Tonight’s Debate October 16, 2012 THE FIRST DEBATE The President was insufficiently aggressive; his opponent, insufficiently truthful. In today’s America, guess who won? But it’s still worth noting. Even if you think some of the 31 “lies” in this video might better be termed merely “misleading” or “unfair,” its basic point stands. TONIGHT’S DEBATE Yesterday, I promised “four billionaires.” They’re coming! But today I feel impelled to ask questions. Namely: Whoever “wins” tonight, do we want a President who’s a good debater — or a good President? A President who said he wouldn’t go into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden – or a President who killed Bin Laden? A President who would have let the auto industry go bankrupt – or a President who saved it and used the occasion to double fuel efficiency standards that in the long run will cut our gasoline bill in half? Do we want a President who’s pledged to cut the estate tax on billionheirs from 45% to ZERO – one of the few pledges, frankly, he’s never wavered on — or a President who would rather invest that tax revenue to repair our bridges, modernize our schools, and fund basic research? A President who thinks 47% of us can never be persuaded to take responsibility for our lives – that wasn’t a misspeak, it was heartfelt and detailed – or a President who knows how much responsibility it takes to work two jobs and pay social security tax and sales tax and raise a family? A President who will say anything to get elected – or a President who has pretty much said the same thing all along? A President who belittles the green energy investments that are our future – or a President who helps fund the game-changers that will put us back in the lead? A President who thinks corporations are people and favors unlimited corporate money in politics? Or one whose campaign has been funded by more than 10 million separate contributions – and who for five years has refused to take a dime from federal lobbyists or PACs? I’m sorry if this list is getting tedious, but this list is what the election is all about. Ask yourself: which team and whose policies – President Obama’s or Governor Romney’s – remind you more of President Clinton’s team and policies? Which reminds you more of President Bush’s? Now ask yourself, if you’re old enough to have lived through them both: which eight years did you like better? And ask yourself: If record low tax rates for the very wealthy create jobs – where are the jobs? Ask yourself: If raising taxes on income above $250,000 kills jobs – how did we create 23 million new ones under Bill Clinton? Ask yourself: What does Governor Romney believe? What he says now? What he said a month ago? Governor Romney wants to add $2 trillion in military spending the Pentagon doesn’t even want. Ask yourself: who’s going to pay for that? Is Big Bird what got us into financial trouble? Or was it putting two wars on a credit card while we slashed tax rates on folks like Governor Romney, who pay a lower proportion of their income in taxes than their secretaries? Ask yourself: why is the other party working so hard to make it hard to vote? Is that not unAmerican? We face a choice between continuing to move forward – or going back. Between investing in the future — or out-Hoovering Hoover. Between rebuilding our infrastructure – or retrenching. Together we have averted an economic catastrophe and seen job growth for 30 straight months . . . launched an educational race to the top . . . made college affordable for millions more kids . . . launched reform that will make health care more available, effective and efficient . . . restored respect for America’s role as the world’s indispensable nation. There’s much more to do, including the “grand bargain” we need to strike to get our long-term finances on a sustainable path. But we’re headed in the right direction. LOBBYISTS “Lobbyists ready for a comeback under Romney.” Here, in Politico: President Barack Obama’s gone further than any president to keep lobbyists out of the White House — even signing executive orders to do it. But the mood on K Street is brightening. Industry insiders believe that Mitt Romney will unshackle the revolving door and give lobbyists a shot at the government jobs their Democratic counterparts have been denied for the past four years, a dozen Republican lobbyists said in conversations with POLITICO. . . . And may I just say, because it’s cost us tens upon tens of millions: the Obama campaign and DNC have not taken a dime from federal lobbyists or PACs in five years. Even though it’s legal and even though the Republicans do. (And even though there are lots of wonderful lobbyists, many of them lobbying for admirable causes.) DCTH The company’s FDA submission didn’t get fast-tracked, but Guru expects approval will come by April. He thinks the company, currently valued at a little more than $100 million, could within three years be worth more than $300 million . . . so if others agree, the stock should trend up toward that goal over time. Or not. As must by now be evident, these speculations are truly to be made only with money you can afford to lose. Prelude To Four Billionaires October 15, 2012October 14, 2012 NPSP Tim Couch: “Any news from the guru on how far this might go?” He thinks approval will come Tuesday and an opening price near 12 on Wednesday. Here’s a more in depth analysis. OURS IS SMALLER THAN THEIRS And may weigh 500 pounds less. Which is saying something, when added to the weight of a passenger jet. No specific news, but the saga continues. THEIRS IS BIGGER THAN OURS Here I refer not to nose wheel motors but to clout — the clout of the very rich. Theirs is bigger than ours. Which sounds like a good thing if you’re very rich, and basically is . . . but may not be so good, even for the very rich, over the long run. As argued here in the New York Times. Look what happened to Venice, once the economic envy of the world. It relates to our own growing inequality. . . . Even as the winner-take-all economy has enriched those at the very top, their tax burden has lightened. Tolerance for high executive compensation has increased, even as the legal powers of unions have been weakened and an intellectual case against them has been relentlessly advanced by plutocrat-financed think tanks. In the 1950s, the marginal income tax rate for those at the top of the distribution soared above 90 percent, a figure that today makes even Democrats flinch. Meanwhile, of the 400 richest taxpayers in 2009, 6 paid no federal income tax at all, and 27 paid 10 percent or less. None paid more than 35 percent. . . . It does not bode well, and Romney would make it worse. To keep from outright lying, he promises that the “share” of taxes paid by the rich would not fall. But even if that promise were kept, it would still be a bonanza the rich — a bonanza that would somehow have to be made up by others. Cut everyone’s income tax by 20% and the family paying $2,000 a year saves $400 and the family paying $10 million a year saves $2 million. The shares may not have changed, but it’s still a lot of money for the rich that can’t possibly be made up for by eliminating their mortgage deduction or by making it more expensive for them to give to charity. Cut the estate tax on billionheirs by 100% — to zero — as Romney is pledged to do, and that widens the inequality gap even further. As always, for anyone who still hasn’t found the six minutes to watch, here is Nick Hanauer’s indispensable TED talk. It blows up the idea of the rich as job creators. It is the middle class who are the job creators. Let’s put taxes back up to where they were