brainiac conspiracy

Today's Worst Person

Sam Nunn.

These incompetent grifters centrist technocrats, they're like herpes. Once they've wormed their way into the body politic, they never really go away. They only go into remission, to strike again when the host's immune system is weakest.

---Baron V

Today's Worst Person

Ken Langone:

“I hope it’s not working,” Ken Langone, the billionaire co-founder of Home Depot and major GOP donor, said of populist political appeals. “Because if you go back to 1933, with different words, this is what Hitler was saying in Germany. You don’t survive as a society if you encourage and thrive on envy or jealousy.”

No thoughtful person should ever buy anything from Home Depot again.

Another awful person: Larry Summers.

“Reducing inequality is good, but it’s 50 times better to do it by lifting those up who are low than by tearing those down who are high,” said Larry Summers, the former treasury secretary whose bid to become Fed chair got derailed by the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party. “The politics of envy are the wrong politics in America. The better politics are the politics of inclusion where everyone shares in economic growth.”

Go tell it to the millions of people who lost their jobs, who had their pensions and their homes stolen that they shouldn't be angry or resentful at how they've been treated by their governing elites. Shit, Team Republican rode the politics of resentment to a landslide victory four years ago, and until and unless Team Democrat wises up fast, it might happen again this fall.

Nobody outside of the Washington policy establishment wants this centrist neoliberal bullshit. Try running as an unabashedly liberal party sometime, promise the voters that you'll tax the hell out of greedy little sadists like Ken Langone, and let's see what happens. Voter might approve!

---Baron V

More Failing

On the surface, it would seem smart policy to make flood insurance more affordable via taxpayer subsidies. We're going to see more superstorms and flooding as the planet warms up, after all! And yes, there are some working-class folks in places like New Orleans and Sacramento who will benefit, but in most places, "flood-prone neighborhood" means "waterfront property," which generally is where lots of rich people live. So, more income redistribution, again in the wrong direction.

---Baron V

I'll Take "Patently Full of Shit" For $800, Alex

One of these things:

President Barack Obama on Wednesday said he supports publicly releasing a Senate report on the CIA's controversial interrogation program that has been at the center of a feud between the spy agency and its congressional overseers and that has brought relations between the two sides to a historic low.

"I would urge them to go ahead and complete the report and send it to us, and we will declassify those findings so that the American people can understand what happened in the past. And that can help guide us as we move forward," Obama told reporters, referring to members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who have completed but not released a 6,300-page report on the CIA program. The report is said to find that the CIA's brutal interrogations of suspected terrorists amounted to torture and didn't yield useful intelligence about potential future terrorist attacks.

Is not like the other:

President Barack Obama’s administration has refused to release about 9,400 documents connected to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation at the heart of an ongoing dispute with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), McClatchy Newspapers reported on Wednesday.

The White House has allegedly rejected or ignored written and verbal requests for committee members to review the materials, which relate to the agency’s “enhanced interrogation” program shut down near the beginning of Obama’s presidency. Committee staff members allegedly first learned about the documents in 2009, but it is not clear whether the CIA granted them access to them before the White House made them unavailable.

I've never been comfortable with the notion that you must be a lying amoral sociopath to ascend to ultimate political power in this country, but hey, lesson learned! Thanks for reminding me again why I walked out on this team.

---Baron V

Give People a Reason to Vote For You

And you'll probably get their vote. If you don't, you likely won't. Team Democrat used to be so good at this kind of politicking before the "grown-ups," a.k.a. the neoliberal privatizers, overran the party leadership and started lecturing us on the need for budget-cutting and entitlement reform and all these other policies that sound great in theory but which everyone outside of D.C. hates in practice.

As an alternative, perhaps revert to proven Democratic election strategies, i.e., promise people as much free stuff as they want because people like free stuff! So what if the Georgetown social set decries it as "populist"---you want to win an election, or an invitation to cocktails with Sally Quinn? This is not at all difficult to figure out, people.

---Baron V

She's Got My Vote

Despite my annoyance with much of Team Democrat, I normally vote for my incumbent Democratic Congress person every two years because he is, as a rule, one of the good ones. But he is retiring at the end of the year, and a non-progressive neoliberal entitlement-cutter wants to replace him. To whom should we turn, then? Well, how about the better angels of our nature?

In all honesty, if more people in Washington had her policy priorities, we'd have a much healthier and more prosperous nation, don't you think?

---Baron V

America's Worst Journalist

Even in a crowded field, this dude stands out.

