MONDAY'S MINI REPORT... I'm going to take a shot at this. Here's today's edition of quick hits:

* The market did not take kindly to the President's plan for the auto industry, with the Dow dropping a little over 3%.

* Another terrorist strike in Pakistan, as militants dressed as policemen stormed a police academy and left at least 20 dead. Pakistani authorities blamed Taliban-aligned elements. These brazen attacks have occurred with increasing frequency in Pakistan in recent weeks.

* The White House released a report today called The Cost of Inaction, detailing the perilous state of the US health care system and the need to act immediately to control costs and provide maximum coverage. Some good facts and figures inside this document.

* Mitch McConnell keeps saying that Obama is turning America into France. Sacre bleu! Now McConnell is one person I wouldn't mind to see "going Galt."

* Nearly 7 in 10 major weapons-buying programs were over-budget in 2008. When the President talks about reining in the contracting process, this is what he's talking about.

* DougJ caught this moment of clarity from Evan Thomas in his largely substance-free profile of Paul Krugman: "If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am), reading Krugman makes you uneasy ... Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are. Safeguarding the status quo, protecting traditional institutions, can be healthy and useful, stabilizing and reassuring. But sometimes, beneath the pleasant murmur and tinkle of cocktails, the old guard cannot hear the sound of ice cracking." That's a good thing to know about the establishment media. It should be in every single one of their stories as a boilerplate at the top.

* Is the current chair of the DNC, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, really going to sign a ban on stem cell research funding in his state?

* One of the lawyers in the Spanish case against Bush Administration members, Gonzalo Boye, had a good retort to Douglas Feith's complaining about the possible indictment: "I would recommend that Mr. Feith first of all read the complaint, and secondly that he get a very good lawyer ... If he is so sure of what he is saying - then the address of the national court is #22 Genova Street, second floor.�

* President Obama signed the omnibus lands bill today providing for 2 million more acres of protected wilderness.

* I do indeed hope that at the very least we can relax the travel ban with Cuba, as it serves no legitimate purpose for either nation. Neither does the embargo.

* Talks on reducing nuclear arsenals between the United States and Russia is also change I can believe in.

* Fox News launched a conservative Web site today called "Fox Nation". I guess that they won't be offering comments, since Andrew Breitbart explained today that Obama supporters have been unleashed on right-wing comment sections, forcing sites like Instapundit to close them retroactively years before Obama became President. This is something that John McCain would never pay supporters to do.

* And for those uninitiated to Twitter, and inclined to, well, hate it, you will find this cartoon amusing and educational.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. And thanks again to Steve for having me here these past few days; I hope he comes back refreshed and rarin' to go. I would be remiss without mentioning the sites you can find me posting on a daily basis:

Hullabaloo with the incomparable Digby;
Calitics, a state progressive blog covering California;
and my own site, D-Day.

Thanks!

OUR DUMB SENATE.... To echo dday and Ezra Klein, I tend to think that the problems with the Senate described in Chait's new TNR article are structural. That is, the problem with the Senate is the Senate itself rather than the individual Senators.

The fact that the Senate kills and waters down legislation is no accident -- it's the whole point. Legislative failure is written into the DNA of our constitutional system. It's a great system for blocking ambitious legislative changes, but it's a horrible one for enacting major national reform. Hell, African-Americans in the South couldn't vote 100 years after the Civil War -- or even publicly eat with whites -- largely because of the Senate. As Sanford Levinson's most excellent book illustrates, our Constitution simply has a lot of very dumb provisions. The Senate is one of them.

Anyway, as dday noted, this is a structural problem that requires a structural solution. The more appropriate solutions -- e.g., getting rid of 2 Senators per state; adopting a more parliamentary system -- aren't going to happen. We could, however, take more ambitious steps to reforming the Senate even while accepting some of its more permanent flaws. It's at least conceivable, for instance, that we could "constitutionalize" internal Senate procedure to make the body more legitimate -- e.g., limit the filibuster; eliminate "holds"; curtail the power of committee chairs.

I realize none of this will happen soon. And who knows -- maybe Obama's ambitious agenda will be wildly successful, thus rehabilitating the Senate. But Senate reform should be added to the longer-term progressive agenda. Indeed, the other big-ticket items on that agenda -- things like health care reform and cap-and-trade -- might not be possible without it. I guess we're about to find out.

PARTY OF NO NUMBERS... The GOP's "budget" was roundly mocked throughout Democratic circles and even in the suddenly-caring-about-policy traditional media for not having any numbers, the way that, you know, a budget does. Yesterday, John McCain sought to calm the waters by claiming that the Senate GOP would put together, in fact, an actual budget with hard numbers instead of just a pamphlet with a bunch of circles and positive affirmations.

DAVID GREGORY: Do you think that Republicans should provide a detailed budget alternative?

McCAIN: Yes.

GREGORY: With numbers?

McCAIN: Yes.

GREGORY: Will that happen in the Senate?

McCAIN: We're working on it, working very hard on it.

Rick Klein reports that Sen. McCain is mistaken.

According to a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the Senate GOP's plan remains the same: Republicans are planning to offer individual amendments to the Democratic budget but not a detailed, comprehensive budget of their own.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, has pointed out that if the GOP amendments are accepted en masse (which will not happen), the amended budget would be the Republican alternative. Senate GOP leaders have also pointed out that Senate Democrats didn’t offer a detailed alternative budget in 2005 and 2006, when Republicans last controlled the Senate.

In any event, a full budget alternative may be what McCain wants, but it's not going to be what happens.

This comes after GOP leaders immediately blasted their own superiors in the House after the negative reaction to the non-budget, and after Rep. Paul Ryan conceded that, with actual numbers, the non-budget would in all likelihood increase the deficit.

These guys really have no idea what they're talking about, do they?

MORE ON THE AUTO PLAN... Things are moving fairly quickly on the auto company front. Within an hour or so of President Obama's announcement about two struggling automakers, Chrysler announced the framework of a deal with Fiat, while GM's new leaders immediately stepped into their positions. Clearly the President's call for Chrysler to find a merger partner or be forced into bankruptcy focused their minds a little bit.

Obviously, there is concern that a double standard is being applied to the auto companies when compared with the larger banks, and I agree. On the substantive merits of this proposal, however, I think Obama had few alternative options. Emptywheel, who lives in Michigan and has worked for auto companies in the past, had a good take.

...here's what Obama seems to be announcing today:

• Chrysler will be forced into a marriage with Fiat in the next month or be denied any additional aid--which will surely put it into bankruptcy
• GM (which failed to get the required concessions from the UAW and bond-holders) will have 60 days to come up with a new, more aggressive turn-around plan
• At the end of 60 days, the government may require a "quick rinse" bankruptcy (one month) to get GM's stakeholders to take their losses

Thus far, it's tough to tell whether this is a good plan or not. As far as Chrysler, they can't survive alone. So the forced marriage gives it one chance to avoid bankruptcy that otherwise seems inevitable. I don't think Fiat will take the deal, so I expect Chrysler to enter bankruptcy within the next month.

As for the GM plan, they are finally talking about dealer concessions (which a "quick rinse" bankruptcy would help, too), which was the element that everyone had thus far ignored. And some of this tough love with GM seems to be a logical next step given bond-holders' intransigence since December. GM had been, thus far, unable to get its bond-holders to accept the losses they had told GM, in November, they would take, so Obama is threatening to use a court to make them do so--followed by UAW concessions [...]

In other news, here are the assessments of the GM and Chrysler plans. They strike me as eminently reasonable assessments. My biggest complaint, thus far, is that the Administration does not mention "health care" in either of the assessments. They mention legacy costs, but not health care. So thus far, they seem unprepared to deal with the fundamental competitive disadvantage that we're asking our manufacturing companies to shoulder.

It seems to me that the UAW - and by extension line workers - have been making nothing but concessions throughout this ordeal. Heck, even Brian Kilmeade on Fox and Friends admitted that the salaries for domestic auto workers are in line with the Japanese, and the main differences come in health care costs. The facts are that manufacturing industries in this country remain at a competitive disadvantage because we are the only industrialized nation where employers are burdened so excessively with the cost of health care, and productivity does not fill the gap. So forcing dealers and bondholders to the table so that the costs of restructuring are shared makes sense, as does reforming health care to increase global competitiveness.

A few other parts announced by Obama were intriguing - he put a government guarantee on warranties of GM and Chrysler cars, which could help them keep customers should they fall into a quick rinse bankruptcy; he assigned a Director of Auto Recovery to "support the workers, communities and regions that rely on the American auto industry"; and he sought to revive the "cash for clunkers" proposal that has succeeded in other nations, particularly Germany, in boosting auto sales:

As he rolled out one last reprieve for the nation's troubled automakers, President Obama also restarted a legislative push that ran out of gas during last month's stimulus talks: a $10,000 rebate offer to car owners who traded in their old models for more fuel-efficient wheels.

The "cash for clunkers" plan was originally proposed by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Tom Harkin (D-IA), at a total cost of about $16 billion. It was dropped from the stimulus amid GOP opposition, but Obama said today that he would "work with Congress to identify parts of the recovery act that could be trimmed to fund such a program and make it retroactive starting today."

Senate leaders sounded warm to this idea today. Increasing fuel economy at the low end by getting the biggest emitters off the streets actually does more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than moving someone from a moderately efficient vehicle into a hybrid. So this makes some sense economically as well as environmentally.

I think a lot of people hope that the President would show the same tough love to the banking industry that he did with the auto industry today, and that is the main headline. However, there is an outline of how this can possibly work for the better for the auto industry and the workers who rely on it.

THE PROBLEM OF THE SENATE... Last week saw a paroxysm of opposition to Barack Obama's budget plan from leading Senate Democrats. Evan Bayh formed his moderate working group, and Kent Conrad whittled down the budget proposal (in many respects by reinstating helpful budget fictions that make the deficit look smaller). And opposition to the Administration-supported cram-down proposal may scuttle that piece of the housing bill.

Jonathan Chait senses a pattern.

The last Democrat who held the White House, Bill Clinton, saw the core of his domestic agenda come to ruin, his political support collapse, and his failure spawn a massive Republican resurgence that made progressive reform impossible for a decade to come. The Democrat who last held the White House before that, Jimmy Carter, saw the exact same thing happen to him [...]

George W. Bush came to office having lost the popular vote, with only 50 Republicans in the Senate. After his disputed election, pundits insisted Bush would have to scale back his proposed massive tax cuts for the rich. Instead, Bush managed to enact several rounds of tax cuts that substantially exceeded those in his campaign platform, along with two war resolutions, a Medicare prescription drug benefit designed to maximize profits for the health care industry, energy legislation, education reform, and sundry other items. Whatever the substantive merits of this agenda, its passage represented an impressive feat of political leverage, accomplished through near-total partisan discipline.

Obama has come into office having won the popular vote by seven percentage points, along with a 79-seat edge in the House, a 17-seat edge in the Senate, and massive public demand for change. But it's already clear he is receiving less, not more, deference from his own party. Democrats have treated Obama with studied diffidence, both in their support for the substance of his agenda and (more importantly) their willingness to support it procedurally.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, no co-equal branch of government SHOULD be a rubber-stamp (certainly the Hastert/DeLay/Frist Congress under George W. Bush shouldn't be emulated), and Congress has every right to carry out their legislative agenda under their own terms. At the same time, the endless whining from Democratic "moderates" to modify the Obama agenda, not out of any principle or belief that a middle course makes the most sense from a policy standpoint, but because they have been seduced by the high Broderist idea that the middle distance between two points is a virtuous end in itself, is both grating and irresponsible. The moderates use selective outrage - we must close the deficit, but we can't cap subsidies to wealthy agricultural interests to save money, just to use one example - to frustrate progress and make recovery more difficult.

However, Ezra Klein argues that the peculiar structures of the Senate are a far greater obstacle than the glory-seeking Senate moderates:

Which isn't really to argue with the substance of Jon's article: The Senate is a broken branch. If we don't properly respond to the financial crisis or avert the crushing blow of rising health costs or slow the advance of catastrophic climate change, it will be because the institution is no longer capable of governance. But that is not, as Chait would have it, a purely Democratic problem. It's an institutional issue. The local obsessions that Chait attaches to Conrad and Nelson are similarly prevalent among Republican Senators. The tremendous power of swing senators is as undeniable and capricious when Republicans rule as when Democrats hold power. The allure of obstruction is an compelling to minority Democrats as minority Republicans (the early Bush accomplishments were actually more bipartisan than Obama's, though that was because Democrats controlled the chamber rather than because Bush was the gracious and cooperative type).

I don't argue this point to be churlish. You can understand the problems of the Senate in two ways. The first is that it's a problem of party discipline. The second is that it's a problem of rules. If you think it's the first, the answer is to put resources and effort into mounting a primary challenge against Ben Nelson. If you think it's the second, then the answer may be to put time and energy into repealing the Byrd Rule, or lowering the filibuster limit, or making it easier to replace chairman, or otherwise transforming the structural incentives that makes legislative success such a delicate and unlikely outcome and thus allows individual Senators to exert so much control over it. Moreover, if you think it's the second, you can actually make something of a bipartisan argument, rather than a purely partisan one. The Senate, as currently composed, doesn't work for Republicans any better than it works for Democrats. And it really doesn't work for the country. And that's probably an easier argument than trying to convince Nebraskans that Ben Nelson's incredible power isn't good for them.

We have already seen and may yet see more progress from this Congress - the ConservaDem backlash to using budget reconciliation, for example, may just be a pose to force Republican compliance. But I think I lean more toward this being a structural problem requiring structural solutions, particularly in the Senate. The country really cannot afford a set of rules that tilt so heavily in favor of the status quo, especially in this time of profound challenges. In fact, the resultant reaction we've seen continually by the executive branch is to usurp the power of the Congress in the name of getting something done, which is unadvisable. Only by empowering Congress to actually act can we really have equal branches of government.

PENSION GUARANTEE MONEY SET ABLAZE ON WALL STREET.... From the Boston Globe, a terrifying report about how the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the agency that insures retirement funds, decided to play in the stock market at precisely the wrong time:

WASHINGTON - Just months before the start of last year's stock market collapse, the federal agency that insures the retirement funds of 44 million Americans departed from its conservative investment strategy and decided to put much of its $64 billion insurance fund into stocks.

