Hurricane Sandy and climate change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/hurricane-sandy-cable-news-climate-change_n_2041434.html

Few people are talking about it. This presidential campaign is the first since the 1980's where the major candidates did not directly address climate change during the debates. It's not like the problem is any better now vs. Reagan's time. In fact it's terribly worse. But after Solyndra and the weak recovery, climate change is out of favor. Imagine all the debt associated with cleaning up after mega-storms like Katrina and Sandy. I'm not saying that smarter climate policy since the 1980's could have prevented those storms, but maybe it will prevent an even worse storm in 2050 (and mega-droughts in key farming/ranching areas, and capstone species loss, and sea level rise wiping out vital coastal real estate). At least spend more money on better storm protections, climate change response research, and emergency resources, instead of gutting funding so you can give tax breaks to hedge fund managers and big energy. Maybe then Cuba and Iran won't have to offer us assistance after a storm.

I feel bad for the damage and suffering in the northeast, but I think the media attention is disproportionate (as usual). Sandy = category 1 (75-90 mph winds), Katrina = category 5 (>157 mph). Sandy has killed 33 so far out of 50M affected residents. Katrina killed 1,800+ out of about 1M residents in the area. 5+ years later New Orleans still hasn't returned to pre-storm condition. They will clean up NYC in a month or less. But of course Katrina hit poor, backwards New Orleans, and Sandy hit the big cities "where things actually matter" (Arnold Rothstein, Boardwalk Empire) and where the media/money are located. Of course the loss of power to 8M households is a big deal, and the cost of Sandy's cleanup may eclipse that of Katrina, just because it affected a much larger area. Bottom line - both are terrible tragedies but the responses are different.

The progressive case against Obama

Here's some cheerful stuff leading up to Election Day that a friend found: http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/

I'll limit my comments to the author's criticisms of Obama's handling of the financial crisis, since we've already discussed and have general consensus on Obama's transgressions on civil rights, gov't transparency, and the war on terror. I somewhat agree with the facts that the author has presented, but I disagree that not voting for Obama in 2012 in favor of a 3rd party candidate is the best thing we can do. Because clearly the right is not defecting to support the libertarian candidate - they are holding their nose and voting Romney.

I know I've spent all year jocking Obama's record and declaring him the obvious choice vs. Romney. 2008 seems like a long time ago, but it is worth revisiting now. J has studied the financial crisis in great detail, so I'd be happy for him to chime in here if he has time. Please forgive my inaccuracies and simplifications. :)

A lot of Obama's background suggests that he's not a pure corporatist, and I believe he prioritizes social justice and middle class issues as well or better than most recent presidents. Of course he took a lot of Wall St. money in his 2008 campaign, but actually many elite donors have defected since then, because he hasn't show them enough "love". I think the system was mostly to blame. Since the S&L scandal, banks have used soft power to gain more influence in Washington. Especially after the Glass-Steagall repeal and Cit. United, it's clear that some Congressional committees, the SEC, the Fed, Treasury, and others are literally controlled by Wall St. Even if you or I were president and we were completely anti-banks, what could we do?

As the new president in 2008, Obama's priority was to prevent the nation from falling into a decade-long depression. And he did that (we think). Unfortunately the banks have rigged the game so that saving them was a prerequisite for saving the economy. And of course they are more clever than our leaders (or Washington was complicit in their plans), so they were able to dump all the debt, risk, and toxic assets on us, while the banks (some would argue) got even more freedom to grow bigger and profit from the aftermath of the financial crisis. As the author said, it basically cost them zero to borrow unlimited money. That money was supposed to be used to kick-start growth and rescue underwater mortgages, but they used it to make themselves richer and bigger instead. Probably the largest wealth transfer in human history since Midas. Unfortunately no law could have passed Congress that would have forced the banks to use the bailout funds properly, given our money-tainted legislative process. Especially since the process started before Obama's term. Paulson gave Congress that famous 2-page bill and told them to write Wall St. a blank check. Pelosi and others protested, but ultimately had to cave because no one wanted to be responsible for dithering while the economy imploded. Congress was not equipped to handle such a rapidly deteriorating blackmail situation. And most of Congress is beholden to the banks more than their constituents anyway. I guess we learned the hard way that hasty action can sometime be worse long term than inaction. I thought we learned that already from Iraq, but I guess not.

