ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Tea Parties and Farm Subsidies

Man and woman with stern expession stand side-by-side. The man hold a pitch fork

It would be nice to think that the Tea Partying and “anti-spending” mania sweeping the country might lead to renewed pressure to rethink farm subsidies, but as Donald Carr points out it doesn’t seem to be happening:

But right now, there seem to be plenty of Tea Party-favored candidates who willingly collect government assistance in the form of farm subsidies. In early April, the Washington Post reported that Stephen Fincher, a Tea Party Senate candidate from Tennessee, was facing criticism over his acceptance of farm subsidy payments, as is Indiana Senate candidate Marlin Stutzman. Michele Bachmann’s farm subsidies have opened her up to charges of hypocrisy for her limited government stands.

The situation is similar with members who flaunt their success at steering government money to their home states and districts. In March, at the height of the heath care debate, nine Republican senators sent President Obama a letter decrying his proposed cuts to lavish farm subsidy programs. The senators who signed the letter were Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), senior Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Pat Roberts (Kan.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), John Thune (S.D.), James Risch (Idaho), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) and David Vitter (La).

As I’ve been saying, I think it’s necessary to get past the idea of pointing out “hypocrisy” here. It’s kind of like if a conservative was to say liberals say they like social justice, but really they favor policies that are wrong. “Social justice” is just a phrase, a slogan, something progressives like to talk about, but it doesn’t have any particular content. Similarly, for Tea Partiers “big government” means “stuff we don’t like” it’s not a governing agenda. It’s very common for countries to feature an urban-rural political cleavage. In some instances, the rural areas are more leftwing than the urban areas. But in places like the US where rural areas are more conservative, supporting rural interests is just constitutive of conservative ideology. It’s mistaken, but it’s not really hypocrisy.

Security

Will The Right Wing Attack General Petraeus For Saying Times Square Bomber Is A ‘Lone Wolf’? (Updated)

john-boehnerLast Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that authorities had “no evidence” that the failed bombing in Times Square which occurred the day before was “anything other than a one-off” incident. However, she also said “[w]e are treating it as if it could be a potential terrorist attack. The derivation of that we do not know and that’s what the investigation will tell us.”

Looking for a line of attack on the Obama administration, the Republicans and other right wingers latched onto Napolitano’s “one-off” comments, claiming they indicate that she and the administration don’t understand the true nature of the threat:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): “The Obama administration has spoon-fed the American people with bland reassurances that this was just one off, or that this was just a lone wolf. This is the rhetoric of an administration that continues to operate without a real comprehensive plan to confront the terrorist threat.”

RNC Chair Micheal Steele: “Clearly there’s something missing…I think there’s a lot of rush to judgment in concluding that he acted alone so we can sweep that aside and not have it reach out as tentacles often do and touch a whole lot of other actors around the globe, particularly those who are apart of the global jihad.” [MSNBC, 5/7/10]

Charles Krauthammer: “The administration always instinctively wants to pretend, at least at the beginning, that it’s a one-off the thing…They don’t want to talk about the overall structure, which is that it’s part of jihad. They’re all connected in the sense that they are adherents to a jihadist movement with a lot of tentacles and that is what is behind them.”

Napolitano never claimed outright that the suspect, Faisal Shahzad, acted alone. She simply said there was “no evidence” yet that he didn’t. Now, it appears her informed judgment has been further vindicated. Gen. David Petraeus — a favorite among right wing neoconservatives and war hawks — said today that Shahzad did, in fact, act alone:

Gen. David Petraeus says the Times Square bombing suspect is a “lone wolf” terrorist who did not work with others.

The general who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan tells The Associated Press that alleged bomber Faisal Shahzad was inspired by militants in Pakistan, but didn’t have direct contact with them.

The Washington Post reports today that “U.S. officials” said Shahzad’s “radicalization was cumulative and largely self-contained — meaning that it did not involve typical catalysts such as direct contact with a radical cleric, a visible conversion to militant Islam or a significant setback in life.”

So while Boehner, Steele, Krauthammer and the rest were busy jumping to conclusions on the Times Square bombing, the Obama administration offered a more reasoned and measured response. Perhaps the right wing will now attack Petraeus’s naïveté in fighting terrorism?

Update

The Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes, who has also criticized Napolitano’s “one-off” remark, tweets that Petraeus’s comment “[c]ontradicts virtually all [reporting] this week.”


Update

,Subsequently, Petraeus’ statement was disputed by other officials in the Obama administration. Attorney General Eric Holder said the U.S. has now “developed evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind” the attempted car bombing. White House homeland security adviser John Brennan also said Shahzad was working “on behalf of the Tariqi Taliban Pakistan.”

Climate Progress

House passes Home Star

One step closer to a clean energy future

Yesterday’s bi-partisan passage of the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010 in the House is a critical milestone on the road to economic recovery, alleviating America’s jobs crisis, and lessening our energy use.  The alliance behind this $6 billion rebate program to encourage Americans to invest in more energy-efficient homes is nothing short of historic.  CAP’s Tina M. Ramos and Bracken Hendricks have the story.

Read more

Security

Krauthammer: Let’s Just Pretend Shahzad Has Been Handled Poorly

krauthammerIn apparent need to live up to his reputation as critic-in-chief and find fault with the Obama administration about something, anything, Charles Krauthammer acknowledges the excellent work done by authorities in tracking, apprehending, and interrogating alleged attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, but then asks us to imagine… something different. What then?

But what if Faisal Shahzad, the confessed Times Square bomber, had stopped talking? When you tell someone he has the right to remain silent, there is a distinct possibility that he will remain silent, is there not? And then what?

The authorities deserve full credit for capturing Shahzad within 54 hours. Credit is also due them for obtaining information from him by invoking the “public safety” exception to the Miranda rule.

But then Shahzad was Mirandized. If he had decided to shut up, it would have denied us valuable information — everything he is presumably telling us now about Pakistani contacts, training, plans for other possible plots beyond the Times Square attack.

I hate to break this to Charles, but Shahzad could have “decided to shut up” whether or not he received his Miranda warning. It’s amazing how many conservatives seem to be under the impression that “Mirandizing” a suspect somehow grants them special super powers of silence, rather than simply informing them of rights they already have. The truth is that Shahzad could have stopped talking whenever he wanted, regardless of whether he was Mirandized. (What would Krauthammer suggest in that case? Well, given his past statements, probably “torture him.”) As it happens, apparently, Shahzad cooperated, and according to reports he’s been giving up good information. But so committed is Krauthammer to a militaristic approach that he’s got to spin out alternative scenarios where the Obama administration’s silly commitment the the rule of law led to a bad outcome.

This is just the latest instance of “national security” conservatives embarrassing themselves when forced to discuss national security in anything but the most general terms. We saw this repeatedly from Sen. John McCain during his presidential campaign. Another, more recent example is Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the foremost proponents of a “war on terror,” whose opposition to civilian trials for terrorists is founded, as Spencer Ackerman reported, on an “urban myth” that military trials can better protect secret information than civilian trials can.

What unites all of these conservatives is a religious commitment to the idea that terrorism is a problem best handled as a military problem, a belief that resists all evidence that such an approach generates more terrorism than it eliminates, and ignores the numerous successes that the U.S. has had in confronting terrorism as a law enforcement problem, and terrorists as criminals.

Yglesias

A European Central Bank Primer

The current headquarters building in Frankfurt, Germany 1

It’s been suggested to me that if I’m going to complain about how people underrate the importance of the European Central Bank, I ought to explain what it is and how it works. So here goes.

The Eurozone: The European Central Bank is the monetary policy authority for the Eurozone. What is the Eurozone? Well, formally it’s the EU member states that have adopted the Euro as their currency. In other words, it’s Ireland, Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Germany, Italy, Austria, Greece Finland, Slovenia, Malta, and Cyprus. In addition, the Euro has been adopted as currency by the microstates of Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican City along with the non-micro states of Kosovo and Montenegro. In addition, there are four EU members that while not using the Euro do participate in the second European Exchange Rate Mechamism (ERM II) and thus have their monetary policies largely determined by the ECB without participating in its governance. The idea of ERM II is that it’s a halfway house for countries that will be joining the Euro soon (you have to do a two-year probationary period on ERM II before you can join) but Denmark has no actual plans to sign up.

Governance: Much like the Federal Reserve, the ECB is run by two overlapping boards. The smaller board, called the Executive Board, is composed of the bank president, the vice president, and three other governors. It runs the bank day-to-day. In principle, a larger group, the Governing Council, composed of the Executive Board plus the governors of the 16 national central banks has ultimate authority. The bank is physically located in Frankfurt, Germany which is also the home of Germany’s central bank, the Bundesbank.

History: I think the Euro has to be understood as fundamentally a political project rather than an economic one. Monetary union meets some real economic policy objectives, but those objectives could have been met via a more flexible exchange rate mechanism. The ultimate purpose of the Euro is to create a physical instantiation of the ideal of European unity. Consequently, national decisions about whether to adopt the Euro have tended to track the general popularity of “Europe” as an idea rather than any economic logic. Hence, we have Finland, Ireland, and Greece on the Euro despite being geographically isolated from the Eurozone while Denmark abstains. But of course the Euro has important economic consequences.

Political Economy: The background of the ECB is that several European countries, primarily in southern Europe, developed a reputation as bad credit risks due to questionable fiscal policy and a habit of engaging in currency devaluation in order to maintain competitiveness. This annoyed Germany (and some others in northern Europe) and also made borrowing costs high in southern Europe. Credibility and reputation matter a lot in monetary policy, so the easiest way for countries with bad reputations to secure credibility was to essentially say “we get it, we’re drunk drivers, we’re selling our cars and resolving to get around on a German-piloted bus.” This is not an explicit rule of the ECB, but it reflects the underlying logic of the enterprise and is symbolized by the ECB’s location in Frankfurt. The essence of the bargain is that Germany gets to make every country’s monetary policy in accordance with Germany preferences while every country gets to borrow money at Germany-esque rates.

Independence: The ECB puts a lot of weight on independence. Formally speaking, the board members are specifically prohibited from seeking or listening to European government advice on policy matters. What’s more, the executive council members have non-renewable eight year terms. Both provisions offer much stronger independence than the Fed has. More to the point, in practice there’s no political authority to which the ECB could be subjected. The Fed was created by Congress and Congress can always change the rules. The ECB was created by a European Union treaty and changing the rules would require the unanimous consent of 27 different national governments.

Mandate: Unlike the Fed, the ECB has a single mandate: price stability uber alles. What’s more, since it lacks a track record it’s very invested in building up its reputation as an inflation-fighter. European politics is also different from US politics. In the US, we tend to count on growth and low unemployment to make a threadbare social safety net tolerable to the middle class. In Europe, they tend to count on low inflation and light taxation of capital to make a robust social safety net tolerable to the rich.

Problems: The whole enterprise has always has its doubters. American economists felt the zone wouldn’t be able to adjust to recessions. Germany worried that others would take on too much debt and leave them holding the bag. Small countries worried that they’d be forced to suffer through inappropriate monetary measures. Essentially all of these problems are now occurring simultaneously.

Update

Who decides? Who picks these people in the first place? Well, the national central bank chiefs are all picked in different ways according to national law — the only Eurozone-wide rule is that they have to have a minimum term of at least five years. The executive board members are chosen by the Council of Europe which is to say they’re picked by the heads of government of the member states. The Council decision-making procedure is a bit hard to describe—it operates by consensus and in practice the countries are all equal, but in practice some countries are more equal than others, with France & Germany most equal of all.


Update

,I corrected the micro-states portion of this; in my initial draft I had Liechtenstein in the Euro and Monaco out which was wrong.


[upd

Alyssa

Some News, And Some Introductions

I think I referred a while ago, somewhat melodramatically, to figuring out what to do with my life.  I promised you an update on that, and now I’m following through!  I’m leaving my current job at Government Executive and moving over to Washingtonian, where I’ll be doing a lot more culture writing, in addition to many other things.  Fortunately, my new bosses are rockstars, and so this blog will continue, although I’ll have to figure out the pace as I adjust to the new gig (I promise there will continue to be content every day, I just need to see how much I can handle).  I hope y’all will keep coming around as I do that.

Yesterday was my last at my old gig, and I’m headed out for a week’s vacation before I start at Washingtonian.  But I’ve got a fantastic crew of guest-bloggers lined up to take care of you guys while I’m gone.  Here they are:

-BabylonSista is a freelance writer and editor, and a serious music snob. She lives in the midwest, and often wonders why.

-A native of Houston and a citizen of the South, Blackink blogs regularly over at PostBourgie and argues semi-regularly with strangers on Twitter. He enjoys writing about football, hip hop, politics and general tomfoolery. But he pays rent through his day job as a poorly-paid reporter in Tampa. 

-Dara works in immigration advocacy for fun and profit, edits at Wunderkammer as a labor of love, and blogs on occasion as an excuse to hang out with the cool kids. After a couple of weeks wonking out at Spencer Ackerman’s place, she’s looking forward to going a week without typing the word “Arizona.” She’s a sucker for pop hooks, wordplay, rituals, high femme and the New York Yankees (Ed: Even the best ones have their flaws. You gotta make compromises in this business).

-Katherine is a New Hampshire-based writer and taxonomist. No, that doesn’t involve dead animals. She blogs about books, TV, food, knitting, and whatever else catches her interest at Kat with a K.
-Jamelle Bouie is a recent graduate of the University of Virginia, political blogger, and huge freaking nerd.  He still lives in Charlottesville, and spends far too much of his time reading about gadgets, computers and video games (among other things).  He has his own blog and frequently contributes to PostBourgie.com.

Politics

Following oil spill disaster, 55 percent of Floridans now oppose offshore drilling.

no_drilling_graybgAs emergency responders struggle to contain the devastating economic and ecological effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, many fear that the Floridan coastline will be the next ecosystem devastated. A new Mason-Dixon poll released today finds that, in the wake of the oil disaster, 55 percent of Floridians now oppose offshore oil drilling, a complete reversal from polling conducted last year:

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Florida voters have reversed their view on drilling off of the state’s coast, according to new poll released by Mason-Dixon. Statewide, only 35% currently support offshore drilling, while a 55% majority are now opposed to it.

That is in stark contrast to a poll conducted 11 months ago, where 55% of the state’s voters were in favor of offshore drilling and only 31% were opposed. Support for drilling peaked at 61% in August 2008, amid the soaring price of gasoline nationwide and rising concerns about energy independence.

Recent Rasmussen polling has found that support for oil drilling among the national public has “fallen dramatically” since the oil spill. Florida’s Sen. Bill Nelson (D) told MSNBC last week that any climate bill that includes new offshore drilling is “dead on arrival” and has pledged to filibuster such a bill.

Update

As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson notes, two state legislators that were supportive of offshore drilling have already reversed their positions.

Economy

McCain’s Amendment On Fannie And Freddie Would Seriously Harm The Fragile Housing Market

It’s a favorite pastime for conservatives to blame the financial woes of the last two years on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the two government sponsored mortgage giants — no matter how many times such claims are debunked. So Republicans in Congress have been making a lot of noise about how the financial regulatory reform bill currently being debated in the Senate doesn’t include an attempt at reforming the two GSE’s, particularly after the company received another $10 billion in federal funds this week.

To that end, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has introduced an amendment, along with six co-sponsors, that sets a date certain for unwinding Fannie and Freddie and eventually dissolving them. The amendment limits the assets that the GSE’s can hold, increases their capital standards, and puts a cap on the amount of federal funding they can receive. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are synonymous with mismanagement and waste and have become the face of ‘too big to fail’,” McCain said.

First, I would argue that the giant banks and insurance company that the government had to rescue are the face of too big to fail. But far more importantly, McCain’s amendment would wreak havoc with the economy by arbitrarily setting a date certain for removing the GSE’s support for the housing market, resulting in a massive withdrawal of credit, and by not laying out a way to replace the legitimate purposes that the housing giants do serve. As one of my colleagues suggested, you might as well call this amendment “The Credit Crunch Restoration Act of 2010.”

Now, there is an undeniable need to reform housing policy in the U.S., and to achieve our affordable housing goals without the behemoth GSE’s operating with a federal backstop. As CAP’s Sarah Rosen Wartell told Congress in March, “the current situation, in which the federal government, through the GSEs or FHA-insured loans in Ginnie Mae guaranteed MBS, backstops almost 90 percent of the market for home mortgages, is not desirable or sustainable.”

But it’s precisely because so much of the mortgage market depends on the government that we can’t haphazardly disassemble Fannie and Freddie like McCain suggests. Adopting McCain’s plan would chase investors away from mortgage-backed securities, causing a large drop in liquidity when the housing market is still weak and fragile. As the Center for American Progress Action Fund economic team explained:

Some 95 percent of mortgage originations are currently being backed by the federal government, with the vast majority of this coming through the GSEs. The McCain amendment would cause significant uncertainty among the investors in GSE-issued mortgage-backed securities, threatening the primary source of mortgage credit we have at this time, without offering any alternative sources of liquidity. Such a large drop in mortgage liquidity could strongly threaten the prospects of economic recovery.

As Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said, to abolish Fannie and Freddie “and not do anything to replace the functions they are now performing with a conservatorship, would be a disaster for housing, and therefore for the economy as a whole.” We definitely need to rethink the role, if any, the GSE’s will play in the housing market — and make our housing subsidies explicit, if we still want them — but McCain’s plan would result in short-term turmoil while punting on the long-term implications of a world without Fannie and Freddie.

Yglesias

Politicians as Ministers

Paul Krugman mentions, with regard to the UK election, that “there’s a personal rejection of Gordon Brown; I actually admire him as a policymaker and have liked him in person, but he’s not a natural politician.”

This is a very interesting contrast between the US and many foreign political systems. In the United States it’s conventional for a cabinet to be a mix of technocrats and politicians, with the Treasury Department typically the agency that’s least likely to get a politician. But in any country, the equivalent of the Treasury gig (normally called Finance Minister) is one of the most important jobs out there. And the dynamic of these things abroad is that you often become party leader in virtue of having previously held an important job, often as finance minister. So you end up with a series of situations in which a party ends up being led in a general election fight by a distinctly uncharismatic finance minister—Brown in the UK, Paul Martin in Canada, Frank-Walter Steinmeier in Germany, etc. And if you think those guys were bad at politics, just imagine Larry Summers leading a political party in an election campaign.

Security

FACT CHECK: The Majority Of Arizona Latinos Oppose State’s Immigration Law

Over the past few weeks, right-wing proponents of Arizona’s draconian immigration law — ranging from senatorial candidates Marco Rubio (R-FL) and J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly and lawyer Kris Kobach –have attempted to suggest that the majority of Latinos in the state support its implementation.

Watch a compilation of their remarks:

Suggesting that most Latinos support a law that will likely exacerbate racial profiling and civil rights abuses doesn’t just fly in the face of the very visible Latino-led backlash against SB-1070, it’s also factually incorrect. This morning, the nation’s largest Spanish-language newspaper , La Opinion, reported that 70 percent of Arizona Latinos “strongly oppose” SB-1070 and 11 percent “somewhat oppose” it. The study, conducted by Arizona State University, showed that only 12 percent of Arizona’s Latinos strongly support the law. Opposition to the law also isn’t limited to recent Latino immigrants who are potentially unable to vote. Approximately 82-67 percent of second, third, and fourth generation Latinos also oppose SB-1070:

nclrpolling

It’s unclear where proponents of SB-1070 got the idea that most Arizona Latinos support their effort. A Rasmussen poll released on April 21 showed that 70 percent of all Arizonans support legislation that would let police stop and check the status of suspected undocumented immigrants. Rasmussen didn’t isolate its data to Latinos, and it appears many just assumed that the 63 percent who opposed the bill and racially identified themselves as “other” must correspond to the Latino population.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pierce (R) took an even bigger leap and assumed that since 60 percent of Latinos supported other anti-immigrant ballot initiatives of his in 2006, that must mean that they support SB-1070 — a much harsher measure — four years later.

On the national level, polls show that an overwhelming majority Latinos across the nation support comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level. Eighty-seven percent of Latino respondents said they would not consider voting for a Congressional candidate who was in favor of forcing most of the undocumented population to leave the country. A new poll released this week also reveals that the percentage of all Arizonans who support SB-1070 has fallen from 70 percent to 52 percent.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up