Category Archives: Current Events

Kevin Drum on the snake-oily concept that we ought to not tax capital gains very much (or at all) in this country. I am very suspicious of any argument from any group that goes roughly like this: "It's good for the American economy if I pay a much lower tax rate than you." You should always be skeptical of any theory of this sort…except of course for mine about how we could wipe out the debt if we didn't tax producer fees on cartoon shows about lasagna-eating cats.

That's not my theory, by the way. I think Milton Friedman came up with it.

Here's a scary look not just at Rick Perry but at all those folks out there who want the government to not be the "Nanny State" but to teach kids that sex outside of wedlock is evil and dirty and disgusting. They also don't want the government spending a penny of tax money on any program that doesn't work with great efficiency but want to keep funding abstinence education that clearly doesn't work and which preempts any plan that might.

Fred Kaplan on our capacity and selectivity about intervening when there are human rights violations overseas. Fred thinks we've had more success in that area than some think.

Matt Taibbi has another Matt Taibbi story in Rolling Stone. A Matt Taibbi story usually uncovers massive corruption by business interests and the ongoing efforts of folks who are supposed to prosecute or prevent such corruption doing their darnedest to not prosecute or prevent. This one's no different. Hey, I thought the Obama Administration was supposed to be "the most anti-business ever."

Conor Friedersdorf writes the best piece I've seen about Rick Perry and what we're in for because of his candidacy. Perry is already working the Palin strategy: You go around trashing and attacking Liberals and Blue State folks. Then you play the victim card when those groups respond in kind. It's gonna be a long campaign.

Michael Kinsley wonders why anyone would go into politics. These days, I suspect a lot of elected officials are wondering the same thing.

Warren Buffett, the third richest man in the world I believe, thinks our government coddles rich guys like him and sticks it to the poor and middle class in taxes. He oughta know.

Kevin Drum explains why he thinks Texas governor Rick Perry cannot win (a) the Republican presidential nomination or (b) the White House. I'm not so sure about (a) but I agree with (b) and would add the following reason…

I think anyone who seriously runs for Prez this time is going to have to be able to explain in a few simple, anyone-can-repeat sentences, a plan to do a major fix on the economy and employment. Now, I don't think this plan necessarily needs to be workable or fact-based. As we have seen, a certain percentage of this country is willing to believe ultra-simplified, misleading statements about the economy…like, you know, if we just don't raise the debt ceiling, all it means is Congress will spend less. Or cutting taxes for the rich always helps those on the bottom. (Gee, given how much Bush cut 'em, we oughta be in great shape by now…)

But a candidate's going to have to be able to say something that will make moderates say, "Hey, he [or she] seems to have a handle on this." Perry, like Bachmann or Palin or a few others, can't do that. They can utter platitudes that the extreme right and the Tea Party will applaud but those folks would cheer if a candidate just got up and yelled, "Barack Obama is a doody-face!" The saner middle of this nation is too worried about the future to put someone like that in charge. I sure hope.

Even folks who aren't usually enthralled with Fox News gave that operation points for the debate of Republican candidates it staged the other night. The questions were not all softballs calculated to allow Obama-bashing. One or two of them even drew boos from a live audience that didn't seem to want to see its candidates challenged in any way.

Rush Limbaugh was irate the next morning that it wasn't all set-ups to slam the President and that the candidates actually criticized each other. Sarah Palin said much the same thing. I don't think Ms. Palin believes (or believes in admitting) that there's any such thing as fair press coverage that doesn't totally support and advance your causes and worldview.

We're in for an interesting election…when Fox News is being accused of treachery for only spinning most, not all, of the news the way the Limbaughs and Palins of the world demand.

In 23 polls, including all the major ones, Americans say they want the deficit brought under control with spending cuts plus some increase in taxes. The consensus is overwhelming. Even the Rasmussen Poll, which thrives on telling right-wingers what they want to hear, says most Americans think there should be tax increases…presumably on someone other than themselves.

So why isn't that happening? Why is the minority getting its way in Washington? Because the minority has money and the minority has anger. Both of these mean the minority has power. No one in Washington is worried about losing big campaign donors and/or getting voted out of office if they don't support a tax hike. They're worried about losing big campaign donors and/or getting voted out of office if they do.

Hey, when you get a moment, read this column by Joe Scarborough. He's the former Congressman, the Conservative Republican who gets three hours a day on MSNBC. (I will, by the way, admit that MSNBC is the Liberal equivalent of Fox News just as soon as Fox News starts giving three hours a day to Russ Feingold.)

But after you read Scarborough, read the reply to him by Steve Benen. I think both make good points but Scarborough's piece is about where he thinks we should go…and Benen's is about how to get there, which means taking different routes than those advocated by Joe Scarborough.

I think there's an important point in there. The current Republican Party (a wholly-owned subsidy of Tea Party, Inc.) preaches a lot about an America where anyone can grow up to be rich. But all their policies are designed to make the poor poorer, make the rich richer and wipe out the middle ground where the poor need to get before they even have a shot at "rich."

William Saletan has an interesting theory up. I'm not sure if it's valid or ridiculous or just what it is, other than that it's interesting. His theory is that our debt-holders and credit-raters are now in the driver's seat and that they'll soon force Democrats and Republicans to do a lot of things those parties don't want to do like cutting Medicare and raising taxes.

My hunch is that he's right that drastic financial steps will be taken to whittle down the debt, but that he's wrong about how little the two parties will have to say about it. They'll say plenty about how it should be the other side reneging on its pledges and promises. I fear the Debt Ceiling Debate is going to have more replays than A Charlie Brown Christmas.

Roger Ebert writes about Rick Perry's prayer rally and similar events staged by others. Perhaps someday in this country, we'll have an electable candidate for the Presidency who respects prayer and religion enough not to use them as a stunt to promote his or her own interests.

When you get a moment, read Steve Benen's Timeline of Events. I don't know why the Democrats don't buy full-page ads and bombard the electorate with this kind of data.

Daniel Gross explains why the U.S. just lost its peachy-fine credit rating. His answer is basically that our economy is in trouble as long as tax hikes are impossible…and the G.O.P. and the Tea Party are making them impossible.

Seems to me there's an even simpler explanation. Let's say there's a family across the street from you that's always asking to borrow money. You have a certain assessment of how good a risk they are…how likely they are to make good on that debt. Then let's say some members of that family begin loudly suggesting "Hey, maybe we should default on that debt." Wouldn't you downgrade your assessment of how good a risk that family was?