JustOneMinute

Needing The Greed

The reliably interesting Larry Summers attempts to wrestle the "Loose Gun On Deck" title from Joe Biden:

“In the past few years, we’ve seen too much greed and too little fear; too much spending and not enough saving; too much borrowing and not enough worrying,” Summers said Friday in a speech to the Brookings Institution. “Today, however, our problem is exactly the opposite.”

In remarks to a private dinner at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday, Summers was even blunter, according to an attendee: “Before, we had too much greed and too little fear. Now, we have too much fear and too little greed.”

Summers went on to explain that women weren't smart enough to figure this out for themselves, and in any case were paralyzed by fear.  "Leave the spending up to us men!" he exhorted the stunned audience. Well, I wish, anyway. 

Back in reality it is interesting that after less than two months of Obama's compassion and caring for others, and with the Dow off 25%, Summers has heard enough of 'Kumbaya' and wants a return to the good old days of "I've got mine, Jack."

Bigger Subsidies Paid By Someone Else

The NY Times lauds the German approach to promoting green power:

Solar cells adorn the roofs of many homes and warehouses across Germany, while the bright white blades of wind turbines are a frequent sight against the sky in Spain.

If one day these machines become as common on the plains and rooftops of the United States as they are abroad, it may be because the financing technique that gave Europe an early lead in renewable energy is starting to cross the Atlantic.

Put simply, the idea is to pay homeowners and businesses top dollar for producing green energy. In Germany, for example, a homeowner with a rooftop solar system may be paid four times more to produce electricity than the rate paid to a coal-fired power plant.

This month Gainesville, Fla., became the first city in the United States to introduce higher payments for solar power, which is otherwise too expensive for many families or businesses to install. City leaders, who control their electric utility, unanimously approved the policy after studying Germany’s solar-power expansion.

Groan.  Paragraph eight confirms the suspicions of everyone who does not believe that both money and solar panels fall freely from the sky:

It shifts the burden of subsidizing green energy from taxpayers, as is common in the United States, to electricity ratepayers. And the technique includes assurances that a utility will pay the high rates for a long period, often 15 to 25 years.

The sixteenth and seventeenth paragraphs disparage the cost-conscious:

But requiring utilities to pay extra for green power has a direct impact on ratepayers. Homeowners’ electricity bills will rise 74 cents a month in Gainesville, or about half a percentage point of the average homeowner’s monthly bill.

“Seventy cents — what’s that? A Coke?” said Mr. Regan, of the Gainesville utility.

Great point!  Of course, the subsidy is only small if not many people participate in the program; we will come back to that, but as we approach the twentieth paragraph the Times finally adopts a more conventional liberal tack:

Opponents of feed-in tariffs like Marcel Hawiger, a staff attorney for the Utility Reform Network in California, say that the policy would hit poor people the hardest by raising their electricity rates because a relatively high percentage of their income goes to pay utility bills.

“Why should we use regressive taxation to support the most expensive form of renewable energy?” Mr. Hawiger asked.

Why, indeed?  Probably because people think the subsidy is paid by the utility shareholders, or anyway, by someone else.  Let's come back to the Coke and a smile size of the subsidy:

Even in Gainesville, homeowners wanting to put solar panels on their roof are now out of luck: a few days after introducing the policy, the city reached its cap on solar payments for this year and next. 

If the program were large it would be expensive, regressive, and unpopular.  Instead, its a small, feel-good band-aid which the Times loves.

Vexing Dichotomies

The Times trudges through the political minefield of gay rights and delivers a headscratcher.  Some background:

Obama on Spot Over a Benefit to Gay Couples
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — Just seven weeks into office, President Obama is being forced to confront one of the most sensitive social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide health insurance benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

In separate, strongly worded orders, two judges of the federal appeals court in California said that employees of their court were entitled to health benefits for their same-sex partners under the program that insures millions of federal workers.

But the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama said he would “fight hard” for the rights of gay couples. As a senator, he sponsored legislation that would have provided health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

The puzzling dichotomy:

Now, Mr. Obama is in a tough spot. If he supports the personnel office on denying benefits to the San Francisco court employees, he risks agitating liberal groups that helped him win election. If he supports the judges and challenges the marriage act, he risks alienating Republicans with whom he is seeking to work on economic, health care and numerous other matters.

