3/9: Discontent On The Left

Like Paul Krugman, liberal bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated with Pres. Obama's approach to the financial crisis. Most lefty bloggers believe that the stimulus package was too small, as evidenced by the fact that unemployment keeps rising. The netroots also believe that Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner doesn't have a clear plan and that he's simply "throwing money at the banks". A growing number of liberal bloggers believe that nationalizing insolvent banks is the only solution, and they're frustrated that the Obama admin. "has thus far resisted" this option. Chris Bowers warns: "If President Obama moves forward in giving another $250 billion, or even $750 billion to Wall Street without temporary nationalization, his approval rating will drop under 50% in a matter of weeks."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Gardner, DarkSyde, Sudbay) are praising Obama for reversing George W. Bush's restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, while conservative bloggers are criticizing the move.
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Hinderaker, Lane, Geraghty) are buzzing about a Daily Telegraph article asserting that Obama was "too tired" to give a proper welcome to British PM Gordon Brown when the latter visited Washington.
• Liberal bloggers (Drum, Yglesias, Bok) are criticizing Senate Energy Cmte Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) for saying that Congress is unlikely to pass a cap-and-trade bill that would auction 100% of the government's pollution permits. Liberal bloggers are strongly opposed to the idea of giving away permits, which they believe would drastically reduce the effectiveness of any cap-and-trade system.
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Johnson, Rubin, Rubin) and hawkish centrist bloggers (Goldberg, Peretz) are criticizing Obama's new National Intelligence Commission Chair, Charles Freeman. Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Yglesias, Klein, Fallows) are defending Freeman.

And in case you missed Friday's interview with Daily Kos' David Waldman (aka Kagro X), check it out here!

STIMULUS: Vindication For Progressives?

Liberal bloggers see the soaring unemployment numbers as evidence that progressives such as Krugman were correct in warning that the initial stimulus package was too small:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "At the time it was proposed, many liberals thought the stimulus plan was too small. Or to be more precise, I think what we thought was that it was imprudently small. A fiscal expansion that turned out to be 'too big' would waste some money and require the Fed to counteract the error with higher interest rates. Not great, but not so terrible either. By contrast, a too-small stimulus while we're already up against the zero-bound on interest rates could cause significant problems if the underlying economic situation turns out to be worse than anticipated. And as Neil Irwin and Annys Shin write in The Washington Post that's exactly what seems to be happening as job loss numbers come in at a frightening pace."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "In Washington over the last two months, the debate was over whether the Stimulus Bill was too large. But the math -- that is to say, expected fall in aggregate demand compared with offsetting stimulus spending -- suggested a completely different problem. Namely, that it was too small, probably offsetting a half or less than half of the demand sucked out of the economy by the collapse of the housing bubble. And as the Post reports on tomorrow's front page, the verdict seems to be in: yep, it was too small."
• dday: "Obama released an initial bill that was too small for the task, perhaps assuming that the package would get bigger, as most spending bills do, as it made its way through Congress. Therefore they would not be saddled with the impression that they were expanding government as much as Congressional Democrats would. That's not what happened, and as a result, the stimulus is looking too small for the task."

Liberal bloggers are also buzzing about a recent Media Matters study which found that network news broadcasts rarely included "discussion of whether that package was big enough, despite statements from many economists that it may not be [...]." Lefty bloggers hope that this media dynamic doesn't repeat itself if and when Congress considers a second stimulus bill.

BANKS: Growing Frustration With Geithner

Liberal bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated with the Obama admin.'s approach to the financial crisis -- particularly its resistance to nationalizing insolvent banks:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Enough with the playacting. Time to take action. Time for temporary takeovers of banks like Citi. It's the only choice now."
• AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "It's time Obama gets his economic team straightened out and moving forward. The start has been atrocious, including the multiple failed attempts to build a team around Geithner. If the economy is as important as everyone thinks it is, quit poking around and start working. The problem is too serious for any more of this."
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "I'm not normally one to agree with [Megan McArdle]] or Slate fraudster Henry Blodget and I don't know enough to say that it's time to start thinking about firing Tim Geithner. But everything I've read from [Paul] Krugman and Atrios about Geithner's (lack of a) plan for banks scares the hell out of me and Blodget puts together a pretty compelling indictment."
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "Obama is seriously screwing up the banking crisis. [...] Essentially, Geithner is re-proposing the Hank Paulson cash-for-trash scheme again with new bows and ribbons added to make it look less completely shitty. But it is completely shitty and no serious economist thinks it's a good idea. Ferchrissake, James Effing Baker even thinks temporarily nationalizing the banks is the only way we're ever going to get out of this mess. [...] Here's the deal, dudes: if the economy is not recovering by mid-2010, you can kiss the Democrats' hold on the House of Representatives bye-bye. If the problem persists beyond that, you can say hello to President Moose-Eater in 2012."
• The Huffington Post's Ann Pettifor: "By throwing money at the banks, and by refusing to take full charge of how they are run; by refusing to lower borrowing costs, US Treasury officials and the Fed Reserve are dodging the big issue: corporate and household insolvency."
• Open Left's Bowers: "Newsweek asked the country if they are cool with the 'Swedish model' of temporary bank nationalization. A clear majority responded 'yep.' [...] Even with with these [possible] objections, the poll does show that temporary nationalization is a much more popular plan than the current bailout model. [...] If President Obama moves forward in giving another $250 billion, or even $750 billion to Wall Street without temporary nationalization, his approval rating will drop under 50% in a matter of weeks."