Switching from a heavy reliance on bonds, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation decided to pour billions of dollars into speculative investments such as stocks in emerging foreign markets, real estate, and private equity funds.

The agency refused to say how much of the new investment strategy has been implemented or how the fund has fared during the downturn. The agency would only say that its fund was down 6.5 percent - and all of its stock-related investments were down 23 percent - as of last Sept. 30, the end of its fiscal year. But that was before most of the recent stock market decline and just before the investment switch was scheduled to begin in earnest.

The PBGC is a backstop against major losses by private pension funds and the parent companies slipping into bankruptcy. Especially at this time, with the economy struggling, the PBGC could be called on more than ever to help protect pensioners. Just as an example, a structured bankruptcy by GM or Chrysler would mean that huge liabilities would be passed on to this agency. Which apparently gambled and lost tons of money. That's exactly the opposite investment strategy that should be taken by what amounts to an insurer.

David Kurtz is blunt and right on the money.

A finance professor who had previously advised the agency not to make the switch away from bonds compared the move to an insurance company writing policies to cover hurricane damage and then investing the premiums in beachfront property.

Bush was able to do for the PBGC what he tried and failed to do for Social Security.

Josh Marshall concurs. These were Bush Administration officials who, in the wake of losing their battle to privatize Social Security, had this big pot of money - close to $64 billion - that they sunk into stocks, providing more money to Wall Street for them to keep pushing asset values higher. The timing of it happening just at the time before the market began to crash suggests that the Administration viewed this as perhaps a last-ditch effort to prop up Wall Street. The director of the PBGC, who advised and directed this strategy, is Charles E.F. Millard, a former managing director at LEHMAN BROTHERS, just to give you some more assurance. In the article he practically admits that he was just taking a whirl at the casino with public money:

He said the previous strategy of relying mostly on bonds would never garner enough money to eliminate the agency's deficit. "The prior policy virtually guaranteed that some day a multibillion-dollar bailout would be required from Congress," Millard said.

He said he believed the new policy - which includes such potentially higher-growth investments as foreign stocks and private real estate - would lessen, but not eliminate, the possibility that a bailout is needed.

Asked whether the strategy was a mistake, given the subsequent declines in stocks and real estate, Millard said, "Ask me in 20 years. The question is whether policymakers will have the fortitude to stick with it."

I don't think policymakers will be sticking with it, because there's probably almost no money left in that portfolio. Money that was designed to insure pensions.

This is a crime.

IF IT'S SUNDAY, IT'S JOHN MCCAIN.... John McCain appeared on Meet the Press this Sunday, and while the content was unremarkable, a little portion at the end was pretty revealing.

DAVID GREGORY: This is your 54th appearance on Meet the Press. Now I know you're a competitive guy. Bob Dole still holds the record at 63. And so we've been doing the calculations here. We think we can make this up, maybe within a year's time. If you're game for that.

JOHN MCCAIN: I'd love to try. Thank you, David.

DAVID GREGORY: Sen. McCain, thank you very much for being here.

David Gregory was making a joke. And yet there's still much to this that's remarkable. John McCain has appeared on Meet the Press - just one of the multiple Sunday morning talk shows - 54 times, and I would guess that most of them have come in the years since announcing for President in 1999, since before that he was a more obscure figure in Washington. I can't imagine there's anyone else even close to that number. And yet McCain is an easy guy to find on the Rolodex and get to appear on your show. It points to a staleness in the official discourse.

And while this was McCain's inaugural appearance on Meet The Press this year, he has done Face the Nation in 2009, Fox News Sunday on two occasions, and sat down with John King of CNN as well, not to mention the celebrated Twitter-view with George Stephanopoulos. That's 5 appearances and counting and we're only at the end of March. McCain is actually crushing the once-a-month appearance schedule that Gregory jokingly set out for him.

I should mention at this point that McCain lost the 2008 Presidential election.

OBAMA SPARS WITH THE WORLD... On the eve of the G20 summit. McClatchy looks at whether Europe will embrace the President the way they did during the campaign.

Obama leaves on Tuesday on a whirlwind eight-day tour. He remains enormously popular in Europe, and the throngs that greeted him last summer as a candidate are likely to grow. With first lady Michelle Obama along, Obama's debut on the world stage as president already is inspiring anticipation of the kind of rock-star reception that greeted John and Jackie Kennedy on their first trip a first couple to Europe in 1961.

Yet Obama also heads into his first overseas trip with grand goals _ looking to forge a coordinated global response to the Great Recession, hoping Europe will send more of its sons and daughters to help in an escalating war in Afghanistan, and seeking to restore international cooperation that he thinks suffered in the Bush years.

That will be a tough sell. Publicly, European and world leaders will embrace Obama. But privately, they likely will say no to some of his requests, most notably sending combat troops to Afghanistan, or simply avoid the subject.

Certainly that's the case with regard to global stimulus, which the Obama Administration has pushed but which has caused such pushback that the US has backed off. Europe appears to prefer increased regulation of financial markets and to resist the United States trying to encourage additional spending. The Guardian writes that Europe has won the debate:

European leaders, led by Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, come to the crucial Docklands summit on Thursday believing they are winning or have won the argument about how to tackle casino capitalism.

The case pushed by Merkel repeatedly in recent weeks, and echoed by France and the European commission, is that there is no point now in more tax cuts and deficit spending to boost demand since it is not yet clear whether the huge fiscal stimuli packages already launched are actually going to work.

Rather, the Europeans argue, the focus should be on fixing a European and global system that is broke - through a new supervisory and regulatory regime. This option, Merkel declared at the weekend, offers the best chance of avoiding similar crises erupting once a decade, as has been the cycle since the 1980s.

While this is a noble goal, the problem is that the "regulatory reform" elements of the G20 communique look toothless - additional boards and structures composed of the same people who missed this crisis. One point of concurrence could spell the end of offshore tax havens, althought the changes could also be cosmetic. In short, the G20 could result in nothing done on the fiscal and monetary levels, and nothing of substance on the regulatory level. Simon Johnson suggests how Obama can salvage the summit, but only on the issue of funding and staffing for the IMF.

The larger issue is the lack of coordinated action among the world in addressing a truly global crisis. America's tarnished reputation through the Bush era has lessened the influence on these matters, as Paul Krugman notes:

The details of our current crisis are very different, but the need for cooperation is no less. President Obama got it exactly right last week when he declared: "All of us are going to have to take steps in order to lift the economy. We don't want a situation in which some countries are making extraordinary efforts and other countries aren't."

Yet that is exactly the situation we're in. I don't believe that even America's economic efforts are adequate, but they're far more than most other wealthy countries have been willing to undertake. And by rights this week's G-20 summit ought to be an occasion for Mr. Obama to chide and chivy European leaders, in particular, into pulling their weight.

But these days foreign leaders are in no mood to be lectured by American officials, even when - as in this case - the Americans are right.

The financial crisis has had many costs. And one of those costs is the damage to America's reputation, an asset we've lost just when we, and the world, need it most.

The summit begins on Wednesday, April Fool's Day. Stay tuned.

Don't Cave On Cramdowns

From CongressDaily, via the Wonk Room:

"Senate Majority Leader Reid said today he would drop a cram-down provision from a House-passed banking bill if the language threatened to keep the Senate from passing the overall bill. The provision would allow a bankruptcy judge to reduce a homeowner's mortgage principal. "If we can't get the votes for that, and I am hopeful we can -- I am semiconfident we can -- then what I'll do is take that off [the bill] and do the other banking provisions," Reid said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. Reid said he would work to keep the package intact, but raising the prospect of pulling the provision seemed to acknowledge assertions by Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and others that the cram-down bill cannot pass due to opposition from Republicans and some Democratic moderates."

As I've said before, caving on cramdowns would be a big mistake. Presently, every other form of secured debt can be written down to its present value in bankruptcy, provided the borrower can make payments on it at its new, reduced value. Allowing cramdowns would simply treat mortgages like any other form of secured debt. This matters for a number of reasons.

Often, the alternative is foreclosure. Foreclosures are not good for anyone: not the homeowner, not the neighborhood, not the bank. Banks are now starting to walk away from foreclosures: this means that after a homeowner has gotten a foreclosure notice and moved out, after the now-vacant property has been vandalized or turned into a crack house and lost a lot of its value, the bank refuses to take title, and the homeowner is stuck with both the house and the debt s/he can't pay.

One reason this happens is that if the mortgage has been securitized, it's very hard to locate all the people who now own a tiny little piece of it, let alone to get them all to sign off on renegotiating it. Cramdowns would get around this problem: bankruptcy judges can write a mortgage down to the present value of the home unilaterally, without having to get all the people who own some part of the mortgage to sign off.

Another is that banks are sometimes unwilling to write down a mortgage because they do not want to have to write down any comparable mortgages they might have on their books. If the mortgage is, in fact, not worth as much as they value it at, then they ought to write it down, along with any comparable mortgages. Bankruptcy judges do not take into account banks' desire not to acknowledge losses they have already taken, nor should they.

Besides all that, though, there's a good economic case for allowing cramdowns. We seem to be rescuing a lot of companies lately. But it's no good trying, for instance, to save GM if we don't have customers who are able and willing to buy cars. As any number of commenters have said, we need to shore up the not just businesses' balance sheets, but consumers', since if they are not able and willing to spend, then even the best-run businesses will fail.

Some ways of doing this -- e.g., putting people to work doing things that need doing -- don't involve problems of moral hazard. But any attempt to try to reduce people's debts does. However, in the case of cramdowns, these concerns are a lot smaller than they would be otherwise, since in order to get this kind of debt relief, you need to declare bankruptcy. And no one likes declaring bankruptcy. No one declares bankruptcy just for fun. So the problem of moral hazard is, in this case, a lot smaller than it would be otherwise.

Allowing cramdowns is good for everyone. It's good for homeowners, since if they could make payments on their house if it were written down to its present value, they get to stay in it. It's good for the neighborhoods in which these homes are found, since it prevents abandonment and blight. It's good for the housing market, since it means fewer foreclosed homes for sale. It's good for the banks, except that they will have to acknowledge losses they ought to acknowledge anyways.

Caving on this would be a serious mistake. If your Senator is among those who are wavering, let him or her know how you feel.

"YEARS"... It's already astounding that the Norm Coleman-Al Franken Senate recount has taken this long to resolve. Franken has won the first recount and Coleman's lawyers even acknowledge that he will win the case before the Minnesota Supreme Court when the verdict comes down shortly. But this is the first time I've heard the word "years" to describe the timeframe for resolution.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn is threatening "World War III" if Democrats try to seat Al Franken in the Senate before Norm Coleman can pursue his case through the federal courts.

Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, acknowledges that a federal challenge to November's elections could take "years" to resolve. But he's adamant that Coleman deserves that chance - even if it means Minnesota is short a senator for the duration.

The big question concerns certification of the election. Democrats say that the Minnesota Supreme Court will grant certification after their ruling, regardless of an appeal. Cornyn thinks that Minnesota will be unable to certify if Coleman seeks a review from the US Supreme Court on the matter. Of course, the real "decider" in this case may be Republican Governor (and possible 2012 Presidential candidate) Tim Pawlenty.

It could takes months - or longer - to resolve a petition for review from the U.S. Supreme Court and even longer if the loser before the Minnesota Supreme Court files a new case in a U.S. District Court.

What happens in the meantime could come down to Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican who was on John McCain's vice president shortlist and is contemplating a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.

So far, Pawlenty isn't saying what he'll do once the court rules.

"The recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision indicated that an election certificate could be issued once the state courts process is complete," said Brian McClung, a spokesman for the governor. "However, if one of the parties appeals to a federal court, a question will arise whether the federal court might stay the issuance of a certificate.

"We'll see what the courts determine," he said.

20 guesses what the guy who may want to top the GOP ticket in 2012 will decide.

I've been saying for a while that this recount battle obstructing Franken from the Senate was a sweet deal for Republicans. They get to expend some resources and shockingly little political capital in exchange for denying Democrats a key vote on issues like health care and energy and the Employee Free Choice Act. There was some hope that the "losers pay" law in Minnesota, combined with Norm Coleman's campaign inadvertently revealing thousands of their donors' personal information online, would make it difficult to raise the necessary funds to continue the court battle. However, a little-remarked-upon FEC ruling allows both candidates to return to former maxed-out donors to pay up to $30,400 per individual into a party recount and trial fund. Even PACs can give up to $15,000. So it would take a relatively small amount of wealthy donors to keep this going as long as possible.

What I cannot understand is why Coleman has taken such little heat for prolonging what by all accounts appears to be a losing battle, and for nakedly political reasons besides. Once the Minnesota Supreme Court rules in a matter of days, Democrats need to loudly call for Franken's seating at every possible opportunity.

...Ian Milhiser at Overruled Blog has an interesting strategy for Franken - AGREE to let the Supreme Court hear Coleman's appeal in an effort to fast-track the case.

A NEW DAY ON CLIMATE CHANGE.... Juliet Eilperin reports on the sweeping changes being made by the Obama Administration on environmental policy:

After the United States voiced support for the idea of a new, binding mercury treaty, the world community embraced it in Nairobi.

The rapid policy reversal is just one of more than a dozen environmental initiatives the new administration has undertaken in its first two months. In nearly every case, the decisions were based on extensive analysis and documentation that rank-and-file employees had prepared over the past couple of years, often in the face of contrary-minded Bush administration officials.

After years of chafing under political appointees who viewed stricter environmental regulation with skepticism, long-serving federal officials are seeing work that had been gathering dust for years translate quickly into action.

Some of these proposals include the creation of a national greenhouse gas registry, to put real numbers on emissions so industry can account for them; a halt to plans for mountaintop removal; real resources for prosecuting coal-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act for violations; a fresh look at granting a waiver to California and other states to regulate their own tailpipe emissions; and study of whether the EPA will regulate greenhouse gas emissions on their own. For all of this, the EPA is drawing on the work of career officials they were unable to put forward in the eight long years of the Bush Administration. Finally, employees of the EPA are allowed to write the rules again.

