The Tea Party says we are at war with Eastasia; have we always been?

Krugman notes that the Sunday talkshows were filled with nonsense on the deficits:

This morning, for my sins, I found myself involuntarily watching bits and piece of the morning talk shows, and it seemed clear that Republicans have been given a new talking point. Suddenly, the shutdown/debt ceiling confrontation isn’t just about Obamacare; it’s about curbing runaway spending growth and exploding debt.

I’m a bit surprised. I didn’t expect Republicans to worry about the facts that federal spending has been flat in nominal terms, and falling fast in real per capita terms, for several years, or that the deficit is plunging. But I did think they might worry that the public has moved on from the debt scare, and also that some people might balk at the sudden attempt to rewrite history.

And they should balk. This was never about controlling the deficit. It started as an attempt to stop health reform before it could get started; it has now morphed into an attempt to extract something, anything from Obama to save face (which he can’t give them, because he needs to take a stand against extortion.)

Sadly here in Georgia we have a Democratic US Senate candidate trying to side with the Tea Party on the sly without Democratic voters notcing. So I've started a petition to try and force her to answer if she really agree's with the hostagetakers or not.  Please sign and share and lets find out!

Is Michelle Nunn a liar or just confused? Protecting Social Security may depend on the answer...

Economist Bob Pollin. the codirector of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst was on the Real News Network pointing out the obvious for those of us who have been paying attention.  We don't have a debt crisis we have a political crisis.

DESVARIEUX: So, Bob, we have a government shutdown now on Capitol Hill. There's yet another congressional battle looming ahead, the debt ceiling. Can you just give our viewers sort of a reminder of what exactly is the debt ceiling and what is going to happen to the U.S. Treasury if we don't raise the debt ceiling on October 17?

POLLIN: The debt ceiling is a legal limit as to how much the government is able to borrow. And the debt ceiling became an issue after the Great Recession, because the government had to borrow a lot of money to prevent the recession from turning into a depression. So the government borrowed a lot of money. We come up to a level that is close to the government's debt ceiling.

And what happens is: instead of the debt ceiling getting raised as it would be normally to cover all the government's obligations, the Republicans have used the debt ceiling and the budget more generally as a way to fight the Democrats and to prevent government spending on programs that have already been passed. The programs have been passed. For example, Obamacare has been passed into law, has been approved by the Supreme Court. But the Republicans are trying to stop these things on the premise that the American people hate government, and so that they want to destroy the government, they want to eviscerate the welfare state.

So the debt-ceiling debate is not really just about the debt ceiling. It is about the government providing means of well-being for people in the society. And the Republicans are trying to stop that.

DESVARIEUX: Is there anything resembling a debt crisis in the U.S.?

POLLIN: There is absolutely nothing resembling a debt crisis in the U.S. If we--and we've talked about this on previous editions, but it's important to reiterate. Let's be very specific. If we want to define a debt crisis in a way that one would typically define it, like with the government in Greece, or even a household, what we would be referring to is an inability of the person in debt or the entity in debt, the government in debt, to pay its obligations that are forthcoming, for the government to cover its interest payments next month, six months, over the next year. Right now the government's interest payments as a share of total government expenditure is actually at a historic low, not a historic high. It's at a historic low for the simple reason that the government is able to borrow money at nearly zero interest rates. So there is no debt crisis whatsoever.

The Chris Hayes interview with Bruce Bartlett, former Senior Policy Analyst in the Reagan White House and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy in the George H.W. Bush administration, and Michael Lofgren, a former staff member on the House and Senate Budget Committees is worth revisiting.

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

The GOP base have been convinced by elites within both parties that we have a debt crisis.  That's why Michelle Nunn's campaign to hand over the keys to the people who crashed the economy is so dangerous. Dean Baker was polite enough to call it nonsense

It looks like even the Democrats in Georgia have to make up nonsense about out of control government spending http://t.co/jDykQzkr28
— Dean Baker (@DeanBaker13) October 5, 2013

As someone who has run for State Senate in Red America in 2010, someone campaigned hard to reach conservative voters on reality based economics; I can tell you that the elites in DC who have been preaching "debt crisis" and austerity are underming the honest efforts of activists within Red America  to educate and empower their communities.

