The Progressive Pen

Kuttner: Moment of Truth

Via the Huffington Post, Robert Kuttner notes that the direction/fate of Obama's presidency may very well be decided in March:

March 2010 will either be remembered as the month when the scales fell from Barack Obama's eyes and he realized that the bipartisan fantasy, given the current Republican Party, is a fool's errand. Or it will go down in history as the moment when Obama had a chance to change course and emerge as a leader -- and flinched. Which will it be?

 

Technorati Tags: Robert Kuttner,Obama,healthcare reform,bipartisanship

Fox: Snowstorm = No Global Warming

Well, you had to see this one coming.

As reported by TPM and elsewhere, Fox News is suggesting that the recent snowstorms in the Northeastern United States disproves the existence of global warming.

For example, Fox News blowhard Sean Hannity declared that the storms refute "Al Gore's hysterical global warming theories."

Global warming, of course, is not "Al Gore's theory.”  Gore is not a scientist, so Gore does not develop scientific theories.  Tough concept to grasp, eh Hannity?

Gore is an advocate for a cause he believes in.  That does not make climate change Gore’s theory.   The global warming trend has been studied by scientists , the overwhelming majority of whom agree that the climate crisis is very real and will have potentially devastating consequences.

But all of this science stuff is irrelevant, according to Fox, because... it's snowing!

Thankfully, Fox's latest bout of stupidity did not go unnoticed by The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.  The relevant segments are posted below. Both pieces do a great job of highlighting the absurdity of Fox’s logic and worth watching if you enjoy a good laugh.

 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Unusually Large Snowstorm
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
We're Off to See the Blizzard
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

 

Technorati Tags: Fox News,Colbert Report,the Daily Show,John Stewart,Stephen Colbert,Sean Hannity

Laffer Weighs In

Via the Huffington Post, supply-side charlatan Arthur Laffer appeared on CNN to offer his two cents on the subject of health care reform.

Okay, before we go any further, what in the world is CNN thinking in having Arthur Laffer on to discuss health care (or any other serious subject for that matter)?

Laffer’s most significant achievement, of course, was convincing Ronald Reagan that a massive tax cut would actually increase government revenue.  To no surprise, Laffer ‘s hypothesis was proven wrong in spectacular fashion. 

The Reagan-era tax cut debacle should have been the end of Laffer.  Yet, thanks to well-funded right-wing think tanks, Laffer is still around.  It's a good thing too; otherwise, we might never have heard Laffer in August 2006 dismiss the possibility of a recession in 2008 and declare:

“The US economy has never been in better shape.”

Given Laffer's lack of credibility, it should not have been a complete surprise when, during his CNN appearance this week,  a fear mongering Laffer warned:

“[J]ust wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid and health care done by the government.”

Touché.

Technorati Tags: Laffer,supply side,healthcare

Tripping over Common Ground

MSNBC and Fox News.  Polar opposites, right?  Well, on Monday evening, MSNBC and Fox News found something they could agree on: the importance of Bristol Palin giving birth.

The lead US news headline on the MSNBC website Monday evening was, "It's a Baby Boy for Palin's Teenage Daughter."  This was the most newsworthy event in the entire country Monday.

However, let's not give MSNBC too much credit.   After all MSNBC did inexplicably omit the baby's name from its front page.

 

 

Fox News, on the other hand, continues to set the standard.  There it is right on the front page: Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston.

 

Technorati Tags: Bristol Palin,Sarah Palin,Tripp Johnston,MSNBC,Fox News,birth,baby

Krugman on Meeting Bush: "I Just Want to Know My Nickname"

Krugman and the other Nobel Prize winners met with President Bush on Tuesday.  As reported by The Huffington Post,  Krugman briefly discussed the meeting in an appearance on "Countdown with Keith Olberman":

Olbermann asked Krugman, a persistent critic of the President, whether there was "any chance he revealed his plans for the economy in his last weeks in office and if not, was it difficult to shake that hand?" Krugman's response: "This is not a moment to try and change policy.... I just want to know my nickname."

WATCH:
(Relevant part of the interview begins at around the 7:00 minute mark.)

 

Technorati Tags: Paul Krugman,Nobel Prize,Keith Olbermann,George W. Bush

President of T-ball

George W. Bush may be the worst president in this nation's history.  Considering all the damage Bush caused during his eight years in office, it is not surprising that Bush is extremely unpopular.  A record 71% of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance; that is the highest disapproval rating in the 70 year history of the Gallup poll.

Paul Krugman notes that the clowns at the Wall Street Journal editorial page blames the entire country for not being "loyal" to Bush.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

For those keeping score: criticizing Bush = disloyalty & comfort to ourenemiesMemo to the WSJ Editorial Board: This is not October 2001.

For some reason, I had the silly notion that an elected official like President Bush, who's salary is paid by taxpayer dollars, should serve the interest of the country.  When the president is not doing a good job, it is our right -- even our responsibility -- to criticize the president.

But, apparently, I had it all wrong.  The WSJ editorial board suggests that the president should never be criticized because it will give comfort to "our enemies."  It is our job as American citizens to be unconditionally loyal to the president, as long as he "[tries] his hardest".

"[T]ried his hardest?"  Wow, is that really the standard now?  Faced with the Bush administration's disastrous record, the WSJ editors are arguing Bush deserves an ' "A" for effort.'

To summarize, with a Republican in office, The Journal editorial board views the presidency like T-ball.  As long as the Bush"tried his hardest," he is a winner.

