OBAMA DOCTRINE VINDICATED (again) IN LIBYA

On the surface this is what most Americans see ...

After massive demonstrations, Tunisia's Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was forced to flee his country as protesters forced him into exhile ... Facing similar conditions, Eypt's corrupt Hosni Mubarrak was forced to resign in February of 2011 ... Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi is hunted down and killed by Libyans, after 41 years of ruling his nation through fear and intimidation.

But there is much more to the overthrow of three corrupt and kleptocratic regimes in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. In fact, in many ways, it all started with a vegetable seller in Tunisia.

After Tunisian police confiscated Mohamed Bouazizi's only means of earning a living in December of 2010 he set fire to himself. He was fed up with a corrupt regime that would take his only means of earning a living. Street protests were initiated. They became uprisings. Subsequent events in Tunisia, and then throughout the Arab world, are now known as the Arab Spring.

The Arab Spring, in turn, has both drawn from and given life to the Obama Doctrine (which he first articulated in Oslo in 2009). In simple terms the Obama Doctrine is about Peace through cooperation, Order through strength.

In the real world it means, when possible, encouraging our allies to go through international institutions, like the United Nations and NATO, to assist repressed people looking to overthrow corrupt regimes. But the Obama Doctrine also means relentlessly pursuing those who threaten America's security.

Killing Osama bin Laden in a stunning raid led by U.S. Special Forces in May proved this. This, in turn, was followed up by another spectacular military operation in September that killed the most potent post-Bin Laden al Qaeda threat to the United States, Anwar al-Awlaki.

It would be easy for me to say that cooperation and successful military raids are sufficient to understand the Obama Doctrine. But, as President Obama's comments on Israel demonstrate, this doesn't do justice to the complex thinking that the Obama Doctrine involves.

It is the difference between a checkers player and a chess player. Consider how it worked in Libya.

About a month after the protests in Libya started President Obama imposed powerful sanctions, froze Colonel Qaddafi’s assets, secured a UN Security Council resolution, organized an international coalition, executed another stunning military campaign through NATO, pushed Gaddafi’s forces back with air strikes, which effectively neutered Gaddafi's military and left them (and Gaddafi) to flee towards safe havens.

Allies. International institutions. Strategic restraint.

And the best part? It was all done without having to put American troops on the ground. This meant no American military casualties and only a handful of Libyan civilian casualties. All of this allowed the British and French to lead the United Nations and NATO - at the request of the Arab League - to continue pursuing a crippled regime on behalf of a beleaguered civilian population.

Ultimately the Obama Doctrine doesn't provide the media with the "shock and awe" fireworks of a U.S. military invasion, or the pomp and pageantry of a Mission Accomplished photo op. But it's working.

While all of this may all be too much for those who want to turn every conflict country into parking lot, today's developments - understood in the proper context - help us see the Obama Doctrine for what it really is. An approach to global politics that's starting to win the United States new fans. That it's happening in an historically antagonistic region bodes well for America, on many levels.

- Mark

Addendum: This is probably the best interactive on the Arab Spring I've seen. Check it out.

KEVIN McCARTHY AND GOP LEADERSHIP GEARING UP TO SAY "NO" (again) ...

I'm a prophet. Or at least that's how the GOP House leadership is making me look. Check this out ...

Last week I revived a January 2009 post where I predicted that House Republicans would say No to President Obama throughout his presidential term. As part of last week's post I then wrote that the House GOP would say No to his jobs agenda this week. And why not? The GOP's obstructionist race to the bottom approach to governing has paid political dividends in the past (which I also discussed in this July, 2011 Bakersfield Californian piece).

To be sure, holding your breath, while trying to break the state, is no way to govern. To date it's even given our nation a $14 trillion national debt plus gridlock in Washington. But record debt and stalemate aren't the concern of the GOP. It wasn't in 2009, and it isn't today. Bi-partisanship is a four letter word in their eyes. As long as they gum up the works, and gain power on their terms, they believe they're doing our country a favor in the long run.

Fourteen trillion dollars in debt and a broken economy be damned.

So when President Obama came out with his $400 billion-plus jobs program last night it shouldn't come as a surprise that the House GOP has already come up with their strategy for gumming up the works, again.

It doesn't matter that Americans affected by Wall Street's 2008 market collapse want to work, or that America's returning warriors want to find work after they serve our nation abroad. Forget the tax incentives too. The GOP, as I predicted last week, will be saying NO to President Obama, once again.

Don't believe me? Check this out. Last night House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) pretty much explained how the House GOP is going to say No in this Fox News interview.

First Rep. McCarthy characterized President Obama's proposal as "political," then attacked it as a kind of "vague" out of control stimulus plan (even though the stimulus plan worked). In short, he was laying the groundwork for the GOP to say No to President Obama through the 2012 presidential campaign by dismissing it out of hand (Rep. McCarthy also gave a sign that he wants Wall Street deregulated, and Dodd-Frank emasculated, but that's another topic).