I really believe that even FDR or Lenin himself would have been powerless in the face of such a situation. The only alternative I can think of for Obama is this (and it would have been career suicide of course): he could have bypassed the banks just as single payer insurance aims to bypass private insurers. If the banks were being stubborn, selfish a-holes who only care about their own bonuses, then forget them. Have the Treasury become the emergency federal commercial bank. Why waste time with the private sector and corrupt, inept middlemen like Fannie, Freddie, and Sallie? Why does Treasury only get to collect taxes and issue notes/bonds - they should make reasonable loans too (not just to the big banks but to us). If the banks are getting 0% APR rates, then at least give the people 2% APR and FAIR re-fi and repayment terms. If the gov't was guaranteeing banks and taking on their bad bets, then they should do the same for consumers. I don't understand macro and monetary policy much, so I am sure my idea is either illegal or impossible or both. But if the credit sector is not doing its job, then why can't the gov't step in? Commercial banking is not rocket science - it should be simple and boring and easy (especially when profit, liquidity, and shareholders are out of the equation). The staff at Treasury are probably smart enough to figure out how to make direct loans to Americans, and buy up distressed homes to take them off the market and stabilize real estate. Surely the banks would have gone to war over this, so If Obama committed to this path, I think it would have been the modern equivalent of Lincoln abolishing slavery. Very controversial, very risky, maybe ahead of its time (or overdue, depending on your perspective), but courageous, necessary, and the right thing for America's soul and future.

Otherwise we'll just inevitably descend into the United Banks of America, which we kind of are now. FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) has risen from like 2% of GDP in the '40s to over 8% now, with no sign of reversing (and it's probably bigger when you consider private equity, derivatives, and other less transparent sectors). We lost, and we missed the one chance to really fight them - the crisis.

http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/financialization_report_3-23-11.pdf

Since Wall St. has infected Washington, we probably can't even enact laws to establish an alternative public banking system (like credit unions but way bigger) to compete with them - and expose all their corruption and inefficiencies. There was so much anger against the banks back then, but Obama failed to make the bold Lincoln move (so I fault him on that), and now most of the anger is directed at him now (deserved or not). But this is what he gets when he surrounds himself with Geithner, Summers, and the other ex-banking, status quo crowd. They probably promised him that the banks learned their lesson and this would never happen again. And he believed them since he really wanted to fix health care, and accomplish what the Clintons failed to do. 

Now to the question of how to hold Obama accountable. Unfortunately we are all out of Lincolns in US politics today. Literally Obama and Clinton may be the best ones we have, apart from "nonviable" candidates like Kucinich, Sanders, and Nader. Obviously a President McCain would have done things 95% the same as Obama, or made it even worse. And now a President Romney would give the banks more leeway. So what choice do we have but to stick with Obama? I guess we can fault him for not having a crystal ball and predicting this betrayal if he caved to the banks with no strings attached. But in a crisis we act hastily, especially with so much at stake. Krugman and many other experts were warning Obama. He should have picked real reformers in his cabinet, but I chalk that up to inexperience and his conflict-averse personality. He is not a tough love leader. It was the only time to knock the banks down to size, and we still could have rescued the economy and guaranteed a better future with a more effective banking sector. But I guess Obama was worried about being labeled as a socialist and taking on the yoke of "real reform".

Adelson's money affecting politics in Israel too

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/18/162816525/sheldon-adelson-shakes-up-israeli-newspaper-market

Adelson started a right-leaning daily in Israel in 2007 called Israel Hayom, ostensibly to challenge the established left-leaning Ha'aretz and centrist Ma'ariv. It's a similar theme to Berlusconi, Citizens United, and Murdoch I guess. Except Adelson undercut the competition by setting ad rates below market for Hayom, and also made it FREE for readers (I still don't know how Hayom balances its books with that structure though - it's not like it's online only). The paper actually has a decent staff, so it quickly became the most popular in Israel and crashed sales for the others. And like the traditional US journ. titans, Hayom's rivals have an old bloated cost structure (because they are in the business of news, not profits) and can't compete - especially vs. free.

I am not sure how the laws are in Israel, but there are actually employees at Hayom who are also paid a side salary by Bibi Netanyahu's government. Maybe they missed the memo that free press doesn't refer to the cost of the paper, but the objectivity of the journalists! Obviously Hayom overtly supports Bibi vs. his challengers, and is his personal Fox News. I wonder if Hayom's rise has anything to do with the recent shift to the right in mainstream Israel, and lack of appetite for a peace deal with the Palestinians. Bibi is expected to win the next election in a landslide.

Maybe the US isn't such a religious nation?

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/24/163527979/what-we-say-about-religion-and-what-we-do

But we are sure good at guilt-fueled lying! The common stats show that a much larger % of Americans report being religious and attending worship regularly vs. the EU and virtually all other developed nations. But is it true?

Self-reporting often produces suspect information due to self-esteem, social norms, and image issues - like will an alcoholic admit to his/her problem if directly asked about it, especially from another person face-to-face? 45% of respondents claimed that they went to services EVERY week, but many preachers suspect that is inaccurate because based on what they know of population stats, they should see their pews much fuller then. Americans think that they are supposed to respond that they attend services regularly, otherwise they may not think of themselves as "good people".

So the survey staff tricked the respondents; instead of posing the question directly, they instead asked them to recite their morning schedules for each day of the week. This "disarmed" the respondents and they forgot that they were "supposed" to say they go to worship every week. In this case, only about 20% said they attend church weekly, which is on par with many EU nations.

Of course the act of attending church is not necessarily indicative of one's religious convictions and how important faith is in one's life. Maybe if the survey asked how faith affects daily decisions and political beliefs (or what is the role of religion in society), they may find differences vs. Europe even when reducing the chance of respondent lying. That's of course ironic because EU nations literally have political parties called "Christian Democrats" or whatnot, yet I don't think their beliefs would even come close to those of Palin, Aikin, Ryan, etc. (extreme examples I know). Or at least the Euros know to separate their personal beliefs from the secular constitutional duties of their offices.

First debate thoughts

What do you think of the debate? I'm DVRing it and am about 20 min into it now when I've started this email. I'd have to say Romney is winning so far. I forget how Obama debated in 2008, but he's never been known for being very skilled at it. Romney has a lot of vulnerabilities on domestic policies, and I don't think Obama held him accountable. I know that the incumbent usually has to be on the defensive, and they may be "rusty" after not debating for a while and too busy running the nation (plus the challenger is battle-tested from the primaries), but Obama should have done better. I'd have to say Romney won and it wasn't close. Argh.

OPENING STATEMENT

Romney's opening statement was much better. He was looking at the camera, modulating his voice well (and not engaging in his typical whine), and coming off as more heartfelt. Obama was looking at Lehrer and was just too stiff and academic. During the rebuttal, Romney was looking at Obama while firing off criticisms - it just felt more persuasive. And of course this is coming from a viewer who is heavily biased against Romney.

TAXES

I don't like how they both got bogged town in taxes and accusations. Most of America has already made up their mind about what they expect Romney to do on taxes if he wins. Obama suggested that a study showed Romney will never be able to cut taxes and increase military spending while keeping the deficit from growing, and that the rich will enjoy most of the tax cut. Romney denied that and said that he wants to cut taxes on the middle class. Then Obama comes back and basically calls him a liar. Then Romney refuted it again. Back and forth, citing this tax rate and that study - a waste of 10 min. A tough way for the American people to start watching a 2 hr debate: tax analysis. Either the public believes Romney (and his brand new tax plan from tonight) or not, so move on. Obama should have gotten off that (it was going nowhere) and instead explained how gov. spending (fueled by fair taxes) and regs can and have led to economic growth. He should have explaind how gov. spending helped keep the economy going during the Recession.

Then Romney got a little petulant, interrupting Lehrer and Obama, and even crying that he deserves to get the last word on taxes because "Obama spoke first." Yeah, Obama is starting to look at the camera and Romney is focused on Lehrer. He's rambling, spouting off too many stats, and I think is losing some of the audience.

DEFICIT

Now it's Obama's turn for rambling. They get 2 minutes apiece. Can't try to touch on 4 or 5 points in that time period. People won't remember even if you're making great points. KISS (short and simple). Romney is making it sounds like Obama wants to raise taxes on a weak economy and waste the money on some stupid projects, in line with his inept socialist stereotype. He has to shoot that down. It's not that Obama wants to raise taxes, but that current taxes are dangerously too low for certain payers. That money can be better spent on cutting the deficit and investing in infrastructure. He touched on it a bit, but he needs to get more explicit. And then he walked into the trap on taxing Exxon more, which allowed Romney to bring up Solyndra and "big gov. picking winners and losers" in the green energy game. I don't know if Obama wants to refute the perception that he is much more anti-business than Romney, but he is not doing a good job so far.  

ENTITLEMENTS

Obama said that he and Romney feel similarly on SocSec. D'OH!!!!! Come on man, that was the perfect oppportunity to go after the Ryan plan right out of the gate. It's been a while since Ryan was announced as VP and the GOP convention, so you gotta remind voters of what he stands for. Obama made it sound like he is on the defensive, and let Romney even confirm that he doesn't want to cut entitlements (for current and soon-to-be beneficiaries). Forget the specifics, he got to say that he doesn't want to cut. Don't let him off the hook! He let Romney shoot first with the"700 billion" cut to Medicare to pay for Obamacare comment, which Obama didn't even refute or explain. Of course that is exactly the same cut that Ryan wants, but the audience heard it from Romney first, so he won that point.

Later Obama brought up the Ryan voucher program, but it's probably too late, and they got bogged down in the wonky details of it's hypothetical administering. Plus Romney has probably practiced this scenario and knows some clever pivot quotes. Obama is losing people by focusing on unmemorable numbers. People know that he knows the numbers and policies. He doesn't need to explain health care economics to us. Now it's time to bust out the big guns, play to people's emotions and fears! The GOP don't get to have a monopoly on fear-mongering. Just get the accusations out there, and let Romney fumble with an explanation. Plant the idea in people's mind that Romney wants to cut, but Obama wants to protect and care for grandma. Now Romney is saying that Obama will cut and he will preserve. Come on Obama don't let your biggest advantage go to waste, or even become a weakness.

Obama brought up the well-known point that Medicare has lower admin costs than private insurance. Thank goodness Romney didn't counter that that is only true because private insurers have to deal with different regs for 50 states. Romney did get to say that he thinks the private sector can do things better than gov., and Obama left it at that. Boo.

REGS

Romney gets to say that he supports smart regs, and makes Dodd-Frank sound like a bailout to giant banks (when most voters don't know the contents of that bill). Obama then recounted the history of what his admin. did regarding banking rescue (he made a good point that the banks have repaid all the bailouts with interest), but failed to indict the laissez-faire, GOP-endorsed policies that are mostly still in play. He did have a great line of, "If you think too much Wall St. regs were the problem behind the financial crisis, then Romney is the candidate for you!"

HEALTH CARE

Obama's gotta tug at the heart strings here. "Because of the Affordable Care Act, Angie gets the dialysis she needs to keep going to college and build a better life for her family. Romney and the GOP want to take that away just so billion-dollar insurance companies can keep more profits." At least Obama brought up Romneycare in Mass., but stopped short of calling Romney a hypocrite. That opening let Romney explain how his plan was so much better than Obamacare, because it was "bipartisan", "didn't raise taxes or kill jobs", etc. Obama didn't respond to any of that, and didn't explain that Obamacare will lower costs in the long run. And then Obama has to explain the legitimacy of the "death panels" and what they actually do. C'mon you don't have to go there. Just say they implement proven ways to reduce waste and improve care outcomes. More bang for buck. But he let Romney counter that gov. has never cut costs or innovated better than the private sector. Maybe that's actually true. And again it plays to the narrative that Romney is a champion of business, business can solve our problems better, and Obama's gov. is just in the way wasting money and stomping on freedoms. Obama is not refuting that and it's terrible.

Another good line from Obama: "Do the voters think that Romney is keeping his plans on taxes, replacing Dodd-Frank, and replacing Obamacare secret because they're so good?"

But Romney got to fire back that he "knows how to work with" the other party, and won't shove policies "down people's throats." He got to say that Obama+Pelosi+Reid forced Obamacare on us, and are taking rights away from the states. Again no response from Obama. Congress has horrible favorability ratings now. Obama just got linked to them. Why doesn't he link Romney and Ryan to the GOP Congress' faults (fiscal cliff, Todd Aiken, Tea Party craziness, corruption, McConnell saying their top priority is kicking Obama out, etc.)? Come on, go big or go home. Romney said that he believes in principles of liberty and self responsibility. Then Obama should have countered that insurance only works when the young and healthy pay their fair share to support the sick. If only the sick buy private insurance, of course it will be unaffordable and with too many restrictions.

ROLE OF GOV.

Obama can really go after Romney here like, "The American free economy is amazing, but gov. projects can do things that the private sector can't. No one wants a Big Brother government restricting our freedoms, but what about Romney and the GOP's vision? They don't seem to believe in the free market because they want to give preferential treatment to those among us who have the most." But he didn't, and ceded the "freedom" agenda to Romney.

Romney got to cite the Constitution and American valiues, making him look more patriotic and American. Romney also claimed that the "proof" that the big gov. plan is not working is our current state of the economy. Obama should be able to destroy that reasoning, but he didn't. Each and every time, Obama let him off easy. It's like he's a football team with only enough players for defense. I don't get it. I know Obama is like Spock and he fights with honor, but why not score some cheap points, or at least don't let Romney off so easy? There's no downside, and it makes him look more genuine and caring. He's not a professor, he's a candidate trying to win. Millions are depending on him to win.

CLOSING

Finally Obama acts a little human. Fighting for the middle class - keep up that stuff. But overall it was an opportunity lost and a great chance for Romney to reframe himself after his recent gaffes. Sucks.

----------

For the first time I'm concerned that Romney could win on style, of all things. He successfully executed the 'etch a sketch' strategy on the issues while being energetic and engaging in a surprising way. A good example of form over substance.  And he got away with it because Obama let him. I'd like to see Hillary or Bill as designated hitters in the remaining debates

----------

I agree. The Clintons know how to win. In the debates Obama is not the president anymore, he is a prize fighter trying to hurt the other guy. I don't think Obama is as skilled as Clinton on wearing different hats at the right times. It's too bad - nice guys finish last. He doesn't have his 2008 mania to rely on anymore. Now the thirst for change is against him. He was almost aloof and apathetic up there. He is fighting for his life, and for millions of Americans who depend on him. Doesn't that fire him up? Come on, give it all you got. People always respond well to passion. It's not that Romney necessarily won, but Obama lost it as you said. Romney did cleverly reinvent himself (or in some cases introduce himself) to the public tonight. He actually sounded compassionate, centrist, and knowledgeable, while not betraying core conservatism. Obama should have known that was Mitt's strategy and threw roadblocks in the way. You can't give your opponents a big gift basket like that!

My wife and I also noticed how animated and engaging Romney was, it's like black and white vs. his demeanor on the stump. Maybe he is in his element here (well he has been rehearsing for a month!). Obama often looked slow, weak, unsure, and disconnected. It was frustrating to watch. Like the boxing matches when the losing guy just won't let his hands go and keeps getting hit. You won't win if you don't punch!

----------

I think Romney made a really big all-in play on the media's stupidity tonight, and I'm curious how it plays out.

He basically repudiated everything he's run on so far and made a big push towards the center. It was most obvious early on when he told us that $5T in tax cuts isn't his plan. Well, up until that moment right there, it had been. As that campaign insider promised a couple months ago, Romney's gone out and shaken the etch-a-sketch and become a different candidate.

I think Obama got caught off-guard by that. He threw a couple jabs early on, being very specific about what Romney's plans said, and Romney dodged it by repudiating those plans. I don't think Obama, or really anybody, was prepared for Romney to get up on stage and tell everyone that he was a pro-regulation candidate who wasn't going to make any unpaid-for tax cuts, and that anybody citing previous his previous statements was just not telling the truth. You could see it in some of those huge grins on Obama's face as he's going "holy shit I can't believe he's saying this."

So I think after those first tax-policy jabs got dodged, Obama decided to draw him out, to play it safe and not take any big shots, just get Romney's new ideas out in the open. Then tonight Obama can go back and figure out a new strategy for this etch-a-sketch candidate he's facing. But I don't think he was ready for that candidate, and he didn't want to make up a new strategy on the spot just to appear to win a debate.

The big question is how the media responds, whether they call Romney out on his flip-flopping or if that's left to Obama.

----------

I guess his push to the center is the Oct. surprise? Unless Obama's strategy team are a bunch of morons, they should have anticipated this possibility from Romney's camp, at least remotely (especially due to Mitt's track record, and that he needed to get more populist after the leaked video). Heck even the "etch a sketch" comment had been circulating in the media prior to the debate. So your game plan turns out to be wrong or your opponent pulls a surprise, no problem - ADJUST! As the POTUS he should know how to be agile, absorb new info on the fly, and outsmart. There are only 3 debates here, show some urgency (or is he too confident in the polling?). No wonder why Congress screwed him over year after year.

It wouldn't have been that much of a stretch or a risk to be like, "Hm Governor it's strange - for an entire year during the GOP primaries, you've taken some fairly extreme positions on the debt, taxes, regs, entitlements, and such. It's in the record: (cite a few noteworthy quotes). You chose a fiscal extremist (and kind of a social issues extremist too) as your running mate. And now in our first debate you are totally presenting a different story. Some major conservatives criticized you because they weren't sure what Romney they were going to get (pro-life or pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage or against, etc.). Now all of America may be wondering the same thing. Can you explain why your views have changed so drastically, almost overnight? Because they're not really compatible."

I guess the candidates aren't really allowed to directly address each other, but I am sure he could have injected some of that here and there, instead of getting bogged down in policy minutia that most don't care about and few will remember. Don't leave it to the media to call him out - you had the stage and there was no better time. Put Romney on the defensive - don't give him a pass and let this debate be his coming-out party to the center.

Romney actually sounded compassionate, centrist, and knowledgeable, while not betraying core conservatism. My wife and I also noticed how animated and captivating Romney was; it's like black and white vs. his poor demeanor on the stump. Maybe he is more in his element here (well he has been rehearsing for a month!). Obama often looked slow, weak, unsure, and disconnected. It was frustrating to watch. Like the boxing matches when the losing guy just won't let his hands go (for fear of getting hit), and so then he keeps getting hit. You won't win if you don't punch! What does Obama have to lose? Even if he presses on Mitt hard, it's not like Mitt is the most sympathetic victim figure in the public's eye to make Obama look like a bully.

-----------

Classic guerilla warfare. Now Romney owns the "change agenda", and he got to accuse Obama and the left of basically being Republicans: trickle down, undemocratic, cronyist, out-of-touch, and bullies who just push unpopular, extremist policies down our throats. Time after time Romney snagged the talking points first (liberty, small business, job creation) and repeated the stereotypes that Obama is just a money-wasting, big gov't, no business sense, job killer, and Obama barely fought back. The debate made it sound like Romney was the champion of the uninsured, working class, and elderly!