And the President has followed this up by announcing a series of global meetings over the next few months to discuss climate change and renewable energy issues, leading into the negotiations for a new global treaty in Copenhagen in December. While the Bush Administration also set up meetings, there was a sense by stakeholders that the plan was to talk the issue to death. Just looking at the work of the EPA, the Obama Administration is primed for action.

MUCH ADO ABOUT NY-20.... The big news tomorrow will be the special election in NY-20 to replace Senator Gillibrand. As you know by now, the election has become a proxy war for larger national battles over the stimulus. So there will inevitably be a lot of ink spilled on what the election means. Personally though, I think the answer is "not much," regardless of who wins.

The main reason is that the political battle over the stimulus is better understood as long-term positioning, rather than as short-term news cycle battles. What people think today -- or on Wednesday -- about the political success of the stimulus simply doesn't matter that much. What matters is how the economy looks down the road.

Remember that the GOP opposed the stimulus not so much to reap short-term success, but to position themselves for the future. If things don't improve, then the GOP will have drawn a sharp political contrast and can pound the Dems over the head with it. If, however, things get better, the GOP will be in serious trouble for opposing the stimulus pretty much unanimously. (On an aside, it's worth noting that the GOP's rational interests are no longer aligned with the health of the economy -- though I suppose that's true for all minority parties).

Anyway, the NY-20 election will be big news for several days -- and the spin will come fast and furious. But at the end of the day, it won't really affect the long-term picture. The GOP has already made its decision -- and a loss on Tuesday won't help or hurt them in the grand scheme of things.

Plus, the demographics make it hard to draw any strong conclusions one way or the other. If the Republicans win, it's hard to see what the big deal is. It's a Republican district that went for Bush in 2000 and 2004 (average +7.5). If the Democrats win, it's a somewhat bigger deal -- but not much. Obama won the district 51-48, and still has strong popularity as a new president. All in all, the election will signal very little about the battles to come.

Don't get me wrong -- I will clearly enjoy watching the RNC try to spin a loss. But it's worth remembering -- before results start coming in -- that there's little at stake here other than short-term bragging rights (which are admittedly fun to have).

MADNESS IN DETROIT... The big news today is that the Obama administration is taking a heavier and more direct role in the restructuring of the auto industry--including demanding the resignation of GM chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner. The markets may not like this more hands-on approach by government, and it's not hard to understand the concern. But as Phillip Longman of the New America Foundation explains in the new issue of the Washington Monthly, there is a bright shining example from not so long ago of government bureaucrats engineering the revival of an industry easily as troubled as today's automakers and, if anything, more central to the economy.

In 1976 Washington took over Penn Central and five other bankrupt railroads and folded them into a government-sponsored entity, Conrail. New management was recruited, federal dollars pumped in, major structural reforms instituted. A decade later, a thriving Conrail was sold off in what was, at the time, the largest IPO in U.S. history. A fluke? Hardly. During World War I, Woodrow Wilson put the entire railroad industry under government control, and later placed it back in private hands in much better shape than when he got it.

While the parallels with yesterday's railroads and today's auto industry are not exact, they are close enough to provide many useful lessons. The most important is this: as the automakers return to Washington for a second round of assistance, the greatest danger may well be not that government will intervene too much, but that it won't intervene enough.

Read Longman's article, "Washington's Turnaround Artists," here.

JUST ONE MORE FILL-UP FOR THE AUTO INDUSTRY?... The government had until March 31 to assess the restructuring plans for GM and Chrysler and decide whether or not to give them more loans until they can sustain themselves. Obviously, the Obama Administration didn't much like what they saw.

President Barack Obama is sending a blunt message to Detroit automakers: To survive - and win more government help - they must remake themselves top to bottom. Driving home the point, the White House ousted the General Motors chairman as it rejected GM and Chrysler's restructuring plans.

Obama is set to elaborate on that message Monday when he announces what his White House told reporters over the weekend: Neither GM nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive additional federal bailout money [...]

Frustrated administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of Obama's announcement, said Chrysler has been given a 30-day window to complete a proposed partnership with Italian automaker Fiat SpA. The government will offer up to $6 billion to the companies if they can negotiate a deal before time runs out. If a Chrysler-Fiat union cannot be completed, Washington plans to walk away, leaving Chrysler destined for a complete sell-off [...]

For GM, the administration offered 60 days of operating money to restructure. Officials say they believe GM can put together a plan that will keep production lines moving in the coming years.

There's a lot to unpack here.

First of all, the most high-profile fallout is that GM CEO Rick Wagoner was forced out. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm described Wagoner, who was with GM for 31 years, as a "sacrificial lamb." He admittedly was at the helm when American automakers failed to adjust over the last decade, making SUVs and losing market share to Toyota and Honda. The company has lost $82 billion over the past 4 years.

And obviously, bailouts of any kind are unpopular at this point, and must be met with major concessions. However, one must be struck by the dichotomy of the President and bank CEOs making nice-nice on Friday, and forcing Wagoner out today. As Atrios put it, "apparently the real economy is less important than the paper one." Josh Marshall digs a bit deeper:

Citi does not have the same CEO it did at the start of the crisis. And the government installed a new CEO at AIG after the initial bailout. Another rejoinder might be that the automakers' plight is of a much more longstanding vintage than that of the finance barons, though I suspect, as we learn more, we'll be revisiting those assumptions. And even after getting substantial government aid, I think Wagoner's the first auto industry CEO to get the boot. So perhaps we should be asking why it is that something like this hasn't happened sooner.

All that said, though, after that meeting of the major bank CEOs at the White House last week, it's hard for me not to think that, for all that has happened, their clout in Washington is just on a scale where they are accepted as peers of the realm. And simply immune to certain sorts of treatment.

The White House may believe that anger over the initial auto bailout, and bailouts in general, force them to be tough. And certainly the government should not throw good money after bad if there's no hope of viability. But with millions of jobs at stake, certainly a good bit of people are going to notice that the auto industry is being forced into concessions that practically no bank has had to make.

...President Obama will announce the government's plan later this morning.

GEORGE WILL'S LEGAL EXTREMISM.... Noted climatologist George Will shifted gears to constitutional law yesterday, arguing that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) (i.e., the bailout) is unconstitutional. The specific claim is that it violates the nondelegation doctrine, which holds that "legislative" acts cannot be "delegated" to other entities, particularly the executive branch.

There are at least two interesting aspects of Will's column. First, it reminds us why it's always important to understand the logical implications of Will's (and his ideological comrades') seemingly innocent legal arguments. The column sounds reasonable enough on first read. The EESA, Will argues, is too broad, and it gives the executive too much power. Fair enough.

However, the doctrine that Will wants to use to kill the EESA would have the added benefit of effectively destroying the post-New Deal administrative state. It's always the New Deal with these people.

Today, the doctrine is essentially toothless -- and hasn't been used to invalidate a statute since the New Deal. (Good short summary on the doctrine here). But for decades, the more extreme elements of the legal conservative world have been trying to revive it from the dead. As the summary above indicates, both Thomas and Rehnquist have tried -- but no such luck thus far.

It's also no surprise that Will cites law professor Gary Lawson for support. In addition to being a "founding member" of the Federalist Society, Lawson thinks the post-New Deal administrative state is unconstitutional. And that's the whole point -- it's not about the bailout, but about federal regulation more generally.

In short, this is a doctrine with extreme implications that has been pushed by the most extreme members of the conservative legal community. (And, rather wankerishly, by Cass Sunstein).

Moving on, the second interesting aspect of the column is that it illustrates the tension -- if not schizophrenia -- in conservative legal thought with respect to deference to the political branches.

On the one hand, the rise of "the movement" was inspired by the view that liberals had circumvented the legislature. People like Bork argued that, because liberals can't win things like abortion rights at the ballot box, they politicized the Constitution and imposed their preferences into its text. So this strain of conservative thought emphasizes the political process.

At the same time, however, there's a deeply anti-democratic strain running through legal conservatism as well. As illustrated by Will and Lawson, this strain wants to ignore the political branches entirely and invalidate big pieces of the regulatory state. (Thomas is the most extreme on this issue -- Roberts and Alito have been much more respectful of precedent).

In short, legal conservatives like Will can't make up their mind about whether they like the ballot box. For instance, in yesterday's column, Will offers a hypothetical about a truly absurd and vague statute (the Goodness and Niceness Act) that would delegate a lot of undefined power to the executive.

And yes, I would disagree with that statute -- but that doesn't mean it's necessarily unconstitutional. The political branches play a role here too in protecting us from such absurd statutes. We don't necessarily have to rely on courts for protection from this terrible statute. One would hope that this bill wouldn't make it very far.

Anyway, the point is that Will's example shows virtually no faith in the political process -- the glorification of which is, ironically enough, the raison d'etre of the modern conservative movement.

Rod Dreher Says Strange Things

Rod Dreher has a very puzzling post about gay marriage. There are some bits I will not engage with -- for instance, while believing that gay sex is sinful might be part of Dreher's religious tradition, I do not think it's at all integral to the Bible; in fact, I have always thought that one could make a decent case for allowing gay marriage on the basis of Paul's claim that it is better to marry than to burn.

What interests me more is this:

"If homosexuality is legitimized -- as distinct from being tolerated, which I generally support -- then it represents the culmination of the sexual revolution, the goal of which was to make individual desire the sole legitimate arbiter in defining sexual truth. It is to lock in, and, on a legal front, to codify, a purely contractual, nihilistic view of human sexuality. I believe this would be a profound distortion of what it means to be fully human. And I fully expect to lose this argument in the main, because even most conservatives today don't fully grasp how the logic of what we've already conceded as a result of being modern leads to this end."

Let's start with the "purely contractual, nihilistic view of human sexuality" that is supposed to be the danger here. I take it that there's nothing wrong with a contractual view of human sexuality -- that is, a view according to which sex is only OK if both parties consent. The problem has to be with a purely contractual view, according to which the only question one needs to ask before having sex is: has the other person consented? This is akin to the 'nihilistic' part: a nihilistic view of sex would be one according to which you don't even have to ask about the consent part. Anything -- literally anything -- goes.

Offhand, there would seem to be lots of ways not to be a nihilist about sex. Sex in some situations, or in some ways, can be cruel: e.g., sex with someone you know is in love with you and with whom you are not the least bit in love. It can be disrespectful, or callous, or mean, or irresponsible. It can show a lack of self-respect -- e.g., if you have sex with someone just to get them to stop pestering you to have sex with them. It can be self-destructive or a way of avoiding issues or, well, any number of bad things. Or it can be, so to speak, the wrong good thing, e.g. if you have sex with someone whom no one else wants to have sex with, out of some kind of misplaced compassion. Or it can be wonderful.

Dreher seems to think that if we "legitimize homosexuality", all the ways in which we might morally criticize or praise sex would go flying out of our heads. The alternative to opposing gay marriage, in his view, seems to be one in which "the only rule guiding people's sexual behavior is their own desire". But why on earth should that be true? Why, for instance, would I suddenly find myself unable to figure out what's wrong with seducing someone else's partner just to spite that person, or having sex with people just to rack up conquests, or not being able to muster the energy to say no? Why should I suddenly become unable to say: sex is deep magic from before the dawn of time; it is strange and powerful and should not be entered into lightly; but done right, it is one of the most glorious things there is -- as opposed to just: I want some?

It would be one thing if Christian morality were the only morality in existence. But it's not. There are other religions. There are secular moralities. Those of us who are not Christians manage to deploy moral concepts all the time without difficulty. I think that I can coherently say that torture is wrong, that I should not be wholly indifferent to the needs of others, and so forth. Does Dreher think that I am wrong -- not just wrong about my specific morality, but wrong to think I can talk coherently about this at all? Or is there something about sex in particular that makes it impossible for non-Christians to make moral judgments? In either case, why?

And what on earth does any of this have to do with gay marriage? Here I'm curious about two things. First, what do one's views about homosexuality have to do with one's views about whether or not there is anything to be said about sex other than: I want it or: I don't? I would have thought that the question: can we make moral judgments about sex? was distinct from the question: is 'homosexuality is wrong' one of the moral judgments we ought to make?

Second, supposing (for the sake of argument) that I were to conclude, for some unfathomable reason, that unless I disapprove of homosexuality I cannot make any moral judgments about sex at all, why should I take this to mean that I ought to try to prevent gay men and lesbians from being able to marry? What makes it appropriate for me to try to legislate views about the morality of sex between consenting adults?

Andrew Sullivan makes a good point:

"With Catholics, the obvious counterpoint is civil divorce. Catholics do not recognize such divorces within the church nor the second and third marriages that follow them (leaving aside the rank hypocrisy of the annulment scam). But they are prepared to live in a civil society that allows for it as a civil secular matter, just as they live easily with infertile married couples, or post-menopausal couples getting married. Until Rod explains why homosexuals as such represent a unique threat, even while they make up a tiny section of society, his singling out of gays in order to uphold his views of natural law in the civil law will look and smell like animus, not reason."

Dreher regards "a commercialized, consumerist, individualized culture that believes in no authority but the desiring individual will" as a threat to himself and his children. It is not clear to me why the sight of two people in love making a public commitment to one another might be thought to strengthen that culture.(Sullivan again: "The culmination of the sexual revolution was at 4 am in the Mineshaft in the late 1970s. It is not the civil marriage of two elderly lesbians in a town hall in California in 2008.") But if Dreher disagrees, it is a lot to ask of those two people that they give up the chance to marry one another to protect him from that threat.

Far better, I would have thought, to find a way to resist our commercialized, individualist culture on his own, and to bring up his children to have more self-respect than the Lost Children of Rockdale County. If Dreher cannot manage to govern his own life, and to give his children a decent moral compass, without requiring that other people sacrifice their love and their happiness, he has bigger problems than our commercialized culture.

When You Assume, You Make an Ass of U and Me

Andrew Klavan in the LA Times:

"If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration's recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That's the likelihood; here's the certainty: You've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Oh no, you haven't. Whenever I interrupt a liberal's anti-Limbaugh rant to point out that the ranter has never actually listened to the man, he always says the same thing: "I've heard him!"

