If anybody dares to venture there....

[Inuca]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/11/1006060/-UpdatedMy-Call-to-Senator-KerryNot-Reassuring?via=siderec

I have ot run now, I just read a bit. I'll try to get back there later.

[Mass]

1. Not going there because if this is what Kerry's office answers, this is frightening.

So, I dont have answers except for questioning whether she is truthful or not.

This is exactly what I was saying a few days ago when I said he needed to be clear. Yes, we need to make some reforms in Medicare and Medicaid. How these reforms are made is primordial. The fact that people in his office (particularly in Boston) are so unresponsive is part of Kerry's bad reputation in Boston.

Some of you wonders why people dont trust Kerry. This is an example.

[karynnj]

2. In fairness, this person ignored the many Kerry speeches and

statements over the last 6 months - all of which were consistent on protecting the entitlements. In the detailed speeches, he went into the types of changes that could be needed for each. On SS, for example, he spoke of it being solvent I think for about 20 years - and with small tweaks (raising the cap) for the entire century. (I will rewatch the speeches - all on CSPAN - and post more accurate detail, but can't get now.) Kerry was one of the strongest defenders of these programs in the debt ceiling speeches.

As she took the trouble to create a Daily Kos diary, you would think she could spend 5 minutes googling to find actual Kerry statements - such as the comments about a week earlier to AARP. If she really was interested in what Kerry's position really is, it might be reasonable to read or watch his relevant speeches on the topic.

Here, what she did was to take a sentence, that was not heavily qualified - as he did in his speeches - and took the most extreme possible though it is supported by nothing else - just as someone on DU did. I also think she wanted the left equivalent of the Norquist pledge from Kerry's office - at the start of negotiations. I also wonder if the STATE office would be able to detail Kerry's positions on things where there is no upcoming vote.

Frankly, I am completely unimpressed by her diary. I have called my Senators' offices and have never gotten much information at all - usually I am told they will give the Senator my comment. I would suspect that Kerry's office could not say a lot more than what they have said.

I agree that Kerry needs to be more specific, but it may be that - at this moment, though his own positions have been well laid out in the CSPAN speeches, that he wants to enter the process not firmly and publicly holding to a detailed position.

[Mass]

4. I am very pessimistic about these negotiations. Once again, dems seem to get in there with

a conciliatory mood and ready to compromise, but unready to state strong principles.

On the other side, the GOP enters with strong (but wrong) principles and no intention to compromise.

This is not good. As for the diarist, she wanted to be reassured. She got the same wishy-washy statements that Dems seem to give these days, statements who reinforce the RW position. She was not there to learn about Kerry's position, but to advocate. Sorry, I am not reassured, and I read each of Kerry's statements. I want strong principles. I want a start with the equivalent of the Norquist pledge. Because, if dems do not start this way, the people will be screwed, and particularly poor people, and dems are supporting the RW agenda by reinforcing the RW positions.

This are things like that I am talking

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424053111903480904576510701640477160-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwNjExNDYyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

We know that our goal is to reduce spending. But we also know that America faces not just a budget deficit but also a jobs deficit. Nobody on this committee would be happy if we reduced the budget deficit but even more Americans end up losing their jobs.

So we are ready to get to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to report out a balanced plan, with the shared sacrifices this moment requires. One that moves past the partisan rancor, puts our nation back on strong fiscal footing, and allows us to continue shining bright in the world in this generation and for generations to come

They are conceding the debate. We do not need to reduce spending. Arguably, we need to balance the budget, and even this should not be the priority. I have a problem with shared sacrifice because, for the most part, it will not be shared. Services that would be cut would disproportionately affect the poor and the middle class (because this is what services are for in the first place), while a small increase in the very wealthy tax rate (not talking about those just above $1/4 M here) will be totally painless. I think I am getting less and less patient with this debate and its premise when I read things like that.

At the same time, the post office announces plans to cut 100,000 + workers, and virtually no democrats protest. a military board proposes drastic changes in military retirement, but SecDef and SoS say we should consider it, but oppose cuts in military and State budget in general. This is totally depressing and this is not only the GOP's fault.

[Luftmensch067]

3. Followup diary after OP talked to Drew O'Brien

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/14/1006720/-Kerry-Still-UndecidedPlease-Call?via=user

[Mass]

5. At least she got somebody better at this job. I still would want to hear Kerry

take a stronger position, but this is somewhat better.

