On its face, the Warren pick seems like a slap in the face to the progressive gay movement, and I can understand why this group would be incensed. Here you have the first African-American President inviting one of the most high profile supporters of Prop 8 to speak at the inauguration.

And it’s not like Warren needs the spotlight.

However, Democrats should remember the platform Obama ran on during the primaries: unity and change.

And so we have to ask ourselves, what’s the most logical, pragmatic way to make that happen?

Is it…

1. Keep on playing the same old politics, invite people who only agree with you to the table and expect different results?

OR


2. Make sincere gestures to groups like the evangelicals via Warren so we can collectively start focusing on worldwide issues like poverty, global warming and the HIV/AIDS epidemic?

And, by the way, Warren is catching grief for this too…so that tells me that both men have something to lose and that shouldn’t be ignored. Because this is the kind of change we can believe in and while I’m absolutely, 100% opposed to Warren’s views on Prop 8, I can still appreciate the work he’s done to change opinions in the evangelical community about the issues I mentioned above.

Let’s hope more progressives do too and cut Obama some slack. Or hell, don’t cut him any slack. Either way, he’ll continue to make decisions that will probably anger the left and make the middle and center right happy. And that’s not necessarily the worst thing in a centrist country.

Looks like it’s a little bit longer than the 16 months Obama talked about during the primaries, but as long as the plan is to get out during his first term I bet he’ll allow the generals more time to execute a plan they think is realistic.

From NY Times:

The plan was proposed by the top American commanders responsible for Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus and Gen. Ray Odierno, and it represents their first recommendation on troop withdrawals under an Obama presidency. While Mr. Obama has said he will seek advice from his commanders, their resistance to a faster drawdown could present the new president with a tough political choice between overruling his generals or backing away from his goal.

The plan, completed last week, envisions withdrawing two more brigades, or some 7,000 to 8,000 troops, from Iraq in the first six months of 2009, the military officials said. But that would leave 12 combat brigades in Iraq by June 2009, and while declining to be more specific, the officials made clear that the withdrawal of all combat forces under the generals’ recommendations would not come until some time after May 2010, Mr. Obama’s target.

This is good news as it signals an end to the Iraq slog.

Now it’s time to let Iraqis figure it all out. Because whatever happens, we’re only delaying the inevitable.

More as it develops…

Of all the news that could come out of the White House regarding aid to the Big Three automakers, this is perhaps the most encouraging:

WASHINGTON — The White House said on Thursday that an “orderly” bankruptcy was one option being considered to try to rescue General Motors and Chrysler, which are seeking billions of dollars to avoid a shutdown.

President Bush’s spokeswoman, Dana Perino, confirmed growing speculation within legal circles that the president and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. were considering the step as part of an overall rescue package for the automobile industry.

The action would be unusual, and would require concessions by the United Automobile Workers union, suppliers, investment banks, the federal pension board, bondholders and other stakeholders in the two auto companies.

Unusual ? Perhaps to the extent that the government would be involved, but this sounds to me like the kind of pre-packaged bankruptcy that was being discussed last month:

The prospect of a managed bankruptcy for one or more of the companies has been explored for several weeks, dating back to an original request by the car makers to the Treasury Department for money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Mr. Paulson rejected that request, prompting the auto companies to appeal to Congress.

G.M. has retained Harvey R. Miller, a long-time bankruptcy lawyer, as its adviser. It is also being advised by William Repko, a long-time expert in restructuring with Evercore Partners who has worked with companies like United Airlines. And, G.M. is working with Arthur B. Newman of the Blackstone Group, another experienced restructuring adviser.

Chrysler has retained the law firm of Jones, Day to provide restructuring expertise, while several law firms in Washington and across the country also have been retained by companies that might be involved in a bankruptcy proceeding.

However, any filing by either of the automakers would not be imminent. It could take three months or more to reach the type of agreements the government might require before the companies seek bankruptcy protection. That time could give consumers used to the idea of dealing with a car company operating under court protection.

Some analysts have warned that Americans might be leery of buying cars from any company that was operating in bankruptcy. But other studies have shown that consumers would be assured if the companies received federal assistance, even if they end up in bankruptcy protection.