On further questioning, it always turns out that by "heard him," he means he's heard the selected excerpts spoon-fed him by the distortion-mongers of the mainstream media. These excerpts are specifically designed to accomplish one thing: to make sure you never actually listen to Limbaugh's show, never actually give him a fair chance to speak his piece to you directly.

By lifting some typically Rushian piece of outrageous hilarity completely out of context, the distortion gang knows full well it can get you to widen your eyes and open your mouth in the universal sign of Liberal Outrage. Your scrawny chest swelling with a warm sense of completely unearned righteousness, you will turn to your second spouse and say, "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate, and I'm tolerant of a wide range of differing views -- but this goes too far!""

I started listening to talk radio in 1985. (Gene Burns: he endeared himself to me by beginning every show by saying: "The Gene Burns show is brought to you by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.") I first heard Rush Limbaugh in late 1988 (possibly early 1989.) He was substituting for someone else, and I remember thinking: this guy is too obviously an idiot even for talk radio. Plainly, I was wrong.

I can't say I have often listened to his show in its entirety, but that's because for the past decade or so, I have mostly listened to talk radio in the car, and I very rarely drive for three straight hours. I have, however, listened to a lot more than snippets I get from "distortion-mongers".

Also, I'm not a guy, I don't have a second spouse, and my chest is not scrawny.

Since Klavan is "certain" I have not listened to Limbaugh, he wants to know why not:

"Let me guess at your answer. You don't need to listen to him. You've heard enough to know he's a) racist, b) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.

Now let me tell you the real answer: You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

I listen to Limbaugh every chance I get, and I have never heard the man utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word. Do I always agree with him? Of course not. I'm a conservative; I think for myself. But Limbaugh, by turns insightful, satiric, raucously funny and wise, is one of the best voices talking about first principles and policy in the country today.

Therefore, I am throwing down my gauntlet at your quivering liberal feet. I hereby issue my challenge -- the Limbaugh Challenge: Listen to the show."

Been there. Done that. Don't particularly feel the need to do it again.

However, I have a few questions for Mr. Klavan, starting with the most obvious: What makes you so certain you know all about me?

Moreover: your contempt for your imagined audience drips off the page: my chest is scrawny, my feet quiver (??), I am "spoon-fed", I don't think for myself, I make little moues of outrage on command, and, of course, I am "a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward." Why my second spouse has anything to do with me is a mystery that passeth all understanding, or would be if I had a second spouse.

If this were accurate, we would not need to ask why you think this way about me. However, truth is one, but error is infinite; and since you're wrong, it is worth asking why, of the infinitely many misconceptions available to you, you chose this one in particular. Unlike you, I don't care to make pronouncements about people I don't know, but I'll venture a few guesses.

For one thing, you are "certain" you know all about a large number of people you've never met. You could have written this piece about many of your readers, or liberals you have met; instead, you chose to write about all your readers, and to claim certainty about us. That was unwise -- I mean, what are the odds that not one of your readers has listened to Limbaugh? -- but you either didn't notice or didn't care about the likelihood that you were wrong. I imagine, then, that you do not make epistemic caution your watchword.

Nor does it seem likely that you make it a habit to be generous, or to give people the benefit of the doubt. You certainly didn't do so in this case, and it seems unlikely that you would exercise charity towards people most of the time, but then abruptly switch to contempt when you get an opportunity to publish your thoughts before a very large audience.

You probably don't listen very well, if this essay is anything to go by. Listening well requires not assuming that you know in advance everything the person you're talking to is going to say. Again, most people start by not listening to individuals, and only gradually work their way up to not listening to the entire readership of a major national newspaper. So I'm guessing this is not an isolated episode.

By the same token, I'd guess that you do not have the kind of intellectual curiosity that would lead you to listen, above all, to people you disagree with. Those are the people who challenge you; the people from whom you are most likely to hear something you would never have thought of on your own. You dismiss them out of hand -- an odd thing to do in an op-ed devoted to lecturing others on their closed-mindedness.

Which is why I'd also guess that you do not have a lot of insight into yourself. If you did, it might have occurred to you to notice the rather striking fact that your column displays the very intellectual failings you are complaining about. You might also have noticed the hatred that jumps off the page, and wondered what it says about you, and how you found yourself in a position in which you are so much as tempted to insult a large group of people who are, for the most part, quite unknown to you.

Maybe you picked it up from Limbaugh. He is certainly the most obvious source for your view of liberals. Since you're a conservative and you think for yourself, though, I'm sure you didn't just accept it because you were 'spoon-fed'. There are any number of other possible explanations: hasty overgeneralization from a few liberals you met at parties, a projection of your own flaws onto others, unacknowledged anger, or a need to think of yourself as a lonely island of reason in a sea of idiocy. The one thing I do know is that you could not possibly have arrived at your certainty about what your entire readership is like based on careful reflection and close examination of the evidence. Because it's just not true.

***

Why go on about this? Because it's a danger for all of us, on any side of the political spectrum. It's easy to see what's wrong with making uncharitable assumptions about people you don't know when someone else is making assumptions about you. But it's always worth stopping and asking yourself: do I ever do this to the people I disagree with?

Because it's no more justifiable to do this to conservatives than it is to do it to liberals.

GIVE BAYH A CHANCE?.... Evan Bayh's working group hasn't exactly taken the liberal blogosphere by storm. The reaction has been critical, and the most common complaint is that it's simply a tool for business interests. That fear may prove correct. But let me be devil's advocate for a moment and at least try to present a more palatable explanation. In short, the group's primary benefit may be to provide political cover at home to perennially vulnerable Senators.

As an initial matter, let me clarify that I disagree with forming the group. Yes, the business agenda worries me -- but that agenda worries me with respect to all Senators. My bigger gripe is that the mere formation of the group undermines the "optics" of the progressive agenda. That is, by creating a self-described "moderate" group, it necessarily creates the perception that the rest of the Democratic Senate is a bunch of wild-eyed Bolsheviks wearing berets and smoking cloves.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but the Bayh group's mere existence will reinforce that narrative. In doing so, the group will inevitably pull the overall political center of gravity to the right on any given issue. And of course, the media will use any and all means necessary to play up the moderate/liberal division that has featured so strongly in its coverage of Pelosi's House.

So that's my gripe. My hope, though, is that the group will turn out to be relatively harmless. And that question -- are they harmful? -- will turn on why these Senators joined the group. If it's to extract more money for and from businesses, then yes -- it's a bad development.

But it's possible that most members of the group have signed on simply for political cover at home. In other words, maybe this group affirmatively wants to push progressive policies, but needs cover to avoid being painted as too liberal at home. That view is generally consistent with the types of people who have joined. While people like Bayh and Carper are safe, most come from predominantly Republican or toss-up states like Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Alaska, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Florida, and New Hampshire.

This is a point that people sometimes miss with the Blue Dogs in the House -- membership in the group is a political asset in conservative districts. It's something that legislators can and do emphasize to dull the perception that they're out of touch with their districts.

Obviously, that's not always how it works. And the Blue Dog leadership often pushes a lot of terrible policies for terrible reasons. But my hunch is that a lot of modern Democratic legislators (following the Southern realignment) are actually more liberal than they can admit, and groups like the Blue Dogs can -- somewhat ironically -- help them be more liberal.

The ultimate proof will be in the pudding. If Bayh decides that his mission in life is to help corporate interests, then he deserves sharp criticism. But if the point is simply to shave 5% off of anything Obama proposes to maintain "moderate" perceptions in vulnerable districts, I don't have much of a problem with that. Besides, although Bayh was pretty terrible on Iraq, his legislative record is generally solid.

So maybe it's worth holding fire for a bit to see.

AVOIDING SLOW-MOTION ESCALATION IN AFGHANISTAN... Barack Obama's appearance on Face The Nation provided the first opportunity to quiz him on his new policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan (Af-Pak, in the preferred foreign policy nomenclature. He categorically ruled out the kind of practices that would greatly expand the war, while simultaneously characterizing the mission of disrupting and dismantling Al Qaeda safe havens, most of which are in Pakistan.

As he carries out a retooled strategy in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama says he will consult with Pakistan's leaders before pursuing terrorist hideouts in that country.

Obama said U.S. ally Pakistan needs to be more accountable, but ruled out deploying U.S. troops there. "Our plan does not change the recognition of Pakistan as a sovereign government," the president told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview broadcast Sunday.

One wonders if that sovereignty extends to the continued drone attacks on suspected Al Qaeda inside Pakistan, which under this construction Pakistan's leaders must have knowledge of. What Obama appears to be saying is that he will offer tools to the Pakistanis in exchange for them carrying out the goal of helping the international community minimize the extremist threat inside their borders.

In addition, Obama rejected the premise pushed by those seeking a maximalist strategy that more troops always equals more stability.

OBAMA: What I will not do is to simply assume that more troops always result in an improved situation. […]

But just because we needed to ramp up from the greatly underresourced levels that we had doesn’t automatically mean that, if this strategy doesn’t work, that what’s needed is even more troops.

There may be a point of diminishing returns in terms of troop levels. We’ve got to also make sure that our civilian efforts, our diplomatic efforts and our development efforts are just as robustly encouraged.

I have to note that I find this Af-Pak strategy decidedly mixed. So much of it depends on the participation of the Pakistani government, and yet they have not been trustworthy to this point about going after militant elements in the tribal regions. Obama seems mindful of the dangers of mission creep and a slow escalation, and yet there's no articulated exit strategy to deal with the possibility that the Afghan government is too corrupt and unpopular to sustain itself against a popular insurgency. I appreciate the more comprehensive civilian-military strategy that understands more troops will not complete the job by themselves, yet there has been an explosion of civilian population-inflaming airstrikes inside Pakistan, the very actions that necessitated additional troops in Afghanistan, according to some. Obama praised the work of the Afghan National Army today, calling them "effective fighters" with "great credibility," and yet credible reports have shown the army to be ill-disciplined and addicted to drugs at rates of 75% or more. Afghanistan has been perilously neglected over the past 7 years, and this strategy may represent the best chance to turn around flagging fortunes. But the more you look at the intractable problems that exist in the region, the harder it is to find a vision of success.

DON'T ASK ABOUT DON'T ASK DON'T TELL... Robert Gates, on Fox News Sunday, argued for a delay in implementing any change to the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy on gays in the military.

Don't expect any change soon to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says both he and President Barack Obama have "a lot on our plates right now." As Gates puts it, "let's push that one down the road a little bit."

The White House has said Obama has begun consulting with Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on how to lift the ban. Gates says that dialogue has not really progressed very far at this point in the administration.

Of course we're in the midst of two wars right now, but I have to agree with Matt Yglesias - this is a truly weak excuse.

It's simply the nature of the military that this "a lot on our plates right now" excuse will almost always be available. In retrospect, the 1990s were a period of relative peace and quiet for the military, but at the time it was seen as a stressful period of multiple deployments (to Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia) around the world mixed with efforts at containment in the Gulf and the Korean peninsula. The Joint Chiefs are never going to say "eh . . . we don’t really have much going on these days."

As Matt notes, racial desegregation policies were carried out by the military at the height of the Cold War. The "we have a lot on our plates" excuse is too commonly used to delay important changes, particularly with respect to civil liberties. And let's flip this on its head. At a time when troops are stressed by multiple deployments, don't we have too much on our plate right now to dismiss willing soldiers for no other reason than their sexual orientation?

GEITHNER MEETS THE PRESS... President Obama sat down with Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation today, but I was actually more interested in Timothy Geithner's back-to-back appearances on Meet The Press and This Week With George Stephanopoulos. These were his first two appearances on the Sunday shows, coming out of a week where he announced major initiatives to engage in a public-private partnership to buy up toxic assets, and to re-regulate the financial sector. Both interviews had some interesting moments.

On both shows, Geithner was asked about the potential flaw in the plan for toxic assets, that the banks simply won't sell at the prices set by private investors, because taking losses would reveal the banks to be insolvent. Geithner didn't have the best answer for this other than to urge the banks to "take risk again." Indeed, there is no mechanism to force the banks to sell. In addition, on the issue of counter-party payments from AIG, Geithner demurred at any potential efforts to recover money from Goldman Sachs and other banks who were paid out whole on their credit default swaps instead of being forced to negotiate, pivoting instead to the need for more tools to step in and take over a firm like AIG:

GEITHNER: George, we came into this crisis as a country without the tools necessary to contain the damage of a financial crisis like this. In a case of a large, complex institution like AIG, the government has no ability, had no meaningful ability to come in early to help contain the fire, contain the damage, prevent the spread of that fire. Restructure the firm, change contracts where necessary, and helped make sure that the financial system gets through this...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it would have been the right thing to do, right?

GEITHNER: If we had the legal authority, that's what we would have done. But without that legal authority, we had no good choices. We were caught between these terrible choices of letting Lehman fail -- and you saw the catastrophic damage that caused to the financial system -- or coming in and putting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars at risk, like we did at AIG, to keep the thing going, unwind it slowly at less damage to the ultimate economy and taxpayer.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So how about now, Goldman Sachs is taking other government money. They got this $13 billion whole from AIG. Congressman Brad Sherman and others have said, they should give that $13 billion back.

GEITHNER: George, the important thing is, we have no legal ability now. That's why I went to Congress last week, to propose a broad change in resolution authority so that we have the capacity to do what we do with banks now.

I suspect that will be a less-than-satisfying answer to most people. Basically Geithner is trying to keep the past in the past, particularly with respect to AIG.

On some other fronts, however, Geithner displayed a definite concern to reel in the massive financial sector and build a broad-based economy that can better manage systemic risk. Here is an answer from Meet the Press on his regulatory proposals:

SEC'Y GEITHNER: Core thing is to make sure that the institutions at the center of our financial system are subject to much more conservative, much tougher requirements on capital and leverage that are applied more evenly and more effectively, frankly. We need to make sure that hedge funds and derivatives come within a framework of oversight so we protect the system from the risks they may present. And we need to make sure the government has the authority it needs to come in more quickly, to help contain the damage, restructure the system, so we can have a stronger system going forward [...] We need a better model. What we're proposing to do is use a model that exists for small banks that was designed by the Congress in the wake of the S&L crisis, build on that model and give the government a capacity to act more quickly, more effectively to contain the damage at least risk to the taxpayer and the economy as a whole.

