TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | economy

Elizabeth Warren Once Again Calls for Accountability, Starting with Jamie Dimon

“The guy in the street in 2008 and 2009 was worried about his or her deposits, and now it’s clear they should still be worried,” said Charles Geisst, a Wall Street historian and professor at Manhattan College. “An average person looks at this and thinks, ‘What exactly happened here? How could this happen again?’ And they don’t want excuses as to why it happened. They just want it to go away. But it’s not going away.” – Obama’s Wall Street problem, by Ben White

OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION are critical, because once again we learn that the big banks won’t do it themselves. Elizabeth Warren demanded accountability once again, starting with Jamie Dimon.

“I’d like to see Jamie Dimon, for example, resign from his position as a class a director of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.” – Senate candidate Elizabeth Warrren

Speaking to Charlie Rose on CBS “This Morning” today, the woman who envisioned the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, only to have Pres. Obama overlook her to run the agency, which has her now running for the Senate in Massachusetts against Scott Brown, took on JPMorgan Chase’s $2 billion loss, which could put the entire American recovery in danger.

From Warren’s website, an online petition demanding Wall Street accountability. Considering Warren began the accountability call, it’s not like this is just an empty campaign trick.

JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon should resign from the NY Federal Reserve Bank Board

Last week, JP Morgan Chase announced a $2 billion trading loss in two months.

Sunday on Meet the Press, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon said, “We know we were sloppy, we know we were stupid, we know there was bad judgment.”

After the biggest financial crisis in generations, Americans are frustrated that Wall Street has still not been held accountable and does not appear to consider itself responsible. Wall Street banks continue to have fundamental problems, and tough oversight and accountability are urgently needed.

Dimon is not only the CEO of JP Morgan, he is also a member of the Board of Directors of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, where he advises the Federal Reserve on the oversight of the financial industry.

Dimon should resign from his post at the New York Fed to send a signal to the American people that Wall Street bankers get it and to show that they understand the need for responsibility and accountability.

If this is happening to Dimon’s bank you can bet it’s happening elsewhere.

This is yet another wake up call for the Obama administration, because nothing threatens Barack Obama’s reelection trajectory more than an economic assault on the recovery. The problem is that damning the Administration won’t solve the problem, because conservatives of both parties are against regulation, with Republicans the leading advocate for banks regulating themselves.

Mitt Romney is against Wall Street regulation, including Dodd-Frank.

The two rock stars of Wall Street reform remain Elizabeth Warren and Ron Paul.

Jamie Dimon, a 1% Wall Street tycoon with one of the best records in banking, though anyone can argue that’s not saying much, proves that even the mightiest can fall, which includes the American economic system, too. It happened in 2008 and don’t think it can’t happen again.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Dimon’s Disgrace is on Congress

The biggest blow-up between Wall Street and Washington since 2010, when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act to tighten oversight of the financial industry, comes just as regulators are drafting new rules governing banks. A signature feature of the law is the Volcker Rule, a prohibition on banks engaging in speculative bets. The authors of the act say the measure might have prevented JPMorgan’s bad trades had it been in effect. – JPMorgan losses reignite clash between Wall Street and Washington

Regulators are investigating potential civil violations surrounding the $2 billion loss that JPMorgan Chase disclosed on Thursday, raising further questions about trading activities at the nation’s biggest bank. – S.E.C. Opens Investigation Into JPMorgan’s $2 Billion Loss

JAMIE DIMON APOLOGIZED to David Gregory for his very first interview for “Meet the Press” this weekend, when he sat down to talk, but because of disclosure rules omitted the whopping $2 billion loss on derivatives that landed on Thursday, the day after his first taping session. Dimon sat down again with Gregory after the loss was announced.

“We know we were sloppy. We know we were stupid,” Mr. Dimon said. Of the S.E.C.’s investigation, he said, “Regulators should look at something like this – that’s their job.”

After news of the massive trading losses hit on Thursday, Mr. Dimon called Mr. Gregory to apologize for omitting the information during their earlier interview, Mr. Gregory said in an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box Friday morning.

“He was very forthcoming,” Mr. Gregory said. “This was a big-time screw-up, in his words.”

This proves Wall Street hasn’t changed at all.

For the second Sunday in a row, Gregory has the interview of the week, Dimon’s first on “Meet the Press,” even if Biden’s didn’t start out that way, but ended up rocking politics.

Few get to see Eliot Spitzer, the former sheriff of Wall Street on Current TV, the replacement for Keith Olbermann, but he’s as good on substance as any television show on cable and well beyond the infotainment partisan class we all are forced to view or see no political TV at all. His enemies on Wall Street found his weakness and brought him down by it and now he’s on Current TV, after dismal ratings on CNN, because his PBS style of anchoring doesn’t have enough flash for the infotainment circuit.

Jamie Dimon was one of the leading voices against the Volker Rule. Dimon is the biggest example of why neither Democrats or Republicans are the answer for what ails this country, because it’s clear both parties are so in the Wall Street tank they’ll never hold them accountable for much of anything.

But don’t tell partisans this, because they’re too busy blowing their guy’s horn, instead of championing what needs to be done to get our economic house in order and pressuring politicians to do it or lose the vote. It has absolutely nothing to do with the debt, but revolves around cutting Pentagon bloat instead of the Paul Ryan insanity conservatives of both parties voted to do in the House this week, which was to replace the sequestration or the automatic cuts built in to give more to the Pentagon. The Bush tax cuts need to be rescinded, including for the middle class, with the smart move no one will make is taxing income for Social Security above the current $164,000 cap, while raising taxes on the top 2%.

Mission accomplished, no thanks required.

Except that Paul Ryan and the Republicans refuse to raise revenue, with Republican and Democratic conservatives both making sure the Volker Rule was weakened. Who’s your Wall Street daddy?

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Obama to Voters: ACA Rebate Checks are in the Mail

THE KAISER FOUNDATION estimates that 16 million insurance policyholders will receive $1.3 billion in rebates.

If insider Mark Halperin is writing positively about ACA, you know something is about to hit.