So, lets recap.  In the middle of the Tea Party Tantrum, the primal Scream of the Children of the Dixiecrats, we have the 1% trying to win a Democratic Primary here in Georgia on bad economics.  This both undermines the efforts of Obama to keep the GOP from killing the hostage because it feeds in to the disinformation campaign of the Koch Brothers and their crew; and also undermines activists and local politicians on the ground fighitng for real change in Georgia.

The Nunn campaign either know they are campaigninig on a lie and think you have to lie to win; or else they're being funded by liars and theifs who want to slash Social Security and are clueless enough to be taken for a ride and think once in DC they won't "owe" the Koch Brothers and company anything in terms of policy.

Things are so crazy right now that even Tyler Durden of Project Mayham fame is jumping into the Georgia Senate race to warn Nunn she is walking on thin ice. 

So its up to us on the ground to push back on the elites and demand an answer.

So which is it Michelle, are you a liar or just confused?  Voters deserve an answer.  Protecting Social Security may depend on the answer.

Tyler Durden has a message for Michelle Nunn; candidate for US Senate in Georgia.

Michelle Nunn's campaign to hand the car keys over to the people who crashed the economy continues.

In the middle of the GOP shutdown when Democratic candidates for US Senate should be all over the place pointing out how devastating the GOP agenda has been for America, that their hostage taking is the last straw; Ms 1% is hanging out in the shadows shilling Pete Peterson talking points.

But I ask you this...

She's probably on a retreat paid for by the Koch Brothers at the moment.  But will tell us more about how wonderful Senior citizens are--And isn't volunteerism swell?

Look I know Michelle Nunn probably doesn't push small children into puddles and is an all around great gal who has been fortunate to have had doors opened for her all her life on her name alone.  I get that.  But as Paul Krugman noted about Nunn and her ilk, she's in a bubble and has no clue what she is talking about.  She'd bring the "Grand Bargain" of compromise that cuts Social Security at a time we should be fighting to expand it.

But I've just gotton word that Tyler Durden is not pleased with her campaign and has a message for Michelle Nunn and the rest of the politicians trying to hand the keys back to the 1% as if the economic crisis never happened.  They are messing with the wrong people...



Michelle Nunn has spent her entire campaign ignoring the people the economy depends on.  People who are struggling through an economic crisis they did not create.  Its a sad and pathetic reminder that the mechanism for electing good leaders is broken.  And Nunn is feeding the Tea Party tantrum by telling journalists that the children of the DixieCrats running amuck because they don't get their way are right about the "crisis" in America.

But have faith my blogging friends.  Tyler Durden loves you and knows you have all the power you need to change things.  We organize organize organize.  We fight to educate and empower voters. And  we rise up from time to time when need be.

With all this GOP shutdown nonsense we should be aspiring for the possible and getting grown ups elected to public office who have the skill sets needed to clean up the mess created by Wall Street.
As the spraypainted scrawl near the Sorbonne many years ago reminded us: Be realistic, Demand the impossible.

Wouldn't it be rad to beat the 1% come election day?  Anything is possible when we try.

The First Rule of of Running for US Senate--You do not side with the 1%.

I noted the other day that the mechanism for electing competent leaders is broken in America.  I was reminded of it when, once again, I saw US Senate candidate Michelle Nunn shilling talking points straight from the 1%.

Nunn $raising email on shutdown: "neither side of the debate is facing the very real imperative to address our growing national debt" #gapol
— Daniel Malloy (@ajconwashington) September 27, 2013

The question to ponder is first and foremost, what idiot within the Nunn campaign thought that in the middle of a massive Primal Scream from the children of the DixieCrats that affirming their nonsensical view on the debt would be a good idea for any of us?   I mean Nunn kicked off her campaign on day one shilling Pete Peterson Fix the Debt talking points in interviews but right now in the middle of the GOP Shutdown to affirm the Tea Party talking points?  It speaks to poor judgement--we need leaders leading people to the correct solutions to complex problems.  Not reaffirming the most banal of Macroeconomic fictions.

As Krugman recently noted in his post CEO's are out at Sea

First, CEOs still talk as if debt and deficits were the central issue of economic policy. They never deserved that place; they certainly don’t deserve it now that the deficit has clearly been falling too fast and the debt outlook is stable for the next decade. Yet they can’t let go of the notion that a grand bargain on the budget — as opposed to an end to destructive austerity — is what we need. 

Second, many CEOs are, I believe, genuinely naive about the people they deal with. They believe, for example, that Paul Ryan actually cares about deficits. They haven’t grasped, or refuse to grasp, the reality that the whole thing about deficits was really about using economic crisis as an excuse to tear down the social safety net. 

Finally, they’re still trying to position themselves as the middle ground between extremists on both sides, when the reality is that we have a basically moderate Democratic party confronting a radical Republican party that doesn’t play by any of the normal rules. If you insist on thinking of Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren as somehow symmetrical figures, you’re already so out of touch with political reality that there’s no way you’re going to have useful influence. 

I do sometimes wonder how these guys can be that naive, and some of them probably aren’t — they’re playing class warfare on the sly. But some of them really do seem clueless, probably because thinking about the reality of American politics today would make them uncomfortable — and who’s going to tell the guy in the big office things that make him uncomfortable? 

It’s not just Fox News watchers who live in a bubble; sometimes, wealth and power can have the same effect.

Watching Nunn on the campaign trail continue to shill 1% talking points in interviews and fundraising emails affirms she's in a bubble and would be quite dangerous if put in the current environment in Washington.  Krugman noted there is no way the likes of Nunn could have a useful influence in the status quo in DC and I hope Georgia voters take heed.

The Neoliberal DLC model of electoral politics is still top dog within inner Democratic Party circles in Georgia.  The tactic is simple.  Say all the right things on cultural issues and then affirm your allegiance with Wall Street when it matters. Basically, be right on the Gays and Guns and the Democrats will be happy to support you in your quest for "Grand Bargains" to cut Social Security and erode other economic supports that protect and empower the 99%.

There are some of us in Georgia trying to end, once and for all, the DLC logic that helped get the "moderates" in place needed to poorly tax  and regulate the 1%--thereby crashing the economy.

The 1% clearly has their candidate in the Georgia race.  For the 1% Nunn is the best of both worlds since she doesn't come with the pesky political dilemmas of the Tea Party fringe. The massive Primal Scream coming from the children of the DixieCrats that currently has Government shutdown is a great example of the down side for the 1% when funding GOP candidates.  The 1% realize if they can concede on the Guns and the Gays they can just buy themselves a seat in Georgia.

Hopefully with some pressure we can force her to stand down and take some strong positions for the 99% such as expanding Social Security, a Financial Transaction Tax, a large and loud NO to trade deals such as the TPP that lack strong commitments to protect the environment, labor standards, and the autonomy of local Governments around the globe. Ending the BS politically correct charm offensive to Republicans and making her take economic populist positions with her megaphone would be a huge win for Democrats up and down the ballot. Or even better---pull together the community of activists needed to beat her and send a message loud and clear to Neoliberals in the sectors of power in DC.

 I don't know about the rest of Georgia.  But I can guarantee Nunn and company that a small cadre of Occupy activists have one message for her.--It would be pretty Rad to beat the 1% on election day.

Electing Neoliberals to office leads to Dictatorship.

"In the end somebody's views will have to decide whose interests are more important; and these views must become part of the law of the land, a new distinction of rank which the coercive apparatus of government imposes upon people.... Planning leads to dictatorship, because dictatorship is the most effective instrument of coercion and the enforcement of ideals and, as such, essential if central planning on a large scare is to be possible."