Some liberal bloggers believe that (1.) the Obama admin.'s resistance to nationalizing the banks is based on political considerations, and (2.) these political considerations are unfounded, since a recent Newsweek poll found that 56% of Americans favor bank nationalization. However, Ezra Klein and Yglesias believe that Obama is resistant to nationalizing the banks for other reasons.

BANKS II: Let 'Em Fail

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Banking Cmte, for declaring that he wants to "close" insolvent banks, not nationalize them:

"I don't want to nationalize them, I think we need to close them. Close them down, get them out of business. If they're dead, they ought to be buried. We bury the small banks; we've got to bury some big ones and send a strong message to the market. And I believe that people will start investing [again] in banks."

Liberal bloggers think Shelby's statement is naive and irresponsible:

• Marshall: "Something like this is both heartening and insanely distressing at the same time because what exactly does he think people are talking about when people talk about nationalization? They're talking about some form of FDIC-like takeover, though probably one that would take longer and be much more complicated since you simply can't find another bank that is going to buy up most or all of Citi's assets at some knock-down price over the weekend -- certainly not in the present climate. You either clean the bank up (which would require what amounts to a de facto bankruptcy proceeding) and sell it back into private hands or break it up and sell it off in individual pieces -- likely some combination of the two. It would be one thing if Shelby were just one more Fox News robot. But he's the ranking member of the friggin' Banking Committee."
• digby: "I guess [Shelby] thinks the banks are like GM and should just go bankrupt. Maybe we should close the FDIC too. This is why financial lobbyists are able to run rings around the congress and set themselves up years ahead of time, as they did in the bankruptcy bill."
• Chris in Paris: "The banks the Senator Shelby is suggesting to fail are the mega banks that are well known around the world. Those banks are in fact, too big to fail. (Year to date the US has closed at least 17 banks, so plenty have failed.) At this point in time it's only going to make matters worse if the US was to allow a Bank of America or Citi-like bank to fail."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "[T]he FDIC can't run Citigroup and nobody in their right mind wants to buy them. On the other hand, with Citi's stock hovering around a dollar, their shareholders have already lost nearly their entire investment. Allowing Citi to fail would hardly cause them any more damage than they've already suffered. So why not just let them go under, as Shelby wants? The answer is that we could do this. This was the gamble [Fed Chair] Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson took last September when they allowed Lehman Brothers to fail -- dammit, it's time to enforce some market discipline on these guys! -- and their gamble failed spectacularly. The global financial system nearly collapsed even though Lehman wasn't all that big. [...] This is precisely the kind of imbecilic, high-stakes gambling that got us into this mess in the first place. Maybe Shelby ought to think twice before deciding that the hair of the dog might get us out."

Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Seriously -- the welfare queens on Wall Street keep asking what Obama can do to 'regain the confidence of Wall Street' (and I really can not describe how angry those statements make me -- Obama needs to have you regain confidence in him? You were the rocket scientists who caused this mess.) He could start by sending Sen. Shelby to Gitmo every Friday through Monday so he can't appear on any more weekend shows. There may be drastic steps that need to be taken shortly, but the last damned thing the jittery market needs right now is Senators running around publicly suggesting we need banks to die. By the way -- which member of the CNBC brain trust will blame Obama for Citigroup's cliff dive tomorrow?"

On the right side of the blogosphere, John Hawkins agrees with Shelby: "[Y]es, we should let the banks fail. We should let the Big 3 head to Chapter 11. We should let foreclosures go forward. Will people get hurt? Yes. Will it be pleasant? No. But, is it likely to produce a better outcome than allowing D.C. to micromanage our economy? History definitively says, 'yes.'"

OBAMA: Elections Have Consequences

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama for reversing Bush's restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research:

• Oliver Willis: "Science returns to America."
• Daily Kos' SusanG: "What a day for celebration, as we move yet another step further away from the Dark Ages of the Bush Administration."
• Daily Kos' DarkSyde: "This move is a winner politically as well as scientifically, even making inroads among registered Republicans and self professed conservatives according to some polls. It's also a potent reminder that elections do indeed have consequences. And this is one consequence that's been overdue for a long, long time."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "When historians and humanitarians look back at the abuses of George Bush, his refusal to let scientists find cures for diseases will be viewed as one of his worst decisions. I know Obama hasn't even been president for two months, but the Bush years almost seem long ago and out of a different, distant, dark time. Science matters again. And, caring for the sick does, too."

On the right side of the blogosphere, RedState's Dan Spencer criticizes Obama's move: "Just as the federal government doesn't fund abortions, it shouldn't fund embryonic stem cell research which results in the destruction of human embryos. Simply because more of those polled say they want it than say they don't, doesn't make it right for the federal government to pay for research which requires the destruction of human embryos. There is nothing which restricts privately funded embryonic stem cell research. It is no surprise that Obama would permit federal funding for research which will require the destruction of human embryos. After all, Obama is the most radically pro-abortion president in history."

OBAMA II: In Over His Head?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about a Daily Telegraph article asserting that Obama was "too tired" to give a proper welcome to British PM Brown:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I'm not sure which is worse. At least if he meant to snub Brown, it would suggest a certain competence at this brand of diplomacy. Instead, we're told that the Obama White House and their staff are just a bunch of incompetents who got in over their heads. Which is, of course, the point we made continuously over the last two years."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Where to begin? Obama, after two years of expressing smug contempt for the Bush administration, is 'surprised at the sheer volume' of work the President has to do. And he's too tired to deal competently with one of the most important foreign officials he will meet during his term in office. So: maybe he should cut down on the late-night White House partying?"
• RedState's Moe Lane: "Mr. President? Man up. You see, I don't give a tinker's dam if you're feeling overwhelmed. I could care less if your stress levels are elevated. If I came across you puking in the White House toilet from the nervous tension, my only response would be to flip the switch that turns on the fan before I went to find another bathroom. That's because you wanted this job that you now have, and if you didn't know that it was a killing job then you should have asked somebody. [...] PS: Find the person who made that statement to the Telegraph, thus embarrassing the country, myself, and (least importantly) yourself. If that person works for you, fire that person. Fire that person filthy."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "'Obama is overwhelmed.' Perhaps it's just some Obama ally speaking out of school. But these are probably some of the most terrifying words to come from an unidentified source in some time."

BINGAMAN: Way To Preemptively Sell Out, Jeff!

Liberal bloggers are upset that Sen. Bingaman said that the Senate is unlikely to pass a cap-and-trade bill that would auction 100% of the government's pollution permits:

"[Bingaman] said earlier that any climate bill that passes the Senate is unlikely to adhere to the administration's plan that the government auction all the permits to emit greenhouse gases because such a plan would be too harsh on big industry. Instead, Bingaman said any Congressionally developed system capping and trading emissions probably will include carbon allowances given to polluters like cement factories and coal-burning power plants, along with permits that are sold."

Liberal bloggers are strongly opposed to the idea of giving away pollution permits, which they believe would drastically reduce the effectiveness of any cap-and-trade system:

• Drum: "I see that Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D–NM), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources committee, has decided to preemptively surrender on global warming. [...] There are loads of special interests who hate the idea of a 100% auction, of course. But once you start giving away permits, you'll never stop. It is, plain and simple, a massive giveaway to existing power plants, and as the Europeans learned it makes a mockery of any serious cap-and-trade plan. This all sounds very wonky, but it's a hill to die for if you care about reducing greenhouse gases. Without a 100% auction, cap-and-trade is a bad joke. Somebody needs to tell Bingaman to start listening to the coal lobby a little less and start caring about effective public policy a little more."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "This is a very, very bad idea. The problem isn't that the government would get less money if it gave permits away than it would if it auctioned them. A good cap and trade system will involve sending some or all of the money back to people. It's that once you start giving away permits, it's open season for lobbyists and special interests. If Congress wants to help cement factories and coal-burning power plants, it can send them money directly and face the political consequences. Giving away permits under a cap and trade system does exactly the same thing, but without forcing Congress to admit what they are doing."

Yglesias mocks Bingaman for "perfect[ing] the art of the conditional sellout": "When you're a Democratic Senator, you often face a conflict of interests. On the one hand, you would really like to sell out to anti-reform special interests. On the other hand, you can't openly portray yourself as someone who wants to sell out. One appealing option is to do what Bingaman does here and just cite unspecified political obstacles. Not that the obstacles aren't real. But in the U.S. Senate they're also people, with names. But instead of naming names, Bingaman's just offering the vagueness play. He'd love to do the right thing, but it's 'unlikely' to happen. And everyone can do this. Nobody needs to be the Senator who's against a public plan in health care, or who's against a 100 percent auction. Instead, everyone's just being practical for the sake of someone else."

Klein: "This is also one reason many environmental advocates prefer a carbon tax: You can do a lot of complicated things to cap and trade legislation that kill the impact of the bill. A carbon tax is harder -- though still not impossible -- to muck with."

FREEMAN: Hostile To Israel?

Conservative bloggers (and several hawkish centrist bloggers) are criticizing Obama's new National Intelligence Commission Chair, Charles Freeman:

• The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg: "I get the sense that some of Freeman's defenders want to see him in government not because he's a professional contrarian but precisely because he's viscerally anti-Israel."
• The New Republic's Marty Peretz: "Much has also been written by others about Freeman's hostility to Israel, to Jews generally and to friends of Israel. [...] Freeman's affinity with and loyalty to the Chinese Communists also has ancestry in Washington. [...] Can it really be true that Barack Obama is putting this man at the center of our intelligence apparatus?"
• Morrissey: "Talk about a failure in vetting! [Admiral] Dennis Blair's choice to head the National Intelligence Council and to create the critical NIEs that guide our security policies looks worse by the day. [...] We can't have anyone this clueless in charge of our intelligence analyses. The Senate needs to tell Barack Obama in no uncertain terms to dump Chas Freeman, and fast."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "[Martin] Kramer evokes Freeman's standing as the Saudi/Manchurian candidate with quotes faithfully toeing the Saudi line on al Qaeda. Freeman baldly contradicts himself like a Communist fellow traveler following the twists and turns of the Soviet Union's line on Nazi Germany."
• NRO's Michael Rubin: "Freeman is certainly contrarian; hence his admiration for Mao. [...] But being contrarian is not a substitute for being a good analyst or being wise. One can say the world is flat. That may be contrarian, but it is also stupid. One celebrate Tiananmen; that too is wrong. The sad fact is that when journalists say Freeman should be lauded, they are simply celebrating a man because they agree with him."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "[W]hy is the White House dragging this out? It is inexplicable that the administration, a supposedly sophisticated political operation, would not only allow Freeman to slip in, but then prolong the agony as more and more politicians, Democrats included, step forward to raise objections. Perhaps they are trying to soothe some constituency or resist the appearance of caving into pressure. But, on a decision this horrible, it is better to cut your losses quickly."

A number of liberal bloggers (and Andrew Sullivan) are defending Freeman. Sullivan writes: "This is Freeman's cardinal sin among his critics: to blame Israel, even in part, for the plight it finds itself in, and to ask that US foreign policy be more neutral with respect to the parties in the Middle East. This is the third rail no one is allowed to touch and have access to real power in Washington. [...] I repeat: if there are serious financial conflicts of interest, Freeman should withdraw. I also find some of Freeman's realist statements, even as contrarian, a little too brutal for my taste. But I also believe that someone whose views push the envelope against recent US policy in the Middle East is an important asset for the United States right now. And I find the hysterical bullying of this man to be repulsive."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: If Obama Wins, I'm Moving To Canada!

Hinderaker:

"My great-grandparents had to come to America from Norway in search of opportunity. It may well be, sadly, that my children or grandchildren will have to emigrate to some other country to maximize their opportunities in life. This, I'm afraid, may be the permanent legacy of the Obama administration and the Democrats' ascendancy in Washington. The Democrats would cut back on freedom world-wide, if they could. But they can't. So, if they realize their statist dreams in this country, the next generation of Americans will vote with its feet, just as enterprising Europeans who valued freedom did, generations ago."

LEST WE FORGET: Area Man Thinks He Was Fired Because Of Recession

From The Onion:

"CHICAGO -- Though there were more than a dozen just causes -- including tardiness, gross incompetence, and poor hygiene -- to terminate Louis Palmer from his position as an accountant at Brillstein & Altman CPA, PC, the 29-year-old told reporters Monday that he believes he was fired due to economic conditions beyond anyone's control. 'Nobody's safe from this recession, man,' said Palmer, who might have noticed that his employer actually posted a 12 percent growth in 2008 had he not so frequently been asleep at his desk. 'I'm going to miss the two-hour lunch breaks and all the free office supplies, but what are you going to do? The economy's a total wreck.' Palmer returned home that evening to discover that his wife had left him, which he attributed to the war in Iraq."