[Mass]

6. More here. Sadly, I have to agree with Baker's point on the editorial

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/john-kerry-the-lazy-senat_b_930124.html

It was absolutely infuriating.

I dont know if Kerry's staffers could not make him look at the economic crisis, as Baker says, but if true, he deserves the blame as well. The crisis was looming, as is the student loans crisis nowadays, and pols are sadly ignoring it (except for bashing for profit colleges, while non-for-profit are as bad).

We can only wish the Dems did not rush to support myths. This is why I welcome this editorial, even if it is harsh. We need to tell them to do the right thing, not that they are all nice and good. (I saw Bill Bradley yesterday on Charlie Rose and I was absolutely mad. Who needs the GOP when Democrats accept the same premise. Sure, they may come with slightly better solutions, but they are still wrong on the premises).

[ProSense]

7. Baker's title

is disgraceful and his commentary completely ridiculous. With all the RW attempts to discredit Senator Kerry, his title feeds into the worst smears and he need to do better research.

Senator Kerry deserves special blame in this story because he could never be bothered to pay attention to the housing bubble, even when he was running for president in 2004. I recall urging his campaign staffers to pay attention to the bubble. It was like talking to Barney Frank's dining room table.

Absolute nonsense. Kerry did address the mortgage crisis when no one saw it coming.

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM; Kerry Sees Credit Card Abuses, And Promises Steps to End Them

<...>

Other changes proposed by the Kerry campaign would require lenders to forgo penalty charges when they allowed card holders to go beyond their borrowing caps. A cardholder with a $5,000 credit limit, for example, can face a penalty for reaching $5,200 even if the card company approved the charge that put the total over $5,000.

Mr. Kerry's principal mortgage proposal would prohibit lenders from using balloon mortgages in most subprime loans, which often go to low-income people at higher rates.

[karynnj]

9. I agree with you that the title is completely uncalled for

Looking to find his history on the subject, I found passionate, but not well supported comments he made arguing against the bailout. I also found that in a December 2008 article that he argued for a tax on putting mortgages into securities to create more incentive to hold the mortgages. HOWEVER, this was in 2008, not 2004 - and given it was 2008, it was too late and too little.

By 2008, the market for mortgage based derivatives was gone - they were seen as not worth the paper they were printed on. In addition, IF that were not the case, this would give the mortgage writer a choice - pay a tax or assume the risk themselves of the mortgage. This might lead to derivatives being even worse as it would be more profitable to hold on to excellent risks and pay the tax and sell only the riskier ones - thus making the mix worse.

I did not read the oped as it is behind the WSJ wall, but the excerpt in Atlantic seems to cover what Baker has problems with. Frankly, his interpretation is jaundiced. He completely (intentionally ?) misunderstands the AP downgrade sentence. The 1990s comparison is not saying the bubble didn't help. It is clearly not setting out their positions. To me, they look to be trying to capture the role of "reasonable adults". We have a bad hand, but public opinion on who is working in good faith is important - as is bringing up the points on higher taxes, people not having jobs and the need for stimulus.

here from the Atlantic link:
John Kerry, Max Baucus, and Patty Murray on the Deficit Democratic Senators John Kerry, Max Baucus, and Patty Murray will attempt to find $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade as members of the 12 person Congressional deficit reduction committee. "This is not going to be an easy task," they write in The Wall Street Journal. "Washington is mired in gridlock, and pundits and special interests from both sides of the aisle are already heaving boulders at our committee." The committee's work comes at a time when many still look for jobs, and when corporate dollars are not being invested until companies regain confidence in the economy and the government. The S&P downgrade and subsequent market turmoil serve as a reminder that Congress must act better. "We know it may seem like the problems we face are intractable. But we were around in the 1990s when Democrats and Republicans came together to balance the budget and put us on the path to eliminating our national debt," they write. Those solutions called for tough choices, including higher taxes, and some congressmen even lost their seats because of their votes. "This moment demands leadership, but it also demands consensus," they write, and they say they will be prepared to compromise with their Republican colleagues.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/08/five-best-wednesday-columns/41376/

[karynnj]

8. Dean Baker is not accurate on Kerry 2004

The fact is that it was IN 2004 that fuel was added to what became the housing boom. SEC chair Cox changed the leverage rate from 1:12 to 1:44 for financial institutions. This pumped a huge amount of leveraged money into everything - including the mortgage based derivatives, that were "insured" by credit swaps.

