Pelosi triples down, stands firm for Bush tax cuts for those at $1 million in earnings or less

Straight news, literally she-said (Pelosi) versus he-said (Obama). You decide. My most recent thoughts are here. I'm shifting slightly after doing some digging, but not a ton.

Bottom line — Pelosi doubles down on doubling down. (Is that a triple or a quad?) Either way, this is now the third round of her affirming this position. She wants tax breaks for those between $250,000 and $1,000,000.

Huffington Post on the she-said (my emphasis and paragraphing):

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday defended her push to permanently extend "middle class" tax cuts to people making up to $1 million, saying that drawing the line at $250,000 hasn't worked.

Pelosi has come under fire since she pressed House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) last week to hold a vote to extend "middle class" Bush tax cuts. ...

During her weekly briefing, Pelosi took aim at her critics and said that her proposal is the best way forward if people want to see any kind of permanent middle class tax cut extension in Congress.

Now the he-said:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dodged questions Thursday on what Obama thinks about Pelosi's proposal. He reiterated that the president is committed to tax cuts for those making less than $250,000.

Pelosi thinks this is "about getting something done."

So far, the White House and Pelosi appear to be in disagreement, and are taking that appearance of disagreement to the next level.

I'll offer my take on the Bush–Obama Tax Cut deal in a later post. Is this really the "best way forward" as Pelosi asserts? We'll examine that.

Whether you believe or disbelieve the sincerety of either of these positions, the post-election Lame Duck session will tell the tale. If it quacks like an extension of the whole Bush (and Obama) tax cut package, it is an extension of the whole package.

What kind of quackery is this? We'll know for sure in December.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Youth challenge Alan Simpson to debate: "Your plan cuts benefits for young people most"

UPDATE: Simpson says Yes.
________

To continue the quote in the title: "The younger you are, the bigger the [benefit] cut." Exactly.

This is a very nice video from StrengthenSocialSecurity.org, pushing back on (and calling out) Mr. Catfood himself, Alan Simpson (he of the "310 million tits").

I've said many times that the real Grand Bargain betrayal is between the generations, not between the Dems and Republicans. Those two are united, it seems.

The real offer on the table is from Billionaires of both parties (Our Betters) to older Americans, and it goes like this:

"If you'll agree to screw your children and grandchildren out of their benefits, we'll promise to exempt your own."

The Billionaires' sell to youth goes like this:

"Why not roll over and let it happen. It won't hurt (now); just close your eyes and think of England. After all, don't you read the news? You know Social Security will be gone before you need it. Relax. Let it go. Besides, look, google glasses..."

Well, here's a bunch of those young people — presumably one-time Hope-and-Change Obama voters, note — who aren't rolling over, who aren't thinking of England.

Instead they're calling out Alan Simpson — and presumably, all who support him (like this guy, and this guy, and this kind lady) — on the cruelty of his Catfood Plan.

Watch and listen; this one is a winner:



Here's their offer on the table. Dear Mr. Simpson:

"We challenge you to a debate with our young Social Security experts, in a time and setting of your choosing, in a format you choose as well. We look forward to your response."

Will Alan Simpson take them up on it? They really are calling him out. And Simpson is just mouthy enough (sorry, man enough) to say Yes.

Help them out if you can. The entertainment value alone of this debate would be well worth the effort to make it happen. And who knows, they might just save the safety net after all.

Very nice, folks — it really will be your world, very very soon. Time to take care of it with us, don't you think?

Occupy your future. We're certainly doing our part. Thanks!

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...

Looks like Pelosi speaks for Obama in moving the Bush-Obama tax cut offer to $1m

When last we left our heroes, the brave Democrats wanted the wicked Republicans to extend the Bush Tax Cuts (and after 2010, the Obama Tax Cuts) for incomes below $250,000 — and only those.

And they wanted the Republicans to do this ahead of the post-election lame duck session — when (obviously) all of them would regrettably cave to the billionaires who just financed their $2,000,000,000 combined ad buy (not including the primaries).

So that was the presumed offer on the table — $250,000 incomes and below get their Bush (and Obama) tax cuts renewed; they still have no jobs, but their taxes won't go up.

Then Nancy Pelosi pre-emptively moved the bar from that measly $250,000 to a full $1,000,000.

What was going on, we asked? Was Pelosi off the Dem reservation, doing a Cory Booker so to speak, and speaking out of turn?

Or was she front-running for Obama? (My bet was front-running, but that's me. I think if you notice what Dems actually accomplish, you have to admit they're good at it.)

Now comes Pelosi again to explain. Writing in USA Today, she renews her offer to Republicans to extend the Bush–Obama tax cuts for incomes below a full $1,000,000. Doubling down, as it were (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

Democrats have always opposed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Since President Obama's election, we have repeatedly called for an end to tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year.

Republicans have rejected this effort, holding tax relief for the middle class and small businesses hostage to permanent tax breaks for millionaires, Big Oil, and corporations that ship jobs overseas.

Democrats are committed to moving the process forward by asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share through the expiration of tax cuts for those earning over $1 million a year.

Here's how to read that, in my opinion. By acknowledging Obama's role and former bargaining position, Pelosi seems to be speaking for the whole Dem team ("we"), including Obama himself. Either that or Nancy has some serious 'spaining to do.

Pelosi will walk that back (don't hold your breath) or Obama's on board. Count on it.

Note, for good measure, Pelosi also doubles down on her confirmation of Simpson-Bowles Catfood-for-Gran:

Democrats are committed to using the significant savings to reduce the deficit. And in the future, Democrats are committed to reforming the tax code, closing special interest loopholes. Democrats and President Obama have supported a grand bargain to spur our economy and reduce our deficit[.]

More with the Grand Bargain.

It's coming, folks. Not only do all the elites want to send as much manufacturing overseas as they can (why else would Dems not fight for alternate-energy manufacturing in the U.S.?).

All the elites also want to fix your "broken" safety net. Not enough holes in it, I guess.

It's a two-fer for their billionaire masters — your jobs off to cheap-labor countries (so the billionaires get more money) and your safety net in shreds (so the billionaires get more money).

Tick-tick-tick.

[UPDATE: Some phrases tweaked for clarity.]

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Nancy Pelosi pre-emptively caves on Bush–Obama tax cuts

Nancy Pelosi is making quite a name for herself. Unfortunately, the name is "ex-progressive" and "former San Francisco–liberal."

The bottom line up top, then the details.

We know that Pelosi wants her gavel back. We know that Obama wants his Grand Bargain; he's been saying so since 2006. This has all the earmarks of a trade.

If so, the Pelosi–Obama bargain goes like this — "I get my gavel, and you get to kill the safety net (sorry, 'reform' Social Security)." My Inner Occam explanation (see link) still makes sense to me.

To execute, she would first have to cave on Simpson-Bowles (Obama says "the deal is still on the table"). That happened late last month.

Now we see her caving on the $250,000 breakpoint in the looming lame duck battle over the "Bush" tax cuts. She's suddenly offering to move the breakpoint to $1,000,000 — up from Obama's stated $250,000 — without being asked (publicly).

Is that also part of the Pelosi–Obama deal? Is she front-running for Obama's "regretful" later concession? Only the fly on the Oval Office wall knows for sure. She's certainly not playing super-chess, because moving the price of collapse doesn't change the game. Hmm.

Next the details. Here's her announcement (my emphasis throughout):

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today called on Speaker Boehner to bring a permanent extension of the middle income tax cuts to the House floor immediately and use the revenues resulting from the expiring tax breaks for those earning more than a million dollars to pay down the deficit.

And by "pay down the deficit" she means "pay down a lot less of the deficit than Obama claims to want". ThinkProgress:

[H]er proposal differs from others offered by Democrats, including President Obama, that call for an extension of the rates for incomes below $250,000. ... Pelosi wants a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $1 million, the statement said. ...

Her plan, however, would cost the government billions in revenue compared to Obama’s plan, and though she has billed it as a tax cut for the middle class, half of its benefits would go to millionaires, according to analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice[.]

According to the Tax Justice link above, there's a 43% loss in revenue between Obama's last-stated proposal and Pelosi's current one. Sounds like money to me.

But maybe you're not supposed to notice that part, just the part where Pelosi forcefully "calls on Speaker Boehner to ... middle-class tax cuts ... immediately."

Shorter Pelosi:

"Here's a plan that looks really good till you look at it. You on the bus, don't look at it. (And before you ask, I'm speaking just for me.)"

Recommendations for Progressives

1. The Bush tax cuts are killing us, killing the nation. We're beyond politics and super-chess. Bush did a dandy on us, and it has to stop. Here's the damage, one more time:

That fat brown stain is the Bush (and now Obama) tax cuts.

2. From this flows the only good progressive position, in my opinion:

• In practice, these tax cuts will either all be extended or all be expired. We seen this dance before.
  
  
• If a progressive has to choose between those two, she must choose the latter — let them all expire. Period.

Nothing else is responsible; nothing else puts nation above party when the two interests collide. "Party First" is the other guys, right?

3. This position takes advantage of the only real leverage in the game. For once, not acting is a win. All Dems would have to do to win is — nothing. The Bush–Obama tax cuts expire by default.

It's telling, isn't it, that Obama and the Dems don't use that built-in super-advantage? Makes you consider what they might really be doing.

4. This position is practical for progressives, no matter what Dems do.

We got played last time (lame duck 2010) and we're probably getting played again. It will take an act of god for the billionaires who run both parties not to get their way.

Let's not compromise ourselves by buying into a "sorta OK" deal, then watch it get switched for a deal we mostly hate. Once we're on board, we're on board for the whole ride. This compromises us.

If Dems want to sell themselves and the safety net, let them do it alone, over our explicit and united objections. Strategically, this is our best shot — make them pay for the cave, make them think twice about us for a change.

Speaking of "united" ...

5. Can progressives stand together in this? I sure hope so; it would be a great sign for the future.

What do I mean by "progressives"? Here's my own idea of "entitlement reform" — You're not entitled to the name "progressive" unless you act like one.

By which I mean, when it comes to choosing between principles and party, progressives choose principles. Not a bad definition, don't you think?

Progressively yours,

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Virtually Speaking: GP and Jay Ackroyd tonight 9pm EST

Tonight at 9pm EST Virtually Speaking's Jay Ackroyd and I will chat for an hour. The conversation will be available live (see information below) and for later listening at the Virtually Speaking site.

In addition, Virtually Speaking programs are available as iTunes broadcasts (which is how I often listen).

Tune in if you can. There's a call-in number at the site. From the announcement:

Virtually Speaking Thursday May 17 – 6pm PT / 9pm ET
Gaius Publius with Jay Ackroyd

Gaius Publius is a Contributing Editor to AmericaBlog. He and Jay Ackroyd expect to talk about "Hugging the Monster" (climate catastrophe), the developing Grand Bargain on "entitlements" and the importance of non-violence in the Occupy movement.

Listen Live & Later on BlogTalkRadio

Please tune in (or download) if these subjects interest you. Thanks!

GP

To follow or to send links: @Gaius_Publius
Jay Ackroyd's Twitter feed: @jayackroyd Read the rest of this post...

Congressional Progressive Caucus backs Pelosi's decision to cut Social Security

I don't know how else to read this. Ryan Grim at the Huffington Post (who is doing yeoman's work in reporting this tussle for the Democratic soul; my yeoman's emphasis):

Leading members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are coming to the defense of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California after former Sen. Russ Feingold challenged her commitment to protecting Social Security and Medicare.

"Let's remember that we are on the same team," reads a letter being circulated by progressive House Democrats. "We need to focus our efforts on the true targets, which are the 228 House Republicans who voted to end the Medicare guarantee, reduce benefits and increase costs for seniors."

The letter has so far been signed by Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the progressive caucus co-chairmen, as well as Reps. Jan. Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), who sit on the progressive caucus committee that deals with aging issues.

There's more in Grim's report; it's worth seeing it in full.

But let's parse this:

▪ "Let's remember that we are on the same team":

Party loyalty first, progressive principles somewhere down the list.

▪ "Signed by Reps. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison":

Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison support reducing Social Security benefits. These people are not friends of the safety net.

▪ "Reps. Jan. Schakowsky and Doris Matsui":

Same.

Bottom line — the leaders of the Progressive Statement Caucus has made another statement. In effect:

We, your House Progressives leaders, support Leader Pelosi in her effort to roll back the social safety net. We support the Simpson-Bowles Catfood Plan. Party first, that's us.

Yours in honest self-reporting,

Raul Grijalva
Keith Ellison
Jan Schakowsky
Doris Matsui

I just don't know how else to read this. Do you?

Diogenes looking for an honest man

Previous posts on this (newest first):

• Pete Petersen hosts Bill Clinton, Paul Ryan, Simpson, Van Hollen to discuss Social Security "compromise"
• Would-be Speaker Pelosi's "No I Won't" that means "Yes I Will" cut Soc. Security
• Feingold links Pelosi with Steny Hoyer for supporting Simpson-Bowles "Catfood" proposal
• Obama 2006—"Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938"
• Pelosi endorses Obama's safety net cuts (2013 alert)

No real progressive should let this one go, in my opinion. It's potentially the beginning of the end of the New Deal deal.

Thank you, Mr. Feingold and CREDO Action, for standing up — and to Ryan Grim for tenacious reporting.

Staying tuned,

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Feingold links Pelosi with Steny Hoyer for supporting Simpson-Bowles "Catfood" proposal

Does Nancy Pelosi stand with Steny Hoyer against Social Security?

We recently reported that Nancy Pelosi is fully on board with the Simpson-Bowles "Catfood-for-Granny" proposal. Among our recommendations:

■ Don't trust Nancy Pelosi. She's trying to sell out the safety net. All that verbal obfuscation simply means she's also protecting her "San Francisco liberal" brand in the process. She can't have both, but she's trying.

GP's rule for dealing with Dems:

If you want something from them, threaten what they're desperate to keep.

This usually means their jobs (primaries anyone?), but in a few cases it's their "brand" — their "unique selling point" — the persona (the mask) that allows them to fund-raise.

What does Pelosi want? To be the "liberal" face of the Pelosi-Hoyer axis. Threaten to take that away and you get her attention.

We are therefore so glad to see Russ Feingold making the same point, and the same linkage (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

Russ Feingold, the former senator from Wisconsin, said in an email to supporters that Pelosi "has signaled a disturbing potential willingness to adopt a plan that could slash these benefits. And it follows a pattern: Too many House Democrats, including Steny Hoyer, are already on board."

Feingold's challenge, sent to backers of his group Progressives United, comes after Pelosi has repeatedly said that she would vote in favor of the Simpson-Bowles plan, a deficit cutting project that slashes Social Security and Medicare, while raising revenue and cutting defense spending. The progressive online organization CREDO Action will also be sending an email to its supporters backing up Feingold's challenge.

Exactly right, as I see it. We need more of this boldness. If you're inclined toward action, here's that CREDO Action link again.

Some thoughts about the thoughts behind this Pelosi cave, from the same article:

Eric Kingson, co-director of Social Security Works, said last week he was worried that Pelosi was making a dangerous gamble: By publicly backing Simpson-Bowles, she is able to make Republicans look that much more intransigent for not meeting her in the middle. ... But the consequence is that Pelosi is on record in favor of drastic cuts, a difficult position to defend in an election year [sic][.]

Catch that? "A difficult position to defend in an election year." I'll translate — "Impoverishing the elderly is totally bad for appearances."

Feingold totally agrees:

"Cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits are unacceptable, and they shouldn't be put on the table by Democrats for any reason -- including cynical, political ones," he said. "Leader Pelosi must stand up for these crucial programs."

Pelosi and Hoyer, together at last. How is that not true?

Does Nancy Pelosi stand with Steny Hoyer against Social Security?

So far, the answer is Yes. Madame Speaker, over to you.

Update: Very interesting comment thread, including this find by A reader in Colorado. Thanks, all.

GP

To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi endorses Obama's safety net cuts (2013 alert)

It's a target-rich environment here at la maison chez nous, choosing this morning's post. Google (the company, not the tool) is hitting the radar big time, and will soon get its share of attention.

But Nancy Pelosi, our "progressive" fierce defender, has center stage this morning with her recent announcement that she (and by the way, Obama) are still on board with a Grand Bargain — you know, the one where you trade away your children's safety net so long as you keep your own.

Ryan Grimm at the Huffington Post:

Two progressive organizations have found themselves in the unusual position of being on the opposite side of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Over the course of the past two years, the former House Speaker has been the most significant obstacle to the ongoing effort to slash entitlements and cut social spending.

But a series of recent comments, and reports that Pelosi was willing to accept draconian cuts as part of a debt-ceiling deal, have liberals worried that their most powerful and passionate defender may be buckling on the issue.

During a recent press conference, and again during an interview with Charlie Rose, [Pelosi] said that she would support what's known as the Simpson-Bowles plan, a budget proposal that was created by the co-chairs of a fiscal commission set up by President Obama (dubbed the "Catfood Commission" by progressives).

Ignore the accurate but yes-butish first paragraph, and the praise in the second. The meat is in the third paragraph.

It takes a layer to unpack that, which Grim provides a few paragraphs later:

The Simpson-Bowles plan is a mix of tax increases and spending cuts that trims four trillion dollars off the deficit in ten years. Its cuts to social spending and entitlement programs made it "simply unacceptable" to the Democrats' liberal base almost as soon as it was announced. Pelosi's rhetorical retreat from that hard-line position has progressives worried they'll have nobody left to defend the social safety net, even Medicare and Social Security.

And for good measure, there's this to worry about as well:

They are also worried by the willingness Pelosi expressed during the manufactured debt-ceiling crisis to agree to cuts much greater than Simpson-Bowles was going for, as reported by the Washington Post.

There's more in Grim's reporting, but I won't belabor the point.

The article includes many kind words for Pelosi, from Grim and from others such as CREDO — hoping I'm sure to shame her back to her former position (meaning, of course, her former words).

There's also prose and a video at the HuffPo site that explains this isn't a cave since she supported "real" Simpson-Bowles, just not the bill that made it to the House floor last time the subject raised its ugly head. Read and watch if you wish. (If you want even more on Pelosi, try this. It's not just one source.)

Since they're all being so nice, I can be direct. Here's me:

■ Don't trust Nancy Pelosi. She's trying to sell out the safety net. All that verbal obfuscation simply means she's also protecting her "San Francisco liberal" brand in the process. She can't have both, but she's trying.

GP's rule for dealing with Dems:

If you want something from them, threaten what they're desperate to keep.

This usually means their jobs (primaries anyone?), but in a few cases it's their "brand" — their "unique selling point" — the persona (the mask) that allows them to fund-raise.

What does Pelosi want? To be the "liberal" face of the Pelosi-Hoyer axis. Threaten to take that away and you get her attention. (Which means, Mr. CREDO Action Arm — With all respect, confirming her liberal brand may have the opposite result of the one you want.)

Side note — How to deal with Obama in his "legacy" years? How about threatening his legacy as the next Bill Clinton? Here's a start.

■ Simpson-Bowles was designed to attack the safety net. Read here for what the chairman's report wanted to do (note the new lower tax rates, offset by revenue that will never happen). Putting it more simply, Alan Simpson said:

We are going to stick to the big three [Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid].

Got that? The rest is just words, the fog. Krugman calls Simpson-Bowles a "wealth transfer" and faux-progressive Pelosi's on board.

■ Obama still wants to sell you out as well. As we reported here in March (all of a month ago):

Working late into the evening, Obama asked someone to get Boehner on the phone. [Obama's] message: I’ll take your last offer. “Mr. President,” Boehner answered, “we don’t have time to reopen these negotiations.”

White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table.

"Still on the table" means still on the table.

■ Don't forget this:



As Uncle Straight Talk says, "An unfettered Obama is a dangerous Obama."

■ And never forget this:



All you need to know? Our Betters are joined against us, all of them. They just need an opening to kill the New Deal and they're on it.

What can you do? Maybe rebrand Nancy Pelosi. She's acting like Steny Hoyer; let her fundraise as Steny Hoyer.

Time to fight, folks.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

CBS more than a few minutes short in 60 Minutes hit piece on Pelosi

From Ryan Grim at HuffPost:

[T]he knock on Pelosi (D-Calif.) leaves out critical details. "60 Minutes" charges Pelosi with purchasing 5,000 shares of Visa stock as part of an exclusive initial public offering and implies that her financial connection to the credit card industry had something to do with the halting of credit card industry reform.

"Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies began making its way through the House. Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest, the Pelosis purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of 44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House," CBS reports.

But CBS leaves out that fact that the bill passed out of committee at the very end of the legislative session, as Congress was dealing with the Wall Street implosion and bailout, and that the chamber then adjourned until the election. More importantly, Democrats didn't have the votes for it in the Senate and the notion that President Bush would have signed it if they did is far-fetched.

CBS goes on to report: "Congresswoman Pelosi pointed out that the tough credit card legislation eventually passed, but it was two years later and was initiated in the Senate."

The implication is, apparently, that the Senate forced Pelosi's hand. Throughout 2009 and 2010, the House consistently passed stronger and more progressive legislation than the Senate, but in the scenario laid down by CBS, it was the other way around when it came to credit card reform. But in 2008, before the stock transaction, the House had already passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights over the objections of industry lobbyists.

What's particularly weird is that 60 Minutes appears to have based their story on a hit-book by a right wing activist affiliated with Breitbart. Read the rest of this post...

Herman Cain no longer regrets calling former Speaker Pelosi, "Princess Nancy"

Classy guy.  After regretting demeaning Pelosi last night, Cain now says he's sticking by his comments because Pelosi referred to Teabaggers as "astroturf" since they were a creation of the GOP billionaire activists, the Koch brothers.  So he figures if Pelosi can use the term "astroturf" he can use a sexist term to demean her on national television.

Good to know that Herman Cain doesn't have any issues with women.

UPDATE: According to AP, Cain's numbers are dropping in Iowa. Read the rest of this post...

Chris Hedges: The Occupy Movement "will not be co-opted"

Many have worried that the Occupy Movement will be co-opted — its language and imagery taken over by people who want to weaken its effect.

(What's co-option? Think about what ABC did to the women's lib movement and bralessness when it rolled out Charlie's Angels. It decoupled symbol from politics for profit. By pretending to support the underlying ideology (and only pretending), ABC blunted its effect. This became the new face of women's liberation for millions of Americans.)

Will the Occupy Movement be co-opted? Here's Hedges, writing in TruthDig (h/t masaccio via email; emphasis and paragraphing mine):

There is no danger that the protesters who have occupied squares, parks and plazas across the nation in defiance of the corporate state will be co-opted by the Democratic Party or groups like MoveOn. The faux liberal reformers, whose abject failure to stand up for the rights of the poor and the working class, have signed on to this movement because they fear becoming irrelevant. Union leaders, who pull down salaries five times that of the rank and file as they bargain away rights and benefits, know the foundations are shaking. So do Democratic politicians from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi. So do the array of “liberal” groups and institutions, including the press, that have worked to funnel discontented voters back into the swamp of electoral politics and mocked those who called for profound structural reform. ...

Tinkering with the corporate state will not work. We will either be plunged into neo-feudalism and environmental catastrophe or we will wrest power from corporate hands. This radical message, one that demands a reversal of the corporate coup, is one the power elite, including the liberal class, is desperately trying to thwart. But the liberal class has no credibility left. It collaborated with corporate lobbyists to neglect the rights of tens of millions of Americans, as well as the innocents in our imperial wars.

The best that liberals can do is sheepishly pretend this is what they wanted all along. Groups such as MoveOn and organized labor will find themselves without a constituency unless they at least pay lip service to the protests. The Teamsters’ arrival Friday morning to help defend the park signaled an infusion of this new radicalism into moribund unions rather than a co-opting of the protest movement by the traditional liberal establishment. The union bosses, in short, had no choice.

Hedges thinks that liberal institutions like MoveOn and others (including top-down union leadership) have lost legitimacy, and that the Occupy Movement, driven by values and not electoral goals, can't be taken over by them. Read the whole thing to get a sense of why; this is a real essay with real thoughts in it.

One more point worth considering. Hedges says that the "liberal class" has always functioned as a safety valve for a capitalism he views as rapacious; and that in their hubris (my term), the 1%-ers have decided to dispense with the liberals, to discredit the liberals themselves. That creates a problem at the top — no modifying buffer:

The stupidity of the corporate state is that it thought it could dispense with the liberal class. It thought it could shut off that safety valve in order to loot and pillage with no impediments. Corporate power forgot that the liberal class, when it functions, gives legitimacy to the power elite. And the reduction of the liberal class to silly courtiers, who have nothing to offer but empty rhetoric, meant that the growing discontent found other mechanisms and outlets. Liberals were reduced to stick figures, part of an elaborate pantomime, as they acted in preordained roles to give legitimacy to meaningless and useless political theater. But that game is over.

This is one analysis you can marshal evidence for; well worth considering.

I would add that not retaining the trappings of rule of law is likely the fatal flaw in the 1% ointment (so to speak). They should have railroaded someone not named Madoff, someone with "CEO" stuck to the back of his shorts. By not keeping up the pretense of legal liability, they shredded the illusion of their own legitimacy.

But as I've said before, their hubris is our friend. Hedges thinks their hubris means Occupy won't be bought or sold. Here's hoping he's right.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi cut out of key Super Committee meeting

Well, they boys all cut her out of the deficit talks earlier this year - I still don't understand how all the Democratic and Republican, congressional and White House, men got away with that one - and it seems they're doing it again. Read the rest of this post...

Cantor spokesman tries to "clarify" attack on #OccupyWallStreet protesters

Politico

FIRST LOOK: House Democratic leader NANCY PELOSI, to CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, for ABC’s “This Week,” on whether she supports the Occupy Wall Street protests: “Well, I support the message to the establishment -- whether it's Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest -- that change has to happen. … I think one of the most angry responses I've seen to actions in Washington came after we passed the TARP bill. … People are angry … that they don’t have jobs. … [T]here's nothing that makes you angrier than not being able to provide for your family or understand what your prospects are for the future. And I do think that, from what we saw after TARP, that the focus on Wall Street was one that they thought was a legitimate place to go: ‘Don't do this again. Don't put Main Street at the mercy of Wall Street.’ … [N]ot to paint everyone on Wall Street with the same brush. That would not be fair.”

AMANPOUR: “I just want to get your reaction to some comments by Eric Cantor [at the Values Voter Summit]. He said, quote: ‘I'm increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and other cities around the country. … Believe it or not, some in this town have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against other Americans.’”

PELOSI: “I didn't hear him say anything when the Tea Party was out demonstrating, actually spitting on members of Congress right here in the Capitol. And he and his colleagues were putting signs in the windows encouraging them.”

AMANPOUR: “But do you think it's pitting Americans against Americans?”

PELOSI: “Well, that's the American system. It's the democratic system. We don't all agree. We'd have a king if we were all of one mind. We don't. We have different views. And the part of the democracy of our country is the expression that people give, and the Constitution guarantees that.”

CANTOR SPOKESMAN Brad Dayspring responds: “People are angry and obviously have the protected right to express that. His point was that some politicians in Washington who are encouraging and applauding this are ‘pitting Americans against Americans.’ … [T]he basis of the Tea Party was redress of their elected government. The goal of these protesters remains unclear, other than a unity of protest in and of itself. … Leader Cantor merely said that he was growing concerned with the occupy protests -- and I would think that most Americans, whether they agree or not with any or all of the varied causes evident there, feel the same.”

The Tea Party was about redress? No it wasn't. It was formed and run by Newt Gingrich's deputy in the 1990s, Dick Armey, and is simply an assemblage of far-right Republicans intent on kicking Democrats out of office and dismantling government. That is, when they're not spitting on black members of Congress and calling them the n-word. Does anyone remember when the Teabaggers were shutting down congressional townhall meetings with angry cries of "socialism!"? That was okay, but protesting in the streets is not.

Eric Cantor like far too many of his far right brethren running the Republican party simply isn't very comfortable with democracy, Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi supports #OccupyWallSt message

Sounds like Pelosi won't be receiving a birthday card from Cantor in the future. Good. Read the rest of this post...

Life in a liquidity trap: Bank pays negative interest rate

As saltwater Keynesians have been saying since forever (or for a while anyway), you can't have inflation in a liquidity trap, a situation where short-term rates are near or at zero:

Here’s one way to think about the liquidity trap — a situation in which conventional monetary policy loses all traction. When short-term interest rates are close to zero, open-market operations in which the central bank prints money and buys government debt don’t do anything, because you’re just swapping one more or less zero-interest rate asset for another. Alternatively, you can say that there’s no incentive to lend out any increase in the monetary base, because the interest rate you get isn’t enough to make it worth bothering.

At zero percent interest, money just sits in big stagnant pools.

How do you get to zero percent interest? One way is by trying to stimulate (with lower and lower interest rates) an unstimulatable economy — one riddled with personal debt, joblessness, and inefficient demand — one like ours. Rates go to zero, the economy still lays flat as a pancake, and nothing moves. Everyone's trapped.

Well, in 2008, when the above was written, there were lots of bright little freshwater Friedman-esque minds arguing that liquidity traps don't matter (despite the evidence of Japan) and that increasing the monetary base (i.e., "printing money") is always inflationary, even hyper-inflationary.

Welcome to the real world (h/t Krugman):

Bank of New York’s move to charge a fee on large deposits is emblematic of much broader strains that plague the U.S. economy and the global financial system.

In response to the recession and anemic recovery, the Federal Reserve has pushed interest rates to zero and purchased $2.6 trillion worth of mortgage and Treasury securities. In the process, it has flooded the financial system with cash. But banks and investors are reluctant to put that cash to work because they are worried about the economic outlook. With no other place to put it, they’re parking it in banks.

Put simply, if you have a lot of money, BNY will charge you to take your deposit. Why? Your money is useless to them. What will they do with it, invest? In what? The next big bubble isn't on the horizon yet. And interest rates, even for banks, are (ahem) at all time lows.

In essence, they're charging you a storage fee. And with Barack Obama's eager hand at the wheel, government spending is going into reverse, fast, which will almost guarantee low demand and low employment for (my best guess) five to ten years.

I've had Rubicon dreams for the last few days. On this Super Congress with its hair-trigger triggers, all we need is one bad Dem and the Republicans have a majority for anything they want to do. Do you think Pelosi and Reid will limit the damage to just one bad Dem? (Do you think Team Bipartisan will have some input on that as well?)

As I look back, it seems we've been heading up this destructive hill since Reagan (some argue since Carter). It's been work, wrecking the country, fighting progressive and populist gravity for every mile gained.

This week, they may have finally crossed the peak. Gravity now works on their side, and the awesome slide downhill now has its own pre-triggered inevitability.

God I hope that's just a very bad dream, and we all wake up.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Will Pelosi support the Obama/McConnell/Reid debt deal?

Just a reminder — Nancy Pelosi has recently supported the Reid bill in its last configuration. Here's her statement from a few days ago (my emphasis):

"It is clear we must enter an era of austerity; to reduce the deficit through shared sacrifice.

"The President has called for a ‘grand bargain,’ which provides long-term deficit reduction based on shared values and sends a message of confidence to the markets."

Which means that (1) most House Democrats will likely support the next bill; and (2) we may find out who the real progressives are.

(I say "may" because it's not uncommon on bills that are done-deals, for the leadership to give permission for certain members to vote "off the reservation" for cosmetic purposes. Those votes are ineffective, confusing to constituents, and negotiated — traded for something down the line.)

Joe has the full story on the Pelosi statement here.

UPDATE: Just out on Reuters:

Democrats in the House of Representatives might decide not to support a last-minute deal to raise the debt ceiling when they meet on Monday, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday.

"We all may not be able to support it, or none us may be able to support it," Pelosi told reporters.

All of the statements in this post are still true. Pelosi supported the Reid bill, and made serious and full-throated "age of austerity" noises.

This wrinkle may represent a change in her position, or a bow to the reality of not holding her caucus together (please, god, please), or a bow to the need to stay on the right side of appearances as the Democratic base slits its wrist (or looks for better targets). We'll see.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi supports Reid’s debt plan, saying "It is clear we must enter an era of austerity"

Last week, at a blogger meetup on the Hill, Nancy Pelosi provided an outline for a debt plan that sounded a lot like what Harry Reid is proposing. TPM's Brian Beutler wrote about it here. So, it's not a surprise that Pelosi is supporting Reid's plan. But, the first line of her statement sure made me feel uncomfortable. I guess we can be happy that, unlike the President, Reid and Pelosi don't want to share the sacrifice by cutting by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Here's the statement:

“It is clear we must enter an era of austerity; to reduce the deficit through shared sacrifice.

“The President has called for a ‘grand bargain,’ which provides long-term deficit reduction based on shared values and sends a message of confidence to the markets.

“The latest proposal from the House Republicans is a short-term plan that burdens the middle class and seniors, and continues this debate about whether we will default in a few months from now.

“Senator Reid has put forward a responsible plan to reduce the deficit that protects the middle class, and Medicare, Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. It also includes many proposals already supported by Republicans.

“We must come together for an agreement because our economy and middle class will suffer from a default.”

Republicans got us into the financial mess. Yet, they've completely defined the debate.

If Reid's plan were to pass (and who knows if it even has a chance), at least House and Senate Democrats can hold on to the Medicare issue and they won't have to run against Obama's efforts to cut it. Same for Social Security. It was heading that way -- and still may.

And, if anyone in DC did anything about creating jobs, many families and the country would be in a better place financially.

Also, Boehner will be giving a rebuttal after Obama's 9:00 PM ET speech tonight. Read the rest of this post...

Daily Caller story about Pelosi is apparently wrong

Gee, now there's a surprise.  A conservative activist Web site getting a story wrong.  From Sam Stein at Huff Post:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) played no role in the process by which health care waivers were granted to a number of businesses in her district, according to the company that actually requested the waivers on behalf of its clients.

Flex-Plan Services, a third-party benefits administrator based in Bellevue, Wash., made the formal applications for waivers from President Barack Obama's health care law, said it founder, Hilarie Aitken.

"I don’t tend to vote Democratic, but I feel bad for Nancy Pelosi," Aitken told HuffPost. "She’s really being thrown under the bus here. It has nothing to do with her at all. This was just a political power play. The way that they are shaping this -- that the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, [is behind] all these waivers being granted, and how could she do this -- it’s all slanted and wrong".

The admission deals a blow to the accusations made Tuesday morning by the Daily Caller: It claimed Democratic lawmakers were effectively exempting businesses in their districts from the more onerous requirements of the presidential health care law. This was based on the fact that, of the 204 waiver requests that were approved in April, 38 were for restaurants, nightclubs or hotels in Pelosi's district.

As I said, folks are surprised that a conservative Web site got their facts wrong when trying to smear a Democrat. Read the rest of this post...

Nancy Pelosi hospitalized in Rome, then released

From Huffington Post (h/t nicho):

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was hospitalized during a trip to Rome, Italy on Monday, AFP reports.

According to Italian news outlets, the ranking Democrat was reportedly admitted to Umberto I hospital after feeling "slightly unwell" and is undergoing tests.

NBC News' Luke Russert relayed word on Twitter from Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), who's traveling with the Democratic leader, that she's now back at her hotel and "in good shape."

GP Read the rest of this post...

Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi, BFF

AMERICAblog Elections: The Right's Field reminds us that Mr. Conservative agrees with Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore on global warming.

Get ready for Newt to repudiate his former views almost as quickly as he switches wives (Newt loves traditional marriage so much, he's had 3 - so far). Read the rest of this post...