As a concerned citizen who lives in Rep. McCarthy's district, I watched his Fox interview this morning, and then commented on his Facebook page:

Kevin, why don't you just come out and say you're not going to work with President Obama? Why the song and dance (actually, I know, but that's another story)? And your comments about President Obama and our national debt is off ... President Obama didn't create our budget mess, or our national debt. Reagan effectively tripled it, while Bush II doubled it ... and then he left a mess of things that you and the GOP leadership are doing nothing about (legislation with tax cut poison pills don't count). I know you guys smell blood in the water because saying No has brought political dividends (Americans have short memories), but it's no way to govern. On the bright side, with the GOP presidential lineup, President Obama should win in 2012 ...

While one commentator tried to dismiss me by writing that I was "mad" at the world (I guess pointing out some inconvenient facts is a form of anger for Kevin's supporters ...), what the thread on Kevin's Facebook page reveals is that Rep. McCarthy's supporters don't understand what caused our current mess, and have no clue (or don't care) about what the GOP is up to. They've bought into the GOP's "blame the mess on President Obama" noise talk, while criticizing anyone who wants to "play the blame game" when President Bush is brought into the picture.

At the end of the day, while President Obama's jobs program wasn't the imperial czarist-like command that the GOP is sure to paint it as (actually, they'll paint it as a "big gubmint" project), it still had all the trimmings of a sorely needed infrastructure and employment project. And it could help lead the way to better days for many Americans (though I like this better).

Unfortunately, as Rep. McCarthy's Fox interview makes clear, the House GOP is going to hold their breath and say No - as I predicted here and here  - which makes me a prophet, I guess.

My new prediction? Unless a broad and genuine populist movement grows to force the hand of House GOP members (and, no, the Tea Party isn't part of this), only a few projects might see the light of day (in GOP districts?). But the broad outline of President Obama's program will be kicked around through the rest of 2011, and most of 2012.

On the bright side, while it does nothing to fix our nation's problems, we can all give thanks for the pitiful list of GOP presidential candidates.

- Mark

P.S. As an aside, neither Rep. McCarthy nor Greta van Susteren once referred to President Obama as "President Obama." McCarthy mentioned "the President" once or twice - while slamming him on free trade - but it was always "he" or "him" throughout the interview. Rep. McCarthy even laughed at the idea that President Obama would call on Congress so many times to pass the legislation (because unemployment is so funny). Greta even started with, "So, what did you think of the jobs speech"? Even the Fox title for the clip omits "President." It's just "Obama." Frank Luntz is earning his money.

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE IN REAL TIME

Nine years ago I wrote an op-ed on Middle East tensions for our local paper, the Bakersfield Californian. Most of the article covered basic historical information. At the end of that article I wrote that for Israel to avoid another century "drenched in blood" - as King Saud predicted would happen - that accepting pre-1967 borders, "or adjusting those borders," so that the Palestinians can have a state that they call their own, was the key to building a foundation for peace in the region.

If this were to happen, I wrote, there would be a reason for the Arab world to begin cooperating on the issue of Israeli security. This is why I was so impressed with President Obama's Middle East speech last week.

Specifically, President Obama said:

"We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

And just like that President Obama initiated a discussion that those of us who follow the region understand needs to take place if we are to secure a modicum of peace in the region.

Perhaps more importantly, with Osama Bin Laden dead, we are currently witnessing the consolidation of the Obama Doctrine - Peace through cooperation, Order through strength - in real time. By pushing the Israelis to see how their future security is tied to building bridges with the Arab world - no matter how reluctant they may seem at the moment - President Obama is demonstrating that he isn't interested in pushing empty and unrealistic "Road Map to Peace" agendas.

And by taking Bin Laden out earlier this month, President Obama has made it clear that he's ready to take risks, which includes his willingness to put the future of his presidency behind his agenda for the region.

This is serious stuff, and the major players involved know it.

Better yet, what President Obama is doing is slowly leaving his domestic enemies (mostly in the GOP) and regional critics with little more than petty sound bytes.

With Prime Minister Netanyahu supporting President Obama's proposal for mutually agreed land swaps, the professional naysayers and the GOP may soon find themselves left with little more than empty rhetoric and petty grandstanding media ops to hang their hats on - as this Lawrence O'Donnell clip makes clear ...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We are currently watching history being made in real time. And the fact that the GOP doesn't see or understand what's happening is just one more reason why President Obama will be reelected in 2012.

- Mark

UPDATE (11-21-12): If you want to read an excellent book on the Obama Doctrine take a look at David E. Sanger's Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power (Random House, 2012). It provides a detailed look at the Obama Doctrine by outlining the president's use of coalitions when broader U.S. global interests are evident (like the intervention in Libya) and aggressive unilateralism when specific U.S. security interests are involved (the drone attacks and the killing of Osama Bin Laden). For a quick but still nuanced review of the Obama Doctrine check out Joseph S. Nye's article, "The Obama Doctrine's First Term." And, of course, there's my earlier blogpost on the Obama Doctrine as it was being defined in 2009.

NOW, THIS IS THE MAN I VOTED FOR ...