This isn’t perfect, but if it happens, and if the Obama Administration follows through on it, it is probably the best alternative out of a whole series of really bad options, and much better than the idea of giving taxpayer dollars to these companies on the promise that they will reform themselves.

As for the timing of all this, President Bush said today that he would act before leaving office, so I’m guessing we’ll see something by the start of the new year.

This isn’t going to make gay rights activists happy.

Barack Obama has selected evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Once again, Obama seems more interested in reaching out rather than reaching inwards towards his base.

While Warren is not of the fire-and-brimstone mold, he did play a prominent role in the success of California’s Proposition 8. Obama’s choice of Warren signals that the president-elect is not likely to enter the White House with a progressive gay rights agenda. He was apparently honest when, throughout the campaign, he said he did not support gay marriage.

But I’m surprised he’d look to a conservative such as Warren for this important moment. I guess Rev. Jeremiah Wright was busy that day.

Other prominent guests at Obama’s inauguration will not cause as much controversy. Aretha Franklin, Itzhak Perlman and Yo-Yo Ma will all perform.

I have an op-ed in US News & World about Joe Biden’s role in Obama’s “cabinet of rivals.”

I proferred that there are three basic models for veeps:  the pitbull, the loyalist, and the confidant.

Spiro Agnew was the classic pitbull.  His primary role in the administration was to tar the Democrats and the media with the same brush: liberal elitism.  He wasn’t very effective, mostly because he wasn’t very compelling.  Nonetheless, he took to the task with glee, and because of it Nixon didn’t dump him from the ticket in ‘72.

George H. W. Bush was the classic loyalist.  Even though he was more moderate than Reagan, and disagreed with him on some policy, he never let it show publicly.  He did Reagan’s bidding without complaining, and for it was rewarded with the Republican nomination in 1988.

Cheney is the ultimate confidant.  Love him or hate him, there’s no denying that he’s the most powerful Vice President in history — hands down.  He’s Bush’s closest advisor, and is believed by many to have been the architect of the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. 

So where does Biden fit in? What type of veep will he be?

He has the disposition of pitbull — no doubt about it.  He was brought on to the ticket for his experience and tenacity, and so you have to think that he’ll be Obama’s bad cop on occasion.  But truth be told, I’m not sure there will be much need for that — at least in the first year — partly because the Republicans pose such little threat at the moment, and partly because Obama has promised to rise “above politics as usual.”  We’ll see.

I’m not sure that Biden has the disposition to be a loyalist.  Would his heart be in it? Sure.  Will his brain cooperate? Not sure.  Biden’s favorite sport is to see how many feet he can jam in his mouth at once — not a good trait for a loyalist.  I just don’t see it.

Will he be Obama’s go-to guy — his confidant? Possibly … but probably not on the two big issues for year one — the economy and Iraq.  On the economy, Obama is going to be listening to Geithner, Summers, and Volker, while on the issue of Iraq, Biden will be outflanked by Hillary, Gates, Jim Jones and even Patreaus.  He may be second fiddle on both issues.

So where does that leave Biden? I think he’ll probably find an issue he can own — maybe energy or healthcare — and focus his attention on that, much the same way Gore dove into his “reinventing governemnt (still not sure what that meant) and later NAFTA.   Seems like a good approach for Biden: it allows him to own something and show off his smarts, while at the same time it keeps him out of Obama’s hair.   And hopefully his gaffes won’t send the stock market into a tailspin.

www.nickragone.com

My lady of Camelot, I know I speak for all respectable persons residing in the outer provinces when I say how deeply shocked we are by the offensive manner in which your ladyship was received by that pack of louts who badgered you with impertinent questions during your progress through those parts. I hope you will not think me too bold if I say that such wretches — my goodness, not one of them had the self-respect to wear a decent suit of clothes — should learn how to behave in the company of their betters. Your exceptional grace and bearing were at all times on display throughout this trial, a testament to the greatness of your noble family.

That big ruffian, the one with the loud voice who fairly shouted at your ladyship, particularly ought to get a good thrashing, and many’s the decent stout fellow, I’m sure, even in the outer provinces, would be delighted to give the villain what for, if you don’t mind my saying, my lady.

