Subscribe via RSS Feed

Tag: "Obama administration"

More On Yellen and Summers

[ 134 ] August 2, 2013 |

First of all, what Krugman and and Ygelsias said about “gravitas,” which in this context appears to be a synonym for “male.” (By the way, anybody think that a woman with the Ph.D. – devoid Tim Geithner’s credentials would even be considered for the job? And, no, the fact that he was even considered does not make me optimistic that Obama will do the right thing.) The whisper campaign against Yellen reminds me of the smear campaign against Sonia Sotomayor.

Brad DeLong, meanwhile asks why Summers is viewed by the left as a “right-wing hyena.” And, sure, Summers isn’t an across the board conservative, and I assume that (as the op-eds Brad cites suggest) he’s been nudged to the left by the financial crisis and the increasing radicalism of the Republican Party. More relevant than the op-eds, if one was making a case for Summers, is that according to Michael Grunwald’s definitive history of the ARRA Summers sided with Romer rather than Geithner on the size of the stimulus. Still, those op-eds and his support for a large stimulus aren’t the only relevant information; liberals haven’t forgotten, for example, his embrace of banking deregulation in the 90s, which he was still defending as recently as 2005. So, sure, Summers isn’t a right-wing hyena; I’d rather have him as Fed Chair than Alan Greenspan or Tim Geithner or (based on the less I know about him) Donald Kohn. But those aren’t the only options. The question is Yellen versus Summers, and I just don’t see any way to make a good case for Summers in that context.

Ideologically, Yellen isn’t radically different than Summers, but if the Fed Chair was a unilateral decision maker I think you’d rather gamble on Yellen than Summers; the former has a clearer record of being a relative monetary policy dove, while we basically don’t know anything about Summers’s views on monetary policy. Summers might turn out to be essentially similar to Yellen, but as Remo Gaggi would counsel us, “why take a chance? At least, that’s the way I feel about it.”

But the Chairman of the Fed isn’t a unilateral decision maker, and that’s where the case for Yellen becomes nearly unassailable. Yellen has the relevant experience suggesting that she can work with the people she’ll need to go along if she’s going to be able to implement her preferred policies. Conversely, the management demands of the Fed Chairman entail the kind of management that virtually all accounts of Summers’s tenure at Harvard suggest he’s worst at — i.e. managing near-peers who are below him in terms or organizational rank but aren’t inclined to accept subordinate status. Now, maybe Summers learned something from his experience at Harvard and would be better at the Fed, but again I’ll cite Remo. You know Yellen can do the job well, so why take a risk that’s pretty much all downside?

And, finally, I’ll reiterate that to pick Summers over a woman with more impressive formal qualifications for the job would, given Summers’s gender baggage, have a particularly rank odor both substantively and politically. Yellen is the obvious choice here, and if Obama doesn’t make it he deserves all the criticism he gets, and if he gets a caucus revolt in the Senate he can’t say nobody told him.

“There, there, Judge Smith. Would you like a blankey and some turnip mush?”

[ 23 ] April 5, 2012 |

Balkin:

One hopes that, in light of these remarks, a great weight has now been lifted from Judge Smith’s shoulders. Perhaps now, having received assurances from the President of the United States that he actually possesses the powers of judicial review, Judge Smith can at last breathe a well-deserved sigh of relief. Armed with a new-found confidence, and the support of the Administration, perhaps he will now be able to put aside the distractions that have caused him such emotional turmoil in recent days. Perhaps, indeed, he may now, with equanimity, and a cheerful countenance, be able to return to the task of deciding the cases and controversies that are actually brought before him, as opposed to the remarks of politicians and media operatives that have almost nothing to do with his job.

Our prayers are with Judge Smith in his never-ending fight against anxiety and emotional upheaval. Surely there is no greater hell than that suffered by a person who cannot control his feelings of dread, and who finds himself buffeted about by a secret, gnawing fear that others do not accord him the respect and status that he craves. All of us can sympathize with the plight of Jerry Smith; all of us, in our own ways, have experienced our own dark nights of the soul. Your Honor– and we use that term advisedly–we feel your pain.

