Category: Politics As Usual
Crook
Paul Ryan, Catholic altar boy:
When House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled the GOP blueprint for cutting government spending, he asked Americans to make sacrifices on everything from Medicare to education, while preserving lucrative tax subsidies for the booming oil, mining and energy industries.
It turns out a constituency within his own personal investments stood to benefit from those tax breaks, Newsweek and The Daily Beast have learned.
The financial disclosure report Ryan filed with Congress last month and made public this week shows he and his wife, Janna, own stakes in four family companies that lease land in Texas and Oklahoma to the very energy companies that benefit from the tax subsidies in Ryan’s budget plan.
Ryan’s father-in-law, Daniel Little, who runs the companies, told Newsweek and The Daily Beast that the family companies are currently leasing the land for mining and drilling to energy giants such as Chesapeake Energy, Devon, and XTO Energy, a recently acquired subsidiary of ExxonMobil.
Some of these firms would be eligible for portions of the $45 billion in energy tax breaks and subsidies over 10 years protected in the Wisconsin lawmaker’s proposed budget. “Those (energy developing companies) benefit a lot from these subsidies,” explained Russ Harding, an energy policy analyst with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, when presented with the situation, without reference to Ryan. “Without those, they’re going to be less profitable.”
Romneyomics
Still on vacation, but I have internet access for a bit, and have checked in on a few matters. The big story of the week among the dismal science set is the Romney campaign’s white paper on economic policy, which represents a concerted effort by three economists — Glenn Hubbard, Greg Mankiw, and John Taylor — to destroy their own reputations. (Yes, there was a fourth author, Kevin Hassett. But the co-author of “Dow 36,000″ doesn’t exactly have a reputation to destroy).
And when I talk about destroying reputations, I don’t just mean saying things I disagree with. I mean flat-out, undeniable professional malpractice. It’s one thing to make shaky or even demonstrably wrong arguments. It’s something else to cite the work of other economists, claiming that it supports your position, when it does no such thing — and don’t take my word for it, listen to the protests of the cited economists.
And by the way, this isn’t obscure stuff. To take one example: the work of Mian and Sufi on household debt and the slump has been playing a big role in making the case for a demand-driven depression, which is exactly the kind of situation in which stimulus makes sense — so you have to be completely out of it and/or unscrupulous to cite some of their work and claim that it refutes the case for stimulus. Or to take another example, which Brad DeLong picks up, anyone following the debate knows that the Baker et al paper claiming to show that uncertainty is holding back recovery clearly identifies the relevant uncertainty as arising from things like the GOP’s brinksmanship over the debt ceiling — not things like Obamacare.
Can Hubbard, Mankiw, and Taylor really be that out of it? I don’t think so. They just believe that they can pull one over on the rubes, and pay no professional price. Let’s hope they’re wrong.
Engagement announcement
According to MSNBC, it’s Mittens and Paul Ryan. Shotgun wedding, demanded by donors and wingnut base! Catfood in every pot!
Figures
This explains so much, doesn’t it?
National Journal…asked a panel of Congressional and Political Insiders to rank, one-through-five, those columnists, bloggers, and television or radio commentators who most help to shape their own opinion or worldview.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman received more points than anyone else, with support from both Democrats and Republicans.
I should point out that this survey is three years old. That is not a sign that we are not doomed. It is a sign that we’ve been doomed for a while.
Pure as the driven snow
I sure would like to see the look on the faces of Matt Taibbi and Max Keiser when they hear this:
After a yearlong investigation, the Justice Department said Thursday that it won’t bring charges against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS +1.07% or any of its employees for financial fraud related to the mortgage crisis.
In a statement, the Justice Department said “the burden of proof” couldn’t be met to prosecute Goldman criminally based on claims made in an extensive report prepared by a U.S. Senate panel that investigated the financial crisis.
“Based on the law and evidence as they exist at this time, there is not a viable basis to bring a criminal prosecution with respect to Goldman Sachs or its employees in regard to the allegations set forth in the report,” the statement read.
The Justice Department reserved the right to bring charges in the future if new evidence emerges.
In a statement Thursday, Goldman said: “We are pleased that this matter is behind us.”
In April 2011, the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations published a scathing report on the financial crisis, highlighting Goldman as a culprit. Lawmakers accused the firm of breeding a greedy culture and running conflict-ridden businesses, and they said Goldman put its own interest ahead of clients.
Sen. Carl Levin, D., Mich., chairman of the Senate’s subcommittee, said Goldman executives lied to Congress about the firm’s bets against the housing market. The accusation triggered a Justice Department probe of possible perjury.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Levin’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The report concluded that even as securities firms flooded the market with securitized mortgages and advised clients to buy them, firms privately used words like “crap” and “flying pig” to describe the financial instruments. The department’s probe was launched when Goldman’s reputation already had been battered by civil-fraud charges filed against the New York company by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC accused Goldman of fraud related to a mortgage-bond deal called Abacus 2007-AC1.
Goldman was accused of failing to inform investors that hedge-fund firm Paulson & Co. had helped choose underlying securities in the deal and was betting against it.
Goldman agreed to pay $550 million to end the SEC’s civil-fraud suit. The company said marketing materials for the Abacus deal contained “incomplete information.”
Oh, and in other great news about the special protective bubble that surrounds the great vampire squid:
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has dropped an investigation into Goldman Sachs Group Inc’s role in selling $1.3 billion worth of subprime mortgage securities, the investment bank said in a regulatory filing on Thursday.
In February, Goldman received a so-called Wells notice from SEC staff related to disclosures in the deal’s offering documents. Such notices typically indicate the agency plans to take some kind of enforcement action, and gives firms a chance to respond.
On Monday, the SEC notified Goldman that the investigation had been closed and that it did not intend to recommend any enforcement action against the bank related to the offering, Goldman said in its quarterly 10-Q filing with the SEC.
The investment bank also lifted its estimate of “reasonably possible” legal losses to $3.4 billion from a previous estimate of $2.7 billion three months earlier. The estimate does not include potential losses from legal matters that are at an early stage or that are too difficult to predict.
Arranged marriage?
Since I haven’t seen Mitt Romney do anything yet that his consultants tell him to do, I’m guessing he’s not going to do this, either. I don’t think he wants to run with a glory-seeking lightning rod by his side (remember how well that worked for John McCain?) — but if he wants to roll the dice on the off chance that a majority of people actually want to exchange the security of Medicare for a 50% off Groupon, go for it!
WASHINGTON — Conservatives are increasing the pressure on Mitt Romney again.
That Mr. Romney has not yet named his vice-presidential nominee has created an opening for social and economic conservatives to pressure him publicly, and they have taken the opportunity to make an aggressive case for Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin.
In rallying around Mr. Ryan, a champion of cutting government spending and reining in the costs of programs like Medicare and Medicaid, conservatives are calling for Mr. Romney to select someone who can push their fiscal agenda, but they also are setting the stage for a possible letdown on the right if Mr. Romney chooses someone else in his race against President Obama. A strongly worded Wall Street Journal editorial on Thursday urged Mr. Romney to pick Mr. Ryan, saying he “best exemplifies the nature and stakes of this election.”
The editorial follows a fresh wave of public pressure from other conservative outlets for Mr. Romney to erase doubts about his commitment to conservative causes — an issue that has dogged Mr. Romney since his days campaigning as a liberal Republican for the Senate in Massachusetts.
“The conservative base of the party is so concerned about Obama and his approach to government that they are going to vote for Romney,” said John Brabender, who was Rick Santorum’s chief strategist during his nominating fight with Mr. Romney. “The question is, are they going to make 10 phone calls to their friends and relatives because they care so passionately? That’s going to be somewhat of a challenge.”
The Weekly Standard on Thursday urged Mr. Romney to embrace the conservative principles in Mr. Ryan’s budget — and Mr. Ryan himself as his pick for vice president — predicting that Democrats will attack him for going after entitlement programs anyway.
“Romney, and Republicans, will be running on the Romney-Ryan plan no matter what,” The Weekly Standard wrote. That view was echoed by Newt Gingrich, who lost a bid for the Republican nomination to Mr. Romney.
Hey, if master strategist Newt Gingrich says it’s a good idea, it’s a good idea! Just look at his track record. Uh, never mind.
D.C. yawns at plight of unemployed
The Washington, D.C., establishment continues to demonstrate its indifference to the unemployment crisis, and the mainstream media is all too happy to ignore the problem, too. From Jonathan Chait:
Good news! The economy added 163,000 jobs last month, just a bit over the level required to keep up with population growth. A return to a free fall now seems less likely. On the other hand, there is the small footnote that the return to full employment is nowhere in sight. The recovery looks safe for those of us who are not already screwed. That, sadly, has come to be the primary focus of our economic policy.
In the years since the collapse of 2008, the existence of mass unemployment has stopped being something the economic powers that be even pretend to regard as a crisis. To those directly impacted, the economic crisis is an emergency, a life-altering disaster the damage from which will endure for years. But most of those in a position to address it simply have not seen it in such terms. History will record that the economic elite has viewed the economic crisis from a perspective of detached complacency…
Ironic
Considering that Obama has given the Republicans everything they wanted, I mean:
At an election party last night, Pennsylvania’s Allegheny County GOP Chair, Jim Roddey, brought the crowd to laughter and applause by calling an Obama supporter “mentally retarded.” Roddey, who is a long-time supporter of Mitt Romney, told the joke to a crowd of about 200: “I was very embarrassed. I was in this parking lot and there was a man looking for a space to park, and I found a space for him. And I felt badly — he looked like he was sort of in distress. And I said, ‘Sir, here’s a place.’ And he said, ‘That’s a handicapped space.’ I said, ‘Oh I’m so sorry, I saw that Obama sticker and I thought you were mentally retarded.’”
Let’s ask Romney if he took part in LDS sex abuse coverups
A lot of people, especially members of the media, are reluctant to ask questions about Mitt Romney’s LDS affiliation. It’s frequently compared to religious prejudice against Jack Kennedy’s Catholic faith. No big deal, we’re so much more enlightened now. End of story, right?
I’m not so sure. The difference is, Jack Kennedy wasn’t a Catholic bishop. But if he were, and we knew about the problem of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy and the extensive coverup by the church hierarchy, wouldn’t some enterprising member of the media ask at least a few questions?
Because there is an extensive problem with such abuse in the Mormon church, and Mitt Romney was a bishop. From 1986 to 1994, he was president of the Boston stake, which is similar to a Catholic diocese. “Before that, Romney was bishop, similar to a lay pastor, of congregations in Belmont and Cambridge. Each job included both organizational work and counseling.”
And guess what? The Mormon church leaders consistently discouraged victims from reporting such crimes to authorities. They now claim to have strict rules on reporting, but the very structure of the LDS community makes it difficult to know whether it’s made a difference, because it’s hard to measure what isn’t reported.
After all, unlike the Catholic church, LDS members literally stand to lose everything if they insist on bringing criminal charges against the advice of their bishop or stake holder — or even make allegations within the church community. (Especially when the perpetrator is a bishop.)
Like the Catholic church, the Mormons frequently denied and covered up for perpetrators, who would simply move to another part of the country and start abusing again. (The church now keeps a registry of the accused, making it more difficult.) Also like the Catholic church, bishops frequently accepted “repentance” as a reasonable solution to accusations. Unlike the Catholic church, though, the Mormons are much more likely to pay settlements to accusers. They really don’t like bad publicity — although they’re not above trying to protect themselves financially.
Kelly Clark, a Portland OR attorney specializing in child sexual abuse cases, points out:
The structure of the LDS Church has contributed to the problem. By this statement, I mean that, unlike, say, the Catholic Church, with its rigid hierarchy of ministry and its well-defined concept of who is a “minister,” the Mormon Church’s local leadership structure—Stake Presidents and Bishops being lay, not professional, ministers, and serving on a rotating, and not permanent, basis— made it harder for the Church to educate, train and supervise the local leadership to screen, monitor and supervise those who are in a position to abuse children. Additionally, given the large number of church tasks delegated by the Church to its members via “callings”—home teachers, Sunday School teachers, quorum leaders, bishoprics, Scout leaders, etc—the number of “relationships of trust” between “official” church leaders and children are many times the number in other churches and youth organizations.
Continue reading “Let’s ask Romney if he took part in LDS sex abuse coverups”