Capitolism

On Budgets and Europe

By Christopher Hayes

A dispatch from Greg Kaufmann:

On Budgets and Europe

Thursday afternoon, I was one of the 18 viewers in the age 3 to 100 demographic watching the Senate Budget Committee's markup of Obama's budget on C-SPAN.

Read More »

(29) Comments

March 29, 2009

Update on Gary Gensler

By Christopher Hayes

Six weeks ago I wrote a column about Gary Gensler, Obama's problematic nominee to be chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission

As Robert Scheer points out here, Bernie Sanders has placed a hold on his nomination, stalling it for the time being.

Read More »

March 25, 2009

Thoughts on the Press (Conference)

By Christopher Hayes

I was in the East Room of the White House last night for the press conference. I was, alas, not one of the 13 journalists given an opportunity to ask the president a question, though I had a real zinger ready (Mr President: don't you think poor people should be doing more to help out Wall Street?).

Anyway, a few scattered thoughts:

1) Not one question about the trillion-dollar toxic asset program. This really stunned me. On the very slim chance I was called on, I had prepared a few questions about the rescue but figured that if I were called on the topic would be pretty exhausted by then, so also prepped a few about the defense budget and incarceration rates. But remarkably, no one asked about it. Why? My sense is that most political reporters (the people who were in the room, and got to ask questions) can't really make heads or tails of it either way. In their defense: it's complicated! I'm struggling to make sense of it, too. But it just seems crazy to me that the day after the White House announces a very complicated, high stakes and possibly expensive plan to remove toxic assets from bank balance sheets, the President is not asked about the details of the plan.

Read More »

March 25, 2009

Specter Stabs Unions in the Back

By Christopher Hayes

A Democratic politician once said of Arlen Specter that he's "always there when you don't need him." Well, the Employee Free Choice Act, was one place where we did need him. He was the lone Republican co-sponsor and the lone Republican who voted or cloture last time it came up. Today he recanted.

"The problems of a recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employee's choice legislation," he said. "Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses. If efforts are unsuccessful to give labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the [National Labor Relations Act] then I would be willing to reconsider Employees choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy. I am announcing my decision now because I have consulted with a very large number of interested parties on both sides and I have made up my mind."

The rationale is bullshit, of course. (The NLRA was passed in the depths of the Great Depression, let's recall) What really happened is that he got metaphorically waterboarded by the US Chamber of Commerce. So that's that.

Read More »

March 24, 2009

Taking Back the Economy

By Christopher Hayes

Laura Dean attended the local Take Back the Economy protest today and files this dispatch:

Quite a crowd had gathered outside AIG's K street offices despite the dreary weather for today's "Take Back the Economy" rally sponsored by the SEIU, MoveOn and ACORN among others. The action was one of over a hundred scheduled across the country to protest the AIG bonuses and corporate excesses.

There were hoarse chants and lively percussion – everyone shook cans of change chanting, "AIG! You can't hide! We can see your greedy side!" Young organizers in purple union hoodies joined seasoned members who bellowed new chants when energy lagged, inspired passersby, and even Rocky Twyman, founder of Prayer at the Pump.

Read More »

(28) Comments

March 19, 2009

Grassley to Rush: More Lies Please

By Christopher Hayes

I think there's a fascinating cultural difference between the way that Democratic politicians view the progressive base (as something to keep distance from, to be triangulated against) and the way Republicans view the conservative base (something to be paid regular tribute)

Lester Feder catches an interesting example of this dynamic in action while talking to Chuck Grassley:

Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and others recently launched a smear campaign against a provision in the stimulus bill designed to gather research that will help doctors and patients choose the treatments that work the best, and avoid unnecessary spending. This, said Fox, "appear [s]to set the stage for health care rationing for seniors, new limits on medical research, and new rules guiding decisions doctors can make about your health care."

