Ron Paul

Do GOP Candidates and the Press Have a "Gentlemen's Agreement" Not to Discuss Social Security in Florida?

Richard Eskow — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:29:23 -0500

You'd think Social Security would top the list of subjects for a presidential debate in Florida. How many questions did Wolf Blitzer ask about it during Thursday night's Republican debate in Jacksonville?

Answer: None. The words "Social Security" never passed his lips.

It was almost as if there were a "gentlemen's agreement" among the five people on the stage. And we use that phrase advisedly, since Blitzer sealed the boy's club atmosphere by asking each of the candidates why his wife would make the best first lady.

The candidates did mention Social Security a couple of times, but only in passing and only in the most misleading ways possible. It's too bad there wasn't, oh, a journalist nearby -- one who was inclined to ask follow-up questions.

What was said that night? Rick Santorum and Ron Paul both attacked Newt Gingrich from the right on Social Security. Santorum suggested that the Speaker's proposals, which would cut benefits, were too expensive and would "create a brand new Social Security entitlement."

Not true.

Ron Paul said that Gingrich's claim to have helped cut the federal deficit was false -- which is true. But then he said that the reason it's untrue is because Gingrich "doesn't count the money he takes out of Social Security" -- which is false!

Confused yet? Stick around. The layers of artificial reality became as mind-bending as a Philip K. Dick novel when Gingrich responded.

Gingrich attacked Obama from the left on Social Security:

I propose that we take Social Security off budget so no president can ever again get threaten, as Obama did in August, that he would not send the check out, and you could set Social Security back up as a free-standing trust fund. It does have enough money and you could in fact pay the checks without regard to politics in Washington.

Those two sentences include five statements. Let's take a look:

"I propose that we take Social Security off-budget ..." It's already is off-budget, if by "off-budget" Gingrich meant that it's forbidden to contribute to the national deficit. It's required by law to be an entirely self-funded program.
"No president can ever threaten ... that he would not send the check out ..." Obama suggested that checks might not be delivered if the budget impasse closed the government, which would always remain a possibility unless Social Security were removed from the government and privatized - which is Gingrich's real (and extremely unpopular) proposal.
"It does have enough money ..." True, and it's projected to have enough until some time in the mid- to late 2030's, at which point it would pay 75 percent of benefits if nothing else was changed. Most GOP proposals to fix this "crisis" would cut benefits even more.
"... you could in fact pay the checks without regard to politics in Washington." That's why the program was designed to be self-funded -- so that, in Franklin D. Roosevelt's words, "no damn politician" could ever cut its benefits.

What Gingrich doesn't say is that he wants to privatize Social Security with a plan that would ultimately cut benefits and put what's left at risk for the next financial crisis, while making trillions of dollars for Wall Street. He also keeps pushing the widely disproved notions that it's a "Ponzi scheme" and "a fraud." (The best takedown of those ideas was done in 1958 by a bipartisan panel convened by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.)

President Obama could have prevented these kinds of disingenuous attacks a lot more effectively if he had not done things like appoint two avowedly anti-Social Security figures to lead his "Deficit Commission," repeatedly offered to cut Social Security, and then used the payroll tax that funds Social Security for a "middle-class tax break" that also benefits millionaires.

He even repeated the offer to cut Social Security and Medicare in last week's "Occupy-themed" State of the Union message! Oy. Still, any one of the candidates onstage last Thursday would do even more to cut the program needlessly -- far more.

So why wasn't it a topic that Blitzer and CNN considered important enough to discuss? When Santorum first mentioned Social Security, Blitzer said, "We're going to get to that in a moment." Iit sounded like the "it" in question was Social Security, but Blitzer never mentioned it again.

I can certainly understand why the candidates didn't want the subject raised. More than three and a half million Republican voters rely on Social Security, including seniors, disabled people, and surviving spouses. In fact, the candidates in Tuesday's primary would be crazy not to hide their opinions on the topic:

Mitt Romney's been pushing to privatize Social Security for years. After the financial crisis of 2008, Americans understand how risky it would be to place their financial security in the hands of greedy, reckless, and irresponsible financiers -- or as Mitt probably thinks of them, "the fellas."

Ron Paul says Social Security is "unconstitutional."

All of the candidates would raise the retirement age -- except Paul, who presumably would end Social Security altogether.

With positions like these, who wouldn't want to keep the Sunshine State in the dark? An AARP survey showed that likely Republican voters in Florida oppose Social Security cuts by more than two to one. As the Christian Science Monitor reports, a slight majority would favor raising the retirement age, but more Republicans favor the solution that's typically called "progressive" -- lifting or raising the cap on payroll taxes so that higher income levels are subject to the tax. All four Republican candidates strongly oppose this idea, which is their voters' preferred option.

"We're afraid that (Social Security's) going to be cut," said one voter, "or that we're going to lose what we put into it." Those are precisely the kinds of options the candidates in Tuesday's primary are offering. No wonder they're zipping their lips on the subject.

Some voters noticed the omission. As USA Today reported on the morning before the debate, "people are frustrated that the Republican presidential candidates have largely avoided the issues of Medicare and Social Security." You'd think that would have made the subject even more important for CNN to raise. A news organization's job is to ask candidates the questions they don't want asked. Surely they could have squeezed one in, perhaps after asking the First Lady question? (Gingrich graciously said they'd all be wonderful at the job.)

Remember the movie Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead? This week's Florida primary should be renamed Don't Tell Grandma Social Security Will Be Dead -- and Medicare Too -- If We're Elected. Mitt Romney's already on record as saying income inequality shouldn't be discussed openly. Was there some sort of "gentleman's agreement" to ignore Social Security too?

UPDATE: Ron Paul supporters note that I've left out other statements he's made about Social Security, especially that he would allow people under 25 to "opt out." Paul's website fails to provide a position statement on Social Security. It does mention - in passing - that he "believes younger American citizens should be permitted to opt-out of Medicare and Social Security." That statement's a little hard to find, since it appears on a page entitled "Ron Paul is the Only Candidate Who Will Cut Spending."

