It's easy to get outraged at the announcement that AIG will be paying over one hundred and fifty million dollars out as bonuses, after taxpayers have pumped over one hundred and fifty billion dollars into the failing company. But the populist outrage this has sparked off needs to get a little more focused. Because we're about to get lost in a thicket of legalese about "compensation" and "bonuses" and "deferred stock options" and all the rest of it, which only serves to detract from a very basic truth -- which should be the real point of discussion here. This truth is that whatever you call it, and whatever little box it gets entered into on the tax forms, these people make an obscene amount of money. And nobody is even saying (because nobody in the media is even asking) exactly how much money they make. This should be the real target here, because it has much broader implications. Also, because it is a lot easier to fix than just getting back some bonuses.

Glenn Greenwald is one of the few who have drawn what is, to me, an obvious parallel here. When the automakers came, cap in hand, to Congress asking for some bailout money, there was great outrage at those "greedy" union workers. Union salaries and benefits of line workers (all of which were also covered by "employment contracts" now being held as sacred by AIG) were discussed on the floors of Congress, with a few Republicans taking the lead in demanding we renegotiate their contracts before they got the money.

Continue Reading »

In today's main event we will discuss the idiocy of the most recent Republican talking point -- "Obama's trying to do too much, too fast" (which is weak, to be sure, but then they had to kind of scramble after their last talking point "Obama is killing the stock market" became inoperative due to a rally). But before we get to that, we have some housecleaning to do. Call it "old business" -- a few new developments in things that I've commented on previously.

Continue Reading »

I usually do these "talking points" sorts of things on Friday, but I have been simply stunned this week at the way the media has been covering the passage of the 2009 omnibus budget bill, and of President Obama's signing the bill into law. If I knew nothing about the subject but what I've seen on network news shows (not even cable, mind you, just the "respected" nightly news shows), then I would believe the following about the 2009 budget: (1) most of it -- say a good 70 to 80 percent -- was earmarks, (2) those dastardly Democrats put all the earmarks in, and Republicans fought and fought for fiscal responsibility, but couldn't remove them in the end, because (3) there was no bipartisanship at all in passing this bill, (4) passing this bill in the midst of the flood of other important legislation was really no big deal, happens all the time, and (5) President Obama broke a big campaign pledge he made to veto every earmark and signed the bill anyway, thus disappointing the American public by breaking his word.

None of these things, I must point out, is even remotely true. But that's the spin that I get from Brian Williams and Katie Couric on a nightly basis. I can just imagine what the hotheads over on the cable channels are saying about it.

Continue Reading »

Representative Bruce Braley recently announced the formation of a new congressional caucus dedicated to the economic concerns of the middle class. The Iowa Democrat (as reported in The Huffington Post) unveiled the new Populist Caucus last month, and as its chair immediately set to work addressing their concerns in the stimulus package in the House. But since the term "populism" has been used for a variety of movements throughout American history, I thought I'd ask Representative Braley himself what the caucus is all about, and what they're trying to achieve. The interview below is a transcript of our conversation.

Continue Reading »

Kathleen Parker is not my favorite Washington Post columnist. I just wanted to say that up front, to get my own biases out in the open. But I have to give her credit, for stating some truth last Sunday on not one but two Sunday morning news shows. She said almost the same thing on both CBS' Face The Nation and NBC's The Chris Matthews Show. Such honesty from the Washington crowd -- especially from someone many label conservative -- is rare. So I wanted to give her some credit today.

Here she is on Matthews' show, after being asked by Chris whether President Obama has "the political staying power to get through this terrible time we're in right now, push his agenda and still be politically successful?" [I edited out inane interruptions from Matthews in the middle of Parker's answer. See the full transcript if interested, although you may have to select 3/8/09 to see it]:

Continue Reading »

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has a very powerful tool at his disposal, but (true to form) he's not even admitting it exists, much less threatening to use it. The tool is called "reconciliation" and means (as I have written about previously) that budget bills which go through a certain committee process cannot be filibustered when they reach the Senate. Democrats would only need 50 votes (and Joe Biden's tiebreaker, if they couldn't get 51) to pass budget bills. Senate Republicans would be denied using their favorite obstructionist tactic, the cloture vote (the modern equivalent of the filibuster). Which may be the only way to pass President Obama's budget without significant parts of it being removed by balky Republicans.

