” the coordinator of the RW1 program, Ari Goldman, said to his RW1 students on their first day of class, according to one student. Goldman, a former Times reporter and sixteen-year veteran RW1 professor, described new-media training as “playing with toys,” according to another student, and characterized the digital movement as “an experimentation in gadgetry.”

I imagine this is an attempt for the old guard to protect themselves but COME ON. Yes, lets sit in the back of a cave with our eyes closed and our fingers in our ears because we can ignore the future. To be fair, Goldman did try to qualify his statement saying:

They need to know the ethics and history and practice of journalism before they become consumed with the mold they put it in, because the mold will change — the basics won't

He is correct here. The basic tenets of journalism should not change. When I say basic, I mean really basic. However, this kind of attitude towards the "new media" is both overtly inappropriate and completely asinine, especially for a prestigious journalism school.

How Progressive are you?

The Center for American Progress have created a 40 point questionnaire to determine how progressive you are. Of course, these are silly...but it's fun to click around. I scored "extremely progressive". Likely due to my love of regulation and hated for corporate interests.

Frat boys against bigotry, who knew?

Having gone to school in a party centric atmosphere with a very prevalent Greek culture, seeing Frat boys mock a bigoted anti-gay group is a real sign of for lack of a better term...change.

Laptops in Law School, NYU law revue's take

Please Repeat the Question from Amanda Bakale on Vimeo.

(H/T Tax Prof)

Video of the Day III: Ron Paul bows to Rush Limbaugh

Two sad points about this video of Ron Paul. One, even he, the maverick of the Republican party bows down to Rush Limbaugh calling him a "good conservative". Second, this video captures exactly what is wrong with all politicians in Washington today and points out exactly why the nation responds when Obama does things like host a financial or health care summit inviting all sides. Ron Paul says when asked how he feels about Rush's claim that he wants Obama to fail, referring to President Obama, "I want those goals to be successful, yet I don't want his philosophy to be successful." Those two things are not possible. Obama cannot be successful unless his philosophy is successful. Basically Ron Paul is saying, yes I want Obama to be successful but only if he's willing to do I want and only what I want. This is what infuriates me. If Obama's philosophy is successful, every American should want that philosophy utilized. It doesn't matter how it gets done as long as it is successful. To say anything different is immature, stubborn partisanship at its worst. I disagree with Ron Paul a lot, but I always respected him. I no longer do. He's just another Rush-ite now and a detriment to this nation.

Video of the Day II: Right Wing Stimulus Lies

Video of the Day: Daily Show on CNBC

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Delong, Krugman, Mankiw debate Obama's forecast

A lot of Obama's ten year plan to cut the deficit has to do with expected GDP growth over the long term. Obama expects it to grow at a fast rate after this crisis is over. Let the debate begin.

Mankiw starts with saying that there is little evidence to prove that fast sinking economies will grow at a fast rate once they are done sinking.

Brad Delong then points out that yes there is evidence. When a sinking in production is accompanied with no change in the unemployment rate then yes recovery should not be expected. However, when output decreases are accompanied with severe increases in unemployment then you can expect a faster than usual growth as unemployment decreases after a crisis. He also points out a possible flaw in Mankiw's research. I don't know if it is, I am not an economist.

Paul Krugman then calls Mankiw purposely "obtuse" perhaps even dishonest. He questions why an economist would ignore the fact that we have a "huge slack capacity in the economy right now?"

Mankiw then responds to both by first proposing a bet to Krugman that Obama's forecasts will not come true. Aren't economists mature? He then takes a look at Delongs post (whom Mankiw seems to respect more for this area of study. Greg noted earlier that Krugman is not a macroeconomist like both Delong and Mankiw are, but rather an international trade expert). Mankiw guesses at the information Delong used and than at the end seemingly admits he is not sure saying,

If I am right that what we have here is an uncorrelated cloud plus the Reagan boom, then I would not expect a high level of statistical significance for this relationship. If I am wrong, and the relationship is highly statistically significant, then it might encourage Paul to take the bet.

In the end I don't know who to listen to. I cannot parse these numbers as I don't understand them. I however trust Paul Krugman and Barack Obama and have noted how sour Mankiw has been throughout the past 6 months. I also see the logic behind output increasing as a large unemployed workforce comes back to work as demand increases. One thing I do know...economists have very unfunny pissing contests.

Brad Delong is an Economist at U.C. Berkeley.
Greg Mankiw is an Economist at Harvard University.
Paul Krugman is an Nobel Prize winning Economist at the New York Times.

Moderate Democrats against the Obama Budget

This is infuriating. Moderate Democrats including Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh are not happy with the budget because of it's tax proposals to the rich and it's over spending breadth. Senator Ben Nelson had this to say:

I have major concerns about trying to raise taxes in the midst of a downturn of the economy. On the one hand, you’re trying to stimulate the economy. On the other hand, you’re trying to keep money from going into taxpayers’ pockets. It’s very difficult to make that logic work.

Ignoring the fact that the budget actually proposes a tax cut for 95% of American taxpayers, he is still wrong. The tax increases on the rich are essentially letting the Bush tax cuts run their course. They won't be in effect until 2011, hopefully after the "downturn of the economy" is over. Also, these "tax increases" are merely putting back what Bush took away. As Senator Byron Dorgan said:

The increases in most cases, as I see it, restore the tax burden that existed in 2000. And it seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

How can it be considered out of the ordinary to go back to a tax provision that we had for so long in such a profitable period?

Senator Bayh had this to say:

I do think that before we raise revenue, we first should look to see if there are ways we can cut back on spending.

Cut spending Evan? What about Obama's plan for the military spending, the defense budget, government contracts, or farm subsidies...all unveiled in the last week, all proposed to cut spending? All this puts aside once again that 95% of American taxpayers will see a tax cut under the budget.

All of this seems obvious to me. I hope I can safely assume it is obvious to Senator's Nelson and Bayh as well. What this means is they are being dishonest. Perhaps the reason for the dishonestly is a power grab. They saw the attention and power Senator's Snowe, Collins and Specter were able to garner from the stimulus...maybe they want their own. This caucus of blue dog Democrats does nobody any good except those blue dog Democrats.

Yglesias had a great tongue and cheek post on this earlier today. It reads:

Are you one of the 95 percent of Americans whose taxes would be cut under Barack Obama’s budget? Does the thought of that tax cut being paid for by tax increases on the wealthiest 2 percent of the population strike terror into your heart? If so, you’re in [luck], because it’s not just Republicans who are eager to spare you from this nightmare moderate Democrats such as Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson want to keep the rich as rich as possible too

He goes on to point out that in Evan Bayh's state of Indiana in order for someone to see a tax increase under Obama's proposed budget they would need to make 6 times the median income. Perhaps 95% of Indiana would like to know that.