That is a Hayek quote via John Cassidy's excellent How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities.

So obviously I'm taking him a bit out of context.  But lets read this text very carefully.

In the end somebodies views will have to decide the collective action quandaries we face as a society--we call it governance.  But when we impose market liberalism on people via central planning mandates and trade deals--very subtly labelled "free trade" even though they are full of protectionism's for the 1% that redistribute wealth upwards--we are on the pathway to dictatorship by the 1%.

I noted yesterday in my post The mechanism for selecting competent leaders is broken that the radical wing of Congressional Republicans and the small but powerful  group of deficit fixated Wall Street Democrats are nothing short of  a Sturmabteilung for the 1%.

This falls right in line with what Hayek predicted in these lines.  As I noted recently over at The Nation magazine a specter is haunting America, that of our citizens’ inability to see, understand, or act—as autonomous individuals in a collective manner—to challenge their own decline.  The 1% have utilized the central planners to create an economy that works for them only.

Its up to us to take it back from them.  You can start by reading Cassy's book which I highly recommend.  Remember, knowledge is power, and fighting back against the 1% won't be easy unless you know what you are talking about!

Unemployment Catastrophe--Why the GOP focus 100% on Obamacare

Part of the reason for the GOP lock-step focus on Obamacare is that it draws attention away from the single biggest problem we face.

We have a long-term unemployment catastrophe on our hands and the GOP don't want to do anything about it.

The reason they don't want to do anything about it is because it keeps wages low for their base--employers--because they rest of us stay desperate for any job at any wage.

Keeping wages low and workers desperate is a power dynamic required for Capitalism to thrive for the 1%.

The first step in fixing the economy? Stop redistributing wealth upwards...

This isn't rocket science.  We have a Government that subsidizes inequality.  We should stop doing that.

The mechanism for selecting competent leaders is broken.

Jon Stewart did a great breakdown of the right wing's efforts to stop the ability of the Government to function.


The GOP can't win enough political power on their ideas alone so they are going to try to force the rest of us to blink.

Economist Mark Thoma went a little more in-depth on the crux of the issue over at The Fiscal Times. The Real Reason for the Fight over the Debt Limit

This political dispute over the debt limit is, plainly and simply, about the size and role of government. In particular, it’s an attempt by Republicans to use undue fear about the debt to scale back or eliminate spending on social insurance programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare, food stamps, and unemployment compensation. And it’s no accident that this attack on social insurance coincides with growing income inequality. 

So when I saw this tweet from the AJC's political reporter today I could only cringe.

Nunn $raising email on shutdown: "neither side of the debate is facing the very real imperative to address our growing national debt" #gapol
— Daniel Malloy (@ajconwashington) September 27, 2013

Michelle Nunn, the big "name" running for US Senate in the Democratic Primary here in Georgia has, by my take, been pretty solidly backed by all the insider players within the Democratic party apparatus. As much fun as it is to make fun of the GOP wingnuts this tweet is a fundamental reminder that the crisis of governance we face in the US right now is systemic and has spread into both parties.  Its not the fault of some Tea Party fringe, as Democrats try to spin it in the media.

Now, I presume Nunn is a pretty smart lady (who just needs some better economic advisers) and will do a fantastic job as a center-right Democratic US Senator.  I'm certainly likely to vote for her after she gets out of the primary, since voting is about preferences and every single GOP candidate is promising us they aspire to be the next Ted Cruz.

But Nunn, who appears to be trying to keep a low profile is running a campaign that looks to be 100% poll tested for November 2014, if one is to judge by her public comments.

That's a major problem.  We don't need leaders who can just acquire power; we need leaders who can acquire power and then get some really important, complex stuff, done.  We need to do something to end this unemployment crisis, do something to end the war on workers, do something about the environmental crisis we are currently feeding.

In my recent essay over at The Nation magazine I noted that my campaign experience running for State Senate back in 2010 made me realize we face a systemic crisis that has eroded the capacities of our citizens to fight back

a specter is haunting America, that of our citizens’ inability to see, understand, or act—as autonomous individuals in a collective manner—to challenge their own decline. Now is the time to nurture independence, self-respect and self-reliance within the ranks of American citizens. 

Having the big name Democratic candidate for US Senate running on propaganda churned out by the 1%, deep in the heart of Red America, is just as horrid and dangerous as the likes of Ted Cruz (who as Juan Cole noted needs to just sit down and just shut up).  

Chris Hedges rightly noted this phenomena as Death of the Liberal Class. Those running Nunn's campaign, as well intentioned as they may be, don't see what dangerous ideas they are playing with.

Market liberalism is nothing short of an agenda to destroy fundamental bonds that tie us together as humans and Democrats don't need to be running candidates pushing such propaganda--they need to be working to rebuild those bonds within our society.  This win at any cost campaign style speaks to how we got in to this mess to begin with.  Democrats have spent the past 30 years running poll-tested leaders who have bombarded the public with TV ads re-affirming the agenda of the 1%.

Just because the average voter believes, after 30 years of Wall Street funded ad wars, that it is imperative to address our growing national debt doesn't mean we need to be running candidates on that agenda.

We need to be running competent leaders who understand how to address the issues facing our society.  We need to be running candidates who are committed to protecting and empowering our citizens.  And we need to be developing the political infrastructure to get those leaders elected to office.

A "big name" who pushes bad policy is not empowering people.  Its spreading Koch Brother disinformation; which just makes the ability to govern, once in office, even harder since citizens are concerned about non-issues and ideological priorities of anti-social sociopaths who could care less about creating a sustainable economy that works for everyone.

It is far far better to lose an election or two pushing the correct policy.  This isn't a fashion contest; where if we lose an election it means we must be wrong on policy.  This is fundamentally about getting the right leaders in to office.  If we lose, it just means we have to develop the political capacity--the power--needed to win.  Using each loss as a way to learn how to get more and more organized and articulate thereby building up the capacity to win elected office up and down the ballot.

New leaders, new activists, stronger communities can be won in an election campaign--even when the candidate loses the vote count.

Democrats and progressives jumping all over the easy to mock Tea Party antics of Congressional Republicans, whose goal is to make us a Banana-Republic, doesn't give me confidence that most Democrats understand that their own house is in disarray as well.

The systemic crisis that faces our economy is brought to us by members of both parties.  The radical wing of Congressional Republicans and the small but powerful  group of deficit fixated Wall Street Democrats are nothing short of  a Sturmabteilung for the 1%.

The mechanism for electing competent leaders is broken; we won't fix it by continuing the cycle in 2014.

I have an essay over at The Nation magazine

So for my Facebook friends and twitter followers you already know about it but I haven't yet posted to the blog.

I won a student essay contest over at The Nation magazine for an essay from my final semester at Georgia State this past spring.

Go check it out, I think it turned out quite nicely.

It captures, quite succinctly, both sides of the coin in terms of "who is to blame" for the economic crisis we face.  The systemic culprit for the current state of affairs, which in a broad brush stroke, very un-nuanced fashion, can be reduced to neoliberalism.  But the essay also captures my Nietzsche-ian driven elitism, my conservative streak, if you will.  My refusal to let working class people off the hook for not being better educated, better organized, and more engaged in the decisions that impact their lives.

A major thank you to twitter buddy, the blogger David Kaib, who thoughtfully took the time to read over two early drafts and provide excellent feedback.

Go check out the essay over at The Nation and tell me what you think.

Everybody is becoming a Foreign Policy expert all of a sudden.

For those of you who may realize you need some quick background on broader context/framework of U.S. policy around the globe you should consider picking up Michael Parenti's short book The Face of Imperialism.

In under 150 pages you will get a readable history of US policy that will help you decipher much of the spin and propaganda that suffocates rational discussion of Foreign Policy questions in this country.