So why isn't Reid brandishing this weapon in his rhetoric? Why isn't he using the phrases "give us an up-or-down vote" and painting every single cloture vote as "massive Republican obstructionism," every chance he gets?

Continue Reading »

If you're just browsing by for the Rush Limbaugh contest, you can just scroll down to the end, to talking point number seven. Because we're going to talk health care for a while first.

As lefty as this column can be at times (ahem, sorry about that), sometimes this column must adapt tactics which usually originate from the righties. Which means it is time for a pre-emptive attack on what appears to be the emerging Republican position on revamping our nation's health care system. Call it the number one contender for the anti-Obamacare position -- before "the Obamacare position" is even close to actually being defined. In other words, it's a pre-emptive strike by the other side. And it needs to be countered swiftly, logically, and decisively -- in order to cut it off at its figurative knees before it even has a chance to stand on its own -- by a pre-emptive strike of our own.

OK, even I admit that I'm now lost in the metaphors tactically deployed in the previous paragraph. I'll do my best to simplify the argument here, while refraining from such literary excess.

One of the most intriguing proposals for improving health care in America -- without dictating sweeping changes in the health-care insurance industry, mind you -- seems to be to let government compete with private industry.

That's it in a nutshell. And the mere concept is driving Republicans berserk.

Continue Reading »

For all the terminology of the political world, all the divisions and divisions-within-divisions, there is no term which defies definition quite the way populism does. When we speak of conservatives or liberals or progressives or even libertarians, we pretty much all agree what the label means, and who it covers. Hyphenation and neologisms abound to adequately describe individual factions of the major groups; such as social conservatives versus fiscal conservatives, or neo-conservatives versus paleo-conservatives. But there's no disagreement with the general scope of what "conservative" means. The concept of populism doesn't have this generally-agreed-upon consensus among the public, however. Even historians define the term differently amongst themselves. And this is just within America's politics -- populism can mean even more diverse movements when talking about the rest of the world.

Newsweek magazine announced a few weeks ago that: "We Are All Socialists Now." While I leave it to others to debate this dubious assumption, I would counter with the question: "Are We All Populists Now?" Because the wide use of the term seems to be encompassing just about everyone now, with the possible exception of a few CEOs in the financial industry.

Continue Reading »

A funny thing happened in Washington yesterday, and not many people noticed -- bipartisanship broke out in the Senate. While the chattering classes (and most Republicans) were fixated on whether Rush Limbaugh was the Republican Party's leader, the conservative movement's leader, or just leading them into the wilderness for 40 years (one can but hope); the Senate was taking care of some legislative business. In a bipartisan fashion. Almost one-fourth of Senate Republicans voted to move last year's budget along -- voting with President Obama and with the Democrats, and voting against the man who not so long ago was actually the leader of the Republican Party: John McCain.

Will anyone in the media notice? It's doubtful. Mere weeks ago they were all fulminating over the "failure" of President Obama's bipartisan outreach on his stimulus package, and pointing out over and over again how he "only got three votes out of over 200 congressional Republicans" in an effort to... um... well, I'm not really sure why they spent two weeks on this particular storyline, to tell you the truth. But obsess over it the media did, which would make you think they would follow up on the story if a large chunk of Republicans actually did vote with the Democrats and Obama on a large spending bill.

But then, I remind myself, this is the mainstream media we're talking about, so I shouldn't expect too much of them.

Continue Reading »

President Barack Obama is taking another page from F.D.R. (which should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone) by attempting to "brand" his recovery program for America. Addressing the Department of Transportation today, Obama unveiled two logos which will be prominently displayed to show Americans that their stimulus package money is being well spent. The first of these is a generic logo for all projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA):

The second is specifically for transportation projects, and is a striped acronym which stands for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER):

Continue Reading »