But the rebate provision of the law — the fruits of the so-called “80/20 rule” — is about to kick in big time, as millions of Americans receive rebate checks or premium reductions from insurance companies who have failed to spend enough on patient care. This cash could be a true game changer in public attitudes about whether the law actually is beneficial and good public policy. The rebate provision of the law has been known and discussed in health care policy circles for months, but has largely flown below the radar in the political world and for voters—until now.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius explains the measure in a Friday blog post on the department website: “You can be sure that insurance companies are spending generally at least 80 cents of every dollar you pay in premiums on your health care or activities that improve health care quality,” she writes. “If the insurance company fails to meet this standard, or the ‘medical loss ratio,’ in any year, they have to pay you a rebate.”

It’s an important part of the goody package in Obama’s health care plan that was needed a long time ago to form a buttress against the negative talking points that have already built up in many minds.

Better late than never and in an election year that can be enough.

Now we wait for what the Supreme Court decides next month.

Next week is women’s health week. Do something to improve your health no matter how small it sounds. It takes more than a “diet.” It’a about a healthy lifestyle. That’s why diets don’t work.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

The Bain Bully

WITH EVERY EXCRUCIATING day that passes in this interminably long march to November, it’s clear that Mitt Romney really is as bad as his Republican opponents said he was during the primaries.

It doesn’t take a Washington Post “hit piece” on a decades-old event to prove Mitt had the stuff for the vulture capital market from the start.

If anything is indicative of the kind of economic hatchet man Mitt Romney would be as president, his high school bullying story reveals it. Consider yourself this kid he targeted, with you’re economic world being chopped up by the bully who backs the Paul Ryan austerity plan.

Republicans are squealing like little girls over this story, which is old news being broken under the cover of vetting. Their problem is that it confirms a character issue that surfaces every time you think of Mitt Romney and his theory of the American dream, which is not even trickle down, because he’s actually going to cut away the ground beneath us.

Read full story · Comments { 43 }

Republicans Already Lost Hispanics, Now Shoot for Losing Next Generation

“While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been clear. We support maintaining marriage between one man and one woman and would oppose any attempts to change that.” – Reince Priebus, RNC

Fox Nation headline, via Media Matters (It was changed within an hour.)

IT’S GOING TO BE A HOT TIME at George Clooney’s Hollywood fundraiser for Pres. Obama tonight.

May the gods bless V.P. Joe Biden, who laid down a solid roll out for Barack Obama by speaking out on “Meet the Press” that was followed by a statement from the President that made history.

Even Alex Castellanos on CNN, after Obama’s statement became breaking news, questioned the intelligence of Republicans being against love, which will leave the next generation out of reach. Yes, Alex Castellanos actually said that, though he also said Obama will lose “Reagan Democrats, the cultural blue-collar Reagan Democrats in states like Ohio and North Carolina and Pennsylvania — important swing states.” Evidently, Mr. Castellanos missed the jailbird vote in West Virginia from Tuesday, because the voters he cites are already long gone for Obama.

If you want to be cynical, the President’s statement on marriage equality will excite Obama’s Democratic base, if anything, which is really what he needs to do right now.

Obama’s statement of support for marriage equality also lands same sex couples in a position to put states rights on trial through their pocketbooks. Because if you’re gay or lesbian and in a committed partnership or want to be, there’s no reason to continue to live in a state that doesn’t respect your civil right to form a legal family, proving it doesn’t deserve your money. Jobs make it rough to bolt, but living openly and being legally protected in a loving family should become an economic issue for states, because that’s where the battles will now be fought.

A message from Pres. Obama is important, but it won’t change everything, because we all know Congress is worthless, with Pres. Obama making the decision his administration would no longer defend section 3 of DOMA over a year ago.

So, with all this to talk about, it makes perfect sense that an article from Politico, written by Glenn Thrush and Carrie Budoff Brown, surfaced casting “blame” on Biden. Because we all have to keep churning stuff out no matter how ridiculous and Politico couldn’t seem to think outside their insider bubble to cast a net toward Republicans and what it means for them. Instead, the high school version was assigned, with thesaurus at the ready, on how Biden “forced” Obama’s hand, “deeply annoyed Obama’s team,” followed by the weirdly written phrase “nor did it tickle anyone” that Joe had been caught on video being Joe. It was followed by “chafed,” to once again describe the Obama team’s reaction to V.P. Joe Biden’s remarks. All of this came after an initial piece from Politico reporting “Biden forced Obama’s hand”… blah, blah, blah.

Politico’s Thrush and Budoff Brown dumbed it all down to this: “But the damage control was anything but a joke.”

When does a statement of support delivered by the president of the United States to people who love one another, encouraging acceptance of them to be able to form a family with legal protections, including for children, require “damage control”?

Maggie Haberman reports what I believe is the strongest angle in the whole unwinding, which didn’t begin this week, whether we’re talking Biden or Arne Duncan, but was a cumulative evolution that was helped exponentially by the strong views of First Lady Michelle Obama, along with an assist from Valeria Jarrett. These two women have given Pres. Obama his best council, most of which surfaced in action well after Rahm Emanuel’s departure, in case anyone is keeping track.

Then there was Barack Obama’s two young daughters, Sasha and Malia, the next generation capable of teaching each of us where the future lies if we listen. Is it so hard to believe their dad did just that?

However, if any one thing was the trip wire for Obama speaking out now it was just as likely to have been the painful and obviously disastrous White House press briefing by Jay Carney. If that didn’t shock Pres. Obama into moving nothing would, because it unfolded in a manner that proved the subject was never going to be tamped down.

The most important story beyond Pres. Obama making history is where this leaves the Republican party and Mitt Romney.

In the dust of things undone from the 20th century and they’re evidently not going to budge. This is the story, because it’s a jolting moment for the GOP, as the Democratic party lays down yet another historic civil rights marker, this time for activists to follow in states across the country.

Mitt Romney’s comments were predictably small, because they’re moored in religious conservatism, well outside the fulcrum of civil rights.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, while challenging Obama on marriage equality, which has now been met by the President, easily wipes the floor with Romney on the issue, who’s becoming a less attractive presidential candidate every day.

“Well, when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” Romney told KDVR. “My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.” – Yahoo! News

We can no longer accept or tolerate religious interference in the business of progress, because as a nation we can no longer afford the price we pay in productivity.