So we know that Ron Paul a) believes Social Security is unconstitutional, b) supports an unpopular 'opt-out' plan that would be an economic disaster, and c) wants to cut spending on it. That is, however, something of an incoherent position: How can you offer citizens the option of continuing to participate in an unconstitutional program?

Paul, like the other candidates, has a very unpopular set of proposals regarding Social Security. In fairness to him, however, I didn't describe it fully. (In my defense, I did so because it's self-contradictory and confusing.) Unlike the others, however, it's very possible that Paul wouldn't be coy about telling voters what he thinks. Unfortunately nobody asked him.

Last Night's GOP Debate Was Like Bad 1950's-Style Science-Fiction

Richard Eskow — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:31:09 -0500

The GOP presidential candidates continue to play their parts in an implausible story of a world that could never exist, acting out nonexistent conflicts while delivering dialog that insults the intelligence. That's not because they're stupid. It's because they think you are.

It's like watching a low budget science-fiction movie from the fifties: Dr. Strange vs. The Vulture in the Caverns of the Moon. It's badly executed, even by the low standards of its genre, complete with cheap sets, bad special effects and wooden acting.

They're counting on their audience to provide that state of mind which literature professors call "the willing suspension of disbelief."

Three of the candidates are selling an nearly identical story of hardy earth people who are only able to save their planet once they've been freed from taxes and regulations.The fourth, Ron Paul, is offering a different script, a 10,000 Years BC scenario of unparalleled economic savagery.

Sure, Dr. Paul seems like a likable guy. And it's great that he's saying things about war, terrorism, and human rights that nobody else will, including Barack Obama. But he wants to lead us into a blood-drenched, kill-or-be-killed world. (Remember when he was willing to let an injured man die because he hadn't paid his health insurance premium?)

The candidates' scripted lines weren't all that was "retro,"either. In the year 2012, Wolf Blitzer actually asked them which of their wives would make the best First Lady. What would he have done if they hadn't answered -- held a pie-baking contest? As the scientists' young assistant said when the monster entered the laboratory: Eek!

What did we learn tonight about the Republicans' collective and individual economic fantasies?

We come from a distant planet with news of a world vastly unlike your own ...

Rick Santorum was the first out of the box this time. By invoking the magic word, "deficits," he called the economic coven to order.

The New York Times analyzed the tax plans put forward by Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum to determine how much each of them would add to the national deficit in a single year. Romney's would add $600 billion. Santorum was tied with Gingrich at $1.3 trillion, or more than twice as much.

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the income tax altogether, making the economic future under his Presidency as difficult to predict as the space-time continuum inside a black hole. That's probably why the Times didn't try. (It would be an interesting project, though.)

Let's be clear: All of those deficit estimates -- $600 billion for Romney, more than twice that for Santorum and Gingrich -- vastly understate the true explosion in the deficit we'd see under any one of them.. They only consider the income lost through tax cuts. But other aspects of their economic plan would lead to greatly increased unemployment, prolonged recession, and an increased likelihood of another financial crisis brought about by deregulation.

So the real increase in the deficit could be several times as large. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both blew the deficit through the roof, and their numbers would be small-time compared to what a Romney or Gingrich Presidency would do.

What all four candidates share is the professed belief -- which Paul and possibly Santorum sincerely hold, but Romney and Gingrich almost certainly don't -- that deregulation and lower taxes will lead to a larger and healthier economy. What's wrong with this belief? There is no time or place in human history that these policies have ever led to that outcome.

Enter The Vulture

Thanks to the now-lamentably absent Rick Perry, Mitt Romney will always be known as the "Vulture Capitalist." Bain Capital and the hedge-fund business model ("Bain Capitalism") it represents is every bit as parasitic and non-constructive as the populist fulminators (and now, hilariously, Newt) say it is. Mitt got rich off of corporate and individual tax breaks and subsidies, and possibly from a bailout too.

Mitt's signature achievement as Governor of Massachusetts was, of course, RomneyCare. His Republican critics are right. The plan is virtually indistinguishable from ObamaCare. So tonight's back-and-forth about individual mandates was extremely instructive.

The Romney and Obama plans, including the individual mandate, are both based on the right-wing think tank proposal developed in the early 1990's as the Republican alternative to Hillary Clinton's plan. That's why it's such a boon to private insurers.

Santorum scored well on this issue: "You are going to claim [about the Affordable Care Act] ... doesn't work and we should repeal and he's going to say, wait a minute Governor, you said it works well in Massachusetts. Folks -- we can't give this issue away in this election." Romney's defense of his plan could have been lifted verbatim from an Obama speech.

Santorum's right about losing a campaign issue, of course. And imagine what Obama might have done if he hadn't broken his campaign pledge to oppose the individual mandate and failed to fight for the public option (or deliberately traded it away). Health care could have been a major plus for him in this election.

Seeing the Wires

On the personal level, Romney is still forced to deal with his tax breaks. Given the selective nature of the tax forms he released -- why just the last two years? -- there's a good chance he paid little to no taxes for a number of years. And he's certainly bled the tax system for all it's worth, something I don't begrudge people for doing while that's the law -- unless they belong to the party that helped write the law."

Then they're double-dippers and hypocrites. (And yes, we'll get to Newt shortly.)

There's one entertaining outcome to Romney's career embarrassments. They've forced Rush Limbaugh and other professional Republican operatives to defend vulture capitalism against the guy who wrote the Contract With America.

Gotta love it when the director of that sci-fi movie makes a mistake. That's when you see the boom mike enter the frame, or the shadow of a camera operator fall across the actors' faces, just as the space hero begins to fight his villain. And Mitt's villain is ...

Dr. Strange in Lunar Orbit

Newt Gingrich is striking at Romney from his secret moon lair with a personal animosity and stage sneer worthy of any screen villain. Except that Newt's not always wrong. When he slams Romney for his greed, he's right. Just as Romney's right when he calls Newt an influence-peddler.

Pass the popcorn, please.

