Pages

Monday, October 15, 2012

Why Joe Biden’s Laugh is the Most Devastating Political Weapon of the 2012 Election



My personal take on this matter, your sitting with a group of friends, co-workers, and the conversation is lively, and you hear a statement by someone you know and it is a ball faced lie, and you are shocked by his ease of saying it, you smirk, maybe even cackle  a little, because you know it is a lie.  Well, that is Mr Biden, except with Ryan's ball faced lies it is even harder not to laugh and make comments. I was laughing with him actually. How can either republican face the nation and lie, lie lie, lie and lie. And nobody can tell me different.  And to think people, Americans are believing them , and the flippity flops of these politicians. 



Joe Biden is earning rave reviews for his electricfying performance in last night’s vice-presidential debate. Vanity Fair’s own Todd Purdum wrote that Biden “was priest to Paul Ryan’s flummoxed altar boy, Scoutmaster to Ryan’s nervous, tongue-tied knot-tier. His smile veered—yes—between amused and condescending, depending on the honey or vinegar with which he referred to Ryan as ‘my friend.’” But can you blame Ryan for being so off his game? Self-satisfied smirking was sort of his Thing!
But the smirking was but a prelude to the snickering. Basically every time that Ryan said something, about anything, Biden looked down and giggled to himself, sometimes simultaneously scribbling down notes (“<-- hate u paul”), sometimes not. New York magazine has a fine summary of the controversy surrounding the chuckle: “On Twitter Piers Morgan deemed Biden's laugh ‘infectious,’ and after weathering the last week many liberals seemed happy to have something to smile about. Unsurprisingly, right-leaning Tweeters weren’t amused by Biden’s suggestion that everything Paul Ryan said in the debate was absurd.”
But this particular style of laughing—i.e., its specific aesthetic qualities—was what made it so universally, perhaps even subconsciously, persuasive. We think New York is correct that it is an implicit suggestion “that everything Paul Ryan said in the debate was absurd,” but the laugh was equal parts bemusement as it was conspiratorial. It was a laugh that also implicitly suggested that the audience—the intelligent, informed, rational, beautiful, amazing-taste-in-music-having, weight-losing audience—was in on the joke. It was not an arrogant laugh; at no point did Biden seem condescending to anyone but Paul Ryan. It makes sense that Morgan called it “infectious.” Every laugh was an audience-participation question: “Can you believe this guy?”
No one wants to say that he or she doesn’t get what’s so funny. Everyone wants to be in on every joke. Human nature is as steady as Paul Ryan’s tie is wide.

Sunday, October 14, 2012



Sunday best: Colbert unmasked

The Comedy Central star takes a break from his TV persona and opens up to "Meet the Press" VIDEO





Sunday best: Colbert unmasked


As Salon’s own Alex Pareene can tell you, the Sunday morning political talk shows can be a wasteland of Simpson-Bowles fetishism and beltway conventional wisdomhood. Today, for example, on ABC’s “This Week,” we got a full-panel analysis of whether Joe Biden’s facial expressions in last week’s debate was “counterproductive.” And that’s why, as Joan Walsh explained in our first installment last week, Salon is bringing you Sunday Best: Our choice of the best moment on the top Sunday shows.

There were a few good contenders today that deserve honorable mention, starting with what’s hard to classify as anything but a lie through the teeth from a top Romney surrogate. Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman, who has been playing the role of President Obama in Mitt Romney’s debate preparations, appeared on “This Week” to preview the upcoming debate and defend Paul Ryan’s erroneous suggestion in the vice presidential debate that unemployment is higher now than it was when Obama took office.

“Unemployment is going down, as a factual matter. Why would Congressman Ryan, in defiance of facts, suggest otherwise?” host Jake Tapper asked. Portman replied, matter of factly, “I think that what he was saying was the truth: unemployment is higher today than when the president took office. Unfortunately, in the meantime, we’ve created net zero jobs, Jake.”

Either Portman is a jobs number truther, or he’s lying. The unemployment rate in February, 2009, Obama’s first full month Obama in office (he was sworn in on January 20) was 8.3 percent. The unemployment rate last month was 7.8 percent. And it was 7.8 percent in January of 2009, the month Obama took office, which is still not lower than it is today. Portman’s wrong in saying “we’ve created net zero jobs.” The economy has created net jobs (about 122,000) under Obama, as of last month.  Portman went on to say that the economy is weaker this year than last, and was weaker last year than the year before that. But if you look at pretty much any economic indicator, from jobs to the stock market to GDP growth to consumer confidence to even underwear sales, there’s no question the economy has improved, though certainly not as fast as anyone would like. It’s too bad Tapper didn’t push back on Portman, even though his question was all about Ryan making the same misleading claims about the unemployment rate.