under Clinton/Gore, more or less, and use much of that additional revenue to modernize our national infrastructure . . . which will put millions of people to work at decent-paying middle-class wages and ramp up the economic recovery. I was going to use the foregoing as the launching pad to tell you about four misguided billionaire friends of mine, who are as passionate about firing President Obama as I am to see him reelected, but — heavens! — just look at the time. You have to get to work. Come back tomorrow. Buoyed October 12, 2012 It should matter only slightly if at all who “debates better.” But since debate style does seem to matter, whoop-de-doo: we are one step closer to the right outcome November 6. Joe Biden dominated last night. What should matter are policies. And character, talent, judgment, temperament, and experience. Certainly President Obama has more experience to be President — he’s been doing it for four years. And to my mind, he has his opponent tied or beat on each of the other criteria. But it’s on policies where the real differences lie. There you know my view is that the that the Romney/Ryan austerity budget would out-Hoover Hoover and trigger a global depression . . . that their Supreme Court choices would cement Citizens United and tighten the plutocratic vise on what should be a government of, by, and for all the people . . . and that, by contrast, the Obama/Biden team will continue to invest in the future and keep us moving forward. FOR RICHER OR FOR POORER From the Economist: Under Republicans, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Under Democrats, everyone gets richer. It’s an important difference. I HAVE A QUESTION David Brooks says of Mitt Romney in a recent column, “Far from being an individualistic, social Darwinist, Romney spoke comfortably about compassion and shared destinies: ‘We’re a nation that believes that we’re all children of the same God, and we care for those that have difficulties, those that are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that are disabled.'” So here is my question. If you made $20 million a year and saw all the problems and suffering in the world and were deeply committed to making things better, how much of the $20 million would you spend on yourself and to augment your already enormous fortune, how much would you attempt to shelter from taxes, how much would you pay in taxes, and how much would you give to worthy causes? If it were me — and I’m not running for President, I’m just saying — I would spend maybe $1 million of it on myself (you can live really nicely on $1 million even with five kids and a horse) . . . toss at most another $4 million onto my vast fortune (knowing that, separately, my $100 million IRA would also be growing by $5 million or $10 million) . . . and split the remaining $15 million between the taxes due and causes I support. Mitt has made starkly different choices — and he is entirely entitled to them. They do not persuade me that he is passionate about confronting the world’s most pressing problems. Rush October 11, 2012October 10, 2012 It’s not every day that a Nobel Prize winner, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient walk into a bar – or in this case an apartment – but she did, into mine, Monday night: Toni Morrison. It was a fundraiser for seven-term Congressman Rush Holt. Arguably the only scientist in Congress, he helped run Princeton’s Plasma Physics Laboratory for a decade before winning his seat in 1998. His constituents sport bumper stickers that read . . . “My Congressman IS a Rocket Scientist.” Having been asked by the organizers to open the program with a few remarks on the “national political scene,” I welcomed everyone (especially the astonishing Ms. Morrison from whom we were about to hear) and then suggested the following: That in terms of the “national political scene,” the choice we face November 6 is really all ABOUT Rush. Rush HOLT, the modest, thoughtful, logical, rocket scientist Congressman, and HIS party . . . . . . versus Rush LIMBAUGH, the blowhard leader, in many ways, of the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh whose face gets red with passion as he enumerates what he calls the “four pillars of deceit.” Do you know what those four pillars of deceit are, I asked the assembled? (It was a rhetorical question, but I actually got a couple folks shouting back – “tell us!” It was thrilling.) They are: “GOVERNMENT” (I pointed to the Congressman) . . . “THE MEDIA” (not including Fox or Rush Limbaugh himself, one presumes) . . . “ACADEMIA” (I pointed to the former President of Harvard who had come with his wife to support Rush) . . . “and SCIENCE” (I pointed to the Congressman again.) Science . . . a pillar of deceit. When it was the candidate’s turn to speak, all he would say of my claim that he is the only scientist in Congress is that if we are lucky, we are about to get another – the rather astonishing Bill Foster (a member of the team that discovered the top quark) – and that, well, “it depends on how you define scientist.” Which was the gentlest of jabs, I assume, at Representative Paul Broun (a Republican who styles himself a scientist and whom you can watch here saying that evolution and the big bang are “lies straight from the pit of hell”). November 6 is a choice between the party that “believes in” science and the party whose chair of the House committee charged with dealing with climate change is a climate change denier who quotes from the Bible in debunking the scientific consensus. Okay? So Rush Holt is going to win reelection for his eighth term (and if we’re lucky, the number of scientists in Congress will double to two, with the election of Bill Foster) – but will Rush have a gavel? And will he have a President who wants to increase investment in research and education and alternative energy? Or one who has vowed to cut those to make room to lower taxes on the wealthy (who may not pay a lesser SHARE of taxes, but will pay tens of billions less in TAXES) and to add $2 trillion in unrequested military spending. (Talk about government waste! This isn’t $600 on a hammer — it’s $2 trillion on hammers the Pentagon hasn’t even asked for.) Rush spoke modestly and sensibly, but mainly about what an honor it was to have Toni Morrison there to support him. And then Ms. Morrison read what she had written for the occasion: I am extremely pleased to accept Congressman Rush Holt’s invitation because it gives me an opportunity to describe what I believe is classic, although endangered, democratic representation. When I was young we used to be called citizens—American citizens. Some of us were called ‘second class’ citizens, yet the term, the category, the aspiration was citizenship. Some time after the end of World War II another definition of Americans arose—’consumers.’ Every narrative, advertisement, political promise was to, for and about the powerful, courted and always obeyed American Consumer. So we did—consume. Happily, extravagantly, mindlessly—until the credit card, the mortgaged home or homes, the college tuition loans came due. Now the category has changed again. We are now simply taxpayers or not-taxpayers. Think of the difference, the cognitive and emotional difference between thinking of oneself as a citizen and regarding oneself as merely a taxpayer. If I am simply an American taxpayer, I am alarmed about where my money goes; I may even resent the recipient, wonder whether he or she or it (the institution) is worthy of my money. On the other hand, if I am principally an American citizen, I have to wonder about what’s best for my country, my state, my neighbors, the young, the elderly and the unfortunate. That shift in national identity informs so much of the discourse and the political choices of our representatives. Obviously, I prefer the label ‘citizen,’ which is precisely why I admire Rush Holt. To me his works, his advocacy, his personal and political philosophy stem from the concept of citizenship and what it demands of us. From education to healthcare, to women’s rights, civil rights, support for artists—his concerns and labor are those of a citizen for citizens. And that commitment is rare these days. If you help him, support him, with your resources and your own enthusiastic commitment, you will be a champion for that ancient and blessed definition: Citizen. Needless to say, Ms. Morrison is not only for Rush Holt, she is for Barack Obama. OUR candidate, whatever people may think of him as a debater, has an amazing record of accomplishments, all the more amazing given the hugely difficult circumstances under which they were accomplished. THEIR candidate left Massachusetts with a 34% approval rating (in good economic times) – about the same as George W. Bush’s approval rating when HE left office (with the economy in free fall). You know all that . . . . . . which is why you may share my frustration that their side can simply lie – in 2000, candidate Bush SCOFFED at charges that he planned huge tax cuts for the rich with the same language Mitt Romney now uses to tell the same multi-trillion-dollar lie – and you may share my frustration that, thanks to Citizens United, their side can amplify those lies with virtually unlimited funds. . . . and which is why, yes, if you can dig deep one last time, we need you to do it, here, now. Thanks to many of you, we have 120 field offices open in Ohio alone (they have 30), an army of field organizers throughout the country, and raised $181 million just last month from 2 million donors. And we have a superb President with by far the better vision for moving forward. So I think we’re going to win. But there is zero risk that we’ll overshoot on the fundraising and win by “too much,” for three reasons: first, if 2000 is any guide, it’s important to win by enough for it to “stick”; second, it will help us hold the Senate and win back the House; third, it will send a message that America and the world need to hear. It’s important that the right Rush win. What’s Obama Done For ME Lately October 10, 2012October 10, 2012 WHAT’S OBAMA DONE FOR ME LATELY I included this link Friday (“Ed Is Depressed”), but in case you missed it, it lets your Romney-leaning uncle enter his zip code to see what the last few years have brought him and his neighbors, whether as to jobs or health care or energy and more. If he still can’t stomach voting for the President, because he’s just spent too much time in the Fox News Rush Limbaugh alternative universe, remind him that the Republican austerity budget would out-Hoover Hoover and plunge the country, and with it the world, into depression. So would he please at least not vote? WHAT ELSE YOUR UNCLE SHOULD SEE Repeating from yesterday. This is the video to put on your Facebook page and send your whole list. Why Obama Now. And could you take a minute to remind your uncle that if Obama is a Kenyan Marxist, then Kenyan Marxists make for pretty good stock markets (ours has doubled in the past three years) and pretty amazing corporate earnings (now at record highs). AND IF HE HAS TROUBLE SEEING CLEARLY . . . . . . then he can save big money buying new glasses on-line from Warby Parker. I’ve mentioned this before, but after “60 Minutes” aired Sunday it became clear why I save hundreds of dollars on each pair I buy: An Italian firm called Luxotica owns most of the famous frame brands and also much of the distribution network, like Lenscrafters, so they largely control pricing. The mark-ups are breathtaking. Warby Parker is expanding into wire frames and “progressives” (what used to be bifocals), and I’m a beta tester! I have no financial interest in the company, but love saving 75% or 80%. And I love that for each pair of glasses they sell, they provide a pair free to one of the billion or so folks around the world who currently lack access. OHIO UPDATE So alarmed are the Republicans that Ohioans might be able to vote as easily as they did in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and in this summer’s 2012 primary — instead of with the nightmarish 10-hour lines that African Americans and students had to endure in 2004 and that cost Kerry Ohio which gave us four more years of Bush — that they have are determined to make it hard again. And when a court said they could not do that, they appealed. And now that the appeals court has agreed, they are appealing again, to the Supreme Court. Because there are few things more American, apparently, if you’re a Republican, than making it difficult to vote. Please ask your uncle how he can stomach being associated with people like this. (Yes, even this Supreme Court will presumably not find in their favor; but that still gives the Republicans a double win. First, by keeping everything up in the air until the last minute, it makes it harder to plan for and run the election smoothly. Second, the appeal gives the Court a way to look moderate and impartial, in contrast to the 2000 Florida Bush v. Gore decision, when in fact this is anything but a moderate, impartial Court.) Here It Is October 9, 2012October 8, 2012 In under four minutes. This is the video to put on your Facebook page and send your whole list. It’s like hearing his words in color and 3D. Why Obama Now. Lowering Billionaires’ Taxes Again October 8, 2012October 8, 2012 THE CONSUMER RATINGS ON ROMNEY When Governor Romney left office, the national economy was good — yet the people of Massachusetts gave him a 34% approval rating. That’s about the same as former President George W. Bush’s approval rating. I think the people of Massachusetts are trying to tell us something. MITT’S 29 MYTHS IN 38 MINUTES If your time is short, skip straight to the next item. Because where this list of 29 debate Mittstatements takes a while to review, the Chris Hayes clip below, highlighting just one of the 29, is a must-see 7 minutes. FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON YOU Saturday, Chris Hayes took 7 minutes to show how Romney is channeling Bush: gearing up for huge tax cuts for the wealthy while claiming that, well, no, he’s not. (Today, if you leave your three kids $3 billion, they inherit just $550 million each. Under Romney/Ryan, they’d inherit the full $1 billion. The difference is about what the government spends on PBS each year. But in Mitt math, a billion isn’t more than half a billion. He’s running for office, for Pete’s sake. You might think we shouldn’t borrow an extra $1.35 billion from the Chinese to make up that lost revenue, but Mitt disagrees. And yet he says those three kids will not come out ahead under his plan, and that we won’t have to borrow from China, because … why?) Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy Ed Is Depressed October 5, 2012 We’re still going to win, I think; but after Wednesday’s debate it’s not going to be as easy as it had begun to seem. My pal Ed emailed: “No 47%, no Bain, no Cayman Islands, no eye contact. I’m so depressed.” I get it. But depressed is not helpful. We have a terrific story to tell. We all need to help tell it. One way to tell it is, “Look: Bin Laden’s dead, GM’s alive. Don’t be an idiot.” (Leave off the idiot part. But God it’s frustrating when the opponent can tell a multi-trillion-dollar lie – a multi-trillion-dollar lie! – and the big story is that the President didn’t make eye contact.) Another way to make our case is to get people to read Michael Grunwald’s wonderfully uplifting The NEW New Deal. But since almost no one has the time, they could at least click here and enter their zip code to see what the Obama Administration has done for them these past few years, on jobs, energy, health care and the rest. You can’t get much more specific than this. A third way is to point out that what they saw Wednesday night was the fake Romney, playing to the camera. And then show them the real Romney, when he doesn’t realize the camera is on. Which is likely to be more revealing of his true views? (And don’t accept the “clinging to God and guns” retort – in THAT unguarded moment, candidate Obama was expressing EMPATHY for people facing really hard times. Candidate Romney’s unguarded moment, by contrast, was an expression of CONTEMPT, writing off the 47% he considers irresponsible. Empathy is the complete opposite of contempt.) A fourth is to use the “fool me once” frame most people know. Namely, that the last Harvard B-School Republican governor to run against a somewhat professorial Democrat and tell a multi-trillion-dollar lie (that “by far the vast majority” of his proposed tax cuts would go not to the wealthy but “to people at the bottom of the economic ladder”) gave us eight disastrous years. Do we really want to make this mistake again? Fool me once, Mr. Tax-Cuts-For-The-Rich-Will-Create-Jobs-And-By-The-Way-My-Tax-Cuts-Aren’t-For-The-Rich . . . shame on you. Fool me twice (same deal, different guy) . . . shame on me. Seriously, how do you cut tax rates 20% across the board . . . and cut the estate tax rate on billionheirs from 45% to 0% . . . and add $2 trillion in government waste (by pushing through an extra $2 trillion in spending the Pentagon doesn’t want) without blowing up the deficit? By cutting off funding to Big Bird? Really? We have such a great president who has done such an amazing job under such unbelievably difficult circumstances (the economic collapse he was handed but also the unprecedented GOP obstructionism), it makes me crazy to think the country might be fooled again by a multi-trillion-dollar lie. Or be fooled by Romney’s bizarre repudiation of Romneycare, which he simultaneously lauds and loathes . . . and his replacement for which would destroy Medicare (as private insurers turned away high-risk applicants, leaving them all to Medicare). Replacing Medicare with private insurers is the key to reducing costs and improving outcomes? Really? Adding in their sales and marketing, underwriting costs, corporate overhead and profit will not raise costs? Really? We are the only modern country that provides much of its health care through private insurers — and the only one whose health care costs as a proportion of GDP are already at least 50% higher than everyone else’s. So the solution is to turn the rest of our health care system over to private insurers? Really? A fifth way to make our case: Show them that clip I linked to recently of FDR mocking his opposition. It is exactly on point: Romney will give everybody everything “and it will not cost anybody anything.” A sixth: Ask which candidate’s views remind them more of Clinton’s, which of Bush’s. Then ask which years they liked more. You’ll craft even better ways to make our case — and that’s exactly what those of us who don’t want to see the Citizens’ United vise tightened by an even more right-wing Court are called upon to do . . . . . . both to energize ourselves to be sure we all vote and volunteer and keep sending our support (more than ten million contributions to date!) . . . . . . and to (gently and respectfully) open the eyes of those who are at risk of being fooled twice. We’re going to win. But as the campaign team at Chicago headquarters have maintained all along, it’s going to be close. [UPDATE: Ed called as I was getting ready to post this – he’s already back in fighting mode. And the President was taking it to Romney yesterday as well, as I expect we’ll see him continue to do.] Scoring the Debate October 4, 2012 People seem to be missing the point. The only point that really matters, it seems to me, is that the Republican candidate for president went on TV in front of millions of people and told a multi-trillion-dollar lie. In 2000 that lie was that “by far the vast majority” of his proposed tax cuts would go to people at “the bottom of the economic ladder” (and wouldn’t send the nation back into deficit). This was completely untrue. Mathematically impossible. But it sounded good and he went on to serve two disastrous terms. Last night the lie was that the best off would not see their taxes reduced (even though, for example, the estate tax on billionheirs would drop from 45% to 0%) and that the Republican candidate’s 20% across the board tax cut would not cost $5 trillion, would not raise the deficit or require sacrifice from anyone but the rich. As in 2000, the math just doesn’t add up. And his proposed $2 trillion increase in military spending? Though unrequested by the military, we are to believe this is not an example of wasteful government spending . . . not going to result in a deeper deficit or an increased tax burden on anyone. All this is possible, apparently, because cutting taxes creates jobs. Just look how well it’s worked over the last ten years. And all this is necessary, apparently, because Clinton-era tax rates kill jobs — except, well, the 23 million that were created. There is much more to say — one of my friends texted me to say he thought the President’s shoulders looked droopy — but isn’t the main thing to say that the Republican candidate for president went on TV in front of millions of people and — repeatedly, as in 2000 — told a multi-trillion-dollar lie? Class Warfare October 3, 2012 Michael Albert: “As I recall, I’ve heard you complain that it’s unfair to claim that Democrats engage in ‘class warfare.’ Well, I submit as evidence the column you posted yesterday, ‘I am a job creator: A manifesto for the entitled,’ by Steven Pearlstein. What a mean-spirited, unfair, and prejudiced portrayal of American businessmen. If Mitt Romney was wrong to portray voters who support Barack Obama as irresponsible, why is it right for you to demonize those who have a legitimate claim to benefiting the citizens of this country?” I do not demonize them. I concluded yesterday’s column by saying I thought most CEOs and business owners are “outstanding, decent people.” How awful is that, really? And I don’t see an equivalence between what Mitt Romney said about the 47% and what Steven Rothstein was saying about “the job creators” . . . those who, in the context of the current national debate, feel their taxes must be ultra-low because — through their genius and hard work, like Ayn Rand’s heroic John Galt — they make the good life possible for the rest of us. Which they would not have the resources or incentive to do if they were taxed as they were in the Forties or Fifties or Sixties or Seventies or Eighties or Nineties — decades when [sarcasm ON] no businesses were started, no risks taken, no jobs created [sarcasm OFF]. When Mitt Romney said he would never be able to persuade the 47% of Americans who believe they are victims to take personal responsibility and care for themselves, he was wrong on the facts: most people who pay no income tax do take personal responsibility and care for themselves. It’s true, many of them are struggling — but struggling is the opposite of not trying. In effect, Mr. Romney was kicking these people while they were down — struggling to find work or struggling to get