It’s like the entire world is moving to a place in the 21st century that encourages the expansion of civil rights and human rights, while Republicans hold fast to the notion that “Leave it to Beaver” can be recreated off a Hollywood set in a century that will leave the U.S. behind if we don’t empower every American to their best self, their best life, which includes bringing more and more families, as well as forgotten children, together, uniting loved ones in honor, dignity and protected status so that no person feels excluded from the pursuit of happiness and the American dream.

Fox Nation screencapture via Media Matters.

Read full story · Comments { 84 }

Will Sen. Joe Manchin Join the Jailbird?

My message is simple: WTFU. Translated — wake the you-know-what up, there is an earthquake. … I ask: What are you smoking? What are you drinking? What are you snorting or just what in the hell are you thinking? Look around the world — do you see any governments or incumbents winning any elections out there? – Carville: Wake up Democrats; you could lose

Federal prisoner Keith Russell Judd, 49, at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Beaumont, Texas in March 15, 2008. (h/t Buzzfeed)

VOTING FOR A JAILBIRD instead of Pres. Obama, the AP is reporting 4 in 10 voters in West Virginia prefer a criminal white man over our African American president. America should be so proud. Makes you wonder if Sen. Joe Manchin will join his fellow West Virginians, because he’s already hinted he may not support Obama in November. Of course, there’s absolutely no indication Manchin is racist, however, the same cannot be said for many anti-Obama voters.

…A lawyer from Tennessee, John Wolfe, pulled nearly 18,000 votes in the Louisiana primary. In Alabama, 18 percent of Democratic voters chose “uncommitted” in the primary rather than vote for Obama.

Obama’s energy policies and the Environmental Protection Agency’s handling of mining-related permits have incurred the wrath of West Virginia’s coal industry. With the state the nation’s second-biggest producer of this fossil fuel, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin and Sen. Joe Manchin -both Democrats have championed the industry – have declined to say whether they will support Obama in November.

So, Manchin’s dirty energy ties will keep him from voting for Pres. Obama? He’s a Democratic senator, so you have to wonder what good party affiliation is when you can’t even get your own Blue Dog Dems to vote for you.

When you’re voting for a criminal over a the first African American president the reason is obvious.

That Democrats assume they’ll win in November is understandable given how bad a politician Mitt Romney has proven to be, coupled with the crazy Republican primary die hards have watched over these past months. The problem is that Etch a Sketch politicians have been a staple of our country for a long time, so there’s no reason to believe that voters won’t choose one again.

People are discontented.

But voting for a jailbird?

What puts this all into perspective is that Pres. Obama and the Democratic party chose to have their convention in North Carolina, an anti-union right-to-work state that just passed Amendment One against marriage equality and even civil unions, where Obama will deliver his acceptance speech at Bank of American stadium.

Whatever the considerations in the choice, a lot about Charlotte goes unmentioned: double-digit unemployment, overflowing homeless shelters and North Carolina’s notorious restrictions on labor unions. [...] When the president takes to the podium at the field named for BofA, it ought to be “a moment of mild embarrassment” for his party, says U.S. Rep. Brad Miller, a Tar Heel Democrat. “There’ll probably be a night of wincing,” Miller says. “One of the Obama administration’s greatest vulnerabilities is that they have been seen, correctly, as too inclined to accommodate the banks.” – Huffington Post

The Democratic party simply isn’t what it used to be.

However, according to Gallup recently, Obama has a two-point advantage on voter enthusiasm in swing states right now. So, as much as I appreciate Carville’s partisan freak out, unless Mitt Romney can make a move on Hispanics, I’m just not seeing this the way Carville is. The race remains Pres. Obama’s to lose, though that’s very possible.

Oh, and about Amendment One passing in North Carolina, where the Democratic party is planting their convention flag. Pres. Obama is “disappointed” about the vote. Who exactly is that supposed to impress?

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 39 }

Obama’s Reelection Made Easier via the Electoral College

President Barack Obama walks along the Colonnade of the White House on his way to the Oval Office, May 3, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

MARK HALPERIN PROVIDES what he calls the “informal slogan” of Obama reelect: “be confident, but take nothing for granted.”

From his TIME magazine piece, which lays out four problems for Mitt Romney, the view from the ultimate insider’s insider.

First, in the view of the Obamans, Romney is still a weak candidate. His stump skills continue to be uneven at best, with speeches plagued by awkward jargon and passionless rhetoric. They believe his tenure as head of Bain Capital and his term as governor of Massachusetts conceal vulnerabilities yet to be unveiled. “No one’s ever looked at Romney’s record, and there’s a lot there,” said one senior campaign official. “He developed this set of values at Bain about what the economy is all about… Whatever it took to make money… He took that same philosophy to Massachusetts” as governor. Obama’s team is sitting on a multimedia treasure trove of research about both phases of Romney’s career and expect to launch powerful missiles at key moments throughout the campaign, discombobulating the Republican each time.

[...] Because Chicago has expanded its electoral-map targets by exactly one McCain 2008 state – Arizona – and because the popular vote is expected to be closer than it was four years ago, the Obama team is not being coy when it admits this will be a close election. But as of the first week of May, it is not a close election any of the team’s members expects to lose.

To Mark Halperin I’d simply respond, austerity is a loser. See France. Ask David Cameron, no, strike that, because he’s another bloke who can’t admit when he’s wrong.

It’s very difficult to beat an incumbent president, but when you have an inferior politician whose base is also not enamored with him it makes it even rougher. And since Mitt Romney has also been short-sided enough to vilify any sort of sane immigration policy, going up against the toughest deportation president who bests George W. on enforcement, while also supporting the DREAM Act, it’s near to impossible with the Electoral College in play.

Of course, if the Electoral College was to be abolished, which it should be, in favor of the popular vote, Pres. Obama wouldn’t be nearly as confident and his team would be scrambling to truly get out each and every out.

The American public agrees, with Gallup reporting back in October 2011 that 62% of Americans want to “scrap” the Electoral College.