Meanwhile, Democrats brought out Beau Biden, the attorney general of Delaware and the son of Vice President Joe Biden, to defend his father’s performance in the debate, including the facial expressions. “You know, this isn’t, Jake, about how much my father smiled or how many gallons of water that the congressman drank nervously on that stage. It’s about talking directly to the American people about very important facts,” he told Tapper.

Over on Fox News Sunday, Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod tried to tamp down the controversy over the Libyan embassy attacks. He told host Chris Wallace that Obama “feels personal responsibility” for what happened. Republicans hammered the president for his purported missteps leading up to the attack. On the same topic, hawkish Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, on CBS’ Face the Nation, delivered a dire warning: “The Mideast is falling apart and they’re trying to spin what happened in Libya because the truth of the matter is al Qaeda is alive and well and counter-attacking…this whole region is about to explode.” Time for another war!

Next, we had top Romney adviser Ed Gillespie complicating his boss’s (already confusing) narrative on abortion. Romney has been trying to draw attention away from his anti-choice positions, saying last week, “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” The campaign quickly walked that statement back, but it underscores the discomfort Republicans feel when talking about abortion so close to the election. It’s easy to see why: Paul Ryan’s surprisingly candid admission during the VP debate about abortion earned him the worst scores of the entire debate in a dial-testing focus group conducted by CNN. But today, Gillespie said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” “Life is a very important issue in this election.” “He is a pro-life candidate,” he said of Romney. “He will be a pro-life president.”

Gillespie also ran into trouble when Wallace challenged him on the six “studies” the campaign repeatedly cites in support of Romney’s detail-free tax plan. As Wallace points out, “Those are very questionable.” He noted one of the “studies” is a blog post, another an op-ed, another written by an economist connected to the campaign, and yet another from the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Pushed on why AEI should be considered credible, Gillespie admitted it’s a “right-leaning think tank. That doesn’t make it not credible.”

That’s an interesting position, since the Romney campaign has waged a scorched earth campaign against the most comprehensive study to date on the tax plan, from the Tax Policy Center, which found that the plan’s numbers don’t add up unless Romney is planning on somehow raising middle-class taxes. The main knock on the study has been based on the fact that TPC is a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, which they is claim is leftist think tank. The big liberal think tank in D.C. is the Center for American Progress, which is about as progressive as AEI is conservative. Brookings on the other hand, is widely considered to be a centrist or slightly centrist-left organization that is nowhere near as ideological as AEI or CAP. So, according to the Romney campaign, the TPC study is wrong because it was produced a think tank that is maybe kind of sort of liberal, but their study is totally legit even though it was a produced by a think tank is avowedly conservative.

But our Sunday Best award doesn’t go to Gillespie or Portman, but to Stephen Colbert, who took the hot seat today on “Meet the Press” not as TV’s Stephen Colbert, but as real human Stephen Colbert. That is, he dropped the persona he plays on his show to gave a rare candid interview as the real Stephen Colbert. While perhaps less funny than his persona, he proved to be thoughtful, well-informed, and less ideological than many might think. It was refreshing to see him out of his costume and to see someone who doesn’t robotically tout one sides’ talking points or Beltway conventional wisdom, but has some cogent analysis and an original perspective.
Watch it below.


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

“I’m interested in the news, so people often think that I’m an ideologue or that I have a political intent… But I comment on things that are in the news. I do not imagine that I am a newsman, I really admire newsmen,” Colbert said of his comedic approach.

“I’m not Ralph Nader. You know what I mean? I don’t think that there’s no difference [between the two presidential candidates]. There is a difference. I don’t know what the difference is, though,”  he continued. “I think that there is a possibility that Obama would be, say, more aggressive —  a more aggressive reformer or changer in the second act of his presidency. And I don’t really know how — I also don’t know how Mitt Romney would govern. He might govern as a technocrat. You know, that sort of seems to have been his career — as, like, the guy from Pepsi who comes in to run G.M. You know, he can’t tell us what he’s going to do, because he hasn’t seen the books yet.”

In Libya, security was lax before attack that killed U.S. ambassador, officials say

By Ernesto LondoƱo and , Published: September 29

On the eve of his death, U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was ebullient as he returned for the first time in his new role to Benghazi, the eastern Libyan city that embraced him as a savior during last year’s civil war. He moved around the coastal town in an armored vehicle and held a marathon of meetings, his handful of bodyguards trailing discreetly behind.
But as Stevens met with Benghazi civic leaders, U.S. officials appear to have underestimated the threat facing both the ambassador and other Americans. They had not reinforced the U.S. diplomatic outpost there to meet strict safety standards for government buildings overseas. Nor had they posted a U.S. Marine detachment, as at other diplomatic sites in high-threat regions.

