Corporate grifters

The next time you see Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan or some other Republican suckass on TV saying we're taxing corporations to death, taking away their incentives to create jobs and wealth and propel America to a new dawn of prosperity, bear in mind the fate of one such entity described in Matt Taibbi's new book, "Griftopia" (via tristero):

(After) securing tens of billions of taxpayer dollars through a series of bailouts, what did Goldman Sachs give back to the people of the United States in the year 2008?

Fourteen million dollars.

That is what the firm paid in taxes in 2008: an effective tax rate of exactly 1, read it, one, percent. The bank paid out $10 billion in compensation and bonuses that year and made a profit above $2 billion, and yet it paid the government less than a third of what it paid Lloyd Blankfein, who made $42.9 million in 2008.

How is this possible? According to its annual report, the low taxes are due in large part to changes in the bank's "geographic earnings mix." In other words, the bank moved its money around so that all of it earnings took place in foreign countries with low tax rates. Thanks to our completely fucked corporate tax system, companies like Goldman can ship their revenues offshore and defer taxes on those revenues indefinitely, even while they claim deductions up front on that same untaxed income. This is why any corporation with an at least occasionally sober accountant can usually find a way to pay no taxes at all. A Government Accountability Office report, in fact, found that between 1998 and 2005, two-thirds of all corporations operating in the United States paid no taxes at all. 

 Be ready to spit back those numbers, $14 million and 1 percent, when a Republican huckster on TV or down at the bar tries to tell you how besieged our corporate denizens are and how Obama  is trying to take away their money and property and throw them into collectivist communes.  As Taibbi pointed out, that's less than a third of what just one person, albeit an extremely well-compensated person, paid in taxes at Goldman.  The story of how much -- or little -- Blankfein himself paid is probably equally depressing.

And keep in mind that 1 percent is a model of responsibility compared to the two-thirds of corporations that pay no taxes at all.

They have been getting way with this for too long, and it's time liberals were armed with at least some facts to counter it, because Wolf Blitzer ainta gonna do it. This view of the aggrieved corporation is so prevalent, yet so far from the truth, that when you see the real numbers -- and this is just one typical example -- it would be a Colbert-worthy joke if it weren't so sad.  The tax code is so far in their favor, so not a grievance but a grift, that it's one of those opposite-day or up-is-down or "breadlines? what breadlines?" sandstorms kicked up to deny that you're seeing what you're actually seeing, just the mirage of an overheated brain.

We may feel like we're in a desert sometimes, but we know what we see, and it's no illusion. It's a royal fuckfest, with the corporation prince to our pauper.

NBC buttboys up to their old tricks

So, the Republicans win the House in a landslide on Tuesday, and three days later,  Keith Olbermann is out, if only temporarily.  Could there possibly be a connection?  Digby thinks so:

Am I the only one who finds it just a little bit interesting that every time the political zeitgeist turns, MSNBC seems to shift ideological direction? I guess there's a reason why their new slogan is "Lean Forward" (which could be interpreted as something a little bit cruder...)

I have no idea what really went on with Olberman but I suspect it may have had at least something to do with our one-sided obsession lately with "civility." He did, after all, suspend his "worst person in the world" segment last week although that may have been entirely his decision. I sense that there are misgivings about the strong anti-rightwing slant of an Olbermann or Shultz (as opposed to the populist, pox-on-both-their-houses approach of Uyger or Ratigan) and that they may be afraid of the financial consequences of being too hostile to the GOP.

Given the mores of the Village, I also expect that they do not like being seen as the liberal answer to Fox. ...   They don't have the guts to stake out a real position and when they see uncomfortable comparisons between themselves and "the crazies" they back off. It's the oldest working the ref play in the book.

 ...Sadly, all the MSNBC hosts will undoubtedly be aware -- if only subliminally -- that regardless of Olberman's eccentricities, the fact that the bosses are clipping his wings over something they could have technically overlooked ("it's an opinion show") is a message, particularly since he was getting good ratings. They don't have a whole lot of rope and I'm sure they know it.

 NBC has always sailed the political winds, and this one might be heading starboard again. Back when Jack Welch ran the show, he groomed "talent" like Chris Matthews, Brian Williams and Tim Russert who cozied up to power and curried favor with anyone who could help their careers.  They did more to promote Clinton hate than any other news organization -- any organization at all, including the Republicans -- and didn't give up even after he was impeached.  Gore inherited this animus, and, throughout the 2000 campaign and recount, he was a prisoner of the media and its lockbox of contempt. NBC, keeper of the box, buried the key. This is how Welch and his boys ushered in the age of Bush and cheered him on after 9/11 straight through to the Iraq war. Long before Matthews felt those first tingles of love for Obama, it was George Bush in full camouflage who kindled his man-lust. As the war dragged on and the economy flagged, the buttboys soured on the Bush boys, and turned their flirtations leftward, or  -- maintaining our nautical metaphor -- to port.  Two years later, another lurch to the right is not only possible, but likely.