I know I am probably speaking out of turn, my lady, but rest assured that the common folk — the decent, respectable common folk — are not the least interested in prying into your ladyship’s opinions about the economy, taxes, the environment, health care, wars and all such matters of state, which are properly none of our business. Those are matters for your ladyship to concern herself with. I feel bound to say that the good citizens of this fair realm feel a deep bond of loyaty to your ladyship and trust implicitly that these great affairs will be in capable hands.

I am especially taken aback by the inquisitiveness of those low persons about your views on the various local farming and industrial affairs of the outer provinces. Surely no great personage such as your ladyship can be expected to be mistress of all such folderol.

Thank you so much, my lady, for enduring so much on our behalf with your usual grace and bearing. Whenever you plan another progress through such remote and rustic settlements as Utica, Watertown and, heaven help us, Horseheads, please don’t hesitate to call upon me, your humble servant.

(Visit me at The Purple Center)

Hello Donklephants! I’m Mark, and I regularly blog at (and run) the site Publius Endures.

Ostensibly I self-identify as a libertarian, although I’m not terribly dogmatic and tend not to write much on the more common libertarian themes, focusing instead on taking a sober look at the relationships between interest groups (which I define broadly) and political parties, the way in which political coalitions are formed, and the way in which laws and regulations are affected by interest group politics.

My most recent piece at Publius Endures dealt with a piece of legislation that largely fell under the radar: the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which I argued needs significant revisions regardless of your political viewpoint. I have a much better piece (read: actual journalism!) up as of this afternoon at the excellent conservative site Culture11. The act, passed with almost no opposition, appears to represent the confluence of good intentions gone wrong, poor legislative incentives, and bad economics, with the added bonus of being particularly devastating to small and medium-sized domestic businesses. In other words, as enacted, the legislation should offend the sensibilities of almost any ideology.

The basic facts of the legislation appear, at first glance, to be quite reasonable. In essence (and although it also addresses several other subjects), the legislation is a response to the imported toy scandals of 2007, in which several mass-produced toys had to be recalled for containing levels of lead far in excess of the legal limits. As a result, near-unanimous passage of the legislation was almost guaranteed from the start - after all, who wants to be FOR lead in childrens’ toys in an election year?

The problems arise in the actual details of the legislation, which are voluminous and, worse, vague. As I write in the Culture11 piece (please do go read the whole thing!):

The biggest problem, perhaps, is that the law implements a new third party testing requirement on every SKU number of every children’s product (including individual titles of children’s books), testing that can run anywhere from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the type of product. It is unclear how often this testing will be required; however, the wording of the legislation suggests that it could be as often as every outgoing shipment. What is clear, however, is that large imported shipments will only need to be tested upon their arrival in the U.S.

The new law also requires a new type of labeling on all children’s products, in which these products must be stamped with various information for tracking the product, including the date of production. While seemingly easy to comply with, this will actually require expensive retooling for manufacturing machines. The law further mandates that suppliers provide their distributors with certifications for each shipment of each product, a bureaucratic nightmare that many businesses will likely violate occasionally due to simple human error. Yet punishments for violations of the law are draconian — $100,000 minimum fines for each violation up to $15 million, plus possible criminal sanctions. In addition, it is still possible that the law will be implemented in such a way as to turn some pre-existing inventory into contraband when the law takes effect on February 10, 2009 (unless this changes, existing inventory would have to be discarded, immediately driving many businesses to close and/or default on loans).

The piece goes on to discuss the way in which this legislation was passed, and how free market advocates can prevent legislation such as this in an era where “deregulation” is a four-letter word.

For those answers you’ll have to read the whole thing, but I did want to discuss something here that was not relevant to my point in that piece.

One of the most amazing things that came out during the course of my research was just how little this law is going to do to improve toy safety - indeed, it will most likely make children’s products more dangerous by causing the CPSC to focus on catching paperwork errors instead of finding dangerous products. This is true even though the bill significantly increases the agency’s budget.