About that $1.3 trillion his tax plan would add to the deficit: Apparently it's not enough. Newt wants to build a manned base on the moon. That would add a trillion or so to the deficit, easy. Why? The logical answer to that question would be the one given in the 1960s to justify the manned space program: Innovation and jobs. But that would mean promoting ... dare we say it? ... a stimulus.

And if you're talking about stimulus spending, there are much smarter ways to do it than building a base on the moon. So instead Newt invented a 1950's-era Red Menace. " I'd like to have an American on the moon before the Chinese get there," he said. And, no doubt, to get away from the nonexistent war on religion he's always talking about. After all, nothing brings you closer to God than breathing an artificial atmosphere beneath a transparent dome in the Mare Imbrium.

Americans walked on the moon more than forty years ago. The first Chinese have yet to arrive there. They don't seem to be in a big hurry. And guess what? If you're worried about the Chinese economically or militarily, the moon's a pretty good place for them to go. It would cost them a fortune to get there, making them less of an economic threat, and once they get there they would be very far away.

Gingrich even suggested that 13,000 Americans on the moon could apply for statehood. But Puerto Rico? Not so much.

Ron Paul punctured another one of Newt's sci-fi fantasies, that of Speaker Gingrich as deficit cutter, when he pointed out that the Federal deficit actually increased during Gingrich's years as Speaker of the House. That's true. It began dropping the year that Newt left (after an ethics scandal).

Splashdown!

Meet the Cast

Santorum and Paul don't stand a chance. They're the supporting actors in our science-fiction movie: the likeable but goofy sergeant who makes it to the third act before being grabbed by an alien tentacle, and the crusty old ship's doctor who says folksy things that make the whole crew laugh.

It'll either be Newt or Mitt, and after tonight Newt's chances are looking worse.

Yes, Newt is an influence peddler. But I have to admit I feel a little sorry for the guy. The Republican Machine -- as scary a bunch of lockstep-marching automatons as you'll ever care to see -- has turned out against him in the last few days with brutal determination. Then I remember his race-baiting rhetoric and I don't feel bad anymore.

He had a pretty weak night tonight, But he did get one major endorsement today. According to the Voice of San Diego, convicted felon and former Republican Representative Duke Cunningham (who's serving a 100-month term for bribery, conspiracy and tax evasion) said, "I have 80% of inmates that would vote for you. They might not be able to but their extended families will."

And yes, Mitt is a vulture capitalist. At least one person who did business with Bain during his tenure says they were duplicitous and untrustworthy.

The End ... or The Beginning?

It's no surprise that Newt and Mitt both made money off Fannie and Freddie, and no doubt from other predatory lending schemes. Newt and Mitt are peddling the same alternate reality, with only a few minor tweaks between them. In some ways it doesn't matter which one wins, because the economic script has already been written.

Wolf Blitzer asked them about the role of religion and God in the presidency. May I answer that question too? I've been pretty unhappy with Barack Obama at times. But God must love him or he wouldn't have given him opponents like these.

And now it's time for the closing dialogue for our sci-fi film. After the invaders have been vanquished, we see our scientist hero and his son staring up at a bright blue sky that's once again free of menacing saucers. The scientist's last lines to the boy reflect our own sentiments about these Republican debates:

"They're gone for now, Billy. Sure, they'll be back -- but next time we'll be ready for them!"

Resolutions, Political Resolutions and Damned Lies

Leo Gerard — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:35:07 -0500

‘Tis the season of resolutions. With the new year comes pledges to quit smoking, get out of debt and spend more time with family. Gym memberships jump. Weight Watchers’ profits fatten.

This also happens to be the season of political resolutions. It’s that every-fourth-year event featuring presidential candidates in a contest of campaign promise one-upmanship. Ron Paul pledges to legalize marijuana. Michele Bachmann swears she’ll cut gasoline prices to $2 a gallon. Newt Gingrich guarantees he’ll create millions of jobs “right now.” Mitt Romney assures every college graduate a job.

Unfortunately, this also has been, for some time, a season of damned lies. These are deliberate deceptions involving a higher level of scheming. The Contract with America and the more recent Pledge to America are examples. Republicans knew they couldn’t fulfill what they led the public to perceive as promises. But the GOP designed these “pledges” specifically so that Republicans couldn’t be labeled as failures when what they pseudo-promised never materialized. That’s the stuff of damned lies.

Unfulfilled New Year’s resolutions are legendary. Low calorie salad fixings fill fridges Jan. 2, and remain there, rotting, on Feb. 2. The victim of this broken promise is also the perpetrator and therefore unlikely to protest the infraction.

These days, political resolutions strewn along the presidential campaign trail are picked up and carefully cataloged on the Internet by reporters and bloggers who hold candidates accountable for every syllable. That’s a good exercise, but the public generally recognizes political promise hyperbole and realizes that unexpected events may prevent a president from keeping his word. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for example, pledged not to involve the country in the European war, but then the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Mostly, the public shrugs off presidential contenders’ inflated political resolutions.

Damned lies, however, are dangerous because they subvert trust in the political system, which needs the faith of the electorate to function. Damned lies may, in fact, be an integral part of Republican strategy since the GOP hates government of the people by the people and hopes to shrink it small enough to drown in a bathtub.

In their 1994 Contract with America, Republicans vowed:

“in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.”

That, and calling it a contract, led Americans to believe it was a step above a pledge. It was inviolable, sacrosanct. It was a bond with no double-crossing footnotes.

Except it wasn’t.

With the help of the “contract,” Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives. And they passed the easy, less controversial parts of the pledge. But they never enacted the most popular, more contentious promises, including a balanced budget amendment and term limits.

They had, however, set up the “contract” so they could never be blamed for those failures. The most insidious aspect of the Contract with America was the fine print escape hatch it provided the GOP.

Republicans never promised to enact their “contract” provisions into law. They only said they’d vote on them:

“within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.”

No wonder former President Bill Clinton called it the Contract ON America.

