That study (Came out around the same time as Bush was being lauded as a subtle economic genius on the right - I can't even find those books on Amazon now.)has been pretty throughly debunked - first of all, depressions happened before (and after) the great depression, and the exact same policies were used that Ohanian and Cole claim caused the great depression to extend itself - these tools being primarily trusted by Democrats, you would of course expect recessions to be more common unde Democratic administrations, as well as longer and deepr.

In point of fact, the exact opposite is the case - almost every post WWII recession that has lasted more than a year (I'm posting from memory here - it seems like Carter might have had one that exceeded a year) has been while Republicans were in office, and they've had more recesssions. So, empirically, the Keynesian tools shorten recessions and make them shallower. The more generally accepted explanation is that FDR in 1937 made the mistake of listening to the conservatives and concentrating on reducing the deficit when the economy wasn't yet out of the woods.

Neat Theory. Support - ah, no not so much.

Jonnan

How much control and/or oversight do you think the government should be exercising on bailed-out firms?

Robert Socia, GM's head of global purchasing, replied two days later. The decision to dissolve the contract in bankruptcy court wasn't taken lightly, he wrote. But it was GM's obligation to trim costs however it could.

"The best way to repay taxpayers is to run the business as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible," Mr. Socia wrote. "Uncompetitive supplier agreements do not support this priority."

Three days later, Rep. Rehberg called for a congressional hearing on the voided contract. GM, he said at the time, "ought to be subjected to the same rigorous oversight we exercise over any other government agency."

"I was elected to represent the interests of Montana, not General Motors, which is something that GM should have considered before letting the federal government assume control of their company," Rep. Rehberg said recently.

Politicians Butt In at Bailed-Out GM

Should we be concerned that this level of Congressional control will lead to more government reluctance to let companies buy themselves back out of public ownership such as we saw in March? When GM and other TARP funded firms start making profits, is it in the public interest to resist them buying themselves back out so the government can reap the dividends private investors get?

Should we be concerned that this level of Congressional control will lead to more government reluctance to let companies buy themselves back out of public ownership such as we saw in March?

Not particularly. The very worst that could happen is that GM stays controlled by the government... if so, there are a LOT of other car comapnies out there, so you don't even need to worry that "they" will put mind-control devices in the headrests or whatever.

I don't think mind control devices are anyone's main concern. There are potentially huge conflicts of interest, like the aforementioned Congressman interfering with GM's contracts to benefit his own district. Or perhaps just giving them a sweetheart deal and purchasing all new government vehicles from GM instead of open bidding. Efficiency doesn't matter as much if you can count on 100k (?) unit sales to the feds without having to compete with anyone to get them.

How much control and/or oversight do you think the government should be exercising on bailed-out firms?

Only enough to protect the taxpayers investment.

I don't think mind control devices are anyone's main concern.

Not worried about mind control devices quite yet.

But we do already have continuous monitoring of speed, acceleration and braking data that is retained in the car's microcontroller to be used against you if necessary. That coupled with a transmitter so that the car's location can be contiuously monitored as well as being able to monitor all cabin audio are pretty close to how I read 1984.

There are potentially huge conflicts of interest

Obviously. The kind of bailouts we had with the banks and the car companies should, and I think have, been made only because of the most extraordinary set of circumstances. Even I don't really want the government involved in the day to day operation of any business.

But we do have to do something about this "too big to fail" thing and I think that congress is starting to look into this. Basically we used to have businesses of this nature compartmentalized. We need to avoid this kind of thing in the future by identifying areas or companies that the government would be obligated to bail out and regulating those companies to keep them from engaging in risky behavior.

Only those companies that could be allowed to fail and therefore not require bailout should be allowed to engage in behaviors that are likely to result in failure. So if they fail then they fail, they and potentially their customers and investors would know this up front and therefore be warned and can't come crying to the government if something bad happens.

But if the company is such that their failure would require the government to become involved then it behooves us to regulate them sufficiently so that it is far less likely to occur again.

There are potentially huge conflicts of interest, like the aforementioned Congressman interfering with GM's contracts to benefit his own district.

Yes, but any time any government figure takes mony from a private comany there's a potntially huge conflict of interest. The only real way to remove the problem is to make sure that "donations" are as public as possible, and try to keep a lid on the sheer amount of money being spent.

I found no direct donation to Mr. Rehburg from Stillwater Mining Company, but a mining association does appear as a donor. His actions do seem to indicate he has been lobbied by someone, but I guess one could argue a Congress member's primary duty is to his constituents rather than the nation as a whole. Either way, he seems to be trying to screw GM and the American taxpayer out of millions of dollars to benefit a mining company in his state.

but I guess one could argue a Congress member's primary duty is to his constituents rather than the nation as a whole.

Bringing home the pork is a time honored requirement. People only complain about it when it's the other guy bringing home the pork to someone else. When it's "your" guy bringing home the pork to you then that's usually perceived as good.

All in all campaign reform really can't address that issue since it’s really a matter of servicing your constituents. The question is what percentage of spending is pork and what is due to corporatist (and union) lobbying? My guess is that if we could eliminate lobbying the leftover pork would not seem so bad.

Just a heads up, apparently Glenn Beck finally decided to raise some hell about the climate change treaty set to be signed soon - although it seems you know more about what he says than I do (seeing as I don't have access to his show, that's not hard to explain). Expect to hear a lot from the New World Order people.

although it seems you know more about what he says than I do (seeing as I don't have access to his show, that's not hard to explain)

I've never seen his show. All I do is visit a number of liberal web sites and there's always going to be an unflattering clip of him doing some ridiculous thing or other. I also don't think I've ever posted any such clip here because they are basically beneath rational discussion.

But if you want an idea of what I'm talking about here's a good example. Enjoy.

Mumblefratz

reply 308

... Bringing home the pork is a time honored requirement. People only complain about it when it's the other guy bringing home the pork to someone else. When it's "your" guy bringing home the pork to you then that's usually perceived as good.

All in all campaign reform really can't address that issue since it’s really a matter of servicing your constituents. The question is what percentage of spending is pork and what is due to corporatist (and union) lobbying? My guess is that if we could eliminate lobbying the leftover pork would not seem so bad.

The 'pork barrel' thing is a both a real scarce-resources problem and classic eye-of-the-beholder situation. On the beholder side, it's a place where I can easily accept opinion surveys as a form of evidence. For pretty much as long as people have run surveys about Congress and individual members, voters tend to have a much lower opinion of the insitution than they have of the people representing their district and state; psych-types might call that cognitive dissonance, which is a form of being crazy. But the scarce-resources side is much harder to handle. Not least because hindsight is always sharper than foresight, which means that even well-intentioned, sensible-seeming public investment ideas can turn out to be more trouble than they're worth (e.g. the Cross-Florida Barge Canal).

Postmodernist caveats aside, I'm fairly sure that forcing all the money into the open would be a big help in cutting down on flat-out government corruption. Overturning Buckley v. Valeo would be better, but Fierce Sunshine Everywhere would be a decent first step. Essentially, that would force corporate interests to admit that they are something akin to a 'third house' of Congress whose constituencies are defined by stock ownership rather than home addresses.

Buckley v. Valeo would be better, but Fierce Sunshine Everywhere would be a decent first step.

I'm not familiar with Buckley v. Valeo so I guess I'll need to look it up. But I certainly agree that a good dose of vitamin D can have a beneficial effect, particularly when focused on places where the sun doesn't normally shine.

Buckley v. Valeo is the 1976 Supreme Court case that is the primary legal basis for treating election spending as a form of protected political speech under the 1st Amendment. I'm not holding my breath to see a change there anytime soon, and no one has yet been able to persuade me that the ruling is too broad at best, if not simply a gross mistake.

But then I'm one of those folks who believes our nation has been on a steady march towards a more democratic republic. Establishing a near-universal franchise is just one criterion for democratic well-being; another is assessing just how close we come to equal votes, regardless of any particular citizen's social standing or wealth. Under current election laws, wealthier people and organizations are simply 'more equal' than ordinary citizens because they can use money to radically amplify their voices.

Buckley v. Valeo is the 1976 Supreme Court case that is the primary legal basis for treating election spending as a form of protected political speech under the 1st Amendment.

OK.

Another crucial point is how was it decided that corporations as an artificial entitity deserved free speech rights under the 1st amendment as if they were an actual person?

Under current election laws, wealthier people and organizations are simply 'more equal' than ordinary citizens because they can use money to radically amplify their voices.

In other words what we really have is a plutocracy. Or is it an oligarchy? Or perhaps the combination of the both of them, a plutarchy?

Whatever we do have it isn't really a democracy because money *always* wins.

Another crucial point is how was it decided that corporations as an artificial entitity deserved free speech rights under the 1st amendment as if they were an actual person?

The same could be said of any other non-individual, such as unions, non-profit foundations, and political parties.

In other words what we really have is a plutocracy. Or is it an oligarchy? Or perhaps the combination of the both of them, a plutarchy?

Whatever we do have it isn't really a democracy because money *always* wins.

Says the guy who contributed to the problem (pun intended).

The same could be said of any other non-individual, such as unions, non-profit foundations, and political parties.

Agreed.

Says the guy who contributed to the problem (pun intended).

In the grand scheme of things my 2K is chicken feed, but point taken.

I suppose that the following clip will be dismissed or spun into some positive light by the right but the truth of the matter is that the Republican party which is already the party of crazy is being taken over by an even crazier lunatic fringe.

Ahh yes, the 23rd...... I for one am rooting for the Conservative guy: one extra (probabaly Blue Dog, anyway) Democrat in the House won't make much of a difference, but another Bachmann? That's just too fun to pass up!

You'd be right to expect that to be dismissed. Rachel Maddow is no more of a legitimate pundit than Glenn Beck is.

As for the race, look at the positions on issues. The "Republican" candidate was far closer to being a Democrat than even a moderate Republican in terms of same sex marriage, abortion, healthcare and other issues. The Conservative party candidate who forced her out had previously been running for the Republican nomination, before it was handed to Scozzafava without a primary election. Local party leaders nominated her, aganst the recommendation of the national party and entirely without voter input.

As for the race, look at the positions on issues.

I also found the part about the conservative candidate having virtually no knowledge of local issues rather telling as well.

In any case it's a no lose situation for the democrats. It's a seat they haven't won since the civil war and the republicans one way or the other made a mess of the situation even if they hold onto the seat as expected. But can you imagine if they don't. To lose a district in which no democrat has received more than 30% of the vote in some 150 years would be really funny. Simply breaking 40% would be a huge democratic win.

Considering Obama won that district, not really. I call that lowering the bar.

We're not talking about a presidential election we're talking about a house representative.

The NY 23rd district is only one of two remaining districts in the US that has not been represented by a Democrat since 1852 and in fact has been represented by a WHIG more recently (1854) than it has a Democrat (1852).

http://www.thealbanyproject.com/diary/6516/amazing-political-history-of-ny23

As I said previously no democrat representative has received more than 30% in any race therefore it would be a big upset for the democrat to get 40% in this race even though Obama did marginally carry the district in 2008.

We probably won't get any meaningful results tonight since there are reports of problems with new ballot scanners in the towns of Louisville, Waddington, Rossie and Clare.

The most recent news that I can find is the following.

NY-23: All of a Sudden, Pessimism at Hoffman HQ

By David Weigel 11/3/09 10:20 PM

SARANC LAKE, N.Y. – The mood is getting darker at NY-23 Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman’s election party. Results from Jefferson County–Republican territory that John McCain carried–show Owens in the lead. And the Syracuse suburbs–Madison, Oswego, and Oneida County–are not showing the blowouts that early polling suggested. The first results from Oswego show Hoffman at 2800, Owens at 2000, and Scozzafava at 324. The final Siena poll had Hoffman leading Democrat BIll Owens 51-28 in this region.

I asked Hoffman’s spokesman Rob Ryan for a reaction, and he suggested that it was hard to know the trends without knowing which wards the votes were coming from. That’s true, but it’s significantly less optimism than Ryan was projecting earlier tonight.

I think all this fuss along with making the NY-23 race a national referendum is awful silly. As if a few thousand hicks from upstate NY make a rat's ass difference in anything whatsoever.

As an aside, I'm waiting for some rabid right wingnut to start believing that the V remake is real and that Obama is a "visitor."

Here's a number of polls over the last few months taken about the public option. The following lists the percentage that favored the public option along with the poll, date and link to the original.

77% (SurveyUSA 8/20/09)

65% (NY Times/CBS News 9/25/09)

55% (Washington Post/ABC News 9/12/09)

61% (Quinnipiac 10/08/09)

55% (Time 7/29/09)

72% (NY Times/CBS News 6/20/09)

56% (Washington Post/ABC News 10/20/09)

59% (Kaiser Family Foundation 8/20/2009)

The bottom line is that in poll after poll, over long periods of time the American people favor the public option.

As an aside, I'm waiting for some rabid right wingnut to start believing that the V remake is real and that Obama is a "visitor."

Speaking of which, I'm actually sensing a rightist bias in that show..... especially with the priest guy and his worry that the visitors are going to replace god.

That's funny, you dropped a few polls that don't support your view too well, such as the Gallup October 16-19 poll that put support at 50%. That's just the one listed in the RCP link, I didn't do any sort of exhaustive search. But then, neither did you.

With at least one non-partisan example to point at, I offer the following: wording of the question affects the result. In effect, a generally uninformed public and feel-good wording are turning the MSM polls into de facto astroturfing organizations. (consistently ~50% or more of those polled think they don't know enough to have an informed opinion, listed at 46% in the NYT poll you have listed above, question 41). Until you can get that number down to 10% or so, the feel-good polls are meaningless, that number is effectively the margin of error.

How US politics works

Politicians Butt In at Bailed-Out GM