The hard question about the merchants of austerity: Are they dopes or liars?

Edward Harrison

by Ken

I encountered Edward Harrison's cute little graph in Ian Welsh's June 25 post, "Greece and the Emperor's New Clothes," in which Ian noted that a commenter, markfromireland, had pointed out that "Oliver Blanchard, the chief IMF economist, had made the following assumptions about Greece in July of last year":

1. The Greek economy would grow by three percent both this year and every other year until 2020.
2. Inflation would average between one percent and two percent a year both this year and every other year until 2020.
3. The Greek government would run a primary budget surplus of four percent a year.

"As MFI points out," Ian wrote, "at best, these assumptions are delusional. Greece is in forced austerity; they aren’t going to make these targets." And Ian noted a point made by Edward Harrison, as reflected in the graph: that "the IMF revised down its estimate for Greece’s 2014 gross domestic product by some 22 percent in the space of 18 months."

On this basis Ian proceeded to the "old" question: "Evil, or stupid?"

We'll rejoing him in a moment, but first let's go back to our last post, in which Gaius Publius brought us up to date on the Greek financial mess, which you can't do in any kind of honesty without recognizing that the "bailout" deal on which Greece has been formally in default since July 1 was doomed from the moment it was signed, if not sooner.

In his post, GP quoted Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch finance minister and current president of Eurogroup, the collective of Eurozone finance ministers:

I take note of the outcome of the Greek referendum. This result is very regrettable for the future of Greece.

For recovery of the Greek economy, difficult measures and reforms are inevitable. We will now wait for the initiatives of the Greek authorities.

"Difficult measures and reforms," eh? For sure. But not the ones imposed on the Greeks, which have had their inevitable effect. As Ian wrote in that June 25 post:

Austerity is a reduction in demand. Reduction in demand leads to economic activity being lower than it would be otherwise. Governments who spend less money buy less stuff, this is indisputable. Then, everybody has less money and almost certainly buys less stuff as a result, thus reducing the size of the economy.

Meanwhile, money has been given to rich people and corporations who, mostly, have not spent it and when they have spent it, they’ve spent it on luxury goods.

The merchants of austerity love sounding like prophets of fiscal responsibility, demanding that economies decimated by a supposed history of devil-may-care fiscal irresponsibility take their medicine, and never mind that said medicine has the all but invariable result of choking the economy in question.

The point is that this isn't news. It's a point that has been repeated here countless times, often quoting Paul Krugman, who has been trying to inject this note of basic sanity into a predominantly insane international play-acting show. It shouldn't, for example, have been necessary for British Prime Minister David Cameron to prove the econonic deadening effect of "austerity" when he came to power in 2010, but he did so anyway, and still, as far as the merchants of austerity are concerned, the point is a mystery

Which brings us back to Ian's post. How is it possible for theeconomists of the economic elites still not to know that their notion of austerity doesn't rescue failed economies, it seals the failure in place?

Austerity, Ian notes, "is sold as a way to make economies better."

You cannot, as a government or quasi-governmental agency (like a central bank or the IMF), admit that austerity will make the economy worse and many of the people in an economy to which it is applied worse off.

The question, then, is the old one. “Evil, or stupid?” Is Blanchard, for example, such an ideologue that he believes the assumptions which allow him to forecast a better economy under austerity? Are the other economists who have made similar forecasts similarly stupid? I mean, assuming moderate stupidity (normal), they might have believed it in 2008 or even 2010, but we’ve seen the effects of austerity since the financial crisis, and that’s going on seven years.

WHAT YOU DO TO KEEP YOUR CUSHY JOB

"These people are either very stupid," Ian continues,

or are doing what they feel they must to keep their jobs and their membership in a very lucrative club. If they were to say, “No, these policies don’t work,” would they keep their jobs?

We know that austerity doesn’t work, Ian writes,

if by “work” you mean “improve the economy more than not being in austerity would,” we do. It’s only ever worked in theory by making very dubious assumptions, and it has never worked in practice.

So, at this point, if you believe austerity works, you’re either an extraordinarily blind ideologue, or you’re crooked, on the payroll, and know what you’re doing.

Of course there could be another question here: Is there some other way of defining "works" as it relates to austerity? Indeed there is:

Austerity is the policy that the IMF, most central authorities, and all neo-liberal parties (which means almost all parties in power in the EU) believe in. It is a policy which works: It puts public assets up for sale which would not be otherwise, so that rich, private investors can buy them up. Combined with “unconventional monetary policy” (the two are Siamese twins), it makes sure that the rich get richer, corporations are flush with cash they do not use to hire workers, and that everyone who isn’t rich, or part of the close retainer class, loses.

You really, really don’t want to fall out of that close retainer class. They are paid very well ([IMF Managing Director Christine] Lagarde receives a six hundred thousand per annum salary, entirely tax free), they are treated well, and their future job prospects are secure, as are those of their families. [Emphasis added.]

Once you realign your definition of "working," it's clear that austerity is. As Ian says, "it has performed exactly as expected."

Its advocates are its beneficiaries. The people who enforce it are benefiting as well and there is a sufficient constituency, both at the elite level and the common level, to keep it going (remember, Cameron was re-elected in the UK, and Labour got many votes when its essential promise was “slightly kinder austerity”). A few countries (Germany, for example) are winning under this policy regime.

So austerity will continue. It is a successful policy which does what it is supposed to do and which has a constituency sufficient for its continuation. It must be sold by lies, to be sure, and many of those who sell those lies probably believe them, because they personally benefit from pushing austerity and people prefer to believe that they are honest and working for good.

Others, I am certain, know it is being sold with lies.

Ah, so there are both dopes and liars!

Who falls into which camp? Who knows? The end effect is the same.

In conclusion, Ian notes: "Beatings will continue until morale improves."

#

It's not the IMF, exactly, but the shadow of austerity is hovering over Puerto Rico and Illinois

Miami Herald caption: "People walk through the streets after Puerto Rican Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla gave a speech regarding the government's $72 billion debt on June 29, 2015 in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Governor said in his speech that the people will have to sacrifice and share in the responsibilities for pulling the island out of debt."

by Ken

In some sense the good citizens of Illinois and Puerto Rico have common cause with those of Greece as fellow prisoners of the New Global Economic Order, which features open-season-style predation for the masters of that order, the people with capital to move where it's happiest, and austerity for everybody else. The master predators aren't big fans of the notion of "sharing the wealth."

Oh, they dropped some of it in Puerto Rico back when times there were propitious for fattening their coffers. Then those times passed. The capital is gone, and Puerto Ricans are left sitting on a mound of debt, and their chances of seeing daylight look mighty slim. Here are a couple of chunks of a report from San Juan yesterday by the Miami Herald's Nancy San Martin:

Down and out in San Juan as Puerto Rico debt disaster looms


Luis Santini Rivera, Guillermo Corporal, and Jose Acevedo (l-to-r) were among the legions of Puerto Ricans watching Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla's televised speech Monday about the commonwealth's debt crisis.

By Nancy San Martin

SAN JUAN -- Nine years ago, Roland Santiago earned $120,000, paid a mortgage on a house and drove a luxury car. Now, he’s collecting unemployment while he looks for a job that will cover rent at an apartment and other living expenses.