President Obama's speech on the budget today is the kind of speech I could see myself writing. It provides an intellectual framework for our budget future that's realistic and affirming.




Here's the link for the written speech, with some of the money quotes copied below.

On the role of government ...

* We believe, in the words of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.

* Part of this American belief that we’re all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity.  We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us.  “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves.  And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, those with disabilities.  We’re a better country because of these commitments.  I’ll go further.  We would not be a great country without those commitments.


On the Republican budget proposal ...

* [The Republican plan] says even though Americans can’t afford to invest in education at current levels, or clean energy, even though we can’t afford to maintain our commitment on Medicare and Medicaid, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. 

* [The Republicans] want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that’s paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay $6,000 more in health costs.  That’s not right.  And it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.
* I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs.  I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. 

* ... we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society.  We can’t afford it.  And I refuse to renew them again.


On how to fix our budget mess ... 

* ... the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions.  And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, from home ownership to charitable giving, we can’t ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 but do nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.  So my budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans -- a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over 10 years.


Whether President Obama is able to get what he outlines here is another matter. Still, he did lay down some markers that will be hard for him to ignore on the campaign trail. This is refreshing.

- Mark

P.S. I also like how President Obama finally found the nerve to lay the blame for our budget mess today where it really lies - with the Bush administration, and the Reagan-inspired tax cuts for the rich policies.

LIBYA AND THE OBAMA DOCTRINE

I've been far too busy to comment on President Obama's Libya speech. But make no mistake. He is following a path that he laid out long ago. Rather than recount the Libya speech, and how it fits into the Obama Doctrine - Peace through cooperation, Order through strength - take a look at President Obama's Oslo speech. The long term approach for Libya is in there. My comments on what the Obama Doctrine means can be found here and here.

Interestingly, many conservatives - including former Speaker Newt Gingrich - praised President Obama's Oslo speech.

I have to run off to class so I'll leave my comments on the rants of Sarah Palin, and other clueless wonders, for another day. I'll try and make specific comments about the Libya speech at a later date too.

- Mark

OBAMA'S EPIC SPEECH

I haven't always agreed with President Obama's speeches, especially the one he gave on Wall Street. But last night's Tucson speech was epic. Even the folks at Fox News liked it. Here's the speech in it's entirety ...



- Mark

THIS IS WHY OBAMA'S IN TROUBLE ... MAIN ST. IS REELING, WALL ST. IS CLUELESS

QUESTION: What do abysmal employment numbers, rising poverty levels, collapsing home prices, evaporating middle-class wealth, a forgotten Main Street, white pity rallies and, finally, the emergence of a whiny elite class have in common?

ANSWER: They all help us understand why the Democrats have a hill to climb this November, and why this nation's troubles may be just beginning.

Let's take a closer look ...

ON THE JOBS FRONT, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich reports:

The Labor Department reports [in June] that the private sector added a measly 41,000 net new jobs in May. (The vast bulk of new jobs in May were temporary government Census workers.) But at least 100,000 new jobs are needed every month just to keep up with population growth.

In other words, the labor market continues to deteriorate.

The average length of unemployment continues to rise – now up to 34.4 weeks (up from 33 weeks in April). That’s another record. More Americans are too discouraged to look for a job than last year at this time (1.1 million in May, an increase of 291,000 from a year earlier.) Of the small number of jobs created by the private sector in May, many came from temporary help services ...

... The only reason the economy isn’t in a double-dip recession already is because of three temporary boosts: the federal stimulus (of which 75 percent has been spent), near-zero interest rates (which can’t continue much longer without igniting speculative bubbles), and replacements (consumers have had to replace worn-out cars and appliances, and businesses had to replace worn-down inventories) ...

ON THE POVERTY FRONT, via the NY Times, the Census Bureau reports:

Forty-four million people in the United States, or one in seven residents, lived in poverty in 2009, an increase of 4 million from the year before, the Census Bureau reported on Thursday.

The poverty rate climbed to 14.3 percent — the highest level since 1994 — from 13.2 percent in 2008. The rise was steepest for children, with one in five residents under 18 living below the official poverty line, the bureau said ...

... For a single adult in 2009, the poverty line was $10,830 in pretax cash income; for a family of four, $22,050.

Things could be worse, except for ...

Given the depth of the recession, some economists had expected an even larger jump in the poor. Expanded unemployment insurance and a rise in the number of families doubling up helped temper the trend, said Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin.

“A lot of people would have been worse off if they didn’t have someone to move in with,” said Mr. Smeeding, noting that in a typical case, a struggling family, like a mother with a child, stays with more prosperous parents or other relatives. The Census study found an 11.6 percent increase in the number of such multifamily households last year.

ON THE HOUSING FRONT, Michael David White is reporting:

Data from HousingStory.net predicts a nine percent fall in property prices nationwide in 2010. HousingStory.net is making this prediction "despite positive signals of higher prices including a gain of seven percent nationwide by Case-Shiller 10-City index from its post-crash bottom in April 2009."