by or on the income from two low-pay jobs or struggling in their old age to make do with the Social Security benefits they paid into the system to qualify for. Pearlstein, by contrast, is kicking people while they are up, making millions of dollars a year — and not kicking them for their success or their wealth, but for their complaining, even as corporate profits are at record levels and their stock portfolios have doubled. Even after he did so much to keep the economy from collapsing. How dare the President not celebrate their genius in setting up Cayman Island shells and “I Dig It” trusts? How dare he think anyone on Wall Street had anything to do with the near-collapse of our financial system? How dare he side with the middle class and the disadvantaged instead of the billionaires whose estates Mr. Romney insists should be taxed at a zero percent rate? Surely you know Warren Buffet’s by-now-old line, “If this is class warfare, my class is winning.” And still they complain, louder than ever. As the New Yorker points out this week . . . in a story titled “Super-Rich Irony” . . . “hostility toward the President is particularly strident among the ultra-rich.” Sam Caldwell: “That New Yorker piece fascinates me. Why, when they have so prospered and been so lightly taxed, would they come to hate Obama? Do these guys feel disparaged? Do they feel like they are seen as gilded-age plutocrats? Do they feel like arrows aimed at Romney are hitting them too? I think it’s a visceral, irrational kind of thing. Maybe Obama has not been obsequious enough towards them. They feel like they should be respected and lauded for their great achievements in the Wall Street jungle. To me it’s a question of psychology more than of economics. It’s just so irrational.” There’s more to say about all this, but let me end by saying, first, that I think most CEOs, business owners, and Wall Street folks are — as I concluded yesterday’s column as well — outstanding, decent folks. And, second, that many of them are supporting the President’s reelection — though fewer than should. Previous 1 2 3 Next
Prelude To Four Billionaires October 15, 2012October 14, 2012 NPSP Tim Couch: “Any news from the guru on how far this might go?” He thinks approval will come Tuesday and an opening price near 12 on Wednesday. Here’s a more in depth analysis. OURS IS SMALLER THAN THEIRS And may weigh 500 pounds less. Which is saying something, when added to the weight of a passenger jet. No specific news, but the saga continues. THEIRS IS BIGGER THAN OURS Here I refer not to nose wheel motors but to clout — the clout of the very rich. Theirs is bigger than ours. Which sounds like a good thing if you’re very rich, and basically is . . . but may not be so good, even for the very rich, over the long run. As argued here in the New York Times. Look what happened to Venice, once the economic envy of the world. It relates to our own growing inequality. . . . Even as the winner-take-all economy has enriched those at the very top, their tax burden has lightened. Tolerance for high executive compensation has increased, even as the legal powers of unions have been weakened and an intellectual case against them has been relentlessly advanced by plutocrat-financed think tanks. In the 1950s, the marginal income tax rate for those at the top of the distribution soared above 90 percent, a figure that today makes even Democrats flinch. Meanwhile, of the 400 richest taxpayers in 2009, 6 paid no federal income tax at all, and 27 paid 10 percent or less. None paid more than 35 percent. . . . It does not bode well, and Romney would make it worse. To keep from outright lying, he promises that the “share” of taxes paid by the rich would not fall. But even if that promise were kept, it would still be a bonanza the rich — a bonanza that would somehow have to be made up by others. Cut everyone’s income tax by 20% and the family paying $2,000 a year saves $400 and the family paying $10 million a year saves $2 million. The shares may not have changed, but it’s still a lot of money for the rich that can’t possibly be made up for by eliminating their mortgage deduction or by making it more expensive for them to give to charity. Cut the estate tax on billionheirs by 100% — to zero — as Romney is pledged to do, and that widens the inequality gap even further. As always, for anyone who still hasn’t found the six minutes to watch, here is Nick Hanauer’s indispensable TED talk. It blows up the idea of the rich as job creators. It is the middle class who are the job creators. Let’s put taxes back up to where they were under Clinton/Gore, more or less, and use much of that additional revenue to modernize our national infrastructure . . . which will put millions of people to work at decent-paying middle-class wages and ramp up the economic recovery. I was going to use the foregoing as the launching pad to tell you about four misguided billionaire friends of mine, who are as passionate about firing President Obama as I am to see him reelected, but — heavens! — just look at the time. You have to get to work. Come back tomorrow.
Buoyed October 12, 2012 It should matter only slightly if at all who “debates better.” But since debate style does seem to matter, whoop-de-doo: we are one step closer to the right outcome November 6. Joe Biden dominated last night. What should matter are policies. And character, talent, judgment, temperament, and experience. Certainly President Obama has more experience to be President — he’s been doing it for four years. And to my mind, he has his opponent tied or beat on each of the other criteria. But it’s on policies where the real differences lie. There you know my view is that the that the Romney/Ryan austerity budget would out-Hoover Hoover and trigger a global depression . . . that their Supreme Court choices would cement Citizens United and tighten the plutocratic vise on what should be a government of, by, and for all the people . . . and that, by contrast, the Obama/Biden team will continue to invest in the future and keep us moving forward. FOR RICHER OR FOR POORER From the Economist: Under Republicans, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Under Democrats, everyone gets richer. It’s an important difference. I HAVE A QUESTION David Brooks says of Mitt Romney in a recent column, “Far from being an individualistic, social Darwinist, Romney spoke comfortably about compassion and shared destinies: ‘We’re a nation that believes that we’re all children of the same God, and we care for those that have difficulties, those that are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that are disabled.'” So here is my question. If you made $20 million a year and saw all the problems and suffering in the world and were deeply committed to making things better, how much of the $20 million would you spend on yourself and to augment your already enormous fortune, how much would you attempt to shelter from taxes, how much would you pay in taxes, and how much would you give to worthy causes? If it were me — and I’m not running for President, I’m just saying — I would spend maybe $1 million of it on myself (you can live really nicely on $1 million even with five kids and a horse) . . . toss at most another $4 million onto my vast fortune (knowing that, separately, my $100 million IRA would also be growing by $5 million or $10 million) . . . and split the remaining $15 million between the taxes due and causes I support. Mitt has made starkly different choices — and he is entirely entitled to them. They do not persuade me that he is passionate about confronting the world’s most pressing problems.
