Oh!pinion Rotating Header Image

You say government can do no right
and corporations can do no wrong?

Bush and business signTo hear conservative Republicans tell it, business is the vital, job-creating, wealth-building, and therefore virtuous, backbone of American prosperity and democracy, while government is a meddlesome, bungling and costly drag on freedom and prosperity.

Or, as the icon of conservative Republicans put it:

Oh really? We’ve done a little scorekeeping just over the past week or so, to see how corporate America is doing at being our virtuous backbone.

Item: J&J CEO calls lessons ‘very painful’

TRENTON, N.J. – With Johnson & Johnson’s once-golden reputation tarnished by 11 recalls of medicines, contact lenses and hip implants in as many months, its chief executive says he knows the company let consumers down.

. . .The maker of trusted brands including Johnson’s No More Tears baby shampoo, Tylenol pain reliever and Neosporin antibiotic ointment, has announced repeated recalls. Nine involved nonprescription medicines – from Children’s Benadryl to Tylenol Arthritis – made by its McNeil Consumer Healthcare unit.

The biggest was an astounding April 30 recall of 136 million bottles of children’s and infants’ liquid medicines that might have contained tiny metal particles or have too much active ingredient.

. . .Last week was particularly bad for the world’s biggest health-products maker. J&J received a warning from the Food and Drug Administration about illegal marketing of some hip and knee implants and two more recalls: one involving two other hip implant products and one involving contact lenses sold in Asia and Europe that stung some users’ eyes.

Eleven recalls in 11 months! The story also says that at one plant, when production of a medication had to be interrupted, workers didn’t bother to recalibrate the machinery to ensure doses were accurate.

Mind you, this isn’t some small, off-the wall outfit operating on a shoestring, but the “world’s biggest health-products maker.”

Continue reading →

1 comment

Give Karzai and his troops the chance
to put up and win — or shut up

“There should be a review of the strategy in the fight against terrorism, Quote logo because the experience of the last eight years showed that the fight in the villages of Afghanistan has been ineffective apart from causing civilian casualties.”

-Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, to the visiting
speaker of Germany’s parliament
, Aug. 30, 2010

KABUL, Afghanistan — Roadside bombs killed seven American troopers on Monday — including five in a single blast in Kandahar — raising to more than a dozen the number who have died in the last three days.

-From an Associated Press news story,
7 US troops die in bombings in violent south,
Aug. 30, 2010

In all, 62 coalition troops, 49 of them Americans, gave their lives in August fighting to keep Karzai alive, his government in power and make it possible for his fellow Afghans to live in a free and independent country — sacrifices the president should keep in mind when waxing critical.

On seeing the headlines on these stories, we were prepared to condemn Karzai for bellyaching. After all, he’s done precious little to secure freedom and independence.

That would’ve been easy. However, reading the specifics of Karzai’s criticism, there’s no denying he makes valid points about strategy.

Continue reading →

9 comments

Dodd’s reservations shouldn’t keep
Warren from financial watchdog post

Capitol domeAn excellent Huffington Post item sheds added light on Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s curious reticence about Elizabeth Warren heading the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The short of it is that while Dodd is very concerned the Harvard professor and standout consumer advocate might not be up to managing the new agency, he’s been a cheerleader or no-show at vetting previous nominees for a broad range of high government posts his committee oversees.

Ironically — or perhaps tellingly — several of those appointees turned in exceptionally bad performances in positions of great responsibility and high authority.

When he did show up, and make statements or ask questions, Dodd largely praised the nominees — rather than engage in tough, critical questioning. When former OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) chief John C. Dugan came before the banking committee in July 2005, Dodd congratulated him on the nomination, then said he had “great confidence” that Dugan and the other prospective regulators before the committee would bring “great expertise, stability, and dignity” to their new posts.

Dodd didn’t ask a question during the hearing for Dugan, or any of the other nominees (which included John M. Reich, who would oversee thrifts at the OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision), and Christopher Cox, who would lead the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission)).

. . .Reich resigned last year under pressure. His agency oversaw numerous banks that failed in part due to poor supervision, and the AIG unit that peddled credit default swaps, the explosion of which nearly brought down the nation’s financial system. Dugan recently stepped down at the end of his five-year term, his agency under fire for its lax protection of consumers.

Cox’s SEC failed to catch Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and oversaw highly over-leveraged investment firms like Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch — all of which either failed or were guided into government-backed mergers.

Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, is retiring from the Senate at year’s end. Having long thought well of him, we would like to believe Dodd’s many negative statements about Warren being named to head the new financial industry watchdog agency are rooted in concern for the public good.

But given Dodd’s passivity about foxes being named to guard hen houses in recent years, coupled with the credible suspicion some have voiced about a desire to secure a high-level job in the financial industry,  a picture emerges that doesn’t bode well for his legacy.

No, suspicions aren’t proof. And, Dodd says if Warren is the nominee he will support her — for all the good that will do after months of voicing doubts about her suitability.

In light of all this, we hope President Obama will give no weight to Dodd’s sentiments in deciding who should take charge of the new bureau.

Warren is amply qualified for the post, probably more so than the two other people Obama is said to be considering. She should get the nod and the job.

If Warren is Obama’s choice, Dodd for one last time should continue his practice of proactively backing the president’s nominee.

22 comments

Boehner spreads GOP snake oil;
CBO quickly applies dispersant

BoehnerWith timing as all wrong as his speech full of naysaying disinformation about the economic stimulus, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, kicked off the week in fine style.

In a report published the same day as Minority Leader John Boehner’s criticism of President Obama’s economic policy, the CBO said the stimulus law boosted the economy by between 1.7% and 4.5%, lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points and increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.

In practice, that means the stimulus plan is the main reason the U.S. economy grew during the second quarter.

Steve Benen gets off a good post on Boehner’s bonehead routine and the recovery effort. Benen concludes we know what works, know we need more of it, but the politics – overcoming the obstruction of Republicans who don’t want what works to work any more – has Democrats sitting on their hands.

What Democrats should be doing is fighting tooth and nail for additional stimulus spending and plenty of it. At the same time, they should use every available means to explain to the country, at saturation levels, why that additional spending is needed and what it can do to strengthen and speed the recovery.

Substantially reducing unemployment and fending off deflation can’t be done passively. Nor can it be done without substantial additional stimulus from somewhere. Wall Street banksters and corporate CEOs aren’t about to risk their precious bottom lines to help the country out. Most consumers lack the wherewithal, even if they weren’t too scared to spend, which they understandably are.

That leaves the federal government. Yes, the deficit will be a bear to deal with later on, once the economy is moving again. But it can and will be dealt with.

Following Boehner’s bonehead approach of doing nothing but making President Bush and the Republicans’ massive tax cuts for the rich and super rich permanent, we can grow the deficit another $1 trillion or more with no appreciable job-creating stimulus at all.

But does anyone in their right mind really want a rerun of Bush and the Republicans’ jobless recovery of 2003-2007?

13 comments

Economists find bailouts, stimulus
better than head-in-sand alternative

As surely as Republicans and tea party types want people to focus on the federal deficit and high unemployment instead of why both got so high, those pols are saying plenty about business bailouts and the federal stimulus being wasteful and ineffective.

But as Columnist Froma Harrop explains, two well-qualified economists who’ve actually studied the Obama administration’s economic disaster response and its results say it has been a life saver.

Using econometric models, Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi argue that the bailouts, the stimulus and other extraordinary actions saved America from nothing less than another Great Depression. Blinder was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. Zandi is chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and advised Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Had Washington not taken any aggressive steps starting in 2008, the results would have been horrific, their study says. Real gross domestic product would have fallen a “stunning” 12 percent, rather than the actual decline of 4 percent. Nearly 17 million jobs would have vanished, twice as many as the real count. And the unemployment rate would have peaked at 16.5 percent.

Critics like Republican Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Florida tea party darling Marco Rubio, both Senate candidates, have decidedly partisan motives for condemning the bailouts and stimulus. Blinder and Zandi have their professional reputations to protect by playing it straight.

Harrop cites Blunt for referring to “the now-failed stimulus” and Rubio for lambasting his opponent, Gov. Charlie Crist, for having supported measures that ” failed to keep unemployment from soaring.” Like all GOP and tea party candidates, they’re demagoging about the $1.4 trillion budget deficit, predicting economic armageddon if drastic budget slashing, government shrinking and keeping big tax cuts for the rich don’t commence immediately.

Harrop reports what Blinder and Zandi’s models show about the cost of conservatives’ preferred policy of doing nothing.

Recessions themselves fuel deficits by raising social spending and lowering tax revenues. Thus, government programs that make economic downturns shallower and end them sooner can pay for themselves.

If Washington had not reacted as quickly and as forcefully as it did, the two economists write, “the costs to U.S. taxpayers would have been vastly greater.”

With no special government intervention, the 2010 deficit would have passed $2 trillion, according to their model. It would have reached $2.6 trillion in fiscal 2011 and $2.25 trillion in 2012.

Add outright deflation to the expected massive employment and falling GDP, Blinder and Zandi conclude, and “this dark scenario constitutes a 1930s-like depression.”

Unfortunately, most voters know economics and economic policy the way they know art: “If I like it, it’s a masterpiece. If I don’t, it’s junk.” Exploiting their instinctive dislike of big deficits is like shooting fish in a barrel, never mind what the alternative was.

Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration are in the unenviable position of having to defend a lesser-of-evils policy tied to a massive price tag, all because of the horrendously stupid, perverse recklessness of their predecessors. What’s more, Democrats must explain to voters how much grief that money prevented – a far tougher proposition than if they could brag up some impressive number of new jobs created.

Like America’s struggling unemployed and small-business people, Congressional Democrats are contending with a raw deal of others’ making. If Blinder and Zandi’s findings provide some help it will be a minor measure of political justice in a time when that’s even rarer than help-wanted ads for well-paying jobs.

14 comments

Time to pass out some kudos

OK signAmidst a whole lot of bad news and atrocious actors on the national scene, let’s break for a few well-deserved pats on the back, starting with NBC News and MSNBC, for their terrific coverage of the historic exit of the last U.S. Army combat brigade from Iraq.

MSNBC paired Rachel Maddow and reporter Richard Engel for on-scene segments in Iraq and Kuwait. Both provided excellent background and insights as well as first-person reporting.

And, of course, we want to snap a smart salute to the Second Army Division Stryker brigade troops for their safe, well-executed egress over Iraqi highways to Kuwait. May their long journey back to Fort Lewis, Wash., be as safe and uneventful.

Regardless of how enthusiastic we might or might not be about the mission they were assigned, all of us owe these military men and women our highest respect and deepest gratitude. The same goes for their counterparts of all the services serving in Afghanistan and around the world.

Foiling craven Republican obstruction monkeys: Good move by President Obama, making recess appointments of long-stalled, badly needed appointees for his administration.

In making the appointments, Obama said: “At a time when our nation faces so many pressing challenges, I urge members of the Senate to stop playing politics with our highly qualified nominees, and fulfill their responsibilities of advice and consent. Until they do, I reserve the right to act within my authority to do what is best for the American people.”

Winslow Sergeant’s situation is typical of what the spiteful political obstinacy the Party of No is good for. Thanks to Obama’s action, Sergeant will finally become the Small Business Administration’s chief advocacy counsel. His life and career have been in limbo for 14 months. Meanwhile, SBA has been less prepared to do its job of helping small businesses and start-ups. All that thanks to the party whose members claim their shriveled hearts bleed for small businesses.

Responsible adults discuss differing views civilly: Earlier this week, Keith Olbermann came out forcefully and eloquently in support of a Manhattan Muslim group exercising its right to create a community center in an old building a few blocks from the World Trade Center site. Olbermann followed that up with more advocacy throughout the week. We think first-rank attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson could not have made a more solid, persuasive case.

Nevertheless, tonight, Olbermann held a pro-con discussion with Dr. Howard Dean. The former presidential candidate and Democratic national party chairman acknowledges the Muslims’ right to create their center, but feels they should first hold a face-to-face meeting with area people opposed to it, perhaps then reconsidering where to locate the center.

Olbermann is passionate contending there’s no rational, fair reason to discourage, much less try to block, creation of the Muslim center. As always, Dean is temperate, sensible and effective in making his case.

Yet despite their strong, differing views, Olbermann and Dean discussed the matter like two serious, well-informed adults who respect each other. What a welcome departure from the snark-laden shout fests and noisy talking-points dumps so common on cable news/talk programs.

Olbermann gets a second tip of the hat for bringing on someone to make a case at odds with his own. That’s the kind of cut-above decision that makes Countdown the gem of its genre.

19 comments

Deficit reduction lies and the lying
Murdoch-owned rag spreading them

MurdochW all Street banksters and the rest of the financial industry would love to get started on deficit reduction, immediately and in a big way, for several reasons that have little to do with the overall financial well-being of the country or future generations’ debt situation.

Like the Rupert Murdoch-owned, pro-right wing, corporate-media outlet it is, The Wall Street Journal is framing the deficit situation in a way perfectly in line with what the financial industry and radical-conservative establishment want.

Thus, we get today’s WSJ story, “Voters Back Tough Steps to Reduce Budget Deficit.” It begins . . .

RICHMOND, Va.—Frustrated voters, fixing on the $1.5 trillion federal deficit as a symbol of Washington’s paralysis, appear increasingly willing to take drastic steps to address the red ink.

. . .With the November midterm elections looming, voters appear ahead of Washington in grappling with the tough choices to come, according to national polling and a focus group commissioned by The Wall Street Journal in the bellwether city of Richmond.

Keep in mind that driving down the deficit by slashing government spending will benefit Wall Street and the broader financial industry’s profit outlook. Ka-ching.

But that’s just the beginning. The banksters, along with most of the rest of corporate America, want President Obama and congressional Democrats out of power, ASAP. They have bubbles to build and fleecing to do, the less oversight and regulatory interference the better, as they see it.

Continue reading →

24 comments

‘News judgment’ shouldn’t
be an oxymoron, however . . .

reader birdHere we are with two no-win wars in the Mideast, an environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. economy screwed up like it hasn’t been screwed up in 80 years, and this nonsense is up there with the day’s top news stories.

President Obama didn’t want this weekend’s getaway to Florida’s Gulf Coast to be a repeat of past beach trips, where the media spent days commenting on his toned physique.

. . . “I’m not going to let you guys take a picture of me with my shirt off,” (Obama) told CNN’s Ed Henry on Saturday. For this trip, the Obama administration wanted media attention focused on the region’s recovery from the disastrous BP oil spill, not on his pec-profile.

What little news value there was in presenting photos of the president shirtless in 2008 was realized then. Now, it’s not just old news, it’s non-news of the “What in hell is this doing here?” kind.

Entertaining diversions can be valuable in difficult times. Judging by most movie house fare of the 1930′s, filled with Ginger Rogers-Fred Astaire musicals, Three Stooges and Marx Brothers zaniness, and so on, one would think that Depression-scarred decade had been the best of times.

But the president’s physique, however well toned, hardly fills the welcome-diversion bill. Photos of that kind appeal only to idle curiosity.

Continue reading →

8 comments

Something to seethe about
while we’re briefly away

We’re taking a detour off the information superhighway for a couple of days, so please don’t mistake our lack of visits to your blog for a lack of interest.

In the meantime, be sure to see a mind-boggling chart that neatly and graphically contrasts President Obama’s plan for what to do about the expiring Bush tax cuts, and what Republicans want to do. You’ll get to see who benefits and, on the GOP plan, who hits the jackpot.

What’s that old saying? Oh yes, “Never give the suckers an even break.” Republicans should be made to wear a warning sign, styled like the one on cigarette packs, that includes that sentiment.

8 comments

Republicans pitch Hispanic ‘anchor babies’
as obligatory election-year wedge issue

“The Republican war on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause Quote logois indeed directed at a mortal threat — but not to the American nation. It is the threat that Latino voting poses to the Republican Party.

“By proposing to revoke the citizenship of the estimated 4 million U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants — and, presumably, the children’s children and so on down the line — Republicans are calling for more than the creation of a permanent noncitizen caste. They are endeavoring to solve what is probably their most crippling long-term political dilemma: the racial diversification of the electorate. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are trying to preserve their political prospects as a white folks’ party in an increasingly multicolored land.”

—Harold Meyerson, in a Washington Post column,
Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment,
Aug. 11, 2010″


To put an even finer point on it, radical-conservative Republicans are trying to do two cynically political things by demonizing Hispanic immigrants and their children.

First, Republicans’ election-year M.O. includes ginning up anger and resentment about some wedge issue. Remember Willie Horton and the bogus specter of soft-on-criminals liberals like Massachusetts Gov. Mike Dukakis turning them loose to kill again?

Second, Republicans want to avoid having to choose in the not-too-distant future between a very large, cohesive Hispanic voting bloc and their longtime core supporters in Southern and border states of the old Confederacy. Those, plus whites elsewhere who are unenthusiastic about increasing racial diversity in America.

More and more this year, it appears Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-N.C., and other Republicans are making their choice now, in hopes of stemming sizable increases of Hispanic Americans in coming years.

Toward the end of his column, Meyerson poses a fitting challenge for Republicans who agree with Graham about all those devious pregnant Hispanics, their “anchor babies” and changing the Fourteenth Amendment. You can bet the challenge will go unanswered.

14 comments