So, why all the doom and gloom for the housing market? Part of the story is explained because of the lagging jobs and poverty picture painted above. But the real key is tied to historical projections that were broken by the bubble market starting in 2000. By using pre-bubble trends that predate 2000 it follows that housing prices will continue to fall.

This is especially since government sponsored home ownership programs are either ending, or not going so well (the Making Home Affordable Program, is especially a disaster because the details were left in the hands of the banks).

ON THE COLLAPSING NET WORTH FRONT, via Huffington Post we see that the Federal Reserve is reporting:

Americans' net worth plunged in the second quarter of this year, new data from the Federal Reserve show, erasing the gains of the previous two quarters and adding evidence to the argument that the economy has entered a double-dip recession.

The net worth of households and non-profit organizations dropped $1.52 trillion during the period from April 1 to June 30 of this year, according to the report released Friday. The new figure, $53.50 trillion, represents a 2.8 percent decline from the previous quarter.

The net quarterly loss, the data suggests, came from Americans' losses in the sagging stock market. Equity shares owned by households and non-profits tanked in the second quarter, dropping $1.88 trillion or 11.2 percent to $14.87 trillion from the previous quarter. The second quarter figure went down past the territory of 2009's third quarter ($15.32 trillion), almost to the range of the 2009 second quarter ($13.06 trillion), when equity was just starting to rise from its low of $10.94 trillion in the first quarter of that year.

ON THE "FORGETTING" MAIN STREET FRONT, as I pointed out after the Democrats lost the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, Main Street is rightfully pissed off because:

1. President Obama rewarded Wall Street for their incompetence, while doing little to nothing for Main Street.

2. President Obama didn't push Congress when it came to allowing cheaper medicines in from countries like Canada (there goes the elderly independent vote).

3. President Obama made it look like he didn't really want a single payer system, or a public option, both of which he pushed for on the campaign trail. The base is uninspired.

4. Unemployment is hovering around 10% after the Obama administration said it wouldn't hit 10%. 

5. After the House passed foreclosure legislation, which would have helped stem record foreclosures by allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages, it died in the Senate. After going to bat for Wall Street, President Obama did nothing to help push it through the Senate ... The message is clear, "You're on your own Main Street."

6. President Obama's Making Home Affordable plan is being undermined by banks, who have Federal trillion-dollar guarantees and aren't in any hurry to negotiate with distressed homeowners. Sitting by as homeowners get kicked out of their homes by the very banks that created our mess is no strategy for winning votes.

ON THE WHITE PITY / "WHINY" BILLIONAIRE FRONT, David Frum and Les Leopold report:

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum called attention to the comments of Chris Hitchens, who referred to  Glenn Beck's recent rally in Washington DC as the Waterworld of White Pity.

At the last “Tea Party” rally I attended, earlier this year at the Washington Monument, some in the crowd made at least an attempt to look fierce and minatory. I stood behind signs that read: “We left our guns at home—this time” and “We invoke the First Amendment today—the Second Amendment tomorrow.”

But Beck’s event was tepid by comparison: a call to sink to the knees rather than rise from them. It was clever of him not to overbill it as a “Million”-type march (though Rep. Michele Bachmann was tempted to claim that magic figure). The numbers were impressive enough on their own, but the overall effect was large, vague, moist, and undirected: the Waterworld of white self-pity.

Then we have Les Leopold pointing out how our bailed out billionaires think they deserve more tax breaks (or a medal) for their greed and stupidity. They are now whining about being asked to pitch-in some of their government escorted (or taxpayer subsidized?) profits so that the larger American economy can recover.

While 43.6 million Americans live in poverty, the richest men of finance sure are getting pissy. First Steve Schwartzman, head of the Blackrock private equity company, compares the Obama administration's effort to close billionaires' tax loopholes to "the Nazi invasion of Poland."

Then hedge fund mogul David Loeb announces that he's abandoning the Democrats because they're violating "this country's core founding principles" -- including "non-punitive taxation, Constitutionally-guaranteed protections against persecution of the minority, and an inexorable right of self-determination." Instead of showing their outrage about the spread of poverty in the richest nation on Earth, the super-rich want us to pity them?

Why are Wall Street's billionaires so whiny? Is it really possible to make $900,000 an hour (not a typo -- that's what the top ten hedge fund managers take in), and still feel aggrieved about the way government is treating you? After you've been bailed out by the federal government to the tune of $10 trillion (also not a typo) in loans, asset swaps, liquidity and other guarantees, can you really still feel like an oppressed minority?

Soaring unemployment, rising poverty levels, collapsing home prices, evaporating middle-class wealth, broken promises, pathetic white pity rallies, and a whiny elite class that think they've suffered enough ... All of these developments help to explain why the Democrats find themselves facing a pissed off electorate in November.

To be sure, this is exactly how the Republican Party wanted this electoral season to play out. Why else would they have become the Party of No? The GOP clearly understands that it's hard to reward a party when their policies helped bail out Wall Street, but had the effect of pretty much leaving Main Street to fend for itself.