Both the mortgage based derivatives and the credit swaps were new, poorly understood instruments that essentially eliminated the risks to banks/other financial institutions writing mortgage policies, because almost as soon as written, they were "sold" and they were chopped up as parts of derivatives.

In 2004, no one wrote of the risk to the housing market of derivatives as the connection was pretty obscure. (There were people like Krugman who spoke of a housing bubble and his concern that it would pop at some point, but even in his book of columns, there was nothing on derivatives. )

In September 2008,Baker was against the bailout. ( http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002609.html ) I tried to find anything where Baker wrote of the danger of derivatives in 2004 or earlier and couldn't find anything (though that does not mean he didn't. In 2004, Kerry DID have provisions in the platform to end things like balloon mortgages and in 2000, 2002 and 2003, he cosponsored legislation against those practices - here is a thread Beachmom started in 2008 that documents that. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=273&topic_id=153196

His field of expertise is labor economics.

Though I don't like his report of the WSJ article that I haven't seen (and it doesn't sound good), Baker takes some cheap shots
1) No one said that US STOCKS were what was downgraded, but it is silly to claim that the downgrade did not cause some people to be uneasy and pull their money out of the stock market. Stocks are less certain that treasuries - even if they are rated AA rather than AAA.
2) His comment that investment is where it was at the start of the recession ignores that there are companies holding trillions not expanding. Could it be that the level immediately pre-recession was inadequate. (I can't find a table)
3) Of course the bubble caused the surplus - does that mean what we need is a new bubble?

[Mass]

10. I knew this post would not be welcome here, but it is necessary to read everything.

Honestly, I was very distraught by the WSJ column, as I posted upthread. Of course, we can spend our time saying that Baker is unfair, but if this makes Democrats think twice before agreeing to things that will be unfair to ordinary people, I welcome them.

[karynnj]

11. I think the column does belong here - and in fact, I had seen it from google

and responded there and was intending to post it on this thread.

I thought it was important to answer the 2004 crap - and that is what it is. I thought, that since I remembered the thread that contained a lot of information that countered Baker's 2004 stuff, I should link to it so others here would have access to the information in case it came to DU or elsewhere.

From a bit of googling, I did find that Baker in 2004 wrote a monthly article where he commented on articles that had an economic component in 2004. He did mention (in 2003) the housing bubble, but his concern was on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. No matter what was done with the FMs, the real problem would have been every bit as bad as it was. The private companies had lower standards than the FMs, so no bad policy sold to the FMs would have gone unsold if they refused it. As both Prosense and I posted, Kerry did include this in his platform.

In 2004, the main issues were national security and Iraq. The housing bubble, though mentioned by people like Krugman, was not a voting issue at that point. The fact is that Baker makes several very serious charges - essentially blaming Kerry et al for the 2008 crash and suggesting that Kerry's having Rubin on his 2004 team led to him intentionally hiding this problem. That charge is unconscionable.

As to being useful, it isn't. Who does he reach with this and how does he change their minds? He is speaking to the angry far left and he is making Kerry into their enemy. Here he does not make a case for an alternative approach and he ignores that the charter of the committee was set by the deal Obama made.

What no one has said is that Kerry has spoken of needing tax reform for years. Even in the time right after the victory in 2008, he spoke of this as a town hall. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5ZlrbkdBNk In one of his recent Senate speeches, he made similar points of the lobbyists writing pages of tax breaks. In both cases, his motivation is good government and fairness. He obviously made an effort to get on the Finance committee.

In recent years, Kerry and Baucus teamed up to write provisions that prevented some offshoring of money. I watched the healthcare debates and I think Baucus got a lot of undeserved heat from the left. The fact is, he was an early proponent of the public option and dropped it only when it could not get 60 votes. When the Senate tried to pass a bill creating a committee like this one, Baucus had an amendment that said that anything that cut SS needed 60 votes - not an up or down vote. In addition, unlike Durbin and Conrad, he voted against Bowles/Simpson. I really think the 3 people chosen are as good as we have to try to meet this challenge. I suspect that, like the POW/MIA assignment, this is something that is a no win job, but one crucial to the country.

I think any serious articles on the impact of various deals are worth reading - but this isn't one. I would be interested if he wrote an article on what the Democrats on the committee should do. Does he think that as the goal is bad, they should refuse to agree to anything - en masse - letting the triggers come? Would he prefer they argue that they try to get Congress to vote out the triggers?