The Electoral College got a brief spate of attention in 2000, when George Bush became president even though he lost the popular vote to Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes. Many people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors. It’s a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president. – MAKING VOTES COUNT; Abolish the Electoral College (New York Times, 2004)

Instead, it’s a contest of a handful of states that will get the attention, as well as the avalanche of negative ads.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Biggest Loser After Anti-Austerity Vote in France? Infotainment Host, Joe Scarborough

For Worst Financial Analysis in Infotainment

POOR JOE SCAROBOROUGH. You had to almost feel sorry for the irascible infotainment host this morning.

The months and months of economic mumbo jumbo offered on “Morning Joe,” particularly by the host himself, which masquerades as financial analysis but is actually Paul Ryan austerity propaganda, blew up in his Starburck’s over the weekend. What’s the financial wingnut to do now? Tying himself in knots over voters in France, as well as Greece, turning out the austerity plans of Angela Merkel made him even crankier than usual on Monday (at least from the couple of clips I checked out online).

That Paul Krugman’s analysis continues to win out has got to be particularly galling for the guy.

What is true is that Mr. Hollande’s victory means the end of “Merkozy,” the Franco-German axis that has enforced the austerity regime of the past two years. This would be a “dangerous” development if that strategy were working, or even had a reasonable chance of working. But it isn’t and doesn’t; it’s time to move on. Europe’s voters, it turns out, are wiser than the Continent’s best and brightest.

What’s wrong with the prescription of spending cuts as the remedy for Europe’s ills? One answer is that the confidence fairy doesn’t exist — that is, claims that slashing government spending would somehow encourage consumers and businesses to spend more have been overwhelmingly refuted by the experience of the past two years. So spending cuts in a depressed economy just make the depression deeper.

Of course, Scarborough will remain in denial, which is best seen whenever his nemesis Donnie Deutsch slams Republican economics, something that drives Scarborough nuts, though I actually believe it’s more a mano-a-mano problem for the “Morning Joe” host whose ego can’t handle anyone being right but him; something that is seen daily through Scarborough exchanges and Buzzfeed recently reviewed as a “cacophony of arguing.”

The second most entertaining reaction came in a weird column today by Robert Reich, with a title that is not only contrived but obvious in its intent.

The Answer Isn’t Socialism; It’s Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution

It seems set up as an offensive rebuttal of what may come from Republicans and to help the Obama administration, because we all know invoking “socialism” for any part of American public policy is the Democratic fear of fears.

But as Lawrence O’Donnell tries to remind people every chance he gets, America has been a mix of Democratic ideals and socialism going back to at least F.D.R., though Teddy R. and others made their contributions, too. Even the Tea Party likes their entitlements, so to have a renowned economic analyst like Reich, who is really playing the role of Democratic partisan here, make the case for “Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution” is down right amusing.

What Reich and his ilk are actually trying to do is stem off criticism from Republicans to meld Pres. Obama’s economic message, though I still maintain he doesn’t have one, with that of anti-austerity president-elect François Hollande, who’s been invited to the White House amid warnings from Obama on Afghanistan and the European financial crisis.

Anyone trying to associate Obama with socialism is not only ignorant of the latter, but knows absolutely nothing about the former.

As I’ve written previously, president-elect François Hollande’s idea to lower the retirement age for some workers to 60 is daft. However, thinking Pres. Obama is a socialist is simply partisan propaganda, because there remains a high probability that in his second term, if he gets one, the grand bargain on entitlements will indeed manifest in some form through the Democratic leader, which will be backed by most members of his party.

On the other side, there can be little doubt Mitt Romney would attempt entitlement “reform” as well, which if it comes in the form of the Paul Ryan plan would be a disaster for us all, though it no doubt would make certain infotainment hosts very happy.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Anti-Austerity François Hollande Elected President of France

Mr. Hollande, the first Socialist French president in nearly two decades, has vowed to pursue efforts initiated by Mr. Sarkozy to reduce the government’s budget deficit. But he said he would ask wealthy households to contribute more by raising taxes to 75% from 41% for people earning more than €1 million ($1.3 million) a year. On the international front, Mr. Hollande has said one of his first decisions would be to fast-track the withdrawal of French soldiers from Afghanistan. – Wall Street Journal

ANGELA MERKEL’S AUSTERITY leadership is slowly but surely being rebutted in elections that prove people are getting sick of policies that aren’t remedying euro-zone troubles, with François Hollande’s tax the richest plan to fight the budget deficit now about to be taken out for a spin.

With a victory by a roughly 52%-48% margin over conservative incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy in the second and final round of the election, Mr. Hollande won a solid mandate to challenge German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has imposed spending cuts as the main remedy to repair the public finances of heavily indebted European countries. Mr. Hollande, who has never held a national-government position, was planning to speak to Ms. Merkel over the phone later Sunday, an aide said.

But he said he would ask wealthy households to contribute more by raising taxes to 75% from 41% for people earning more than €1 million ($1.3 million) a year. On the international front, Mr. Hollande has said one of his first decisions would be to fast-track the withdrawal of French soldiers from Afghanistan.

When you think of Pres. Obama’s strategic punt in Afghanistan, which puts us meddling in that country until 2024, with Mitt Romney even worse on this subject, you get an idea of just how out of touch the political elite remains in this country.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

The Never Ending Sexual Saga of Dominique Strauss-Kahn

SOME PIECE OF WORK Strauss-Kahn is turning out to be, with the latest headlines screaming…

Dominique Strauss-Kahn could face gang rape charges after US hotel orgy

I’m still wondering who at Huffington Post will get the Anne Sinclair interview? Sinclair is Strauss-Kahn’s wife, as well as the editor of Le Huffington Post, whose endurance has got to be at the point of breaking. His dangerous libido is putting her through yet another round of fresh hell.

France could have been stuck with the guy as president. That he was a respected member of the world elite, running the World Bank, is something worthy of pondering. If he weren’t among the 1% of the world’s 1% how would the police have handled his excursions?

The latest reports from the French media are harrowing, via the UK Telegraph:

During questioning in the so-called Carlton case – as many of the prostitutes operated out of a hotel of that name in Lille, northern France – Marie-Anne S. described a “violent scene” in the upmarket W hotel, near the White House.