At the end of the day, President Obama deserves much of the blame for trying to negotiate with a political party that told the country at the beginning that 60 vote filibusters would be the norm in the Senate, and then acted in a way that confirmed Rush Limbaugh's wish for him - and, by definition, for the country - to fail (whatever happened to Country First?).

With George W. Bush and his failed policies still a recent memory, this is the only strategy the GOP had. They knew it. People like me knew it. Unfortunately for the country, President Obama is still figuring this out ... and it appears this may cost him big in November.

- Mark

SCARE THE BEJESUS OUT OF WHITE AMERICA ... THE GOP'S SOUTHERN STRATEGY, 2.0

Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald has an interesting article detailing how the economic insecurities caused by the market meltdown have been supercharged by racial and ethnic tensions stirred up by the far right. This isn't the first time this has happened.

For those of you not old enough to remember, Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign targeted Southern whites by getting them to think about the political and social mayhem (cultural upheaval) that would follow because of the new found rights women and people of color were going to exercise. Scaring the bejesus out of white America, especially in the south, became know as the republican's Southern strategy.

Today's GOP strategy is very similar, but new and improved. Let's call it Southern Strategy, 2.0. Here's how it works according to Greenwald ...

... Virtually every Fox News/right-wing-talk-radio controversy relies on scaring economically anxious white Americans into ignoring the prime cause of their economic insecurity -- plundering by Wall Street bankers, abetted by the government they own -- and focusing instead on some manufactured menace from powerless racial and ethnic minorities:

* Black people preventing them from voting (New Black Panthers), stealing their elections (ACORN), and treating them unequally (Shirley Sherrod and Eric Holder's Justice Department);

* Muslims who want to conquer their country and celebrate over their Christian corpses (the Triumphalist Ground Zero Mosque);

* Invading, marauding Latino armies coming to steal their property and rape their women while their Marxist allies in Government (led by a black Muslim President) disarm the white victims.

* Matt Taibbi, in lamenting the takeover of the GOP by the most riled-up of these factions -- the Tea Partiers -- recounts just some of the lowlights here.

What's not to be afraid of? Angry blacks, invading Latinos, sneaky Muslims, and an unresponsive government ... and don't forget all the horny homosexuals who want to destroy our way of life.

At the end of the day scaring white America about the coming boogeyman - when the real boogeyman is right in front of us - is an old political tactic. But the real crime this time is that it didn't have to happen this time. More specifically, what's happening today is a direct result of the Obama administration's decision to embrace and save Wall Street precisely at a time when America's rage over Wall Street's greed and incompetence was genuine, and demanded action. Glenn Greenwald reminds us ...

... That crisis presented a huge opportunity for Obama and the Democrats to bring about real change in Washington -- the central promise of his campaign -- by capitalizing on (and becoming the voice of) populist anger and using it to wrestle away control from Wall Street and other financial and corporate elites who control Washington. Had they done so, they would have been champions of populist rage rather than its prime targets. But, as John Judis argues in his excellent New Republic piece, they completely squandered that opportunity. Rather than emphatically stand up to the bankers and other oligarchical thieves, they coddled and served them, and thus became the face of the elite interests oppressing ordinary Americans rather than their foes. How can an administration represented by Tim Geithner and Larry Summers -- and which specializes in an endless stream of secret deals with corporate lobbyists and sustains itself with Wall Street funding -- possibly maintain any pretense of populist support or changing how Washington works? It can't.

By giving Wall Street what they wanted (and more) on a silver platter - while doing little to avenge the economic slap in the face to America's middle class - the Obama administration created the environment for it's base to become discontent, and for the political opposition to get riled up. We shouldn't be surprised that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck have donned hi-tech hoods and are running around like demented characters is a South Park segment.

They were handed an opportunity, and they took it.

America wanted blood after 2008. Instead Wall Street got richer, while Main Street got poorer - and then got stuck with the tab. No reckoning. No justice. No vengeance. It's really that simple.

- Mark

PRESIDENT OBAMA ... THE NEW REAGAN?

I like how Republicans point to President Obama's falling job approval ratings as evidence that the country is turning against him. What they need to do is take a look at President Reagan's numbers at a similar point in his presidency, and then compare him with President Obama.

The reality is that when America "turned" on Ronald Reagan the Republicans had no problem with it. In fact they believed Reagan needed to stay the course and deserved a second term ... even if that meant giving President Reagan more time to effectively triple our national debt.

Still, now that the public is giving President Obama the same approval numbers that they gave President Reagan at a similar point in his presidency, Republicans want everyone to believe that President Obama is losing America. I know it's beltway politics, but it shows that they want President Obama to fail, and will do anything to discredit him. Even if it means ignoring the political realities surrounding their hero, President Reagan.

- Mark

DELINQUENCIES OUTPACE HOME SALES

Another excellent chart from Chicago mortgage broker Michael David White. In a few words, monthly delinquencies on home loans are 16 times larger than average monthly sales.

What this means is that, with 4.63% homes currently in foreclosure, we could see another 5 million homes added to our nation's housing inventories over the next two years. This is especially the case because while housing prices have collapsed homeowner mortgage debt remains relatively the same ...