“Even for people who are prepared and experienced, there is little stable work available that pays well,” said Santiago, 45, who sold medical devices for a company that has since closed. “Things have really deteriorated.”

Signs of a struggling economy are evident: At shuttered restaurants and bars in previously thriving Old San Juan. In businesses across the island where owners spend much of their day coaxing customers through the doors. In statistics that show the population has plunged over the past decade. And by the exasperation expressed by those living through the turmoil.

“This is a disastrous situation,” said Carey Delgado, 32, who said she had to quit her job as a preschool teacher in December to ensure that her children, ages 14 and 6, stay on course at public schools that provide little more than basic instruction.

“I lost my job, my house, my car,” said Delgado while awaiting services at an unemployment office in the Cupey neighborhood. “Now, I’m in public housing, on food stamps and collecting unemployment. Like me, there are many others in the same situation.”

Delgado’s woes are part of the harsh reality outlined by Gov. Alejandro García Padilla, who says the U.S. territory can’t pay back some $72 billion in public debt and has called on Puerto Ricans to share in making sacrifices.

On Tuesday, the governor’s team began meeting with legislators and other leaders to discuss how best to resolve the financial crisis. He has said he wants a debt repayment moratorium of several years as part of a plan to bolster the island's finances and revive its economy.

Puerto Rico has the highest municipal bond debt per capita of any U.S. state. . . .


Taking hard steps now to avoid a worse calamity was the message García Padilla tried to convey in his televised address on Monday night.

“We must act now,” he said. “If we don’t assume that responsibility today, we risk not having solutions within reach or, even worse, losing control over them, giving the power of decision to others.”

García Padilla’s address followed the release of a grim report by former International Monetary Fund economists that suggests that Puerto Rico is in serious need of structural reforms, fiscal adjustment and debt restructuring. . . .

MEANWHILE IN THE LAND OF LINCOLN --

It was hard not to sympathize with Illinois voters' disinclination to reelect Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, but you had to wonder if the voters who favored his Republican opponent in every county except Cook (Chicago) grasped who and what it was being offered as the Republican alternative. As Howie wrote here in August: "Will Illinois Elect A Sleazy Billionaire Sociopath As Governor? Meet Bruce Rauner." There's no question that the state's fiscal situation is in chaos, but the last thing Illinois needs is a man presenting himself as the Voice of Fiscal Prudence who is in fact a billionaire nursing-home and long-term-care-facility racketeer who apparently developed a habit of hiding in offshore accounts much of the wealth he extracted from the state by exploiting some of its most vulnerable citizens.

Instead of being safely locked away in some maximum-security facility, Illinois's new governor is serving as the state's de facto representative from the IMF, claiming that the only way to reform its finances is by imposing austerity. An ongoing standoff between Governor Raumer and the still-Democratic-controlled state legislature has now led to the passing of the deadline passage of a new budget, entailing some sort of version of a state government shutdown -- a term, it should be noted, that drives the governor's economic team bonkers.

Illinois House Adjourns Without New Stage Budget Deal


Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan (D) and Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) are on opposite sides of the tug-of-war over Illinois's budget crisis. (Watch the clip here.)

ABC7 Team Coverage
June 30, 2015, updated 10:28pm CT

Six hours before the midnight deadline, the Illinois House adjourned Tuesday afternoon without a budget deal to avoid any cuts in state services.

They have been at a stalemate for weeks over a spending plan for the 2016 fiscal year, which begins Wednesday.

The Illinois House is now considering a temporary budget fix. House Speaker Michael Madigan proposed a $2.2 billion plan would keep core state services going through July.

"Obviously, I'm disappointed and frustrated with the General Assembly. We could and should resolve these issues on a prompt basis. This has dragged on for a while," Gov. Rauner said.

The Governor's team turned their nose up at a Hail Mary thrown by Madigan: a plan that would fund core services for one month. If Rauner agrees, he may lose leverage on a property tax freeze, budget cuts and other reforms.

"Let's get to work on the number one problem facing Illinois: the budget deficit. Let's not function in the extreme, let's function in moderation and make sure everyone is reasonable during this," Madigan said. . . .

As that earlier ABC7 report referenced above, "Shutdown Looms Due to State Budget Stalemate," explained:

The standoff arose after Rauner rejected a Democratic budget that was sent to him with a $3 billion budget shortfall. Democrats argue state taxes need to be raised to cover revenue lost after a reduction in the state income tax rate in 2014. Monday, a coalition of community groups, unions, and social service providers called for a progressive tax system that will ensure the top 1 percent pay more.

At that point a state representative named Will Guzzardi was quoted saying: "There is a fair and equitable solution to the problem: let's tax the very wealthy, let's tax the big corporations and let's use that revenue to fund the services our communities so desperately need." The alternative plan would be to make sure that the big corporations are zealously protected and the very wealthy amply rewarded, and to heck with everyone else.

#

Bulletin: In the wake of the economic meltdown big-time policy mistakes were made! Paul Krugman reports from U.S. economists' annual confab

Brian McFadden (August 2011) [click to enlarge]

"A family can decide to spend less and try to earn more. But in the economy as a whole, spending and earning go together: my spending is your income; your spending is my income. If everyone tries to slash spending at the same time, incomes will fall -- and unemployment will soar."

-- Paul Krugman, in his NYT column "The Big Fail"

by Ken

Paul K, reporting from the annual meeting of the American Economic Association and affiliates in San Diego -- an affair he describes as "a sort of medieval fair that serves as a marketplace for bodies (newly minted Ph.D.'s in search of jobs), books and ideas" -- notes that, while in recent years "the ongoing economic crisis" has dominated discussion:

If you had polled the economists attending this meeting three years ago, most of them would surely have predicted that by now we'd be talking about how the great slump ended, not why it still continues.

So what went wrong? The answer, mainly, is the triumph of bad ideas.

Of course this is a theme that Paul has been sounding regularly since the Bush and Obama administrations and Congress were thrashing out what the federal government's response to the economic meltdown would be. He bristles at the argument that "the economic failures of recent years prove that economists don't have the answers," insisting that, worse still, "in reality, standard economics offered good answers, but political leaders -- and all too many economists -- chose to forget or ignore what they should have known."

The story, at this point, is fairly straightforward. The financial crisis led, through several channels, to a sharp fall in private spending: residential investment plunged as the housing bubble burst; consumers began saving more as the illusory wealth created by the bubble vanished, while the mortgage debt remained. And this fall in private spending led, inevitably, to a global recession.

For an economy is not like a household. A family can decide to spend less and try to earn more. But in the economy as a whole, spending and earning go together: my spending is your income; your spending is my income. If everyone tries to slash spending at the same time, incomes will fall -- and unemployment will soar.

As Paul has been writing since the immediate aftermath of the meltdown, this collapse was far too severe to be manageable by means, like lowering interest rates, that served in such lesser ones as the late='90s dot.com bust.

At that point governments needed to step in, spending to support their economies while the private sector regained its balance. And to some extent that did happen: revenue dropped sharply in the slump, but spending actually rose as programs like unemployment insurance expanded and temporary economic stimulus went into effect. Budget deficits rose, but this was actually a good thing, probably the most important reason we didn’t have a full replay of the Great Depression.