Certainly, over-leveraging caused a good deal of this crisis; other countries where the banks are leveraged more conservatively are in better shape. Obviously, the devil is in the details - there are currently no capital requirements for hedge funds in the Geithner proposal, for example, and the real issue is whether the regulation will be strictly enforced. Our experience with bank regulators who are too cozy with the subjects they regulate recently suggest that the real problem is a lack of will.

But I thought Geithner's willingness to talk about the need to restructure the American economy, at the macro and the micro level, was interesting.

MR. GREGORY: Time magazine this week has its cover, and it's very interesting. I want to put it up on the screen for our viewers to see. "The End of Excess: Why the crisis is good for America." And there's a big red "reset" button. And everybody talks about reset. Obviously this is not a good crisis for America right now. But take a longer view. In the long run, is this crisis necessary for this economy?

SEC'Y GEITHNER: I think the adjustment to a period of excess is necessary. You never, you never want to have a crisis to remind people of the importance of living within your means, not borrowing too much or why regulation of the...(unintelligible)...is important. You never want to have a crisis that's damaging to make that point. But we're going to emerge stronger than this. When we get through this people are going to care less about what they make, more about what they do, what they achieve with what they make, and that will help make this country stronger.

MR. GREGORY: Will the economy be fundamentally different? Will people own fewer homes? I mean, home ownership, will that go down? Will consumption change? Will our lives change in a meaningful way?

SEC'Y GEITHNER: I think people will be living within their means more, which is helpful. We want to have, you know, a stronger, more sustainable recovery. Not a recovery based on a artificial boom that's not going to be sustained. We need to end this, this, this pattern of having booms and busts at the kind of frequency we've seen. That has to change. And that'll make the, that'll make this a better place to live and a more productive economy going forward.

Further, Geithner understands the importance of active engagement with the crisis, not to ease up on the pedal because of a few positive indicators. And he talks about the need for a broader segment of society to share in the benefits of recovery than the wide gap between the rich and poor we've seen explode in the past decade.

GEITHNER: Now, the important thing, though, is that we keep at it. You know, the big mistake governments make in recessions is they put the brakes on too early.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that what happened during the depression? Is that what Franklin Roosevelt did?

GEITHNER: That's one thing that happened in the depression. It's happened in Japan, too. It's happened in a lot of countries in the world. They see that first glimmer of light, and the impetus to policy fades and people are putting on the brakes, and we're not going to do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So income inequality goes down?

GEITHNER: It should go down. Again, you know, if you look at the record of performance in the '90s, you know, we had very strong productivity growth during a period of fiscal discipline, fiscal responsibility, strong private investment, and the gains were shared much more broadly.

We can do that as a country, but it requires getting this government to do a better job of doing things only governments can do. That's why I assume important we get better outcomes. That's why fixing our health care system and get costs growing more slowly is so important. That's why we need a better energy policy. And that's why infrastructure needs to be improved.

This mirrors what the President has been saying about sustainable growth rather than feeding into the same boom-and-bust cycles and propping up the same elites who took these tremendous gambles. Or in the words of Joe Biden - "We need to save markets from free marketeers."

Obviously, words are less important than actions. But this perspective can hopefully guide the Administration through this crisis, and provide the kind of investments needed to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to share in the recovery. I'm not convinced that Geithner is the best advocate for reducing inequality and stopping the casino on Wall Street, so from the outside the work continues to keep pushing for a newer, safer, more durable economy.

ENDING WORKSITE RAIDS... Immigration is one issue we haven't heard much about in the Obama Administration, for various reasons. But advocates have not stopped their push to take the undocumented out of the shadows and provide them a path to citizenship. The President has said little publicly on the issue since Inauguration Day, though he promised the Congressional Hispanic Caucus a statement of support in the spring. However, today's Washington Post reports on a policy shift toward punishing the businesses who hire the undocumented rather than the individual workers themselves.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has delayed a series of proposed immigration raids and other enforcement actions at U.S. workplaces in recent weeks, asking agents in her department to apply more scrutiny to the selection and investigation of targets as well as the timing of raids, federal officials said.

A senior department official said the delays signal a pending change in whom agents at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement choose to prosecute - increasing the focus on businesses and executives instead of ordinary workers.

"ICE is now scrutinizing these cases more thoroughly to ensure that [targets] are being taken down when they should be taken down, and that the employer is being targeted and the surveillance and the investigation is being done how it should be done," said the official, discussing Napolitano's views about sensitive law enforcement matters on the condition of anonymity.

"There will be a change in policy, but in the interim, you've got to scrutinize the cases coming up," the senior DHS official said, noting Napolitano's expectations as a former federal prosecutor and state attorney general.

Worksite raids, particularly as they were used in the Bush Administration, were unnecessarily harsh, separated families and in some cases violated due process and other civil liberties. The employers are just as responsible for breaking the law, yet during the Bush years they were almost never charged. This shift in operations at DHS and ICE not only makes sense on a moral and ethical level, but is likely to be more successful in deterring companies from hiring and exploiting undocumented labor.

I know immigration isn't a front-burner issue right now, but there are better priorities than the government operating like commandos and taking workers away from their families, while recognizing that the only way to truly solve the problem is through comprehensive reform.

TAIBBI DELIVERS THE SMACKDOWN... Earlier this week, Jake DeSantis, an executive at the AIG Financial Products division, quit, and published his resignation letter in the New York Times. Matt Taibbi has the ultimate response.

DeSantis has a few major points. They include: 1) I had nothing to do with my boss Joe Cassano's toxic credit default swaps portfolio, and only a handful of people in our unit did; 2) I didn't even know anything about them; 3) I could have left AIG for a better job several times last year; 4) but I didn't, staying out of a sense of duty to my poor, beleaguered firm, only to find out in the end that; 5) I would be betrayed by AIG senior management, who promised we would be rewarded for staying, but then went back on their word when they folded in highly cowardly fashion in the face of an angry and stupid populist mob.

I have a few responses to those points. They are 1) Bullshit; 2) bullshit; 3) bullshit, plus of course; 4) bullshit. Lastly, there is 5) Boo-Fucking-Hoo. You dog.

There's the big piece of fiction, that DeSantis knew nothing about the exotic financial deals at his 377-person unit, but had to be retained (and compensated with a bonus) to unwind those very same exotic deals. Then there's this other fiction that DeSantis and other Wall Street bonus babies could have gotten all kinds of other good offers from competing firms, even though half of Wall Street is out of work at the moment. But Taibbi focuses on the third argument:

But all of this is really secondary to the tone of DeSantis' letter. He acts like he's a victim because he didn't get to keep his after-tax bonus of $742,006.40 in the middle of a global depression. And he really loses his fucking mind when he writes:

"None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house."

First of all, Jake, you asshole, no plumber in the world gets paid a $740,000 bonus, over and above his salary, just to keep plumbing. Second, try living on a plumber's salary before you even think about comparing yourself to one; you're inviting a pitchfork in the gut by even thinking along those lines. Third, Jake, if you were a plumber, and the electrician burned the house down -- well, guess what? If you and that electrician worked for the same company, you actually wouldn't get paid for that job.

Out in the real world, when your company burns a house down, you're not getting paid by that client. It's only on Wall Street, where the every-man-for-himself ethos is built into an insanely selfish and greed-addled compensation system, that people like you expect to get paid in a bubble -- only there do people expect their performance bonuses no matter how much money the shareholders lose overall, no matter how many people get laid off after the hostile takeover, no matter how ill-considered the mortgages lent out by your division were.

That sense of entitlement has sparked the public anger. It's part of a mindset that assumes the virtue of selfishness and striving for the most dollars as an end in itself. It leads to perversities like Goldman Sachs bailing out their own executives even while the company was being bailed out themselves. It leads to self-interest being valued over the public interest. And it's led, in a very real sense, to the current crisis.

SECTARIAN VIOLENCE IN IRAQ?... I know the Iraq war is over and everything, but this strikes me as a notable development:

Sunni militants staged a violent uprising in central Baghdad Saturday after Iraqi forces detained a leader of the Sons of Iraq, a mostly Sunni paramilitary force that until recently had received salaries from the United States and is now on the Iraqi government payroll.

Sixteen people were injured in the battle in the once volatile Fadhl neighborhood, and five Iraqi soldiers were missing - snatched Saturday night by members of the Sons of Iraq, a security official said.

The arrest of Adel Mashhadani, who leads the force in Fadhl, and his assistant, heightened fears among Sunnis that the Iraqi government plans to divide and disband the movements now that its taken control of all but a few thousand of the 94,000 members across the country.

Earlier in the week we learned that Sunni Awakening forces weren't receiving the jobs promised to them by the central government. Falling oil prices have lessened the funds for the government, and they are having trouble paying existing employees, so payouts and make-work jobs for Sunni militants are unlikely. And this has caused anger and distrust.

The point of the Sunni Awakening was one of reconciliation, to re-integrate former militiamen into Iraqi society. If each of them could be arrested for past criminal actions, is there any way to avoid massive resistance and a resumption of Sunni-Shiite conflict, as well as violence against US forces (which occurred yesterday as well)?

"They sold him," said Khaled Jamal Qaisi, Mashhadani's deputy, referring to the U.S. military.

"The Americans are vile people and they betrayed our trust," Qaisi said. "We are the ones who fought al Qaida. They want things to return as they used to be? If they don't release Adel al Mashhadani today, you will all be prisoners in your homes."

This could be a blip, and Mashhadani could be a legitimate criminal. But when I start to see pitched gun battles in the streets of Baghdad again, I get nervous.

THE "OTHER" REASON NOT TO TORTURE.... The Bush administration was fond of citing Abu Zubaida as evidence of the great success of its "interrogation" policy. Bush himself claimed that Zubaida was al Qaeda's "chief of operations," and that he was a fount of valuable information. Zubaida also has the dubious honor of being the first detainee waterboarded.

In 2006, Ron Suskind reported in his book that none of the administration's claims about Zubaida were true. Based on his interviews with intelligence officials, Suskind wrote that Zubaida was not only mentally ill, but also had little knowledge of al Qaeda's actual operations. He was apparently more like a travel agent -- and his stories sent the CIA and FBI down many an unnecessary goose chase. When Bush learned all this, he kept misleading the public anyway.

Today, the Post corroborates Suskind's account that Zubaida was essentially worthless -- and that we waterboarded him for nothing:

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. . . . None of [their earlier claims] was accurate, the new evidence showed.

Although you should read the whole thing, the article provides a good example of the "administrative" case against torture. The moral argument is obviously clear - and it's one I believe in. Torture is wrong. Period. Full stop.

But there are other reasons to oppose torture. Even assuming you're morally ok with torturing (maybe because you like 24), you still have to show that it's possible to administer fairly.

In other words, another reason not to torture is that it's usually impossible to know whether it's being applied to the appropriate parties. Taking the extreme step of torture requires a level of epistemic confidence we just can't obtain -- particularly in times of rage and trauma, which is often when torture is used.

And this isn't an abstract policy debate. Unfortunately, we've seen torture in action and can make some empirical observations about its use. As it turns out, and just as anyone could have predicted, torture was applied too broadly to innocent people while we were blinded by our post-9/11 anger and thirst for revenge.

Zubaida is a high-profile example of exactly why the rule of law matters. Law isn't about helping bad people. It's about putting the procedural obstacles in place to make sure we don't lash out at the wrong people in fits of rage. It's the whole "Odysseus tied to the mast" point.

The Bush administration abandoned law -- and the results were inevitable, and tragic.

JUDD GREGG'S QUEST FOR ATONEMENT.... I'm not exactly sure why Judd Gregg has decided to lead an increasingly nasty line of attacks against Obama. On a purely personal level, you would think that Gregg would be grateful for Obama's vote of confidence. But not so much. Yesterday, Gregg delivered the Republican weekly address and quite graciously noted the following:

He also is proposing the largest tax increase in history, much of it aimed at taxing small business people who have been, over the years, the best job creators in our economy[.] These are staggering numbers . . . and represent an extraordinary move of our government to the left.

Steve offered more examples last week. Again, what's strange is not so much Gregg's opposition, but his aggressive and gratuitous tone. So I have a few potential theories about why Gregg has gone the full Hannity on Obama.

First, maybe it's just something personal. We still don't know what exactly led Gregg to change his mind. Maybe he felt slighted in some way. Maybe Rahm didn't smile at him. Who knows. Given Obama's nature and willingness to accommodate, it's hard to believe he was personally stiffed (or if so, that it couldn't be remedied). But who knows. One thing I do know, though, is that the idea that Gregg was simply unaware that Obama had proposed more spending is absurd.

Second, maybe Gregg has simply been freed from political constraints and is now showing his true ideological colors. Perhaps his perceived moderateness has simply been a function of New Hampshire political realities. Because he is retiring, however, he no longer has to worry about pleasing the median New Hamsphire voter, and is therefore drifting right.

Still, this one seems unsatisfying. Presumably, he knew he would retire when he accepted the cabinet position. If he had been this desperate to escape his life of silent moderate desperation, why accept the position in the first place? Instead, he could have declined, announced his Senate retirement, and then started his new authentic life as a hardcore ideological conservative.

That's why the most likely explanation (to me) is simply that he suddenly realized that he still needs the good graces of Republicans in the future for some reason. Maybe he still has political ambitions (future appointments?). Maybe he wants to cash out and go make tons of money on K Street. Either way, he needs to show that he's "on the team" following his act of high treason.

Obviously, I'm speculating -- I don't know what's going on. But the over-the-top and ostentatious aggression seems more like someone who really really wants the public to know that he opposes Obama. It's just weird.

Populist Anger Made Simple

I wonder why people are so angry about bonuses. Do they hate the rich? Do they want to punish success?Are they eaten up inside with resentment? Do they just not want to admit that some people work harder and are more talented than they are?

Or could it be one too many stories like this (h/t)?

"Though the company teetered on the verge of bankruptcy at the time, this past December Philadelphia Media Holdings awarded bonuses to CEO Brian P. Tierney, vice president of finance Richard Thayer and Daily News publisher Mark Frisby. (...)