One additional note: one of the three members of this 3-judge clown show is Leslie Southwick, who Diane “Why Wasn’t I Primaried Two Cycles Ago” Fienstein inexplicably voted out of committee in 2007. I recall some commenters suggest that this was OK because Southwick was a reasonable, moderate, thinking person’s wingnut or something. I guess that’s the end of that…

Thankfully This Time, the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power is Wrong

[ 38 ] March 20, 2012 |

Since this failure to bring Congress aboard involves Obama trying to achieve abysmally and unnecessarily conservative ends, I’m pretty sure that this time I’m not going to get much of a “but if Obama really wanted a terrible fiscal policy “grand bargain” he would have used the magical powers of the Bully Pulpit to ram it through, so obviously he didn’t really want it” pushback from those who would ordinarily provide it.

On the Holder Speech

[ 156 ] March 6, 2012 |

I recommend both Kevin and Adam.

The standards laid out for when a targeted killing can be justified are not, in themselves, unreasonable:

First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

But the problem, as Adam says, is that a great deal of the work is done by the term “imminent threat,” and Holder’s follow-up already indicates slippage:

But don’t assume that when Holder says “imminent threat of violent attack,” he means that you’re actually part of a specific plot threatening American lives. “The Constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical end stage of planning when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear,” Holder said. That would introduce an “unacceptably high risk of failure.” When he refers to “failure,” Holder presumably means failing to kill the target before the attack or plan for an attack materializes, not the possibility that the government might accidentally kill an innocent person.

And it’s precisely this potential for defining “imminent threat” down that makes the lack of oversight unacceptable. If the executive branch can’t demonstrate evidence that there is an “imminent threat” to some sort of independent body, there’s no reason to believe that those being targeted for killing in fact pose imminent threats, and the potential for abusing the gravest power the executive branch possesses remains. Without meaningful oversight, these standards are only as good as the administration applying them. And that’s just not nearly good enough.

Actually, He Stepped Aside and Let the Bishops Jump Into the Empty Pool

[ 136 ] February 10, 2012 |

I rarely disagree with Brother Pierce on non-Billy Beane related issues, but I’m afraid that I must demur this time. In addition to what I’ve already said, a couple points. First, I don’t agree with the slippery slope arguments. As of now, employees will be entitled to exactly the same substantive benefits they were last week, and there’s no reason for insurance companies to object because covering contraception actually saves them money. Nor is true that refusing to make these symbolic non-concessions would somehow make it less likely that the policy will be changed for the worse in the future. Precedents created by Obama will mean less than nothing to President Mittens or President Zombie-Eyed Granny Starver. The only way to preserve political gains going forward is to create powerful allies, and to the extent that they matter today’s changes are a net positive: they created new allies among Catholic health care providers without giving up anything, they didn’t create any new opponents, and they politically undermined the remaining opponents, forcing them to fight on political terrain that is extremely inhospitable.

I also don’t understand the argument that “that women’s-health issues have been treated as little more than a bargaining chip by a Democratic president. Again.” Women’s health issues were not just “treated as a bargaining chip”: the policy announced today, in fact, maintains very real gains for women’s health and equity. The Obama administration has made bad decisions on these issues before, but this isn’t one of those times. If the argument is that core progressive values were part of a political negotiation, well, yes. That’s what politics is. The only thing that declaring principles as somehow outside of the dirty, dirty realm of politics accomplishes is to make it less likely that public policy will reflect these values.

Checkmate

[ 62 ] February 10, 2012 |

I wasn’t thrilled when I heard that Obama was going to announce a “compromise” on contraceptive coverage either, but as it turns out the “accommodation” does not affect the substantive rights of employees and is also probably good politics, so it’s fine with me. And yes, of course, the Bishops won’t go for it, but 1)good, since any policy they would agree to would be unacceptable, and 2)to the extent that this isolates them from actual Catholic health care providers and forces them to just argue against contraception, also good. If Republicans want to fight on this terrain, they can go right ahead; this will make their Schiavo crusade look popular by comparison.

See also Jon Cohn, whose tweeting as this was being announced was invaluable. Official Planned Parenthood statement here. Obama’s speech announcing it was also very good.

perfect summary: “But still, the bottom line is this: Obama gave the bishops everything they claimed they wanted, but not what they really wanted. He gave them everything they asked for, but not the thing they adamantly denied they were seeking. The bishops’ bluff has been called.”

Obama’s Climate Betrayal

[ 47 ] December 30, 2011 |

Thus is the title of Elizabeth Kolbert’s excoriation of the Obama Administration for fighting European attempts to regulate airline emissions. Rather than support European leadership on the issue, the Obama Administration is threatening a trade war against European nations.

Nowhere has Obama been more disappointing than on environmental issues. This is precisely the kind of issue where the executive can provide leadership. Yet Obama has been reticent to issue many strong environmental regulations or to protect land. Beginning with his appointment of Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior, continuing to his opening the east coast to offshore drilling without getting a single thing in return on climate change legislation from the Republicans, and now opposing regulating airline emissions, Obama has been an environmental disaster for a Democratic president.

Like on many issues, we should not look back to Bill Clinton as a better Democrat on the environment. He probably was, but only in his last year. As with labor and other consistuencies, Obama has continued a string of Democratic disappointments. Certainly the legislative climate is not conducive to leading on the airline emission issue, but Obama could also issue executive orders, craft regulations, or even do nothing. Instead, he is following the bidding of the airline industry, continuing America’s role as the climate bad guy of the planet.

Kolbert:

It’s pretty much impossible to imagine how the world can reduce the risks of climate change without imposing some sort of emissions limits, and airline emissions seems like as good a place to start as any. If the Administration disagrees with the European plan, then it would seem to be under a heavy obligation to propose its own. All it’s doing now is shilling for the airlines. Is this any way to run a planet?

Indeed.

The Plan B Disgrace

[ 108 ] December 7, 2011 |

Shame on Obama and Sebelius. This isn’t like the compromises on reproductive freedom in the ACA, which were necessary to appease fanatical anti-choicers who were in a position to blow up the legislation. This is an indefensible decision that wasn’t in any sense politically necessary, and indeed might be politically counterproductive. Appalling.

…more from Jamil Smith, Charlie, Vanessa Valenti, Kaili Joy Gray, Sarah Posner, Amanda Marcotte, Lindsay Beyerstein, and Tedra Osell (who alas returned to blogging at the “right” time.)

..and Carmon:

But there is no honest public-health reason to force teenage girls to see a doctor before accessing emergency contraception. There are only political ones. (The morning-after pill will still be available at pharmacies without a prescription for women over 17.)

So what happened? Although it’s hard to believe that conservative voters would be particularly swayed by the president’s capitulation on this front, teen sex has always had a special place in paternalistic and politicized approaches to public health. It doesn’t matter that teenagers can, and do, get pregnant (or contract sexually transmitted diseases) just like women over 17. They still have to be “protected” by parental-notification laws about abortion or from comprehensive, scientifically grounded information about sex. Politically speaking, teenagers aren’t exactly a powerful voting bloc — but their terrified parents are presumed to be.

The Magic Trillion

[ 132 ] October 9, 2011 |

Ezra Klein’s article on the stimulus and the devastated economy of 2009 is very much worth reading in its entirety. This is a key takeaway:

But it is hard to credit the argument that the stimulus could have been much larger at the outset. This was already the biggest stimulus in U.S. history, and congressional leaders had been quite clear with the White House: Don’t send over anything that passes the trillion-­dollar mark. To try and double the bill’s size based on a suspicion that the recession was much worse than the early data indicated would have been a hard sell, to say the least.

It is very possible that the Obama administration could have gotten a marginally better stimulus package with a marginally higher opening bid. But as I’ve said before, the idea that Obama could have gotten a marginal reduction of a much higher opening bid is implausible in the extreme. Regardless of what some people seem to think, offering $80,000 for a Park Avenue penthouse is not a clever, sophisticated negotiating tactic. As the fact that many opponents of the stimulus tried to portray the stimulus as a trillion dollar package anyway, it seems pretty clear that the trillion dollar mark is where the median votes in the Senate would have gotten off the bus. Even without knowing that the congressional leadership had actually taken that position, if a lot of money had been left on the table the bill wouldn’t have passed that narrowly.

Good and Bad Arguments About Obama and the Economy

[ 174 ] September 9, 2011 |

One the one hand, although I understand his point I can’t go along Mike Konczal’s quasi-defense of Drew Westen. Ignoring Westen’s theory of politics is very much an “apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln” proposition — his ignorance of American political history is so comprehensive, his vision of how politics works so replete with howlers, I can’t proceed. Consider some of this gems from his latest piece:

Obama’s apologists never address why Democrats require 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation, but Republicans require only 51 — 50 in the case of the disastrous tax cuts that bankrupted our Treasury in the first place, without which we would never have had a trumped-up budget crisis.

Look, there are people whose opinions about American politics I care about. There are people who don’t understand why it requires 51 votes to pass a tax bill but may require 60 votes to pass card check. And there’s certainly no overlap in these categories. Or this:

Perhaps most problematic for the “Senate made me do it” defense is that George W. Bush pushed through virtually every piece of legislation he proposed without ever having more than 52 senators on his side of the aisle. Like most modern presidents, Bush simply appealed over the heads of members of Congress if they wouldn’t move.

The problem here is that this is all completely false. Much of Bush’s agenda failed to pass, and nothing he did pass required “going over the heads” of members of Congress who strongly opposed what he was doing. The tax cut and national security bills had strong ex ante support and no powerful opposition. NCLB and Medicare Part D were bipartisan compromises of the kind Westen would be furious about if Obama supported their equivalents, and in the latter, less bipartisan case involved not public appeals but buying off powerful constituencies. The cases where he tried to do what Westen assures us Obama could do if he just wanted to — Social Security, immigration — he conspicuously failed.   The assertion about Bush never having more than 52 Republican senators is also false, and given the relative homogeneity of the parties and the effects of the malapportionment of the Senate I’d rather have 55 Republicans than 59 Democrats.   And moving beyond clear factual errors, his bare assertions that rhetoric was central to the policy successes of FDR and Reagan haven’t gained any plausibility or empirical support in this iteration.

But where Konczal is correct is that all the Green Lantern nonsense isn’t necessary to critique Obama’s economic performance, and here I recommend ignoring Westen and just reading Konczal. There’s good reason to believe that the administration didn’t understand the magnitude of the crisis and didn’t respond adequately. Whether or not they could have gotten any kind of second stimulus out of Congress, they had no reason not to try. They made no effort to be creative with the appropriated HAMP money even after the program was a clear failure. And something Konczal doesn’t mention: he appointed an (admittedly non-wingnutty) Republican Daddy as head of the Federal Reserve and allowed other spots to remain vacant.

Facing political mortality, Obama made a pretty good speech with some pretty decent policy proposals that seems to have at least some recognition of the magnitude of the disaster. Facing possible (political) death does concentrate the mind. But, alas, there’s nothing Obama can do to get the House to support most of this — more needed to be done when the Democrats had a stronger political hand.

Find here baseball bomber jacket along with mens vintage leather jackets. How we can forget the girls quilted jacket which are highly being demanded by youth. Youngsters also like motorcycle jacket patches along with motor bike clothing.

Obama and the 2010 Midterms

[ 52 ] September 7, 2011 |

Elias Isquith is very agitated about one of the points in this post, which may be due to a lack of clarity on my part.    To provide said clarity, I should emphasize that I am not saying that the precise outcome of the 2010 midterms was inevitable.   I do think nothing Obama could have done could have prevented huge Democratic losses.   But it’s also true that the 2010 midterms turned out even worse than the models would have predicted, and if you want to say this is mostly because of Obama I can’t prove you’re wrong.   I am much more skeptical that anything Obama could have done could have gotten support in the Senate for a stimulus large enough to matter.    But since the “pivot” to deficit reduction was both 1)indefensible on the merits and 2)predictably provided less than no political benefit there was no reason for him not to try.   If you want to say that there’s no reason to give Obama the benefit of the doubt in assessing the counterfactual, I can’t argue with you.

He suggests that he also disagrees with the rest of the post, and I’m disappointed that he doesn’t elaborate.    I’m not sure which argument he disagrees with — is there secret evidence that primary challenges can bring about progressive change that nobody else can see?   Does he agree with Stoller that the crushing loss in the 1896 elections and the 36 years of a constitutional order in which federal regulation of child labor was considered unconstitutional it portended was in fact a huge win for progressives?   I want to hear it!

What’s the Point?

[ 246 ] September 5, 2011 |

Unless you’re completely new to the blog, you know that I disagree with the two key premises underlying Matt Stoller’s call for a primary challenge against Obama. First, I think it’s silly to see the Obama administration as an extension of the Bush administration.  And second, I don’t agree with the Beltway pundit assumption that electoral outcomes derive primarily from presidential tactics. (To state the obvious, nothing Obama could have done could have stopped the Democrats from getting slaughtered in the 2010 midterms, and talking about the Democrats being “destroyed” is just as foolish as assuming that the Republican coalition was permanently fractured because McCain lost Indiana and North Carolina.)

But let’s leave that aside, and assume that a third term of Bush would have involved a larger stimulus, the most significant health care reform in four decades, EPA regulations of carbon emissions, two liberal Supreme Court appointments, the repeal of DADT, a refusal to defend DOMA, the aggressive prosecutions of people who block access to reproductive health clinics, etc. etc. etc. And let’s also assume that against all precedent another Democratic candidate would have a much better chance of winning in 2012. Would a primary challenge to Obama make any sense?

Of course not. First, there’s no plausible scenario under which it would be produce another candidate. (Favorite son, seriously? Tom Harkin as your opening progressive standard-bearer?  Needs more brokered convention.) Second, assuming the point isn’t the inherently futile task of actually winning, the track record of primary challenges to advance progressive change is…not good. Anybody remember the Democratic Party shifting to the left and become more electorally powerful after 1968 and 1980? Me neither. And as a bonus, an Obama loss in 2012 would be blamed on the hippies and their primary challenge.  Third, the downsides of the intraparty conflicts are downplayed. I’m particularly amazed at Stoller’s suggestion that “African-American church networks” could be on board against a primary challenge to the first African-American president despite the fact that his record has been more progressive than that of his two Democratic successors (let alone the Republican a primary challenge would if anything make more likely.)  Sure.  In reality, a primary challenge to Obama would be a similar coalition to Nader ’00 — i.e. running the gamut from disaffected white academics to white college students.

So what, exactly, is the basis for thinking that a primary challenge would accomplish anything?

When taking state candidates into account, the 1894 midterm elections were comparable to the 2010 wipeout; Cleveland was disliked so ardently that party leaders pushed him out of running for reelection. Instead the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan, who introduced many populist themes into the party and began the ideological transformation that would culminate with the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.

Let’s leave aside the specious Cleveland/Obama comparison and consider the strategy.  OK, so following the analogy, if the primary challenge “works” according to plan we would get upwards of four decades of Rick Perrys, interrupted in the middle by a Democrat who makes Obama look like Olof Palme, and maybe one Republican warmonger who’s slightly less awful on domestic issues.  And then in 36 years we’ll finally win with a president whose campaign has strikingly little in common with the candidate who won the primary challenge. I’d sure hate to see the downside of that self-refuting plan.

The primary challenge, in other words, is basically the lefty equivalent to Americans Elect Radical Centrist Unity — a useless non-answer to the wrong question.

Page 1 of 612345...Last »
  • Switch to our mobile site