In the fall of 2010, when Republicans were trying to regain control of the U.S. House, they came up with a “contract” clone that they called “A Pledge to America.”

It said:

“Our plan puts forth a new governing agenda that reflects the priorities of the American people . . .and can be implemented today.”

Republicans won the majority in the House a year ago and have had nearly 365 “todays” to implement their pledges. Just like with the 1994 “contract,” Republicans have failed to fulfill the big promises, the important resolutions that people remember.

For example, the pledge said:

“A plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive must be the first and most urgent domestic priority of our government.”

Republicans then proceeded to make deficit reduction their priority. When President Obama proposed a jobs plan in September, Republicans blocked it.

Also in the “Pledge,” the GOP swore to permanently stop “job-killing tax hikes” so that families would be able “to keep more of their hard-earned money.” Then in September when President Obama proposed to extend and enlarge the payroll tax cut for 160 million middle class families, the GOP opposed it.

And there was this pledge:

“We offer a plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care.”

As in the “Contract on America,” this is a sleight of hand. It doesn’t say Republicans will repeal health care reform. And, in fact, they didn’t. But they can’t be called failures because they only pledged to “offer a plan to repeal.” They didn’t promise to actually accomplish it, even though that’s what they led voters to believe.

What they can be labeled as failures for, however, is neglecting to produce their promised plan to replace health care reform.

Democrats called the latest formal list of Republican promises the “Pledge to Destroy America.” The destruction was done by the damned lies that denigrated trust in political institutions. It was deliberately done to diminish America’s democratic government.

Americans Are Greater Together

Leo Gerard — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:46:54 -0500

It wasn’t so much a vote as a proclamation of ideology last Thursday when Republicans filibustered Obama’s nominee to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The rebuff had nothing to do with the person, Richard Cordary, who even Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said appeared well qualified. Rather, it was part of the GOP campaign to hobble the agency created to safeguard borrowers from dodgy payday lenders and predatory mortgage salesmen.

The GOP thwarts regulatory agencies in order to enforce its “you’re on your own” philosophy. That is, each citizen, like an island, fends for himself in a world where the invisible hand of the market serves as regulator. Democrats believe something very different. They espouse the principles set out by President Teddy Roosevelt in his 1910 speech in Osawatomie, Kan., and echoed by President Obama in his address there last week. That is America and Americans are better when citizens work together and watch out for each other, that cooperating invigorates the individual, the economy and the nation, and that primacy is in people and profit is subordinate.

The late Senator Paul Wellstone expressed the essential sentiment most succinctly:

“We all do better when we all do better.”

Republicans don’t ascribe to that. They want to set up a country where every person is responsible for every aspect of daily life, from ensuring drinking water is safe to reducing workplace hazards. The GOP wants to shred regulations that protect citizens, even eliminate the federal agencies that enforce them. Congressional Republicans have worked to defund the Environmental Protection Agency, a move that would “empower” each citizen to persuade big industrial polluters to limit the particulates, mercury, arsenic, cadmium and lead belching from smokestacks.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said he’d reverse laws forbidding child labor –the same regulations Teddy Roosevelt endorsed to keep youngsters in classrooms and out of factories. In a nation deeply concerned about the quality of schools and the quantity of imported oil, GOP candidate Rick Perry plans to close the Education and Energy departments. Republican candidate Ron Paul would abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the organization citizens created to aid fellow Americans who fall victim to natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes and floods.

But that’s just the point: Republicans don’t believe Americans should help each other – they should only help themselves. In the GOP view, greed and selfishness aren’t sins. They’re virtues.

That’s a new fangled philosophy for Republicans, however. Wealthy Republican Teddy Roosevelt, a big game hunter and war hero who led the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill to win the Spanish-American War, might be expected to be a rugged individualist of the go-it-alone ilk promoted by today’s GOP. But he wasn’t. He counseled against a cult of individualism, writing:

“The fundamental rule in our national life – the rule which underlies all others – is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.”

The concept is citizens working together for their mutual benefit and the advancement of their nation. American citizenship is not, Roosevelt said in his New Nationalism Address in Osawatomie in 1910, all about individual enrichment:

“Those who oppose all reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism.”

That could have come from the mouth of an Occupy Wall Street protester.

Then there’s this from Roosevelt in Osawatomie on regulation:

“This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”

His purpose was to ensure equal opportunity for all people who work hard, he said:

“I stand for the square deal. But when I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service.”

One hundred and one years later in Osawatomie, President Obama reiterated those sentiments. He talked about how in the 75 years after Roosevelt’s speech, America moved toward fulfilling the Rough Rider’s goals. The nation decreased income inequality and increased opportunity. Hard work paid off, and anyone who strived could succeed. This gave rise to the largest middle class and strongest economy in world history.

But, over the past 25 years, this progress eroded. Income inequality rose dramatically. Simultaneously, opportunity diminished. The middle class shrank as hard work too frequently stopped paying off.

How to restore opportunity and shared prosperity is, Obama said, “the defining issue of our time.” Roosevelt sought it through the square deal. Obama called for something similar:

“I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. Those aren’t Democratic or Republican values; 1 percent or 99 percent values. They are American values, and we have to reclaim them.”

Obama rebuked on-your-own selfishness and greed, saying each American has a stake in the success of all Americans:

“We are greater together than we are on our own.”

Debate on a Strange Red Planet

Richard Eskow — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:26:41 -0400

Red's the designated Republican color, but the shades used for Wednesday’s GOP debate have never been glimpsed in nature. Ranging from scarlet to carnelian to a kind of raspberry-magenta blend, they would have induced psychosis in any self-respecting interior designer. They made the set look like a cross between Pee-Wee’s Playhouse and a Betsy Johnson dress catalog from the 1990s. And when the camera pulled back to reveal a stars-and-stripes pattern my first thought was, What have you done to my flag?

Come to think of it, that was my last thought, too.

The unearthly tones were appropriate, since the candidates seemed to be speaking from another planet. They certainly weren't on this one, where tax breaks have produced no jobs and deregulation's destroyed both the economy and the Gulf of Mexico.. But then, they weren't selling reality. They were offering a free-market science-fiction story, with special-effects economics that could have been designed by Industrial Light and Magic. Their reality is not yours, or mine, or that of most Americans.

But you know what? It may not matter. Sure, they were pushing economic hocus-pocus. But that hocus-pocus has cast its spell before. If aggressive steps aren’t taken to fix this economy soon, one of those candidates may be our next President.

Hey, look. There's a close-up of Nancy Reagan. I met her last year. She was poised, gracious, and very smart. Democrats underestimated her husband. They’ve underestimated a lot of Republicans since then, too.

Liberals who sneer at Rick Perry – we saw some tonight – do so at their own peril.

Party Wisdom

The television pundits have already rendered their verdict. They’re telling us it’s now a two-person race between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, and they’re probably right. Democrats should be pleased, since the most formidable opponent against President Obama would be Jon Huntsman.

But watching the MSNBC postgame analysis I found myself agreeing with Ed Schultz as he argued with Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Matthews: Democratic insiders may think Perry’s comments ruined his candidacy. He certainly spoke hogwash about Social Security, but Perry came across as a tough and straightforward guy. That could resonate with voters.

Matthews and O’Donnell didn't see that Perry reframed his comments very shrewdly. He's shifting their meaning in a way that aligns him much more closely to centrist Democrats like … well, like Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Matthews. And unless Obama changes his “grand bargain” strategy, Perry will be able to say he agrees with him, too.

His supporters will say he's just more plainspoken about it. And it will wind up being a plus for him, not a minus.

Perry Outsmarts the Smart Guys

We’re told that some Democratic centrists are licking their lips at Perry’s “gaffes.” Romney's people, their soulmates in many ways, have already put out a press release slamming Perry over Social Security. But Perry outsmarted them all.

Pressed to defend his “Ponzi scheme” and “monstrous lies” statements, Perry couldn’t back down without looking weak. Here's what he said:

“It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you're paying into a program that's going to be there. Anybody that's for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids, and it's not right.”

Perry actually moved closer to the President’s position with these remarks. “While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit," the President said in a typical remark recently, "it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older.”

Actually both Perry and the President are incorrect. Social Security will be able to pay 75% of benefits starting in 2037 – but not because we’re getting older or giving the shaft to younger people. The shortfall is due to that upward redistribution of wealth we mentioned earlier.

The fact that Perry’s wrong doesn’t mean people won’t believe him, especially if his false narratives are the same ones being promoted by billionaire Pete Peterson and echoed by biased journalists friendly to Peterson’s benefit-cutting mission. Nor will the President he able to draw a contrast with either Perry or Romney. To do that he'll need to he shift back to his campaign position that the cap must be lifted and benefits should not be cut.

Perry gave his base some red meat tonight, Then he marinated it for general consumption once the primaries are over. He outsmarted 'em all.

The Monstrous Lie

We said that Perry was talking bunk on Social Security, and he was. A Ponzi scheme is conducted by criminals who tell investors they’ve found a surefire way to make money. But they’re really moving money around in secret, giving big payoffs to early investors to make their fraud seem real. Once they’ve softened up their marks, they soak them for everything they’ve got.

Social Security’s funding isn’t secret. In fact, the Chief Actuary appointed by Ronald Reagan (in whose library they met, and to whom they paid the expected obeisances) co-wrote a paper last year explaining that the program’s relatively minor long-term funding problems can easily be fixed – mainly by lifting the current payroll tax cap, which was established before we saw the massive upward redistribution of income of the last two decades.

If there’s a Ponzi scheme out there that’s been as thoroughly vetted by actuaries as Social Security;s been, then sign me up.

Failurenomics

Perry also said that President Obama has “proven for once and for all that government spending will not create one job. Keynesian policy and Keynesian theory is now done. We'll never have to have that experiment on America again.”

What’s really been disproven is not Keynesian economics. It’s the Republican platform of deregulation and tax cuts that Democrats have too often parroted, to their own detriment and that of the economy. Deregulation created the financial crisis and cost us millions of jobs. The stimulus created more than three million jobs, but it wasn’t enough to undo the damage so more is needed.

That's the story the President and his party need to tell. They must draw a sharp contrast between the need to regulate and create jobs and the failed pro-corporate policies Perry and Romney are pushing.

Special Effects

If the overall effect was that of a broadcast from an alien planet, there were moments that felt even stranger – like the hallucination scenes in 2001 before the giant baby comes out.

For one thing, I think it’s safe to say that Ron Paul managed to rebrand himself from a principled if sometimes radical libertarian to a full-time resident of Crazytown. It happened in his rant about border fences. “I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and (to) keep us in,” he said, adding: “In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital. And there's capital controls and there's people control. So, every time you think of fence keeping all those bad people out, think about those fences maybe being used against us, keeping us in.”

Well, okay then. As Woody Allen said in Annie Hall, “I think I’m due back on Earth.”

As for Romney, for a fiscal conservative he was pretty batty about the fence, too. When he said “we ought to have a fence,” he was asked: “The whole fence, 2,600 miles?” Romney answered “Yes. We got to -- we got to have a fence, or the technologically approved system to make sure that we know who's coming into the country …”

Earth to Mr. Cut Spending: Do you have any idea how much a 2,600-mile-long “technologically approved” fence would cost? Since Romney went on to say quite reasonably that “they can always get a ladder to go over the fence,” his position seemed to be that we should spend vast sums of money for a barrier you can overcome by spending $40 bucks at your local hardware store.

So Romney made a little trip to Crazytown, too. (Maybe he’s building another house there.)

Then there was the matter of the audience’s enthusiastic applause for Perry's 234 executions (including at least one person he may have known was innocent). When he was challenged about why the crowd applauded those deaths, his response was immediate and masterful:

"I think Americans understand justice."

The man can think on his feet.

Blood-Red Planet

That's a good place to stop. There's much more to be said about the economics of tonight's debate, but we've learned that emotion trumps economics every time.