A U.S. military team assigned to establish security at the new embassy in Tripoli, in a previously undisclosed detail, was never instructed to fortify the temporary hub in the east. Instead, a small local guard force was hired by a British private security firm as part of a contract worth less than half of what it costs to deploy a single U.S. service member in a war zone for a year.

The two U.S. compounds where Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a sustained, brutal attack the night of Sept. 11, proved to be strikingly vulnerable targets in an era of barricaded embassies and multibillion-dollar security contracts for U.S. diplomatic facilities in conflict zones, according to interviews with U.S. and Libyan officials and eyewitnesses in recent days.

Cautioned to be low-key
Days before the ambassador arrived from the embassy in Tripoli, a Libyan security official had warned an American diplomat that foreigners should keep a low profile in Benghazi because of growing threats. Other Westerners had fled the city, and the British had closed their consulate.

Despite the security inadequacies and the warning, Stevens traveled to Benghazi to meet openly with local leaders. Eager to establish a robust diplomatic presence in the cradle of the rebellion against Moammar Gaddafi, the ousted autocratic leader, U.S. officials appear to have overlooked the stark signs that militancy was on the rise.

This account of Stevens’s last days and the attack, which includes new details about security at the compound and the ambassador’s movements, was assembled from more than a dozen interviews with American officials, prominent Libyans and others familiar with the case. Most agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity.

The attack marked the first violent death of a serving ambassador in a generation and has become a thorn in President Obama’s reelection bid. It also raised the prospect that a country Washington assumed would become a staunch ally as it recovered from its short civil war could turn into a haven for fundamentalists.

U.S. officials investigating the assault say their preliminary assessment indicates that members of Ansar al-Sharia, a fundamentalist group with deep roots in Benghazi, carried out the attack with the help of a few militants linked to al-Qaeda’s offshoot in Africa. Intelligence officers and a team of FBI agents in Libya are continuing the investigation.

When bullets and rocket-propelled grenades started raining on the main U.S. compound Sept. 11, the small guard force was quickly overrun, and the building was set ablaze. That visual, along with the now-iconic image of a dying Stevens being dragged by Libyans toward safety, could have hardly been further from the message the veteran ambassador had traveled to Benghazi to spread: America is here to stay.

“The revolution started there,” said a senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the ongoing probes into the attacks. “We wanted to make sure the U.S. was seen as interested in the views of the east. There was no greater advocate of that than Chris.”

‘Like his home’
Stevens was enthralled to be back in Benghazi, a city where he had served the year before as a special envoy to the rebels, said a close Libyan friend who was by his side Sept. 10.

“He had connections, contacts all over the eastern part of the country,” said the friend, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he fears that his close affiliation with Americans poses a risk. “Benghazi was like his home. He wore jeans. He used to run outside the compound. He felt very safe going to markets, to the square, meeting friends for coffee.”

The main purpose of Stevens’s visit was opening an education and cultural facility that would be called “the American space.” The initiative was a cornerstone of his goal of deepening Washington’s relationship with Libya, an oil-rich nation emerging from four decades of Gaddafi’s bizarre, totalitarian rule.

Once a nuclear threat and avowed nemesis of the West, Libya appeared poised to become a close ally in a region seething with anti-American sentiment. After all, NATO airstrikes had helped save Benghazi, the capital of the rebels in the civil war, and turn the tide against Gaddafi’s forces. Stevens was transfixed by the possibilities.

“He lost friends during the revolution, as did almost every Libyan, and he respected their losses,” Hannah Draper, a Foreign Service officer stationed in Tripoli wrote in a tribute to Stevens posted on her blog. “He supported the revolution, but his real passion was rebuilding a free Libya.”

Two weeks before his death, Stevens had taken an important step toward normalizing relations with Libya by opening a full-services consular section in Tripoli, enabling Libyans to apply for visas.

“Since returning to Libya as ambassador in May, there’s one question I’ve heard almost every day from Libyans: ‘When are you going to start issuing visas again?’ ” Stevens told attendants at the Aug. 26 groundbreaking of the consular section. “Now, at last, you have your answer: Tomorrow.”