PMH filed for bankruptcy in February. Toll, of the homebuilding Toll Brothers company, confirmed that the PMH board knew the company¹s fiscal situation was dire. "The financial condition of the papers was obviously not good," said Toll. "We knew what was going to happen sooner or later."

It had earlier been revealed that Tierney received a raise in December, just before Christmas, boosting his pay roughly 40 percent to $850,000. The company initially defended the raise, which was revealed in its bankruptcy filing, by saying that Tierney had taken on extra responsibilities since his initial deal had been struck.

Tierney gave up the raise shortly after it was revealed. Frisby and Thayer simultaneously gave back smaller raises. Now comes news of the bonuses, which were awarded just two months after the company's unions voted to postpone $25-a-week raises for each of its members at the request of PMH."

The bonuses were originally reported to be $350,000 for Teirney and $150,000 for the other two, but the numbers are disputed.

Besides the union members postponing their $25/week raises, the Inquirer laid off 71 people in Jan. 2007, laid off 68 people in Feb. 2008, and laid off 35 more people last December. And those are just the layoffs I could find with a quick search. It also failed to pay a whole lot of bills that it was contractually obligated to pay:

"The filing estimated that $4 million in accrued wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses and reimbursable costs remains unpaid. Mr. Bykofsky told The Bulletin that at least the newsroom at the Daily News had been paid, and the checks had cleared. He said that the staff was given paychecks on Thursday, but nobody was told of the bankruptcy filing.

As part of its bankruptcy filing, PMH admitted to its failure to pay out the withholdings from employee paychecks to the proper third parties. The deductions include employee's shares of health benefits and insurance premiums, 401(k) contributions and union dues.

"Certain deductions that were deducted from regular employees' earnings may not have been forwarded to the appropriate third-party recipients prior to the petition date," reads the filing. "The debtors estimate that as of the petition date, $200,000 in deductions may not have been forwarded to the appropriate third-party recipients."

Further, PMH has also failed to forward employer payroll taxes to the proper authorities, even though they were properly deducted from employee paychecks. PMH estimates that the total number of fees and taxes owed to the authorities does not exceed $550,000."

So: they stiffed the federal government. They didn't pay their employees' 401k contributions and health insurance premiums, though they were deducted from their employees' paychecks. (We can only hope that none of those employees got sick and were denied care.) Hundreds of people have been laid off in the last two years, and workers have had to take several rounds of cuts. Now the company has filed for bankruptcy. And yet, strange to say, right before they filed for bankruptcy they found a way first to raise their CEO's salary by nearly 60%, to $850,000, and then to give him a bonus.

Maybe they did this because Mr. Tierney is a prince among men. Then again, maybe not:

"In early 2008, Tierney warned union representatives of "a dire situation" if costs weren't cut by 10 percent. The papers have slashed more than 400 staff members across all departments since he took over. According to Newspaper Guild representative Bill Ross, Tierney once shook up a management meeting by barking "I will not lose my f*cking house over this!" And Ross says a couple of people emerged from a private meeting with the CEO claiming that he'd spoken to them, in his 12th-floor office, with a baseball bat in his hands. Ross also adds that in January, Tierney took to patrolling the parking garage, watching to see what time employees were arriving to work and asking managers about those who were late. "That's what I'm getting calls about now," says Ross. "He's walking around the parking garage. If he gets hit by a car, it'll be his own fault.""

Heartwarming, isn't it? I can't imagine why anyone is upset.

KRUGMAN OPENS THE OVERTON WINDOW... The upcoming cover of Newsweek, the Village weekly reader, will feature Paul Krugman, or at least 60%-65% of his face, with the headline "OBAMA IS WRONG: The Loyal Opposition of Paul Krugman."

Krugman, who won the Nobel Prize in economics last fall, has been arguing that Obama is doing too little to respond to threats to the nation's banking and economic system, and he has contended that the $787 billion stimulus bill should have been bigger [...]

Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham explains the choice in a letter to readers: "Every once a while, ... a critic emerges who is more than a chatterer - a critic with credibility whose views seem more than a little plausible and who manages to rankle those in power in more than passing ways. As the debate over the rescue of the financial system - the crucial step toward stabilizing the economy and returning the country to prosperity - unfolds, the man on our cover this week, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, has emerged as the kind of critic who, as Evan Thomas writes, appears disturbingly close to the mark when he expresses his 'despair' over the administration's bailout plan. [...]

"There is little doubt that Krugman - Nobel laureate and Princeton professor - has become the voice of the loyal opposition. What is striking about this development is that Obama's most thoughtful critic is taking on the president from the left at a time when, as Jonathan Alter notes, so many others are reflexively arguing that the administration is trying too much too soon.

"A devoted liberal, Krugman hungers for what he calls 'a new New Deal,' and he prides himself on his status as an outsider. (He is as much of an outsider as a Nobel laureate from Princeton with a column in the Times can be.) Is Krugman right? Is the Obama administration too beholden to Wall Street and to the status quo, trying to save a system that is beyond salvation? Does Obama have - despite the brayings of the right - too much faith in the markets at a time when prudence suggests that they cannot rescue themselves? We do not know yet, and will not for a while to come. But as Evan - hardly a rabble-rousing lefty - writes, a lot of people have a 'creeping feeling' that the Cassandra from Princeton may just be right. After all, the original Cassandra was."

The full Newsweek article is here. Now, some supporters of the President might see this rise of Krugman as a negative development. I see it differently. Krugman has been remarkably consistent to his principles, praising Obama where warranted, even on economic issues. He appreciated Obama's budget and his very legitimate move toward health care reform. His is not a knee-jerk reaction in opposition. Rather, Krugman has taken a critical look at each Obama proposal and made his judgments on the merits based on his own expertise. He has consistently argued that we are in a crisis where the normal rules no longer apply, and we need to look to the past to use the principles of Keynesian economics to dig us out of this rut. And with respect to the banks, he has argued the increasingly consensus view that insolvent banks must be taken over temporarily, their management and bad assets cleared out, and their institutions sold off after the debts are resolved, rather than what he sees as the half-measure of the Geithner plan. In addition, he has the opinion that banks that are "too big to fail" are too big to exist, and we need to fundamentally restructure the financial sector instead of making the sector whole and just turning back the clock to a couple years ago.

Now, you don't have to agree with everything Krugman says - I've seen some very good critiques of things he's said recently. But he is a serious thinker and this is his area of expertise, and he performs an important function. It's an odd quirk of fate that Krugman has as big a megaphone as he does, and so using it to put pressure on the Obama Administration from the left does several things: 1) provides a counter-weight to the conservative critiques of the President, which are usually so nutty that they pale in comparison to reasoned dissent, 2) forces Obama to at least debate the merits of his proposals rather than dismiss all critics, and most important, 3) gives Obama space on the left to put out an more progressive agenda than otherwise. Bill Clinton sums up the dynamic:

I recently heard an interesting anecdote about the 1993 budget fight. While it is probably the most progressive piece of sizable legislation to pass into law in two decades, it was a grueling fight--passing both branches of Congress by a single vote--and it still could have been better. At the signing ceremony, President Clinton found then Representative Bernie Sanders, and told Sanders that he, Sanders, should have made a much bigger public display of how he, Clinton, wasn't giving enough to liberals in the new budget. Such a public display would have provided Clinton more room to maneuver on the left.

The moral of the story is that if no one is criticizing a Democratic administration from the left, then there is no rationale or political space for that Democratic administration to operate on the left. Such criticism is thus even useful to, and desired by, a Democratic administration. If the left stays quiet, it will not be relevant.

Krugman is fulfilling that role, opening what many have called the Overton window, moving the conversation away from the failed conservative ideas of the past.

I also appreciate Krugman's modesty in reacting to the cover story:

I've long been a believer in the magazine cover indicator: when you see a corporate chieftain on the cover of a glossy magazine, short the stock [...] Presumably the same effect applies to, say, economists.

You have been warned.

Not To Blame

From CNN:

"Thousands of buildings at U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan have such poorly installed wiring that American troops face life-threatening risks, a top inspector for the Army says. (...)

"It was horrible -- some of the worst electrical work I've ever seen," said Jim Childs, a master electrician and the top civilian expert in an Army safety survey. Childs told CNN that "with the buildings the way they are, we're playing Russian roulette."

Childs recently returned from Iraq, where he is taking part in a yearlong review aimed at correcting electrical hazards on U.S. bases. He told CNN that thousands of buildings in Iraq and Afghanistan are so badly wired that troops are at serious risk of death or injury.

He said problems are "everywhere" in Iraq, where 18 U.S. troops have died by electrocution since 2003. All deaths occurred in different circumstances and different locations, but many happened on U.S. bases being managed by various military contractors. The Army has has reopened investigations in at least five cases, according to Pentagon sources.

Of the nearly 30,000 buildings the Army's "Task Force Safe" has examined so far, Childs said more than half "failed miserably." And 8,527 had such serious problems that inspectors gave them a "flash" warning, meaning repairs had to be completed in four hours or the facility evacuated.

He said the majority of those buildings were wired by contractor KBR, based in Houston, Texas. KBR has faced extensive criticism from Congress over its performance in the war zone. KBR has defended its performance and argued it was not to blame for any fatalities."

Let's see: inspections disclose "some of the worst electrical work I've ever seen", work that puts people's lives at risk, and has already killed 18 people. The majority of this work was done by KBR. And yet KBR is "not to blame". That's totally plausible! For instance, it could be that after KBR's crack electricians got done wiring the buildings, and after their quality control teams checked and double-checked every last circuit to make sure it was done right, bands of evil gnomes went burrowing around behind the wallboards and switched all the wires around.

I'll bet all you KBR bashers didn't think of that. But it could have happened! Blame the gnomes!

Seriously: can you imagine what it would be like to be the parents or spouse or child of someone serving in Iraq, hoping against hope that your loved one would make it home, learning that she had died, and then finding out that it wasn't an IED or a sniper that killed her; it was faulty wiring installed by an American company that hadn't bothered to do its job right?

On the other hand, can you imagine being the kind of person who would decide that despite your company's having gotten billions of dollars in contracts, despite its repeatedly overcharging the government, despite "an impossibly high cost overrun of $436,019,574 on one job, charges of $114,308 for an oil spill cleanup that failed to remove any oil and another set of tasks in which the overruns were 36.9 percent of all costs", you were not going to make sure your company did a good enough job to keep our soldiers from getting killed?

How, exactly, would you live with yourself?

***

Oops, I forgot to add this:
"Defense contractor KBR Inc., which is under criminal investigation in the electrocution deaths of at least two U.S. soldiers in Iraq, has been awarded a $35 million contract by the Pentagon to build an electrical distribution center and other projects there."

I've tried to find out whether it has been cancelled since then, but if it has, I can't find word of it.

Outing AKMuckraker

When John McCain nominated Sarah Palin for Vice President, I (along with a whole lot of other non-Alaskans) suddenly developed an interest in Alaskan politics, and one of the best political blogs I found was Mudflats, written by a blogger who went by the name of AKMuckraker. It didn't occur to me to wonder who AKMuckraker was, or why she was anonymous: she didn't purport to have any sort of inside knowledge about the things she wrote about, or claim any special authority; she was just an informed observer. As far as I was concerned, her identity was her business, as were her reasons for keeping it private.

Mike Doogan, a Representative in the Alaska State Legislature, apparently disagrees. He just outed her. AKMuckraker:

"After the initial surprise wore off, it really hit me. This is an elected State Representative, of my own political party, who has decided that it's not OK for me to control the information about my identity; that it's not OK to express my opinion on my own blog without shouting from the rooftops who I am.

If I were to appear, as many of you have, at a political rally and I were to hold up a sign that expressed my opinion, I don't have to sign my name on the bottom. And if someone wants to come online and read my diary, they are free to do so. And if they want to disagree, that's OK too.

It said in my "About" page that I choose to remain anonymous. I didn't tell anyone why. I might be a state employee. I might not want my children to get grief at school. I might be fleeing from an ex-partner who was abusive and would rather he not know where I am. My family might not want to talk to me anymore. I might alienate my best friend. Maybe I don't feel like having a brick thrown through my window. My spouse might work for the Palin administration. Maybe I'd just rather people not know where I live or where I work. Or none of those things may be true. None of my readers, nor Mike Doogan had any idea what my personal circumstances might be. But that didn't seem to matter. (...)

I don't need to remind Mudflats readers that Alaska is in a time of turmoil. We are facing unknown consequences with an erupting volcano that threatens to wipe out a tank farm on Cook Inlet holding 6 million gallons of oil. We have critical issues in the legislature, including Alaska's acceptance or rejection of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal stimulus money for education and other critical purposes. We have a governor who has just chosen an incredibly divisive and extreme right wing idealogue as our new Attorney General. And there are only three weeks left in the legislative session. It bothers me quite a bit that instead of focusing all his energy on doing his job, one of our elected representatives would rather spend his time stalking and harrassing a political blogger."

It would bother me too, but not as much as the idea that someone who allegedly represents citizens feels that he has the right to disregard their views about whether or not to share their identities. Whether or not AKMuckraker reveals her name ought to be her decision. No one else has the right to make it for her, any more than they would have the right to publish her medical records or her credit history.

It might be different had AKMuckraker made some claim to special inside knowledge. I have not read her entire blog, but as far as I can tell, that's not what she does. She follows Alaskan politics the way anyone might, and comments on what she sees. Her identity is irrelevant to her arguments, and anyone who disagrees with her can challenge them on their own terms, without having to discuss who she is.

I speak from experience here. My reasons for blogging under a pseudonym are pretty trivial: while I have never minded the idea that someone reading my posts could figure out who wrote them, I would rather that people, and in particular my students, not be able to google my name and find my collected political opinions. (I learned, to my surprise, that some students do google their professors around the time I started writing for Obsidian Wings.) I have been outed by several people, generally inadvertently; and while I have never minded all that much, I would rather have been able to make that choice for myself.