Even more amazing was just how easily Congress could have passed legislation that actually would have improved safety. The people I interviewed for the article agreed that one of the best things that could have been done in the wake of the toy scandal was to force the CPSC to better prioritize its enforcement responsibilities. In essence, one of the reasons so many lead-laden toys got through last year was that the agency treats most enforcement issues as being created equal (unless, of course, there’s a death involved). This encourages a focus on finding problems that are easily found, but are usually relatively harmless - things like paperwork errors, for instance. It’s the same type of problem Megan McArdle says faced the SEC with respect to the Madoff case. Instead of fixing this problem, the legislation actively makes it worse by giving CPSC more technicalities to enforce.

Another possible solution that was mentioned to me was the idea of “component testing.” Under component testing (which the CPSC actually is, apparently, considering in some form), you require testing only of individual components instead of the final product. This is less costly on a per-test basis and allows manufacturers to make multiple products using the same components. So, for instance, a small children’s book publisher would only need to test its ink, paper, and coverboard rather than having to test every single title.

Yet neither of these easy solutions was even considered by Congress. Instead, one of my sources told me that Congress’ response to just about any proposed changes or objections was, effectively, “the National Association of Manufacturers is on board, as are Hasbro and Mattel, so we don’t really care what you think.”

This presents a major problem for small business (unless one of the major parties adopts something akin to the position I advocated in my Culture11 piece), to wit: How do small businesses defend themselves against onerous laws and regs when they can’t get a seat at the table?

One obvious answer is to organize into a more focused advocacy group, but even this doesn’t always get you a seat at the table. For instance, so far as I can tell (though I’m not 100% certain), the Apparel and Footwear Association (which, unlike other advocacy groups, is not dominated by its biggest members) did spend a substantial amount of effort pushing for changes to the legislation. Yet none of those changes made it through, suggesting they received essentially the same response.

And, finally, some breaking news. I just now found out that the National Association of Manufacturers (which supported the legislation) is petitioning the CPSC to implement regs that would eliminate a lot of the hardship to be caused by this law. I have to think about what this means…but I don’t think it’s inconsistent with the explanation I gave in my C11 piece.

(Excerpts cross-posted at Publius Endures)

The New York media is starting to ask the elusive Senate-wannabe questions:

SYRACUSE — In a carefully controlled strategy reminiscent of the vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, aides to Caroline Kennedy interrupted her on Wednesday and whisked her away when she was asked what her qualifications are to be a United States senator.

In her first public appearance since letting it be known that wants to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ms. Kennedy emerged from a closed-door meeting with Matthew J. Driscoll, the mayor of Syracuse, where about a dozen reporters were waiting.

She offered a 30-second statement saying that she would respect the process undertaken by Gov. David A. Paterson to fill the vacancy.

Then, as reporters asked why Ms. Kennedy was seeking the Senate seat and whether she was ready, she did not answer, then walked away, heading toward a waiting black sport-utility vehicle.

When one reporter asked what she would tell New Yorkers who question whether she has the qualifications for the job, Ms. Kennedy, 51, started to respond. But then an aide stopped her from saying more, and led her to the waiting vehicle.

“Hopefully I can come back and answer all those questions,” she called out as she got into the S.U.V.

But, of course, she really doesn’t.

After all, she’s not running for election. She doesn’t need anyone to vote for her. All she needs if the vote of one man, Governor David Patterson.

As Charles Mahtesian notes, though, Kennedy’s potential appointment is only one example of the extent to which nepotism has become ingrained in America’s political system:

Barack Obama’s path to the presidency included beating what had been one of the nation’s most powerful families. But, in an unusual twist, his election last month is helping accelerate the trend toward dynasty politics.

His secretary of state will be Hillary Clinton, the wife of the former president. The Senate seat she’ll vacate is being pursued by Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of a president and the niece of two senators. Joe Biden’s Senate seat may go to his son Beau. Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, Obama’s pick for interior secretary, could end up being replaced by his brother, Rep. John Salazar.

And Obama’s own seat could go to the son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. – less likely now in light of developments in the Rod Blagojevich scandal – or to the daughter of Illinois’ current House speaker.

(…)

In 2008, the storied Udall clan, sometimes referred to as the Western Kennedys, saw two members elected to the Senate— Mark from Colorado and Tom from New Mexico. In 2010, they could be joined in the Senate by Florida’s Jeb Bush, the son and brother of presidents and the grandson of a senator.

