Super Progressive Redistribution?

http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2Fmatthewyglesias%2F%7E3%2F404055192%2Fnationalize_everything.php

I do not in principle object to what Matthew Yglesias is saying about what the gov't should do. I, too, have a lot of anger towards people in the financial sector earning fat salaries for well over a decade (probably more), made irresponsible decisions on their investors' and in fact country's behalf, and now shamelessly cry, not so much about tanking their companies and the whole industry (don't let them fool you with their big words), but more about their job securities, their bonuses, and their luxurious lifestyles.

Since the gov't "does not really have a choice" but to bail out these companies, it makes sense that they should do it in a manner that is accountable towards its citizens. By that I mean it should make a decent profit off of this undertaking, to justify the spending, to provide the right incentives, etc.

What I'm still struggling the most at the end of all this is a philosophical debate of what the role of the gov't *ought to be*. What Yglesias (and many others) is suggesting, is a role that falls along the lines of what a friend of mine once said, "you know why I want to make lots and lots of money? So that I can take money from others, and give it to people and things that I think need it"

Let's say the gov't ends up making a decent buck off of this whole ordeal. We should put the profits into programs that sorely need funding, or into the public pot that one day will hopefully be put to good use. Should the gov't follow along the lines of this objective, make wise investment choices and good profits to fatten up its reserves, then use the money for programs and areas that Congress and the President agree on?

I am uneasy about this broad objective, not only because the gov't clearly have the political and financial clout to move the market, but the idea that redistribution comes not from the political (voting, or dare I say, democratic) process, but from the business and economic savvy of the gov't, by definition taking money from some subset of the population.

Now I am no political theorist, but something about this proposed role of the gov't sounds really fishy and seems to go against the fundamental principles of a democracy.

Sent via BlackBerry

The way forward for "Progressive America"

... or for any sect of America, or any sect of anywhere, really.

I was at the "In Search of Progressive America" book promotion event last night, and came to the realization of what one should definitely not do if one wants to promote their ideology or philosophy to others that might not currently share it.

And that is to sit around with people that think just like you, make all-too-easy snide comments about "the other side", and talking about how or why we're smarter than everyone else.

Don't get me wrong, I get equally annoyed when the conservatives do that (which they often do) too.

It simply does not challenge you to make the best argument you can, or keep you on your toes about every word you say, when everyone who's listening to you will nod in agreement. More importantly, it doesn't make you beat yourself up thinking, "am I thinking the right thing? does this really make sense? is this really the best idea?"

Israel and Palestine are not going to resolve their conflict by each talking amongst themselves, and neither are China and Taiwan, or all other countries, parties, groups in the world that are at odds with another. The way to change the world is to make disagreeing parties live together as neighbors -- clearly I don't mean it in just the geographic sense, since most of them already do, but in a relationship sense. I have come from an environment more or less like that, and there really is nothing like putting a human (and friendly) face on a disagreement.

Crazy thought... the next time you run into someone you know that thinks very differently, sit down with him, hear him out without trying to contradict every sentence he says (even in your thoughts!), and maybe he'll do the same as well. I know it sounds easy, but I doubt many can say that they've truly done so in their lives.

I, for one, will be the first to admit that I haven't.

Great Moments in Pundetry

While eating breakfast this morning they had the Red Sox highlights pretty early in sportscenter, so I flipped to msnbc. Topic is obviously the financial crisis. But somehow Scarborough, Chuck Todd, and someone from Time spend the whole time talking about how they have no idea about the economic 'philosophy' of McCain or Obama.

Now I know I don't actually get paid like the three of them to follow politics and instead have to do it on my own time. But maybe you could start with reading each sides economic plan. Or how about looking at their statements and proposals over the past year. Chuck Todd even had the great idea of maybe seeing what their economic advisers think and have said and done in their careers.

It is one thing to try to interpret those things or say there are some contradictions or inconsistencies. But to just sit back and moan about how, if only they were like Reagan or FDR, we would know exactly what they 'stand for' is just lazy.

Don't kick the dog unless you want to get bit

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=232748&f=19

Wow. Maybe the McCain campaign shouldn't have ripped the Times Monday and dared them to dig up some more of his dirty little secrets.