"Agitating liberals" versus "alienating Republicans".  Huh?  Shouldn't that be "Agitating Democrats" or "alienating conservatives"?  Is it really true that all Dems are behind Obama on this?  Surely some of the Senators who voted for the 1996 DOMA are still lurking in DC, yes?  Or, if all Dems are with Obama, why do they bother to control the Hosue, Senate and White House yet decline to pass bills in which they all believe?

Fortunately the Times presents a road map to a solution:

Federal officials said they had to follow the laws on the books. But Richard Socarides, a New York lawyer who was an adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay issues, said he believed that Mr. Obama “has broad discretionary authority to find ways to ameliorate some of the more blatant examples of discrimination.”

There you go!  After pretending to deplore the shredding of the Constitution under Bush and Cheney, libs have now discovered that an assertive Executive can ignore Congress and the law of the land, if their cause is just.  Let's also note that protecting Americans from getting blown up doesn't justify ignoring the law, but providing them with health care does (Hmm, if Bush had only presented the warrantless wiretapping as a supplemental "Don't get blown up" rider to our health insurance...).

These times demand the Times.

Warming Up

Metaphor Madness from the indispensable Glenn R:  HMM: So Why DID H. Rodgin Cohen Withdraw as Treasury’s No. 2? Press Is Curiously Not Curious. On the other hand, a colleague of mine who knows this stuff says that he is to banking law what the Dalai Lama is to religion.

As the Dalai Lama is to religion?  Meaning what - that Cohen is the widely respected leader of an obscure legal cult?  Are there cults in banking law (I don't really want to know...)?

I Wish I'd Said That (And I Know I'll Steal It):  From Megan McArdle, as popularized by Tom Maguire:

Our sister publication asks analysts whether the administration's economic forecasts are too optimistic.  They would have gotten a more interesting discussion if their query had been "Is the Pope Catholic?"  Of course they're too optimistic.  In fact, the word optimistic is too optimistic.

Some see the glass half full; others see a specimen cup.  Some don't see a cup at all...

Can't Tell The Invesigatees Without A Scorecard:  The Baseball Crank takes us to the Bronx for the oldest gamne in town with yet another Obama appointee.

Is He Really That Good?  Frank J is.  Obama, too.

Inshallah.

Maybe AIG Can Provide A Credit Default Swap: 

China, the U.S. government’s largest creditor, is asking “the U.S. to maintain its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of China’s assets,” Wen said today in Beijing at a press briefing after the annual meeting of the legislature. China held $696 billion of U.S. government securities at the end of last year, 46 percent more than 12 months earlier.

Make Mine Apple:  Oh, wait...

[end of thread]

More Civil Liberties Poseurs

Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias show their unsteady commitment to civil liberties by backing the silencing of anyone who received TARP money.  The topic is the right of Deborah Weinsig, a Citigroup equity analyst who covers retail stocks, to explain to her clients why she thinks that card check will be bad for WalMart.

Mr. Klein (in a follow-up post):

This is a big deal for two reasons. First, it calls into question the impartiality of Citibank's ratings division. Second, it happened amidst a government-funded bailout of Citibank. This is a moment when you'd expect Citibank to be on its best behavior, both in terms of its political action and its business practices. In fact, they appear to be dispatching their analysts and leveraging their ratings division to oppose a policy that the Obama administration supports.

So much for dissent as the highest form of patriotism.  Here is Mr. Yglesias:

But there’s a fairly clear case to be made that firms on the public dole shouldn’t be engaged in lobbying or political activities.

That case is not supported by a link or further argumentation so we can not compare it to the case for (or against) teachers on the public payroll chiming in on Obama's education proposals, or doctors who receive NIH grants providing their views on stem cell research.

Bah!  I am just warming up and I have to run.  I'll be back.  And when I am I will belabor at least three points:

1.  A teensy bit of perspective would be helpful.  This is not the Citi board or CEO talking - this is one equity analyst charged with providing interesting market commentary so that institutional investors pay attention to her rather than fifty alternative analysts at rival firms.  Surely bloggers can relate.