She said Mr Strauss-Kahn “used force” against her. “He held my hands. He pulled my hair, he hurt me,” she told judges, adding that the former French finance minister tried to sodomise her.

“I refused saying no, I don’t want to…I clearly said I didn’t want to several times, out loud,” she reportedly told the judges.

French elections are Sunday and it looks like anti-austerity Socialist François Hollande, after winning the recent debate, as well as garnering a “centrist” endorsement, is poised to take the presidential prize.

“Ah that debate.” Mr Hollande said to chants of “François President”. “The incumbent placed so much hope on it … He thought he would eat me up in one mouthful, but I’m afraid he ended up going hungry.” – UK Telegraph

If François Hollande wins on Sunday, one of his brainy ideas is to lower the retirement age to 60 for some workers. It’s positively mad.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Jobs Numbers Reveal 24.9% Unemployment Among Teens

In April, teenagers had a 24.9 percent unemployment rate, compared with a 7.5 percent for adult men and 7.4 percent among adult women. – ABC News

Labor Force Participation Rate Lowest Since 1981

PARTISANS, start your engines, though no one can spin the teen unemployment numbers, which are disastrous.

The unemployment rate is down to 8.1%.

Only 115,000 jobs were added.

There’s also reports revealing large numbers of people have left the workforce, revealing the reason behind lower unemployment number, which is reportedly the lowest since 1981.

You’re not going to change that with the Ryan plan, which is Mitt Romney’s biggest problem. Just ask David Cameron how well austerity has worked for him and you get the nut of just how disastrous Paul Ryan has been politically for Republicans.

With Chuck Todd this morning, Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics said that unemployment insurance running out for older Americans means these people are likely to retire, causing part of the exodus from the workforce. Zandi said manufacturing is going “great guns” and, for what it’s worth, he predicted that by the end of the year unemployment would be “definitively below 8%.”

The psychological impact of unemployment dipping below 8% or the mere fact it’s going in the right direction is very good news for Obama’s reelection chances, while giving Romney a real problem spinning can’t counter. When this subject hits the fall presidential debates it will make it even harder for voters to take a chance on Republicans.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

White House: “We can’t do anything about Drudge”

**updated**

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S SECRET TRIP TO AFGHANISTAN was kept under wraps by responsible news media and members of the White House Press Corp.

The New York Post and Drudge could have cared less, with Drudge swapping links to keep the leak alive, while putting Pres. Obama’s life in danger.
Everyone has their priorities.

Zeke Miller of Buzzfeed has the incredible tick-tock and the story.

Per Jay Carney, via the pool report, after Obama’s speech to the troops, he visited a hospital on Bagram Airbase, gave out 10 purple hearts, as well as addressed the troops on the military radio system, thanking them for their service and what they continue to do.

As for Pres. Obama’s remarks and the strategic agreement, the U.S. will be in Afghanistan for many years to come, through 2024 in a “support role.”

There are so many questions left to answer it’s unfathomable where to start.

As Prepared for Delivery

Good evening from Bagram Air Base. This outpost is more than seven thousand miles from home, but for over a decade it has been close to our hearts. Because here, in Afghanistan, more than half a million of our sons and daughters have sacrificed to protect our country.

Today, I signed an historic agreement between the United States and Afghanistan that defines a new kind of relationship between our countries – a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states; a future in which the war ends, and a new chapter begins.

Tonight, I’d like to speak to you about this transition. But first, let us remember why we came here. It was here, in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden established a safe-haven for his terrorist organization. It was here, in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda brought new recruits, trained them, and plotted acts of terror. It was here, from within these borders, that al Qaeda launched the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children.

And so, ten years ago, the United States and our allies went to war to make sure that al Qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us. Despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. In 2002, bin Laden and his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe-havens in Pakistan. America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in Iraq. And al Qaeda’s extremist allies within the Taliban have waged a brutal insurgency.

But over the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban’s momentum. We’ve built strong Afghan Security Forces. We devastated al Qaeda’s leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. The goal that I set – to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild – is within reach.

Still, there will be difficult days ahead. The enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over. But tonight, I’d like to tell you how we will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan.

First, we have begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Already, nearly half the Afghan people live in places where Afghan Security Forces are moving into the lead. This month, at a NATO Summit in Chicago, our coalition will set a goal for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the Afghans, and fight alongside them when needed. But we will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward.

As we do, our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady pace, with more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.

Second, we are training Afghan Security Forces to get the job done. Those forces have surged, and will peak at 352,000 this year. The Afghans will sustain that level for three years, and then reduce the size of their military. And in Chicago, we will endorse a proposal to support a strong and sustainable long-term Afghan force.

Third, we are building an enduring partnership. The agreement we signed today sends a clear message to the Afghan people: as you stand up, you will not stand alone. It establishes the basis of our cooperation over the next decade, including shared commitments to combat terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions. It supports Afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for their people. And it includes Afghan commitments to transparency and accountability, and to protect the human rights of all Afghans – men and women, boys and girls.

Within this framework, we will work with the Afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014: counter-terrorism and continued training. But we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains. That will be the job of the Afghan people.

Fourth, we are pursuing a negotiated peace. In coordination with the Afghan government, my Administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban – from foot soldiers to leaders – have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before them. Those who refuse to walk it will face strong Afghan Security Forces, backed by the United States and our allies.

Fifth, we are building a global consensus to support peace and stability in South Asia. In Chicago, the international community will express support for this plan, and for Afghanistan’s future. I have made it clear to Afghanistan’s neighbor – Pakistan – that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Pakistan’s sovereignty, interests, and democratic institutions. In pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al Qaeda safe-havens, and respect for Afghan sovereignty.

As we move forward, some people will ask why we need a firm timeline. The answer is clear: our goal is not to build a country in America’s image, or to eradicate every vestige of the Taliban. These objectives would require many more years, many more dollars, and many more American lives. Our goal is to destroy al Qaeda, and we are on a path to do exactly that. Afghans want to fully assert their sovereignty and build a lasting peace. That requires a clear timeline to wind down the war.

Others will ask why we don’t leave immediately. That answer is also clear: we must give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. Otherwise, our gains could be lost, and al Qaeda could establish itself once more. And as Commander-in-Chief, I refuse to let that happen.

I recognize that many Americans are tired of war. As President, nothing is more wrenching than signing a letter to a family of the fallen, or looking in the eyes of a child who will grow up without a mother or father. I will not keep Americans in harm’s way a single day longer than is absolutely required for our national security. But we must finish the job we started in Afghanistan, and end this war responsibly.

My fellow Americans, we have traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm’s way has been cut in half, and more will be coming home soon. We have a clear path to fulfill our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al Qaeda.

This future is only within reach because of our men and women in uniform. Time and again, they have answered the call to serve in distant and dangerous places. In an age when so many institutions have come up short, these Americans stood tall. They met their responsibilities to one another, and the flag they serve under. I just met with some of them, and told them that as Commander-in-Chief, I could not be prouder. In their faces, we see what is best in ourselves and our country.

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, coast guardsmen and civilians in Afghanistan have done their duty. Now, we must summon that same sense of common purpose. We must give our veterans and military families the support they deserve, and the opportunities they have earned. And we must redouble our efforts to build a nation worthy of their sacrifice.

As we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it is time to renew America. An America where our children live free from fear, and have the skills to claim their dreams. A united America of grit and resilience, where sunlight glistens off soaring new towers in downtown Manhattan, and we build our future as one people, as one nation.

Here, in Afghanistan, Americans answered the call to defend their fellow citizens and uphold human dignity. Today, we recall the fallen, and those who suffer wounds seen and unseen. But through dark days we have drawn strength from their example, and the ideals that have guided our nation and lit the world: a belief that all people are created equal, and deserve the freedom to determine their destiny.

That is the light that guides us still. This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end. With faith in each other and our eyes fixed on the future, let us finish the work at hand, and forge a just and lasting peace. May God bless our troops. And may God bless the United States of America.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Obama Ad: ‘Just what you’d expect from a guy who had a Swiss bank account’

Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W. Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years into Obama’s own presidency, those declines have only deepened. – Bloomberg

AS BACKGROUND, let me offer that the White House has never frozen me out of releases and press accounts because of criticism I’ve launched in their direction, which at times has been withering. I’m not invited to insider gaggles, but that’s perfectly understandable, because I’m not “a friend” of any politician at this point.

So, I’d post the response from team Romney to the ad above, because it’s my job and I’ve pledged to offer both sides, as I’m not endorsing anyone in 2012. Additionally, as I’ve written many times before, I think Obama and Romney are political bookends to a problem we have in politics that begins with the 1% buying the presidential election. But interestingly, ever since I asked team Romney an honest question about baptismal for the dead via Twitter, they’ve refused requests for campaign emails and press related material. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, so I’ve tried yet again this morning, so we’ll see what happens.

I certainly have a liberal bias, which I state openly and is also obvious, but my partisan political days for the sake of electing a Democrat are o-v-e-r and I get enough pro-Romney fodder and comments from long-time readers, as well as Independents, that I also feel compelled to offer both sides, which needs to come from the teams themselves whenever possible.

In full disclosure and in way of explanation of coverage I’ve given Pres. Obama recently, when he put forth free contraception for women, which Mitt Romney and the Republican are against, it was an lucrative economic prize for women that makes a difference in their daily lives for which Obama deserves credit. It comes after Obama’s very early and strong support for the Lily Ledbetter Act, which the Republican party was against, which equaled the playing field for women who were discriminated against in their jobs. These two issues alone, whether I’m a partisan or not, not only deserve mention and praise, but in the battle for the women’s vote gives Pres. Obama the advantage, because he’s proven his support on serious and pressing economic issues that can impact women. Both Ledbetter and free contraception directly affect the bottom line of single women, as well as working women, including those with families, while also being two policy decisions that Republicans opposed strongly. To not state bluntly that credit is due because it’s earned would be dishonest.

It’s the Romney campaign’s choice not to include me on their daily press list, though it requires no extra effort to do so. But if you’re wondering why you’re not getting their side of the story from the campaign’s mouth it’s because they won’t offer it to me and if that’s their stance I feel no compunction to go searching for it. I say this because long-time readers are now Romney supporters, as are some Independents that stop here, not to mention women who are concentrating on their financial status and not contraception, so not giving them the campaign’s version needs to be laid at team Romney’s doorstep, not mine.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Bill As Barack’s Ultimate ATM Machine

When he took the backyard podium, Obama, 50, noted Clinton’s “remarkable” economic record in his two White House terms and referred frequently to the political powerhouse standing behind him, who stands to be a huge fundraising force in the final months of the presidential campaign. – Obama and Bill Clinton campaign together on economy

IT WAS NEVER going to be otherwise.

That Barack Obama as a candidate in ’08 never once lauded former Pres. Bill Clinton’s economic record, preferring to cite Ronald Reagan instead, was one of the primary insults that caused the deep rift with staunch Hillary supporters. Pres. Obama has learned a lot since, most of it forced on him by circumstances of the job of president that is far more difficult than anyone can imagine from the outside looking in.

For Pres. Obama not to call on the ultimate Democratic ATM machine, William Jefferson Clinton, would be political malpractice, because against Mitt Romney and his Wall Street buddies, with an assist made possible by the Roberts court decision on Citizens United, he’s going to need all he can get in an election that will be a race to the bottom that depends on big cash cows.

The 44th president is enlisting the 42nd president, both as a historical validator of his own leadership and as a PIN to one of the richest A.T.M.’s in American politics. Rather than viewing him as a relic of the past, Mr. Obama is embracing Mr. Clinton as a party wise man who can reassure both the general public and the well-heeled benefactors needed to win re-election. – Hardly a Close Ally, Clinton Teams With Obama to Raise Cash and Votes, by Peter Baker

That Pres. Clinton offers a bank shot to the Hillary wing of the Democratic party is obvious. That many of these voters are still not enamored with Pres. Obama is true, but only part of the story.

In general election presidential years voting practicalities make even the most wayward Democrats come home, which I’ve been noting for over a year now. Pres. Clinton’s presence in the recent OBL ad, along with his fundraising efforts for Pres. Obama, reveal the common interests of party insiders when faced with a situation that could wreak havoc with what the Obama administration has tried to do economically.