But as we know, in Europe as well as the U.S., the crazy idea of "austerity" as a solution for recession or depression took hold.

Austerity became the order of the day, and supposed experts who should have known better cheered the process on, while the warnings of some (but not enough) economists that austerity would derail recovery were ignored. For example, the president of the European Central Bank confidently asserted that "the idea that austerity measures could trigger stagnation is incorrect."

Well, someone was incorrect, all right.

(What Paul doesn't point out this time out is a connection he has made frequently enough: that the most enthusiastic merchants of austerity, here and abroad, have been major financial players whose interest wasn't combatting the meltdown at all but using it as an opportunity to dramatically accelerate the transformation of the industrial world's economies to the latter-day "Rich Take All" format.)

For Paul, the loudest splash in San Diego came from a paper by Olivier Blanchard and Daniel Leigh of the International Monetary Fund.

Formally, the paper represents the views only of the authors; but Mr. Blanchard, the I.M.F.'s chief economist, isn't an ordinary researcher, and the paper has been widely taken as a sign that the fund has had a major rethinking of economic policy.

For what the paper concludes is not just that austerity has a depressing effect on weak economies, but that the adverse effect is much stronger than previously believed. The premature turn to austerity, it turns out, was a terrible mistake.

I've seen some reporting describing the paper as an admission from the I.M.F. that it doesn't know what it’s doing. That misses the point; the fund was actually less enthusiastic about austerity than other major players. To the extent that it says it was wrong, it's also saying that everyone else (except those skeptical economists) was even more wrong. And it deserves credit for being willing to rethink its position in the light of evidence.

And "the really bad news," says Paul, "is how few other players are doing the same."

European leaders, having created Depression-level suffering in debtor countries without restoring financial confidence, still insist that the answer is even more pain. The current British government, which killed a promising recovery by turning to austerity, completely refuses to consider the possibility that it made a mistake.

And here in America, Republicans insist that they'll use a confrontation over the debt ceiling -- a deeply illegitimate action in itself -- to demand spending cuts that would drive us back into recession.

The truth is that we've just experienced a colossal failure of economic policy -- and far too many of those responsible for that failure both retain power and refuse to learn from experience.

#

Come Friday, is Larry Summers really going to be our World Bank guy?

No, the Harvard thing didn't work out great, or his stewardship of the U.S. economy as Obama's economic genius, but who's to say our Larry isn't a perfect match for the World Bank? (Most of the economically informed people I know, but you know those nutty left-wingers. Also, it seems, a number of the U.S.'s fellow old-line economic powers.)


"So why does [Larry] Summers keep falling upward, from failure to promotion?

"Three reasons. He has powerful allies and patrons, and his views on the primacy of finance are congenial to theirs. Former Goldman and Citibank executive (with pit stops in between in D.C.) Robert Rubin, Summers' partner in the financial deregulation project of the Clinton era, is the most influential of these. Summers has a capacity to persuade people of his sheer brilliance, which leads some people to excuse both his mistakes and his temperament. But most importantly, Barack Obama likes Summers, and Obama is loyal to a fault."

-- Robert Kuttner, in "Pick Me! Pick Me!," at The American Prospect

by Ken

The charming, chummy little tradition is that the European economic powers get to pick the head of the International Monetary Fund, and the U.S. of A. does the same with the World Bank. And the system has been just humming along. Think "Dominique Strauss-Kahn" in the former case, and "Paul Wolfowitz" in the latter.

In addition to which, inconvenient though it may be for the European powers in the first instance and our own selves in the second, there actually are countries -- countries with economies -- not located in either Europe or the U.S. As a matter of fact, a major part of the world's economy is now happening outside the perimeter of the Big Pickers. Strangely, the newer economic powerhouses like China, India, and Brazil are not at all fans of the "traditional" IMF-World Bank leadership situation.

I'm sure you recall that it's time to pick a new World Bank leader. Which means us. And we're counting down to a deadline. The candidate(s) are supposed to be submitted by this Friday, March 23. Meaning that President Obama is supposed to have made up his mind by then. There are two problems:

(1) President Obama seems to have made up his mind ages ago.

(2) The name he made up his mind on isn't getting an exactly joyous reception amongst our economic partners. Forget those upstarts like China, India, and Brazil. Nobody in the First World much cares what they have to say, a situation likely to obtain until they find a way to force their big brothers to pay attention. (Does anyone think that's going to be a pleasant process? Can you spell "putsch"?) We're getting strong indications that at least some of our European allies are far from thrilled at the prospect of turning the World Bank over to the best damned economic mind the U.S. economic establishment seems to know.

Is it time to share our Larry with the world? (Look out, world!)

I REALLY LIKE ROBERT KUTTNER'S TAKE ON THE
SITUATION AS SET OUT FOR THE AMERICAN PROSPECT

Pick Me! Pick Me!

After being ousted from Harvard and leaving the Obama economic team, Larry Summers has now decided he wants to be president of the World Bank.

ROBERT KUTTNER | MARCH 20, 2012

Why does Larry Summers have more lives than a cat?

He was fired as president of Harvard, did not exactly serve President Obama brilliantly as economic policy czar, and now seems to be in line for the presidency of the World Bank, a post traditionally chosen by the president of the United States.

The deadline for the selection is this Friday, March 23. The appointment is supposed to be made official at the April meeting of the World Bank.

Earlier this month, the White House leaked a short list of three names, Summers plus U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry -- neither of whom want the job. Brilliantly subtle signaling, that.

Pointedly excluded from the list was Columbia University economist and world citizen Jeff Sachs, an adviser to the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and a very serious crusader against world poverty. Sachs took the unprecedented and marvelously transparent step of nominating himself and publicly campaigning for the job, but he is a onetime rival of Summers at Harvard, a critic of administration financial policy and at the Bank he would be nobody's cat's paw.

It speaks volumes that Sachs' candidacy is not being taken seriously at the White House, though 27 members of the House have urged his appointment as have leaders of several smaller developing nations.

Nominally, the World Bank president is selected by a majority of the voting shares. The US and Europe together control a majority and invariably vote as a bloc. Ever since the World Bank and its sister institution the International Monetary Fund were founded in 1944, one has traditionally been headed by an American and the other by a European. The current head of the IMF is Christine Lagarde, former French finance minister.

Summers' appointment is all but certain, bur there are two ways that it could still come off the rails. There has been some criticism by third world nations seeking a more open process. And Summers has plenty of detractors in Europe. More generally, smaller nations have been pushing the idea that one of the big-three international economic institutions -- the Fund, the Bank and the World Trade Organization -- be headed by someone from the Third World.

But this will not happen with the Bank presidency any time soon. Perhaps when the WTO job opens up.

Small third world nations don't have the influence to demand an alternative and the larger ones -- China, India, Brazil -- do not have a rival candidate. The closest thing to serious pushback has been a guarded comment by the Mexican finance minister, Jose Antonio Meade, current chair of the G-20, asking for a more open process.

So the only practical way Summers' nomination will be blocked is if Obama has second thoughts or if some major European leader decides that he or she can't abide Summers and decides to spend serious political capital demanding an alternative.

However British Prime Minister David Cameron is happy to play his usual role of lap dog to the U.S, the French are consumed with an election that President Sarkozy is likely to lose, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has her own problems.