We've seen this show before, and it didn't end well.

Tighty righty screws leftie loosie

Leave it to Politico.  It pairs its story on Keith Olbermann’s suspension from MSNBC with a photo of him looking like a loonball – pinching his spectacles like a British squire, his eyes startling, his lips pursing. Tighty righty screws leftie loosie.

Politico broke the story this morning of Olbermann’s donations to three Democratic candidates, and was back later today with its denouement, an indefinite suspension of the anchor of the top-rated “Countdown”on MSNBC. With its usual lopsided equivalence, Politico compares Olbermann’s maximum $2,400 donation to each candidate -- Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway, and Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva, and Gabrielle Giffords -- to his criticism of News Corps giving $1 million each to the Republican Governor’s Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. News Corps is the parent company of Fox News. Let’s see:  $7,200 in three donations that adhere to the spirit and letter of campaign finance limits, versus a $2  million bonanza that a year ago would have been illegal but for the activism of the Roberts court.

Yeah, that’s close.  Way to compare apples and oranges and get kumquats.

UPDATE: OK, so, before I was able to post this item, Politico apparently thought better of its judgment on two of the points I made above, and a few others I hadn't gotten to yet.  They now have a more appropriate, if equally unflattering, photo of Olbermann up on their website, this time of a pimple-faced fat head, not a haughty elitist. It also downplayed the association between Olbermann's and News Corps' donations, moving Rupert's rupees further down. Other omissions since amended: whether anyone else in Olbermann's position inside MSNBC has given to campaigns and been spared (Joe Scarborough) and whether the host of an opinion show should be judged the same as a newsman.

Politico wanted to use this photo, but thought it would be too obvious:

Looking at election with an international eye

James Fallows, who has lived in the Far East on and off over the past three decades, writes in The Atlantic about the election as seen through an international lens.  Appearing on a number of foreign broadcasts, Fallows heard this again and again::

There is a deeper question that some foreign interviewers kind of danced around, but which boiled down to this: We outsiders understand that a two-year period of standoff and stalemate makes sense within the logic of American politics, and that the 2012 presidential campaign starts today. But (they went on), can you really afford this? Are you so confident that the big issues for America's economic, technological, educational, and strategic future are so minor and so postponeable that a two-year hiatus doesn't matter?

 It must be perplexing for outsiders to try to understand our schizophrenic political system, the way voters zig and zag from election to election, with no coherent theme except economic distress or a meaningless wedge issue trumped up to drive turnout.  Once in office, the parties do everything they can to keep the other from gaining ground, especially Republicans, for whom this is a particular art form and point of pride. But the interviewers got to the heart of it: how can we waste two years in the middle of the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes?

Stressing to them America's political resilience, Fallows couldn't shake the fear of political and economic stasis as expressed by John Judis in The New Republic:

Like the depressions of the 1890s and 1930s, this slowdown was also precipitated by the exhaustion of opportunities for economic growth. America's challenge over the next decade will be to develop new industries that can produce goods and services that can be sold on the world market. The United States has a head start in biotechnology and computer technology, but as the Obama administration recognized, much of the new demand will focus on the development of renewable energy and green technology. As the Chinese, Japanese, and Europeans understand, these kinds of industries require government coordination and subsidies. But the new generation of Republicans rejects this kind of industrial policy. They even oppose Obama's obviously successful auto bailout.

Instead, when the U.S. finally recovers, it is likely to re-create the older economic structure that got the country in trouble in the first place: dependence on foreign oil to run cars; a bloated and unstable financial sector that primarily feeds upon itself and upon a credit-hungry public; boarded up factories; and huge and growing trade deficits with Asia....

This, in turn. will lead to further power flips and political instability, according to Judis. Comparing our situation to Japan's, he concludes:

America needs bold and consistent leadership to get us out of the impasse we are in, but if this election says anything, it's that we're not going to get it over the next two or maybe even ten years

 If that doesn't depress you, nothing will.

Please don't punch the hippies

After Russ Feingold lost his Senate seat last night, a political blogger on Twitter harrumphed:  "So, did Russ Feingold lose because he wasn't progressive enough?" Oh god, here we go again. Punch the hippies. Blame them for the coming Republican apocalypse. Chasten them for believing progressive policies would work if Democrats would just give them a try. If they would just go out and sell them, take their own side in a fight, maybe they'd defy the midterm odds.