2.  A lot of the scuffling about civil liberties under George Bush came across as partisan posturing, and apparently it was.  But "civil liberties" is not simply a phrase to be tossed around in partisan pillow fights.  Libs might even want to contemplate the notion that civil liberties extend to their political opponents.  (Radical.)  If we can make the world safe for terrorists who want to use the telephone networks to plot our destruction, surely we can allow US citizens to criticize the legislative process.

3.  A real killer point, but what was it... hmm.  Are Messrs. Klein and Yglesias offering unprincipled, poorly argued work product of the 8:45 AM call?  I blame the early hour and weak joe!  (But don't head over to Starbucks...)

[end of thread]

Mad Dash To Dumb

Some quick hits:

Set A Thief To Catch A Thief: Glenn Greenwald offers a post titled "The distorting effect of anonymity".  Seriously.  No, seriously.

Lost In The Mists Of Antiquity:  Ezra Klein comes back to the Citigroup/card check story and flaunts his contempt for free speech, but the real laugher is here:

The second is that it's hard to recall another time when an analyst actually downgraded a stock on fears of legislation that few expect to pass.

I am sure such a feat of recall is especially challenging for a fourteen year old who specializes in health care, but let me hustle everyone into the time machine and take them all the way back to... March 4, 2009:

Healthcare stocks took it on the chin last week following Obama’s budget submission. The new budget calls for a National Health Insurance Program and sweeping changes to the current Medicare process.

While the entire budget will likely be cut up, twisted, reformatted and then put back together by congress, the uncertainty had a profound effect on the markets. Drug makers, managed care providers, medical technology companies and insurance firms all fell in lock step. Investors obviously fear that a widespread change in government reimbursements and other programs could severely crimp future profits.

Geez - they couldn't even wait for legislation to be introduced?  The mere suspense was killing them?  Ahh, fuggedaboudit.

[end of thread]

How Public Outrage Helps The Madoff Clan

Bernie Madoff is going to jail.  And what about his family, enriched by his years of fraudulent activity but claiming to be utterly ignorant of his activity?

In any normal Law and Order episode the DA would put Madoff's brother, wife, and two sons in separate rooms and explain to each of them that one person was going to get a great deal and three were going to jail for a long, long time.  This is the textbook Prisoner's Dilemma, and normally at least one person accepts a deal.

However, the solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma (from the prisoner's perspective) is to find some mechanism to ensure compliance with prior promises not to betray each other.  In the Madoff case, We the People are providing that mechanism.

Consider - what happens after the prosecutor offers a Madoff clansman a deal?  When the laughter subsides, the target of the prosecutor's largesse patiently explains that the public will never allow one of the Madoffs to walk, so the offer of a deal is not plausible.  Besides, a Madoff who ratted out his/her family would have neither money nor a social circle to which they might return.

They may as well hang together because in the court of public opinion they will be hung anyway.

FWIW:

It is unclear how much money remains, but officials estimated there may be $950 million left in assets in the Madoff estate. That would still be a far cry from the $50 billion to $65 billion the government said was taken. Madoff's lawyers dispute the government's numbers and have asked for an accounting.

It's outrageous if they keep it.

Michael Steele

The RNC Chair gave a disastrous interview with the notoriously tough GQ.

The Captain opines on Steele's subtle pro-life/choice/life position and notes that

One thing is certain: he’s a lot less media savvy than most of us thought.  And since he doesn’t seem to have much skill in organization, we have to ask ourselves why we should support his continued tenure as RNC chair.

Allahpundit pulls some other inflammatory remarks, including this on Rush:

So, Rush Limbaugh—good or bad for you guys?

Rush is a friend. I like Rush. Rush is a bomb-thrower extraordinaire. And we need him. We need him because what he does is, he stimulates debate. And I know it drives a lot of folks on the left loony. But so does Al Franken for us. Okay? So don’t give me, “Rush is a bad guy, we need to offset him.” You already have. You got Al Franken, for goodness sakes.

For heaven's sake - Rush is Al Franken?

[END OF THREAD]

Man Bites Dog!

