EU Economist Olli Rehn Furious that IMF Admits Mistakes in European Policy Towards Greece

Apparently Admitting Obvious Mistakes is Not Part of the European Union’s Policy

The International Monetary Fund, part of a troika of European policy makers that have imposed massive austerity on countries like Greece, austerity that has resulted in the devastation of those nation’s economies, has admitted that it was wrong. 

The International Monetary Fund admitted to errors of judgment in its handling of the 2010 bailout in an internal report released on Wednesday—a report in which it also took a few shots at one of its partners in the negotiations, the European Commission.

This has infuriated the people who claim never to be wrong about austerity, because they believe the policy is correct as a matter of faith, regardless of the actual impact of the policy on growth, employment and economic activity.

A spokesman for the commission, which serves as the European Union's executive arm, flatly rejected the criticism on Thursday, and on Friday, EU Economics Commissioner Olli Rehn himself fired back.

"I don't think it's fair and just that the IMF is trying to wash its hands and throwing the dirty water on European shoulders," Mr. Rehn said at a conference in Helsinki, using unusually tough language.

Now we all like the language and images of the “washing its hands and throwing the dirty water on European shoulders’ but one has to wonder exactly what Mr. Rehn thinks was the result of the disastrous decisions to destroy Greece, Portugal, Spain et. cetera in order to save them. 

Here are the results for Greece.  Anyone see anything to brag about?

Now That Republicans Are Out of the Way, California Balances Its Budget and

Maybe the State is Governable Again

[Editor's note:  Today's gloat is brought to you by the letters e and z, and the number 7.]

In recent years the only role that Republicans played in the state of California was that of obstruction, much the same way that is the only role that national Republicans play in Washington.  But unlike in Washington, voters in California got fed up and put the Democrats in charge, and despite the forecasts of doom and gloom by conservatives, the state seems to be coming under fiscal control.

The latest news is that the Governor, Jerry Brown, who wanted a conservative budget and the legislators who wanted to restore some of the spending that was cut when California was suffering have reached a nice amiable agreement, one that is full of compromise which is the way government is supposed to work.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) smiles as he leaves Gov. Jerry Brown's office after a budget meeting with Brown and Assembly Speaker John Perez (D-Los Angeles) in Sacramento.(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press / June 10, 2013)

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg noted that the agreement is poised to become the third on-time budget in a row in California. Lawmakers have until Saturday to approve it in the full state Senate and Assembly.

"This one feels even better than the first two," he said.  

The $96.28-billion compromise accomplishes much of what Brown wanted in the budget, including more money for schools with large numbers of students who are poor or English learners. It also hews closely to Brown's more conservative tax revenue estimates.

At the same time, Brown found room for several proposals from Democratic lawmakers, albeit pared down or delayed versions. The budget includes or lays the groundwork for more spending on dental care for poor adults, increased welfare grants, tuition assistance for university students and child care.

All of this is probably cause for massive heartburn by Republicans in the state, who hate effective government, but then nobody seems to be listening to them anyway.  As for the national conservative movement, here is the Wall Street Journal whining that Texas, flush with revenues is actually spending some of the money instead of enacting tax cuts for the wealthy.

The danger is that Texas will repeat the fiscal mistake that California has made repeatedly: spend during the glory days and, once the economy slows, raise taxes to cover the deficit. The Texas oil patch is riding high on $95 a barrel oil and a doubling in production in four years. But Texans shouldn't forget the lesson of the 1980s and late 1990s that oil prices are volatile and a decline can be painful and prolonged.

Mr. Perry traveled on a business recruiting mission to California in February and poked fun at the tax-spend-and-borrow cycle in Sacramento. He can fix the reckless Texas budget by vetoing all or most of it and insisting on deeper business tax cuts. He should not want people to start comparing him unfavorably to Jerry Brown.

Well WSJ, not to worry.  First of all people for years have compared Texas Gov. Rick Perry unfavorably to Jerry Brown, and just about every other successful government official.  And secondly, Mr. Perry and Texas seem to be learning something from California, namely that a robust economy requires some government investment in education, infrastructure and health care.  So sorry conservatives, we know this must be just killing you.

Washington Post Institutes a $9.99 Payment Per Week

No, Amazingly They Don’t Pay Readers That to Read the Post, They Expect Readers to Pay Them

The Washington Post will soon require readers who want to view more than 20 articles per month to pay a monthly fee.

Our digital packages will be priced at $9.99 per month for access to the desktop and mobile web only and $14.99 for an all-digital package which includes access to all of The Post’s custom apps. Home delivery subscribers will continue to have complimentary access to all of The Post’s digital products.

Now the Post used to be one of the great papers of all time, and it still has bursts of journalism that make one remember just how strong and vibrant a newspaper it was.  But in a desperate attempt to remain relevant, the Post has largely abandoned real reporting.  Its editorials often reflect knee jerk right wing conservatism, it is afraid to offend the right wing, it employs and gives voice to a large number of right wing hacks and it appears its sole purpose is to emulate the Wall Street Journal.  It even fails in that.

So when one first saw that a $9.99 payment per month would be implemented, the immediate thought was that this is what the Post should be paying people to view it on a regular basis.  The idea of paying $10.00 a month to view the Post is similar to the idea of paying to watch commercials on TV.  The Post is currently viewed for free, which when one takes into account the ads on the site is about the value of the service.

Here is the Group of “Freedom Fighters” John McCain and the War Mongers in Syria Would Have Us Aid

Maybe “Freedom Fighters” is the Wrong Term, Maybe Murderous Religious Zealots is a Better Description

While there is deservedly great criticism that can be leveled at the Obama administration, one of the best things they have done is something they have not done.  Despite the call of war mongers who want the U. S. in get involved in every war on the globe, Mr. Obama has so far refrained from substantial intervention in Syria.

John McCain and others think that the rebels in Syria are freedom fighters, and some of them may actually be freedom fighters intent on bringing freedom and democracy to Syria.  But here is a better description of what the rebels Mr. McCain and others would have us aid are doing.

 At least 60 Shiite Muslim residents of a village in eastern Syria were killed in a reprisal raid by rebels, the government and opposition figures said Wednesday, the latest in a string of massacres underscoring the sectarian nature of the Syrian conflict.

And no this was not an act of battle, it was murder motivated by religion.

What was not in dispute was that several battalions of Sunni rebels, including members of extremist Islamist groups, stormed the village and, in video posted online by anti-government activists, could be seen setting houses on fire as they shouted sectarian slogans, calling Shiites dogs, apostates and infidels.

“This is your end, you dogs,” a man off camera said as he panned across what he said were the corpses of “pug-nosed” Shiites, including one with what appeared to be a gunshot wound to the head.

“We have raised the banner of ‘There Is No God but God’ over the houses of the rejectionist Shiite apostates,” one fighter chanted in another clip as a black cloud billowed above the village and jubilant gunmen brandished black flags often used by the extremist Al Nusra Front and other Islamist fighting groups.

Now if the United States and its allies could stop this and bring peace to Syria, then the U. S. has a strong moral imperative to do so.  Failure to stop massacres when one could is almost as great a crime as the massacre itself.  But the U. S. is powerless.  Arming these rebels would only increase their murderous rages and murderous activities.  So while it is an awful thing to do, the U. S. can do nothing but sit back and watch the horror in Syria play itself to its conclusion.  Anything else would be even more horrible.

And in case anyone doubts this, carefully read the words of those who would have this country intervene.  They are strong words in terms of the tragedy and that the U. S. should stop such a horrific war, but no where are there any recommendations about what we should actually do.  Sending U. S. forces into war is what these people always want, figuring out how to do it successfully, well that's something they always leave to others.

How Much More Does Health Care Cost in the United States Than the Rest of the World?

This Much More

The U. S. health care system is broken.  It is does not have a long term life.  It will either change or it will cease to deliver basic health care to the majority of the population.  Not convinced, consider this chart.

NETHERLANDS

NEW ZEALAND

SPAIN

SWITZERLAND

CANADA

$319

$6

$7,731

$655

$35

AVG. U.S. PRICE

AVG. U.S. PRICE

AVG. U.S. PRICE

AVG. U.S. PRICE

AVG. U.S. PRICE

$1,121

$124

$40,364

$1,185

$914

M.R.I. scan

Lipitor

Hip replacement

Colonoscopy

Angiogram

Source: 2012 Comparative Price Report by the International Federation of Health Plans. The average prices shown for colonoscopies do not include added fees for sedation by an anesthesiologist, a practice common in the United States, but unusual in the rest of the world. The additional charges can increase the cost significantly.

The complex reasons behind this can be reduced to two major points.

1. The rest of the world has government provided health care and the rest of the world has government controlled health care costs.  
2. The United States has a Pay-for-Procedure system, in which the only way that health care providers make money is to provide treatment.  There is no financial incentive for providers to promote good health, only to promote expensive treatment.

So why does government involvement work in other countries?  Because health care is a monopoly, and a monopoly of a vital service.  Unlike buying an automobile or purchasing a meal at a restaurant, consumers do not have a choice about health care.  When you are sick you buy health care.  Period.  So the expectation is that health care would experience monopoly pricing tendencies, and it does.  Really, this is basic Econ 101.

The second issue is really the heart of the problem.  Health care providers do not make money by preventing injury and disease, they make money by diagnosing and treating injury and disease. 

This system is changing, because it has to.  The U. S. economy will not sustain rising health care costs, which already take more of national income than any other country.  The problem though, is that without effective management health care is evolving in a slow and inefficient manner.  The health care reform act, for all its good points, did nothing to fix the basic problem.  If Republicans could focus on that aspect, instead of their vitriolic hatred of all things Obama they would benefit the nation and themselves.

But they won’t, will they.  To paraphrase a recent book title, for Republicans it feels too good to hate this much.

Uh Oh – Harvard Study Finds Immigrants Contribute Far More to Medicare Than They Receive in Benefits

Another Right Wing Theory Shot to Hell

One of the arguments that Conservatives use against immigration reform is that these individuals will now drain the social services systems and the health care systems of all of their funding.  Of course they do not ever support such an argument with facts, figures, analysis or research, or if they do they do like the Heritage Foundation and use flawed and incorrect analysis.  If one is a Conservative, the arguments are mostly made on faith and are expected to be taken on faith.

Now a new study shows that the argument that immigrants are a drain on Medicare is just plain false.  And false in a big, big way.

John Moore/Getty Images

Immigrants stood to sing the national anthem at a citizenship ceremony in New York this month. A study by researchers at Harvard Medical School shows that immigrants help cover the growing costs of Medicare and Social Security.

The study, led by researchers at Harvard Medical School, measured immigrants’ contributions to the part of Medicare that pays for hospital care, a trust fund that accounts for nearly half of the federal program’s revenue. It found that immigrants generated surpluses totaling $115 billion from 2002 to 2009. In comparison, the American-born population incurred a deficit of $28 billion over the same period.

The findings shed light on what demographers have long known: Immigrants are crucial in balancing the age structure of American society, providing an infusion of young, working-age adults who support the country’s aging population and help cover the costs of Medicare and Social Security. And with the largest generation in the United States, the baby boomers, now starting to retire, the financial help from immigrants has never been more needed, experts said.

Now regular, normal people who had taken an anti-immigrant position based on the belief that immigrants are a net user rather than a net contributor to Medicare would say that based on this new information they were wrong.  Conservatives, not being normal people, will continue to cling to their discredited beliefs.  After all the position was based on faith anyway, and so faith continues to be their rationale for supported concepts proven to be false.

Glenn Beck Confuses the Right of Free Speech With the Right to Be Heard

And An Apology That is Not an Apology

For reasons no rational person can really understand, former Fox News commentator Glenn Beck has quite a following.  And recently he was given an award, believe it or not, on behalf of freedom of speech during which he used the occasion to issue a non-apologetic apology and to promote Glenn Beck.

He wasn't fully aware of the perilous times and people "at each other's throats," said the conservative radio host, who accepted a First Amendment award from Talkers magazine, the trade publication for his industry.

Now since talk radio is dominated by conservatives we have to presume that the trade publication for the industry is dominated by conservatives and regards its mission as one to promote conservatives, conservative talk shows and conservatism in general.  That’s fine, they have the right to do so and should do so if that is what they and their wealthy supporters want to do.

But what they do not understand is the real meaning of freedom of speech.  Mr. Beck is astounded that people do not agree with or like his bombastic, fact challenged and divisive speech, and that they try to make those feelings known.

Beck said he was puzzled by activists who organize boycotts of people who say things they disagree with. Beck's popular show on Fox News Channel ended in 2011 after a successful advertiser boycott organized after he said President Barack Obama had "a deep-seated hatred for white people."

Also on the minds of radio executives Thursday was the boycott on Rush Limbaugh's show after he called a law school student "a slut" for advocating funding of birth control.

What Mr. Beck and others do not understand is that freedom of speech is not freedom to have your views heard in the media or to force people to listen to your views or to so dominate the media that competing views are not allowed access.  Mr. Beck and Mr. Limbaugh can say anything they want, but they somehow feel they have a God given right to have a place in the media to expound those views paid for by advertisers while at the same time denying that same opportunity to those who oppose their positions. 

Need any evidence of this?  The right wing was adamantly opposed to and finally destroyed the concept of the Fairness Doctrine, a regulatory framework that said since the airwaves belong to the public, those operating them under license from the government had an obligation to air all points of view.  This is heresy to conservatives, who deep down know that if the public sees or hears objective rebuttal to their remarks they will likely reject extreme conservatives.  And notice none of this dedication to freedom extends to Muslims, whom conservatives want to deny the basic rights they supposedly support for everyone.

As for Mr. Beck’s so-called apology, it was like this.

"For any role that I have played in dividing, I wish I can take them back," Beck said. "I don't wish I could take back the truth that was spoken but perhaps — not perhaps — many times I could have said it differently."

In other words, Mr. Beck is saying it is true that Mr. Obama has a deep seated hatred of white people, but that he, Mr. Beck just needed to explain that in different terms. Maybe something like "Barack the Muslim hates whitey" or "Obama wants to kill all white people" or something along the lines of "Obama thinks all white people are the devil's spawn".  Yeah, something like that would be better wouldn't it Mr. Beck?

Well Mr. Beck, thanks for nothing.  And yes you have a absolute right to say these things, but you have no entitlement to be given a platform in the media with which to speak.  And yes, while you can say anything you want, none of us have an obligation to patronize advertisers who put your disgusting views on TV or radio, and we won't.

Huge Win For Freedom and Reason as Obama Administration Drops Objections to Making the Morning After Pill Available to All

Note to Conservatives:  You Should be Happy – You Don’t Want the Government Acting as Parents

In some instances Conservatism, real Conservatism is the right thing.  For example government should not be involved in making decisions about which women can and which women cannot obtain family planning services and pharmaceuticals.  The government’s only role is to make sure that any drugs are effective and safe.  Period.  End of story.

So it was shocking that HHS decided to restrict over-the-counter sales of the morning after pill to young women even though the FDA had determined that the pills were very safe and very effective.  The case went to a Federal Judge, who in no uncertain terms told the government it was wrong, that the government did not have the power to restrict access just because the government felt it was not appropriate for young women to obtain these drugs.  And now the Feds have decided not to appeal that decision and to allow women, any women, to obtain the morning after pill from any drug store, no questions asked, no parental slip needed, not prescription required.

The reversal by the government means that any woman or girl will soon be able to walk into a drugstore and buy the pill, Plan B One-Step, without a prescription.

The Justice Department had been fighting to prevent that outcome, but said late Monday afternoon that it would drop its appeal of a judge’s order to make the drug more widely available. In a letter to Judge Edward R. Korman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the administration said it would comply with his demands that the Food and Drug Administration be allowed to certify the drug for nonprescription use.

Does this mean young teen age girls, or even pre-teen age girls can get the morning after pill?  Yes.  Now this bothers some people, heck it even bothers the President.

Mr. Obama had expressed personal concern about making the drug more broadly available last year and offered support to Kathleen Sebelius, his secretary of health and human services, when she blocked a decision by the F.D.A. that would have cleared the way for nonprescription distribution to all girls and women regardless of age. He said that as the father of two young girls, the idea of making the drug available to them without a prescription made him uncomfortable.

But you know, as a father he should be concerned, but as head of the government he should want the government to stay out of this.

Yes, there will be vocal opposition from so-called Conservatives, the hypocritical ones who say they want limited government, but who really want active government involvement making citizens do or not do things Conservatives want them to do or not do.

The decision is certain to anger anti-abortion advocates, who oppose letting young girls have access to the drug without the involvement of a parent or a doctor.

And gosh, shouldn't anti-abortion proponents welcome something that will reduce future abortions?  Well they would if their goal to eliminate abortions didn't conflict with their desire to control private behavior.  But for now, and hopefully for all the future to come this issue will be decided where it should be decided, with the family and the women and girls who are directly involved.  Government, go away.

The National Security Agency Campus

Just what exactly did anyone think was going on here?

Michele Bachmann Goes on Fox News To Say She is Not Going Away –

And That the Administration Wants to Silence Her and Conservatives

Michele Bachmann appears with Mitt Romney at a campaign stop in Portsmouth, Va., on May 3, 2012.

Really Mitt - how did you think this was going to help you get elected? 

It is kind of with mixed feelings that one read that Michele Bachmann went on Fox News (where else?) and announced that she might be back in the public arena at some time in the future after she retires from Congress.  The most likely interpretation here is that this is just the dying embers of a doomed political career, one that is evolving from public office to public speaking (for tens of thousands of dollars per speech of course). 

“I’m not taking anything off the table, but … that’s not my No. 1 item that I’m looking at right now, either. I’m in the game for the long haul,” Bachmann said.

That really sounds like a lame cliché ridden attempt to remain relevant, but it is possible Ms. Bachmann will run again. The reaction here is that the entertainment value of such a candidacy is so great that we would want her to run, but that the destruction to public discourse is so great that the nation would really be better off if she did not.

But one aspect of Ms. Bachmann’s interview on Fox that is intriguing was this.

Staying true to her firebrand style, the Tea Party Caucus leader had strong words for “the radical left” and Obama administration.

“They want to silence the African-Americans who are conservative, Latinos who are conservative, conservative women — they certainly want to silence our voice,” Bachmann said.

Ms. Bachmann told a lot of falsehoods during her time in public office.  These were not lies, because she really did believe what she was saying.  And the fact that she did believe these things is somewhat worse than telling things she knew to be untrue.  It presents her as a fool rather than as just another unethical politician.  She would have been greatly served if someone, eanyone had silenced her at various times.

Well anyway, back to the point.  Everyone believes in free speech here and there is of course no evidence that the Administration wants to silence anybody, or that they are in any way capable or competent enough to do so even if they wanted to.  But you know Ms. Bachmann, a little bit of self-silence would go a long ways towards reducing the criticism of your positions and statements, so think about that if you will. 

Just a thought.

Interview with Alan Turing – One of the Fathers of the Modern Computer, World War II Hero and, Yes, Gay Person

How Being Gay Has Made the Modern Computer What It is Today

In the wake of Harvard academic Niall Ferguson’s disgusting comments that somehow Keynes’s sexuality and private life was and is a major factor in modern macro-economics, The Dismal Political Economist wondered that maybe computers were suffering from the same problem.  See one of the persons who contributed to the development of the digital computer was a British war hero named Alan Turning. 

Mr. Turing was a hero because his work in developing primitive (by today’s standards) computers to break German codes in WWII probably saved thousands of lives.  But Mr. Turing was gay and suffered greatly from being gay because of an oppressive British society.  So given the fact that Mr. Ferguson is a noted and highly esteemed academic, if as he says sexuality is infused in Keynesian economics, maybe sexuality is infused in the modern computer.

So this Forum sat down with Mr. Turing (despite the fact he has been deceased lo these many decades) to ask him about how he made computers gay related.

17. When you were designing the basic digital computer did you deliberately insert gayness into the machine.

Mr. Turing:  Oh yes, everyone knows that computers can be either gay or straight, and I certainly wasn’t going to have a straight computer, that would be perverse.

17. Can you give us some examples of gayness in modern computing?

Mr. Turning:  Well just look at the sleek, sensual design of an Apple computer.  Those are definitely gay machines.  And IBM, what do you think those initials stand for?  Say the letters I B M slowly.  And aren’t you fondling your mouse as we speak?

17. Uh, let’s leave that aside.  Did gayness motivate you to develop the computer that broke the German codes?

Mr. Turing:  Well yes.  As a British citizen I was driven to protect my country and countrymen.  And Germany of course wanted to persecute and murder gay people, much like I think your country has with the Westboro Church in Kansas.  That’s ‘kill the gays’ thing is a pretty good motivator, heck even straight people joined in fighting that.

17. Has gay terminology infiltrated computers?

Mr. Turning:  Absolutely.  Think about what “Microsoft” means.  And you have “input devices” and “output devices”.  And aren’t there a lot of instructions that include the phrase “plug the male end of the cord into . . . “  My favorite is “spreadsheet”, we really snuck that one in.

17. You are putting us on, aren’t you?

Mr. Turing:  Well based on the comments by Mr. Ferguson, you aren’t very bright, are you.

Tyler Cowen Desperately Tries to Justify States Rejecting Medicaid Expansion – And Fails

And If Someone as Smart as Mr. Cowen Cannot Justify the Refusal – No One Can

Mr. Cowen Turns His Head From Reality

As part of the health care reform (?) act the Federal government provides states with the opportunity to expand the eligibility for Medicaid, with the Feds picking up all of the costs for a while and then picking up 90% of the costs.  The logic for enrolling in this program is so great that even some conservative Republican governors, notably ones in Arizona and Florida, are on board. 

Conservative economist Tyler Cowen though thinks that the people who prescribe political motives to Republicans turning down the expansion don’t understand the economics of the issue.

Carter C. Price and Christine Eibner have a new study in Health Affairs suggesting a definite “yes,” and I have seen this piece endorsed numerous times in the blogosphere and on Twitter.  I do understand that part of their argument is a normative one, given the desire to expand insurance coverage for the currently uninsured.  But they and their endorsers also seem to be making a state-level financial prudence argument, as if there were no possible reason for a state not to expand participation behind sheer ideological stubbornness.  On that matter I don’t think they have pondered the problem deeply enough and they fail an intellectual Turing test.

But it is Mr. Cowen who fails the Turing test.  Here is his rationale of why states might rationally turn down Medicaid expansion.

Let’s start with a simple observation, namely that a Republican may win the next Presidential election.  There is also quite a good chance that such a victory would be accompanied by a Republican Senate (and House), given the distribution of vulnerable seats.  That means a very real chance that the federal government will scale back its commitment to Medicaid expansion, for better or worse.  States don’t want to be left holding the bag, and governors know it is hard to take back benefits once granted.

Mr. Cowen doesn’t think anyone has made the cast against his arguments, but let’s see just how easy it is to destroy Mr. Cowen’s position.

1. Only conservative Republicans have turned down the expansion.  Is it possible that every Democrat is ignorant of the risk that Mr. Cowen purports to exist?  Or is the more likely explanation that this is politically driven?  Use Occam's Razor here.

2. Under Mr. Cowen’s logic, states should reject every Federal program that provides funding, for each one could leave the states holding the proverbial financial bag.  Anyone see any states rushing to end receipt of Federal money?

3. States that turn down the expansion will probably see their health care costs rise for both the government and private citizens, as inefficient emergency room care is provided those who could have but do not have Medicaid coverage.  There is no big fiscal savings from turning down the Medicaid expansion.

4. Assuming Senate rules do not change, the type of change in health reform laws that Mr. Cowen is talking about would require 60 votes in the Senate.  Even if Republicans take control of that body, as is highly possible no one thinks they would have 60 votes, or even 50 votes to vote away Federal support of Medicaid expansion.

Well that’s just a few off the top of one’s head.  And should anyone doubt that Mr. Cowen has no knowledge of how things are in the real world, there is this.

Governors are not stupid, or their chiefs of staff are not stupid, and many governors are far less ideological than they let on.  They are politicians.  And they are politicians who understand that the federal government is not to be trusted and yes if you wish you really can blame that on the Republicans, or indeed on any prospective switch of power.  That is why we are not seeing more states do the Medicaid expansion.  In the meantime, the debate needs to catch up to the reality.

Well, yes it does need to catch up with reality, but reality on the part of apologists for conservative Republican governors.  Mr. Cowen seems like a pretty decent person, and it is probably almost impossible for him to imagine that a conservative Republican governor and state legislature would doom millions of citizens to inadequate health care just for the politics of the issue.  Indeed it is hard for the rest of us to conceive of that, but in reality that is what is happening.  It's called Modern Conservatism.

Obama Administration Continues Bush Administration Policy of Massive Collection of Data on Private Citizens and Residents

Which Should Be to the Surprise of - - - No One

Whatever else can be said about the Obama Administration, no one can say that it has a great respect for civil liberties.  Except for the official sanction of kidnap and torture (which is a big difference) the Obama people seem little different from the Bush people in targeting individuals and information in pursuit of national defense and protection against terrorist attacks.

A few comments are required (well not required but necessary because without them there would be no Post here)

1. Who exactly is surprised here?  Nothing the Administration has done would indicate that they are more respectful of individual privacy as it regards national defense and terrorism defense than any other U. S. government.

2. The technology for massive data mining has existed for years.  Of course the government is going to obtain communications data and mine it.  That is what governments do and have always done.  Today it can just be done in greater detail and with greater accuracy because of computer technology.

3. That the NSA has been spying on Americans for years is only unknown to those who have just returned from a decades long trip in outer space.

4. This is a lose-lose political situation.  If the Administration is not using data mining techniques to collect information on suspicions of terrorism, Fox News and its cohorts would be castigating Mr. Obama for endangering America by adhering to pointy headed liberal demands of groups like the ACLU.  Since the Administration is using these techniques, Fox News and its cohorts can castigate the Administration for its abuse of civil liberties. 

5. The would be terrorists should but probably don’t have known for years that their communications are being targeted.  These people are intensely dedicated but not very bright.

Okay, it is a given that no government and no President is going to abandon these techniques.  The political cost is just too great.  If another attack occurred and it was known that a President had abandoned an intelligence gathering program, no matter how intrusive that program was, that President would be condemned by friend and foe alike.

So what is needed here are a couple of things.  The first is transparency, everyone needs to know what is being done by whom and by how much.  No, this will not compromise the programs, in fact it may hinder the terrorists by having them think the government knows much more than it really does and is more competent than it really is.  The government of course knows much less than people think it does and is generally so incompetent that the word competency and U. S. government should never be used in the same sentence.  But as we said, these would be terrorists are not very smart and probably don’t know that.

A second point is that massive safeguards must be built in to ensure that the data mining does not result in government intrusion into private conversations that are unrelated to national security.  No, we do not know exactly how to do this, but surely someone smarter than use can figure it out.

Everyone will have to wait for history to sort out the issue of whether or not Mr. Obama was always insensitive to personal privacy and civil liberties, or whether or not this was something he, like almost everyone else who obtains high office, was infected after he became President.  It is more likely than not that the anti-liberties virus infected the President after he entered the White House, but that is largely conjecture at this point in time.

Bob Fletcher (Who?) Dies – A Real American – Not a Phony Patriot Like Muslim Bashing Politicians

A Man No One Has Heard About – But Should Have

Despite what one reads in the sanitized American history books, that America is great and wonderful and kind and has never done a bad or mean or selfish or morally inexcusable act, this country has done a lot of them.  Handing out blankets to Native Americans in the 19th century, blankets that were inoculated with smallpox is just one example that somehow never gets into sophomore history classes.  And of course there is that whole slavery thing.

Another awful action was this.

After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, the United States government forced 120,000 Japanese-Americans on the West Coast out of their homes and into internment camps for the duration of the war.

which brings us to Bob Fletcher.  Mr. Fletcher lived in the area where the American citizens (let’s call them what they really were) were forced out of their homes and farms and into concentration camps (let’s call them what they really were).  What he did was something we would like to think we all would have done, but probably would not have.

Mr. Fletcher - A Great American

After President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order in February 1942 that made the relocation possible by declaring certain parts of the West to be military zones, Al Tsukamoto, whose parents arrived in the United States in 1905, approached Mr. Fletcher with a business proposal: would he be willing to manage the farms of two family friends of Mr. Tsukamoto’s, one of whom was elderly, and to pay the taxes and mortgages while they were away? In return, he could keep all the profits. . . .

For the next three years he worked a total of 90 acres on three farms — he had also decided to run Mr. Tsukamoto’s farm. He worked 18-hour days and lived in the bunkhouse Mr. Tsukamoto had reserved for migrant workers. He paid the bills of all three families — the Tsukamotos, the Okamotos and the Nittas. He kept only half of the profits.

And what happened when the war ended?  Well this.

When the Tsukamotos returned in 1945, they found that Mr. Fletcher had left them money in the bank and that his new wife, Teresa, had cleaned the Tsukamotos’ house in preparation for their return. She had chosen to join her husband in the bunkhouse instead of accepting the Tsukamotos’ offer to live in the family’s house.

“Teresa’s response was, ‘It’s the Tsukamotos’ house,’ ” recalled Marielle Tsukamoto, who was 5 when she and her family were sent to the Jerome center.

Oh, and in case anyone thinks that there were a lot of other honorable citizens in the area, there is this.

Mr. Fletcher’s willingness to work the farms was not well received in Florin, where before the war some people had resented the Japanese immigrants for their success. Japanese children in the area were required to attend segregated schools. Mr. Fletcher was unruffled by personal attacks; he felt the Japanese farmers were being mistreated.

“I did know a few of them pretty well and never did agree with the evacuation,” he told The Sacramento Bee in 2010. “They were the same as anybody else. It was obvious they had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.”

So Mr. Fletcher has just died at the age of 101.  And his legacy should be that whenever any so called patriot crops up who expresses his or her love of country by denigrating African Americans, or Asian Americans, or Muslims or any other group, just mention the name of Bob Fletcher.  Our only regret concerning the man is that we did not know him or know of him.  His story should be required reading in every American history book.  

Here is What the Economic Austerity Policy Looks Like in Spain and Europe

And Those Who Support It Wonder Why They Are Mocked as Charlatans and Fools

Spain is the largest country to undergo economic torture by the European policy makers.  And here is what the results are, by the numbers.

The numbers are grim. The economy is in deep recession. In the first three months of the year GDP shrank for a seventh quarter in a row. The public finances remain stretched, with the budget deficit at 7% of GDP. Bond yields have fallen, but the credit crunch for small firms is worsening. Corporate bankruptcies are running at ten times pre-crisis levels. And unemployment is at a record 27%.

Wow, and the problem of unemployment among young people is of epidemic proportions. 

 

JOSÉ GARCIA used to work as a doorman. But two years ago he lost his job. Since then the 62-year-old has lived off unemployment insurance built up when he was working. This month it runs out. Now he hopes for €426 ($550) a month in long-term state subsidy. With unemployment above 27%, he does not expect to work again. “I’ll keep looking, but the queue will always be long,” he says.

The jobless rate is unlikely to drop below 25% before he claims his pension at 65. The prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, hopes to turn the jobs corner before the next election in late 2015, but his record so far is dismal. Over the past 17 months 1.2m jobs have gone, taking the total lost since 2007 to over 6m. Net job growth needs GDP growth above 1%, yet the government does not predict that until 2016. In the European Union only Greece’s jobless figures are worse. And in southern provinces such as Cadiz the rate is above 40%. Among under-25s, the figure is a horrific 57%.

Nice going Europe.  You now have firstly established the first massive recession that is totally man made and was totally preventable.

Two Unusual Items From News That McDonald’s CEO Has Lost Weight

And One is Unusual in an Extremely Good Way

There is no question that a steady diet of McDonald’s (or Burger King or Hardees or any other fast food burger joint) meat sandwiches is highly detrimental to ones health.  The documentary “Supersize Me” illustrated the problems in rather stark and vulgar and downright scary details.

So there was news value here in this story about the CEO of McDonald’s.

 McDonald Corp.'s CEO Don Thompson revealed at an analyst conference this week that he shed about 20 pounds in the past year by getting his "butt up" and "working out again." But he said he hasn't changed his habit of eating at McDonald's "every, single day."

So the first unusual item is that someone can eat at McDonald’s every day and still lose weight.  Of course, this means a lot of salads, a lot of chicken, no French fries and just the occasional burger. And absolutely, positively no Coca Cola.   But apparently the weight loss thing can be done, or at least one person can do it.

Here is the second unusual thing about the news, which requires a photo of the CEO, Mr. Thompson.

The point, Mr. Thompson is an African American.  The unusual thing, this is simply ignored in the story, it is never mentioned.  This is a good thing, in fact it is a very good thing.  No, full equality has not arrived in the United States, and will not for many years to come, probably decades.  But the fact that the CEO of McDonald’s is an African American and that this fact does not need to be commented on, or mentioned in a news story about him is great progress indeed.  

Republican Jason Smith Wins Special Election Contest to Become Congressman From Rural Missouri District

And the Election Demonstrates That Democrats Who Try to be Republicans Are Neither

The special election in Missouri to replace a member of Congress who left for greener pastures resulted in a resounding win for the Republican Jason Smith.  This was not unexpected.

The Republican entered Tuesday’s election as the strong favorite, benefiting from running in a conservative district that broke for Mitt Romney by nearly 34 percentage points in November. Smith out-fundraised Hodges more than 2-to-1, raising $509,000 to the Democrat’s $228,000.

No, the race was not close, despite this characterization of the Democrat in the race.

Jason Smith - Real Republican Beat Faux Republican in Republican District

National Democratic groups, viewing the 32-year-old Smith as the front-runner, provided Hodges with minimal assistance. Hodges billed himself as a conservative Democrat, promoting his anti-abortion and anti-gun control views.

The point, why would anyone vote for a Democrat with these views?  If a voter wants a conservative, why not vote for the real thing, and if a voter wants a Democrat, why vote for one that is trying to look like a Republican. 

It could be said that a regular Democrat would not have won the race, which is almost certainly true.  But it is hard to see how a real Democrat could have done worse than this.

With 66 percent of precincts reporting, Smith, a state representative, held a decisive 68 percent to 26 percent lead over Democratic state Rep. Steve Hodges.

Wonder if Democrats got the message?

Former Democratic Senator and VP Nominee John Edwards to Open Law Firm in Raleigh

And Knocking Down Rumors of the Name

John Edwards, who cheated on his wife who ultimately died of cancer and was acquitted of using campaign funds to cover up the affair is reported to be ready to open up a law firm in Raleigh.

John Edwards leaves the federal courthouse in Greensboro on Wednesday, May 16, 2012. The defense wrapped up their case today in his campaign corruption trial. Edwards did not take the stand in his defense.

Shawn Rocco — srocco@newsobserver.com

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/05/2940863/sen-john-edwards-reportedly-looking.html#storylink=cpy

RALEIGH — Former Sen. John Edwards is looking to open up a new law firm in Raleigh in September, CNN is reporting.

Quoting an unnamed source, CNN said Edwards wants to resume practicing a practice specializing in plaintiff’s attorney. Edwards was a highly successful trial lawyer before he began his political career, winning a Senate seat in 1998.

The former Democratic vice presidential nominee has begun to show signs of becoming more active since he was acquitted a year ago on a charge of illegally using $1 million in campaign contributions to cover up his affair and child with Rielle Hunter, a campaign videographer.

Now this Forum is nothing if not fair, so we want to join the chorus of those who are trying to dispel the rumors that the name of the firm will be,

Pond Scum R’Us - Attorney At Law P. C.

No really, no truth to that story at all.  We regret any confusion or misinformation that may have been caused by the rumors.

Why The Economist is Probably The Best News Magazine in the World

They Tell It Like It Is

Although we don’t agree always with what is printed and opined in The Economist, our admiration for its completeness, its literacy and its unfailing ability to explain complicated economic, financial and political issues is unbounded.

As an example of what the magazine is all about, here is postscript from an article on Hungarian/German relations.

CORRECTION: The first version of this post had a rather complicated final paragraph, which confused even its author. This has since been deleted. The change was made on May 22nd.

Compare this with the U. S. newspaper and magazine policy which is to never, ever correct a mistake.  They just don’t care.

Incredible Turn of Events – International Monetary Fund to Admit It Was Wrong to Impose Austerity on Greece

IMF To Likely be Drummed Out of the “I am Always Right No Matter If I am Wrong” Club of Policy Makers in Europe

That the idea of contracting an economy through austerity in which taxes are raised and government spending is drastically cut will result in economic growth and expansion and a reduced budget deficit is so ludicrous that years from now future generations will wonder how anyone ever held such views.  But those who control economicpolicy in Europe and Britain do hold such views  and having the power in Europe to impose those views, they did.

Now after years of disaster in Greece, the IMF, one of the architects of the policy is apparently going to admit that it was wrong.

In an internal document marked "strictly confidential," the IMF said it badly underestimated the damage that its prescriptions of austerity would do to Greece's economy, which has been mired in recession for years. . . .

The IMF also said its own analysis of the future development of debt was wrong "by a large margin." The fund's debt-sustainability analysis—a critical piece of forecasting—"included stress tests but these turned out to be mild compared with actual outcomes."

The issue of the so-called fiscal multiplier—an estimate of how much an economy will contract for every euro in spending cuts or tax increases—has become part of the government's arsenal in its negotiations with the troika.

And in a development that ought to cheer Conservatives, Greece wants permission to cut some taxes, because raising them brought in less revenue.  This is exactly the point Conservatives make in the U. S., and while the point is not applicable to the U. S. economy because taxes on the wealthy are already at their lowest levels in decades and these are consumption taxes Greece wants to cut, not income taxes on the wealthy, apparently it is relevant in Greece.

In talks with visiting troika officials in Athens next week, Greece will ask for permission to cut certain value-added, or sales taxes, arguing that an increase in restaurant taxes, for example, has generated less revenue not more by crimping spending.

Conversely a cut in the tax rate for eateries, the government says, could actually boost revenue by drawing in more diners. So far, however, officials at the European Commission have been cool to the idea.

So in denying the request to cut the VAT, we see that an agency like the IMF that has made so many mistakes in the past is hardly likely to correct them in the future, even after they are forced to admit the facts that their policy has been woefully destructive rather than beneficial.

And the IMF needs to follow The Dismal Political Economist’s guide to what to do when you make a mistake.

1. Apologize
2. Try to repair the damage the mistake has done.
3. Try not to make the same mistake in the future

For Greece though, they won’t even get step 1.