Summers bombed as president of Harvard. He not only offended a large segment of the faculty, but gambled recklessly with the university's endowment based on his own seat-of-the-pants theories, losing billions. At the time people said, "Thank God this man is not running the entire economy."

Then President-elect Obama chose him to run the U.S. economy. As head of the National Economic Council, where Summers was supposed to serve as an honest broker, he functioned more as martinet. On policy issues, he resisted a larger stimulus, as well as more fundamental reform of the financial system. Some latter day reports have suggested a bitter rivalry with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, but Geithner is said to be fully supportive of Summers' appointment to head the Bank.

Summers did a stint at the Bank before, as its chief economist. He was not popular among its third world clients or its staff.

So why does Summers keep falling upward, from failure to promotion?

Three reasons. He has powerful allies and patrons, and his views on the primacy of finance are congenial to theirs. Former Goldman and Citibank executive (with pit stops in between in D.C.) Robert Rubin, Summers' partner in the financial deregulation project of the Clinton era, is the most influential of these. Summers has a capacity to persuade people of his sheer brilliance, which leads some people to excuse both his mistakes and his temperament. But most importantly, Barack Obama likes Summers, and Obama is loyal to a fault.

Summers wants this job. Barring last minute doubts on Obama's part, he will get it.

Actually, in addition to the explanations Kuttner suggests for our Larry's indomitability, colleagues have been suggesting others, notably that he's a bully. A big, bad bully. And in the absence of strong, usually organized resistance, bullies tend to get their way. Especially when powerful people like what they have to say.

#

Holiday kickoff: A march plus quick hits -- does a country NEED a finance minister?; Geraldo's darkest day; world's worst joke

by Ken

IT'S 4TH OF JULY WEEKEND, SO WHY NOT KICK
OFF WITH SOME SUITABLY 4TH OF JULY MUSIC?

This is, I think, the best military-band march written by someone not named John Philip Sousa. In fact, it's better than all but the best of the Sousa marches. And I've got two nifty performances to share.

Alert readers will recognize that we've heard them before. It was in a May 2010 Sunday Classics post, "What stirs the blood better than a military march? This week courtesy of Mozart and Sousa." Well, we're hearing it again. (And now, with that first page of score in front of us, we can see right away that Felix Slatkin takes that first repeat while Morton Gould doesn't!)

COMING UP: Tomorrow, "Salute to the Services"; and Monday, the only possible climax to our musical 4th.

E. E. BAGLEY: National Emblem

Morton Gould and His Symphonic Band. RCA/BMG, recorded Oct. 17, 19, and 26, 1956
Concert Arts Symphonic Band, Felix Slatkin, cond. Capitol/EMI, recorded 1958

NOW, HOW ABOUT SOME HOLIDAY QUICK HITS? NOT
EXACTLY NEWS STORIES, BUT NOT EXACTLY NOT

(1) You can't slip anything past that AP

President Sarkozy and now-former Finance Minister Lagarde,
who for a brief, magical moment appeared irreplaceable

Now, with the New York sexual-assault case against forrmer IMF director Dominique Strauss-Kahn apparently near collapse, we're all wondering what exactly is the deal? There was always speculation that he was set up, maybe by people who wanted him out of the IMF (where he may have been thought not entirely on board enough with the fund's "austerity" mandate), maybe by people who didn't want him running against French President Nikolas Sarkozy in the 2012 election. If there's any chance that it was the latter, the principals may be disappointed. On yesterday's BBC World Service news, the correspondent in France was speculating that if charges against Dominique don't stick, he may be welcomed home as a martyr, with the possibility of a political future after all.

Meanwhile, there's no question that he's out of a job with the IMF, having already been replaced by French Foreign Minister Christine Lagarde. Which partially explains this teaser Wednesday morning's Washington Post's "Today's Headlines" e-newsletter:

France to name new finance minister after Lagarde chosen to head IMF
PARIS — France is expected to name a new finance minister to replace Christine Lagarde, who is leaving to take up the top job at the International Monetary Fund next week.
( Associated Press Associated Press, AP)

Disappointingly, the actual head on the story (at least by the time I clicked through; I noted that by then the story had been updated) was "French president names Francois Baroin as new finance minister to replace Christine Lagarde." Personally, I like it better the other way, which suggested that President Sarkozy was really breaking the situation down into a step-by-step process, the first step being huddling with his people to thrash out the question of whether la République really needs to have a finance minister.

(2) Geraldo's darkest day: "Humiliated and deeply embarrassed" -- all the way to the bank

Reflecting recently on "the recent press frenzy over Sarah Palin’s less-than-riveting gubernatorial e-mails," our pal Al Kamen ventured in his WaPo "In the Loop" column a week or two ago: "It was a great discredit to the trade, we’re told -- presuming we have any credit to dis."

It’s as if no one remembers the spectacular Geraldo Rivera “special” 25 years ago when he blew open Al Capone’s safe on live television, only to find a stop sign and two empty gin bottles inside. . . .

Rivera, in an interview 20 years after the event, said he was “humiliated and deeply embarrassed.” But then, he said, he found out the next morning that the show “was the highest rated syndicated special in television history.”

He’s still laughing -- all the way to the bank.

The day after that darkest day, it seems, the sun shone brightly.

(3) World's worst joke? Gotta be a contender

I've mentioned that at some point in the hazy past I must have signed up for this daily joke from Arcamax, which I usually don't even bother reading. (Mostly it's a pretext for dumping in a bunch of paid promotions that are fairly obnoxious, but not enough so to justify the possible ordeal of unsubscribing -- you never know what they're going to put you through.) I don't know why I happened to read this one the other day, but even before I got to the, er, punch line, I was thinking that I've heard a lot of jokes in my time, and a lot of real clunkers, but if I've ever heard a worse one, it's mercifully forgotten.

Naturally I felt an immediate need to share it. I've refrained till now.

Job Interview

An employment interviewer for a big company in New York was talking to an attractive young woman applying for a job. Looking over the application form, the interviewer noticed that the girl had not answered one important question concerning transportation to and from work.

"What about your bus line?" the interviewer asked her.

"I don't believe I mentioned it," came the pleased reply, "but it's a 36C."

Is that a killer joke, or what? I assume, by the way, that the "in New York" was stuck in in an attempt to lend some plausibility to the notion that a job-application form might ask for "bus line," but even if you can stretch your mind around the basic idea, wouldn't a New York application ask for subway line? Gosh, that would spoil the, er, joke, though, wouldn't it?


HAVE A SAFE AND HAPPY HOLIDAY!

#

Icelandic Voters Go Populist-- Government Ignores Them

Remember when Iceland was on the cutting edge of a kind of new and seemingly infinite economic expansion? And then you remember when they were one of the first to go right down the toilet? Now it looks like the Icelanders themselves may be on the cutting edge of telling the banksters -- and the banksters' political handmaidens-- to go fuck off. Just under one year ago we noted here that Icelanders had unceremoniously dumped their conservative government and election their first left of center government-- ever. At the time I was drawn to a quote by Finance Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson (a former truck driver and geologist who heads the Green Party, a partner in the just-elected ruling coalition):

“What are the people of the United States mad about now?” he said in a recent interview. “It is the same poisonous philosophy that we had here, based on a lack of moral awareness and greed, and people who thought nothing of flying Elton John into Iceland for their 50th birthdays and paying him 70 million Icelandic kronur.” [$600,000]

Just what the French aristocrats were doing before the rolled out Madame Guillotine-- and just what American plutocrats are still-- ever tone deaf-- doing now.

Inspired by the Republican Party of the U.S., Iceland's right-wing government went on a deregulation binge-- particularly in terms of the banks (ala- Phil Gramm)-- that made them a fave-rave of all the far right think tanks and they were extolled as a bastion of "freedom," basically the freedom of predatory capitalists. The Russian Mafia soon moved in as did lots and lots of the kinds of freewheeling economic sociopaths held up as models of virtue by conservatives.

By the fall of 2008 all three of the nation's top banks, each of which had acquired assets they couldn't come remotely close to covering, had gone into bankruptcy. But the bubble expansion was actually way beyond the entire nation's GDP and not even the right-wing Icelandic government could bail them out. The foreign debt is staggering and inflation is rampant. The left-of-center government inherited an even worse mess than Obama inherited after 8 years of Bush/GOP rule in the U.S.

Saturday the Icelanders voted in a national referendum and, as Professor Hannes Gissurarson wrote in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, "sent a resounding message to the rest of the world: We are not paying the debts of reckless financiers." The government had negotiated a deal that would have taxpayers picking up the tab owed British and Dutch banks for the excesses of Iceland's predatory banksters and other financial criminals. 98% of voters said, in effect, "Up yours," and voted no.

The Government assured international markets that Iceland will cover its debts.

Britain has warned Iceland that it risks being an international pariah if it does not pay the money back and has threatened to stall the country’s efforts to join the European Union... “I consider accession talks to be an extra tool to force Iceland to come to an agreement,” the Dutch foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, told ANP on Saturday.
Icelandic officials have already accused Britain and the Netherlands of slowing financial aid from the International Monetary Fund to put pressure on Reykjavik.

The vote Sunday shows the depth of Icelanders’ rage. They are angry at the British and Dutch, who they say are mistreating them; angry at the regulators and government officials who failed to properly oversee the Icelandic financial system; and angry at the bankers whose recklessness helped the economy grow at a headspinning rate and then caused it to self-destruct in days.

“Ordinary people, farmers and fishermen, taxpayers, doctors, nurses, teachers, are being asked to shoulder through their taxes a burden that was created by irresponsible greedy bankers,” President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson said on Bloomberg Television.

How to repay the debt, which represents more than 40 percent of Iceland’s gross domestic product, has consumed this small, isolated nation for the last year and a half, since its banks failed, its stock market crashed and its currency collapsed.

There'll Be A Snap Vote Today If They've Bribed And Blackmailed Enough Members To Vote For The European Bank Bailout

I spoke to a sympathetic Hill staffer yesterday who works for a Midwestern congressman. His boss isn't too keen about voting for the billions and billions of dollars for European bank bailouts that Rahm Emanuel had tacked onto the War Supplemental. His seat isn't that secure. His boss had voted "yes" on the supplemental on May 14 when it first came up, not because he thinks it's a great idea but because he bought into the Dave Obey premise that Obama deserves a year to get the Afghanistan situation under control. It didn't do any good to argue that the West has been trying-- futilely-- to get the Afghanistan situation under control since Alexander the Great got bogged down there in 330 BC. (Alexander took a few months subduing the world's greatest empire of the day, Persia, but couldn't overcome the unruly tribes of Afghanistan for years-- until he finally told Hephaestion, his boyfriend and soul mate, to go sleep in another tent and married Roxanna, an Afghan chieftain's daughter.)

Anyway, to balance the disagreeable nature of the foreign bank bailout, something likely to cost the Democrats at least a couple dozen House seats in 2010, Emanuel tacked on another piece of legislation-- one that had already passed overwhelmingly and is absolutely essential for congressmen in auto industry districts, colloquially known as Cash For Clunkers. They can't vote against what has turned into a real Frankenstein creation, even if it could also be a Democratic congressional caucus suicide pact.

Emanuel hoped that by gratuitously attaching the car bill to the IMF bailout he could count on holding onto a batch of nervous Democrats-- and pressure some Republicans. Recall, 59 Republicans broke with Boehner and Cantor to cross the aisle on June 9th and vote for Cash for Clunkers. Some of them are the exact targets Emanuel has been trying to woo away from the hysterical Cantor in the Supplemental battle, particularly Michigan Republicans like Thaddeus McCotter, Fred Upton, Dave Camp, Vern Ehlers, Candice Miller and Mike Rogers. Emanuel figured it could also give him a shot at John Shimkus (R-IL), Mike Turner (R-OH), Patrick Tiberi (R-OH), Mark Souder (R-IN), Don Manzullo (R-IL), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Tim Johnson (R-IL), Steve Austria (R-OH), Steve LaTouette (R-OH), Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) and a few other Midwestern Republicans whose constituents have been devastated by the auto industry collapse. Of course that goes for plenty of Democrats as well, particularly Midwest freshmen Mark Schauer (D-MI), Gary Peters (D-MI), Andre Carson (D-IN), and Marcia Fudge (D-OH), Debbie Halvorson (D-IL), Bill Foster (D-IL) and Steve Driehaus (D-OH).

And now Shailagh Murray is reporting that Emanuel, desperate like in the good old days when he was shoving NAFTA up Democrats' rear ends, is actually trying to sell this Frankenstein monster as a bill for flu vaccines. Creepy! What is he doing-- holding Americans' health hostage so he can bail out European banksters? What's next-- trying to pick up more support by attaching the abolition of Don't Ask Don't Tell? This is getting out of hand. Obama needs a new Chief of Staff.


UPDATE: Cars For Clunkers Could Be Stripped Out Of The Bill By The Senate

My sharp-eyed friend Bob from Democrats.com read a story in today's National Journal that points out that Emanuel's strategy for luring Michigan congressmen into voting for the European bank bailout is flawed because the provision can be-- and probably will be-- stripped out by the Senate.

If the House passes the measure, it will go to the Senate, where Republicans may try to strike a provision from the supplemental that would provide $1 billion for the first year of a program that would give drivers a voucher for up to $4,500 to buy or lease a fuel-efficient car if they trade in a less-efficient vehicle.

Under Senate rules, Senators may strike provisions of a conference report that were not in the bill passed by either chamber. Senate Republicans could raise a point of order on the floor to strike the language, which would take 60 votes to waive.

Senate Budget ranking member Judd Gregg said last week the "cash for clunkers" provision of the bill could be subject to the rule, but his office would not confirm that he would raise a point of order against the provision.