Rush October 11, 2012October 10, 2012 It’s not every day that a Nobel Prize winner, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient walk into a bar – or in this case an apartment – but she did, into mine, Monday night: Toni Morrison. It was a fundraiser for seven-term Congressman Rush Holt. Arguably the only scientist in Congress, he helped run Princeton’s Plasma Physics Laboratory for a decade before winning his seat in 1998. His constituents sport bumper stickers that read . . . “My Congressman IS a Rocket Scientist.” Having been asked by the organizers to open the program with a few remarks on the “national political scene,” I welcomed everyone (especially the astonishing Ms. Morrison from whom we were about to hear) and then suggested the following: That in terms of the “national political scene,” the choice we face November 6 is really all ABOUT Rush. Rush HOLT, the modest, thoughtful, logical, rocket scientist Congressman, and HIS party . . . . . . versus Rush LIMBAUGH, the blowhard leader, in many ways, of the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh whose face gets red with passion as he enumerates what he calls the “four pillars of deceit.” Do you know what those four pillars of deceit are, I asked the assembled? (It was a rhetorical question, but I actually got a couple folks shouting back – “tell us!” It was thrilling.) They are: “GOVERNMENT” (I pointed to the Congressman) . . . “THE MEDIA” (not including Fox or Rush Limbaugh himself, one presumes) . . . “ACADEMIA” (I pointed to the former President of Harvard who had come with his wife to support Rush) . . . “and SCIENCE” (I pointed to the Congressman again.) Science . . . a pillar of deceit. When it was the candidate’s turn to speak, all he would say of my claim that he is the only scientist in Congress is that if we are lucky, we are about to get another – the rather astonishing Bill Foster (a member of the team that discovered the top quark) – and that, well, “it depends on how you define scientist.” Which was the gentlest of jabs, I assume, at Representative Paul Broun (a Republican who styles himself a scientist and whom you can watch here saying that evolution and the big bang are “lies straight from the pit of hell”). November 6 is a choice between the party that “believes in” science and the party whose chair of the House committee charged with dealing with climate change is a climate change denier who quotes from the Bible in debunking the scientific consensus. Okay? So Rush Holt is going to win reelection for his eighth term (and if we’re lucky, the number of scientists in Congress will double to two, with the election of Bill Foster) – but will Rush have a gavel? And will he have a President who wants to increase investment in research and education and alternative energy? Or one who has vowed to cut those to make room to lower taxes on the wealthy (who may not pay a lesser SHARE of taxes, but will pay tens of billions less in TAXES) and to add $2 trillion in unrequested military spending. (Talk about government waste! This isn’t $600 on a hammer — it’s $2 trillion on hammers the Pentagon hasn’t even asked for.) Rush spoke modestly and sensibly, but mainly about what an honor it was to have Toni Morrison there to support him. And then Ms. Morrison read what she had written for the occasion: I am extremely pleased to accept Congressman Rush Holt’s invitation because it gives me an opportunity to describe what I believe is classic, although endangered, democratic representation. When I was young we used to be called citizens—American citizens. Some of us were called ‘second class’ citizens, yet the term, the category, the aspiration was citizenship. Some time after the end of World War II another definition of Americans arose—’consumers.’ Every narrative, advertisement, political promise was to, for and about the powerful, courted and always obeyed American Consumer. So we did—consume. Happily, extravagantly, mindlessly—until the credit card, the mortgaged home or homes, the college tuition loans came due. Now the category has changed again. We are now simply taxpayers or not-taxpayers. Think of the difference, the cognitive and emotional difference between thinking of oneself as a citizen and regarding oneself as merely a taxpayer. If I am simply an American taxpayer, I am alarmed about where my money goes; I may even resent the recipient, wonder whether he or she or it (the institution) is worthy of my money. On the other hand, if I am principally an American citizen, I have to wonder about what’s best for my country, my state, my neighbors, the young, the elderly and the unfortunate. That shift in national identity informs so much of the discourse and the political choices of our representatives. Obviously, I prefer the label ‘citizen,’ which is precisely why I admire Rush Holt. To me his works, his advocacy, his personal and political philosophy stem from the concept of citizenship and what it demands of us. From education to healthcare, to women’s rights, civil rights, support for artists—his concerns and labor are those of a citizen for citizens. And that commitment is rare these days. If you help him, support him, with your resources and your own enthusiastic commitment, you will be a champion for that ancient and blessed definition: Citizen. Needless to say, Ms. Morrison is not only for Rush Holt, she is for Barack Obama. OUR candidate, whatever people may think of him as a debater, has an amazing record of accomplishments, all the more amazing given the hugely difficult circumstances under which they were accomplished. THEIR candidate left Massachusetts with a 34% approval rating (in good economic times) – about the same as George W. Bush’s approval rating when HE left office (with the economy in free fall). You know all that . . . . . . which is why you may share my frustration that their side can simply lie – in 2000, candidate Bush SCOFFED at charges that he planned huge tax cuts for the rich with the same language Mitt Romney now uses to tell the same multi-trillion-dollar lie – and you may share my frustration that, thanks to Citizens United, their side can amplify those lies with virtually unlimited funds. . . . and which is why, yes, if you can dig deep one last time, we need you to do it, here, now. Thanks to many of you, we have 120 field offices open in Ohio alone (they have 30), an army of field organizers throughout the country, and raised $181 million just last month from 2 million donors. And we have a superb President with by far the better vision for moving forward. So I think we’re going to win. But there is zero risk that we’ll overshoot on the fundraising and win by “too much,” for three reasons: first, if 2000 is any guide, it’s important to win by enough for it to “stick”; second, it will help us hold the Senate and win back the House; third, it will send a message that America and the world need to hear. It’s important that the right Rush win.
What’s Obama Done For ME Lately October 10, 2012October 10, 2012 WHAT’S OBAMA DONE FOR ME LATELY I included this link Friday (“Ed Is Depressed”), but in case you missed it, it lets your Romney-leaning uncle enter his zip code to see what the last few years have brought him and his neighbors, whether as to jobs or health care or energy and more. If he still can’t stomach voting for the President, because he’s just spent too much time in the Fox News Rush Limbaugh alternative universe, remind him that the Republican austerity budget would out-Hoover Hoover and plunge the country, and with it the world, into depression. So would he please at least not vote? WHAT ELSE YOUR UNCLE SHOULD SEE Repeating from yesterday. This is the video to put on your Facebook page and send your whole list. Why Obama Now. And could you take a minute to remind your uncle that if Obama is a Kenyan Marxist, then Kenyan Marxists make for pretty good stock markets (ours has doubled in the past three years) and pretty amazing corporate earnings (now at record highs). AND IF HE HAS TROUBLE SEEING CLEARLY . . . . . . then he can save big money buying new glasses on-line from Warby Parker. I’ve mentioned this before, but after “60 Minutes” aired Sunday it became clear why I save hundreds of dollars on each pair I buy: An Italian firm called Luxotica owns most of the famous frame brands and also much of the distribution network, like Lenscrafters, so they largely control pricing. The mark-ups are breathtaking. Warby Parker is expanding into wire frames and “progressives” (what used to be bifocals), and I’m a beta tester! I have no financial interest in the company, but love saving 75% or 80%. And I love that for each pair of glasses they sell, they provide a pair free to one of the billion or so folks around the world who currently lack access. OHIO UPDATE So alarmed are the Republicans that Ohioans might be able to vote as easily as they did in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and in this summer’s 2012 primary — instead of with the nightmarish 10-hour lines that African Americans and students had to endure in 2004 and that cost Kerry Ohio which gave us four more years of Bush — that they have are determined to make it hard again. And when a court said they could not do that, they appealed. And now that the appeals court has agreed, they are appealing again, to the Supreme Court. Because there are few things more American, apparently, if you’re a Republican, than making it difficult to vote. Please ask your uncle how he can stomach being associated with people like this. (Yes, even this Supreme Court will presumably not find in their favor; but that still gives the Republicans a double win. First, by keeping everything up in the air until the last minute, it makes it harder to plan for and run the election smoothly. Second, the appeal gives the Court a way to look moderate and impartial, in contrast to the 2000 Florida Bush v. Gore decision, when in fact this is anything but a moderate, impartial Court.)
Here It Is October 9, 2012October 8, 2012 In under four minutes. This is the video to put on your Facebook page and send your whole list. It’s like hearing his words in color and 3D. Why Obama Now.
Lowering Billionaires’ Taxes Again October 8, 2012October 8, 2012 THE CONSUMER RATINGS ON ROMNEY When Governor Romney left office, the national economy was good — yet the people of Massachusetts gave him a 34% approval rating. That’s about the same as former President George W. Bush’s approval rating. I think the people of Massachusetts are trying to tell us something. MITT’S 29 MYTHS IN 38 MINUTES If your time is short, skip straight to the next item. Because where this list of 29 debate Mittstatements takes a while to review, the Chris Hayes clip below, highlighting just one of the 29, is a must-see 7 minutes. FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON YOU Saturday, Chris Hayes took 7 minutes to show how Romney is channeling Bush: gearing up for huge tax cuts for the wealthy while claiming that, well, no, he’s not. (Today, if you leave your three kids $3 billion, they inherit just $550 million each. Under Romney/Ryan, they’d inherit the full $1 billion. The difference is about what the government spends on PBS each year. But in Mitt math, a billion isn’t more than half a billion. He’s running for office, for Pete’s sake. You might think we shouldn’t borrow an extra $1.35 billion from the Chinese to make up that lost revenue, but Mitt disagrees. And yet he says those three kids will not come out ahead under his plan, and that we won’t have to borrow from China, because … why?) Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Ed Is Depressed October 5, 2012 We’re still going to win, I think; but after Wednesday’s debate it’s not going to be as easy as it had begun to seem. My pal Ed emailed: “No 47%, no Bain, no Cayman Islands, no eye contact. I’m so depressed.” I get it. But depressed is not helpful. We have a terrific story to tell. We all need to help tell it. One way to tell it is, “Look: Bin Laden’s dead, GM’s alive. Don’t be an idiot.” (Leave off the idiot part. But God it’s frustrating when the opponent can tell a multi-trillion-dollar lie – a multi-trillion-dollar lie! – and the big story is that the President didn’t make eye contact.) Another way to make our case is to get people to read Michael Grunwald’s wonderfully uplifting The NEW New Deal. But since almost no one has the time, they could at least click here and enter their zip code to see what the Obama Administration has done for them these past few years, on jobs, energy, health care and the rest. You can’t get much more specific than this. A third way is to point out that what they saw Wednesday night was the fake Romney, playing to the camera. And then show them the real Romney, when he doesn’t realize the camera is on. Which is likely to be more revealing of his true views? (And don’t accept the “clinging to God and guns” retort – in THAT unguarded moment, candidate Obama was expressing EMPATHY for people facing really hard times. Candidate Romney’s unguarded moment, by contrast, was an expression of CONTEMPT, writing off the 47% he considers irresponsible. Empathy is the complete opposite of contempt.) A fourth is to use the “fool me once” frame most people know. Namely, that the last Harvard B-School Republican governor to run against a somewhat professorial Democrat and tell a multi-trillion-dollar lie (that “by far the vast majority” of his proposed tax cuts would go not to the wealthy but “to people at the bottom of the economic ladder”) gave us eight disastrous years. Do we really want to make this mistake again? Fool me once, Mr. Tax-Cuts-For-The-Rich-Will-Create-Jobs-And-By-The-Way-My-Tax-Cuts-Aren’t-For-The-Rich . . . shame on you. Fool me twice (same deal, different guy) . . . shame on me. Seriously, how do you cut tax rates 20% across the board . . . and cut the estate tax rate on billionheirs from 45% to 0% . . . and add $2 trillion in government waste (by pushing through an extra $2 trillion in spending the Pentagon doesn’t want) without blowing up the deficit? By cutting off funding to Big Bird? Really? We have such a great president who has done such an amazing job under such unbelievably difficult circumstances (the economic collapse he was handed but also the unprecedented GOP obstructionism), it makes me crazy to think the country might be fooled again by a multi-trillion-dollar lie. Or be fooled by Romney’s bizarre repudiation of Romneycare, which he simultaneously lauds and loathes . . . and his replacement for which would destroy Medicare (as private insurers turned away high-risk applicants, leaving them all to Medicare). Replacing Medicare with private insurers is the key to reducing costs and improving outcomes? Really? Adding in their sales and marketing, underwriting costs, corporate overhead and profit will not raise costs? Really? We are the only modern country that provides much of its health care through private insurers — and the only one whose health care costs as a proportion of GDP are already at least 50% higher than everyone else’s. So the solution is to turn the rest of our health care system over to private insurers? Really? A fifth way to make our case: Show them that clip I linked to recently of FDR mocking his opposition. It is exactly on point: Romney will give everybody everything “and it will not cost anybody anything.” A sixth: Ask which candidate’s views remind them more of Clinton’s, which of Bush’s. Then ask which years they liked more. You’ll craft even better ways to make our case — and that’s exactly what those of us who don’t want to see the Citizens’ United vise tightened by an even more right-wing Court are called upon to do . . . . . . both to energize ourselves to be sure we all vote and volunteer and keep sending our support (more than ten million contributions to date!) . . . . . . and to (gently and respectfully) open the eyes of those who are at risk of being fooled twice. We’re going to win. But as the campaign team at Chicago headquarters have maintained all along, it’s going to be close. [UPDATE: Ed called as I was getting ready to post this – he’s already back in fighting mode. And the President was taking it to Romney yesterday as well, as I expect we’ll see him continue to do.]
Scoring the Debate October 4, 2012 People seem to be missing the point. The only point that really matters, it seems to me, is that the Republican candidate for president went on TV in front of millions of people and told a multi-trillion-dollar lie. In 2000 that lie was that “by far the vast majority” of his proposed tax cuts would go to people at “the bottom of the economic ladder” (and wouldn’t send the nation back into deficit). This was completely untrue. Mathematically impossible. But it sounded good and he went on to serve two disastrous terms. Last night the lie was that the best off would not see their taxes reduced (even though, for example, the estate tax on billionheirs would drop from 45% to 0%) and that the Republican candidate’s 20% across the board tax cut would not cost $5 trillion, would not raise the deficit or require sacrifice from anyone but the rich. As in 2000, the math just doesn’t add up. And his proposed $2 trillion increase in military spending? Though unrequested by the military, we are to believe this is not an example of wasteful government spending . . . not going to result in a deeper deficit or an increased tax burden on anyone. All this is possible, apparently, because cutting taxes creates jobs. Just look how well it’s worked over the last ten years. And all this is necessary, apparently, because Clinton-era tax rates kill jobs — except, well, the 23 million that were created. There is much more to say — one of my friends texted me to say he thought the President’s shoulders looked droopy — but isn’t the main thing to say that the Republican candidate for president went on TV in front of millions of people and — repeatedly, as in 2000 — told a multi-trillion-dollar lie?
Class Warfare October 3, 2012 Michael Albert: “As I recall, I’ve heard you complain that it’s unfair to claim that Democrats engage in ‘class warfare.’ Well, I submit as evidence the column you posted yesterday, ‘I am a job creator: A manifesto for the entitled,’ by Steven Pearlstein. What a mean-spirited, unfair, and prejudiced portrayal of American businessmen. If Mitt Romney was wrong to portray voters who support Barack Obama as irresponsible, why is it right for you to demonize those who have a legitimate claim to benefiting the citizens of this country?” I do not demonize them. I concluded yesterday’s column by saying I thought most CEOs and business owners are “outstanding, decent people.” How awful is that, really? And I don’t see an equivalence between what Mitt Romney said about the 47% and what Steven Rothstein was saying about “the job creators” . . . those who, in the context of the current national debate, feel their taxes must be ultra-low because — through their genius and hard work, like Ayn Rand’s heroic John Galt — they make the good life possible for the rest of us. Which they would not have the resources or incentive to do if they were taxed as they were in the Forties or Fifties or Sixties or Seventies or Eighties or Nineties — decades when [sarcasm ON] no businesses were started, no risks taken, no jobs created [sarcasm OFF]. When Mitt Romney said he would never be able to persuade the 47% of Americans who believe they are victims to take personal responsibility and care for themselves, he was wrong on the facts: most people who pay no income tax do take personal responsibility and care for themselves. It’s true, many of them are struggling — but struggling is the opposite of not trying. In effect, Mr. Romney was kicking these people while they were down — struggling to find work or struggling to get by or on the income from two low-pay jobs or struggling in their old age to make do with the Social Security benefits they paid into the system to qualify for. Pearlstein, by contrast, is kicking people while they are up, making millions of dollars a year — and not kicking them for their success or their wealth, but for their complaining, even as corporate profits are at record levels and their stock portfolios have doubled. Even after he did so much to keep the economy from collapsing. How dare the President not celebrate their genius in setting up Cayman Island shells and “I Dig It” trusts? How dare he think anyone on Wall Street had anything to do with the near-collapse of our financial system? How dare he side with the middle class and the disadvantaged instead of the billionaires whose estates Mr. Romney insists should be taxed at a zero percent rate? Surely you know Warren Buffet’s by-now-old line, “If this is class warfare, my class is winning.” And still they complain, louder than ever. As the New Yorker points out this week . . . in a story titled “Super-Rich Irony” . . . “hostility toward the President is particularly strident among the ultra-rich.” Sam Caldwell: “That New Yorker piece fascinates me. Why, when they have so prospered and been so lightly taxed, would they come to hate Obama? Do these guys feel disparaged? Do they feel like they are seen as gilded-age plutocrats? Do they feel like arrows aimed at Romney are hitting them too? I think it’s a visceral, irrational kind of thing. Maybe Obama has not been obsequious enough towards them. They feel like they should be respected and lauded for their great achievements in the Wall Street jungle. To me it’s a question of psychology more than of economics. It’s just so irrational.” There’s more to say about all this, but let me end by saying, first, that I think most CEOs, business owners, and Wall Street folks are — as I concluded yesterday’s column as well — outstanding, decent folks. And, second, that many of them are supporting the President’s reelection — though fewer than should.