All told, it’s entirely possible that the Senate will be comprised of nearly a dozen congressional offspring by the end of Obama’s first term as president.

Of course, as James Joyner notes, this dynastic politics is really only a problem when you’re talking about someone, like Kennedy, who walks into high office rather than actually campaigning for it:

Far more troubling are the Mary Bonos, Lisa Murkowskis, Jean Carnahans, and (potentially) Caroline Kennedys. These people catapulted over dozens (if not tens or hundreds of thousands) of more qualified people to get appointed to high office. Their sole qualification for the job, really, was being related to politicians.

The easiest way to stop this from happening, of course, is to end the practice of allowing Governors to appoint people to vacant Senate seats, as Ruth Marcus suggests in today’s Washington Post. We don’t have appointments without election for any other political office, and unless you’re going to follow my advice and return to the way we selected Senators before 1913, there’s no reason we need it for the Senate.

H/T: Originally posted at Below The Beltway

“Hell no, I won’t go” was Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s answer to calls by Barack Obama, Lt. Governor Pat Quinn, Senator Dick Durbin, the Illinois State Legislature, various Madigans, and almost everyone else who lives in Illinois that he resign. Instead, Blago hired a hot-shot criminal lawyer who told the legislators convening in Springfield to get the impeachment ball rolling that he would fight the charges, fight impeachment, and generally tell everyone to [expletive] off. For reasons that escape this New Yorker, some Chicago pols seems genuinely flummoxed by Rod’s failure to fold, as if they expected him to give up his one really valuable asset — his office — in exchange for their appreciation when all this started because, well, you know.

Meanwhile, the phalanx of high-level Democrats who last week called on the Illinois Legislature to swiftly expunge Blago’s Senate appointment power in favor of a prompt special election have all backed off that silly good government idea, apparently because they figured out that whichever Democrat they personally favored might not win a special election. Or worse, OMG, a Republican might even win!

An election ruled out, to step up the pressure on Blago to resign, the state’s Attorney General Lisa Madigan — who is herself a leading prospect for either the Senate seat or the Governor’s slot, whichever comes first — asked the Illinois Supreme Court to rule Blago unfit to serve, relying on a statute designed to replace comatose governors, and toss him out. Unless the fix is in on the Supreme Court (always a possibility, I suppose), the judges are probably having a good laugh over it.

So Lisa’s pop, Michael Madigan, the kingpin of the Illinois House, gathered his troops Monday to begin the impeachment process. No sooner did they start than they hit a big, apparently unanticipated snag — to wit, the need for evidence of Blago’s misconduct. Lacking any of their own, they asked U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, for some of his. Fitzgerald told them to write him a letter and he’d see what he could see (I loved that response).  Read the rest of this entry »

Looks like the folks at Goldman Sachs will get those hefty bonuses after all.

Still think paying taxes isn’t patriotic?

From Bloomberg:

Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) — Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which got $10 billion and debt guarantees from the U.S. government in October, expects to pay $14 million in taxes worldwide for 2008 compared with $6 billion in 2007.

The company’s effective income tax rate dropped to 1 percent from 34.1 percent, New York-based Goldman Sachs said today in a statement. The firm reported a $2.3 billion profit for the year after paying $10.9 billion in employee compensation and benefits.

Goldman Sachs, which today reported its first quarterly loss since going public in 1999, lowered its rate with more tax credits as a percentage of earnings and because of “changes in geographic earnings mix,” the company said.

The rate decline looks “a little extreme,” said Robert Willens, president and chief executive officer of tax and accounting advisory firm Robert Willens LLC.

“I was definitely taken aback,” Willens said. “Clearly they have taken steps to ensure that a lot of their income is earned in lower-tax jurisdictions.”

So what will be done about this?

(sounds of crickets chirping)

But the question now: how exactly does the normal American taxpayer get in on this sweet action? Shouldn’t we all be able to shift our earning potential to the Caymans? Come on, let’s all game the system so we can get a $5.86 billion tax break!

More as it develops…

We have a saying here in Texas: it’s an ill wind that don’t blow nobody no good.

In the current recession, good is blowing towards businesses that are positioned to absorb the shifting spending habits of consumers. Businesses like General Mills and ConAgra Foods which both posted higher than expected profits.