Having failed at every step, Emanuel-- part of whose job is to keep Obama from looking like a grubby politician-- had to ask the president to take time out of his day to call wavering Democrats. Bailing out European banks is apparently very important to Obama; Chris Bowers explains why defeating this horrible mish-mash of a bill is also very important to progressives. Emanuel has completely failed; he's a disaster. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, AKA- "Rahmette," sounded especially pathetic today on MSNBC trying to defend Emanuel's Frankenstein Supplemental crap bill. She'll lose the Democrats control of the House:




UPDATE: Supplemental Passes Narrowly

After Emanuel larded it up with all kinds of goodies, threatened and bribed every member he could, the Democratic Suicide Pact passed 226-202. The only Michigan Republican who bought into Emanuel's bullshit about the Cash For Clunkers was Candice Miller. Five of them voted against the war. The 32 courageous Democrats who voted no:

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Michael Capuano (D-MA)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Alan Grayson (D-FL)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Eric Massa (D-NY)
Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Mike Michaud (D-ME)
Donald Payne (D-NJ)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
Jared Polis (D-CO)
José Serrano (D-NY)
Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
Brad Sherman (D-CA)
Jackie Speier (D-CA)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
John Tierney (D-MA)
Niki Tsongas (D-MA)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Barbara Watson (D-CA)
Peter Welch (D-VT)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

So who'd we lose from the May 14th vote? These are members who were either "persuaded" by Emanuel or who really believe that taking 100 billion taxpayer dollars and bailing out failed European banksters is a good idea: Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Jerry Costello (D-IL), Barney Frank (D-MA), Luis Guitierrez (D-IL), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Steve Kagen (D-WI), John Lewis (D-GA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Bob Matsui (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), George Miller (D-CA), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Richard Neal (D-MA), Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA), Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), and Anthony Weiner (D-NY). How did Emanuel talk so many Democrats into committing political suicide? Cash.

David Swanson at AfterDowningStreet.com explains what happened today if you feel like delving into it a little further.

Ann Kirkpatrick Makes The Case Well: Why She Doesn't Deserve To Be Re-Elected

A vote to bail out foreign bankers will defeat her in 2010

Last year there were few primary races anywhere in America with as marked a contrast between an excellent candidate and a completely unqualified one as in the race for the open seat in Arizona's vast 1st CD. Howard Shanker was the progressive grassroots candidate and the Establishment mediocrity was now Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick. As a member of Congress Kirkpatrick has proven what was obvious to any observer-- residents of AZ-01 still have the least effective representation of anyplace in America.

Like other right-wing, corporate shills, Kirkpatrick calls her abysmal Republican voting record "independent." "Independent of Democratic principles and values" would be a better way to describe it. As this morning's CQPolitics explained:

Kirkpatrick was one of eight House Democrats who opposed a bill (HR 1664) to limit the payment of bonuses to employees of companies that receive federal aid under so-called “bailout” legislation. She was one of three Democrats who voted against a bill (HR 1728) aimed at overhauling mortgage lending practices and curbing what supporters describe as “predatory” lending practices-- but which opponents described as over-regulation.

Basically whenever it comes to a choice between working families and her big corporate donors, Kirkpatrick crosses the aisle and votes with the GOP in favor of the corporate special interests that have devastated the country's-- and her constituents'-- finances. Washington observers consider her to be one of the most dimwitted and ineffective members of Congress and a complete waste of a seat. The only positive thing we've ever heard about her from anyone was that she dresses neatly every day and that she's not a crook like her predecessor, Rick Renzi-- although she does tend to vote almost exactly like him.

Renzi's still waiting trial on multiple corruption, fraud and money-laundering charges but Kirkpatrick is carrying on his tradition of unresponsive and incompetent representation for Arizona. "She's definitely the weakest member of the delegation," one staffer told us today. "She was well-financed though and the DCCC was pushing her."

The upside of the DCCC push is that she owes them-- big time. The party never asks her to compromise her "independence" and let's her vote with the GOP whenever she likes-- which is almost always, at least when it comes to contentious, substantive legislation. But this week is different. This week, Kirkpatrick is being forced to vote for a $108 billion bailout for European bankers. It's a vote most observers in Arizona politics say will cost her her seat. But this is one the powers inside the Democratic Party-- particularly Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Karl Rove-- are demanding. Kirkpatrick doesn't have the nerve to defy him.

She joined the reactionary Blue Dog caucus as soon as she was elected and claims to be against massive government spending programs. Although Emanuel has attempted to wrap this one up in pretty bows and disguise it as support for our troops and for the car industry, the $108 billion bailout for foreign banks has caused John Shadegg (R-AZ), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), to join Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) in opposing the bill.

The Republican party has been targeting her as a tool of Nancy Pelosi. It isn't true and it hasn't stuck. But with her vote for the European bank bailout that Pelosi is pushing this week, it will stick-- and stick hard enough to defeat Kirkpatrick in 2010. Sources close to state Rep. Bill Konopnicki, the NRCC's #1 choice to run against her, say that if Kirkpatrick votes for the bailout, as expected, Konopnicki will jump into the race because it's an issue he can win with, easily.

Randy Pullen and his family have donated many thousands of dollars to Arizona Republicans and Pullen has recently become the treasurer of the RNC. The Pullen family is very confident that Kirkpatrick has no chance to survive a vote for a foreign bank bailout, which they also feel will take down two other Arizona Blue Dogs, Harry Mitchell and Gabby Giffords, both of whom are likely to follow Emanuel's lead into what looks more and more like a Democratic Party Suicide Pact.

“We have three districts, two of which are Republican districts that are held by Democrats, one of which is a slightly Democrat district that is held by a Democrat, but it’s a very conservative district,” Pullen said, referring to Arizona seats held by Democrat Reps. Gabrielle Giffords, Harry Mitchell and Ann Kirkpatrick, all of whom will be Republican targets in 2010.

“We have some opportunities, I think, in Arizona.”

Giffords has drawn an early challenger, while Mitchell will face the winner of what is so far a two-way primary. Arizona Republicans hope to woo State Rep. Bill Konopnicki, who flirted with a bid in 2008, to run against Kirkpatrick.

“I hope he does (run). I think he’ll be a great candidate,” Pullen said of Konopnicki. “I think he held off last time because he realized it was just a really tough environment for Republicans in 2008.”

Pullen said he had spoken with Konopnicki several times, and that he expects a formal decision within four or five weeks.

Here's a message on this that went out to bloggers in Arizona today. They didn't even bother mentioning Kirkpatrick-- as though she were just another Republican:



UPDATE: Late Breaking News

Jane Hamsher reports that Kirkpatrick may have been frightened into standing up to Emanuel and voting "no" tomorrow. Blue Dogs who don't will suffer at the polls next year. And Emanuel knows he's starting to lose them. So what's his latest strategy? We hear he's turning to vulnerable Republicans and telling them he can get the DCCC to "go easy" on them next year if they vote for the Supplemental tomorrow. It's one thing if he makes a deal with Vern Buchanan in Florida or Chris Smith in New Jersey, but we're hearing that he's offering to protect Republicans who have been slated as major DCCC targets, like Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Bill Young (R-FL), Leonard Lance R-NJ) and Charlie Dent (R-PA). Watch tomorrow to see if any of these characters cross over and vote with Team Emanuel to bail out European bankers.

And speaking of Rahm, there was a passage I read this morning in Charles Pierces' book, Idiot America by an angry Minnesota congressman:

If there be in our midst one low, sordid, vulgar soul... one tongue leprous with slander; one mouth which is like unto a den of foul beasts giving forth deadly odors; if there be one character which, while blotched and spotted all over, yet raves and rants and blackguards like a prostitute; if there be one bold, bad, empty, bellowing demagogue, it is the gentleman from Illinois."

Fits to a t, huh?