Call me crazy, but somehow I doubt the Journal editorial board will set the bar so ridiculously low for President Obama. 

Public Spending

In his Friday column, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman makes the case that assisting the financial sector will not be enough to deal with what could be a lengthy recession.  "It’s now clear that rescuing the banks is just the beginning: the nonfinancial economy is also in desperate need of help," says Krugman.

So what should the government do to help the economy?  In terms of monetary policy, the Fed will almost certainly cut interest rates.  However, Krugman says we should not expect the rate cuts to get much traction:

There’s not much Ben Bernanke can do for the economy. He can and should cut interest rates even more — but nobody expects this to do more than provide a slight economic boost.

Since further interest rate cuts will only have a modest impact at best, the government will need to use fiscal policy to spur the economy.  What that amounts to is some combination of public spending and tax cuts.

Not surprisingly, Krugman's prescription calls for increased public spending, such as:

• Extended unemployment benefits
• emergency aid to state and local governments
• purchasing ("but not at face value, as John McCain has proposed") and restructuring mortgages
• infrastructure spending

So why does Krugman call for public spending rather than tax cuts for fiscal stimulus?  First, Krugman knows that taxes are already at historically very low levels -- the lowest in over 50 years.  Second, Krugman is a progressive; he does not give much weight to 'trickle down' theories.  Instead, Krugman wants to make sure that any government assistance first goes to those who are hit hardest.  The increase in consumer spending generated by Krugman's proposals will in turn help the overall economy.

The good news is that next year there should be a Democrat in the White House, as well as an increased Democratic majority in Congress.  Hopefully, Democratic leaders will take bold action by implementing a plan like Krugman has proposed.

A Nobel Is Nice, but Where Is His Pulitzer?

Paul Samuelson comments on Krugman's Nobel Prize win:

“I praise today’s prize as being deserving and even overdue, but more than that I reproach the Pulitzer committee, which owed him at least a couple of prizes in the past,” said Paul A. Samuelson, a previous winner of the Nobel in economic science. “Paul Krugman is the only columnist in the United States who has had it right on almost every count from the beginning.”

Indeed, while it is great that Krugman has been recognized for his academic work, recognition for Krugman's work in his New York Times columns is overdue.  Just because Krugman's columns upset the right wing, does not mean his writing should be considered controversial.  As Samuelson notes, Krugman has been out in front on the major issues during the last 10 years.  He was right about:

• the tech stock bubble
• the Bush tax cuts (the national debt clock in New York City has run out of digits)
• the Iraq war
• the housing bubble and shadow banking system, which are responsible for the current financial crisis

So, conservatives may not like Paul Krugman because he hurts their feelings, but the fact is, Krugman has consistently been right.  Meanwhile, delusional supply-siders like Larry Kudlow denied the existence of the NASDAQ bubble and the housing bubble, while praising the "Bush boom."

Krugman has taken positions that have earned him scorn from conservatives, but time and again, Krugman has been proven right.  It is time Krugman is recognized for his extraordinary and influential writing for the Times.

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize Winner

Congratulations to Paul Krugman for winning the 2008 Nobel Prize for Economics.  Krugman was awarded the prize for his work on international trade. 

Krugman also deserves high praise for warning about the housing bubble for several years -- at least as early as 2005, while delusional supply-siders insisted everything was fine.  To highlight this point, you are some excerpts from a debate between 2005 Krugman and Larry Kudlow on MSNBC's hardball.

KRUGMAN: You just look at the -- first of all, you look at the numbers. The number are -- not the national averages, because there is a large part of the middle of the country where nothing is happening. But if you look at the coasts, the house price increases are way out of line with everything that might justify it. They are way out of line with the increase in rents...they are way out of line with the economy -- economic growth. So, it looks -- the numbers look like they did before the Nasdaq bubble burst.

KUDLOW: Just real quick, I think it is an investment-led recovery, particularly capital investment. I agree that housing is very strong. I`m totally in favor of that; 97 out of 100 people who make these borrowings know exactly what they are doing. You know, it is as though journalists and other professors think that the rest of the people don`t get it. They do get it. They know precisely what they are doing. They know how to roll over loans. They know how to fund them 30 years. You can make it more affordable by allowing yourself the new mortgage options that thankfully are available. You`re not going to have a housing bubble go bust when the unemployment rate is low and the economy is growing at 3, 4 percent. The name of the game here keep taxes down and stop the fed from throwing a monkey wrench into this prosperity.

The fact that Krugman is so often right is obviously frustrating for conservatives.

Just for the record, I will note that supply sider Larry Kudlow continues to host his own television show on CNBC, despite being so very wrong about the housing bubble AND the technology stock bubble. 

"Because We Could"

After reading Tom Friedman's op-ed piece in today's New York Times, I decided to write a lengthy post about Friedman.  While doing a bit of research, I stumbled upon this startling video of a wild eyed Tom Friedman being interviewed by Charlie Rose back in 2003.

The first five minutes of the video are particularly disturbing, as shown in the following excerpts, courtesy of Atrios.

I think it [the invasion of Iraq] was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie.
...
We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big state right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble, and there was only one way to do it.
...
What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?"
You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow?
Well, Suck. On. This.
Okay.
That Charlie was what this war was about. We could've hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.

As bad as his comments look on paper, watching and listening to Friedman in his own words is even more chilling.

 

 

I will have more to say about Friedman later in the week.