From Matt Yglesias, dryly noting the current conservative attitude toward the possibility of lingering racism in our fair republic:

I’ve learned in long years of experience blogging about American politics that there are no racists in the United States. Certainly if there are any, they’re not white people. And certainly if there are any racist white people, they’re not conservatives. So let’s just say that if you’re a Republican county commissioner in Minnesota, this is the kind of thing that might lead you to wonder if Perry’s brand of politics will play well outside the Old Confederacy where people sometimes misunderstand this kind of thing.

"This kind of thing," of course, is the news that the Perry family hunting spot has been known for decades as "Niggerhead." I know I'm repeating myself, but: Does Mitt Romney have a pact with the devil or something? Not only does he seem strangely invulnerable to attacks from his opponents, but his opponents also seem to have an almost uncanny ability to self-destruct. It's just amazing.

Is a tidal wave of both existing and upcoming new regulation responsible for the sluggish state of the economy? This is one of those arguments that's so transparently dumb that I sometimes think its only purpose is to force liberals to waste time arguing about it. It's like that old story about LBJ spreading a rumor that his opponent was a pig-fucker. You can't say that, it's a lie, Johnson's campaign manager told him. "I know," he replied, "I just want to make him deny it."

Maybe that story is true, maybe it isn't. But it fits. Even when we're denying that regulations are responsible for our poor economy, we're talking about regulations. And the more people hear about regulations, no matter what the context, the more plausible it seems like they might be a problem. And of course, it also distracts us from talking about other stuff. It's a twofer.

Still, you gotta fight it. EPI's Larry Mishel wrote a pretty definitive takedown while I was off in the Bay Area with lousy WiFi reception, and among other things he notes that business investment—which ought to be highly sensitive to the regulatory climate—has recovered considerably better over the past two years than it did during the first two years of the Bush recovery:

The data show that investment has increased more in this recovery than in the prior two recoveries and roughly the same as that of the 1980s recovery. It is interesting to note that there was no growth in investments (as a share of GDP) in the George W. Bush recovery. That means that this recovery, with Obama regulations pending, is far more investment-led than the recovery under the deregulatory Bush administration. So, investment does not look like it is being held back, at least relative to other recoveries and the size of the market.

The chart is below. Bottom line: If demand were high but regulation was holding back recovery, then investment levels would be weak, employer surveys would be full of complaints, and businesses would be making lots of temporary hires in order to sell more stuff now without the danger of adding permanent payroll. But none of these things is true. Our problem is high debt levels and weak demand, not business-deadening regulations.

Writing today about the drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, Max Boot casually dismisses concerns about the president's authority to target U.S. citizens for execution:

A few civil libertarians are raising questions about whether the U.S. government had the right to kill an American citizen without a trial....That's like asking if it was lawful to kill Confederate soldiers at Gettysburg. Like the rebels during the Civil War, Awlaki and Khan gave up the benefits of American citizenship by taking up arms against their country. They, and other Al Qaeda members, claim to be "soldiers" in the army of Allah; it is only fitting that their avowed enemy, the Great Satan, would take their protestations seriously and treat them just like enemy soldiers. If it's lawful to drop a missile on a Saudi or Egyptian member of Al Qaeda, it's hard to see why an American citizen should be exempt.

I've heard this argument more than once, and I'd just like to point out how chilling it is. One of the reasons that liberal democracies constrain the use of force against their own citizens more than they do against noncitizens is because national governments have a very wide array of coercive powers already available to track and control their own citizens. Since this coercive power is inherent in the state, it's wise to restrain it lest it get out of control. Likewise, national governments don't generally need to execute their own citizens without trial because they have lots of other alternatives available to them. At a practical level, they often don't have this power over noncitizens, so killing them is sometimes the only option available.

But this distinction also applies to location: national governments have far more police power available within their own territory than they do overseas. In Awlaki's case, you might argue that if he had been living in, say, South Dakota, the government would have been constrained from killing him without trial because it has the power to deal with him judicially instead. But since he was living in Yemen, it didn't, and a targeted assassination was the only option open.

But Boot isn't willing to concede even that. The Civil War analogy suggests that even if Awlaki had been living within the United States he would have been fair game for a presidential assassination merely for belonging to a group that calls itself an offshoot of al-Qaeda.

In fact, I doubt that Boot believes this. He does not, in truth, think that President Obama can empower the FBI to roam the country and gun down American citizens who are plotting against us, whether they belong to al-Qaeda affiliates or not. Nor does he think that the 1st Cavalry Division can do this, even though that's exactly what they did during the Civil War. He's merely using the Civil War analogy because it was handy and seemed like it might sound plausible to readers who didn't think about it too much.

As it happens, I don't think the Awlaki precedent means that President Obama is going to go hog wild and start mowing down Americans overseas. I don't think that President Rick Perry would, either. But there are good and sound reasons that presidents are constrained in their ability to unilaterally kill U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live, and we allow these bright lines to be dimmed at our peril. Unfortunately, the war on terror has made poltroons out of every branch of government. The president hides behind the post-9/11 AUMF, using it as a shield to justify any action as long as it's plausibly targeted at al-Qaeda or something al-Qaeda-ish. Congress, which ought to pass a law that specifically spells out due process in cases like this, cowers in its chambers and declines to assert itself. And the courts, as usual, throw up their hands whenever they hear the talismanic word "war" and declare themselves to have no responsibility.

If the president wants the power to kill U.S. citizens who aren't part of a recognized foreign army and haven't received a trial, he should propose a law that spells out when and how he can do it. Congress should debate it, and the courts should rule on its constitutionality. That's the rule of law. And regardless of whether I liked the law, I'd accept it if Congress passed it, the president signed it, and the Supreme Court declared it constitutional.

However, none of that has happened. The president's power in this sphere is, in practical terms, whatever he says it is. Nobody, not liberals or conservatives, not hawks or doves, should be happy with that state of affairs.

What happens when a Republican candidate for president finds himself on the defensive over a hot button culture war issue beloved of the tea party base? Answer: in an effort to maintain his more-kick-ass-than-thou credentials, he goes completely berserk:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Saturday that he would consider sending U.S. troops into Mexico to combat drug-related violence and stop it from spilling into the southern United States. “It may require our military in Mexico,” Perry said in answer to a question about the growing threat of drug violence along the southern border. Perry offered no details, and a spokesman, Robert Black, said afterward that sending troops to Mexico would be merely one way of putting an end to the exploding cartel-related violence in the region.

Black said Perry’s intention is to work with the Mexican government, but he declined to specify whether Perry is amenable to sending troops into Mexico with or without the country’s consent.

Do I even need to spell out why this is such an unconditionally boneheaded idea? Probably not, but Steven Taylor has done the job here just in case. I can't wait to get the official Mexican government reaction to this.

I don't get it. Is Mitt Romney really such a blood-curdlingly terrifying opponent that he scares every other candidate in the field into repeatedly immolating themselves? This is crazy.

Yes, I'm still traveling. Sort of. Actually, right about now I should be sunning myself at Golden Gate Park, where we're holding a MoJo staff picnic. But that doesn't mean you don't get catblogging this week. It only means that catblogging has been reduced 50%.

Sorry about that, Domino fans, but I just didn't get a new picture of her before I left. What I got instead was a rare inside look at the working conditions here at blog central. I am, as you can see in this picture taken through my window, closely supervised. Until my supervisor gets bored, that is, which happens a lot. Still, you have to stay on your toes. It's sort of a feline-opticon around here. 

Banks all over the country, led by Bank of America, are announcing new monthly fees for customers who use debit cards. Why? Because new laws restrict both the insanely high overdraft fees they used to charge and the "swipe fee" they tack on to every transaction — so they're making up for the lost revenue elsewhere. "Thanks Dick!" is a typical reaction, because the new rules are the brainchild of Sen. Dick Durbin. In San Francisco, where I am today, the Examiner puts things a little more colorfully.

If you want to know why so many people hate liberals, this is it. We're annoying! And now, thanks to us, you have to pay a monthly fee to use your debit card.

Unfortunately, it's hard to explain why this is, nonetheless, a good thing. But here's the nickel version: the old fees were largely hidden. The new ones aren't. Overdraft fees were deliberately designed to be unpredictable, unforeseen, and primarily aimed at low-income users. Swipe fees were invisible because the credit card industry is effectively a duopoly and prohibits merchants from adding swipe fees to credit card bills. After all, if they did that, consumers might actually see what they were really paying for the privilege of using credit and debit cards.

All along, banks have had the option of reforming overdraft fees to make them fairer and more transparent. They had the option of allowing merchants to charge customers for swipe fees or not as they preferred. But they didn't. That's because hidden fees, on average, are more lucrative. Hidden or not, though, we're all still paying them.

So yes: the new fees are annoying. But that's a feature, not a bug, because now they're right up front in black and white, which means that consumers will see them and can be properly outraged (or not) by them. This in turn means that the free market has a chance to actually work: consumers will abandon Bank of America if their fees are too high and force them to charge less. Likewise, other banks will compete openly on the size of their fees. In the end, this competition will force fees down to the lowest possible profitable level, which is exactly what competition is supposed to.

It may not seem like much of a blessing at first, and lots of people will remain annoyed at us annoying liberals for introducing this new annoyance into their lives. But if you actually believe that competition is good for consumers and eventually produces lower prices and better service, you should welcome these new fees. Banks liked the cozy old system, where everything was hidden and competition remained subdued. Consumers should like the new one.

UPDATE: Want an even shorter explanation? Here it is: banks hate the new rules. But do you seriously think they'd hate a rule that was going to increase costs to consumers and thereby put more money in their own pockets? Of course not. Obviously they believe that consumers are the ones who are going to benefit, not banks, and who would know better?

Up until now, the Obama administration's policy of sanctioning the assassination of U.S. citizens has been more theoretical than real. Not any longer:

A missile fired from an American drone aircraft in Yemen on Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who was a leading figure in Al Qaeda’s affiliate in this country, according to an official in Washington.

....Yemen’s official news agency, Saba, reported that the attack also killed Samir Khan, an American citizen of Pakistani origin and the editor of Inspire, Al Qaeda’s English-language Internet magazine. Mr. Khan proclaimed in the magazine last year that he was “proud to be a traitor to America.”

Is this the first targeted assassination of a U.S. citizen as part of the war on terror? Probably. The Bush administration killed Buffalo-born Kamal Derwish in 2002, but at least for public consumption, quickly claimed that they had been targeting someone else and Derwish was simply collateral damage. You can take that for what it's worth, but in any case, even that fig leaf is gone now: no one's even bothering to pretend that al-Awlaki's killing was anything other than deliberately planned and executed.

No one is likely to mourn al-Awlaki himself -- which is what made his assassination so safe in the first place -- but we sure ought be mourning the fact that it happened, and that it's likely to happen routinely from now on. The Obama administration has demonstrated once again, as it did in Libya and as it's done in a variety of surveillance cases, that its view of executive power in the arena of national security is hardly any less expansive than Dick Cheney's was. The fact that this was predictable makes it no less alarming. Regardless of how any of us feels about warmaking in general, there are very good reasons that national governments are more constrained in their ability to kill their own citizens than in their ability to kill foreigners, constraints enshrined in both the explicit rules and longstanding traditions of due process. That bright line has grown a lot dimmer today.

The hardcore national security hawks in both parties will likely cheer Obama's "toughness" today, but they shouldn't. Bright lines, once crossed, seldom survive. Adam Serwer has more here. Glenn Greenwald has more here.

On the Daily Show last night, Bill O'Reilly was griping about the great $16 muffin affair and Jon Stewart had no idea what he was talking about. So the whole thing passed without any pushback, and now millions more people think Uncle Sam is paying $16 for hotel muffins.

Once again, then: it's a myth. There were no $16 muffins. It's just an artifact of the way hotels aggregate costs for events and bill them all to a few line items instead of breaking down every charge separately. In fact, for the event in question, DOJ came in exactly on budget. All the details are here.

Now, can we please hear no more about this?

San Francisco Meetup

In the comments downblog, a few people asked if I planned to meet up with Bay Area readers while I was in town. This slipped my mind, actually, but as it happens I'm free Thursday night. So here's the deal: I'm going to be largely tied up most of the day, so someone will have to organize this in the comment section. If it's just one or two people, that's fine. If it's a bigger crowd, that's great too. I have a strong craving for Chinese food at the moment, but anything else will do if the masses speak up in unison for something different. I can make it to any place that's fairly easily accessible from downtown.

So.....any takers for dinner on Thursday? I'll try to check in around noon, and if there's some kind of consensus I'll post it as an update.

UPDATE: I don't have access to comments at the moment, but compromising a bit between various suggestions, times, and closeness to my hotel....how about R&G (on Kearney just north of Sacramento) at 7:00? Can I get a show of hands in comments for how many people are OK with that? (It's fine to show up late or leave early, of course.)

CONFIRMATION: This is to confirm the meetup. We'll be at R&G at 7:00 tonight. It looks like maybe half dozen folks will be there. But maybe more! See you there.

Back in 2008, during the worst of the financial crisis, I remember that many of us were shaking our heads a bit over Europe. American banks were clearly overleveraged, which led to the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman and Wachovia, and the near collapse of several others, but European banks mostly came through unscathed. Outside of Great Britain (and Iceland, of course), Europe suffered only a few bank failures, and they were pretty easily contained. And yet, European banks, on average, were more highly leveraged than ours. Shouldn't they have collapsed even worse than ours? What gives?

Well, now we know: European banks were in worse shape than ours, but they were overleveraged in a different way that allowed them to hang on a couple of years longer. But now the jig is about up. Greece is about ready to fail, and after that, maybe Spain and Italy too. Ezra Klein talks to Desmond Lachman about what this means:

EK: And if some of these dominoes fall, how bad are things likely to get?

DL: What’s really at stake here is the European banking system. These countries might be relatively small, but if you just look at Greece, Ireland and Portugal, that’s $1 trillion in sovereign debt. If you add Spain, that’s another trillion. If you add Italy, that’s another $1.9 trillion. If the European banks take the hit, that could really cause another Lehman moment. It would be a credit crunch that would throw the European economy into a meaningful recession.

Bummer. But hey, that's just Europe. At least we'll be OK, right? Sadly, no. We're highly exposed in a number of ways to trouble in Europe. In fact, it might even be worse this time around:

EK: And what are the chances that this leads us back into a recession?

DL: If you want me to depress you some more, let me tell you what really worries me. If we do go into recession this time around, what will be different from 2008 and 2009 is even if the recession isn’t as deep, we either don’t have the policy ammunition to fight it or we have convinced ourselves that we don’t have the policy ammunition to fight it. So what will the policy response be? Bernanke just showed you he thinks he has very little ammunition left. There’s no way Congress will go in for another big stimulus package. And the Europeans are tied up in the belief that they need to balance their budget.

Just remember: it doesn't have to be this way, no matter how often and how loudly Republicans shriek about austerity and budget deficits. If we want them to, both monetary and fiscal policy can have plenty of bite left. Bottom line: If we plummet into a second recession, it will be solely the fault of fanatical conservatives in Congress who refuse for reasons both partisan and ideological to acknowledge that we can do something about this. It'll be the Tea Party Recession of 2011.