Read More »

(6) Comments

March 19, 2009

What AIG Started

By Christopher Hayes

As promised here's my comment in this week's issue on the AIG bonus issue. It's behind a sub-wall, but I'm just gonna yank it out and post it here:

The infamous letter from AIG CEO Edward Liddy to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner--the one in which he informs the good secretary that whatever the administration's preference might be to the contrary, the company will be paying $165 million in bonuses to its financial products division--is destined to be studied years from now as the perfect text for this strange moment in American capitalism. Facially supplicant yet substantively defiant, its rhetorical posture is that of a bank robber who calls the teller "ma'am" before asking her calmly to put the money in the bag. "On the one hand, all of us at AIG recognize the environment in which we operate and the remonstrations of our President for a more restrained system of compensation for executives," Liddy writes. (Nice touch, the use of "remonstrations" to describe the president's attempts to rein in Wall Street with moral suasion.) "On the other hand, we cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses--which are now being operated principally on behalf of the American taxpayers--if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury." This is the language of someone who has sized up what an organizer would call "the power relations" and believes they are balanced in his favor.

The question is, Was his calculation correct? At this writing, Liddy is appearing before Congress, sitting in the proverbial hot seat. On Capitol Hill there is unanimous agreement that the proposed bonuses are an intolerable insult to taxpayers. They certainly are. But one learns to mistrust unanimity in Washington. There's something vaguely redolent of the earmark foolishness in the dramatic expressions of anger from elected officials--what might be called the Law of Small Numbers. When it comes to money, trillions of dollars is a statistic, but $165 million is an outrage. Then there's the fact that much of Washington, including, sadly, the Obama administration, was complicit in setting the stage for this drama. Ron Wyden and Olympia Snowe co-sponsored an amendment to the recovery act that would have required TARP recipients to pay back bonuses in excess of $100,000 or face tax penalties. It was mysteriously removed from the final bill just before passage. Geithner and Larry Summers, meanwhile, have both reportedly worked internally to water down statutory limitations on executive compensation for bailed-out firms.

Read More »

March 19, 2009

Another Way to Recoup The Bonuses

By Christopher Hayes

Like everyone I've been following the AIG brouhaha, though with more than a bit of skepticism at the howls of outrage from the political class. (I have some more extended thoughts in this week's issue, which should be up soon). Now that it seems that voiding the contracts is too difficult legally, congress is proposing to tax the bonuses at 90%Q. I kind of like the politics of this, if only because it will force the GOP to put their money where their mouths are: if they're as outraged as they say, they'll have no problem ignoring Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh and voting for the tax.

But Dean Baker also floats what might be a simpler, cleaner solution: just make what's left of the AIG equity-holders pay for it.

Read More »

March 19, 2009

What to Expect This Week on the Hill

By Christopher Hayes

Lots, lots lots going on, as the budget begins to wend its way through both houses. Greg Kaufmann has the goods:

This Week on the Hill

The Senate will take yet another shot at a federal lands package leftover from 2008, which has thus far been tied in procedural knots thanks to senator Tom Coburn.

Read More »

(18) Comments

March 16, 2009

Week in Review

By Christopher Hayes

From Greg Kaufmann:

This week Congress finished -- finally -- some leftover business from the Bush era. After fights over earmarks, automatic pay raises, and anything else Republicans thought they could score points with, the Senate finally approved the $410 billion FY09 omnibus spending package and President Obama signed it. There were indeed more than 8,500 earmarks costing over $7.7 billion -- $4.6B sponsored by Dems and $3.1B by Republicans. Obama said that moving forward earmarks should be disclosed on the web and those for private, for-profit companies should be open to competitive bidding. Sen. Russ Feingold and two Republicans -- Sen. John McCain and Rep. Paul Ryan -- went further than that. They introduced legislation to give Obama a limited line-item veto for a new War on Earmarks.

Sadly, another piece of legislation from the Bush Days remains in limbo. A federal lands package -- combining 166 bills -- would set aside more than 2 million acres as protected wilderness and 100 miles of wild and scenic rivers. Last year Sen. Tom Coburn -- the Grim Reaper of Senate legislation -- stalled it. The Senate approved it this year but in a parliamentary twist this week the House fell just two votes shy of the 2/3 majority it needed (under suspension of rules which allow a vote without amendments). According to CongressDaily, Democratic leaders are now working on a strategy that would allow the bill to pass the House with a simple majority.

Read More »

(18) Comments

March 13, 2009