As the chart shows, while housing values fell from $20 trillion to $13 trillion (34%), total mortgage debt has barely nudged from $11.95 trillion to $11.68 (about 2%). With President Obama's Making Homes Affordable Program in shambles, and with banks foreclosing on homes with positive equity, it's clear that the banks - rather than homeowners - are the only ones benefitting from the banking/mortgage market crisis and the subsequent bailout.

No wonder the market conspiracies are starting to pop up again. Because Wall Street and the banks didn't have to take a hit from the market collapse, it's easy for some to believe the kooks and tin foil hat crowd who think some evil Dr. Doom is behind all of this. In fact, it's tied to political and regulatory capture in Washington, and a lack of political will. President Obama needs to find his FDR moment ...

- Mark

OBAMA'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS ...

For those who are disappointed that President Obama hasn't done enough, this Rachel Maddow clip shows that he has accomplished alot in less than 2 years ...



Keep in mind that all of this has happened with the Party of No acting like a political anchor around President Obama's neck. Impressive.

- Mark

OBAMA'S WALL ST. SPEECH ... A SWING AND A MISS

President Obama gave a speech in Manhattan on financial reform (text here) this morning. It was disappointing. In a few words, I got the sense that President Obama didn't want to piss off Wall Street.

To be sure, President Obama explained that we shouldn't have any more taxpayer bailouts (a no brainer after 2008), why we need greater transparency in markets (who's going to say no to this?), how proposed legislation brings us the strongest consumer financial protections ever (which isn't saying much given the size of the financial loopholes), and the need for a larger voice for shareholders (which, I'm sure, America's CEOs laughed at).

President Obama told us what we already know.

It appeared that President Obama is so confident that the lukewarm pieces of financial legislation currently making their way through Congress will pass that he didn't want to upset the "progress" being made. It was as if President Obama didn't want the Wall Street banksters to collectively get their feelings hurt, and then stand up and say, "We're going to take our ball and go home ... again."

And this is the crux of the problem.

There was absolutely nothing of substance said about banks being too big to fail ...

Look, any time a company - or a group of companies in an industry - get so big that their collapse can threaten the stability of our nation, the claim that there will be no more taxpayer bailouts is simply nonsense (the $50 billion, bank funded, bailout fund in the legislation is for show, while the Volcker Rule reference is a sideshow). If the stability of the system is threatened it would be irresponsible for any government - Democrat or Republican - to allow the country to collapse because of simple stupidity and greed (though there are, no doubt, gun toting Tea Baggers who like sleeping in camouflage pajamas who might disagree).

But what really got me about President Obama's presentation today was how the tone of the speech suggested that, if we just keep playing along, the financial reform bills now making their ways through Congress will do do the job. They won't.

Consider the following.

WALL STREET'S DELUSIONS ...
Banks have been both duplicitous and confused about what needs to be done (depending on what's best for them). In a few words, after years of padding their profits through favorable legislation and very generous regulatory treatment the financial sector still depends on favorable treatment, and can't stand on their own two feet, as they like to claim. Banks of all sizes are still being subsidized in a variety of ways, and benefitting from wealth extracting deals (like computer driven, flash orders) that make the industry a ton of money.

But these innovations have done little to nothing for markets and America's middle class, unless you count the creation of a culture that feeds on gaming the system as a plus.

Then how about the deception and market delusions that continue to dominate Wall Street? These guys don't think they've done anything wrong, are still betting the house, and making a ton of government-escorted profits in the process. What this means is that the banking industry's recovery is little more than smoke & mirrors, built on a pile of hidden guarantees, that you and I underwrite. 

MAIN STREET'S FRUSTRATIONS ...
Then we have the even bigger issue of what's happened to Main Street. Main Street is pissed off and wants, and needs, things fixed on our side. If you're like me, you're pissed. And you probably want a pound of flesh too.

So, why didn't President Obama mention Wall Street's role in:

* Damaging state and municipal pensions?
* Contributing to state mandated furlough programs?
* Massive layoffs?
* Prolonging unemployment?
* The number of houses that are underwater?
* Working against homeowner mortgage negotiations?
* Pissing off middle America by giving undeserved bonuses? 

There was absolutely nothing said about any of this. Nor was there anything said about Wall Street's responsibility in helping to fix any of this.

How can you tame Wall Street when there's no consequences for bad behavior? How can you tame Wall Street when they don't fear you? How can you tame Wall Street when their size dictates your actions? Watch out. With the exception of the Brown-Kaufman SAFE Banking Act, the reform bills making their way through Congress are palliatives. The next market collapse is around the corner. The only question is when.

Stay tuned.

- Mark

THE TORTURED LOGIC OF THE "PARTY OF NO"

There is nothing that says you can't balance pro-management members on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with pro-labor nominees, like President Obama's nominee Craig Becker. Still, even though the NLRB fills only two of it's five seats filled, the U.S. Senate refused to confirm Craig Becker's appointment to the NLRB, in spite of a 52-33 vote in favor of his appointment. The culprit? Two hold out Senate Democrats and the fact that the Republicans threatened a filibuster if Becker's nomination was pushed forward.

Here's Sen. Sherrod Brown railing against the Republican tactics.



Incredibly, one of the arguments used to oppose Craig Becker's nomination was that he actually answered all of the questions that were presented to him. According to Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi, the highest-ranking Republican on the committee that approved Becker, the fact that Becker answered hundreds of questions (which were submitted by Republicans) made him suspect because only suspect candidates get asked that many questions.

Huh?

This kind of thinking is akin to when President Bush's legal team made the argument that they couldn't release people who had been tortured during interrogation because, in the process of being tortured, they learned of our torture techniques. Because our methods were considered national security secrets, the argument went, interrogated prisoners could then share this torture information with attorneys and reporters. The enemy would then have an edge. We simply couldn't - according to the Bush administration - take this chance, even if we thought the prisoners were innocent.

You can read the Craig Becker review here.

- Mark

FRAMING BALTIMORE: "I'M DUNKING ON YOU"

Last Friday I pointed out how President Obama pretty much embarrassed the Republicans at their Baltimore Retreat. They won't be inviting him back, especially in that type of forum, any time soon. As usual, the Daily Show's Jon Stewart puts it in context better than anyone else (click on the previous or this link or here if the video doesn't appear below).

My favorite John Stewart line was his comment after President Obama was told he only had two questions left. The President replied, "I'm having fun. This is great." Stewart paraphrased the President's comments in a way the President could not: "Why should I leave? I'm dunking on you. You can't stop me. I'm in the zone" (5:30 into the clip).

Yeah, the Q & A was that good.

- Mark

HONEST ACCOUNTING

I couldn't help but notice during President Obama's appearance at the Republican Retreat in Baltimore how many speakers prefaced their questions with right wing radio talking points, followed with outright lies about the origins of our budget deficits.

Here's the standard claim, and a contrived question, as posed by Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas):

As President Obama made clear in his response to Rep. Hensarling's comments, the reality between what Republicans claim about the budget and the truth is as vast as the Grand Canyon.

Simply put, Republicans are either lying about the reality of the budget or they're simply ignorant as to the facts (or both). Here's the math ...

If you don't like reading those CBO numbers, know this ...

President Obama came into office with projected deficits of $1.3 trillion dollars for 2009. As President Obama pointed out, this was a budget deficit that he had on his desk before he was sworn into office. Those projections have turned into a $1.6 trillion deficit for this year because the recession (and the needs of the parasitic sociopaths on Wall Street) were far worse than everyone imagined.

Let me repeat. This was not President Obama's doing. It was a gift from from President Bush and his pals on Wall Street. Simply stated, President Obama inherited an economic mess, and the Republican Party is lying to America about it's origins.

President Obama's response to the mess he was left has been both straighforward, and commendable. Here's why.

Under President Bush the majority of the costs associated with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never on the books. President Bush regularly - and deliberately - kept them off budget and asked for emergency "supplemental" funding. What's supplemental funding? In a few words it's like the money you find yourself spending every year on birthdays, vacations, Christmas, etc. that you didn't plan for in your yearly budget. Instead, because you don't have the money, you borrow or put it on your credit card. Then you try to pretend that you didn't spend the money. We all know how those debts eventually catch up with us. President Bush did this to the tune of about $100-200 billion per year.

President Obama thinks that since we know we're in a war that that we shouldn't play "supplemental" accounting games with the American public. He's decided to put the cost of these wars in the budget. While this does inflate our budget deficits, it is also the way serious people deal with their budgets.

Want to see how Republicans deal with budgets post Bush? Check this out.

Seriously, a budget proposal with no numbers?

The impact of embracing the smoke & mirrors behind Republican borrow-and-spend policies is quite serious.

Then we have the expenses associated with cleaning up President Bush's economic mess. You can add hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficit pot. See where this is going? The point is, Republicans are playing political games to score political points.

You would think that Republicans would show some humility on the budget topic, especially given that President Reagan almost tripled our national debt, and President Bush more than doubled it. Instead, Republicans think they should be "rewarded" in November for pointing out how deficits have increased, when they know (or should know) that President Obama's policies didn't bring our current budget mess to our doors.

It's a wonder to me that the media takes anything the Republicans have to say about the budget seriously.

- Mark

PRESIDENT OBAMA AT THE REPUBLICAN RETREAT

President Obama delivered a speech, followed with Q&A, to the Republican Party House Retreat today. I guarantee you the Q&A will not end up on any Republican highlight reel. In fact, I doubt that the Republicans will invite President Obama back under the same circumstances.

Here's the speech.
 


Here's the Q&A ...



- Mark

SAMUEL ALITO & THAT DAMN TYPO

In Baker v. Carr (1962) the Warren Court ruled that the principle of One Person One Vote had to be respected, and was perhaps the most fundamental element of American democracy. At the heart of the case were states that had failed to redraw districts. This left some districts with significantly less, or more, voters. According to the Warren Court, this undermined the principle of equal, or proportional, representation and violated the idea that each citizen's vote should carry equal weight during every election cycle.