I am not sure how much impact this will have on the race unless the obama people run with it and start getting it on the local evening news. But on a day when a new poll comes out with Obama at plus 9 in polls and almost every swing state moving significantly in his direction the past week it sure as heck isn't good news for the McCain team.

And as to whether Davis will get tossed off the bus, no chance. Throughout the campaign the McCain team has shown it would rather flat out lie than admit error. Davis is one of his closest allies and that means more to McCain than 'country'.

Pick One -- The Dough or the Smarts

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/09/weve-got-the-hi.html

It hardly came as a surprise to me that the prez campaign has often times been reduced to name calling games, but for someone that considers herself "an elitist", I'm frankly sick and tired of people just defining the term as they see fit, and more importantly, only using it in a derogatory way.

Now I know these two characteristics are inevitably very closely related, but "the elites" generally refer to people that are 1) of the upper class family (wealth-wise) upbringing and continue to remain within that class; and 2) of high-skilled professions, and most likely having come from one of the "elite" schools (I refrain from defining "elite" in this context lest it become a circular definition). In particular, the latter definition often implicitly means that the individual is intelligent and revered in the work that they do.

Unfortunately with the continued decline in social mobility in this once land-of-opportunity, having the money buys you yet more money, a brand-name education, and the connection to get a good job. Even if you're dumb as a rock, you can just be propped up to "oversee" companies that rake in millions, and then your job title can include "philanthropist" too.

I'm petitioning for two separate words that will describe "class-based" elites vs "intelligence-based" elites. Clearly McCain is the former and Obama is the latter.

At the end of the day, it isn't about which of the candidates is in my social / economic group so that they can "relate" to me and my problems. Sharing feelings and relating sound to me the job of a psychologist. What I need is someone who will go out of their way to be informed about me and my problems, and even other citizens' problems. Then having the smarts to do something to make things better for the country.

The King Is Dead

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=231283&f=28

This Roger Cohen piece is an interesting template (especially if matched with Nick Kristofs biting satire on executive pay) for a progressive response to the current financial crisis. Bash the culture of Wall Street, tie it back to the lessons society is teaching our kids, throw in a dash of Obama civic language, sprinkle some FDR and greatest generation praise (for the nostalgic), garnish with some China scare, and BAM you have a national infrastructure bank.

Just Past the Cake Milton, c'mon, don't be selfish...

The quote on the title is taken from the movie "Office Space", in an office birthday party scene in which shy introvert Milton was told to pass the cake slices down, and he would get his slice eventually.

And of course he didn't get a slice in the end -- he never does in any office birthday parties.

The quote came to mind as I was reading a few articles on the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and the whirlwind weekend at the NY Fed, so action-packed and dramatic it can totally pass as movie material.

I know that the government doesn't have unlimited funds to bail out all in trouble because of the string of events that follow the credit market crashes, nor do I fully agree with the relatively unconditional, and almost automatic response to bail out or generously assist nearly all those that have waved white flags before now.

Just not Lehman Brothers. Oh, and not Merill either. Just decided to draw the line right here. And while we're at it, let it be made clear, no more bail outs from now on.

It makes me wonder whether this is a case of the cake done being distributed, and there's simply nothing left to share, or there are good reasons behind helping the specific ones they did and equally good reasons for why not the others instead.

I would seriously frown on a government that does not seem to be aware of how big their cake is, and more importantly, how many people would need to eat that cake so as to cut it up accordingly to maximize aggregate utility.

Think before you accept that package

I see today that Georgia is trying to sell that the Russians started the conflict last month. Color me skeptical that the Russians could have rolled an entire armored regiment through the one tunnel connecting to south Ossetia and putted along for a whole day without anyone noticing before now. That their only evidence is some radio intercepts they only just realized they have means either it is a lie or their signal intelligence capacity ranks slightly above Namibia and Botswana - something I have a hard time believing given all the American and Israeli hardware and training that has been happening the last few years. And if somehow you do suck that badly and have real plans of engaging anyone militarily you certainly wouldn't broadcast that.

Of course, regardless, the fact remains the Georgians started shelling cities without anyone having taken a shot at them yet. And that was really dumb unless their objective was to start something thinking the Americans would back them or at least the blow back would get them some extra military dollars and membership in NATO. And so if that was your goal the logical next step would be to start leaking Intel that the Russians started it and whip up your friends in America to make some campaign promises and ensure you have money in the 2010 budget (which is just starting to be negotiated at omb).

In Search of McCain and Obama’s Views (by means other than googling them)

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=229284&f=28

I agree with the authors that it is important for Americans to clearly know where both candidates stand on issues. And their questions are overall pretty good, hitting on a wife range of current and eternal foreign policy questions that will face the next president.

Aside from expressing my sincere hope (and skepticism) that the TimEs will actually let or force the candidates to answer them in their pages I would just note that, despite never having worked for either campaign or having the credentials to call and ask, I can probably answer half the questions myself.

McCain thinks if there is any semblence of chaos in Iraq our troops should stay - even if it lasts for 1000 years. Obama has said that if we know where the Taliban or Al qaeda are in Pakistan we should hit them whether or not the government there gives us a green light.

I could continue on, but I have a real job. I only would ask the authors if perhaps it might have been a more effective use of everyones time and the million eyes their story will garner to have informed people about positions rather than just bemoaning that everyone doesn't know them.

McCain says jump, NBC says how high

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=228560&f=77

I hope this story explodes like it should. For a network to pull two hosts because of one campaigns whine is a travesty. For them to do it because they were hurting the candidates 'messsage' is negligent and pitiful. I personally like David Gregory a lot but I hope nobody watches his debate coverage and validates this pathetic move by the executives.

But maybe they were biased? After all Keith Olberman was openly contemptuous after they showed a slow motion video of the 9/11 attacks as precursor to an attack on how Democrats won't keep you safe. And what about this:

The McCain campaign has filed letters of complaint to the news division about its coverage and openly tied MSNBC to it. Tension between the network and the campaign hit an apex the day Mr. McCain announced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. MSNBC had reported Friday morning that Ms. Palin's plane was enroute to the announcement and she was likely the pick. But McCain campaign officials warned the network off, with one official going so far as to say that all of the candidates on the short list were on their way - which MSNBC then reported."The fact that it was reported in real time was very embarrassing," said a senior MSNBC official. "We were told, 'No, it's not Sarah Palin and you don't know who it is.' "

They scooped a TRUE story, then the campaign lied to them, then they reported that. Silly me thought the roll of the press was to report facts.

Keeping Your Voice

On the flip side I would say that the obama campaign really needs to get off the experience angle.

Last week they were winning on an argument that judgement matters more than experience. Then McCain gave them a gift with his selection of someone who seems to be a pathological liar, bitter partisan, and has a whole bunch of ideas most of this country thinks are terrible. But because of the surprise factor the only angle at that moment was her inexperience. And she may be, but experience was never Obama's message.

I also think that the McCain campaign isn't out to steal the 'change' mantle but rather to trivialize it. The one intelligent observation from the CNN crew last night was that this convention marks a resurgence of the culture war along urban-rural lines. And it was reinforced in the new media strategy by the McCain campaign of only talking to People (who's the celebrity now) and small outlets, where that audience gets most of its news. Message penetration is expensive per person in those markets, but cheap per electoral vote. That seems to indicate that they will completely cede about 250 ec worth of blue states then make a run for 51% in the rest.

The Real McCain

Andrew Sullivan posted a reader email this morning that caught my attention on McCain's speech. I have been hearing quite a bit lately about candidate McCain and the 'real' John McCain. But here's the thing, there is only one man. If your coworker stabs you in the back to get a promotion at your expense you don't say "well that was just career Joe, the real Joe would never do that" and keep telling everyone else what a great guy he is. You may not punch him out or start swearing in the middle of the office, but I would hope you might stop covering for his shenanegans.



The other thing is that the 'real' John McCain isn't some psion of private virtue and character. When he got back from Vietnam the first thing he did was write a long piece on his experience for US News. All those quotes we kept hearing about the impact of being a POW on him from commentators last night were from the THREE auto biographies he has written over the years. We should not minimize the heroic ordeal he - and dozens of other Americans - endured as POWs, and he has every right to publicize his experience and its impact on him. But stop telling me how much he hates broadcasting it.



I would also add that a life of virtue is not a single point or event. Chris Matthews last night kept proclaiming that he had 'divorced' his party last night. When he got back from Vietnam and learned his beauty queen wife had been in a car accident and had been raising their children alone after suffering major (and some permanent) injuries, hoping and waiting for his return to them, he cheated on her and ultimately married Cindy before the paper work was even finished. If he is elected and his ratings are too low will he divorce us?

McCain Blogging

Wow, he really hates talking about that whole POW thing. Talk about a celebrity and personality cult.

PS - do you really want a president who likes to occasionally "pick a fight for fun"?

"Teach an illiterate adult to read" - does George Bush count?

He sure says fight a lot for a guy who wants to bring "peace".

And did Chris Matthews really just sum up things by calling it a "divorce"? I know he wants us to trust him, but what happens if we get in a car crash like his first wife?

Cutting budgets

A number of people have started hitting Palin for calling herself a friend of families with disabilities when she cut the states special ed funding by more than half. I would just add the little piece of context she did so at a time when her state had a surplus of $5 billion thanks to the $4 gas the rest of us have been paying into their state coffers. Just imagine what she would do if they had a deficit like Washington.

In a related note, that she and her state continue to suck in more earmarks than any other state - and no matter how many times she lies and says she opposed the Ketchiwan bridge, the truth is as mayor she invented the tradition of hiring lobbyists to bring in earmarks - at a time when the country and most states are facing major budget deficits singularly disqualifies her and anyone else from alaska for any position near fiscal or energy policy. We may as well let the Saudis run it.

Watching the Palin speech I definitely agree with David Gergen that it was a base speech. In terms of the whole "passing the test" angle, I mean what were people expecting - for her to curl up and cry?!

I think the more important development post speech is that the whole "sexist" angle has scared the crap out of CNN. Aside from outsourcing their initial analysis to Palin's sister, the last hour has been all about how she is the perfect mix of tough and feminity, and if you think it was anything but a home run or want to challenge her you are a sexist (and that means you Harry Reid).

As a side note, I would say that slamming Harry Reid may make for a laugh at the Convention, but I wouldn't be surprised if it comes back to haunt McCain in Nevada (5 EC votes).

RNC Train Wreck

I just turned on the Republican Convention and all I can say is wow. Not only did the President not come, but they stuck his video speech on before the networks even switched over to the coverage. More Americans are probably watching David Hasselhoff on whatever the travesty he hosts is and Big Brother - a stark contrast to the huge ratings from Denver and the interest in the speeches of Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton.

And I recognize that some random winger will probably suddenly discover my blog and flame me (hey, all press is good press), but what is up with their other speakers? They just had some heroic female public affairs officer on talking about how while serving in Bosnia she had to be medivac'd back and was on death watch after - get this - developing a blood clot in her leg. Thankfully she had the benefit of the socialized VA system and, though she unfortunately lost her leg, survived. But seriously, since McCain is running on Iraq and keeping America safe couldn't they have found a veteran that had been shot at or at least served in an actual conflict zone?

Saint John

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=226860&f=28

I am not really sure whether Brooks' last graph is meant as a criticism of Palin or a reassurance that sure she would be VP, but not really (whatever that means).

As far as his 'string of virtuous crusades', I think it is interesting Brooks picks out the two crusades - the immigration and global warming bills - that he pissed himself and abandoned in the face of those GOP hordes he supposedly stands up to (or perhaps his moment of virtue was when he was cheating on his sick wife? Peddling influence during the Keating 5? Hiring the Rovian scum that defamed his own family in 2000?).

And like him, his protege that took on the psions of pork is a fraud too. Today we learn that as a small town mayor she hired the lobbying firm Stevens son worked for to bring in$25 million in earmarks, then stepped up to governor and sent her team in washington a wishlist with over $200 million in earmarks! (and for the record I think earmarks aren't that big a deal, but if you are going to make your 'opposition' to them a part of your public credentials then being one of the biggest pigs at the trough does matter).