I mean, Fournier has essentially written the same column every week for the last five years: "Obama is right, but . . . since he's not getting shit done, it would be better if he were advocating the wrong things instead. Or something." Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to me, either, and if I were the guy's editor, I'd throw these columns back at him and tell him he's not getting paid until he comes up with a fresher take. Sure, Barack Obama has displayed many shortcomings as President, but the inability to reach accord with Republicans is not among them.

---Baron V

Serious Person of The Day

No one should vote for this person for any office:

While Miller is late to politics, his fundraising is off to a good start and he's got hip, digital-minded consultants as well as Clinton-era pollster Stanley Greenberg. He's well known in L.A. from his popular public radio show, Left, Right & Center, with co-host Arianna Huffington, among others.

(Miller is center, of course.) His best asset is that not-a-politician claim, although another entry in the race, New Age author Marianne Williamson---yes, this is Los Angeles---can also tout being an outsider.

Yes, this is Los Angeles. Hardy har har.

Two things:
1. She's running as an Independent, not a Democrat; and
2. She's just as qualified to be a member of Congress as Matt fucking Miller. The only constitutional mandates you're required to fulfill is to have been a US citizen for at least seven years, 25 years of age or older, and reside in the state you represent. There's nothing in it that requires you to be a grifting sociopath who talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. More to the point, there's an unspoken assumption in this kind of analysis that's really troubling, i.e., it's taken for granted that someone like Marianne Williamson can't possibly taken seriously as a candidate for office, but that Third Way types like Matt Miller should be---though to the best of my knowledge, Marianne Williamson doesn't believe in inflicting pain on the poor, sick and elderly in order to keep rich people's taxes low. But if you live, like me, in CA-33, vote Republican before you vote for this guy. You'll get more honest governance.

(Via.)

---Baron V

Golden Eggs

Like the saying goes, it's never a good idea to kill the goose that lays them, and that's one reason why everyone on the left side of the aisle needs to pressure the President (not to mention the other technocrats in the D.C. policy establishment) to dispense with this stupid idea about shaving Social Security benefits. One, it's political suicide, and two, it's needlessly cruel. Social Security is stingy in its present form. We need to greatly expand, not contract, it. We could probably double, perhaps even triple the payouts if we extended the payroll tax to all personal income, not just the first $100 grand. Now, I'm no professional political strategist, but it sure seems to me that pitching prosperity instead of austerity is a much smarter way to win the allegiance of voters, wouldn't you agree?

---Baron V

Not Asking For Much

It's depressing that only 16 Senators would be willing to sign a letter asking the President not to propose future cuts to social-welfare programs. I mean, that's a little-ball policy proposal when what we need to be debating is how much we should increase/expand those programs instead of simply holding the line. Come to think of it, you'd think Team Democrat would consider using this as an issue against its opponents since, you know, that's where all this "entitlement reform" bullshit comes from, instead of trying to co-opt bad policy that voters despise. Just trying to be helpful.

---Baron V

Today's Worst Person

Matt Miller.

If this guy ends up being my next Rep in Congress, I'm moving out of the district. And yes, if you live, like me, in CA-33, please vote for any other liberal/progressive person who runs for the seat. it's early yet, but I am already leaning towards this liberal/progresive person.

---Baron V

Today's Worst Person

Barack Obama.

I know the serious persons of official Washington love this centrist post-partisan shit, but it's not as though right-wing ideologues are underrepresented on the federal bench. So, why then?

---Baron V

Bring on The Food RIots

It may be news to the people who govern us, but those of us who live in the real world understand that there are millions of our countrymen---and women and children, too---who go to bed hungry each night. Many of them work full-time jobs, but they still go to bed hungry because they are loving in poverty and can't afford to feed themselves. And every time the people who govern us enact austerity legislation that takes money out of poor people's pockets in the name of "fiscal responsibility", they are inflicting real harm on people who are already suffering, and there is nothing remotely "responsible" about it. To be fair, the people who govern us might only be stupid; less charitably, evil.

---Baron V

"Democratic Overreach"

In official Washington, it happens every time Democratic candidates and officeholders advocate on behalf of public policy that voters really like---you know, like breaking up the banks and jailing their executives, or raising taxes on rich people and spending the money on infrastructure. You'd think the party was in imminent danger of exhuming George McGovern and nominating him for President again, and this is why the party's liberals must forever be excoriated.

---Baron V

And Another Thing

Elaborating on the previous post, you can't stake a claim for progressive activist government and simultaneously push for policy that will drive down wages, weaken the power of labor, hasten the demise of the environment, make capital controls impossible to impose on banks, extort billions from consumers in the form of higher prices, and undermine the principles of democratic self-government. But that's exactly---ahem---what the President is doing!

---Baron V

Inquiring Minds Want to Know

Unfortunately, we don't have many inquiring minds in our national news media. Because if we did, there would much more attention paid to the latest "free trade" agreements our leaders are trying to run through the Congress with little debate or discussion. I mean, you would think that legislation that could (adversely) affect the lives of everyone in this country---and pretty much everywhere else---would be attracting a lot more more attention, but outside the bleeding-heart blogosphere, nobody seems to care that we're about to surrender our national sovereignty to a bunch of banks and energy companies. Then again, maybe this helps explain the last five years---as a dress rehearsal for the inevitable coup of the multinationals. If so, it's time for brickbats and barricades.

---Baron V

Also Too, Counterproductive

Elaborating on a post from earlier today, we already know that there is no known correlation between tax cuts for individuals and job creation, investment, increased entrepreneurial activity, etc. Naturally, one might be tempted to conclude that cutting corporate taxes would have no correlation to these economic indicators, too. And you know what? You'd be correct:

It’s very difficult to find much relationship between [corporate tax breaks] and investment. In 1981 manufacturing had its largest tax cut ever and immediately went down the tubes. In 1986 they had their largest tax increase and went gangbusters [on investment].

It shouldn't need to be repeated, but: As a rule, Republican policy proposals are bad policy proposals. Which is why Team Democrat needs to stop trying to co-opt them in the name of bipartisanship. Because bad policy is, well, bad policy, no matter who's pitching it.

---Baron V

Empty Calories

That's the policy diet our betters wish to feed us:

Gene Sperling, the director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, said Sunday that Obama is offering congressional Republicans “a grand bargain on jobs. He has said he would be willing to do corporate tax reform that lowers rates to 28 percent, simplifies taxes for small businesses, but do it together with a major infrastructure investment.”

In his budget proposal last year, Obama called for $50 billion in additional short-term federal spending on infrastructure projects such as bridges, highways, and mass transit systems, as well as creation of a National Infrastructure Bank to make loans to such projects.

“The economy is improving” and “we’ve had a lot of momentum,” Sperling said on NBC’s Meet the Press, but there are still “people who are desperately looking for work.” He said, “We have to admit---and we do admit---that the worst legacy of this great recession is the crisis of long-term unemployment.”

Because the last grand bargain worked out so well.

It's like this: The economy is not improving for a majority of our citizens. And $50 billion dollars is not a "major investment," it's a down payment on a project that will require trillions more to be done correctly. More to the point, why are we proposing to give more money to Wal-Mart and Bank of America, and every other corporate person that's earning profits off the impoverishment of millions of people, in exchange for inadequate stimulus? Is this really the best the White House can offer?

It's a sad commentary on the state of our politics that the best possible outcome is another rejection from the zanies, and for nothing to happen at all. But it's better than handing out billions in tax relief to the people who caused, and who perpetuate, our recession-without-end.

---Baron V

Today's Worst Person

The godfather of the Goldberg Act:

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus on Wednesday proposed consolidating or wiping out scores of tax breaks the government offers to promote clean energy and efficiency
---a radical makeover that would offer incentives for natural gas, nuclear power and other low-carbon sources while junking other benefits popular with consumers.

Baucus’s draft calls for simplifying and extending a convoluted patchwork of incentives while slashing their roughly $150 billion price tag over the next decade by more than half . . . Baucus would use the savings to help finance a cut in the top corporate rate of 35 percent.

Because tax cuts for job creators---who aren't creating any jobs that pay decent money---is more important than giving people incentives to purchase electric cars and solar panels. I believe this approach to fiscal policy is called "supply-side" economics, and we all know how well that's worked.

---Baron

Two to Tango

Many of our most intractable public-policy dilemmas---income inequality, for one---have been a long time incubating, and have been nurtured by both of our major political parties. Sure, Team Democrat talks about the need to extend unemployment-insurance payments and expand food-stamp coverage, but all too often they've been willing to trade away these policy positions to get some short-term funding deal done with people who will never stop holding the government hostage in their quest to dismantle the entire social safety net. And every time one of these deals get done, another plank in Team Democrat's party platform gets tossed overboard. This legislative pas de deux has been going on for the last 30 years, and it's the biggest reason why our government has become so much more reactionary than the electorate at large. It's easy to blame the zanies and the grifters on the other side of the aisle for this, but they couldn't have done it alone.

I guess what I am trying to say here is, Team Democrat's governing strategy sure looks a lot like the political equivalent of a prevent defense. And we all how well that works.

---Baron V