But was Feingold's loss a rebuke to this belief?

"No, he lost because the Senate wasn't progressive enough," I told the blogger, named Yeggo. "He's just the scapegoat for failed policies."

Joan Walsh of Salon apparently agrees:

Strangely, I watched Democrats including MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell try to blame the blowout on whiny progressives. O'Donnell asked Rachel Maddow why Wisconsin stalwart Sen. Russ Feingold lost, if the diagnosis of many lefties was that less wimpy Democrats might have done better in this sad midterm, given that he was arguably the least wimpy Democrat in this cycle.

My answer would have been: Russ Feingold and other progressives who lost weren't really tested fairly. They weren't able to run on the results of their own political priorities, like a robust stimulus that might have created more jobs, or more aggressive healthcare reform that might have solved more people's real-life problems and reined in insurance company abuses before 2014. We never saw the practical or policy promise of the Democratic class of 2008, and the party will suffer for its inability to make a palpable difference for its constituencies despite the margins it had in the House and Senate.

What she said.

Conservatives' five flavors of fear

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Fear for All Pt. 2
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election March to Keep Fear Alive

I alluded to this video in an earlier post but wasn't able to embed it. It's the second of two parts in which Colbert tackles the "five basic fear groups" -- the most prominent fears harbored by conservatives and the people who embody them, including Mexicans, gays and muslims.  "You are my fears," he said in the first segment, bravely sitting there with "no blast shield between us, not even a sneeze guard. So I'm less protected than lettuce at a salad bar from these guys here." He quickly gets down to it, asking the Latino man "When did you sneak into this country and when are you leaving?" He moves on to the gay man, starting out all business then wilting to his charms. "You're weakening my defenses, I grant you, by being attractive and slim and British." He asks the tree hugger in the group: "Are there gay bears? ... Are you happy about that? You made our bears gay" and wonders why he's so pro-bear.  It goes on in that vein.  The second part is just as funny. Watch it. No, I mean, watch it. It's scary out there.

From whimper to tsunami, vote forecast varies

Adding to my earlier post, Nate Silver provides some pretty serious caveats to his prediction that Democrats will lose the house 233-202.  While this is the most likely outcome, his forecasting model carries a large margin of error that makes it possible for Democrats to lose anywhere from 23 to 81 seats. While the probability lies closer to the middle, just a 1- or 2-percent difference in support for either party nationwide could mean the difference between the Democrats losing the house, or holding it.

Suppose that our forecast is biased against the Democrats by one point across the country as a whole, perhaps because pollsters are overestimating the enthusiasm gap very slightly. Just one point. Well, there are 6 seats in which we have the Republican candidate projected to win by less than 1 full point (it might be a very long election night, by the way). If Democrats hold those 6 seats, the projected Republican gains would be down to 46.

 Now suppose that the forecast understates Democratic support by 2 points. There are 8 seats in which we project the Republican candidate to win by a margin of between 1 and 2 points; now these would also be wiped off the board. Now the Republican gains would be reduced to just 38 seats — and the Democrats would hold the House, 218-217!

Read that again: it means that if our forecasts turn out to be biased against Democrats by just 2 points overall, the party becomes about an even-money bet to hold the House.
Now move in the other direction. Say that we’ve underestimated Republicans’ margin by 1 point across the board. There are 8 seats that we’re currently projecting Democrats to hold by less than 1 point. Give those 8 seats to Republicans, and the gains tally grows to 60.
And if the forecast is biased against Republicans by 2 points? Another 5 seats, bringing their total to 65.

 Silver also lists the pitfalls that could befall pollsters this year:

 Consider, for instance, that the spread of recent generic ballot polls runs between a 14-point Republican advantage (Gallup’s ‘traditional’ likely-voter model) and a 3-point Democratic one (Newsweek). A mere 2-point error looks quite tame compared with that range.

Consider that one study finds that including or excluding cellphones can make a difference of 4 points in polls.

Consider that the pollsters have vastly different ideas about the magnitude of the “enthusiasm gap,” ranging from being worth just a point or two for Republicans to a double-digit advantage.

Consider that there was one recent midterm year —1998 — when the polls overestimated the standing of one party (the Republicans) by about 5 points overall, and that party underperformed their polls in virtually every individual race.

So it's not likely all these things will go awry, just as it's not likely Democrats will keep the House. But it's possible. That's all we ask.