People don’t change. From the Roman Coliseum to the public executions in medieval France, from lynchings in the Deep South to the crucifixion of a Nazarene prophet, human being have always responded to economic exploitation the same way. They may live in an economic system that's robbing them blind. But satisfy their bloodlust and they'll forget all about it.

Centrists and liberals can scoff if they want, but as I watched Perry and Romney I couldn’t shake the thought: If Democrats don’t step up their economic game, I think I’m looking at our next President.

It's true: Republicans are from Mars and the economy is from Venus. But human beings are from this planet right here, the one we’re standing on. And you know what? That’s what scares me the most..

(See also: Five Reasons Romney's "Plan" Is the Same Old Job-Killing Madness)

Concern Over Republican Embrace Of The Ayn Rand Poison

Dave Johnson — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:57:38 -0400

Some say that maybe it is a bad idea to base a political party's ideology on a belief that altruism, democracy and Christianity are "evil." Others say that maybe it is a bad idea to base a country's policies on fictional novels rather than science and history. Still others say is it a bad idea for national leaders to think of most of the public as "parasites" while saying people with tons of cash are "producers" who should govern. I am talking about the Republican Party's embrace of Ayn Rand and her cruel philosophy.

Disciples of Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness now dominate the thinking of the leadership of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. There is no way around it. Republican budget leader Rep. Paul Ryan says Rand is his guide. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) says Rand's Atlas Shrugged is his "foundation book." Senator Rand Paul is named after her (or not). Clarence Thomas requires his law clerks to watch The Fountainhead. Fox News promotes Rand. Conservative blogs promote Rand. Glenn Beck has been promoting Rand for years. So has Rush. This isn't recent, Alan Greenspan lived with the Rand cult and promoted and implemented her ideas.

A Philosophy Based On Admiring A Psychopath

Rand believed that a lot of things most of us use as our moral base are "evil." But Rand's writings are the origins of modern Republican philosophy. In Alan Greenspan And Things Forgotten I wrote about the origins of this philosophy:

Rand's work is very popular among conservatives now. It forms a core justification for their "on your own" philosophy praising the wealthy and discarding the rest. So it is useful to explore the formation and core of this philosophy. Early in her writings Rand became fascinated with a serial killer named William Hickman. Rand wrote that the serial killer was an "ideal man," a superior form of human because he didn't let society impose their morals on him. He didn't worry about what others thought and just did as he pleased.

"Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," Rand wrote. Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'" She considered these to be good qualities! And so does her cult.

This is the foundation of the modern "tea party" conservative thinking. So when you look at the modern capitalism that has grown up around Rand's philosophy and the big corporations that are chewing up the planet to enrich a very few at the expense of the rest of us, and think it seems sort of psychopathic, maybe that's because it literally is.

More And More Concern

More and more, people are becoming aware of the influence of Ayn Rand on current Republican thinking. Amy Sullivan writing at Time's Swampland, Paul Ryan’s Ayn Rand Problem and Ayn Rand: The GOP’s Godless Philosopher; Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast, Ayn Rand: The GOP’s Favorite Bonkers Demagogue; Garance Franke-Ruta at The Atlantic, The Echoes of Ayn Rand in Paul Ryan's Budget Plan. (Digby a few years ago: Randy Conservatives and Rand To The Rescue.)

Religious Leaders Sound Alarm

Religious leaders and writers are increasingly sounding the alarm about the Republican embrace of Ayn Rand and what it really means. Examples: Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic, Must Christian Voters Choose Between Ayn Rand and Jesus?; Jim Newell at Gawker: Catholics Take on the Republican Cult of Ayn Rand; Stephen Prothero at Tuscon Citizen: You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus, Frank Cocozzelli at Talk to Action with Is Ayn Rand the Secular Saint of Selfishness? (Is the Pope Catholic?), Frederick Clarkson and Frank Cocozzelli also at Talk to Action with The Randian Fault That Could Shake Conservatism, Joe Parko in an op-ed at the Crossville,Tennessee Chronicle writes We the People: Ayn Rand and the Tea Party Christians and Michael Sean Winters in the National Catholic Reporter, with Pushback from the Religious Left, (please click through to read it all),

This past weekend, Ralph Reed of Christian Coalition and Jack Abramoff fame, hosted a conference of conservative religious leaders here in Washington. They hope to energize conservative Christian voters to turn out at the polls en masse next year, although one wonders whether some GOP leaders will look up from their copies of "Atlas Shrugged" long enough to recognize the deep intellectual schizophrenia within the conservative political ranks today.

The progressive religious group Faith in Public Life organized an event at a nearby hotel to push back against the religious right's agenda. Among others, Father Clete Kiley of the Archdiocese of Chicago addressed the group. Here is the text of his speech as prepared for delivery:

Today we are gathered here to sound an alarm. The proposed federal budget developed by Chairman Paul Ryan, and being pushed by folks at the Faith and Freedom Coalition across the street, reflects a profound crisis for American working families and American values.

There was a time in this country when we all believed in something called the common good. And we believed that if we all put in our fair share, we would be a just country, a strong country, a nation at peace with itself.

There was a time in this country when we all believed it was right to take care of our elderly; to secure their retirement; to provide them with health care; to give them a dignity and quality of life.

In this video Ayn Rand attacks altruism as evil and explains her philosophy of objectivism:

From The Sideshow this week,

The spiritual leader of the modern Republican Party is Ayn Rand, who said: "I am against God. I don't approve of religion. It is a sign of a psychological weakness ... I regard it as evil. ... I am the creator of a new code of morality; a morality not based on faith." If I had a lot of money, I'd commission a poster with Ayn Rand's face on it and her name and those words in very big letters and put it on every billboard I could buy space on. And after it had been up long enough for a few "faith-based" people to feel they had to disavow her, I'd slowly, one by one, change the poster for one with the words of a different author: "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

Paul Ryan Confronted

Watch as Rep. Paul Ryan refuses to accept a Bible from James Salt of Catholics United. The Bible was specially marked with passages about helping the poor. This occurred at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference last week in DC.