“When you’re president, there are very few people to whom you can turn who really ‘get’ what the job demands,” Mr. Axelrod said. “President Clinton has been the source of very good advice, and very meaningful support.”

Privately, Democrats portray the evolving alliance as more utilitarian. “Once Obama’s out of office, I doubt they’ll take family vacations together,” said a former Clinton aide who has also worked for Mr. Obama and asked not to be named to avoid offending either man. “But Clinton thinks it’s critical for the country that he gets re-elected, and will do whatever he can to see that that happens.”

Another Democrat who has worked for both men said: “There’s no love lost. But Bill Clinton is not stupid. He knows if he can give a little of his 60-percent-plus approval rating halo to Obama, and Obama does well, that only helps Clinton. And it helps the missus if she wants to run.”

There’s a reason there is “no love lost,” which I recount in my book THE HILLARY EFFECT in chapters “Blaming Bill” and “Eating Your Own.”

What many anti-Obama Democrats simply will not accept is that when your average Democratic voter meets his or her choices inside the voting booth, looking at Mitt Romney’s willingness to adopt Paul Ryan austerity, as well as the hard right’s war on women, there isn’t a more practical choice than to pull the lever for Pres. Obama, even if it requires holding your nose to do it.

Pres. Clinton’s presence makes this more palatable.

The political disagreements I have with Obama are wide and deep domestically, but particularly on foreign policy, having been against the Libya bombing, as well as questioning his overreach of the Executive branch on a whole hosts of issues. But I’m anything but your average voter, who sees voting for president as a choice between two people, one who represents your basic political philosophy, even when you disagree, and the other guy, who is from another political planet, one that doesn’t believe in women’s individual freedoms, and that’s just for starters.

What Democrats offer women that Republicans don’t also extends to economic issues. The entire Republican party establishment voted against the Lily Ledbetter Act, which equalizes a woman’s options when she’s discriminated against by her employer. Nothing cuts to the heart of the American modern family more than a woman’s inequality at her job. While Mitt Romney says he won’t repeal Ledbetter, this is simply not good enough. Nothing less than a full-throated statement saying his party was wrong on the vote is acceptable. That should be a minimum standard for a Republican nominee who cannot win without women.

However, Mitt Romney is no William Jefferson Clinton, so even when the opportunity presents itself, which is accompanied by a moment to also help himself, there’s unlikely to be a Sister Souljah moment on women for Mitt.

Left out in the cold are The Gays, as Kathy Griffin would say. Neither Obama or Romney have the courage required to make equality a reality for all families. In 2016, you can bet Republicans still won’t be on board with that one, but just maybe if Hillary Clinton runs she will.

Unfortunately, neither Democrats or Republicans offer a way out on the hamster wheel of our insidious flailing that is the “war on drugs.” Both political parties are immune to reality, even when a person is sick or dying of a disease that medical marijuana can make more humane. There remains no politician willing to take on Big Pharma on behalf of medical marijuana and other options outside pharmaceutical dependency, because in U.S. politics, money decides policy.

TM NOTE: For the record, as I wrote earlier this year in “The Party’s Over,” I will not endorse anyone in 2012, and will abstain from voting for president altogether in order to cover it as I see it, which includes giving Pres. Obama credit when it’s due, as well as hell when it’s earned; and the same goes for Mitt Romney, though with his stance against women’s individual freedoms, I remain unimpressed with him as a 21st century candidate.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Secy. Clinton Flies to China Amid Diplomatic Crisis

“They’re trying to figure out what they’re going to tell Hillary Clinton,” the official said of the Chinese leaders, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic delicacy surrounding the case. “We’d like to know as much as we can before she leaves.” – The New York Times

THE U.S. EMBASSSY IN CHINA is rumored to be protecting Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, who is seen in the amazing video above after he escaped house arrest. The video was released on Friday and pictures Chen Prime appealing to Chinese Minister Wen Jiabao.

No one is talking inside the State Dept., with only Pres. Obama’s counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan addressing it through a question from Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” saying “we are working very closely with the individuals involved in this.” Not even about Kurt M. Campbell, an assistant secretary of state, who was pictured in China, but whom the United States will not say is actually in that country.

Clinton will be in China with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for two days of discussion in what is known as a Strategic and Economic Dialogue.

Chen Guangcheng’s crime is openly and adamantly disagreeing with the Chinese government’s one-child policy, as well as forced sterilization.

Mitt Romney made his first comment on the situation, which was brief, though you can argue he shouldn’t have made any at all. It’s simply not his place to opine.

“Any serious U.S. policy toward China must confront the facts of the Chinese government’s denial of political liberties, its one-child policy and other violation of human rights,” Mr. Romney said in a statement on Sunday, his first remarks on the issue since Mr. Chen’s escape was reported Friday.

I’m wondering if Mr. Romney realizes how China feels about blanket human rights statements, which they interpret as meddling in their internal affairs. It’s not a huge deal, but it’s not helpful and once again makes him sound like he just doesn’t understand the complicated intricacies of Chinese – U.S. relations, especially given the sticky circumstances surrounding Chen.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Why Is DOJ Wasting Money on John Edwards Soap Opera?

Guilt and innocence turn on one question: Was the money that Edwards used to keep Rielle Hunter in quiet comfort a campaign contribution? Edwards says no; the cash came as gifts from rich friends who wanted to help him deal with a private indiscretion. The feds say yes; the money was intended to cover up an affair that would have sunk Edwards’ campaign for the White House, thus making it a campaign donation. – Los Angeles Times

I still can’t figure it out. What he’s done is absolutely despicable and criminally stupid, but I cannot find the actual crime.

If you want to know the absurdity of our criminal justice system, the John Edwards trial gives the bookend example to the prejudice faced by the poor and people of color. A potential 30-year sentence is obscene, not to mention never been given for what Edwards is accuse of doing, as far as I can tell from the commentary available.

Speaking of absurd, Rielle Hunter is still begging for secrecy. The judge told her she’s nuts.

The Department of Justice should be pulled on the carpet for the waste of what will be millions of dollars on this “Days of Our Lives” political soap opera.

The idiot pretty boy deserves scorn, which he’s gotten by the Google page, but this is 2012 and the “crime” dates back years and the case will likely go on for years, through appeals, if the jury goes against Edwards.

As for Andrew Young, I wouldn’t trust that schmuck, who wrote one thing in his tell all book, having to also sign off that everything in it was the truth, but is now turning his prior statements into confetti.

Campaign finance laws from 2008 have also been turned upside down at this point.

More from the Los Angeles Times, which matches much of the commentary around the sphere:

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, corporations are now “people” and they are free to donate unlimited amounts of money to “super PACs” that “independently” promote candidates for president.

A corporate super PAC would have come in handy in 2008 when Edwards was trying to hide his girlfriend from his dying wife.

As for John Edwards allegedly calling Rielle Hunter “a crazy slut,” he should look in the mirror, something Edwards used to be very fond of doing.

Another part of the story that’s slowly being revealed is what Elizabeth Edwards knew and when she knew it, though only snippets of that have made it in the news. Suffice it to say that she knew more earlier than was previously believed.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Blue Dog Dems Go Down

Let there be dancing.

From the Washington Post:

Two conservative Democrats lost their seats in Pennsylvania tonight thanks to the state’s new congressional map.

Rep. Mark Critz beat Rep. Jason Altmire in a highly competitive member-vs-member Democratic primary for the 12th district, while Rep. Tim Holden (D) was defeated in a primary by lawyer Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania’s new 17th district.

Critz beat K Street man Tim Holden, who voted against Obama’s health care bill. It’s one thing to be against it, as Critz is, though he has said he won’t vote to repeal it. He wasn’t in office when the vote on ACA was held.

Blue America, part of the hero pack of progressives who targeted the Blue Dog Democrats who lossed, released a statement (h/t Crooks & Liars):

Blue America Treasurer Howie Klein said, “Blue America congratulates Matt Cartwright on his hard fought win and we pledge to continue that fight across the country wherever progressive candidates are working hard to free our political system from the entrenched interests on behalf of ordinary Americans. Our next stop is Wisconsin’s 1st congressional district where progressive businessman Rob Zerban is battling to defeat Republican poster boy Paul Ryan in a swing district. The establishment doesn’t think that’s possible, either. We think Rob can prove them all wrong once again.”

Cartwright evidently does a legal segment on the evening news, proving the Fox News model can pay if you want to jump from expert talking head to political candidate.

I’d like to see Sen. Bob Casey taken out, too, but he’s up against one-percenter, self-funded coal-mining rich man Tom Smith, so you have to ask what’s to be gained? You could say the same thing about Sen. Claire McCaskill’s brutal battle in Missouri. Republicans out of that crowd are nothing short of depressing, which often applies to Casey and McCaskill, too.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Ann Romney’s Mitt-ism

“I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids. Thank goodness that we value those people too. And sometimes life isn’t easy for any of us.” – Ann Romney

I bet women who don’t have a choice but to work and raise kids would rather live in a society where day care was accessible and affordable, with national health care offering benefits for people who can’t afford to insure their kids on their own.

Now, I’m not a fan of ACA, as people know, but having the alternative be no national health care at all is nuts.

Mitt Romney used to think health care was important, too. In fact, Republicans going back to Richard Nixon used to believe that national health care of some sort was imperative in America.

What happened to those Republicans?

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Mitt’s Twist on Reagan

After winning 5 states in a walk, Mitt Romney made his case and it was all economics. It wasn’t pretty, but it drove home his point. Then there was this:

Four years ago Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change. But after we came down to earth, after the celebration and parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama?

Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?

It’s Mitt’s answer to Reagan’s one-liner, are you better off than you were four years ago? The follow-ups were familiar, yet different too.

I see an America with a growing middle class, with rising standards of living. I see children even more successful than their parents – some successful even beyond their wildest dreams – and others congratulating them for their achievement, not attacking them for it.

This America is fundamentally fair. We will stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice; we will stop the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends’ businesses; we will stop the unfairness of requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing; we will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve; and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next.

In the America I see, character and choices matter. And education, hard work, and living within our means are valued and rewarded. And poverty will be defeated, not with a government check, but with respect and achievement that is taught by parents, learned in school, and practiced in the workplace.

It was a man putting bromides together that wouldn’t upset anyone, so he could be anything to everyone.

But who thinks poverty can be “defeated” through “respect and achievement”? What is he talking about?

Absolutely nothing and he intends on doing it through November 6th if he can. It’s not that Mitt Romney can’t put something of substance on the table. It’s that he’s scared to death if he tells people what he’d actually like to do, especially if his win ushers in a Republican Congress, independents and moderates will bolt.

If Romney wins the election, it’s almost a sure bet that Republicans win control of both the House and the Senate. And that matters. Right now, the GOP’s agenda is the Ryan budget, and that’s entirely fiscal: It’s a premium support plan for Medicare, and tax cuts, and deep cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and other domestic programs. All that can be passed through budget reconciliation — which is to say, all that can be made immune to the filibuster.Ezra Klein

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Romney Gets ‘Rare and Coveted’ Gepetto Check for Buffet Rule Attack

From Glenn Kessler:

The fiscal year 2013 federal budget is projected to have $3.803 trillion in outlays. So, dividing $5 billion into that figure, you end up with the Buffett Rule covering 0.131 percent of the budget. Given that there are 8,760 hours in a year, that works out to just over 11 hours.

[...] This dispute over baselines — and how they can be manipulated — is a pretty good example of Washington dysfunction. But, within those constraints, Romney’s math adds up. One could even say he was generous, since he could have argued that the Buffett Rule would pay for no government in its first two years.

Romney gets the rare and coveted Geppetto Checkmark.

What’s needed as a start is to employ the Buffet, aka Romney, Rule, while simultaneously rescinding all of the Bush tax cuts, including for the middle class, then extend the money line upward on taxable income for Social Security, coupled with bringing troops home from countries that can now take care of themselves.

But for now, Romney has outmaneuvered Obama on the Buffet rule, though it’s doubtful anyone cares. But it does illustrate what happens when the political argument for taxes isn’t about something broader than money. Symbolism matters.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }