Kevin Drum

Equal Protection

| Wed Dec. 17, 2008 11:13 PM PST

EQUAL PROTECTION....Is Norm Coleman really trying to prevent ballots in the Minnesota senate race from being counted by using Bush v. Gore as precedent for an Equal Protection Clause claim? The same Bush v. Gore decision that was so contrary to previous conservative opinion that the court specifically (and to considerable mockery) stated that "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances"?

Why yes. Yes he is. The mind reels.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The Art of Being George

| Wed Dec. 17, 2008 2:10 PM PST

THE ART OF BEING GEORGE....In a package called "Art and Culture In the Bush Era," Newsweek asked its cultural critics to pick the "one work in their field that they believe exemplifies what it was like to be alive in the age of George W. Bush." Let's argue over some of their choices, OK?

First off, there are the two TV critics, who practically bent over backward to avoid naming 24. I'm not saying that Battlestar Galactica and American Idol are bad choices, mind you, and I know that maybe it seems a little too obvious for guys who are paid to think nonobvious thoughts about this stuff, but come on: 24 is George Bush's America. Case closed.

Art critic Peter Plagens chose Jeff Koons's "Hanging Heart," but he's wrong. The only possible choice is everything ever manufactured by Damien Hirst, who has made a career out of convincing people to give him fantastic sums of money for stuff that everyone knows is obvious crap — and then lying about it on the occasions when people don't. Read this, for example, and tell me if it doesn't scream "George Bush":

There was the summer of 2007 when thousands of people lined up outside White Cube waiting to glimpse a human skull cast in platinum and covered with 8,601 diamonds that he claimed to have sold at its $100 million asking price. When he was pressed, however, it turned out that the buyer was actually a consortium of investors that included the artist himself; Jay Jopling, owner of White Cube; and Frank Dunphy, Hirst's business manager.

Music critic Lorraine Ali chooses Green Day's "American Idiot." Wrong again. The correct answer is a tie between the insane protest over Dixie Chick Natalie Maines saying "we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas" and Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue." Yes, yes, I realize that Natalie Maines's comment is not technically an actual work of art, but we shouldn't let that stand in the way of a higher truth.

The book critics chose The Corrections and Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life. Wrong and wrong. In the fiction category, the iconic book of the Bush era is clearly The Pet Goat. Right? The nonfiction category is a little tougher, but I think Jane Mayer's The Dark Side deserves the nod for the book that best represents what Bush and Cheney were really all about. A close second, perhaps, goes to Glassman and Hassett's Dow 36,000, which represents Bush and Cheney's own personal fantasy of what they were all about. Yes, it was written in 1999, but remember that we're going for higher truths here.

The movie critics chose Blackhawk Down and Borat. I guess those choices are OK. But instead, how about the second Star Wars trilogy, another painful reminder that sequels are usually a disappointment?

UPDATE: In comments, PureGuesswork makes a strong case in the music category for Britney Spears: "She spent the last eight years coming up with new ways to fuck up, and now she is worried about her legacy."

UPDATE 2: In the movie category, lots of votes for Idiocracy. Hard to argue with that.

Bubble Economics

| Wed Dec. 17, 2008 12:34 PM PST

BUBBLE ECONOMICS....Does the economy need a $600 billion stimulus? Think bigger:

A number of economists, including former advisers to Republican presidential candidate John McCain, have suggested to Obama's team that the economy needs a much bigger cash infusion, possibly up to a $1 trillion over two years.

....Obama's economic team believes that to put unemployment on a downward trajectory with a goal of 7.5 percent or less over two years would require a stimulus package of about $850 billion. That would generate about 3.2 million jobs by the first quarter of 2011.

....Among those whose opinions Obama advisers sought were Lawrence B. Lindsey, a top economic adviser to President George W. Bush during his first term, and Harvard professor Martin Feldstein, an informal McCain adviser and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Ronald Reagan.

Over at RBC, Jonathan Zasloff poses a few good questions about how to spend this dough. On this very narrow issue, I think my first question would be, how much of this program should be spending and how much should be tax cuts? Can we really spend this much money quickly even if we want to? Would a payroll tax holiday make sense as part of this package?

More broadly — and I know I'm being a bit Chicken Little-ish here — I continue to wonder if a massive stimulus package that spurs domestic consumption means that just as we propped up the economy in 2002 by replacing the dotcom bubble with a housing bubble, we're now propping up the economy in 2008 by replacing the housing bubble with continuing support for our ever-ballooning trade deficit bubble. See Tim Duy for more on this. I don't know if he's right, but I don't feel too bad for bringing this up since no one else really seems to know either.

In any case, I do know that pretty much every economist in the country agrees, in general, that eventually U.S. consumption has to go down, savings have to go up, and we have to start exporting more than we import. It's just a question of whether we can afford to worry about that with the economy collapsing around our heads. Still, here's a thought: if this is a serious long-term concern, shouldn't we at least try to construct a stimulus package that stimulates export industries more than other sectors of the economy? If so, how would we go about doing that? And what else should we be doing to prepare for the day when the current panic subsides, the great T-bill bubble bursts, and the rest of the world decides that 0% yields on treasuries suck and they don't want to buy any more of them? And what they'd really like instead are some tangible goods and services, thankyouverymuch?

I don't know. Maybe we really can't worry too much about this at the moment. But the trade deficit bubble is going to pop eventually just like the dotcom bubble and the housing bubble. We at least ought to be thinking about this a little bit.

Chart of the Day - 12.17.2008

| Wed Dec. 17, 2008 11:52 AM PST

CHART OF THE DAY....From "Spatial patterns of natural hazards mortality in the United States," this map shows where you're most likely to die from natural disasters. (Data is from 1970-2004.) As you can see, my hometown of Orange County is one of the safest places in the country, despite its worryingly close proximity to the San Andreas fault. You see, although you may think that earthquakes are dangerous, it turns out they are a mere rounding error when it comes to dying at the hands of nature's awesome wrath. By far the biggest causes of death by natural disaster are cold weather, hot weather, lightning, flooding, and tornadoes. Earthquake deaths are so microscopic they don't even get a category or their own.

On the other hand, we're still waiting for the Big One out here. This map could change color at any time.

(By the way, just eyeballing this, it looks to me like Massachusetts is the safest state in the union. Connecticut and Rhode Island are pretty good too. Who knew?)

Public Works

| Wed Dec. 17, 2008 10:21 AM PST

PUBLIC WORKS....California is on the verge of cancelling hundreds of public works projects because it can't sell the revenue anticipation bonds needed to continue financing them:

Road, levee, school and housing construction projects throughout California are on the verge of being halted or delayed, as state officials prepare to shut off their financing in the most drastic fallout yet from California's cash crisis.

Officials plan to meet today to freeze financing on these projects and about 2,000 others, including park improvements, environmental restoration and repairs to state prisons.

....Lockyer told legislators last week that halting public-works projects would have a ripple effect through California's economy, costing private companies $12.5 billion and eliminating 200,000 jobs.

Let me just say up front that California's problems are largely of our own making. If the rest of the country has zero sympathy for us, I don't really blame them.

Still, this is a national problem, not just a local one. And if infrastructure spending is good stimulus, but the problem is that it takes a long time to get it up and running, then surely, at a minimum, you wouldn't want to lose a single dollar of infrastructure spending that's already in progress. Especially when the immediate problem has been caused by the freezing of the credit markets more than by California's fiscal recklessness. TARP to the rescue?

Person of the Year

| Wed Dec. 17, 2008 9:41 AM PST

PERSON OF THE YEAR....In a shocking surprise, Time has named Barack Obama their person of the year. Yawn. I would have voted for one of those cheesy group picks, in this case "America's mortgage bankers and Wall Street rocket scientists." I mean, if touching off the 21st century version of the Great Depression doesn't make you person of the year, what the hell does it take?

Runners up were Henry Paulson, Nicolas Sarkozy, Zhang Yimou, and, in a tremendous diss to poor old John McCain, Sarah Palin. Feh. Tina Fey would have been a more deserving choice.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Arne Duncan on the Court

| Wed Dec. 17, 2008 9:15 AM PST

ARNE DUNCAN ON THE COURT....I don't know anything about Arne Duncan's actual views on education, but what you're really thirsting for is some insight into his hoops skills, right? So here you go, courtesty of reader JT, who was friendly with the basketball coach at University High three decades ago and ended up played pickup games with the 16-year-old Duncan in the University High gym:

On Sunday afternoons, John would open the UHigh gym to his friends and his team....It was there that I ended up playing against and with Arne Duncan and then watching him play in UHigh games.

Arne was a very intelligent (Doh!) and very unselfish basketball player. If I recall rightly, he was the tallest player on the team, but he was also the best ball-handler. He had a good jump shot, but he was slow and not extremely quick. What he did have, however, was outstanding court vision. If you were going to be open off a cut, or a break out, he would see it before it occurred and get you the ball in position to do something with it.

Indeed, I recall John complaining that Arne was TOO unselfish. He was by far the best shooter on the team, and most of his teammates could not do enough with the ball when they got it.

I have no idea what, if anything, this means. Does outstanding court vision translate into awesome bureaucratic infighting skills? Does great ball handling mean he knows how to handle the teachers unions? Speculate away!

Out of Iraq

| Tue Dec. 16, 2008 11:55 PM PST

OUT OF IRAQ....Barack Obama visited an elementary school today and chatted with the children. From the pool report:

Then he told the kids he was opening the floor to questions, and proceeded to take more than double the number of questions than he took at his press conference....One child ask him about iraq and he said he plans to have troops home in.a year and a half.

This is good to hear. Obama wouldn't lie to a bunch of fourth graders, would he?

Median Wages

| Tue Dec. 16, 2008 6:22 PM PST

MEDIAN WAGES....So let's assume that we manage to stabilize the economy sometime soon via whatever combination of stimulus spending, tax cuts, and bailouts you think is best. What's next? Where will demand come from to get the economy moving normally again? Paul Krugman comments:

I find it useful to compare U.S. spending in recent years with spending in the mid-90s, when things seemed much more sustainable. What changed? Well, we had bloated housing investment and bloated consumer spending. Meanwhile, nonresidental investment as a percentage of GDP was about the same in 2007 as it was in 1996.

So what offset the consumer/housing boom? A vastly increased trade deficit. And that suggests that a return to normalcy would involve getting savings up, housing spending down, and a combination of more exports and less imports.

I think the big thing I'd add to that is growth in median incomes. One way or another, there's really no way for the economy to grow strongly and consistently unless middle-class consumers spend more, and they can't spend more unless they make more. This was masked for a few years by the dotcom bubble, followed by the housing bubble, all propped on top of a continuing increase in consumer debt. None of those things are sustainable, though. The only sustainable source of consistent growth is rising median wages. The rich just don't spend enough all by themselves.

The flip side of this, of course, is that rich people are going to have to accept the fact that they don't get all the money anymore. Their incomes will still grow, but no faster than anyone else's.

How do we make this happen, though? I'm not sure. Stronger unions are a part of it. Maybe a higher minimum wage. Stronger immigration controls. More progressive taxation. National healthcare. Education reforms. Maybe it's just a gigantic cultural adjustment. Add your own favorite policy prescription here.

This isn't just a matter of social justice. It's a matter of facing reality. If we want a strong economy, we can only get it over the long term if we figure out a way for the benefits of economic growth to flow to everyone, not just the rich. This is, by far, Barack Obama's biggest economic challenge. Until median wages start rising steadily and consistently, we haven't gotten ourselves back on track.

Torture

| Tue Dec. 16, 2008 1:23 PM PST

TORTURE....Responding to Andrew Sullivan, Reuel Marc Gerecht defends his defense of torture:


I take it from your post that if you had been confronted on 7 September 2001 with a captured Khalid Shaykh Muhammad or Abu Zubaydah and you knew that a major, mass-casualty terrorist strike was about to go down in the United States, and you had plenipotentiary authority for the nation's security, you would not have used any physically coercive techniques against the gentleman? Okay, but I do believe that moral men can go the other way, and I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans elected or appointed to high office would go the other way.

....Would that the Clinton and the Bush administrations — especially the Bush administration — had started a public discussion of what we do with holy warriors who live to slaughter thousands....You might not like what America's legislature would have decided (Andrew, what was your position on this in 2001/2002?), but it would have carried the approval of more of the American people's representatives.

Sadly, I suspect that Gerecht is right: if torture had been put to a vote back in 2001, it would have passed. The language would have been prettied up, of course, but the intention would have been clear enough and the public would have approved. Even today, I'm pretty sure that a majority of Americans are basically OK with torture as long as it's mostly kept out of sight and they can go about their business.

But even for torture apologists like Gerecht, I wonder how far they're willing to go. He must know that over the past few years we've tortured a steady and sizeable stream of people who were either decidedly small fish or else just completely innocent. How many of those people is he willing to brutalize on the slim chance that once, someday, we'll just happen to have someone in our custody who knows about a terrorist plot scheduled for tomorrow and can be successfully tortured into giving it up in time? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Where exactly does he draw the line?