I don't know how the authors make their living, but there are an awful lot of apologists for the rich who feed from the teats of the plutocrats.

Just look at who funds Cato, Heritage, Hoover, TNR, The NY Sun, the National Review, etc. Even some of the most prominent conservative universities (Chicago, Stanford and George Mason come to mind) are beneficiaries of this largess.

The aim of all this behind the scenes funding is to create a propaganda campaign which misleads people into thinking that their interests are allied with those of the super wealthy. This has been unusually successful over the past 40 years and the middle class is now feeling the effects.

To expect these pundits to bite the hand that feeds them is a bit unrealistic.

I suggest visiting Media Transparency and doing a search on Charles Koch, Richard Scaife, Coors, Walton, Mars, Olin, etc. You may be surprised at how often the same people show up as backers of "independent" think tanks.

There really is a "vast right wing conspiracy". Some of the pundits may be shills, while others may be useful idiots.

The GOP is the party of privilege, it has been for decades. All that changes is their skill in hiding this fact.

Posted at July 16, 2008 2:21 PM in response to All The President's Moneymen

I suggested a mortgage foreclosure "stand down" today. People would stay in their homes as long as they maintained them, paid taxes and worked out a deal with the lender.

The deal could include deferring payment completely or partially for an extended period of time. The lenders would treat these loans as "non performing". This is what the Japanese banking sector did during their real estate collapse of the 1990's.

The Federal Reserve would have to change rules (which Bernanke is talking about today anyway) so that non performing loans would be still kept on the books with their nominal value. This would allow banks to stop selling off better grade assets at distressed prices to meet reserve requirement.

In addition people staying in their homes would take the pressure off the rest of the housing market, cut down on bankruptcy filings, abandonment of neighborhoods, and the increasing feelings of panic.

Those holding mortgage-backed securities would see their income stream cut or stopped during the stand down, but this is better than the losses that they are seeing now.

Think of this as a modern version of FDR's "bank holiday". When there is a panic going on the first thing to do is to prevent the run on assets until cooler minds have a chance to devise new policies.

After a predefined period of time, or when some overall economic measures improved (say the inflation or employment rates) the stand down would be eliminated in a controlled manner.

Posted at July 8, 2008 1:55 PM in response to Obama Speaks Out on Bankruptcy

You can't "teach" society a lesson. Those who act foolishly or fraudulently now are not the same people who will do it in 20 or 30 years. Your example proves the point. There are no S&L's involved in the current crisis.

As for "pain" it never gets applied to those who caused the problems. The CEO's, even the ones who have been forced out, are doing just fine with their golden parachutes. I don't know why so many people have such uncharitable attitudes as yours.

What's to be gained by forcing some poorly advised home buyer onto the street? It is a complete myth that house flippers are the majority of those defaulting.

Posted at July 8, 2008 1:45 PM in response to Halting the Mortgage Mess

Americans think that they have unique problems and need unique solutions. The biggest parts of the health care problems have already been addressed in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and elsewhere.

Obviously solutions exist that are affordable and that also lead to better outcomes. The US scores poorly compared to these countries on measures such as life span, child mortality rates and per capita costs.

There are no technical problems that need to be discovered to make US health care comparable to these other country's, only political ones. Are we willing (or able) to eliminate the for-profit waste in the system (30%), the excess profits of the drug and medical supply firms and the fee-based medicine decisions which leads to over treatment?

Are we willing to remove the corruption of doctors and scientific researchers by the drug firms which fund their research or pay them to promote their products?

If you want better health care in the US get the profiteers out of the system. Now explain not what needs to be done (we know that), but how you are going to overcome the power of big business.

Posted at July 7, 2008 4:06 PM in response to Health Care for America Now!

So explain why it has to remain a Whtiehouse run program?

The Supreme Court has ruled that textbooks and bus service to parochial schools can be paid out of general school taxes and they are in many localities. There is no special office for this, just the regular (secular) school board and administration.

So what makes this particular initiative in need of its own department within the Whitehouse? Not only do its funds avoid congressional oversight, but its staff is entirely political instead of being part of the career civil service structure.

Sorry, there needs to be more thought given about this arrangement and it has nothing to do with being anti-religious.

Posted at July 2, 2008 11:34 AM in response to Obama's Plot to Destroy the Religious Right

The problem with the faith-based office is that it is run out of the Whitehouse. Notice the mischief that this caused when the courts ruled that the dispersal of these funds was outside the purview of congress.

It is the bending (breaking?) of the constitution like this that makes such programs a problem. Doesn't the Whitehouse, and the entire executive branch get its funding via congress? Of course it does, so one subprogram within the overall allocation can't logically be treated differently.

If there are to be religious organizations getting funds then they can get them as part of any social programs that congress and/or the executive agencies administer. This selective pork by the Whitehouse sets a bad precedent and as we have seen can be easily used for political ends.

Can we also give up on the rightwing designed euphemism - faith-based? Are their any faith-based groups that are not religious? This is just another way language is used to cover up what is really intended.

If Obama wants to increase support for community-based social services then let him propose it as part of his overall plans. As it stands it looks like pandering to the religious right, smells like pandering and stinks like pandering.

Posted at July 2, 2008 10:52 AM in response to Obama's Plot to Destroy the Religious Right

Special commissions never work as the public is led to believe they will. First they are easily subverted at the start by the selection process.

"Bipartisan" doesn't mean that a full spectrum of positions are represented. One could fill the positions with conservative Republicans and equally conservative Democrats. The inaction at the SEC, FEC and the compromised reports by the 9/11 Commission show how frequently this happens.

Commissions are not answerable to the electorate. We put Congress in office to fix things. If they can't or won't, than toss them out and get a new bunch. Don't allow them to pass the buck.

The base closing commission is not an example of how things work well, but badly. Even though it was nominally independent, the political pressure applied when it made its findings have led to compromises anyway. When a GOP hack starts making suggestions about setting up a commission you know that this is a last ditch attempt to prevent the overwhelming majority of congress from putting in policies that the GOP has been opposing.

If you've lost control, then, at least try to throw a spanner in the works, rather than let the will of the people get exercised.

Posted at July 2, 2008 9:34 AM in response to The Score: Physicians 355; Insurers 59: Blood on the Senate Floor

Many of the political BSO's (book shaped objects) that have been published recently could have their premise condensed to a 1500 word essay. Several of them have appeared here to be discussed.

However, the dynamics of the publishing industry demand that each of these thin reeds be blown up into a BSO so that it can be marketed and promoted properly. Hardly a one has a single new thought or idea, most are just rehashes of things that have been said before and recaps of history slanted to make the author's point.

One new book that doesn't fit the mold is "Moral Clarity" by Susan Neiman. It's a book which discusses the philosophical basis for ethical precepts, especially when one wishes to get away from the use of religious texts as unquestioning authority.

To make her point she uses the stories of Job and Sodom and Gomorrah as contrasting moral stances.

Unlike BSO's one actually has to read the whole book (slowly!) to get the author's full argument.

Posted at July 1, 2008 10:16 AM in response to Summer Reading Makes Me Sad

The real issue here is the increase in the number of political appointees in the executive agencies. The Bushies got around civil service hiring requirements by creating new job titles which were outside the usual hiring limits.

If Congress really wants to fix the problem, going after the appointed political hacks who overreached is not sufficient, the civil service needs to be reformed (again).

The Dems will be unwilling to do this since they are looking forward to installing their own cronies when they regain the presidency. It's these institutional reforms that don't get any notice that are really needed if anything is going to change.

Other areas where the gravy train will be irresistible include lobbying reform, election finance and pork barrel spending. The problem with the GOP is that they just went too far and called attention to the way things normally operate, but the public hasn't caught on to the bigger issues and is being fed the "few rotten apples" story.

Posted at June 24, 2008 10:00 AM in response to Today's Must Read

The idea is to make the admin think the ruling will go against them so that they will settle with congress first.

The Dems don't want to set a precedent either, since next time the GOP is back in power the contempt procedure can (will?) be turned against them.

Posted at June 24, 2008 9:51 AM in response to Judge: Why Litigate When You Can Arrest?