"Why did you choose to model your budget on the extreme ideology of Ayn Rand rather than the faith of economic justice in the Bible?"

So Republicans have a lot of explaining to do. And not just to their Christian"base."

Fairy Tales of Coming SOTU: Can't Keep Adding Debt To National Credit Card

Joseph M. Firestone — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:35:48 -0500

In "All Together Now: There Is No Deficit/Debt Problem,” I warned against the message calling for deficit reduction that the President will probably deliver in his State of the Union Address next month. I view the coming narrative as very likely to be composed of a number of fairy tales. Two previous posts have criticized two of the many fairy tales I expect to be in the narrative. This post examines the third fairy tale, namely the idea that we can't keep adding debt to the national credit card. Paul Ryan, the Republicans' most visible fiscal genius is particularly fond of this one, as are both Ron and Rand Paul, and the tea partiers.

Of course, the fairy tale appeals to the experience of you and me because if we can't keep adding debt to our personal credit cards without paying down the amount of debt and without limit, then why should we believe that the Government can do this? Of course it can't. Of course there have to be limits. Look at us, the limits of what we can borrow are determined by our income and our financial assets. Some us can have $25,000 in total credit card debt, someone else might have $100,000 as a limit. Someone else, might have more than a million, but everyone of us has a limit that the banks determine by looking at how much we have in financial assets, and what our income is as well as our repayment record. Also, when we begin to approach our credit limits, and have a repayment burden that stresses our financial assets and our current income, we begin to risk insolvency and the possibility that we might default on our credit card debt comes closer, until because of the high risk of insolvency and default, we can no longer get any more credit to help us to avoid that default.

So, the above is our personal or household credit card situation, and it is perfectly in order to believe that we can't use it without limit. But the Government's “credit card” situation is very different from our own. First, the limit on the Government's ability to issue debt is not based on the Government's ability to borrow, or on the Government's ability to generate financial assets, which, aside from Congressional constraints, is constitutionally unlimited. Nor is the limit imposed by any creditor.

Rather the limit on what the Government can borrow is determined by the Government itself. Specifically, it is determined by Congress which imposes a debt ceiling which it raises from time-to-time. Without that ceiling, that self-imposed constraint, the limit on what the Government can borrow in US Dollars is indeterminate, if it exists at all.

Second, you and I can't keep adding debt to our credit cards, not only because we have a limit, but long before we reach such limits, we may well want to stop adding debt, because our ability to maintain and pay off our debt burden, may be running out. That ability is limited because we can't produce financial resources at will.

The Government is different however. It is not like a household or even the largest corporation. It is not the user of our national currency. It is the creator of it. All of our dollars proceed from the authority of the Government to spend, and, in the act of spending to create dollars.

If the Government has debt, it can always pay that debt simply by marking up the accounts of its creditors. Also, unlike your household or mine, it doesn't matter how much is on the Government's credit card, it can always repay its debts whenever they come due, unless Congress does something stupid to stop it from doing so.

In fact, its own constraints aside for a moment, the Government has precisely the same ability to repay its debts, however high those debts are, and however high its debt-to-GDP ratio is, so long as those debts are owed in the currency (USD) it has the authority to create. It doesn't matter whether the Government owes $14 Trillion, or $30 Trillion, or only $50,000. It's ability to pay, self-constraints aside, is exactly the same. It doesn't matter if its debt-to-GDP ratio is 10% or 100% or 300%, it's ability to meet its debt obligations is exactly the same, if it decides to shed its self-constraints.

So, when Paul Ryan, or Ron Paul, or even Barack Obama say that we can't keep putting debt on our national credit card what are they really talking about? They're not talking about the Government's intrinsic ability to pay or not. What they're talking about is that Congress has 1) placed a debt ceiling on the Executive Branch's ability to borrow, and 2) passed a mandate requiring the Government to issue debt when it deficit spends. These are Congress's constraints and they are causing our current so-called fiscal crisis.

The austerity mavens, including the President are telling us that we, the people, have spent too much and run up debts that are too large on our national credit card when Congress has a) required us to use our credit card and, as a result, maintain and increase our national debt, and then b) given us a ceiling of debt which they raise from time-to-time, which has nothing to do with our Government's ability to pay. How unjust is it to create this Catch-22, claim there is an objective problem with a national debt that only exists due to their own restraints, and then say to us, after they've just finished extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich and providing an estate tax giveaway, that this phony fiscal crisis requires that everyone (except the rich, of course) accept their fair share of austerity?

It is not true that we can't keep placing debt on our national credit card, so long as Congress removes its arbitrary and unnecessary debt ceiling. If it does that we can keep placing debt on that credit card if we want to without threatening our solvency as a nation.

It is also not true that we must keep issuing debt instruments and keep increasing the national debt, because of some intrinsic feature of the world.

The only reason why we must do so, the only reason we have any national debt in US currency right now, is because Congress forces the Executive Branch to issue debt when it is going to have a deficit, rather than just spend what has been appropriated.

In short, the debt/deficit crisis that Paul Ryan, the Pauls, Barack Obama, and the tea party are so hysterical about, is only a crisis because of Congressional constraints placed on the Executive Branch. Tell Congress that we don't want to experience austerity because they want to keep issuing debt, and then to have debt ceilings forcing artificial fiscal crises on the Executive Branch. Remove those limits on the national credit card! The Government has unlimited ability to pay its debts so it should have no limits on the national credit card.

And if you're so upset and frightened about the debt, then recognize that the debt is your (Congress's) fault. If you remove the requirement to issue debt, then our national debt will be paid down soon enough, and you won't have to whine about fantasy fiscal crises anymore!

(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving and Fiscal Sustainability).

Senate Approves Bernie Sanders' Fed Audit

Zach Carter — Tue, 11 May 2010 12:16:06 -0400

The Senate approved an amendment from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would subject the Federal Reserve's bailout operations to a one-time audit. The vote was 96 - 0 in favor of the measure.

A stronger audit, sponsored by Reps. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., and Ron Paul, R-Texas, cleared the House in December. The Grayson-Paul bill would subject all of the Fed's operations, including monetary policy, to an audit. The two measures will have to be reconciled once the Senate passes the overall Wall Street reform package.

But regardless of how broad the ultimate audit will be, this is a major victory for good government advocates. The Fed has pumped trillions of dollars in the U.S. banking system since 2008 with almost no public disclosure whatsoever. We don't know which banks received the money, under what terms, or who approved the transactions. No other government agency can spend trillions of dollars without saying what it spent it on. As William Greider empahsizes for The Nation, this is a fundamentally dirty business-- many top Fed officials are active in the banking industry, and the relationship between bankers and the Fed is fundamentally "incestuous."

The results from the audit of the Fed's bailout operations will dramatically increase pressure to audit the entire agency, and reform a deeply corrupt institution. The Senate Wall Street reform bill is now officially worth supporting.

UPDATE: Immediately following the Sanders vote, Congress shot down a broader Fed audit proposed by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., by a vote of 37 - 62.

Did Democrats Just Set a Brilliant Trap ... For Themselves?

Richard Eskow — Fri, 07 May 2010 13:54:11 -0400

The country needs meaningful financial reform a lot more than it needs more political analysis. Yesterday, however, the two became even more intertwined than usual. By compromising on good policy on Thursday, it looks like Democrats have outsmarted themselves politically too. Now the only fix left for them is to push for the best possible policies going forward.

Polls have consistently shown that the economy is the most important issue on people's minds, and the one most likely to determine how they vote. With yesterday's defeat of the Brown/Kaufman SAFE Act - an amendment which would have broken up the big banks and put a cap on risk-taking - the Democrats left themselves open to the charge that they've failed to stand up to the big banks or prevent another bailout.

The public understands Too Big to Fail. Unlike many aspects of financial reform, the Brown/Kaufman amendment was simple to understand: In the words of Alan Greenspan, if you're too big to fail you're too big to exist. Democrats not only let a critical piece of reform die yesterday. They also lost the political high ground.

At almost the same time, the President also chose to meet with chief Too Big to Fail-er Jamie Dimon on Monday. The optics and timing of that move are terrible. What were they thinking at the White House? Dimon runs JPMorgan Chase, which controls 44% of the derivatives market in the US and is one of four banks that control 94% of that market ( talk about "Too Big to Fail"). Dimon was there as part of a dinner with the Business Council, whose other attendees included the CEO of Wellpoint/Anthem. Obama could have let it be known that he pressed the case for real reform during the meeting, but chose not to do so.

Then there was yesterday's compromise to Bernie Sanders' "Audit the Fed" amendment, which means it may well pass next week. The compromise was supported by the White House (which released its statement so quickly that it raised the possibility that they actually participated in negotiations.) These two actions mean that the public may learn just how many billions or trillions they spent to bail out the big banks, while the memory of Democrats' inability to stop those big banks is still fresh in their minds.

The same thought may have been mind when the compromise audit language was drafted. The Fed has until December 1 of this year to post its bailout information - which, conveniently, is after the November elections. It's possible that this date will not survive, however, given the likelihood of Republican pressure for a faster response.

The amendment may not survive, either. The compromise gives Republicans all the ammunition they need to oppose it. As of this writing, Ron Paul and the infamous David Vitter are planning to introduce the original Sanders/Paul language. If the Democrats defeat the original amendment or refuse to allow it to come to a vote, that will give Republicans another opportunity to say that Dems are in thrall with the big banks. If the compromise amendment passes anyway, the Republicans can (and will) say that Democrats caved to the big banks.

As for Brown/Kaufman, sure, most Republicans voted to kill it too. But they're already developing their rhetorical decoys for that. And the Democrats have created a trap for themselves, as cleverly as if it were designed by the general of an opposing army. Consider how artfully the Democrats outsmarted themselves:

In an environment where the economy is the number one issue on voters' mind and public hostility toward big banks is extraordinarily high, Democrats took the one bold simple step the public easily understands off the table (Brown/Kaufman). Then they compromised on an proposal to audit how our money (yes, it's our money) is being spent through the Fed. Now they're in a position where embarrassing information will come to light if it passes, information that will further inflame the public against the same big bankers they just protected by defeated Brown/Kaufman.

Or the Fed could wait until its Dec. 1 deadline, in which case suppression of information will be the issue Dems have handed to the GOP. And if the compromise fails, along with Paul's or Vitter's original amendment, the Dems can now be portrayed as defending the big banks against the heroic efforts of the Republicans.

And while all this was taking place, the President chose to break bread with the head of one of the biggest Too-Big-to-Fail banks in the world. General Pyrrhus himself couldn't have mapped out a better strategy for self-defeat.

In an ideal world, Democrats would roll back yesterday's compromise and pass the original Sanders Amendment. But that's not likely to happen. The compromise audit proposal is better than nothing, but it leaves them in a weakened position going forward.

What can the White House and the Senate leadership do now? Their best defense is to fight for the best policies. The public understands the basic principle behind the Volcker rule ... banks shouldn't gamble ... and they feel passionately about the need for strong consumer protection. If the Democrats come out fighting for these two proposals and several other strong amendments next week they can gain some of their lost ground back. They can also work with like-minded Republicans, some of whom support reform on principle and others of whom simply recognize the political benefits to be gained from fighting the big bankers.

The alternative is to keep walking into the brilliant trap they've devised for themselves. The choice is theirs.

Breaking: Dodd Backs Fed Audit, Amendment Likely To Pass

Zach Carter — Thu, 06 May 2010 16:32:46 -0400

Word is circulating through Capitol Hill right now that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) has agreed to back a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve, paving the way for the almost certain passage of the measure. This is a major victory for serious Wall Street reform, and evidence of the mounting momentum to hold big banks and their regulators accountable.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) authored both the original amendment and the compromise, and although details of the deal with Dodd are not yet clear, both Dodd and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have endorsed the revised amendment.

More to follow.