Bend With Your Legs, Not Your Back November 14, 2012November 14, 2012 LINCOLN Run, do not walk. LEVITICUS 20:13 Traversing the Internet in response to the successful ballot initiatives in Colorado, Maryland, and elsewhere: “It all makes sense now. Gay marriage and marijuana being legalized the same day. Leviticus 20:13 — ‘If a man lays with another man he should be stoned.’ We’ve just been interpreting it wrong all these years.” WHAT’S NEXT? Secretary of Commerce? Oh, please. Even if I were qualified, which I am spectacularly not, why on earth would I want a . . . job? That entails breakfast meetings? I am not awake for breakfast and, in any event, try not to eat. (Saves time, saves money, good for health, good for the environment — have you any idea how much water and energy are required to serve a slice of bacon?) No, that job should either go to Fred Hochberg, who heads the Export-Import Bank (and would be the nation’s first openly gay Cabinet officer) or else to Mitt Romney or Michael Bloomberg, if one of them would accept it. Next for me: jury duty. Thursday. Given my biological clock, I am hoping to be assigned to Night Court. I know they had a sitcom — do they also have juries? Thursday is also the opening of the Charles Nolan Reading Room at the High School of Fashion Industries (so if they do empanel me, they’d better let me disempanel by 5pm: we have a lot of folks coming). The thing is, Charles loved books. He couldn’t spell (he once asked me how to spell FLORIDA; he once sent 200 invitations misspelling SURPRISE — getting the “S” right, oddly, but omitting the first “R”) and he lacked all sense of punctuation (I live for punctuation; if there were such a thing as Secretary of Punctuation I’d grab it) — but he was an amazing reader, fast and keen (I read 20 pages an hour; it is a curse) and he never failed to purchase a book that struck his eye. So, yes, his library included the works of Anthony Trollope. But it also included countless coffee table books on fashion, art, photography, design, architecture, jewelry, gardening, cooking, travel . . . you could fill a very large room with these, floor to ceiling (figure two a week for 30 years: 3,000 of them) — and we have. Pictures to follow, possibly tomorrow. A great way to enjoy my relief at the outcome of the election — and at not having to ask for money for a while — has been moving all those cartons these last few days and shelving the books and marveling at some of them, and at stacks of Italian Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar dating back to 1939. And generally getting a sense of what it must be like to be a UPS man. I ache all over, and in the best possible way.
Climate Change November 13, 2012November 12, 2012 Yesterday I offered a few thoughts on entitlement reform. Today I hand the mike to David Pogue of the New York Times, who does a beautifully clear job here, on “CBS Sunday Morning,” of answering three questions: is climate change real (yes), are humans causing it (yes), is there anything we can do about it (yes). Watch — and then forward the link to that uncle of yours. In a diverse society, it’s important to respect the holders of all non-violent views. If Scientologists want to believe we each get a planet when we die, we have to respect that just as we respect what Mormons believe (actually, I think it’s they who get the planet), Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Keynesians, federalists, — all of it. Fine. But that doesn’t mean we need to respect the views themselves. It’s okay to mock the view — self-evident though it surely seemed for thousands of years — that the Earth is flat. Indeed, I think, it’s important to do so. Likewise the “view” that when you add two stones from your left pocket to the two stones in your right pocket, you have anything other than four stones in your right pocket. When you have as chairman of the House committee on climate change someone who denies man’s role in climate change and the urgent need to do something about it, you have a big, big problem. The Republican Party — at least so long as it remains inexplicably entrusted with a majority in the House — has an enormous responsibility to find that man a different committee to chair. Does your uncle disagree?
Entitlement Reform November 12, 2012 With government offices shut in observance of Veterans Day, I again commend last week’s Stand Up For Heroes concert linked to Friday. I happen to love the Max Weinberg Big Band that kicks it off, but if you skip ahead to minute 54, you get a short video of what some of our veterans have to deal with … and if you skip to minute 58 you get to meet a marine so badly burned he’s had to undergo 55 surgeries — and be inspired by his spirit. Oh — and there’s guitarist John Mayer, Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters — and did I mention Bruce Springsteen? In case you’re off today and have good speakers attached to your computer, have at it. ENTITLEMENT REFORM Here’s the thing to remember as we seek a balanced approach to a sustainable fiscal future. Well, three things to remember: First, we need to get our National Debt growing — in most though not all years — slower than the economy as a whole. If we do that, then over the decades to come we’ll shrink the Debt relative to the economy as a whole just as we did from 1946 through 1980, when we gradually lowered it from 121% of GDP back down to the same 30% it had been before the onset of the Depression and World War II. (In 1980, we elected Reagan/Bush, whose tax cuts overshot and quadrupled the Debt; and then in 2000 George W. Bush, who quickly squandered the Clinton/Gore surplus, leaving Barack Obama with a $1.5 trillion deficit. And a roughly 100% ratio of debt to GDP. And an economy in such terrible shape that the only sensible thing to do was — and is — to incur yet more debt, in the short run, to get it moving again.) Second, that means we can still run a deficit in most years, especially since some of the things the government spends on are quite legitimately long-term investments. In human terms, it’s the difference between borrowing to buy groceries, which are consumed within a week, and borrowing to build a house, which may provide shelter for 100 years. If over the next 70 years our economy typically grew by 2% in real terms and a further 2% for inflation — 4% nominal annual growth — but the deficit grew at just 2.5% a year, then by 2082 our economy would have grown more than 15-fold but our debt less than 6-fold. It would have shrunk significantly relative to the economy as a whole. And 2.5% of our current debt is about $400 billion. So it’s not a balanced budget we need to get to every year, or even most years (unless we want to stop making investments in the future); it’s a budget within perhaps $400 billion of balance. Third, and mainly, if we bend down the projected long-term cost of entitlements — by for example (among other things) keeping 62 as the early-retirement age for Social Security but allowing the “full benefits” age, currently slated to top out at 67 in 2027, to keep rising by one month a year to, say, 70 in 2063 — then, by proving to ourselves and the global financial markets that we have righted our financial ship, we may well see confidence restored, economic growth enhanced . . . and a prosperity so robust that even before any of the entitlement cutbacks kick in, Congress can repeal them. And start sweetening benefits again. But first we do need to get our financial house in order. This is in everyone’s interest. The sounder our economy, the better it will be able to support the kind of social safety net, and other social services, most of us would like to see. Note that the revenue enhancements do need to kick in right away. So income above $250,000 does need to be taxed more (as it was before George W. Bush came along and threw things wildly out of balance). Right now. For real. But the entitlement cutbacks don’t need to kick in for at least 10 years, so long as they are agreed to now. And my point is that, by the end of those ten years (or maybe it will have to be 15 or 20), we may well be in a position to repeal the cuts! Even before they take effect! Certainly there will be tens of millions of voters urging that; and a Congress that — like any Congress — would prefer to give than rescind. It makes no more sense for us liberals to be intransigent on entitlement reform than for conservatives to dread the 28% Reagan capital gains rate or the Clinton 39.6% ordinary income rate. Or for anyone to believe that we need to “balance the budget” — let alone “pay off the debt.” We just need to have the debt growing slower than the economy.
A Living Hell November 9, 2012November 9, 2012 Let’s be honest. Life for the wealthy was a living hell under Clinton/Gore, when income above $250,000 was taxed at 39.6%. Equally hellish under Reagan/Bush, when capital gains above $250,000 were taxed at 28%. Not to speak of the Fifties and Sixties and Seventies, when income above $250,000 was taxed even more heavily. In truth, life for the entire second half of the Twentieth Century was a living hell for top earners. But that’s not why we should preserve today’s record-low Bush tax rates. We should preserve them because in those 50 confiscatory 20th Century years no new jobs were created (except the tens of millions that were). We should keep them in place because in those 50 confiscatory years no new businesses were started (except Apple, Google, Intel, Cisco, Fed Ex, Starbucks, Staples and hundreds of thousands more). Only when George W. Bush cut rates to today’s levels did the economy soar, the deficit shrivel, and unemployment hit record lows (except the opposite happened). I raise all this because, with the election behind us and the Bush tax cuts about to expire, the debate begins anew. STAND UP FOR HEROES You could have paid a great deal of money last night to hear Bruce Springsteen, Jon Stewart, Roger Waters (of Pink Floyd), Ricky Gervais, Robin Williams, and others raise money for damaged Iraq War veterans — the better seats went for $2,500 apiece — and you could have raised your hand when the bidding topped out at $110,000 for the Boss’s guitar and harmonica . . . or you can watch the musical portion of it here, now, free (and still have the opportunity to donate, if not acquire the guitar, as the speech of the cheerful disfigured young soldier who’s had 55 operations thus far might well move you to do).
Rachel’s Overview November 8, 2012 Sorry for the late post — a little bit of computer hell mixed with iPhone 5 hell mixed with being stuck in Chicago waiting for New York airports to open up mixed but all incredibly, incredibly good. (Chicago has an awesome, mammoth art museum with, among other things, the original Grant Wood farmer-and-wife painting we all know; and we discovered “The Intouchables” on the hotel pay-per-view, which you should certainly Netflick or however you do these things.) But Rachel says it all. Watch.
Thank You November 7, 2012 Much more to say, but for today: 1. THANKS TO SO MANY OF YOU who were among the more than 4 million who helped fund our campaign, and/or among the million or so who volunteered, or the tens of millions who voted our way. I hope you feel as relieved as I do: to my mind, we re-elected a great president (see below, if you didn’t have a chance to read it yesterday). And elected a great new senator from Massachusetts and, from Wisconsin, the first openly gay senator in the nation’s history. 2. THANKS TO THOSE OF YOU WHO DISAGREE but have been willing to listen to my point of view nonetheless. It’s impressive and appreciated. I hope you will be pleasantly surprised as the economy continues to improve and we continue to make progress on our really big problems (see below, if you didn’t have a chance to read it yesterday). From New York Magazine, in part: The Case for Obama: Why He Is a Great President. Yes, Great. By Jonathan Chait . . . Obama’s agenda has generally hewed to the consensus of mainstream economists and policy experts. What makes the agenda radical is that, historically, vast realms of policy had been shaped by special interests for their own benefit. Plans to rationalize those things, to write laws that make sense, molder on think-tank shelves for years, even generations. They are often boring. But then Obama, in a frenetic burst of activity, made many of them happen all at once. Bipartisan panels of economists had long urged Medicare to reform its payment methods to curb perverse incentives by hospitals and doctors to run up costs as high as possible; Obama overcame fierce resistance in Congress in order to craft, as part of Obamacare, a revolution in paying for quality rather than quantity. He eliminated billions of dollars in useless subsidies to banks funneling (at no risk) government loans to college students. By dangling federal public-education grants, Obama unleashed a wave of public-school reform, over the objections of the most recalcitrant elements of the teachers union movement. And he forced Wall Street to accept financial regulations that, while weaker than ideal, were far tougher than anybody considered possible to get through Congress. It is noteworthy that four of the best decisions that Obama made during his presidency ran against the advice of much of his own administration. Numerous Democrats in Congress and the White House urged him to throw in the towel on health-care reform. Many of his own advisers, both economists steeped in free-market models and advisers anxious about a bailout-weary public, argued against his decision to extend credit to, and restructure, the auto industry. On Libya, Obama’s staff presented him with options either to posture ineffectually or do nothing; he alone forced them to draw up an option that would prevent a massacre. And Obama overruled some cautious advisers and decided to kill Osama bin Laden. The latter three decisions are all highly popular now, but all of them carried the risk of inflicting a mortal political wound, like Bill Clinton’s health-care failure and Jimmy Carter’s attempted raid into Iran. (George W. Bush, presented with a similar option, did not strike bin Laden.) In making these calls, Obama displayed judgment and nerve. . . . A year ago, I wrote about the pervasive disillusionment felt by Obama’s supporters. It is a sentiment that has shadowed every Democratic president since Franklin Roosevelt, and even Roosevelt provoked long bouts of agony and disillusionment among his supporters. All were seen by many Democrats at the time as failures, weaklings, or unprincipled deal-makers. It’s true that all of them, including Obama, have made terrible errors. What this tells us, though, is that we need some realistic baseline against which to measure them. Obama can boast a record of accomplishment that bests any president since Roosevelt, and has fewer demerits on his record than any of them, including Roosevelt. . . . If you remain unconvinced, please read the whole thing. And if you get a chance, I again commend The NEW New Deal. You will feel better still. Oh, happy day.
Vote November 6, 2012November 5, 2012 It’s impossible to overestimate today’s importance. Can you imagine the difference if we had had 8 more years of Clinton/Gore, by allowing Gore to occupy the White House, instead of 8 years of Bush? As the Republicans have become even more extreme, with their few moderates defeated in primaries or retiring in dismay, the choice gets even more stark. One last link, because I wish I had written it myself. From New York Magazine, in part: The Case for Obama: Why He Is a Great President. Yes, Great. By Jonathan Chait . . . Obama’s agenda has generally hewed to the consensus of mainstream economists and policy experts. What makes the agenda radical is that, historically, vast realms of policy had been shaped by special interests for their own benefit. Plans to rationalize those things, to write laws that make sense, molder on think-tank shelves for years, even generations. They are often boring. But then Obama, in a frenetic burst of activity, made many of them happen all at once. Bipartisan panels of economists had long urged Medicare to reform its payment methods to curb perverse incentives by hospitals and doctors to run up costs as high as possible; Obama overcame fierce resistance in Congress in order to craft, as part of Obamacare, a revolution in paying for quality rather than quantity. He eliminated billions of dollars in useless subsidies to banks funneling (at no risk) government loans to college students. By dangling federal public-education grants, Obama unleashed a wave of public-school reform, over the objections of the most recalcitrant elements of the teachers union movement. And he forced Wall Street to accept financial regulations that, while weaker than ideal, were far tougher than anybody considered possible to get through Congress. It is noteworthy that four of the best decisions that Obama made during his presidency ran against the advice of much of his own administration. Numerous Democrats in Congress and the White House urged him to throw in the towel on health-care reform. Many of his own advisers, both economists steeped in free-market models and advisers anxious about a bailout-weary public, argued against his decision to extend credit to, and restructure, the auto industry. On Libya, Obama’s staff presented him with options either to posture ineffectually or do nothing; he alone forced them to draw up an option that would prevent a massacre. And Obama overruled some cautious advisers and decided to kill Osama bin Laden. The latter three decisions are all highly popular now, but all of them carried the risk of inflicting a mortal political wound, like Bill Clinton’s health-care failure and Jimmy Carter’s attempted raid into Iran. (George W. Bush, presented with a similar option, did not strike bin Laden.) In making these calls, Obama displayed judgment and nerve. . . . A year ago, I wrote about the pervasive disillusionment felt by Obama’s supporters. It is a sentiment that has shadowed every Democratic president since Franklin Roosevelt, and even Roosevelt provoked long bouts of agony and disillusionment among his supporters. All were seen by many Democrats at the time as failures, weaklings, or unprincipled deal-makers. It’s true that all of them, including Obama, have made terrible errors. What this tells us, though, is that we need some realistic baseline against which to measure them. Obama can boast a record of accomplishment that bests any president since Roosevelt, and has fewer demerits on his record than any of them, including Roosevelt. . . . If you remain unconvinced, please read the whole thing. If you need help finding your polling place, please click here. Everything is at stake today.
Thanks November 5, 2012 So much to say, but maybe less is more: OUR ECONOMY. With Obama, we continue to move forward — as the housing market is finally showing some strength and consumer confidence is rising. With Romney we get a depression, because the Republicans are wedded to short-term austerity that would out-Hoover Hoover, taking hundreds of billions of dollars of demand OUT of the economy at exactly the time we should be putting it IN, rebuilding our infrastructure. OUR PRIORITIES. With Obama, we get policies that favor the middle class and the vulnerable, and a push for Clinton-era tax rates (and/or Reagan-era tax rates on investment income). With Romney, we get FURTHER huge tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and $2 trillion extra military spending the Pentagon hasn’t even asked for. OUR PLANET. With Obama, we continue to take threats to our environment seriously. With Romney, say good-bye to the doubling of fuel efficiency standards and the wind and solar subsidies that can keep us from ceding these industries-of-the-future to China. Governor Romney scoffs and Republicans laugh right along with him. Watch. Takes just a minute. OUR COURT. With Obama, we keep the Court from tilting even further right. With Romney, the anti-democratic vise of Citizens United will grow ever tighter. Isn’t this enough? Mainly, I just want to say thanks. Some of you are Republicans — a warm thank you for listening (and, if I’m really lucky maybe even staying home tomorrow). Most of you are Democrats or Independents planning to vote to keep the country moving forward — thank you for that. And many of you have helped with time or money — thank you, especially, for THAT. (It’s STILL not too late! We know some people wait til the last minute, so we budget knowing that they will come through, so please do.) If we win tomorrow, here’s how you did it: an illuminating report from the field.
Bloomberg, Koch, Christie, Powell, Eisenhower, Buffett — and This Guy November 2, 2012 Two of the nation’s handful of deci-billionaires — 11-figure guys (a chump with but $250 million falls two zeroes short and thus is said to have a “nine-figure” net worth) — are Michael Bloomberg, elected Mayor of New York as a moderate Republican and now an Independent; and Warren Buffett, son of a deeply conservative Republican Nebraska congressman. Both are pragmatic, ethical capitalists to the core. That they both have endorsed the President’s reelection — Buffett visibly from the start, Bloomberg just yesterday — makes it all the more ridiculous, I think, to brand Obama as “Marxist” or “anti-business” or “incompetent” (these guys became deci-billionaires by knowing how to spot competence) — or any of that other idiotic stuff the other side argues. It was ridiculous before, of course — the stock market has doubled, corporate profits are at record highs, the vilified health care act was essentially the one Bob Dole advocated, essentially the one Mitt Romney signed as Governor — but it just seems even more ridiculous now to take Sarah Palin’s judgement (say) or Donald Trump’s or Herman Cain’s over that of Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg. (Or over the judgements of long-time Republican nuclear arms expert Susan Eisenhower or former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell, both of whom have explicitly endorsed the President — these are serious people with serious Republican credentials — or over the judgement, almost-sorta-kinda, of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who keynoted the Republican Convention endorsing Governor Romney, to be sure, but not with the kind of from-the-heart praise he heaped on President Obama this week.) Here is a little of what Mike Bloomberg had to say yesterday: . . . Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be — given this week’s devastation — should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action. . . .We need leadership from the White House — and over the past four years, President Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption, including setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. His administration also has adopted tighter controls on mercury emissions, which will help to close the dirtiest coal power plants (an effort I have supported through my philanthropy), which are estimated to kill 13,000 Americans a year. Mitt Romney, too, has a history of tackling climate change. As governor of Massachusetts, he signed on to a regional cap- and-trade plan designed to reduce carbon emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels. . . . But since then, he has reversed course, abandoning the very cap-and-trade program he once supported. . . . I believe Mitt Romney is a good and decent man, and he would bring valuable business experience to the Oval Office. He understands that America was built on the promise of equal opportunity, not equal results. In the past he has also taken sensible positions on immigration, illegal guns, abortion rights and health care. But he has reversed course on all of them, and is even running against the health-care model he signed into law in Massachusetts. . . . In short, Mike’s voting Obama. So, we learned this week, is Ed Koch — who endorsed Bush in 2004, but who joins the other prominent backers of Israel I linked to last week. Like them, Ed’s voting Obama. And so is this guy, son of staunch Republican parents, a former ambassador appointed by George H. W. Bush. He lists a lot of reasons, but concludes: Finally, I cannot get past the impression that the only thing Mr. Romney believes firmly is that he should be the first Mormon president of the United States, and that it is morally acceptable to say anything to anybody to achieve that goal.* The whole series of his appearances and statements, through the Republican primaries and his campaign against Mr. Obama, leads me to that conclusion. For that reason, if for nothing else, I don’t want Mitt Romney to be elected president and will vote for Mr. Obama. Have a great weekend. Vote early if you can. Join Colin Powell, Susan Eisenhower, Mike Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Ed Koch — and that guy, former ambassador Dan Simpson — and keep the country moving forward with Barack Obama. Vote Democrat for House and Senate also and — blunting the G.O.P.’s unprecedented obstructionism — it will move forward faster still. To make one final contribution, please do: here. It will actually help, even at this late stage, because we did our planning assuming that people would. So do. * This post brings the “533 lies” referenced Wednesday up to date — and leads off with a “ceiling fan” joke. # [APOLOGY: If you read yesterday’s post before noon, you may still be trapped in the paragraph about deregulation, FEMA, and tort reform — a paragraph so dense and poorly constructed that I later shamefacedly straightened it out. Sorry ’bout that.]
Deregulation November 1, 2012November 1, 2012 You know the meningitis outbreak that’s killed more than two dozen and sickened hundreds more? Sue Hoell forwards this: As Craig Unger at Salon reports this week, the pharmaceutical company that’s responsible for the outbreak, Massachusetts-based New England Compounding Company, was cited for numerous violations in 2004 while Mitt Romney was Governor. However, his administration did nothing to punish the company or place more regulations on it. Records show that that between 2003 and 2006 – there were six complaints against the New England Compounding Company, yet the Romney administration did not crack down on the company, and instead signed an agreement allowing the company to regulate itself in the future. It should be noted that New England Compounding Company is a big political donor to both Mitt Romney and Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts. But as a result of their “self-regulation” order by Romney – 25 Americans are now dead. As an attorney representing the victims argues, “It goes all the way up to Mitt Romney…When the person who is supposed to be in charge of oversight does not believe oversight is necessary, this is what happens.” This is why a Romney presidency is so dangerous to America. I’m (fairly) sure Gov. Romney is just sick about this, and obviously it was not his intention. But a Party contemptuous of government and regulation is a party unlikely to govern or regulate well . . . is a party that de-professionalizes FEMA when it’s in power — as the Republicans had done until Bill Clinton came along and fixed it — and then did again as soon as they regained control (heck of a job, Georgie). And as Mitt Romney likely would because, as he has said, he thinks as much as possible should be left to the states — whom he believes should leave as much as possible to private enterprise. Republicans have great faith in corporate self-regulation in part because, just from a practical point of view, they don’t want to harm people and get sued. But to blunt the threat of those lawsuits, the Republican Party also does all it can to denigrate trial lawyers and promote “tort reform.” (Full disclosure: I too have promoted tort reform — but the targeted, plaintiff-friendly kind.) How can so many voters want a president who’s pro-tobacco — Monday’s post — whose economic plan evokes “The Emperor’s New Clothes” — Tuesday’s post — who by one liberal count has told more than 500 lies in the course of the campaign — yesterday’s post — who left office as Governor with a 34% approval rating having taken Massachusetts’s job creation rank down from 37th to 47th, who refuses to release his tax returns even for most of the years he’s known he was running for president, who’s recruited 17 of his 24 foreign policy advisers from the team that gave us the Iraq war, and who has, behind closed doors, expressed contempt for 47% of the electorate? Like most of us on the left, I’m an insufferable elitist (though I would argue that most of us “on the left” are actually pretty largely in the center, where moderate Republicans used to be) — but I (and the President) have only one postgraduate Harvard degree. Mitt has two. And I (and until a few years ago the President), fly commercial. Mitt — and even his wife’s horse — fly private. So . . . why does Joe the Plumber not find him elitist? Is it because he knows NASCAR owners? When push comes to shove next week, I think there will be far more people voting for Governor Romney than should — but not enough to elect him.