Dowd for White House press secretary? A good fit


D.C. gossip queen has low tolerance for Democratic ‘lefties’

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is a caricaturist who also specializes in insider gossip, semi-clever puns and simplistic assessments of the national mood.

She would make an ideal replacement for White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, whom she recently deemed unfit for the job.

Maureen Dowd would know how to work the White House press corps

Dowd was in her glory in the late 1990s, dishing the dirt about Bill and Monica. Then she spent eight years trying to make light of George W. Bush and his posse. No sex scandals in that dull bunch, so she joked about Bush being a spoiled rich kid who felt inferior to his dad.

Her tone is catty and ultra-casual, even when she’s writing about things like the Bush administration’s dishonest but successful effort to start a disastrous war in Iraq. It isn’t until she gets riled up and tries to make a substantive argument that you notice how welded her opinions are to the status quo.

On Sunday Dowd seemed upset because millions of Democrats are disappointed and/or angry about President Obama’s failure to deliver on meaningful health care reform, Wall Street regulation and other big campaign promises. She agreed that Gibbs should be “yanked” for ranting against Obama’s Democratic critics, but she also wrote that Gibbs was correct, such critics are “lefties” who “won’t recognize the necessity of compromise.”

In a dishonest flourish, Dowd tried to pretend there’s no widespread Democratic criticism of Obama, but rather only a few disgruntled ideologues who — and here she quoted Gibbs — “wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.” She compared progressives who’ve lost faith in Obama to right-wing extremists who’ve “co-opted” the message of the Republican Party. The difference is that Republican “radicals” often end up helping their elected representatives — she named the far-right Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl — whereas “Democratic extremes typically do damage to a Democratic president.”

Dowd concluded that Gibbs should be removed not because of his wildly off-base attack on fellow Democrats but rather because he’s doing a poor job of communicating Obama’s message to the press. As if the flaw wasn’t in the message itself — i.e., in Obama’s watered-down legislative initiatives and his lame insistence on working with an opposition party that from the outset dismissed the possibility of compromise.

Obama’s policy failures shine a light on the general failure of Democratic politicians in Washington to adequately represent the interests of their constituents. Dowd’s defense of Obama shows she’s out of her depth when not writing about Bill Clinton’s cigar tricks or George W. Bush’s frat boy mentality.

If only Dowd could persuade Gibbs to quit and worm her way into his job. She could spew the same “centrist” nonsense that she pushes in print but this time verbally, to fellow insiders in the Washington press corps, and then engage them in gossipy off-the-record chats about matters that have nothing to do with the dreary faraway problems that most Americans wake up to every day.

Posted in Congress, finance reform bill, health care, mainstream media, New York Times, Obama, Politics, unemployment | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

‘Canadian health care?’ We should be so lucky


Robert Gibbs is the new poster boy for Dem cowardice

Like many other Democrats, I puzzled for a few days over Robert Gibbs’s scornful remarks about the “professional left.”

Is President Obama’s press secretary just another beefy bureaucrat who lost his temper after catching flak too often, or was his outburst part of a strategy to reassure “moderates” that Obama leans only slightly more to the left than George W. Bush?

This man wouldn't want to hear about real health care reform

If Gibbs’s weirdly right-wing rant was OK’ed by his boss — apparently it was, because Obama had no public comment about it — then we’re looking at a president who’s way out of touch with the core values of the Democratic Party and at an administration that will remain content to offer the poor and middle classes almost nothing in the way of real change.

Some analysts think Gibbs was only jabbing at cable news outlets — specifically, at talking heads on MSNBC. It hardly matters. If his remarks were sincere, he’s barely in the same party with most Democrats. He represents a faction that is Democratic only insofar as it helps prevent reactionaries like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner from running Congress.

Gibbs got my attention when he said the professional left, whatever that is, seeks “Canadian health care.” My guess is that most Democrats think Canadian-style health care — publicly funded, efficiently administered — would be vastly preferable to our country’s current system, which leaves us all at the mercy of health insurance companies that charge exorbitant fees and routinely cheat customers who think their medical costs are covered.

Most of us who aren’t DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) would have liked to see Obama make a real fight for health care reform instead of settling for a bill that was watered down to a thin gruel. We also hoped he’d fight to put the jobless back to work, crack down on Wall Street thieves, pursue progressive conservation policies, scale back America’s futile war in Afghanistan and, in general, make us notice that Dubya was no longer in office.

