The Post’s Shailagh Murray has apparently
decided that it’s so hard keeping track of all of Norm Coleman’s lawyers nonsensical arguments about why he shouldn’t have to leave the senate that the only reasonable answer is just to hold a whole new vote. Now, bear in mind, that’s not me saying they’re nonsensical. It’s mainly the judges shooting him down right and left.
Here’s Murray from an online chat today at WaPo.com (via Balloon-Juice) …
Baltimore, Md.: Speaking of junior senators, do you see Al Franken being seated anytime before 2010?
Shailagh Murray: Perhaps, but it seems more and more likely that the Minnesota race will wind up as a re-vote. At this point it seems like the quickest way to resolve the situation.
For what it’s worth, there is vanishingly little evidence that there will ever be a revote of this race because Franken was certified (*) the winner after the recount and Coleman’s suit to overturn that result is going badly. Even if it went well, it would almost certainly lead to reopening the recount rather than having a revote.
Asked later what she was talking about, she continued …
I don’t have a revote “theory.” I’m just wondering how long this is going to sit in the court system. If Coleman looks desperate, why not just hold another election and beat him handily? But there’s a process in place here, and we can only assume both parties will abide by it.
So if he’s really flailing so badly in his court case, why not just hold a new election?
(ed.note: * — certification, in this context, has a particular meaning under Minnesota law. As the term is normally understood, the canvassing board certified Franken’s election. But under Minnesota law, a certificate of election cannot be issued until all legal challenges have been exhausted. So, because Coleman still had the right to appeal the result, no certificate was issued.)
That’s what happens when you mix poll numbers from Rasmussen and whackadoodle editorializing from The Politico. If you go to the front page right now you’ll see this splash headline for an article which argues that Obama has his work cut out for him tomorrow night because most Americans, even most Democrats, see the president’s mortgage adjustment program like Rick Santelli, CNBC’s fat cat populist whose rant against the mortgage program last week had everyone in a twitter.
The article is based on a Rasmussen poll made up of four fairly leading questions, the featured one of which reads: “Some people say that having the government subsidize mortgage payments for financially troubled homeowners puts the government in the position of rewarding bad behavior. Is the government rewarding bad behavior when it provides subsidies to those who are most at risk of losing their homes?”
(ed.note: The poll question text is only included in the subscriber section of the Rasmussen site.)
This question yielded 55% yes and 32% no.
Now, the thrust of the article gives you the sense that unlike Obama’s other programs, this is one the public is not supporting. Unless you read some other polls that pose a more straightforward question. Do you support the program or not?
The Post asked this question and got: 64% support, 35% oppose.
The Times asked it and got: 61% yes, 20% no.
In other words, the plan appears to have not just majority but something approaching overwhelming support.
(ed.note: On the question of the quality of Rasmussen polls in general, I’ve been watching them closely now through at least two cycles. The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they’re pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to turn them around — because they’re based on robocalls — gives them added value in terms of teasing out trends. But the qualitative questions, in terms of their phrasing and so forth, are frequently skewed to give answers friendly toward GOP or conservative viewpoints. All of which is to say that his numbers are valuable. But they need to be read with that bias in mind. On the separate question of whether robocalls are as ‘good’ as traditional live question polls, I think they’ve held up quite well over the last two cycles. I see little evidence that SurveyUSA’s poll haven’t stood up as well as those done by live phone callers.)
Late Update: Yet another poll, this one from CNN, provides broader evidence that President Obama faces very few Santellis.
Buried about half-way down in an article in tomorrow’s Post on the administration’s new bank rescue policy, there’s this …
A wide range of prominent economists and public figures have called for the government to take this step. But a backlash is building against government ownership.
I do not pretend for a moment that nationalization of any sort is a done deal or that it doesn’t face a lot of entrenched and interested opposition. But this is completely at odds with what I’m seeing. My impression is that over the last two to three weeks there’s been a clear move of elite and expert opinion — politicians, economists, policy analysts and even industry types — in the direction of nationalization / receivership as an unfortunate necessity or at least something that must be seriously considered.
