Obama to Hedge Funds: Take That

Jeffrey Feldman writes about Obama's statement today on the Chrysler settlement:

On the 101st day of his Presidency, Barack Obama finally slapped the hedge
funds across the face like they deserved. In his statement about the
Chrysler bankruptcy and subsequent restructuring into a "Chrysler-Fiat
Alliance," President Obama made it perfectly clear that not all the stakeholders
at the table stepped up in good faith for the good of the company or the good of
the nation. Some stakeholders were simply in it for themselves.

Framing his statement about Chrysler in terms of
"shared sacrifice," President Obama elaborated on "substantial financial
contribution" of the Canadian government, the massive debtor-in-possession
financing offered by the U.S. taxpayer, and the significant sacrifices made by
the UAW to guarantee that Chrysler could emerge from bankruptcy a stronger more
viable company in alliance with Italian automaker Fiat.

But there were some parties, according to the President, who deserved
mention only for their unwillingness to join the effort (emphasis added):

"While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively in
this process, some did not. In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge
funds failed to accept reasonable offers to settle on their debt. In order to
effectuate this alliance without rewarding those who refused to sacrifice, the
U.S. government will stand behind Chrysler's efforts to use our bankruptcy code
to clear away remaining obligations and emerge stronger and more
competitive."

Yes, America. What we read in that statement is the first, high
profile, no nonsense, slap across the face, ouch that hurts, there's plenty more
where that came from, the law and the nation is on our side, Commander in Chief
hedge fund smack down. May it be the first of many, many more to
come.

Liberal Democrat Comes Home

In a quite different take on the Specter defection from the previous post, John Nichols of the Nation Magazine writes:

Arlen Specter started his political life as a liberal Democrat. And now the
senior senator from Pennsylvania is returning to the fold. Specter, who has
served five terms in the Senate as the last of the old-school Rockefeller
Republicans, has finally given up on his long, fruitless quest to revive the
spirit of east-coast liberalism within what has become a hard-right party.

"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the
Republican Party has moved far to the right," the senator explained in a statement announcing his
decision to leave the GOP fold. "Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in
Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my
political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

Specter, who was a liberal Democratic lawyer in Phildelphia in the 1960s
before accepting a GOP nomination for district attorney as part of a
reform-movement battle to break the city's Democratic machine, has long been the
most left-leaning member of the Republican caucus in the chamber. He was
targeted for defeat by conservatives -- led by the Wall Street-funded Club for
Growth -- in 2004. President Bush and other key Republicans defended him that
year, not out of love for Specter but because they did not want to lose a seat
representing a blue state.

Shameless Hack

Jonathan Chait writes about Sen. Arlen Specter changing parties:

When a politician switches parties, it’s customary for the party he’s
abandoned to denounce him as an unprincipled hack, and the party he’s joined to
praise him as a brave convert who’s genuinely seen the light. But I think it’s
pretty clear that Specter is an unprincipled hack. If his best odds of keeping
his Senate seat lay in joining the Communist party, he’d probably do that.

Calling Robert Reich

According to Norm Schreiber in the New Republic, Obama is calling Larry 'Sleepy' Summers the new Robert Reich:

[Leonhardt]: When you and I spoke during the campaign, you made it clear
that you had thought a lot about the economic debates within the Clinton
administration. And you said that you wanted to have a Robert
Rubin type and a Robert Reich type having a vigorous debate in front of you.
...

THE PRESIDENT: ... When I first started having a round table of
economic advisers, and Bob Reich was part of that, and he was sitting across the
table from Bob Rubin and others, what you discovered was that some of the rifts
that had existed back in the Clinton years had really narrowed
drastically.

[Leonhardt:] They agree a lot more than they used to, but not entirely.

THE PRESIDENT: Not entirely. But, I mean, the fact is that Larry
Summers right now is very comfortable making arguments, often quite
passionately, that Bob Reich used to be making when he was in the Clinton White
House. Now Larry might not like me saying that —

[Leonhardt:] Larry Summers is the new Bob Reich —

THE PRESIDENT: — that he’s become a soft touch. But, no, I think that
one of the things that we all agree to is that the touchstone for economic
policy is, does it allow the average American to find good employment and see
their incomes rise; that we can’t just look at things in the aggregate, we do
want to grow the pie, but we want to make sure that prosperity is spread across
the spectrum of regions and occupations and genders and races; and that economic
policy should focus on growing the pie, but it also has to make sure that
everybody has got opportunity in that system.

Excuse me, but Larry Summers cannot be Robert Reich. That's like asking Raum Emmanuel to debate himself and calling it an intense discussion.

Actually, Robert Reich would make a wonderful Robert Reich.

Specter switching parties is a HUGE DEAL

Once Al Franken gets seated, the Democrats will have 60 votes in the Senate. That means no more filibustering, my friends. Health care reform, alternative energy, cap and trade, education reform--you name, it just got a lot more likely.

Also, I want to address this point. A co-worker of mine just said "Specter switching is bad because America is better off with split government which leads to more bi-partisanship."

As ironic as it seems, I think that might be completely wrong at this point in time. We may end up with more bipartisanship because the Dems have 60 votes. I believe that Specter's decision may further split the GOP into two factions: one that wants to deal and affect legislation, and one that wants to remain ideologically pure yet utterly irrelevant.

Look at what happened with the agreement to do reconciliation for health care. Now, the GOP and assorted lobbies are forced to come to the table and craft a bill, rather than remaining secure in the knowledge that they can kill the whole thing with a filibuster. Now, the GOPs choices are stay home and have absolutely no influence, or come to the table and deal. With the president that we have, and what I believe is his sincere belief in bipartisanship, we may end up with more bipartisan legislation with more GOP votes, because Obama will want to get at least the more moderate wing of the GOP on board with his policies so that a national consensus is formed.

Its a beautiful day!

For the Price of a Cup of Coffee, You Could Help a Great Cause......

From the NYTimes:

"As talk continues about possible prosecutions of people involved in the interrogations, waterboarding is once again a hot topic. Last week, Sean Hannity, a conservative Fox News host, said he would agree to be waterboarded (for charity) when a guest proposed that he experience it."

I never thought I'd see "waterboarding for charity" but, hey, in these tough times I guess you do what you gotta do.

Anyways, the whole article is fascinating. It shows that (yet another) conservative source shilling for torture and neverending war has been shown to be a complete and utter liar. Well, when you had the top Conservative, President Bush, out there for years saying "America does not torture" when it is now clear that America did torture, I guess its not surprising.

Torture Caused U.S. Combat Deaths

Another way of looking at torture, from Nicholas Kristof's NYT column:

Alberto Mora, a former general counsel for the Navy, has
said that some flag-rank officers believe that Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo
constitute “the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in
Iraq,” because they galvanized jihadis. An Air Force major and interrogator of
prisoners who goes by the pseudonym Matthew Alexander told Harper’s
Magazine that “hundreds but more likely thousands of American lives” were
lost because of “the policy decision to introduce the torture and abuse of
prisoners.”

Overpaid Bankers

Paul Krugman's column today is a cri de coeur from a very frustrated reformer:

...we should be disturbed by an article in Sunday’s Times reporting that
pay at investment banks, after dipping last year, is soaring again — right back
up to 2007 levels. Why is this disturbing? Let me count the ways.

First, there’s no longer any reason to believe that the wizards of Wall
Street actually contribute anything positive to society, let alone enough to
justify those humongous paychecks. Remember that the gilded Wall Street of
2007 was a fairly new phenomenon. From the 1930s until around 1980 banking was a staid, rather boring business that paid no better, on average, than other
industries, yet kept the economy’s wheels turning.

So why did some bankers suddenly begin making vast fortunes? It was, we
were told, a reward for their creativity — for financial innovation. At this
point, however, it’s hard to think of any major recent financial innovations
that actually aided society, as opposed to being new, improved ways to blow
bubbles, evade regulations and implement de facto Ponzi schemes.

Green President

Tom Friedman on Obama and the Environment:

It is not an exaggeration to say that the team that President Obama
appointed to promote his green agenda is nothing short of outstanding — a great
combination of scientists and policy makers committed to building an energy
economy that is efficient, clean and secure. Now there is only one vacancy left
for him to fill. And it’s one that only he can fill: Green President. Is he
ready to do that job with the passion and fight that will be required to
transform America’s energy future? Hope so. Not sure yet.

Rationing Health Care

It's really interesting to read neo-con par excellence Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post without his typical venom and high dudgeon. I've read several of his columns now on Obama's social policies which speak fairly objectively and non-critically of Obama's options. It leads me to think that Krauthammer has a bit of soft spot for democratic socialist (read European) social policy. The latest example is today's column and his discussion of the coming rationing of universal health care:

The more acute thinkers on the left can see rationing coming, provoking Slate blogger Mickey Kaus to warn of the political danger. "Isn't it an epic mistake to try
to sell Democratic health care reform on this basis? Possible sales pitch: 'Our
plan will deny you unnecessary treatments!' . . . Is that really why the middle
class will sign on to a revolutionary multitrillion-dollar shift in spending --
so the government can decide their life or health 'is not worth the
price'?"

My own preference is for a highly competitive, privatized health
insurance system with a government-subsidized transition to portability,
breaking the absurd and ruinous link between health insurance and employment.
But if you believe that health care is a public good to be guaranteed by the
state, then a single-payer system is the next best alternative. Unfortunately,
it is fiscally unsustainable without rationing.