But it is a luxury to be able not to mind. I do not work in state government. I do not have an abusive ex-husband from whom I am hiding. My reasons for remaining anonymous are, as I said, pretty trivial. I have no idea whether the same can be said for AKMuckraker's. Nor, more importantly, does Mike Doogan. Did he stop to wonder whether she might have an abusive ex-husband, or a stalker? Or whether she has gotten threats because of her blog? (I have, and I'm Little Miss Reasonable.)

Somehow, I doubt it. If he had stopped to wonder, it might have occurred to him that some people might have very serious reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. But even if AKMuckraker's reasons are as slight as mine -- and if I were Mike Doogan, I'd be hoping that they are -- the fact that he thinks that bloggers should not be anonymous does not mean that he gets to make that choice for others.

SPANISH COURT OPENS TORTURE INQUIRY AGAINST GONZALES, ADDINGTON, YOO, OTHERS.... Just off the press from the New York Times:

A high-level Spanish court has taken the first steps toward opening a criminal investigation against six former Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, on whether they violated international law by providing a legalistic framework to justify the use of torture of American prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, an official close to the case said.

The case was sent to the prosecutor's office for review by Baltasar Garzon, the crusading investigative judge who indicted the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The official said that it was "highly probable" that the case would go forward and could lead to arrest warrants.

I would call this a big deal. As the report notes, Garzon indicted Augusto Pinochet, which led to his arrest and extradition. This would not immediately lead to arrest and trial, but it would certainly confine the six officials to the United States and increase the pressure for stateside investigations. Spanish courts have "universal jurisdiction" over human rights abuses, under a 1985 law, particularly if they can be linked to Spain.

In the case against the former Bush administration officials, last week Judge Garzon linked it to an earlier case in which he indicted five former Guantanamo Bay prisoners who were citizens or residents of Spain. The Spanish Supreme Court had overturned a conviction of one of them, saying that Guantanamo was "a legal limbo" and no evidence obtained under torture could be valid in any of the country’s courts.

The complaint was filed by a Spanish human rights group, the Association for the Dignity of Prisoners, to the National Court, which assigned the case to Judge Garzon. After the complaint is reviewed by the prosecutor, a criminal investigation would be likely to begin, the official said. If the case proceeds, arrest warrants could still be months away.

The 98-page complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, was prepared by Spanish lawyers who have also relied on legal experts in the United States and Europe. It bases its case on the 1984 Convention Against Torture, which is binding on 145 countries including the United States.

The six officials in the inquiry are:

• former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
• John Yoo, the Justice Department attorney who authored the infamous "torture memo"
• Jay Bybee, Yoo's superior at the Office of Legal Counsel, also involved in the creation of torture memos
• David Addington, Dick Cheney's chief of staff and legal adviser
• Douglas Feith, the former undersecretary of defense for policy
• William Haynes, the legal counsel at the DoD

The amount of material connecting these six to the creation, authorization and direction of state-sanctioned illegal torture, based on perverse and discredited reasoning, is voluminous, and given the record of Garzon, I would imagine this will lead to arrest warrants.

This story shows once again the growing global unease with the implicit policy of the United States to conveniently forget the torture and other abuses of the Bush regime. In England, police are investigating whether British intelligence officers knew about and prolonged the torture of Binyam Mohamed, the recently released Guantanamo detainee. As Glenn Greenwald notes, other countries have not abandoned their commitment to the rule of law.

As The Guardian reported, the British Government was, in essence, forced into the criminal investigation once government lawyers "referred evidence of possible criminal conduct by MI5 officers to home secretary Jacqui Smith, and she passed it on to the attorney general." In a country that lives under what is called the "rule of law," credible evidence of serious criminality makes such an investigation, as The Guardian put it, "inevitable." British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has clearly tried desperately to avoid any such investigation, yet as The Washington Post reported this morning, even he was forced to say in response: "I have always made clear that when serious allegations are made they have got to be investigated."

Wouldn't it be nice if our government leaders could make a similar, extremely uncontroversial statement -- credible allegations of lawbreaking by our highest political leaders must be investigated and, if warranted, prosecuted? In a country with a minimally healthy political culture, that ought to be about as uncontroversial as it gets. Instead, what we have are political leaders and media stars virtually across the board spouting lawless Orwellian phrases about being "more interested in looking forward than in looking backwards" and not wanting to "criminalize public service." These apologist manuevers continue despite the fact that, as even conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum recently acknowledged in light of newly disclosed detailed ICRC Reports, "that crimes were committed is no longer in doubt."

The end of the NY Times article shows why the US can hardly claim that Spain is acting irresponsibly beyond its own borders and violating the soveriegnty of other nations, because in one recent case we did almost exactly the same thing:

The United States for the first time this year used a law that allows for the prosecution in the United States of torture in other countries. On Jan. 10, a Miami court sentenced Charles Taylor, the former Liberian leader, to 97 years in a federal prison for torture, even though the crimes were committed in Liberia.

Last October, when the Miami court handed down the conviction, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey applauded the ruling and said: "This is the first case in the United States to charge an individual with criminal torture. I hope this case will serve as a model to future prosecutions of this type."

So do I.

OMINOUS CANARY SONGS.... Count me among the skeptical of Obama's new Afghanistan strategy. What really worries me is what I'll call the "reverse canary" problem. Simply put, the wrong people are too happy.

You're all familiar with the phrase "canary in the coal mine." The idea was that miners would bring canaries down into the mines as warning signals. When the air became toxic, the canaries would be affected first -- thus warning the miners of imminent danger.

With respect to the Afghanistan policy, the problem isn't that the "signaling" canaries are dropping dead. The problem is that they're too happy -- they're chirping with excessive mirth. Specifically, when Max Boot, Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, and the Post editorial board are all excited about the policy.... well, it might be time to get out of the mine.

More substantively, my fear isn't so much with the policy announced yesterday. For the short term, Obama's policy strikes a reasonable balance between the "minimalist" and "maximalist" camps, which are helpfully described by Ilan Goldenberg. I'm ok with giving a "middle ground" strategy of regional diplomacy and reconciliation a chance -- but only for the short term. If things don't go well, then I agree with Goldenberg that we need to change course:

If a middle ground strategy shows little to no progress within the next 12-18 months than it would be wise for Obama and his advisors to reconsider and move to a [minimalist] strategy.... This will be extraordinarily difficult as once you commit to a strategy changing course involves admitting failure and reevaluating -- something American administrations have been historically bad at.

Precisely -- and that's what worries me. This strategy seems extremely susceptible to morphing into an open-ended, long-term commitment without clear objectives. Frankly, I didn't see any exit strategy yesterday. I saw no verifiable metrics for determining whether we're achieving our objectives (and on that -- is the objective to disrupt al Qaeda, or to stabilize the government?). I've heard promises of benchmarks -- but nothing yet. And even assuming concrete benchmarks emerge, it's hard to believe we'll really pack up and leave if they're not met.

Let's be clear -- this is an escalation. It's a reasonable one, for now. But these things tend to snowball. To echo Robert Frost, way leads on to way. And if things deteriorate, or if our allies depart, it's easier to imagine that additional escalation (rather than minimalism) will follow. It's not that I don't believe in the goal -- I'm just skeptical that increased military efforts are capable of achieving these goals.

And that brings me to the canaries. The problem with the neocon foreign policy view is (among other things) its excessive overreliance on military force. Escalation and more force is the answer to most any question. Some sincerely believe in this policy -- others are probably playing out some Freudian drama because they were teased on the playground. But anyway, for whatever reason, more force is always the answer with them -- and it's almost never the right choice.

And that's frankly what worries me about their enthusiasm for Obama's strategy. They recognize not only that it's an escalation, but also how readily the policy lends itself to future escalations.

The past few years have shown us that these people are drawn to failed policies like moths to burning flames. The fact that they are finding this one so attractive should give us pause.

RED RIVER FLOODING AND NATIONAL SERVICE... A spate of winter storms in the Fargo, ND/Moorhead, MN area have threatened homes and businesses as the Red River rises and increases the potential for a catastrophic flood. Thousands of volunteers reinforced dikes and levees, raising the floodwall level to roughly 43 feet, and many communities already submerged have been evacuated. On Friday the water level in the river rose to a level approaching 41 feet, with cresting expected in the next 48 hours. But this morning, freezing temperatures have slowed the rise of the river, as snow has not melted, and the National Weather Service cautiously announced that the river crested at a lower level than predicted. This is positive news suggesting that the levees will hold, but the situation remains dangerous, with more storms in the forecast for next week and the water level still at a record high.

In his weekly radio address, President Obama expressed his support for those affected by the flooding, citing his disaster declarations for North Dakota and Minnesota, the FEMA response and the US Army Corps of Engineers support in coordinating the building of makeshift levees. It's good to see this kind of coordination and attention in the midst of the emergency, not after it.

In addition, the President also connected the situation to the theme of national service that Steve discussed yesterday.

For at moments like these, we are reminded of the power of nature to disrupt lives and endanger communities. But we are also reminded of the power of individuals to make a difference.

In the Fargodome, thousands of people gathered not to watch a football game or a rodeo, but to fill sandbags. Volunteers filled 2.5 million of them in just five days, working against the clock, day and night, with tired arms and aching backs. Others braved freezing temperatures, gusting winds, and falling snow to build levees along the river's banks to help protect against waters that have exceeded record levels.

College students have traveled by the busload from nearby campuses to lend a hand during their spring breaks. Students from local high schools asked if they could take time to participate. Young people have turned social networks into community networks, coordinating with one another online to figure out how best to help.

In the face of an incredible challenge, the people of these communities have rallied in support of one another. And their service isn't just inspirational – it's integral to our response.

It's also a reminder of what we can achieve when Americans come together to serve their communities. All across the nation, there are men, women and young people who have answered that call, and millions of other who would like to. Whether it's helping to reduce the energy we use, cleaning up a neighborhood park, tutoring in a local school, or volunteering in countless other ways, individual citizens can make a big difference.

This is the tradition of national service that conservative commentators have likened to Hitler Youth. This is the call to sacrifice that Chuck Todd doesn't seem to understand because it doesn't involve cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits. Obama's support of national service represents a continuum throughout his campaign and his public life, that we have a responsibility to one another, that we can do our part for change as neighbors and fellow citizens. I would ask those naysayers on the right if they asked the residents of these communities in North Dakota and Minnesota their opinion.

A NEW BRAND OF STUPID ON CLIMATE CHANGE... Today is the second annual Earth Hour, a worldwide campaign to raise awareness on the issue of climate change. At 8:30pm local time, major businesses, local and national points of interest, and individual homes will dim their lights for one hour. Already today, sites ranging from the Sydney Opera House to the Egyptian Pyramids have lowered their lights in recognition, and 4,000 cities in 88 countries will participate in the event. Sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund, Earth Hour will provide, in the words of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, "a way for the citizens of the world to send a clear message: They want action on climate change."

It will also provide a new way for conservatives to show what hardcore rebels they are.

Tomorrow is something called Earth Hour. Take the official RedState Pledge:

I do solemnly swear that I will honor Earth Hour by turning on every light in my residence at 8:30 p.m. on March 28, 2009, for one hour. God said, "Let there be light." Who are we to argue?

Yeah, they want you to turn your lights off, but everybody knows darkness leads to crime.

It's amusing to see Erick Erickson so terrified of possible boogeymen infiltrating his house from 8:30 to 9:30, as well as the wingnut tendency to go after all the most important targets, like symbolic light-dimming actions. But this has now become a cliche. My local wingnut radio hosts were making the same "jokes" last night: "I'll turn on every light in the house!... I'll keep my car running for an hour!" And of course, Glenn Beck devoted an entire show to running his car in the parking lot a couple months ago.

Conservatives are allowed to show their ignorance of sound science any way they want, but they ought to at least liven it up a bit. The "I'm going to turn on every light in the house" bit is getting about as hackneyed as jokes about airline food and Gilligan's Island ("all those clothes for a three-hour tour?"). Let me introduce you to a Republican with innovative and novel thinking about climate change. It's embarrassingly wrong, but at least it's new:

We've repeatedly documented Rep. John Shimkus' ridiculous positions on climate change. During a House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing earlier this week, the downstate Republican was in rare form. Speaking to British global warming denier Lord Christopher Monckton, Shimkus made a novel argument that because plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, limiting our man-made carbon dioxide emissions would actually kill the world's plants. Watch the exchange here:

SHIMKUS: It's plant food ... So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere? ... So all our good intentions could be for naught. In fact, we could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying.

I've always wanted to use this line on Steve's site, and now it's appropriate: Shimkus did not appear to be kidding.

Shimkus basically maps out a world where, prior to the Industrial Revolution, no plant life existed, because we hadn't yet set into motion mass production of their "food." In this scenario, plants actually sprung to life shortly after the invention of the Watt steam engine in the 18th century.

Now THAT'S a new one! Relentlessly stupid, sure, but new.

WHEN THE PRESS CORPS ATTACKS... The White House Press Corps has had it. They're tired of the games, the evasions, the disrespect. They will boldly stand up for their profession and not hold back any more. Now the truth can be told. They will ask the penetrating, uncomfortable questions that no Press Secretary wants to hear.

They are going to finally call out the Administration for their lies in the run-up to Iraq!

No, scratch that, they're going to be pissy about Robert Gibbs walking in 20 minutes late to a briefing.

As the daily press briefing began this afternoon at 2:07pmET, several members of the White House press corps spoke up to press secretary Robert Gibbs about his tardiness.

FishbowlDC reports that the briefing began about 20 minutes after the two minute warning was given and that ABC's Jake Tapper "had taken charge with two visits to the Lower Press office to complain during the long wait."

By the time Gibbs arrived, members of the press corps could be heard complaining saying things like, "it irritates everybody here."

We hear the late briefings are a pattern, and that it was not an issue during the Bush administration.

On one level, reporters have deadlines, and this particular breed of reporters needs Gibbs to do their job. So fine. On another level, Gibbs was apparently late this time because he was talking to the President about an issue sure to come up in the briefing. Also, of all the things to finally blow their stack about, the press corps reaches their limit on punctuality? Lie to them, fine, just don't make them sit in an air-conditioned room for an extra five minutes. Show some respect for the office like George W. Bush did.

By the way, if Gibbs were prompt, maybe the press would have more time for scintillating, piercing questions like this.