The Warren Court's decision was so significant that Earl Warren would call Baker v. Carr (again, which dealt with redistricting and proportional representation) the most important decision his court ever made. As he put it, legislators represent people, not rocks or trees.

The same can not be said about corporations.

POLITICAL VOICE & PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
I bring up Baker v. Carr because it gets to the heart of what Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) was saying yesterday when he criticized the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision on Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. The Citizens United decision allows corporations to enhance their political voice by bankrolling political campaigns. This undermines the spirit of the Baker decision because it super charges the influence of corporations and the corporate lobbyists who represent their very narrow interests.

More specifically, instead of having disproportional political weight lie in the hands of a few people who live in sparsely populated areas - as was the case before the 1962 Baker decision - the Citizens United decision shifts political weight to a few corporations who have the resources to drown out the voice of the middle class. This caters to the interests of a select, pampered, few and violates the principle of proportional representation and One Person One Vote.

This, in part, explains why Sen. Leahy criticized Citizens United as the "most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore." He sees a political system tilting toward a condition (1) where we don't always need to count the votes (Bush v. Gore, 2000) and (2) where one group will have disproportional power over elections (Citizens United, 2010).

(As a reminder, in Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that because Florida's vote counting standards differed from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county that the Florida Supreme Court's recount order was "unconstitutional." Left unsaid is that vote counting standards differ from state to state. Still, the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount. According to Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas the recount order, which provided instructions, was unconstitutional because only state legislatures - who have created different standards across the nation - can make election law. Recognizing the Gordian Knot they had tied themselves into the Supreme Court limited it's divided opinion only to the Bush v. Gore case.)

With this background it's easier to understand why Sen. Patrick Leahy criticized Justice Samuel Alito yesterday. Simply put, he sees an increasingly politicized Supreme Court. No doubt prodded by Justice Alito's "that's not true" moment during President Obama's State of the Union address, Leahy took aim at Justice Alito's new "activist" position.

Here's the money quote from Sen. Leahy:

"In his confirmation hearing, Justice Alito — I might say under oath — testified that the role of the Supreme Court is a limited role. ... It has to be equally vigilant of not overstepping the bounds and invading the authority of Congress. That was then, when he was seeking confirmation. This is now."

Leahy's essentially saying Justice Alito's a scoundrel, and not a man of his word.  But this is a throwaway ...

CORPORATE PERSONHOOD, OR JUST A TYPO?
Ranking judiciary committee member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) didn't take kindly to Sen. Leahy's words about Justice Alito, and shot back at both Leahy and President Obama (for scolding the Supreme Court), saying, "I'm disappointed that the president and my colleagues are attempting to politicize a very, very serious First Amendment question."

What he's really saying is that corporations have (or should have) all the rights and privileges as voters because, after all, they're people too. Is this true? Let's review:

1. CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE: Free speech is designed to protect the actions of naturalized and/or U.S. citizens. Corporations are neither.

2. THAT TYPO: Corporations are viewed as "persons" protected under the 14th amendment only because of the functional equivalent of a typo, not a Supreme Court decision. Put another way, corporate "personhood" status was an accident which means their claim to equal free speech status is not etched in stone.

3. THE FIRE PRINCIPLE: If we can't yell fire in a crowded theater, corporations should not be able to yell fire (or set a fire) during a political campaign. They need limits like we do.

4. CORPORATE PRIVILEGES: Unlike individuals, corporations regularly get favorable legislation (think bailouts), subsidies (think agriculture), generous tax write-offs (too many to list here), legal exemptions that boost their bottom line (especially Big Pharma), etc. They also have a limited liability standard, which you and I don't have (think exploding Pintos and how decision-making Ford executives escaped responsibility), and can live on indefinitely.

5. FOREIGN/SUBSIDIARY SHELL GAMES: Foreign corporations have subsidiaries through which they can access teams of Madison Avenue executives who can distort and elevate their "voice" above Joe Six-Pack's. 

6. LEGAL SHELL GAMES: Corporations can find legal cover behind proprietary rights (trade secrets) when called into court. This means they can both distort their voice, and then hide it. Apart from pleading the 5th, Joe Six Pack can't do this.

And the list goes on ...

CONCLUDING COMMENTS
fateful typo that granted them corporate "personhood" status.

This has enabled corporations to secure favorable legislation that increasingly allows them to act on their own (with less government oversight), ignore the public interest (think subsidized and protected health care industry), and to make more money with government-escorted profits (think Wall Street). Granting corporations the ability to use unlimited money in political campaigns, as the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision does, accelerates this process.

If we want to maintain Abe Lincoln's "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" maxim - and the power of One Person One Vote - Congress needs to fix Citizens United. More importantly, we need more of our elected representatives like President Obama and Senator Leahy to speak out against it.

American democracy, proportional representation, and the principle of One Person One Vote should not be drowned out by a judicial bench that not only believes corporations are people too, but has already said that we don't need to count all the votes.

- Mark