My Three Partners At Blue America

John Amato is weighing the idea of taking on war hawk and Bush co-conspirator Jane Harman in his southwest L.A. congressional district. He's fuming about Harman's role in pushing continued fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Unlike Jane Harman," said Amato, "I would have voted against the war supplemental budget on May 14. Until President Obama comes up with a plan to extricate the U.S. from Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would not vote to spend any money on anything other than bringing our troops home safely and promptly. I opposed these wars under Bush and I still oppose them. Adding the $108 billion for bailing out irresponsible European bankers who made ill-advised and overly risky bets, has made this legislation far more objectionable. That money would be enough to solve all the problems Schwarzenegger has caused since he took office here in California. If Rahm Emanuel is so dead set on a bail out, let him bail out the Golden State."

Digby, who has been consumed all week writing the new Harry and Louise television scripts for Montana and Arkansas ad campaigns, hasn't let up on her never-ending crusade to end the unjustifiable wars in the Middle East. She pointed out today that the mainstream media has completely ignored the story about how Emanuel can't bribe and beat up enough Democrats to get them to sign on to his Frankenstein suicide pact (AKA- the war supplemental-cum-European bank bailout bill):

I assume the mainstream media believes the administration will ultimately get its way and pass the supplemental with the IMF money attached. But it's just possible that it won't. And the Democrats who stand in the way will be doing the party a great favor politically. These continued giveaways to wealthy, elite institutions are political poison, which is why the Republicans are positioning themselves (completely disingenuously) on the other side of the big money boyz.

And Jane Hamsher has been organizing a Netroots response to Emanuel's jihad to the point where I'm starting to fear for her health. Although she looks damn good in this video Brave New Films shot of her today, doesn't she?



And, my friends, that, plus myself, is the board of Blue America. Our PAC is going to need some help supporting progressive stalwarts like Donna Edwards and Alan Grayson who aren't succumbing to Emanuel's demands and for Digby's brilliant TV campaign-- although if you like the idea of killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan and you agree with the Republicans that Americans don't need universal health care, you should probably not donate.

Congress Votes To Flush More Billions Down The Pakistani Rathole And Moves Towards A $108 Billion Bailout For European Banksters

Howard Berman's resolution, H.R. 1886 to throw good taxpayer dollars ($1.5 billion a year for the next 4 years, i.e., $6 billion + another $1.1 billion here and there) after the $12 billion we've already wasted (just since 2002), passed 234-185. Although the resolution had 2 Republican co-sponsors, Ed Royce and Mark Kirk, only 8 Republicans voted for it, 167, doing the old obstructionist boogaloo that's second nature to them now.

The bill sounds so nice and positive: PEACE Act of 2009, short for the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009. And there's all kinds of bullshit in the wording of the bill that's as patently deceptive as the title. Read it and you'll think we're strengthening democracy in fabulous Pakistan instead of bribing a cabal of wealthy aristocrats to keep an iron grip on one of the world's worst hellholes. The billions we waste bribing Pakistan goes into a destabilizing arms race-- much of it nuclear-- with India, a brutal regime that oppresses over 90% of the seething people, and into the pockets of the world's most corrupt political elite. The bill is so larded with lies and deceit that I'm shocked any self-respecting member of Congress could vote for it at all. Example:

Prohibits military assistance from being provided to Pakistan if: (1) the President fails to determine that Pakistan is taking actions to dismantle nuclear weapons-material supply networks and to combat terrorist groups; or (2) a joint resolution disapproving any such determination is enacted into law.

This is so patently dishonest, that I had to delve into Rahm Emanuel's fetid swamp called "The Supplemental." I'm having trouble keeping up. Emanuel's ego trip is costing taxpayers God only knows how much as he pays for every vote he gets to commit to his 2010 Democratic Party suicide pact. Yesterday the House voted on some kind of cockamamie non-binding set of instructions for the conference committee-- which could, for example, do what Republicans and right-wing Democrats want (the Lieberman-Graham amendment) to hide away war crimes evidence. As Jane pointed out, Emanuel has now maneuvered to put the popular Cash For Clunkers bill into this Frankenstein ego-trip of his. The House of Lords thirty conferees (is that a joke?)-- Lord Dan Inouye, Lord Robert Byrd, Patrick Leahy, Tom Harkin, Lady Barbara Mikulski, Lord Herb Kohl, Lady Patty Murray, Lord Byron Dorgan, Lady Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Lady Miss McConnell, Lord Richard Shelby, Lord Judd Gregg, Lord Robert Bennett, Lady Kay Bailey Hutchison, Lord Sam Brownback, Lord Lamar Alexander, Lady Susan Collins, Lord George Voinovich, and Lady Lisa Murkowski-- are being joined by 8 schlepadicka members of the House of Representatives: Dave Obey, Jack Murtha, Rosa DeLauro, Nita Lowey, Chet Edwards, Bill Young, Jerry Lewis and Kay Granger.

I hope these Democratic leaders have thought what they're going to tell vulnerable Blue Dogs to say when the Republican attacks on bailouts for European banksters get really big. We hear there are now big time funders stepping up to the plate on this one. Shocking that all three new Arizona members of Congress-- Harry Mitchell, Gabby Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick-- are willing to sacrifice their careers for the sake of $108 billion for a European bank bailout-- although I was told by one congressional office (which favors the IMF bailout that 8 billion will go to poor children with extended bellies in Third World countries). Ed Morrissey is ringing the bell and the Blue Dogs better think quick. Jane Hamsher isn't keep track of Blue Dogs-- who are being beaten up big time by Emanuel and his thugs-- but she is keeping count of normal Democrats.


UPDATE: Not All Freshmen Are Buckling To Emanuel's Threats

Turn Maine Blue has been working with Rep. Chellie Pingree, a true blue progressive, and they report that she voted "no" before and she plans to vote "no" again.

Candidates' Reactions On Tough Issues Tell You What Kind Of A Senator They Are Likely To Be-- Kendrick Meek And Jennifer Brunner

Senators need to be leaders, not followers

Funny, how different candidates for the Senate react when the rubber meets the road. When Kendrick Meek, who no one has ever accused of having a courageous bone in his body, was worrying that progressive Dan Gelber could give him trouble in the Florida Senate primary, he was inching left. Uncharacteristically, he voted against the war supplemental. (When's the last time Kendrick Meek has ever not voted with his mentor Debbie Wasserman Schultz on anything?) Now that Gelber is running for Attorney General, Meek was the first weak link to jump off the anti-war bandwagon. As soon as Rahm Emanuel started barking, candidate Meek abandoned any pretense of principle. He's now a firmly committed "yes." Or am I wrong? Is it possible that he likes the idea of a $108 billion bailout for European banks through the IMF that was added onto to the bill since he voted no? Is that why he changed his vote-- because he thinks Florida voters want their tax dollars going to bail out European banksters?

Doesn't Florida have one of the hardest hit economic situations in the country? That was rhetorical; it does. How is Meek going to hope to go up against Charlie Crist or Marco Rubio, whose policies helped acerbate the economic downturn in Florida, if he looks like the candidate supporting bailouts for foreign banks? Rubio's going to eat him alive.

Meanwhile, Ohio's Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (also a Senate candidate) studied the IMF proposal and issued this press release today.