MS. ROMANO: The teleprompter changed last night.

MR. GIBBS: Mm-hmm.

MS. ROMANO: What was that about that? It's a big jumbotron now.

MR. GIBBS: You know can I tell you this?

MS. ROMANO: Yes.

MR. GIBBS: I am absolutely amazed that anybody in America cares about who the President picks at a news conference or the mechanism by which he reads his prepared remarks. You know, I guess America is a wonderful country.

MS. ROMANO: You're saying this is all Washington Beltway stuff?

MR. GIBBS: I don't even know if it's that. I don't think I should implicate the many people that live in Washington.

MR. GIBBS: No, I you know, I don't think the President let me just say this: My historical research has demonstrated that the President is not the first to use prepared remarks nor the first to use a teleprompter.

I'm all for a vigorous press fighting for their rights to access, but when they continually take their cues from Matt Drudge headlines, isn't Gibbs' tardiness a virtue and not a vice?

TEDISCO, DUCK.... It has been notable to see the President and the Vice President get fairly involved in the special election in NY-20 over the last week or two, despite the dynamics of the district presumably favoring a Republican. Obviously something flipped and they feel like Scott Murphy can take the seat (incidentally, liberal netrooters, Murphy has announced his intention to join the Blue Dogs, so caveat emptor). And if you want to know why, just check out what Eric Sundwall, the Libertarian candidate who was kicked off the ballot at the last minute after having his signatures challenged, had to say about Republican Jim Tedisco:

Mr. Tedisco denies any involvement with the concerted effort by his supporters to knock me off the ballot. I don't believe him. The ruthless effort by his supporters to knock me off the ballot without a word of protest by him proves his unfitness for any office let alone Congress in these critical times.

I will be voting for Scott Murphy on Tuesday. While we disagree on some important issues, I find him to be a man of honor, a good family man and successful businessman. Unlike Tedisco, he actually lives in the District. And, unlike Mr. Tedisco, I view Scott's business success as a virtue, not a vice.

I urge my supporters and all those who believe in open and free elections to show their disgust at the tactics of the Republican political machine to win at all costs. Please join me in voting for Scott Murphy on Tuesday.

Obviously, the Libertarian candidate dropping from the ballot and throwing his support to the Democrat means little on a practical level. But the fact that Tedisco's tactics so angered him that he decided to blast him clearly shows how Tedisco is making friends and influencing people in the district. And the slow-motion winnowing of the GOP into a small regional party in the South continues apace.

OBAMA AND THE BANKERS... Hello all, and thanks to Steve for the opportunity to fill in. Because he is more machine than man it takes two of us to do so. Anyway, let's get to it.

President Obama met with the nation's top bankers yesterday, and I think "jovial" would best describe the atmosphere, at least from press reports. The White House has calmed their rhetoric toward Wall Street of late, and after the meeting the bank CEOs were all smiles. They even might do us all the favor of keeping taxpayer money, which is awful nice of them.

Obama apparently did impress upon them the need to curb their excesses, at least in public.

Sitting at the center of a round table in the state dining room, Mr. Obama spoke firmly about how there had been a "cultural shift" regarding executive bonuses and Wall Street pay. He said that Americans had a right to be angry. "The anger is real," the president said, according to people who attended the meeting. "The industry needs to show that they get it on the compensation issue."

"Excess is out of fashion," Mr. Obama added, noting that pay must be linked to performance.

The bankers nodded, but made no firm commitments.

As to any real change in compensation rules, I'm not from Missouri but they'll have to show me.

But I agree with Moe Tkacik that JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon might have offered a bit too much truth in the post-meeting press scrum:

"One of the main root causes [of the crisis], and this has been going on for a long time, was the huge trade and global financing imbalances which fueled very low rates and excess consumption, and over a long period of time I do not believe you can run those kind of trade deficits..."

Dimon was getting at one of the root structural causes of the current crisis -- America takes, the world (China especially) makes, an unsustainable situation sustained above all by an increasingly usurous financial services industry. As the CEO of PNC Financial Services just pointed out, banking is the biggest sector of the American economy -- and it's been to the detriment of everything else.

...it was precisely Wall Street and corporate America that relentlessly lobbied the government over that very long period of time to enable those gaping imbalances to gape ever wider. What both Barack Obama and Jamie Dimon implicitly understand is that publicly traded corporations are not engineered to look out for their long-term interests. By allowing the financial sector to bloat "too big to fail", the country lost the kind of industries that are too vital to fail -- which is to say, manufacturing.

This is the point that my father, he of the 40 years in the textile industry, has made repeatedly to me since he lobbied Congress to save his industry - in 1979, mind you. A society that loses its industrial base at the expense of, in this case, the financial services sector, puts itself in great peril. The size and the increasingly lucrative nature of an overgrown financial sector combined with the desire for perpetual growth creates just the kind of bubble-based economy, and dangerous aftermath, that we see today.

I don't think Dimon was actually calling for the shrinking of his own industry, but that was the effect, at least on me.

THE EDUCATION OF HARRY REID.... These comments from Reid fall into the category of "one can only hope he's BSing":

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that John Roberts misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings by pretending to be a moderate - and that the United States is now "stuck" with him as chief justice.

Ah yes, no one could have predicted.... Please. The Senate isn't the most discerning bunch of people in the world, but it was pretty clear to all that Roberts was strongly conservative.

Anyway, what really bothers me about Reid's comments is that they reinforce the idea that confirmation hearings matters. They don't -- and we'd all probably be better off ignoring them entirely.

Reid is suggesting that Senators based their vote on what Roberts said during the confirmation hearings. Again, I'm just hoping that's BS, because the alternative (that Senators actually voted based on his confirmation promises) is pretty depressing.

But the focus on confirmation hearings is consistent with how the media builds these things up. Following a Supreme Court nomination, the dramatic "conflict" focuses too heavily on whether the nominee can survive the hearings. If so, he or she is golden. That's the great test for life tenure in our time (at least for people who are minimally qualified -- unlike Harriet Miers).

What's funny, though, is that "surviving" means successfully not answering questions from lots of different people over long periods of time. The more you fail to do, the greater you succeed. It's a completely pointless exercise.

Actually, it's worse than pointless because it distracts us from looking at what really matters -- the nominee's past record. There's simply no better predictor than past performance. And if we didn't have the Kabuki theater of confirmation hearings hogging the spotlight, the political focus would hopefully shift to the nominee's record where it belongs.

Anyway, it's all moot now -- I'm guessing I'll like the next nominee better. But I'll still be annoyed by the pointless hearings process. Errr.... I mean that the absolute most critical test for Obama's nominees should only be whether they can survive the grueling nomination hearings.

A UNIFIED THEORY OF BENEN.... I wanted to briefly introduce myself and thank Steve for his probably foolish decision to trust me with the keys. I write as publius at Obsidian Wings along with Hilzoy and other questionable characters like Eric Martin and Von.

Anyway, I've been a longtime fan of Steve's -- and I was a loyal reader of Carpetbagger (his old blog) for years. During that time, I concluded that he's actually a machine -- a non-carbon based Terminator-like entity. It's the only plausible explanation.

Seriously, he's the hardest working man in the blogosphere, so I hope he actually takes a much-deserved break.

Ugly Loans

When I read blog posts or comments complaining about people who should have known better than to sign up for mortgages they couldn't afford, I'm always of two minds. On the one hand, I'm quite sure that there are a decent number of people who knowingly gambled on the proposition that housing prices would go up forever. I am not inclined to be particularly sympathetic to such people, especially if they had other options. (People who took this gamble because it was their only way to get a roof over their heads are a different story.)

On the other hand, some people who make these complaints seem to me to underestimate just how complicated and ghastly some of the loans written during the last five years were. Those loans made it very, very hard for borrowers to see exactly what they were getting into. And I can't think of a better way to illustrate this point than to link to this explanation of negative amortization option ARMs by the late Tanta at Calculated Risk.

It's very long: I pasted it into Word and it clocks in at 15 pages and over 3500 words. But there's not a lot that's superfluous: Tanta was a very clear writer and thinker, and I think she explained this about as well as possible. But option ARMs are very complicated. And if you're tempted to discount the possibility that people could have truly not understood what they were signing up for, I'd encourage you to really try to work through it, the way you might if it were a mortgage you were actually considering taking out.

Tough, isn't it? I note a couple of points. First, the payments, and for that matter the entire structure of the loan, can change unpredictably. There are no tables of payments with this type of loan; it would be difficult to work out what was going to happen to the payments, and when, unless you not only knew how much you would choose to pay every month, but had a copy of the loan document, a pretty serious calculator, decent math skills, and a fair amount of time on your hands.

Second, it's hard to imagine a person for whom this would be a good type of loan. You'd need to be strapped for cash for the first few months, but thereafter able to pay considerably more than you would have had you taken out a different sort of mortgage. Maybe this would be a good idea if you knew you'd win the lottery six months from now, or were the sole heir of a millionaire who was at death's door. Otherwise, this mortgage might have been designed to get people into a lot of trouble very fast. It's a sort of equity-extracting machine, and it's ugly.

And yet, strange to say, someone created this type of loan, and others adopted and marketed it. Funny thing, that.

Third, this type of mortgage is just plain hard to understand. I had a hard time wrapping my head around its resets and recasts and so on, and I construe texts for a living. Tanta:

"Has your head exploded yet?

But that's the real point, isn't it? If your head just exploded, and you're the kind of person who usually reads CR, just imagine what the kind of person who doesn't usually read CR makes of all this during some ten-minute spiel by some loan officer."

Fourth, about that loan officer: Tanta notes one case she's heard of in which a loan officer just did not understand this kind of loan, and misrepresented it to her clients. Given how complicated this type of loan is, this cannot be an isolated case. But besides simple misunderstandings, there's also active obfuscation. Here's a story on how Wachovia instructed its employees to sell their option ARMs (also via CR; bear in mind that this is a negative amortization loan, in which the amount you owe can go up):

"So if I'm paying that minimum payment, I'm not actually putting a dent in my principal though right? My principal and interest they're just going to keep climbing up right?" the borrower asks in the video tape. "It's optional," the broker in the video replied.

"What kind of answer is that?" said Brown [a housing advocate, ed.] after watching the video. "The answer would really be 'Yes.' That's the right answer, that to me would be the true clear straightforward truthful simple answer."

Now: one might think that people who take out mortgages should not rely on what their loan officer or mortgage broker says. They should read the documents for themselves, and if they don't understand what they read, they shouldn't take out the mortgage. I am tempted to agree with this. I have taken out a number of mortgages, and I always do read all the documents. My various loan officers have always reacted to this quaint habit of mine with astonishment, the way they might respond if I arrived at their office in a coach and four accompanied by liveried footmen. Some of them indulge my archaic eccentricities with good humor. Others, however, start conspicuously looking at their watches and tapping their fingers as I settle in with the Flood Plain Report, and make it very clear that they do not regard watching me wade through the details of the arbitration provisions as a productive use of their time. It takes a thick skin to keep reading despite that.

Besides, a lot of people find it hard to understand long, dry, complicated legal documents. We might wish this weren't true, but it is. Their only options are to trust someone to summarize a mortgage accurately, or not to take out a mortgage at all. And if the summaries they get are wrong, whether because the loan officers themselves do not understand the mortgages they are selling or because of outright deception, then those people are screwed.

There are quite a few of these loans out there: "According to UBS, gross issuance of securitized OA pools was $18.5 billion in 2004, $128 billion in 2005, and $175 billion in 2006." In the various debates about who is at fault for what, it's worth bearing in mind that some of the people whose mortgages are in trouble took out loans like these, loans that should never have been marketed outside very special circumstances, and that no normal human being should ever have to understand.

The Republican "Budget"

I've been trying to figure out what to say about the House Republicans' new "budget". I think it's pretty neat that they decided to use those cute bubbles instead of numbers. Maybe next week they'll present their budget using interpretive dance or little animated jelly beans.

I also like the way they say serious-sounding things like this:

"Republicans believe that future generations should not be burdened by mountains of debt for the misguided choices made by Democrats today. Instead, working families should be able to keep more of what they earn and pass those savings to future generations." (p. 10)

-- and then go on to propose a whole raft of new tax cuts and only one specific spending cut, "ending the bailouts". The whole thing has a sort of Dada quality to it that's almost endearing. But I wasn't sure what level of ridicule could possibly be adequate to it.

Luckily, Nate Silver has the answer:

Via John Cole, a Fark thread has some interesting suggestions:

There are lots more where that came from. Enjoy!

Hoovervilles

From the NYT:

"As the operations manager of a outreach center for the homeless here, Paul Stack is used to seeing people down on their luck. What he had never seen before was people living in tents and lean-tos on the railroad lot across from the center.

"They just popped up about 18 months ago," Mr. Stack said. "One day it was empty. The next day, there were people living there."

Like a dozen or so other cities across the nation, Fresno is dealing with an unhappy deja vu: the arrival of modern-day Hoovervilles, illegal encampments of homeless people that are reminiscent, on a far smaller scale, of Depression-era shantytowns. (...)

The surging number of homeless people in Fresno, a city of 500,000 people, has been a surprise. City officials say they have three major encampments near downtown and smaller settlements along two highways. All told, as many 2,000 people are homeless here, according to Gregory Barfield, the city’s homeless prevention and policy manager, who said that drug use, prostitution and violence were all too common in the encampments."

This is Guillermo Flores:

"Guillermo Flores, 32, said he had looked for work in the fields and in fast food, but had found nothing. For the last eight months, he has collected cans, recycling them for $5 to $10 a day, and lived in a hand-built, three-room shack, a home that he takes pride in, with a door, clean sheets on his bed and a bowl full of fresh apples in his propane-powered kitchen area."

And here's Doug Brown:

"Doug Brown, a freelance electrical engineer, moved to the shelter at Village of Hope in October after losing his job. He shares his tool shed with another person."

The tool sheds are made available by a local non-profit. They're those little prefab sheds, maybe 8x10 feet. I'm glad Doug Brown can stay in one. But I wish I didn't have to read, about someone who has skills and is willing to work: "He shares his tool shed with another person."