ConAgra, which makes Banquet frozen dinners and General Mills, which makes such products as Hamburger Helper, Cheerios, Progresso Soup and others, have benefited from consumers who are eating out less and want easy ways to eat at home.

Similarly, Wal-Mart has managed to post profits thanks to its obsessive focus on lower costs.

We might be willing to forgo our electronics, but we still have to eat and wear clothing and clean our homes. If I had any money to invest, I’d be looking at those businesses which provide necessities at affordable prices.

Even in a recession, you can make a buck.

Southern Senators are crying foul at the auto rescue package, but they had no problem giving foreign automakers billions in subsidies to come set up shop in their states.

From the Washington Independent:

To hear Southern Republicans tell the story, the financial burdens facing Detroit’s automakers are self-made troubles to be settled by the laws of Adam-Smith capitalism. [...]

Yet this argument — that the government has no business interfering in free markets — ignores an increasingly frequent tradition among Southern states, which have fronted billions in local taxpayer dollars in the past two decades to attract foreign auto plants. Those incentives, arriving in the form of tax breaks, training for new employees and even land, have enticed BMW to South Carolina, Mercedes to Alabama and Nissan to Tennessee. [...]

Not coincidentally, these Southern states are represented by the same coalition of GOP senators who led the fight against the recent Detroit bailout proposal. That legislation would have provided $14 billion in emergency bridge loans to General Motors and Chrysler, both of which say they lack the finances to survive the month. Rallying behind the animated opposition of GOP Sens. Bob Corker (Tenn.), Richard Shelby (Ala.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and South Carolina’s DeMint, Senate Republicans killed the legislation.

So how much did the foreign companies get?

Shelby’s Alabama, for example, secured construction of a Mercedes-Benz plant in 1993 by offering $253 million in state and local tax breaks, worker training and land improvement. For Honda, the state’s sweetener surrounding a 1999 deal to build a mini-van plant was $158 million in similar perks, adding $90 million in enticements when the company expanded the plant three years later. A 2001 deal with Toyota left the company with $29 million in taxpayer gifts.

Alabama is hardly alone. Corker’s Tennessee recently lured Volkswagen to build a manufacturing plant in Chattanooga, offering the German automaker tax breaks, training and land preparation that could total $577 million. In 2005, the state inspired Nissan to relocate its headquarters from southern California by offering $197 million in incentives, including $20 million in utility savings.

In 1992, South Carolina snagged a BMW plant for $150 million in giveaways. In Mississippi in 2003, Nissan was lured with $363 million. In Georgia, a still-under-construction Kia plant received breaks estimated to be $415 million. The list goes on.

Basically, if these Senators really believed in the free market, they wouldn't give auto makers free money to come to their states. And yet they knew that these companies needed incentives to be competitive.

So this is just a little bit more perspective as we continue this discussion about the Big 3. Because these subsidies absolutely hurt the competitiveness of American auto manufacturers and that should be considered when you're making up your mind about whether or not they should go bankrupt.

Not the current one, but he definitely had a hand in getting the spotlight directed at the Governor.

MSNBC has more…

So the idea that he would have gone to Blagojevich for a pay to play type scheme this time around is a bit far fetched, don’t you think?

More as it develops.

She doesn’t want to be involved in the “Stop Caroline” campaign in any way, and she’s making that crystal clear.

From Politico:

Prominent Clinton supporters, including Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), union leader Stuart Applebaum and fundraiser Robert Zimmerman, recently expressed skepticism about the choice, suggesting that Clinton’s supporters would see naming Kennedy — a crucial Obama backer — as a slight.

All three “were told that their comments weren’t appreciated, and that if they have a candidate they prefer that is motivating their comments and actions, they need to make that crystal clear so that nobody thinks we’re behind it,” said a person close to the replacement talks.

Clinton is focused on her transition to the State Department, people close to her say, and being seen as meddling in the Senate choice would likely make her more enemies than friends.

“Sen. Clinton completely respects the privacy of his process so will not be commenting on it or any individual candidate, nor does any third party speak on her behalf,” said her spokesman, Philippe Reines.

By the way, wasn’t it Hillary who came to New York after having never lived there and used her celebrity to win the Senate seat?

Hello Senator Kennedy.

The subprime mess was just the beginning.

Because this time it’s not the low income mortgages.

This is truly frightening stuff folks. I can’t help but think it’s going to get REALLY bad before it gets better.

Can the rich keep getting richer while median wages drop? They have been, and maybe that’s one of the reasons we’re seeing such an economic slow down.

Kevin Drum has more…

One way or another, there’s really no way for the economy to grow strongly and consistently unless middle-class consumers spend more, and they can’t spend more unless they make more. This was masked for a few years by the dotcom bubble, followed by the housing bubble, all propped on top of a continuing increase in consumer debt. None of those things are sustainable, though. The only sustainable source of consistent growth is rising median wages. The rich just don’t spend enough all by themselves. [...]

This isn’t just a matter of social justice. It’s a matter of facing reality. If we want a strong economy, we can only get it over the long term if we figure out a way for the benefits of economic growth to flow to everyone, not just the rich. This is, by far, Barack Obama’s biggest economic challenge. Until median wages start rising steadily and consistently, we haven’t gotten ourselves back on track.

I think Drum has a point. Trickle down economics haven’t worked, and there has to be some other economic solutions besides tax cuts. I’m not sure what it is, but without a strong middle class, our economy simply won’t recover for the vast majority of Americans trying to make ends meet.

You know…like the auto workers.

The Housing and Consumer Prices report came out yesterday and showed two extremely alarming trends.

First, this 18.9% drop is the biggest on record, and that means that home prices will continue to fall like a rock.

Second, consumer prices dropped 1.7% meaning that deflationary is only getting worse and there’s certainly no indication it will stop any time soon.

MSNBC has more…

Now, the Fed is trying to stem this by dropping interest rates to the bottom of the barrel, but who knows if that will work.

That stimulus package can’t come quickly enough.

He continues to deliver shock and awe.

I honestly don’t think he meant to say that because the administration said time and time again that al Qaeda was in Iraq and that they had operational ties to Saddam and since they were the group responsible for 9/11, well, we could go there.

Because remember…what if Saddam gives al Qaeda WMDs and they use them against us? We don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Folks, Bush may have been thinking about our safety, but the guy is clearly a liar. I don’t think that’s up for debate anymore. So many different reasons have been given and then contradicted at this point, that even his supporters can no longer credibly defend this doublespeak.

Only a little more than a month left…

As everyone knows, Congress and the White House have promised a lot of money over the last few months. Currently, taxpayers are on the hook for $8.7 trillion in loans, guarantees and other payouts. While some of the loans will be repaid, $8.7 trillion is a number that really needs to be put into context:

According to Bianco Research President James Bianco, who crunched these numbers, [the $8.7 trillion] amounts to more government aid and assistance than nine other historic bailouts and big government outlays combined.

The New Deal, for instance, cost an estimated $32 billion in its day, which would be about $500 billion in today’s dollars. The Marshall Plan cost about $12.7 billion, which is the equivalent of a paltry $115.3 billion. The Louisiana Purchase? The French got $15 million, which would be worth about $217 billion today.

If you take those three items, add in the adjusted costs of the Race to the Moon, the savings and loan crisis, the Korean War, the Iraq war, the Vietnam War and assistance for NASA, you still get to just $3.92 trillion — not even half of the taxpayers’ exposure today, according to Bianco.

So, basically, we were able to fund all of the 20th century’s major spending plans and fight all the major wars of the last half century for less than half of what we’ve committed to spending on “solving” the current financial crisis. Anyone else think that we might be a bit profligate with the recent expenditures?

I know, I know. The sky is falling and those who don’t jump at the chance to throw taxpayer money at the problem are nothing more than brain-dead devotees of evil free market economics – but I’m just guessing that a few years down the road, we’re going to wish we hadn’t been so quick to throw good money after bad.

Certainly some of the expenditures are appropriate, but the outlays have been so staggeringly large that it’s now almost impossible to separate the wise from the unwise, the necessary from the pork. There’s a difference between controlled, reasonable deficit spending aimed at combating a crisis and the kind of chicken-little response we’ve witnessed in the last several months. I can only hope my fears are unjustified.