Brunner Urges Congress to Reject IMF Bailout
Candidate Says Government Should Not Use Taxpayer Dollars to Bail Out European Banks


COLUMBUS -- Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner today called on the U.S. Senate to reject the Obama Administration’s request for $108 billion in bailout funds for the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

“Many of the European banks made a series of risky and speculative loans in central and eastern Europe that are likely to go into default,” Brunner said. “We are looking conservatively at more than a trillion dollars in bad loans, loans that the United States had no part in, and we simply cannot afford to step in now and bail them out through the IMF. We have too many families and our own institutions struggling here at home who need our help first.”

Some have argued that the money is necessary to help provide a global stimulus and to help people in poverty in countries with poorer and less sophisticated economies. But the actual amount of money that will go to assist these countries is indirect and minute. Most of the money would aid struggling European banks that are facing potential losses in the hundreds of billions of dollars. That money would be sent via the IMF, which, unlike TARP funds, would not be subject to any semblance of oversight of or accountability to the U.S. Congress.

“American taxpayers are weary of business bailouts, especially ones that do not help create American jobs,” Brunner added. “And as we speak, some American banks are chafing at the regulations placed on them by the latest in bailout funding and want to repay it quickly to have a say in their own operation and to attract the best talent to their operations. Bailing out European banks through the IMF, without even the minimal regulations placed on American banks, only increases the potential for a wider imbalance in trade, giving away American wealth and self-sufficiency, and jeopardizing not only our economy but our traditional sense of American self-determination. Before aiding foreign banks, Congress must demand a thorough auditing of the Federal Reserve by the Government Accounting Office. We must protect our American tax dollars and ultimately the wealth of our country for now and for future generations. No bailouts without transparency and accountability,” stated Brunner.

Brunner also criticized the idea of putting American taxpayers deeper in debt. “We have had to borrow money from other nations to bail out our own financial institutions. In our current delicate situation, we should not borrow to lend and perpetuate the ‘house of cards’ that put us here in the first place. Nor should we burden our children and grandchildren with more debt and higher deficits to let European financial institutions off the hook with no consequence and with potential further deepening of our existing trade deficits with other nations,” Brunner said. “Russia, China, Brazil and India are not giving any money to the IMF. Nor should we.”

Brunner has been endorsed by national and local labor unions for her commitment to labor issues and working families. She is currently running in the May 2010 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate to replace retiring Senator Voinovich.

She's also been endorsed by DownWIthTyranny. Does Emanuel really think that anyone in America wants to see billions and billions of dollars that are needed at home-- desperately needed at home-- going to bail out European bankers who took foolish and irresponsible risks? We should demand that our elected representatives care.

Can Rahm Emanuel Validate Eric Cantor's Prediction Of A 2010 GOP Landslide?

What passes for Inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom is clear: the first midterm election after the election of a president sees his party losing seats in Congress. And Democrats have plenty of very iffy seats-- seats narrowly won in basically, or even deeply, red districts. Take Travis Childers' northern Mississippi district (MS-1). He won the seat in a razor-thin 50/50 election. Although Obama only got 38% of the vote, a surge in African-American voting-- blacks make up about 26% of the district's population-- helped put Childers over the hump in what had become an open seat. Since getting into Congress, Childers has voted more like a Republican than any other Democrat in the House. Both on overall votes and on core issues, Childers has been a fairly dependable vote for John Boehner and Eric Cantor. Something tells me that huge African-American Democratic surge from last November isn't going to be there for Childers in 2010, just like it wasn't there last year for Don Cazayoux in Louisiana (who also got into office with African-American help and immediately commenced voting like a reactionary Republican). And there are dozens of seats in similar jeopardy where conservative Democrats like Childers-- Walt Minnick (Blue-Dog-ID), Bobby Bright (Blue-Dog-AL), Ann Kirkpatrick (Blue-Dog-AZ), Parker Griffith (Blue-Dog-AL), Glenn Nye (Blue-Dog-VA), Frank Kratovil (Blue-Dog-MD), Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA), Jason Altmire (Blue-Dog-PA), Chris Carney (Blue-Dog-PA), Harry Mitchell (Blue-Dog-AZ), Gabby Giffords (Blue-Dog-AZ), Baron Hill (Blue-Dog-IN), Bill Foster (D-IL), just to name some of the most obvious-- are counting on Republican and conservative independents to put them over in 2010.

Eric Cantor thinks the GOP is going to trounce these Democrats and take back control of the House. This despite a new Gallup poll, out today, that shows even Republicans and Republican-leaning independents have an unfavorable opinion of the GOP.

Almost 4 out of 10 (38%) Republicans and Republican-leaning independents have an unfavorable opinion of their own party, while just 7% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party. Additionally, a May 29-31 USA Today/Gallup poll shows that the top-of-mind images of the Republican Party among Republicans are considerably more negative than are the images of the Democratic Party among Democrats.

Let me inject two factors here: the Republican playbook for dealing with the political state of affairs and how that has worked historically, and Obama's Karl Rove, Rahm Emanuel. The Republican knee-jerk obstructionism is going over very badly. And they should have known. They're singing from the same hymn book that they used in the 1930s after Democrats took back Congress in the light of the Republican Party's Great Depression. Not one single GOP House member voted for Social Security-- not one. Instead everything FDR and the Democrats in Congress tried to do was greeted with shouts of "socialism," and absolute apoplectic hysteria by the right-wing noise machine. The result: in 1928 there were 270 Republicans and 164 Democrats in the House and in the Senate there were 56 Republicans and 35 Democrats. Over the course of the next 4 elections, the louder the Republicans screamed socialism and the more obstructionist they became, the more seats they lost. They lost seats in both houses in every election for a decade. By 1936 their 56 seat majority in the Senate was down to 17 seats and in the House they only had 88 left.

But, unlike FDR, Eric Cantor has the supremely overrated Rahm Emanuel as a tactician and foil. This morning Emanuel penned an OpEd in the Washington Post, making the case that vulnerable Democrats back Obama's promise to bailout European banks by guaranteeing a $108 billion loan to the IMF, something he had tacked onto the War Supplemental in the House of Lords. Travis Childers and Democrats in conservative districts cannot win re-election by voting for a costly bailout for European banksters. But Emanuel is dealing with him and other Democrats the same way he did when he pushed through the highly unpopular-- and extremely destructive-- NAFTA legislation for Bill Clinton. He's wheelin' and dealin'... and threatening. He'll let the vicious but loaded AIPAC monsters lose on you to finance a primary; he'll kill your (Childers' in this case) post office request. He has no intellectual argument beyond, don't undermine the promises Obama made to the G20 leaders. Many of those leaders had their heads handed to them in the Europeans elections this past weekend. Gordon Brown nearly lost his job entirely and his party lost control of every single local council in England-- equivalent to the Democrats losing every state legislature. Across Europe-- and including England-- actual fascists were elected by spouting right-wing populism, racism, xenophobia and a revulsion for bailing out banksters. And that's where Emanuel wants to drag the Democratic Party? Didn't he do enough damage to the party and to America with NAFTA?

I think President Obama should direct his staff to think about bailing out California instead, and let the Europeans borrow the billions of dollars they need directly from the Chinese and leave us out of it. We have-- largely because of corrupt hacks like Rahm NAFTA Emanuel-- enough problems right here at home.