What's a Liberal to do?

I've read several items this week about the dilemma facing liberals and the Democratic Party at the moment.  Here are just a few of the articles I'm talking about:

• Eric Alterman:  "Kabuki Democracy: Why a Progressive Presidency Is Impossible, for Now"
• Peter Beinart:  "Why Obama Disappoints the Left"

• Peter Daou:  "On the Left, a False Choice Fuels the Growing Civil War over Obama"
• Chris Bowers:  "On the Progressive Divide"

And then I read the following from Politico:

In private conversations, White House officials are contemptuous of what they see as liberal lamentations unhinged from historical context or contemporary political realities."

Almost everybody I know who is anywhere close to me in leftiness is disappointed in Obama.  And believe it or not, they also are loyal supporters.  But when statements like this reach the public - basically lambasting us as unhinged - people like me wonder why even bother.


To me, the first big disappointment was when he decided to appoint Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff.  I knew then and there that this was not going to be an administration that was really going to challenge the current "money is power" system in Washington.  Everything that has followed has shown his fingerprints - from an inadequate stimulus bill to a healthcare proposal that had already been negotiated out with the major corporate interests to a much too late and much too weak financial reform bill.  And now we see deficit reduction placed above job creation.


I will no doubt vote for Obama in 2012.  Its unlikely there will be any viable candidate who is better on the issues than he is.  But unlike 2008, my support will be lukewarm at best.

Martin Ginsburg

I guess I have been out of it for awhile, but I only today learned of the death of Marty Ginsburg.  Here is the NY Times obituary.  I didn't know Marty very well - but his influence on me was enormous.  And therein lies a tale.

My graduation from law school coincided with the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1984, one of a number of important pieces of tax legislation to come out of the Reagan years.  After taking the bar exam, I started working for the law firm of Barrett Smith Schapiro Simon and Armstrong, one of the great mid-size firms to disappear in the upheaval that occurred in the legal market in the late 1980s.  While Barrett Smith was small even by the standards of those times (we had 65 lawyers at the time it split up in February 1988), it was a powerhouse in the tax field.  When I joined, the senior tax partner, Donald Schapiro, was chairman of the Tax Section of the New York State Bar Association, and Dick Leder, who would become my mentor for the next 14 years, was chairman of the section's
Corporate Tax committee.  [Don, at 84, is still an active partner in the tax department of Chadbourne & Parke.]

After the passage of TRA 84, Don organized a series of panel discussions on various aspects of the new law, and himself chaired one of the panels - on the various time value of money rules added by the act.  And as the newbie tax lawyer in the firm, I served as the scribe for the panel.  Other participants were Kenneth Heitner of Weil Gotschal, Rick Reinhold - then in the Treasury Department Tax Legislative Counsel's office and now chairman of the Tax Department at Willkie Farr - and Marty Ginsburg.  What a great group to work with, and what great exposure for a young tax lawyer as I was at that time.  The panel discussion was a big hit - with such an illustrious group how could it not be? - but for me the highlight was dinner with the panel afterward.   I remember with great fondness how Marty took the time to talk to me personally about how I was adjusting to law firm life - let alone life in NYC.  He was kind and compassionate and humorous and made this kid with tax stars in his eyes feel very much part of the team.

It was one of those events that made it clear to me that, at that point in my career, I was moving in the right direction.

Rest in peace, Marty.  You will be sorely missed.

Yay! The Unemployment Rate Declined! (Sarcasm)

Thankfully, most of the MSM seems to realize that the unemployment statistics issued today are bad news.  Calculated Risk has some helpful analysis of the trends.  My favorite graph here is this one:

How anyone can look at this and seriously think there is no need for further stimulus is beyond me.  But many of our elite do.  Here is The Economist (ht/Paul Krugman):

[F]irms across the rich world are hoarding cash. Their reluctance to invest may have more to do with regulatory, financial and fiscal uncertainty than weak consumer demand (see article). If governments address those worries, businesspeople may start spending.

Right.  If the government gets its deficit under control, firms may start producing more even though demand for their products is dwindling.  Makes sense to me.  As Atrios has so poignantly put it, in their view the answer to our problems is to fire more teachers!


How these people can, in the face of such horrible statistics, be so out of touch with reality is beyond me.


Krugman and DeLong have more.