I have not seen any public opinion data that provides any insight on where the public is on this question, though opposition to the bank bailouts as a general matter is obviously extremely high. But to the best of my knowledge I don’t think I’ve seen any evidence at all of a backlash ‘building’.
The only evidence proffered in the article is a letter from Sen. Grassley (R-IA) which doesn’t even some on point about opposition to nationalization.
To be clear, I’m not trying to pick a fight on this one. I’m just genuinely interested in where they’re getting this and curious whether there’s something I’m missing.
Let me know your thoughts.
As reported earlier today, AIG — which is already 80% owned by the US government — is poised to go back to the government trough for more money.
(Remember, we’ve already committed roughly $150 billion to AIG.)
So I want to come back again to this question: who are the counter-parties? When we pour $10 or 30$ billion into AIG, it doesn’t vanish into thin air. It goes to someone else. Earlier evidence suggested that Goldman Sachs had massive exposure to a potential AIG bankruptcy. And it’s been alleged — though not on any harder evidence than a certain elementary logic — that AIG got saved in part because of people tied to Goldman who were running Bailout Inc. last fall.
Whatever the truth of that, I think it’s time we know more clearly where the $100 or so billion we’ve ‘loaned’ AIG so far went. (There’s been some data on this. But I don’t believe it’s been exhaustive or particularly detailed.) And where’s the next dollop of money likely to go? Whoever these recipients are, they are by definition companies that are in the capitalism business who made a bad bet on AIG, probably a lot of bad bets on AIG.
Perhaps there are good systemic risk arguments about why these players need to be made whole. But like I said, in the capitalism business, so it seems like they should take at least some big hit for having deals outstanding with a company that in essence went bankrupt (though we’ve kept them on life support too). It really is a zero sum — your money to AIG, so that ‘AIG’ can make this or that bank or investment house whole. Maybe there’s a good argument. But I think we need a lot more data about who’s ending up with the money before we know.
Obama’s first address to a joint session of Congress is tonight at 9 ET. That and the day’s other political news in the TPMDC Morning Roundup.
Just released from Sen. Schumer’s office …
Schumer to GOP governors: Stimulus isn’t a la carte menu
WASHINGTON, DC–Senator Charles Schumer released the following letter Tuesday urging the Obama administration to notify governors that they must certify acceptance of stimulus funding in full or not at all, rather than selectively approving and rejecting the law’s various components.
February 24, 2009
Dear Director Orszag:
In recent days, a small minority of governors, mostly Republicans, have publicly weighed the possibility of foregoing certain emergency provisions provided under the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed last week by President Obama. I believe this prospect not only would undercut the stimulative effect of the recovery package, but also is inconsistent with a key provision included in the law passed by Congress. To protect the integrity of the recovery program, I urge the administration to issue implementation guidance clarifying that while any Governor may exercise his or her discretion to accept or reject the federal funds provided in the stimulus, no Governor should have the authority to arbitrarily adopt a select subset of the overall package.
As you know, Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation. It would also undermine the overall success of the bill, as the components most singled out for criticism by these governors are among the most productive measures in terms of stimulating the economy.
For instance, at least two governors have proposed rejecting a program to expand unemployment insurance for laid-off workers. Economists consistently rank unemployment insurance among the most efficient and cost-effective fiscal stimulus measures; by one frequently cited estimate, it provides an economic return of as high as $1.73 for every dollar invested. Thus, by denying this provision for their residents, these governors are not just depriving some of the neediest Americans of relief in a dire economy; they are undermining the overall stimulative impact of the package.
No one would dispute that these governors should be given the choice as to whether to accept the funds or not. But it should not be multiple choice. The composition of the package was rightly dictated by economic considerations; we should not let the implementation of the package be dictated by political considerations.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
Union group calls on Treasury to deny TARP funds to Principal Financial Group because of its heavy lobbying expenditures, especially on the Employee Free Choice Act, TPMDC reports.
Biden’s son and brother ran hedge fund exclusively marketed by Sir Allen Stanford. From what we can tell, Sir Allen’s tie to the fund started after Biden’s son active management role ended. But we’re digging a little further to see what the details are.