Democrats want and need representatives who act out of conviction rather than fear. The last thing we need is a spin doctor who goes out of his way to pander to right-wingers and woo an imaginary legion of moderates.

Quotable: A tweet from  David Frum, former speechwriter for Dubya, regarding Gibbs’s outburst — “More proof of my longtime thesis, Repub pols fear the GOP base; Dem pols hate the Dem base.”

Posted in Congress, economic collapse, mid-term elections, Obama, Politics, unemployment | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brother, can you spare… a twenty?


Joblessness will be ‘the new normal’ if Americans tune out

It’s hard to tell what’s coming, anarchy or more apathy, but there’s no doubt that things haven’t looked this bleak for the poor and near-poor since the 1930s. (Think Al Jolson, singing “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?,” adjusted for inflation.)

Al Jolson would feel your pain, brothers and sisters

About 20 percent of American homeowners are underwater, and more and more of the jobless are lining up for free food on Front Street in South Philly and all over the country.

Some economists are calling this situation “the new normal,” but that’s not an expression the out-of-work are likely to use. A rally by the long-term unemployed, to demand help from their vacationing congressional reps, will take place tomorrow on Wall Street, home of the banks that caused the economy to tank.

Anyone who’s paying attention has noticed that a weirdly diverse group of activists, economists and politicos are speaking the same language regarding the Great Recession, or whatever you want to call it. Bill Gross, a free market cheerleader who co-runs the world’s largest bond fund, hopes the government “spends tens of billions on new infrastructure projects to put people to work and stimulate demand.” Glenn Hubbard, an economic advisor to George W. Bush, thinks recovery entails investing large sums in retraining workers whose jobs are gone forever. These guys are not exactly wild-eyed radicals, but they’re on the same page, sometimes, with people like Paul Krugman, Elizabeth Warren and Debbie Stabenow.

Meanwhile, whose page is President Obama on? We are hearing calls for works projects from conservatives but not from the guy who was elected by millions of Democrats and independents to set the economy right. We are hearing his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, railing against Democrats who are pressing Obama to do his job.

I don’t pretend to know Obama’s true feelings about the importance of putting the jobless back to work, or his definition of economic recovery, but his conduct up to now indicates a belief that recovery means providing fiscal stimulus for banks and corporations. His actions are based on the notion that recessions are best gauged by estimating the gross domestic product, not the number of people employed. In other words, a recession is over if the GDP rises to a certain level.

Incredibly, Obama and his math wizards, Timothy Geithner and Laurence Summers, have stuck to this notion, even as millions more people lost their jobs, then their hopes that they can find new ones, and then their belief that Obama knows what he’s doing.

It makes we wonder if the president understands what the New Deal was about. If he did, he would answer the question posed by Robert J. Shiller: “Why not use government policy to directly create jobs — labor-intensive service jobs in education, public health and safety, urban infrastructure maintenance, youth programs, elder care, conservation, arts and letters, and scientific research?”

One might add, why not fight to persuade Congress to reinstate taxes on the rich — taxes scuttled in the obscenely cynical Bush era — and use the resulting revenue to fund the jobs programs?

It might all work out in the end, years from now, with or without a real jobs program. Or we’ll be rocked by social breakdown that’s less dramatic but far more harmful than what happened in the ’30s.

Posted in Congress, economic collapse, mainstream media, mid-term elections, New York Times, Obama, Politics, unemployment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

No more ear meat for Iron Mike


Ex-champ’s vegan conversion still hard to digest

Mike Tyson bites for his life.

I’m way behind on celebrity gossip. It turns out Mike Tyson says he appeared in the movie The Hangover because he needed drug money, but the big story – the one that apparently broke way back in May – was that Iron Mike, the former baddest man on the planet, the boxer who bit off part of Evander Holyfield’s ear, had lost a lot of excess weight after becoming a vegan. How did I miss this? Who’s next for vegan-ism, Michael Vick?

Footnote: Holyfield was/is a notoriously dirty fighter. Tyson resorted to biting only after Holyfield repeatedly head-butted him.

Posted in sports | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Summers, Geithner give elitism a bad name


Obama’s go-to guys botched economic recovery. Why do they still have jobs?

Barack Obama thinks Ivy League grads who’ve worked on Wall Street have all the answers, which is why he ended up depending on Laurence Summers and Timothy Geithner to pull the country out of its economic tailspin and, arguably, why so many Americans still can’t find work.

According to Timothy Geithner, America is on a path back to growth.