The NY Times offers a very cool proposal for a limited missile defense system (good against Iran and N Korea's very limited current capability) from long time missile defense critic and skeptic Ted Postol of MIT [and the idea is so good that a similar version is already funded.  Hmm...  What didn't the Times know and when didn' t they know it?  See "MORE", below.]:

This is a proposal I’ve developed and analyzed with a variety of American and Russian experts and the idea itself is simple. The defense system would shoot down Iranian or North Korean long-range missiles as they slowly accelerate from their launching sites. It would take advantage of the fact that long-range missiles built by Iran or North Korea would be large and cumbersome, have long powered flight times and could take off only from well-known launching sites.

The defense would have fast-accelerating interceptors that could home in on and destroy the large, slow and fragile ICBMs. The interceptors would weigh about a ton and could achieve a top speed of five kilometers per second in tens of seconds. They would be carried by stealthy unmanned airborne vehicles that look like B-2 bombers, but are smaller and carry much smaller, though still substantial, payloads. Such vehicles already exist.

Only two of these armed drones, controlled by remote teams of operators, would be needed to patrol within several hundred kilometers of a launching site. At these ranges, it would be possible to shoot down an ICBM, with its nuclear warhead, so that the debris falls on the territory of the country that launched it. Only five drones would be needed to maintain a continuous patrol for extended periods. But the system would have to operate only when satellites and reconnaissance aircraft indicate that an ICBM is being prepared at the launching site.

Unlike the provocative, unworkable defense planned by the Bush administration — with its two radars of insufficient range in the Czech Republic and Southern Europe and its 10 interceptors in Poland — this alternative defense would be technologically feasible, and could be developed, built and deployed near the areas of concern in a relatively short time. And it would be effective almost immediately on deployment.

This system would provide an extremely intimidating and highly effective defense against Iran and North Korea, but would pose no threat to Russia or China. Their missiles are far too numerous and dispersed over such large areas that the defense would have little or no chance to engage them. In addition, pieces of it could even be developed and operated in tandem with Russia.

That is a slick implementation of the destroy on launch idea.  So slick, in fact, that it is already being developed - see below.

MORE:  The Times is running this column as a new idea but the Heritage Foundation promoted a specific system a year ago that sounds virtually identical:

On December 3, 2007, during a test conducted at New Mexico's White Sands Missile Range, a modified AIM-9X Sidewinder missile intercepted an Orion target ballistic missile in the boost phase of flight. The technology responsible for this successful test result is the Raytheon Company's Network Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE) interceptor program, the centerpiece of which is an inexpensive boost-phase missile defense system.[1] Yet the lasting success of this program requires devoting $15 million of the Bush Administration's proposed missile defense budget request to the continued development of the NCADE interceptor.

By providing for NCADE in the fiscal year 2009 defense authorization and appropriations bills, Congress would be able to field an inexpensive boost-phase missile defense system within the next few years. Considering the high-cost and lengthy production time of alternative boost-phase missile defense systems, Congress should immediately bolster the security of the United States by fully incorporating NCADE into our nation's missile defense program.

The Bush Administration's ballistic missile defense strategy requires a variety of interceptor systems. When combined, these different systems are capable of knocking down hostile ballistic missiles in the boost, mid-course, and terminal phases of flight.

Currently, the United States has mid-course and terminal interceptors but lacks a boost-phase interceptor. Capable of striking the target missile when it is still easy to detect and is moving relatively slowly, boost-phase interceptors offer the most effective means of defending all territories outside of the launch area. Additionally, boost-phase interceptors are designed to destroy hostile missiles before individual warheads and decoys can be released.

According to Raytheon, long-lead procurement of NCADE interceptors, with proper funding, can begin in late 2008 or early 2009. Given the relatively small investment required and the potential for a rapid fielding of the system, Congress should provide the funding required to move the NCADE program forward.

Heritage mentions launching from either fighters or unmanned drones.

NCADE got funding last September; more details on the system here.

COMPARING THE DETAILS:

Postol says that "The interceptors would weigh about a ton and could achieve a top speed of five kilometers per second in tens of seconds".  The NCADE specs say that:

The end result is a missile that’s the exact same size as the AIM-120, with the same integration interface and balance point. This means that no specialized airborne platform is required. Any plane or land platform capable of firing AMRAAM is automatically capable of carrying and firing NCADE.

The AIM-120 weighs 335 pounds, if this can be trusted.

Given the difference in weights, I wonder whether Postol is describing a competing missile defense system designed to do the same thing.  Does Postol know about NCADE and does he have specific objections to it?  Ahh, when contractors collide!

 [end of thread]

It's 8:45 AM - Do You Know Where Your Talking Points Are?

Ben Smith of The Politico regales us with news of the latest iteration of the Townhouse, the ongoing effort at message coordination from the left:

The vast new left-wing conspiracy sets its tone every morning at 8:45 a.m., when officials from more than 20 labor, environmental and other Democratic-leaning groups dial into a private conference call hosted by two left-leaning Washington organizations.

The “8:45 A.M. call,” as it’s referred to by members, began three weeks ago, and it marks a new level in coordination by the White House’s allies at a time when the conservative opposition is struggling for a toe-hold and major agenda items like health care reform appear closer than ever to passage.

The call has helped attempts to link the Republican Party to radio host Rush Limbaugh, and has served as the launching ground for attacks on critics of Obama’s policy proposals. It springs from a recognition of what was lacking in the Clinton years, said Jennifer Palmieri, the senior vice president for communications at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, one of the groups hosting the call.

“[CAP President John] Podesta’s and my experience was in the White House during the Clinton years, and we didn’t have a coordinated echo chamber on the outside backing us up,” she said. “There’s a real interest on the progressive side for groups to want to coordinate with each other and leverage each other’s work in a way I haven’t ever seen before.”

The left has never exactly glorified rugged individualism; apparently, it is not action unless it is collective action.  I have an image of a bunch of lonely lefties huddled together for warmth and comfort, seeking protection from Evil Rush and his minions...

Some details stand out:

The calls are led by its top staffer, Tara McGuinness, who will also head Progressive Media's "communications research and analysis war room" to wage spin and policy wars throughout the day, Palmieri said.

Sooo martial!  Perhaps an armchair psychologist can tell us why a bunch of anti-war libs insist on playing at soldier.  On the other side of the aisle, do conservatives ever dress up as libs?  Does anyone think that over at the Weekly Standard or The Corner people are forming Sensitive Outreach groups?

We will file this under "Elevate the Discourse":

The call has proved particularly effective at coordinating attacks on critics, said Jacki Schechner, the national communications director for Health Care for America Now, a labor-backed alliance of groups that support Democratic efforts to expand health care.

“There’s a coordination in terms of exposing the people who are trying to come out against reform —they’ve all got backgrounds and histories and pasts, and it’s not taking long to unearth that and to unleash that, because we’re all working together,” Schechner said.

When a new group called Conservative for Patients Rights, for instance, launched an ad campaign featuring former health care executive Rick Scott, “There was a discussion about what do we know about this guy and in a very quick period of time we were able to come up with his background,” she said.

Scott, as progressive groups quickly informed reporters, had reportedly been forced to resign as head of the company became known as Columbia/HCA amid fraud charges, and the company eventually paid a massive settlement in the case.

Oppo research and dirt-flinging - well, at least we won't get bogged down in tedious policy discussions and boring discussions of alternative ideas.

Left unanswered by Mr. Smith's careful reporting - does the group open the phone call with a chorus of 'Kumbaya', or is that the closing song?

OR SO HE SAYS:  Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly had this to say about William Kristol and Ross Douthat as NY Times columnists:

If the paper is going to go with a creative, conservative thinker -- someone who'll do more than just spout RNC-crafted, neo-con approved talking points -- Douthat is probably the single strongest choice the paper could have made.

Bloggers spouting DNC-crafted, labor-approved talking points are an entirely different matter...

[end of thread]

Obama On Education Reform

Mickey sends us to EduWonk., who dryly notes this about the "merit pay" controversy:

[A] professional occupation that can’t talk about “merit” has some issues…

So Many Numbers

What are the odds of the US economy entering a depression?  Robert Barro, writing in the WSJ estimated a 20% probability.  David Brooks of the NY Times thought Barro was too optimistic and revised that estimate:

Robert Barro of Harvard estimates that there is a 30 percent chance of a depression.

Hey, maybe Brooks got Barro on the phone with a revision - there is no correction in the Times as yet.

The WSJ re-enters the bidding today.  In an article about the poor marks given by professional economists to Obama and Geithner we get this aside:

Economists also put nearly a one-in-six chance that the U.S. will fall into a depression, defined as a decline in per-person GDP or consumption by 10% or more.

Oh, let's have the whole forecast:

A worsening recession weighed on economists' minds, as they pushed off forecasts for a recovery yet again. On average, they expect the downturn to end in October. Last month, they said the bottom would arrive in August. They estimate that gross domestic product will continue to contract in the first half of this year, with slow growth returning in the third quarter. Meanwhile, the economists surveyed this month estimate that the economy will shed another 2.8 million jobs over the next 12 months as the unemployment rate climbs to 9.3% by December, up from the 8.1% rate recorded in February. Economists also put nearly a one-in-six chance that the U.S. will fall into a depression, defined as a decline in per-person GDP or consumption by 10% or more.

"We just keep moving the date [when the recession will end] out, hoping at some point in time we will be able to move the date back in," said Diane Swonk of Mesirow Financial.

The economists didn't just single out the U.S. for criticism, though, as 70% of participants said the response of governments around the world to the global recession has been inadequate. "The Europeans or Japanese don't seem to be doing near enough to kickstart their economies," said Nariman Behravesh of IHS Global Insight. "It could be we've done all the right things, but the rest of the world goes down the tubes."

Yike.

Quick Hits

Alan Greenspan - The Asians Made Me Do It!

Global excess savings made a housing bubble inevitable, explains Alan, who manages to avoid the phrase "Yellow Peril".  He does not explain why expecting the Fed to jawbone banks into maintaining mortgage lending standards was not realistic, but I will hazard a guess - both parties favored expanded home ownership and sub-prime mortgages tended to flow to minority neighborhoods.  How does this headline sound - "In Senate Testimony Fed Chief Decries Minority Lending"?  Yeah, I don't think it sounds so good either.  Oh, well - the problems began in sub-prime but have gone way beyond that now.

Chas Freeman - The Jews Made Me Do It.  More here.

Our Nimble Federal Loan Officers:  The Lawyers Made Me Do It - The Fed/Treasury $1 billion TALF is bogged on documentation.  But nationalized banks will get credit flowing again!

WaPo to Eric Holder: Drop the AIPAC prosecution, explaining that Bush Made Me Do It.  (Oooh, Freeman and the AIPAC case gone - a big day for a certain lobby.  Oh, why be coy - a big day for AIPAC.)

[END OF THREAD]

Shut Up, She Explained

Free speech for TARP recipients?  Jane Hamsher thinks not.

Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake surely considers herself a champion of civil liberties (and an ally of Big Labor).  However, her view of legitimate dissent and free speech seems oddly cramped - apparently, equity analysts in the employ of Citigroup should not be allowed to express opinions contrary to the views held by Ms. Hamsher.  Her attitude is mostly amusing, but depending on how influential these lefty blogs become or how widely shared her views are on the left this could become be scary - sort of a McCain-Feingold for TARP recipients and their clients, i.e., everyone [Hmm, the future is now and its scary].  Here we go:

Today Citigroup lowered its rating on Wal-Mart from a buy to a hold because of the Employee Free Choice Act, "citing concern that legislation intended to make it easier for employees to unionize would raise the retail giant's labor costs and hurt its competitiveness."

This is startling for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that they're downgrading the stock based on an assumption that a piece of legislation will pass that hasn't even been introduced yet.

The Citigroup analyst, Debora Weinswig, said Employee Free Choice (EFCA) "could be a significant drag to earnings."

It's hard to view this as anything other than a reckless and overt political act on the part of a company, Citigroup, that has made stupendously bad business decisions with dire economic consequences necessitating billions in taxpayer bailouts, at a time when the market can ill-afford it.

As to timing - the bill was introduced on Tuesday, so Ms. Weinswig was hardly out on a limb as to topicality.  Whether the bill will pass remains up in the air.

With regard to "It's hard to view this as anything other than a reckless and overt political act on the part of a company, Citigroup", really?  I have an easy time viewing this as one equity analyst, deep in the bowels of Citigroup, doing her job by offering an opinion on how legislation currently in the news might impact companies she covers.  What is the political motivation of "Citigroup" (Who at Citi - the board?  The CEO?  Ms. Weinswig's boss?) in linking this bill to a decline in WalMart's fortunes?  Ms. Hamsher does not attempt an explanation, nor does she explain why previous dubious lending decisions of Citigroup ought to influence the views of their equity analysts.

Ms. Hamsher attempts to argue from authority with unconvincing results:

I asked Pulitzer-Prize winning former New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston, author of author of Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense [and Stick You with the Bill], what he made of this announcement:

Citigroup's comment fit with the same pattern we see in utility regulation. Just as state regulators are about to vote on raising electricity and gas rates, the bond ratings agencies come out with warnings that they're thinking about downgrading the bonds. None dare call it "interference in the market."

None dare call it "interference in the market"?  Do any dare call it "free speech"?  Here in America, people (even bond raters!) are allowed to comment on the likely impact of proposed legislation and regulation.  Well, that is my opinion, but perhaps I am behind the times - here is Ms. Hamsher:

Taxpayers now own a huge chunk of Citigroup. We should be looking a lot more closely about how, and when, these ratings get made.

We?  Who is "we" - Henry Waxman?  This is stifling of dissent, once considered the highest form of patriotism.  And without bothering to research the point I will guess that Ms. Hamsher is firmly behind Paul Krugman in supporting the nationalization of our banks, presumably to be accompanied by further stifling of their viewpoints.  Civil liberties for some!

I GUESS THE WALMART GUYS MISSED THIS IN B-SCHOOL: Former Hollywood producer Jane Hamsher takes time from her schedule to explain to WalMart management how they can boost their bottom line:

Even Bank of America admitted in an internal memo that increased wages for working people would mean "increased spending power of lower income consumers," which would mean that even if Wal-Mart was successfully unionized -- a big if -- they could make up the cost of higher wages with an increase in sales.

I am afraid that any response would spoil the moment; I want to savor this "Walmart could earn more if they just increased their cost base" theorem a bit longer.

OK.  Since Ms. Hamsher is an orthodox progressive we can easily imagine her reaction if presented with the notion that the government could increase its revenue by cutting tax rates (another firedog favors "crazier notions of supply side economics" as a description of the Laffer Curve).  Yet now we live in a world where WalMart can increase its profits by increasing its costs - can we call this "the Laugher Curve"?  Why haven't WalMart's managers and owners figured this out for themselves?  I blame false consciousness!

For the reality-based, Walmart's annual revenues as of Jan 2008 were roughly $380 billion; their cost of goods sold was about 80% of that, and "Selling, General and Administrative", i.e., payroll, was about 18% of revenue, or $70 billion.  Even if none of that $70 billion went to taxes and housing (rent or mortgage payments), and even if WalMart employees spent 100% of their paychecks at WalMart, they would still provide less than 20% of WalMart's revenue.  Dare we wonder whether the rest of WalMart's customer base, which is to say the vast majority, will pay higher prices just because WalMart employees are a bit more flush?  And if their customer base is prepared to pay more, why the strange forebearance by the WalMart managers, who ought to be raising prices (and profits!) today.  Inexplicable.  Well, almost inexplicable - maybe this theory of "higher costs = higher profits" is bunk.

To be fair, I suppose that if enough of the American work force became unionized and if the resulting combination of inefficient work rules and higher pay resulted in a net transfer of wealth from owners (who no doubt shop at Saks) to workers (WalMart and Target customers all), then maybe maybe maybe WalMart would see a net benefit from the passage of card check - it is at least conceivable, although not what Ms. Hamsher argued.  Of course, WalMart owners would see an even greater benefit if their competitors were saddled with inefficient unions while they remained free, even if they are no longer allowed to say so.

Or maybe the State Department can issue WalMart a button.  That was easy!

[END OF FREE SPEECH]