Insecurity has beset Libya since the country’s civil war ended in October 2011 with Gaddafi’s dramatic execution. Militias have been reluctant to disband or surrender weapons. After the U.S. Embassy formally reopened in Tripoli last fall, the U.S. military’s Africa command dispatched a team to help build its security infrastructure. The troops, however, were never assigned to bolster security at the site in Benghazi, said Eric Elliott, a spokesman for the Africa command. Elliott and the State Department could not say why.

During the summer, the military team became smaller as the State Department assumed responsibility for security at the embassy at the end of July. Those who remained turned their attention to building a relationship with Libya’s burgeoning armed forces, Elliott said.

Inexpensive contractors
The Benghazi compound was an anomaly for U.S. diplomatic posts. It was not a formal consulate and certainly not an embassy. It was a liaison office established before Gaddafi’s ouster. It was staffed by the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, a State Department office that dispatches government officials to hardship posts for short tours. Instead of signing a costly security contract similar to those the government has for facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, the State Department this summer awarded a contract to Blue Mountain, a small British security firm, to provide local guards at the Benghazi compound. The year-long contract, which took effect in March, was worth $387,413, a minuscule sum for war-zone contracting. Blue Mountain and the State Department declined to comment for this article.

Security in eastern Libya deteriorated sharply in recent months. A string of attacks, some linked to fundamentalist groups, made clear that Westerners were no longer safe. The International Committee of the Red Cross suspended operations and evacuated staff in the east after an attack June 12 on its compound in the port city of Misrata. In Benghazi, convoys transporting the U.N. country chief and the British ambassador were attacked in April and June, respectively. The British government shut down its consulate soon afterward.

The U.S. outpost had a close call of its own June 6, when a small roadside bomb detonated outside the walls, causing no injuries or significant damage. But the Americans stayed put.

Geoff Porter, a risk and security analyst who specializes in North Africa, said the sudden and stark shift from “predictable violence to terrorism” in the east over the summer was unmistakable.

“The U.S. intelligence apparatus must have had a sense the environment was shifting,” he said.

But if Stevens was deeply worried about deteriorating security, as CNN has reported he wrote in an entry in his journal, he kept quiet, said the Libyan friend who was with him the day before the attack.

“We didn’t talk about attacks,” the friend said. “He would have never come on the anniversary of September 11th if he had had any concerns.”

Three days before the attack, a U.S. official in Benghazi met with security leaders to ask them about the threat level, a senior Libyan official in the east said on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
The American did not disclose the ambassador’s visit.

“They told him, ‘Look, if there’s going to be any foreign presence [in the city], it better be discreet,’ ” the Libyan official said.

Attack timeline
The assault on the compound was launched from three directions around 9 p.m., the Libyan official said. Guards and members of militias friendly to the United States who responded to try to repel the attackers were shot in the legs, the official said, suggesting the gunmen had been instructed not to shoot to kill. Sean Smith, 34, an information management officer, died during that phase of the attack and Stevens, 52, was trapped and mortally injured.

A group of Americans managed to escape to a second compound about a mile away, according to the Libyan official and others with knowledge of the attack. The site was used by U.S. diplomatic and intelligence personnel, according to people briefed on the attack.

Soon after the evacuated Americans arrived there, the second location came under attack, according to the Libyan official and a Libyan fighter who assisted in the evacuation. The fighter — a member of the militia known as the February 17th Brigade, which was friendly toward the Americans — received a call from a counterpart in Tripoli. He said the Americans at the second compound needed help and told him to get in touch with a man named Paul. When the militia leader got the American on the phone, Paul told him not to send his men.

“Listen, my men have orders to shoot on sight, and the situation in the safe house is under control,” Peter told the militia leader, according to the account by the Libyan official.

In a lengthy firefight at the second compound, two former Navy SEALs who had been deployed to Benghazi as security contractors were killed. Hours later, the Americans who survived managed to get to the airport and flee the city.

This week, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli evacuated nonessential embassy staff, citing security risks. The Benghazi compound was an empty, burned-out husk.

Youssef Arish, whose family owns property next door to the facility and who remembers Stevens fondly, said most Libyans were bereft by the attack.
“It’s only a few people, and they don’t just hate America,” he said. “They hate the [Libyan] government; they consider them non-Muslims. They’re just a few people, but they’re going to hurt the relations between Libya and other” nations.


Hauslohner reported from Benghazi and Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Related Content

Gary Johnson: Mitt is “without one molecule of brain”

The Libertarian Party nominee tells Salon that Obama's as militaristic as Bush, and Romney's simply "wacky nuts"



Gary Johnson: Mitt is  
(Credit: AP/Joe Burbank)

Gary Johnson served eight years as the Republican governor of New Mexico, where he endeared himself to libertarians by vetoing hundreds of bills that conflicted with his small-government worldview. An avid extreme sports enthusiast, he’s climbed Mount Everest and run Ironman triathlons since leaving office in 2003, while also becoming one of the country’s most outspoken voices against the drug war.

This year, he ran for the Republican presidential nomination, but was shut out of all but one debate. So he left the party and ran for and won the Libertarian Party’s nomination, on whose ticket he is now running  the most visible third-party candidacy of the year. He spoke with Salon for the second installment of our Better Know a Lesser-Known Candidate series. This conversation has been lightly edited for brevity.

We’re in debate season. You’re not on the stage, but what might we hear from you if you were?

Well, I would not bomb Iran. I would get out of Afghanistan tomorrow, bring the troops home. I believe that marriage equality is a constitutionally guaranteed right. I would end the drug wars. I would advocate legalizing marijuana now. I would have never signed the Patriot Act. I would have never signed the National Defense Authorization Act allowing for arrests and detainment of you and me as U.S. citizens without being charged. I believe we need to balance the federal budget now and that means a $1.4 trillion reduction in federal spending now. When it comes to jobs, I’m advocating eliminating income tax, corporate tax, abolishing the IRS, and replacing all of that with one federal consumption tax. In this case, I am embracing the FairTax. I think that that’s really the answer when it comes to American jobs. In a zero corporate tax rate environment, if the private sector doesn’t create tens of millions of jobs, then I don’t know what it takes to create tens of millions of jobs.

So I think big differences between me and these two guys [Obama and Romney]: They’re on stage debating who’s going to spend more money on Medicare when we have to slash Medicare spending or we’re going to find ourselves with no health care at all for those over 65. And Medicare, very quickly, is a benefit that we put $30,000 in and get $100,000 out. It’s not sustainable and it has to be addressed. None of this is sustainable. None of it. I think we all recognize that we’re in deep trouble and we’re going to need to make some mutual sacrifices on all of our parts. But I just saw the whole debate thing as head in the sand, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy — they’re all coming, don’t worry.

So how’s the campaign going over all? I saw a Reason poll that said you might get as much as 6 percent. Is that what you’re expecting?

We’re not expecting anything. But when you see something like that, and we saw that, holy cow! Do you hear my name every six times you hear Obama’s name 45 times? That would be the polling numbers and it’s no way. It’s not even remotely close! You hear my name one time every 5,000 times you hear Obama or Romney’s name. So the point is we’re doing really really well given a very small amount of resources. It’s like the most under reported 6 percent in my lifetime. If I were just given credit for where I’m at right now, which is mention my name 6 times every time Obama or Romney’s names are mentioned every 45 times, you know what, Alex, I’m going to suggest that I wouldn’t be at 6. I’d be at 11, 18 — I might even be the next president of the United States if people were actually checking out who I am!

What do you see as the big goal of your campaign? Are you in it to win? Or raise certain issues? Or kind of carve out a path for third-party candidates in general? What’s the long-term impact you’d like to have?

Well somebody’s got to be actually telling the truth on all this stuff. I’ll be the first one to admit that if I have conclusions based on faulty premises, then let me know about that and I’ll be the first one to change it. But it’s great to be running with truth as a hold card.

So how do your run in light of other third-party candidacies? Ross Perot, Ralph Nader — do you see yourself in that line or is this a new model?

If I were in that line I think I would be receiving far far more attention than I am right now. So if it ends up to be on par with them statistically, then this is really one big gigantic overlooked story. And the story I come back to would be the truth. That we’re in deep deep trouble, which we all recognize, and yet we’ve got a debate that’s really not a debate at all. It’s just more of the same. It’s head in the sand. It’s just crazy, in my opinion.

What keeps you going with the odds stacked against you. What motivates you everyday, personally, to continue the campaign?

It’s that at the end of the day I get to go home and I have a sense that what I’m doing is the right thing. Someone’s got to be out there talking about solutions that go with these problems we have, and I’m going to argue that neither one of them is talking about the solutions at all.

I mean Romney, in the second [GOP primary] debate, said that it’s a ‘no brainer’ to build a fence across the border. Um, Alex, you’re talking about somebody right now without one molecule of brain based on his statement. Building a fence across the border would be wacky nuts! And here it is — that’s what he wants to do.

You mentioned your support for legalizing marijuana. It’s on the ballot in three states this year, what do you think the chances are of those ballot measures succeeding? And what’s the prospect for it in the long run?

I think the tipping point is going to be in Colorado. Colorado gets it. Six years ago, Denver voted to decriminalize marijuana on a campaign based on marijuana being safer than alcohol.  I see Colorado as being the first of 50 state dominoes that fall. And look, in the six years since Denver decriminalized, there’s been no incidents whatsoever. None! That’s going to be the case when it comes to legalizing marijuana. The sky’s not going to fall. Police will actually go out and enforce real crime as opposed to non-violent victimless crime. We’re going to all see that and by extension we’re going to move ahead with drug reform, which basically looks at the issue as a public health issue instead of a criminal justice issue.

On the marijuana issue, Obama admitted in his autobiography to smoking marijuana as a youth and promised not to crack down on medical marijuana when he came into office, but he’s actually become one of the worst presidents ever on that issue. Do you think he’s losing votes to you, or others, because of that?


He should. He should lose all of his votes just based on that. And forget about the issue as much as just going back on his promise. He promised he would not raid medical marijuana facilities in states where legislatures or citizens voted to implement those programs. But he’s cracking down on medical marijuana in California and Colorado. 180 degrees from what he promised!
I also really thought we were going to get some really favorable movement on gay rights and marriage equality. And I was the last person who thought we were going to be in a military intervention situation under him, based on what he said during the campaign. But here we are. He is as militaristic as President Bush, as militaristic a president as we have ever had.

Federal deficit tops $1 trillion for fourth straight year

Although government spending fell and the nation showed modest economic growth, the deficit remains high


Federal deficit tops $1 trillion for fourth straight year



WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal budget deficit has topped $1 trillion for a fourth straight year. But a modest improvement in economic growth helped narrow the gap by $207 billion compared with last year.
The Treasury Department said Friday that the deficit for the 2012 budget year totaled $1.1 trillion. Tax revenue rose 6.4 percent from last year to more than $2.4 trillion, helping contain the deficit.
The government’s revenue rose as more people got jobs and received income. Corporations also contributed more tax revenue than in 2011.
Government spending fell 1.7 percent to $3.5 trillion. The decline reflected, in part, less defense spending as U.S. military involvement in Iraq was winding down.
Barack Obama’s presidency has now coincided with four straight $1 trillion-plus annual budget deficits — the first in history and an issue in an election campaign that ends in three and a half weeks.
Obama’s Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, contends that Obama failed to achieve a pledge to halve the deficit he inherited by the end of his first term.
When Obama took office in January 2009, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that the deficit for that year would total $1.2 trillion. It ended up at a record $1.41 trillion.


US deficit tops $1 trillion for fourth year 

Graphic shows the U.S. budget deficit(Credit: AP)

The increase was due, in part, to higher government spending to fight the worst recession since the Great Depression. Tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the deficits.
The budget gaps in 2010 and 2011 were slightly lower than the 2009 deficit as a gradually strengthening economy generated more tax revenue. But the deficits still exceeded $1 trillion.
Obama is campaigning for a second term with a pledge to cut deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade. He says he would do so by ending the Bush-era income tax cuts for higher-income Americans and by restraining the growth of spending.
Romney has said he would cut spending growth to help narrow the budget gap. He would cap spending at 20 percent of the economy by 2016. Spending in 2012 accounted for about 23 percent of the economy.
The government borrowed about 31 cents of every dollar it spent in 2012. The string of $1 trillion-plus deficits has driven the national debt above $16 trillion. The magnitude of that figure has intensified debate in Congress over spending and taxes, but there is little movement toward compromise.
Many fear the budget deadlock will send the economy over a “fiscal cliff” next year, when tax increases and deep spending cuts will take effect unless a budget deal is reached.
Obama wants to eliminate the income tax cuts for families that make more than $250,000.
Republicans in Congress and Romney have resisted. They argue that, with the economy still weak, the government should not be raising anyone’s taxes.
Congress may address the budget crisis during a lame-duck session of Congress after the November elections.

Romney’s magic economy plan

Romney and his allies say the economy will just come back if he wins -- because the rich are on strike. He's wrong




Romney's magic economy plan  
(Credit: AP/Evan Vucci)


Mitt Romney gets a lot of guff from his critics for his unwillingness to spell out the details of how he plans to fix the U.S. the economy; how exactly his tax reforms will work, for example, or what precisely he will do in his first 100 days to boost job creation. But the best thing about the Romney agenda is that by his own admission, he doesn’t need a plan. Just getting himself elected is the ticket to prosperity.

Romney was quite clear on this point in his infamous “47 percent” speech. Romney told his audience that
“if we win on November 6th there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We’ll see capital come back, and we’ll see — without actually doing anything — we’ll actually get a boost in the economy.”
Me thinks he brags way too much.    Me thinks corporations and manufacturing are in his back deep pockets.  Me thinks he bought election. What do you think?
The notion that Romney could spur economic growth “without actually doing anything” invites mockery. The Atlantic’s Matt O’Brien memorably dubbed it “faith-based economic strategy.” At the very least it seemed to betray a breath-taking level of unwarranted hubris. But the key to understanding his boast is to ignore the low-hanging fruit (“without actually doing anything”) and focus on five crucial words: “We’ll see capital come back.”

Romney is referring here to the reluctance of corporations to invest trillions of dollars of cash in productive, job-creating uses. It’s a problem acknowledged by both Democrats and Republicans — American corporations have around $1.8 trillion in cash tucked away in savings accounts or invested in low-yield bonds and ultra-safe government securities. Liberal-minded economists believe that corporations are sitting on all that cash because they see no demand in the general economy for their goods and services. Conservatives argue that the real problem is the prospect of higher taxes and burdensome regulations imposed during a second Obama term.

In fact, conservative pundits and politicians have been arguing for at least a year, to borrow Speaker of the House John Boehner’s felicitious phrasing, that the “job creators in America basically are on strike.” They’re uncertain about the future, and, as conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer argues, “when you don’t know what’s going to happen, you don’t invest. We are having a capital strike.”

Romney advisor John Sununu put it bluntly in July:

“I guarantee you that what we are seeing in the private sector is a hoarding of capital. They are waiting to see the results of the presidential election… If President Obama is elected, that capital goes offshore. If Mitt Romney is elected, they buy equipment and they start hiring here.”
If Mitt Romney wins, in other words, “the capital strike ends.
———
Let’s be honest. It’s not impossible for a change in leadership to spur an economically fruitful change in psychology. After all, it was none other than the liberal hero, John Maynard Keynes, who stressed the importance of “animal spirits” in the economy. Human emotion is a crucial part of consumer confidence. If we’re feeling good, we’re more likely to pull out our credit cards and splurge, thus creating the essential demand that fuels economic growth. If we’re feeling uncertain or anxious — whether about our prospects for keeping our home, or for the quarterly earnings of the corporation that we might leading — we’ll be more cautious.
Here’s how Keynes defined it, in his classic, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money”:
“A large proportion of our positive activities depend on spontaneous optimism rather than mathematical expectations, whether moral or hedonistic or economic. Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive… can only be taken as the result of animal spirits — a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction….”
So let’s be charitable. Maybe all Romney is saying is: If I’m elected, the animals will be happy. People will feel better about themselves, and that will jumpstart the economy.

The funny thing is, the available evidence suggests that Americans are already feeling more optimistic than they’ve been for a long time. On Friday, the University of Michigan’s consumer confidence index hit a five year high. Americans are buying cars at a pace not seen in four years. They’re watching their homes appreciate in value for the first time since the bust. Retail sales are growing. Average Americans are doing their part, and the ironic truth is that, most likely, no matter who gets elected president, they’ll probably keep doing so. Neither Romney nor Obama might have to do anything at all in order to enjoy the benefits of a resurgent economy.

Even funnier, the premise that a Romney election will “bring capital back” presupposes that capital has gone away. And despite all those stories about trillions of dollars of “cash on the sidelines” there is scant evidence that a lack of investment opportunities or abundance of regulations is the reason for the hoarding. In fact, it’s not even true that corporations aren’t willing to invest in the future.

Quite the opposite. Here’s something you are unlikely to hear during a Mitt Romney stump speech. Business investment has actually recovered to its pre-recession levels. During the Obama recovery, corporate spending on business equipment and software has grown at a faster rate than during any of the last four economic recoveries. (George Bush’s economic recovery, embarrassingly, registered zero net growth in business equipment and software spending.)

What those companies haven’t been doing is hiring. And there’s a very good reason for that: the economists who point to the problem of demand are right. At least, they’re right if you trust the reports of actual business executives. For three years, the number one complaint cited by small businesses about the current economic climate has been poor sales. Not taxes, not regulation — sales.

Corporations and businesses with an eye to the future had no choice but to buy new computers and other business equipment and new software — during the crunch of the recession, they cut spending so severely that at this point they would be jeopardizing their ability to function efficiently if they didn’t start upgrading. It would have been suicidal to put that off, placing them in a disadvantageous position once the economy started to grow again. But without consumer demand for goods and services, without people walking into stores ready to buy things, there was still no immediate justification for boosting employment rolls.

Interestingly, just in the last month, the number of small businesses citing poor sales as their top complaint dropped into a tie with taxes and regulation — yet another sign that consumer activity is beginning to bubble. And that presents us with an interesting mystery. In 2012, as consumer confidence has grown, with spending in stores rising and auto sales booming, the rate in growth of corporate spending on business equipment and software has actually slowed. Over the last few months the totals for “durable spending” — big ticket purchases usually made by corporations — have also been disappointing. We’re watching a split personality at work — average Americans are becoming more optimistic while corporate America is becoming more pessimistic.

What’s wrong with corporate America? Don’t they see home prices rising and car sales booming? Isn’t it nicer to have steady, albeit weak, job growth instead of the massive hemorrhaging we saw four years ago?

The answer may lie in politics more than in reality. The most obvious explanation for corporate pessimism is the oncoming “fiscal cliff” — the combination of mandatory spending cuts and tax hikes that will kick in if Congress and the White House do not hash out a deal before January 1. Severe fiscal austerity combined with the expiration of all the Bush tax cuts (as well as several additional stimulative measures, such as Obama’s payroll tax cut) will be a kick in the ribs to the U.S. economy. A kick that breaks ribs.

Everyone knows this, and neither Democrats nor Republicans want it to happen. Romney even referenced the possibility in the same passage in which he boasted about how he didn’t have to do anything to improve the economy — “my own view is that if we get the — the ‘Taxageddon,’ as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can’t work together, it really is frightening, really frightening in my view.”

Romney is not wrong. A congress that can’t work together in the face of a fiscal catastrophe is a scary, scary prospect. But here’s the thing, to avoid that eventuality requires doing something. Just the fact of Romney getting elected isn’t going to change any business executive’s attitude toward the impending fiscal cliff. Hammering out a deal is the only thing that will unlock the checkbooks.

And here’s the irony — the average Americans, the ones who apparently aren’t paying any attention to the oncoming plunge, are actually demonstrating a savvy understanding of politics superior to the executives who are cowering in fear. Because if there’s one thing we should have learned while watching Congress operate the last four years, it’s that no deal gets done until the last second… but, eventually, it does get done. Congress won’t let us plunge over the cliff. There will be lots of rhetoric, and lots of arm-twisting, and the exact nature of the compromises that will be made will shift according to who wins the White House and the changing balance of power in the House and Senate. But it will  happen.

Unless, of course, Mitt Romney gets elected and doesn’t actually do anything. Then we’ll all suffer. And the animals won’t be pleased.

 The truth about the debate

Talking Points 10/12
October 12, 2012


Did the VP debate reignite the 'war on women'?

October 12, 2012
Controversial narrative resurrected by debate moderator with question on abortion and faith


VANITIES

The Impossible Interview: Kim Jong-Un Speaks With Anthony Bourdain


BOURDAIN: So, you were ordered to get fat so you’d look more like your grandfather? I would fucking love to have that be my job.
KIM: Today, Tony, as my honored guest in Pyongyang, you share my job!
BOURDAIN (raising glass of soju): Death to the imperialist fast-food ConAgra obesity-promoting plastic-cheese-eating capitalist American pigs!
KIM: May they wail like knobby-kneed primary-school girls in scanty uniforms as our People’s Army unleashes upon them an epic sea of hellfire with the heat of a thousand suns!
BOURDAIN: So, what’re we eatin’? What kinda wild northern shit are you layin’ on me that the Seoul crew don’t do? My sous-chef’s dope dealer once took me to some freaky D.P.R.K.-themed pop-up place in Oakland with the most fucked-up ham heung naeng myun and—
KIM: Veal parm. We are having veal parm, chicken cacciatore, and spumoni.
BOURDAIN: Wh-why?
KIM: The best film of all time is the sixth Rocky film, Rocky Balboa—the one where Rocky is old and Adrian is dead. I fell in love with the Rocky films at boarding school in Switzerland. And in Rocky Balboa, he has restaurant in South Philly named after Adrian. I love going to that restaurant.
BOURDAIN: But that’s—that’s a fictitious restaurant, K.J.-U.
KIM: No. I built precise replica here in my residence. I go there all the time. I have 60 girl chefs working in kitchen; all weigh precisely between 44 and 52 kilograms. Chef uniform is brassiere, half-slip, and—how do you say it?—majorette boots.
BOURDAIN: That is fucking awesome, K.J.-U. Up high! (Makes high-five gesture to Kim.)
KIM (reciprocating): Yo, Adrian!