Geithner, who was joined at the hip with the Wall Street crooks who started the tailspin, is still in denial about how screwed up things are. Summers, who also was thisclose to the crooks, is the bright boy who insisted back in the early days of the Obama administration that unemployment wouldn’t exceed eight percent after the stimulus package passed. The official jobless rate is now at 9.5 percent.

According to The New York Times’s Opinionator blog, Summers disagreed with Christina Romer, the chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, over the size of the stimulus bill before it was proposed in 2009. Romer, like Paul Krugman and many other economists, thought the package would have to be worth more than $1 trillion in order to fuel a long-term recovery. But Summers and Geithner, along with Rahm Emanuel, feared congressional opposition and advised the boss to go with what became a $787 billion bill. So here we are with a recovery that has sputtered to a halt and a jobless rate that’s holding steady.

Romer reportedly will resign next month. As TalkLeft put it, “If Obama fails politically, the cause will be his policy failure regarding the size of the stimulus — when he listened to Geithner and Summers instead of Christina Romer.”

Posted in Congress, economic collapse, New York Times, Obama, Politics, unemployment | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

NYT to 99ers: Chances for new benefits ‘slim to none’


Senate Democrats, on six-week vacation, seem to agree

Reporter Michael Luo came through this week with a story on the long-term unemployed, which was more or less a case study of how dangerous it is to lose your job in an America that’s drifting into stagnation, maybe stagflation. Luo wrote that “the political appetite to help [the jobless] seems limited.”

What would FDR think of today's Dems?

The Times should spend less time forecasting doom and more on covering efforts to help the jobless. For example, activists this week persuaded Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) to introduce a bill that would 1) secure up to 20 more weeks of benefits to those who’ve exhausted their unemployment claims and 2) provide tax credits and other incentives to businesses that hire the long-term unemployed.

But the Senate went on its annual six-week summer vacation almost as soon as the bill was introduced, which means those who’ve exhausted their benefits are left high and dry until some time in the fall when the legislation may or may not come to a vote.

So why are Dem politicians so timid in efforts to help their core constituents? The Times editorial writers haven’t ventured a guess this week, and its reporters don’t seem all that interested.

Michael Thornton, who blogs for the Rochester Unemployment Examiner, got it right today: “…the unemployed/underemployed, which currently number about 30 million, could be the electoral force that brings down the Democrats; not because the Republicans are preferred, but because the unemployed, and especially the 99ers, could simply stay home and not vote.”

Who could blame them? I wonder what Franklin D. Roosevelt would think of the current crop of Democrats in the federal legislature, and of the Democrat in the White House. FDR pushed through legislation that put millions of Americans back to work during the Depression, and he raised the country’s morale by openly challenging Republicans and other cynics who were trying to shrug off sky-high unemployment and poverty rates.

My guess is that FDR would publicly challenge today’s cowardly Dem incumbents. Then he’d charm them into doing the right thing. Barack Obama doesn’t seem capable of either challenging or charming anyone, not when it counts.

Quotable: Paul Krugman, from his column that bashes Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), new hero of believers in voodoo economics: “One depressing aspect of American politics is the susceptibility of the political and media establishment to charlatans.”

The Weasel Watch: David Brooks wrote last week that “We could look back on the period between 1980 and 2006 as the long boom and the period between 2007 and 2014 or so as the nasty crawl…” But there was no boom, except for the wealthy. All other income groups experienced a period of long, slow decline. As usual, Brooks is pushing an agenda based on faulty premises and outright lies. He pretends to yearn for a “moderate” approach to economic growth while praising extreme right-wingers like Paul Ryan, who “wants to cleanse and rejuvenate the nation.”

Posted in economic collapse, mainstream media, mid-term elections, New York Times, Obama, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A moment of clarity at the coffee shop


Consumer protection starts with saying no to ATM fees

A small example of how banks take advantage of customers and why Elizabeth Warren should be appointed to lead the soon-to-be-established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

On most days I stop for a double espresso at one of those South Philly hipster hangouts where tattoos and laptops are de rigueur. Yesterday I realized I’d brought no cash. The barista directed me to the ATM in the back of the shop, which tried to charge me $2.50 for the lousy $20 I was about to withdraw. You’ve got to be kidding, I said to the machine, as if I was talking to one of the cold-blooded creeps who run the handful of giant banks and financial services firms that routinely shake down bank customers everywhere.

I was talking to one of the creeps. Not to a flesh-and-blood banking executive, of course, but to one of his mechanized stand-ins. Think about it — banks and financial firms screw us on the macro level, by making reckless bets with our money and ending up billions of dollars in debt, and on the micro level, through usurious lending and service fees imposed on individual customers for the sole purpose of enriching the creeps.

Which is why I extracted my ATM card and said to hell with it, you’re not getting my $2.50 and the extra $1.50 my bank would charge me for having used a rival bank’s ATM, I’ll wait until I can use the ATM at the bank where I have a checking account. But this was small consolation, because the reality is we’re all caught in the same trap. My bank’s ATMs gouge users who have accounts elsewhere. Some banks’ ATMs charge as much as $5 per usage fee. They all take advantage of customers because that’s what the law allows.

In May, Sen. Tom Harkin (D, IA) tried to introduce an amendment that would cap ATM user fees at 50 cents, but he was blocked by Republicans and bank-friendly Dems. The so-called finance reform bill, passed later that month and signed into law in July, contained no ATM fee cap provision and is, in general, a watered-down version of the the bill that was meant to “give states more power in going after big banks that violate consumers.”

The banks and ATM servicing companies, along with Republicans and DINOs (Dems In Name Only) in Congress, defend high ATM fees as essential to their effort to provide full service for customers. Without the fees, they say, banks wouldn’t be able to pay companies that install, maintain and service ATMs, and there would be a resulting cutback in the number of available ATMs.

To which I’d reply: Banks started providing ATMs — for free, at first — because the machines would boost their profits, by allowing them to process more transactions per day using fewer employees. (Think of all the tellers and other workers who lost their jobs because of ATMS.) If ATM companies threatened to eliminate some machines because of fee caps, then banks would make new contractual arrangements with these companies, if only to prevent narrower profit margins for the creeps at the executive level.

Elizabeth Warren knows that ATM fee caps, as well as caps on sky-high credit card interest rates and other usurious practices, and she seems ready to take action on these reforms and many others. That’s why Timothy Geithner and other bank-friendly Obama administration officials don’t like her, and why we all should petition President Obama to choose her to lead the consumer protection bureau.

Meanwhile, protect yourself. Don’t use ATMs that charge a fee. The more you acquiesce in the shady practices of bank owners, the more they will gouge you. Ask the barista to front you a coffee, then pay up next time and leave her a good tip.

Posted in Congress, economic collapse, finance reform bill, Obama | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Robbing banks, the new-fashioned way


St. Louis bandits were slick, but not as slick as the Wall St. gang

Monday’s big story in the Midwest: “Masked gunmen steal huge stash of cash in predawn heist at St. Louis ATM servicing business.”

So who’s bolder, the four armed robbers, or the honchos at Goldman Sachs and American International Group Inc. who effectively used the banking system to steal billions from taxpayers? Let’s compare the heists.

Johnny Depp as John Dillinger

The four gunmen, dressed head to toe in black, arrived at the ATM servicing center before dawn. They overpowered a guard as he reported for work, and then another. They apparently knew in advance that “it took two workers to separately punch in access codes to open the vault.” They got away with about $11 million and are still on the loose.

Lloyd Blankfein and his cronies at Goldman Sachs didn’t wear masks or carry guns. Neither did Robert Liddy and his crew at AIG, which was the country’s biggest insurance company. They gambled billions on the housing bubble, using mortgage-linked investments called collateralized debt obligations and insurance instruments called credit-default swaps, because they knew they had friends in government who’d help them steal back their billions if the gambles didn’t pay off.

The housing bubble burst, the banks failed and government bailed out AIG to the tune of $182.3 billion in taxpayer money. AIG used much of the bailout money to pay off obligations to Goldman and other banks that had been incurred through complicated insurance arrangements.

The St. Louis crooks obviously had insider knowledge regarding the ATM center. They deserve the John Dillinger Prize – I just invented it – for being ballsy throwbacks in an age of cell phones and surveillance cameras. They have a good work ethic, and one might even say they got their money the old-fashioned way. As John Houseman used to say in an old TV commercial, “They earned it.”

The Wall Street crooks had insider knowledge far beyond that of conventional robbers. They took no physical risks and escaped with a bundle of loot that makes the St. Louis robbers’ take look like small change. AIG and Goldman are even stronger than they were before the worldwide economic collapse – a collapse they helped trigger with their reckless investment and insurance policies.

The Wall Street gang wouldn’t dream of robbing banks the old-fashioned way, even if they had the guts. They’re smarter than that. They knew their power would remain undiminished even if their mortgages racket collapsed because their friends are named Paulson and Geithner. They knew, as conservative apostate David Stockman recently wrote, that their monster companies are “wards of the state, extracting billions from the economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives.”

The St. Louis crooks will get killed or go to jail. Blankfein and his colleagues will remain rich and free unless the federal government is radically reformed. As the Duke said several times in The Searchers, “That’ll be the day.”

Posted in economic collapse, Goldman Sachs, world-wide economy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

We’re mad as hell, Friedman!


Our enemies are not our friends. The world is not flat.

Thomas Friedman is a widely read pundit and an optimistic chap. Wrong most of the time, but optimistic, and very thorough in explaining the madness of U.S. foreign policy.

He doesn’t endorse this policy but he doesn’t condemn it either, even though he concedes, for example, that some of the money the U.S. gives Pakistan “is killing our own soldiers.”

Friedman was a cheerleader for Dubya’s war on Iraq but these days he downplays that fiasco and focuses on arguing for globalization, the myth that our future prosperity depends on the grand-scale economic interdependence of nations. It is the be-all and end-all of his ideology.

Peter Finch as Howard Beale

I couldn’t help but think of Friedman during a recent viewing of Network, the 1976 movie in which Howard Beale, the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves, is reprimanded by Arthur Jensen, the owner of the TV network that broadcasts Beale’s show. Beale had been telling his fans that they are being lied to by the mainstream media, that they are confusing these lies with what’s going on in the real world. Jensen shouts at Beale:

“You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West! There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast… multi-national dominion of dollars. … It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!”

Maybe Network was one of the inspirations for The World Is Flat, Friedman bestselling ode to globalization, written before the economic collapse exposed the rotten core of the world financial system and the naivete of those who see something benign in this system.

THE WORLD IS ROUND, Tom. We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take you anymore. ATONE!

Posted in globalization, mainstream media, New York Times op-ed, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Out of work, out of sight, out of mind


In the  1930s, the jobless were big news. Now they’re invisible.

Media coverage of the unemployment problem pretty much ended on July 22, when President Obama signed a bill extending coverage to 2.5 million Americans whose benefits had been blocked by the rock-solid Republican troglodytes in the Senate.

However, the legislation didn’t help the 99ers – those whose joblessness has persisted beyond 99 weeks, the maximum number of weeks for which a recipient can receive emergency benefits. This means that the 99ers, millions of them, along with millions of other Americans who are seeking work, are effectively left out in the cold, or the scorching heat, when it comes to being able to pay the bills.

I guess this is one of the things that distinguishes a Great Depression from a run-of-the-mill small-d depression. In the 1930s, the fact that millions of people were thrown out of work for years on end was considered a national disgrace and was priority No. 1 on the Roosevelt administration’s list of problems to correct.

But now, when long-term unemployment is a more serious problem than at any time since the the ’30s, the news media is arguably blasé about the issue. And the Obama administration, despite its success in pushing an expensive economic stimulus package through Congress, has come up with no – as in zero – large-scale public works projects to get the jobless back on their feet.

Yes, a much larger percentage of the population was thrown out of work by the Great Depression than by the depression – technically, a recession – that began in December 2007. And the social safety net in today’s America is bigger and more secure than in the 1930s, when there were no emergency benefits programs for the jobless, who were very visible because they had to take to the streets to sell apples, or beg, in order to survive.

Maybe that’s what it will take to change things — millions of apple peddlers and tens of thousands of muggers. Or else an organized movement committed to getting federal legislators off their asses and working to change the benefits apparatus and the employment picture.

Michael Thornton, who writes the Rochester Unemployment Examiner in New York, posed good questions about congressional slackers in a recent post:

Why was it so easy for Congress to abandon up to four million benefits exhaustees, but they can’t abandon an unwinnable Afghan War where they just assigned another $91 billion dollars? Why was it easy for Congress to pass a $700 billion bank bailout (or $23 trillion bank backstop) that benefited corrupt banks and allowed for record Wall Street bonuses, but they can’t find $20 billion to support four million long-term unemployed US citizens who lost their job due to Wall Street malfeasance?

I guess we’ll have to wait until these legislative slackers return from their long summer vacations before we can ask these questions and regain the attention of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, those in the Philadelphia area who’ve exhausted or will soon exhaust unemployment benefits, and those who want to help exhaustees, should contact the Philadelphia Unemployment Project.

Follow-up to July 18 post: We’re still waiting to see that story about the 99ers that New York Times reporter Michael Luo said was in the works.

Posted in Congress, mainstream media, Obama, Philadelphia, Politics, unemployment | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment