The Commentariat -- January 28, 2012

President Obama's Weekly Address:

     ... The transcript is here.

Maybe you're sick of the State of the Union address, but Jim Fallows -- a former presidential speechwriter, BTW -- has a terrific edition, with his own smart annotations. Click on the underlined text, and the annotations pop up. Some are pretty funny. ...

... Robert Scheer writes an excellent reality check on President Obama's SOTU address. CW: what he writes is exactly the reason I backed Obama over Hillary Clinton -- I did not want to get Clintonized again. Yet Obama, if he is Bush III on foreign affairs, is Clinton II on domestic policy. ObamaCare is fiscally-conservative HillaryCare, Dodd-Frank & its Volcker Rule is nowhere near Glass-Steagall, & Obama's Simpson-Bowles Commission belt-tightening deficit-reduction is as Clintonesque as it gets -- right down to Bowles, who was Clinton's chief-of-staff. Occupy is far from finished its work. Read Scheer, who hits other topics in the SOTU. I think the only difference between then & now is that WE are smarter this time. We must stay smart. And tough.

Diane Sawyer interviewed President Obama; the interview aired Thursday:

Peter Whoriskey of the Washington Post: "The Commerce Department on Friday issued its quarterly report showing that the economy expanded at a comfortable rate of 2.8 percent during the last quarter of last year.... But the report and other recent economic data suggest a stark divide between the fortunes of businesses and people. Companies are thriving again, but households have come under financial stress.... The employment level is down about 6 million from its peak of about 146 million just before the downturn.... Wage increases have been modest, too.... Though consumers are spending more, they are also saving less, with the personal savings rate dropping for each of the last four quarters.... Moreover, disposable personal income is slightly lower than it was a year before in inflation adjusted dollars."

Here's the text of an e-mail I just got from my friends at Google. See the January 26 Commentariat for related new stories:

We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.

We believe this stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read our updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Service at http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March 1, 2012.

March 1, 2012 is when the new Privacy Policy and Terms will come into effect. If you choose to keep using Google once the change occurs, you will be doing so under the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Reuters: "Apple Inc has never turned 'a blind eye' to the problems in its supply chain and any suggestion it does not care about the plight of workers is 'patently false,' Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook said in an email to employees. Cook was responding to a report in The New York Times about working conditions at Apple's main contract manufacturer, Foxconn, in China, an issue that for years has been a thorn in the company's side." CW: Ah, good. None of those damning reports is true. And Cook is really earning his $60 million a year, isn't he?

Matthew Yglesias in Slate: "... Data released this month as part of the [International EnergyAgency]’s latest World Energy Outlook report ... shows that in 2010 the world spent $409 billion on subsidizing the production and consumption of fossil fuels, dwarfing the word’s $66 billion or so of subsidies for renewable energy. Phasing fossil fuel subsidies out would be sufficient to accomplish about half the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions needed to meet the goal of preventing average world temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius."

David Firestone of the New York Times: in case you've forgotten, because Republicans keep lying to you about them & Newt & Willard keep sliming each other with them, Fannie & Freddie did not cause the financial crisis.

Right Wing World

** Daniel Denvir in Slate: "... the stereotyping of black government dependency ... serves the strategic end of discrediting the entire social safety net, which most Americans of all races depend on. Black people are subtly demonized, but whites and blacks alike will suffer." CW: I thought this was 40-year-old "news," but Denvir puts the history of social safety net programs together to make some very good points. For instance, I never thought of this: "On Social Security, [Rick] Santorum is making what appears to be a safe argument for reform: cutting rich people out of the program. Right now, Social Security belongs to everyone. Cutting rich people out is the first step to making it a program for the poor. Making something a program for the poor — see food stamps, Medicaid and welfare — is the first step toward eliminating it."

Mitt Romney, Candidate of the Great Vampire Squid. Nicholas Confessore, et al., of the New York Times: "No other company is so closely intertwined with [Mitt] Romney’s public and private lives [than is Goldman Sachs --] except Bain itself. And in recent days, Mr. Romney’s ties to Goldman Sachs have lashed another lightning rod to a campaign already fending off withering attacks on his career as a buyout specialist, thrusting the privileges of the Wall Street elite to the forefront of the Republican nominating battle." Goldman has been bankrolling Willard for decades, and now they're his biggest contributors.

Matt Viser of the Boston Globe: "Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has long been critical of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, blaming the government-backed housing lenders for inducing the home-mortgage crisis and saying they have become too unwieldy.... Yet Romney has profited from investments that were made in both government entities.... And unlike most of Romney’s financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney."

Local News

Campbell Robertson & Stephanie Saul of the New York Times: "A close look at some of the clemency applications of the nearly 200 others who were pardoned [by outgoing Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi] reveals that a significant share contained appeals from members of prominent Mississippi families, major Republican donors or others from the higher social strata of Mississippi life." Barbour issued "more than 10 times as many pardons as his four predecessors combined."

David Brooks' One Percent Solution

Because of some unavoidable delays in posting at the New York Times eXaminer over the next several days, I've posted my column for today's NYTX here. I'll probably take this down after the column goes up at NYTX. I'll transfer any comments over; I'll give the commenters credit, naturally, but the comments willl have to go above my name.

New York Times columnist David Brooks is disappointed: President Obama did not devote his State of the Union address to a “grand plan” to dispense with the old, the sick and the poor once and for all.

Brooks begins today's column pining for the good ole days when it appeared the deficit hawks on the Simpson-Bowles Commission would prevail upon the Congress and the President to slash the deficit by cutting spending on what the right characterizes as “entitlement programs.” As Robert Greenstein and James Horney of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities wrote, “Budget cuts account for 69 percent of the savings” in Simpson-Bowles' most recent proposal. Those cuts come largely, though not entirely, from “non-security discretionary spending”; that is, from social safety net programs. Worse,

The plan also relies on reductions in scheduled Social Security benefits for most of the changes it proposes to ensure the program’s long-term solvency. Those benefit cuts outweigh the proposed revenue increases by 2 to 1 over 75 years — and by 4 to 1 in the 75^th year. This does not represent a balanced approach to Social Security reform.

Using the most conciliatory language possible, Greenstein and Horney write that Simpson-Bowles “raises question as to whether the funding for this part of the budget would be adequate to meet critical national needs in the decade ahead.”

Brooks also longs for the “big ideas” proposed by the fiscally-conservative Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a foundation funded by the multi-billionaire hedge-fund operator Pete Peterson. The foundation is devoted to scaring Americans about the “gargantuan” national debt and pressing the need to end Social Security and other social safety net programs, the better to protect the wealthy – like Peterson. “Peterson money is everywhere,” Eric Kingson, co-director of Social Security Works told Benjamin Sarlin of the Daily Beast. “They've managed to insinuate themselves as centrists when what we have in my mind is a really far-out anti-government conservative perspective.” Sarlin documents how Peterson influenced the Simpson-Bowles Commission and how he has used his money to insinuate his views into media coverage of the budget deficit. Economist Dean Baker asked, “Do you have to work for Pete Peterson to be cited on budget issues in the Washington Post?” The question is rhetorical. Post coverage, as Baker documents, suggests that the answer is “yes.”

Brooks complains that in President Obama's speech, “There was nothing big, like tax reform or entitlement reform,” He credits Republicans, by contrast, for speaking “with epic alarm about the nation’s problems. They are unified behind big tax and welfare state reforms that would purge Washington and shake things up.” Yes, they are. Never mind that the drumbeat of this epic alarm and the militant, anti-government unity of the GOP are what have forced the nation into the sorry state it is today. The Occupy Wall Street movement fingers Wall Street, of course, but bought-and-paid-for politicians are responsible for allowing Wall Street and other big corporate interests to tank the economy and turn the American dream into an impossible dream for ordinary Americans.

Brooks further complains that President Obama's SOTU speech contained “a series of modest proposals that poll well.” It's an election year, Mr. Brooks. In election years, first-term Presidents do not use their major speeches to promote policies that voters abhor. The U.S. Constitution requires that presidents “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Although not Constitutionally required to speak on the state of the union annually, all modern presidents have done so. Therefore, “necessary and expedient measures” would be those measures that the president could reasonably expect the Congress to enact in the course of the coming year. In any presidential election year, with any Congress, even one of the president's own party, it is only reasonable to expect the Congress to adopt “modest proposals” – ones that would carry the nation through to the next presidency and next Congress. When the House of Representatives is controlled by the extraordinary do-nothing, Republican Tea Party, as it is today, the President would be a blithering fool if he asked such a Congress to adopt the “sweeping proposals” that are indeed necessary to return the federal government to the sound fiscal policies of the post-World War II boom years. The Congress is not going to act on such proposals.

In general, modern first-term presidents have used their election-year State of the Union addresses to set the themes of their campaigns for a second term. Franklin Roosevelt used his 1936 SOTU speech “to attack critics of the New Deal.” The theme of Ronald Reagan's 1984 speech was “There is renewed energy and optimism throughout the land.” Bill Clinton used his 1996 address to announce that “the era of big government is over.”

Brooks concedes that President Obama also had “some big themes in the speech.” Brooks doesn't mention the big themes because President Obama's overarching views do not sit well with David Brooks. As Helen Cooper of the New York Times wrote in her report on the President's address, Obama called for “an economy 'built to last,'” a phrase that comes “from the auto industry he helped save.” The President, Cooper wrote, “sketched out, albeit vaguely, what he called a blueprint for economic growth in which the wealthy play by the same rules as ordinary Americans.” David Brooks does not want the wealthy to have to play by the same rules the rest of us do. He prefers, instead, the Simpson-Bowles-Peterson prescriptions to slash spending at the expense of the needy and maintain relatively low contributions from the wealthy and super-wealthy. Economic fairness, where “everybody gets a fair shot” – one of President Obama's “big themes” – is anathema to a Brooksian worldview.

President Obama's other “big themes” were national unity and “reclaiming the American values” that led to the post-World War II boom. As I outlined in a previous column titled “A History Lesson for David Brooks,” these are precisely the values – and government policies – that the conservative movement, of which Brooks is a part, has for decades fought tooth-and-nail and by every means possible to dismantle. President Obama used his bully pulpit to try to bully an obstreperous, calcified Congress into taking a few small steps for humankind toward a massive course change that will eventually undo the disastrous, decades-in-the-making policies that have moved us away from the “American promise” the President hopes to restore. David Brooks says he longs for “transformational..., ground-shifting” policies. So does President Obama. But Brooks wants the “transformation” to put the final nail in the coffin of fairness and equal opportunity for success.

Thanks largely to the influence of Occupy Wall Street, President Obama at long last wants the nation to shift again toward a set of policies that foster an environment in which “everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” As President Obama said in his State of the Union address, “The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive.” It is an epic clash that pits President Obama against David Brooks and his ilk. It is Obama and Occupy vs. One Percenters like Pete Peterson who use their vast resources to set all the rules in their own favor. It is fundamental fairness vs. greed.

Is an epic clash big enough for you, Mr. Brooks?

The Commentariat -- January 27, 2012

David Roberts of Grist: The results of wiring up a focus group of swing voters who watched the State of the Union address were that they strongly favored two Democratic policies: clean energy & increasing taxes on the rich. It's worth reading the post, which leads the reader to believe maybe those low-info voters know a thing or two after all. ...

... Bernie Becker of The Hill: "Democratic leaders are embracing a new strategy for tax reform that leans on President Obama's State of the Union call for tax fairness and economic equality. The new strategy diverges from the 1986 formula, the last time Washington successfully tackled tax reform, and focuses on raising tax revenue from the wealthiest taxpayers and businesses that funnel jobs offshore. 'Tax reform after the president's speech now has a different definition,' Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday." ...

... Clusterfucked. Paul Krugman: in his SOTU rebuttal, Mitch Daniels lied about Jobs and jobs. To make his point, Krugman refers to the Duhigg & Bradsher article(s) linked yesterday on the Commentariat. "One side [Republican] believes that economies succeed solely thanks to heroic entrepreneurs; the other [Democratic] has nothing against entrepreneurs, but believes that entrepreneurs need a supportive environment, and that sometimes government has to help create or sustain that supportive environment. And the view that it takes more than business heroes is the one that fits the facts."

Here's a news item I missed from a couple of days ago. New York Times: "The publisher of The Atlanta Jewish Times resigned Tuesday after writing that Israel should consider assassinating President Obama. Andrew B. Adler stepped down after an outcry over a recent column in which he suggested that the Israeli military might 'take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel.' Adler owns the paper.”

Right Wing World

Quote of the Day. Willard Still Likes to Fire People. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, ‘You’re fired.’ -- Mitt Romney, on Newt Gingrich's moon colonization plan

Thursday GOP Debate Post-Mortems

Jim Rutenberg & Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times: "Mitt Romney, facing his greatest challenge of the campaign so far, relentlessly pressed Newt Gingrich on Thursday night in their final debate before the Florida primary, seeking to regain the offensive against an insurgent challenge that has shaken his claim to inevitability. On immigration, personal finances and the grand ideas that have been the trademark of Mr. Gingrich’s candidacy, Mr. Romney gave his rival no quarter, giving prime time voice to his campaign’s all-out, round-the-clock assault on Mr. Gingrich here." The Los Angeles Times story by Paul West & Seema Mehta is here. ...

Jonathan Bernstein in the Washington Post: "... for the second time this week, Newt showed that his debate skills are massively overrated, particularly his ability to attack an opponent with clear vulnerabilities. And Mitt Romney demonstrated exactly how to go about carving up an overmatched opponent. This time, not even having a noisy audience to appeal to could save the former Speaker. Several times over the course of the debate, Romney hit Newt hard, and Newt sputtered around and couldn’t find an effective response."

Glen Johnson wrote the Boston Globe's report on the debate. It is titled, "Mitt Romney’s attacks on Newt Gingrich’s record and credibility strain his own." That should give you a taste of the tenor of the debate. And here are the ...

... Biggest Liar Contest Results. Glenn Kessler fact-checks some of the candidates' remarks.

The DNC fact-checks Romney:

** Tim Egan: "When not holding forth from his favorite table at L’Auberge Chez François, nestled among the manor houses of lobbyist-thick Great Falls, Va., Dr. Newton L. Gingrich likes to lecture people about food stamps and how out-of-touch the elites are with real America. Gingrich, as he showed in a gasping effort in Thursday night’s debate in Florida, is a demagogue distilled, like a French sauce, to the purest essence of the word’s meaning. He has no shame. He thinks the rules do not apply to him. And he turns questions about his odious personal behavior into mock outrage over the audacity of the questioner." ...

Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times: During his term in Congress, "Mr. Gingrich, Democrats and Republicans here agree, emerged as one of Washington’s most aggressive practitioners of slash-and-burn politics; many fault him for erasing whatever civility once existed in the capital. He believed, and preached, that harsh language could win elections.... Those same qualities are now on display as Mr. Gingrich, a Republican candidate for president, turns his caustic tongue against Republicans and Democrats alike." ...

... Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail.... President Reagan is clearly failing.... The burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan [who is] ... pathetically incompetent. -- Newt Gingrich, 1986 ...

... The Blue Texan at Crooks & Liars: "The wingosphere is flipping out over an explosive Elliot Abrams piece in which he lambastes Newt Gingrich for his vituperative assaults on Ronald Reagan back in the '80s.... This is especially rich since Newt has been invoking St. Ronald of California more than any other GOP candidate."

"Winning Our Future," The pro-Newt superPac, presents "Blood Money" -- The Trailer:

Not to be outdone, the Romney campaign produces this ad, the entire premise of which is a lie:

A pro-Bama superPAC notices Romney was against the 99 Percent a few days before he was for the 99 Percent:

Blast from the Past. TPM: "Former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) is blaming Newt Gingrich in part for the losses Republicans suffered in 1996, including his own presidential campaign against Bill Clinton. In a statement sent by the Mitt Romney campaign, Dole warns that Republicans this year could suffer the same fate as the candidates for office in 1996 if Gingrich is nominated." ...

... The Gingrich Reaction. It’s got to be on the top 10 list of the weirdest things he’s ever written. -- R. C. Hammond, Gingrich's spokesperson

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones: "It's sort of fascinating watching the Republican establishment finally go nuclear on Newt Gingrich. As near as I can tell, pretty much everyone who actually served with or alongside Newt in the 90s hates his guts.... Newt's tone and temperament are perfectly suited to the no-compromise-no-surrender spirit of the tea party-ized GOP, which is why he's so appealing to the base during debates. But the truth is that for all his bluster, Newt ... likes to think of himself as a world-historical figure, and that means getting world-historical things done.... That makes him doubly unreliable, since obstruction is the sine qua non of movement conservatism these days." ...

Ginger Gibson of Politico: Gingrich lays into Romney and the "Republican establishment" backing Romney. ...

... Robert Reich: "Even if the odds that Gingrich as GOP presidential candidate would win the general election are 10 percent, that’s too much of a risk to the nation. No responsible American should accept a 10 percent risk of a President Gingrich." ...

... Michael Shear of the New York Times: Mitt "Romney is now fully participating in his campaign’s efforts to attack Mr. Gingrich’s morals and raise doubts about his emotional stability." ...

... CNN: Gingrich is forced to admit he's a big fat liar. He repeatedly claimed he had provided "character" witnesses to ABC News re: their interview of Marianne Gingrich and called ABC News "dishonest" for denying it. However, a Gingrich staffer has now admitted the candidate's claims were untrue. CW: for once, CNN follows up.

When "Disclosure" Doesn't Mean "Disclosure." Matea Gold & Tom Hamburger of the Los Angeles Times: "Some investments listed in Mitt and Ann Romney’s 2010 tax returns – including a now-closed Swiss bank account and other funds located overseas – were not explicitly disclosed in the personal financial statement the GOP presidential hopeful filed in August as part of his White House bid. The Romney campaign described the discrepancies as 'trivial' but acknowledged Thursday afternoon that they are undergoing an internal review of how the investments were reported and will make 'some minor technical amendments' to Romney’s financial disclosure that will not alter the overall picture of his finances.... At least 23 funds and partnerships listed in the couple’s 2010 tax returns did not show up or were not listed in the same fashion on Romney’s most recent financial disclosure, including 11 based in low-tax foreign countries such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg."

** Jerry Markon & Alice Crites of the Washington Post on Ron Paul's racist, homophobic newsletters: Paul "has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward.... But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters ... and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day. 'It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product.... He would proof it,’' said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company" and a Paul supporter "A person involved in Paul’s businesses ... said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said."

Gene Robinson: "Republicans seem eager to double down on a 'greed is good' ethos that has more resonance when the economy is booming, real estate values are soaring and everybody feels rich. Obama, by contrast, envisions a return to an America where the successful and fortunate lend a helping hand to those down on their luck.... This seems much more in tune with the times.... The Republicans who are running the party laugh at the concepts of fairness and collective responsibility. Soon they may find the joke’s on them."

Comment "Approval"

My site host Squarespace has a new forced feature which automatically throws some comments into an "awaiting approval" bin. I have no facility to disable this feature (actually, it IS disabled, but Squarespace has installed an override). I have asked Squarespace to change this. I don't think they will.

This is an equal-opportunity site, and I don't bar anyone from commenting. I apologize for this annoying, discriminatory "feature." I will "approve" comments as soon as I'm aware of them and before reading them. With the exception of some ad spam, I can count on one hand the number of comments I've had to remove in the past six months for offensive content. This approval system is a real pain for commenters, readers and me.

I do, BTW, read all the comments, though not necessarily timely. If I ever remove a comment for what I deem cause, the writer will know it & know why.

Update: a commenter has suggested that "the best solution is just not to comment." That's was not my goal in making readers & contributors aware of the approval process imposed by my host. Since I'm not going to read the comments as I "approve" them, it takes me only seconds to release the comments for publication. The delay is what is unfair to commenters: I don't sit at my computer waiting for comments to come in, so any comments that trigger the approval algorithm will be delayed, sometimes by hours if I'm not around. This delay severely limits commenters' ability to engage in an exchange of ideas, which is one of the purposes of the comments facility. Not only that, I think the approval process itself is insulting to contributors, who 999 times out of 1,000, write comments which falls within my so-called standards.

So keep on commenting, please. What annoys me is the approval requirement, not the comments.