And so we learn that Sen. Mitch McConnell, leader of a declining Republican caucus, wants “a weeklong cooling off period between when the [expected economic stimulus] bill is drafted and when it is voted on, allowing time to dissect it for signs of ‘fraud and waste.’”

Good for McConnell. Despite at least one, unkind protest over the Senator’s sudden, rediscovered love for fiscal sanity, I applaud his call for a time out. No matter how much a government jolt to this ailing economy may (or may not) be needed, when you’re talking about figures in the neighborhood of $850 billion, scrutiny and time to apply it are productive pursuits. I only hope McConnell and his troops don’t confuse legitimate scrutiny for politically convenient obstructionism.

Nate Silver suggests my hope is naïve.

An awful lot has been said and written lately about the failed Bush Presidency and about his upcoming good riddance and good comeuppance.

I have tried my hand at it.

But today, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert truly says it all and says it best in his “Add Up the Damage.”

Of course, Bush defenders, if there are any left out there, will bristle because Herbert doesn’t mince his words—because he tells it like it is, and like it has been for the past eight miserable years.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of the Bush mindset was his crude joking about the U.S. not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while our troops were dying and getting maimed there because of such false claims:

A year into the war Mr. Bush was cracking jokes about it at the annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association. He displayed a series of photos that showed him searching the Oval Office, peering behind curtains and looking under the furniture. A mock caption had Mr. Bush saying: “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.”

And Herbert concludes:

[Bush] told ABC’s Charlie Gibson: “I don’t spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history. I guess I don’t worry about long-term history, either, since I’m not going to be around to read it.”

The president chuckled, thinking — as he did when he made his jokes about the missing weapons of mass destruction — that there was something funny going on.

At the beginning of his column, Herbert enjoins Americans:

When Mr. Bush officially takes his leave in three weeks (in reality, he checked out long ago), most Americans will be content to sigh good riddance. I disagree. I don’t think he should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he’s done to this country.

I would only note that such a polite “loud, collective angry howl” should be followed by an equally polite “loud, collective cheer” by four million people gathered for the inauguration of our 44th President at the Washington Mall.

A polite, neat, eco-friendly, legal, symbolic mountain of shoes in front of the White House during “move-out day” might also be appropriate.

One of my former bosses from the late 1990s recently penned a guest commentary for our hometown daily, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It was published yesterday and essentially asked, if certain financial companies have become ‘too big to fail,’ why did U.S. regulators allow them to get that big in the first place, and why do they continue to protect said firms’ disproportionate size? An excerpt:

It is disturbing, to put it mildly, that almost everything that’s been done so far in the name of saving the American economy has worked to keep these already huge corporations big or to make them even larger through industry consolidation.

It’s about time we realized that bigness itself is much of the problem, not only in the financial sector, but also throughout our economy. Rather than working to preserve these mega-entities, we should be trying to create a marketplace that actually can be controlled by human beings and that meets human rather than only corporate needs.

That strikes me as an issue entirely worth debating.

What do the end of the Bush era, the war on drugs and the arrest of a Mexican beauty queen have in common? They are all part of Jorge Camil’s goodbye to 2008 published on Friday in the pages of Mexico’s La Jornada.

In regard to President Bush, Camil writes in part:

“We’re in a hurry to distance ourselves from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, the shattering of Wall Street, the economic crisis, the collapse of the principle central banks and the breaking-up of the automobile industry. Will there be consequences? Of course! But the fall of Bush and the toppling of the ‘Evil Empire’ presided over by Cheney make them worth it. Those who created the crisis are going, but the damage has been done. Finally, just as the nightmare seemed about to end, a last farewell gift illustrating capitalism’s collapse has appeared with the incredible story of Bernard Madoff.”

Read the rest of this entry »

In one corner — weighing in as the named leader of Obama’s National Economic Council — is Lawrence Summers, boasting a “have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too” treasure chest of hope.

In the other corner — weighing in as one of those lonely voices in the wilderness who predicted the current mess — is Peter Schiff, offering nothing more impressive than a “pain-before-gain” bucket of cold water.

I predict this match will go the full 15 rounds with no knock outs. My gut hopes Summers wins on points. My brain tells me Schiff probably will. (Perhaps Ronald Brownstein should referee.)

The year-end reviews have started, and several days ago NBC Political Director Chuck Todd took a look at 2008 and concluded:

1. The middle shifted away from the GOP.

2. It occurred in hard-nosed political terms when the Republican Party steadily, inexorably lost moderate and independent voters in election 2008. A good part of Obama’s win will be credited to Obama’s skills and charisma, to John McCain’s fumbles and to the economy’s meltdown. But Obama also had another ally: the Republican Party’s often-dismissive attitude towards the sentiments of moderates, independent and centrists.

None of those blocs are monolithic. But more often than not the GOP paid lip-service — not serious attention to — the voters who helped decide this election and many past ones. (If you don’t believe that, read this book: Independent Nation, by John Avlon.)

In reality, this is a trend that was quite evident in polls leading up to election day, the opinions of main stream media columnists and even in posts on modest weblogs such as The Moderate Voice (regular readers could see writers evolve before their eyes). There was a drip-drip-drip of moderate, centrist and independent voter support way from the Republican Party and its Presidential ticket — ironically during a year when it had a candidate that had worried Democrats due to his longtime appeal to “the middle’s” voters.

There were several tip-offs that the 2008 incarnation of the GOP and its Presidential ticket were losing what some call the “mushy middle” but which history indicates in electoral terms is often the “mighty middle.” One key tip-off was the surprising number of Bush 41 administration officials and associates who clearly were going to vote against their own party. If the party could not even hold onto supporters of Poppy’s Republicanism (and Colin Powell was merely the highest profile one) — which was far different than his son’s — then how could it hold onto the moderates and independents who tend to favor consensus, diplomacy and issue-oriented politics?

What Do Bankers Really Want?

Much of the $350 billion in public money that the Paulson Gang has so far doled out to banks has not gone to banks that were on the verge of insolvency but to generally healthy institutions. The hope being that maybe, just maybe, some of these extra dollars would incline these banks to lend more to individual consumers and businesses, thereby improving our national economic prospects.

This hasn’t happened. Of sure. Healthy banks took the money. Who wouldn’t accept what an addled rich uncle was giving away. But banks are in the business of lending. And thus what they really want are what are known in the trade as “good credits”—credit-worthy borrowers who can repay the money they borrow.

Had the financial geniuses in Washington understood this simple fact, they wouldn’t have focused on throwing money at banks. Rather, they would have asked themselves: How do you make existing or potential borrowers more credit-worthy?”

This obvious question would then have elicited an obvious answer: You increase the income of consumers, and you boost the bottom lines of businesses. And what’s the best way of doing this? A payroll tax holiday that boosts workers’ wages by 6.5 percent and the bottom lines of businesses by the same amount—funding Social Security benefits the payroll tax covers with the same level of public borrowing that’s been wasted with bank giveaways.

Will the next Administration or the next Congress in Washington pursue this obvious tack? Probably not. Why bother doing something what’s simple and obvious when you can panic and play with untried financial gimmicks or huge new public works bureaucracies?

Why indeed?

Retailers are hoping today will be a black Friday sequel. Meanwhile, while personal bankruptcy is at a record high it’s the credit card companies getting the bailout: American Express announced Tuesday it’s getting a $3.39 billion “capital injection” from the US Treasury.

For you and me new credit card rules are set to stop card companies from applying higher interest rates on existing balances and require giving customers at least 21 days to make a payment before charging late fees. Unfortunately, they don’t go into effect in July 2010. Kevin Drum:

You know, some regulatory changes need a substantial amount of lead time because they’re fairly complex to implement. These aren’t those kind. They don’t require 18 months of preparation. They barely require one month of preparation. They could have taken effect January 1st if regulators had been inclined to make a statement. Another opportunity missed.

Among my favorite books of 2008 is Dan Ariely’s Predictably Irrational. Dan’s in the news a lot lately, as well he should be. The book is a pleasure to read and reduces very complicated concepts to easily understood highly readable chapters. But the brilliant joy of his book is the way he hypothesizes applications for his research.

Here, for example, on page 123 he proposes a “self-control” credit card which would allow individuals to regulate their own spending behavior. Consumers could set in advance how much they want to spend in each store, each category, and in any time frame to set a self-imposed limit on impulse purchases. It would even allow us to set our own penalties.

For example, we could set the card to reject purchases over a specified amount or impose a personal penalty — in order to permit the over-limit purchase  “x” amount of dollars goes into a long-term savings account:

A FEW YEARS ago I was so convinced that a “self-control” credit card was a good idea that I asked for a meeting with one of the major banks. To my delight, this venerable bank responded, and suggested that I come to its corporate headquarters in New York.

I arrived in New York a few weeks later, and after a brief delay at the reception desk, was led into a modern conference room….I started describing the self-control credit card idea as a way to help consumers spend less and save more. At first I think the bankers were a bit stunned. I was suggesting that they help consumers take control of their spending. Did I realize that the bankers and credit card companies made $17 billion a year in interest from these cards? Hello? They should give that up?

Well, I wasn’t that naive. I explained to the bankers that there was a great business proposition behind the idea of a self-control card. “Look,” I said, “the credit card business is cutthroat. You send out six billion direct-mail pieces a year, and all the card offers are about the same.” Reluctantly, they agreed. “But suppose one credit card company stepped out of the pack,” I continued, “and identified itself as a good guy–as an advocate for the credit-crunched consumer? Suppose one company had the guts to offer a card that would actually help consumers control their credit, and better still, divert some of their money into long-term savings?” I glanced around the room. “My bet is that thousands of consumers would cut up their other credit cards-and sign up with you!”

A wave of excitement crossed the room. The bankers nodded their heads and chatted to one another. It was revolutionary! Soon thereafter we all departed. They shook my hand warmly and assured me that we would be talking again, soon.

Well, they never called me back. (It might have been that they were worried about losing the $17 billion in interest charges, or maybe it was just good old procrastination.) But the idea is still there-a self-control credit card-and maybe one day someone will take the next step.

We have groups like Working Assets setting up credit cards for social ends. I’d like to see a consumer advocacy organization set up the self-control credit card on its own.

Santa Claus gave retailers a big, fat lump of coal in their stockings this holiday season as retail sales nosedived to the worst in decades – a sign that a economy already rocked by financial waves is heading into yet choppier 2009 waters.

And there was yet another ominous sign for brick-and-mortar businesses: the Internet’s top retailer reported its BEST holiday SEASON ever.

News for retailers in general was grim:

Retailers’ sales fell as much as 4 percent during the holiday season, as the weak economy and bad weather created one of the worst holiday shopping climates in modern times, according to data released on Thursday by SpendingPulse.

The figures, from the retail data service of MasterCard Advisors, show the 2008 holiday shopping season was the weakest in decades, as U.S. consumers cut spending as they confront a yearlong recession, mounting job losses and tighter credit.

“It’s probably one of the most challenging holiday seasons we’ve ever had in modern times,” said Michael McNamara, vice president of Research and Analysis at MasterCard Advisors. “We had a very difficult economic environment. Weather patterns were not favorable toward the end of season, and that resulted in one of the most challenging economic seasons we’ve seen in decades.”

The figures exclude auto and gas sales but include grocery, restaurant and specialty food sales. Although SpendingPulse did not exempt the food prices, McNamara said the decline would have been steeper without them.

“There’s a lot of food that provide a buffer for the total retail sales numbers,” he said.

Here’s the AP’s video report on the sagging holiday sales:

Meanwhile, on the Internet, Amazon.com had its best holidays sales ever as traditional stores didn’t:

Read the rest of this entry »

I hope you all had a great Christmas, but it’s time to begin burning off that big holiday dinner and get back to work. One story which may have slipped beneath your radar over the holiday was flagged by James Joyner on Wednesday, as detailed in the Politico. As per constitutional dictate, each ten years we have to take a look at the shifting populations of the several states and reapportion their representation in the House accordingly. Initial projections of where we will stand in 2010 are coming in and it looks like the big winner will be the Lone Star State.

Texas will lose some influence in Washington when President George W. Bush leaves the White House, but a new study finds that the Lone Star state will be the big winner in the upcoming congressional reapportionment.

The study, from the firm Election Data Services, projects that Texas will pick up three seats in Congress.

Other states seeing a smaller increase, and projected to pick up one seat, are Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Utah. Of course, where there are winners you must also find losers. States who should plan on losing a seat are Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Observant readers will see a pattern developing here. With the exception of hurricane-ravaged Louisiana, the losses are all coming from the former industrial strongholds in the Northeast and Midwest. The winners are in the deep South and the Southwest.

In bygone days, population changes (with the exception of immigration) might come down to a simple matter of which areas were “outbreeding” the others. Today, however, people seem to be less attached to staying in the area of their birth and following the jobs and opportunities where they might be found. But what does this do to the conventional wisdom regarding party strength and ideology in the various states and regions? As Joyner points out, things change.

There are no signs that the movement from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt is about to change. It’s easy to imagine, for example, the domestic auto industry surviving only in the South. But these people moving from the Northeast to the South bring their attitudes and cultures with them, which largely explains why Virginia and North Carolina (and the greater Atlanta area) are suddenly so friendly to Democrats.

So this may turn into short term good news for Republicans, but it is worth remembering that new residents bring their own views and opinions with them into the mix. States are changing in both directions as the shifting population moves around. New York is losing a seat in the House. Will the Democrats figure out a way to remove one of the last Republicans in their delegation? Or will it begin to tilt a bit more toward the red side of things? How long will places like Tennessee or Missouri stay in the GOP column if large amounts of union minded labor move in to follow the auto industry jobs? The new mix in the next decade may wind up looking significantly different than what we’ve become accustomed to.

Many of you may recognize the title to this post as a line from the Christmas carol Good King Wenceslas. The song is based in part on the story of Saint Wenceslaus I who was known for giving to the poor and less fortunate during the 10th century. In the song, he goes out to help the poor ‘on the feast of Stephen’.

Some of our more traditional Catholic or Orthodox readers can tell you that today is in-fact the Feast of Stephen which is celebrated on the second of the twelve days of Christmas (by classic tradition the Christmas celebration begins on December 25th and continues through Epiphany on January 6th).

The day is also celebrated as Boxing Day in many British Commonwealth countries, where it was a tradition for masters to give gifts to the servants, today the tradition is continued by people giving to the poor in general. This giving is done both in terms of gits of money as well as in terms of gifts of time and energy.

Yesterday many of us celebrated with our families. For some the day went well, for some it may have involved some of the traditional family quarrels. Some of us got what we wanted while others felt like they didn’t quite get everything that they were hoping for.

But for most of us the problems, if any, dealt with fairly-basic (even petty) concerns. Most of us have a roof over our heads, we have heat to keep us warm, we have light to guide us through the dark, we have food to eat and water to drink. To many around our planet this is but a dream or fantasy.

In parts of the second and third world millions dwell in abject poverty. Even in our own countries (speaking to those of us who live in the first world) many of our neighbors are hurting as we work through these tough economic times. Fears of losing food and shelter are real to people who never thought it would happen to them.

In my Christmas Day posting I urged those of us who are basically secure to be encouraged that for all the problems we face that things will endure and we will move forward.  Today I am humbly asking those same readers to take this second day of Christmas to give a little to those who are truly in need.

If you have money to donate, there are many good local charities, food banks, shelters and the like who can use your support. If you can only give your time or energy, there are plenty of places to volunteer. For all of us we can at least try to find some way to make this a special day and to continue the spirit of the season.

As Christmas winds down and we approach a New Year, amid bad economic news, it’s worth keeping in mind the words of this musical number (as performed in a 2008 stage version). Every word doesn’t fit — but a lot of them do:

The film version of this classic and lively musical is still available on DVD: