Eric Cantor, staunch protector of the 1 percent and champion for that portion of the 99 percent duped into protecting the 1 Percent, but ever fearful of the mob, startled a disbelieving Beltway a few days ago by announcing that income and wealth inequality were real problems and that the GOP should do something about that.

In a moral universe, that epiphany should have been followed by lightning striking the man, as on the road to Damascus, but that didn’t happen.

Cantor promised to address those issues in a speech he planned to give today at the University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School. What would an unrepentant representative of the 1 Percent possibly have to say? Would he explain why the Senate members of his party unanimously opposed taxing the rich at one half of one percent on annual income over a million dollars so we could have 400,000 more teachers and thousands more first responders?

Well, we may never know. It seems Mr. Cantor has bugged out, after learning from his hosts that his speech might become the occasion for a mic check. From the Hill:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) abruptly cancelled a planned economic address Friday at the University of Pennsylvania after learning that the event could be flooded with protesters aligned with the Occupy Wall Street movement. 

Well, of course members of the actual 99%, victims of Washington and his party’s relentlessly unequal policies would want to hear what you had to say, Eric. What did you expect? But apparently this came as a surprise.

Cantor’s office said it scheduled the speech several months ago with the understanding that the audience would be comprised of about 250 “members of the Wharton community,” including students, faculty and invited guests. But on Thursday, the university’s student newspaper, the Daily Pennsylvanian, reported that between 500 and 1,000 protesters affiliated with Occupy Philadelphia planned to rally outside the hall where Cantor was to speak.

Cantor’s office also said it learned Thursday night that university security planned to allow the first 300 people in line to attend the speech, regardless of affiliation, raising the possibility that Cantor would be addressing a room full of protesters.

Apparently Mr. Cantor does not understand that the point of letting in a couple hundred members of the 99% is to allow them to be the mic check for Eric’s important speech, so that everyone forced to be outside the select group would get to participate. That was supposed to be the point of the speech, wasn’t it Eric? Just asking.

Btw, the headline in the Hill article says the Occupy folks forced Eric to cancel. Uh, nope. Nobody forced Cantor to do anything. It’s called cowardice.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell can barely contain his self-adulatory glee in coming up with the theory that President Obama has outfoxed the Tea-GOP in the debt limit negotiations. But the question is, why should the country be happy about what his argument implies for the President’s principles and veracity?

It’s clear that the Tea-GOP are now seriously split — between the crazies and the predators — over what to do about Mr. Obama’s insistence on more tax revenues as a condition for significant spending cuts. Since the holy Tea-GOP mantra is that any (net) tax increase is comparable to original sin and will get you expelled from Grover Norquist’s grace, the faithful don’t know whether to follow Mitch McConnell’s exit strategy, which at least keeps them in grace for now, or Eric Cantor’s no-exit strategy which . . . well, it’s not clear what would happen, but it’s got the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, the Federal Reserve, IMF and Wall Street freaking out.

O’Donnell’s theory, however, holds that President Obama essentially lied to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. He lied by falsely telling them — and telling the public in his press conferences — that he’d accept dramatically reduced domestic spending, including significant reductions in Social Security and Medicare benefits, if only the Tea-GOP would accept net tax/revenue increases on a 3:1 ratio. And that’s okay, because he never really agreed to such cuts but knew the Tea-GOP would reject the offer, so he wouldn’t have to agree.

O’Donnell insists this was a clever lie, and those stupid Republicans and (O’Donnell loves this part) those mean progressive bloggers (I guess that includes me!) naively took Obama at his word. What fools! Since all the fools were duped, time has now run out on the debt limit, the financial elites will rein in the crazies, Obama will get a “clean” bill, and the Republican leaders will be seen by their base as unprincipled fools. So was Jay Carney lying today when he downplayed Mitch McConnell’s exit plan?

“This is not a preferred option,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said of McConnell’s proposal in his daily briefing. . . .

“The president is firmly committed to significant cuts in spending and to dealing with our deficit and debt problems in a balanced way,” he said. “Bigger is better. … It’s an opportunity for a game-changer, to put the United States on much firmer ground as we really get into the 21st century and the economic competition that confronts us.”

A plausible theory needs to accommodate and explain virtually all of the facts and observations relevant to it; otherwise it’s not credible. And Mr. O’Donnell has conveniently left out some important facts.

The President and his advisers have repeatedly told the American people that the nation needs to “tighten its belt” and get its “fiscal house in order.” He’s said repeatedly that the deficits and debt are contributing to business uncertainty, and this uncertainty is preventing the economy from recovering broadly enough to solve the very serious unemployment problem. He’s said we can’t even have a useful conversation about jobs until this debt problem is solved. He’s promoted the priority of debt reduction through White House appointments and Alan Simpson’s Catfood Commission, choosing individuals who claim deficits and the debt constitute a “crisis.”

Mr. Obama has also argued in public that the debt limit talks are an opportune moment to resolve these issues, and because they are so important, the talks should include massive spending reductions, a Grand Bargain. We need to think big, he’s said, and “if not now, then when?”

Now I agree with economists who think Obama’s economic assessments are not merely a misunderstanding of our economic situation, but unsupported, dangerous gibberish. But put that aside. O’Donnell’s theory implies that the President was either lying when he said those things, or he’s just lied to the Tea-GOP in a way that may tank the opportunity Mr. Obama claims we need to accomplish what he told us was a prerequisite to economic recovery.

So where’s the truth? Does the President actually believe the things he said in public? If so, hasn’t he just made it less likely he’ll achieve his goals, because he’s misled the Republicans (and the country) and humiliated their leaders whose agreement he needs? Or was he lying when he made all those arguments about the connection between deficit/debt reductions and fixing the economy? If so, then where’s his jobs program and why has he been embracing talking points that make such a program harder to achieve?

What should voters, particularly those who care about Social Security and Medicare, think? Should they assume that Mr. Obama really would accept significantly lower benefits for those on Social Security and Medicare in exchange for higher taxes on carried interest and changing deductions for corporate jets? Where does that leave the Democratic Party? Or should voters assume Mr. Obama was lying about all that and would never accept the deal he said he’d make?

It would be tragic if Mr. Obama achieved what he claimed to be pursuing, whether or not it embarrassed Tea-GOP leaders. But even if all that has happened is that Obama has split and humiliated those leaders, we’re still stuck with a President who claims to believe economic notions that would harm millions of people. Unless he was lying. Next theory?

If you wanted to know why CBS’s Face the Nation has become a completely useless — no, damaging — interview program, all you had to do was watch Harry Smith of CBS interview Eric Cantor and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  I don’t have the transcript, but the sequence of the twin interviews went something like this:

1.  First, Eric Cantor lied about Medicare.

2.  Harry either believed the lies or didn’t know enough to challenge the lies.

3.  Harry asked Wasserman-Schultz to respond to Cantor’s assertion, in a tone indicating he believed the lie.

4.  Debbie didn’t know how to answer the lie or couldn’t because she’s compromised by having to cover the Obama Administration’s position.

5.  No one was invited who could sort out this mess.

There were other topics covered, but that’s the pattern.

The lie surrounds whether the Democrats have a plan to fix Medicare.  That’s become the Tea-GOP talking point, a way to divert attention from their politically disastrous vote to dismantle Medicare.   But first we have to note that the premise of the exchange is just wrong.

Medicare is not in trouble because seniors get too much health care, though that was Cantor’s unchallenged starting point.  Rather, the national economy faces an economy-wide cost problem because private health care providers and drug makers are paid far more in the United States than they are in all other advanced countries, all of whom provide at least equal or better care than we get here.

So the entire exchange was off base.  As Dean Baker often reminds us, if we paid our providers what other nations do to get equal or better results and universal coverage that we don’t have, we would not have a long-term debt problem.

So the problem isn’t caused by Medicare; its budget impact is just the symptom of a national problem in health care provision, compensation and delivery.   Or to put it another way, if we eliminated Medicare tomorrow, and let everyone pay private providers without government insurance, the country would still face the same long-run health care fiscal crisis, because private health provider costs are escalating much faster than our GDP, let alone stagnant or declining working-middle-class incomes.  It’s the cost of the private health care provider system that is pushing us towards “broke,” not Medicare per se.

Those essential, relevant facts never entered today’s interviews.   Instead, Eric Cantor simply lied about the “Medicare problem” and lied again saying the Obama Administration had “no plan” on how to deal with that.

Even in Cantor’s misleading framework, Harry should have reminded Cantor that the whole reason Obama’s budget director was closely involved in the health care discussions leading to the Affordable Care Act was to get as many of the Administration’s preferred cost-cutting measures into the ACA as he could. That includes the independent advisory board, whose job it will be to examine which treatments are the most cost-effective and encourage providers to use them instead of more costly treatments whose outcomes are no better or worse.  And there are many other measures in the ACA all designed to reduce Medicare costs by reducing subsidies to private Medicare Advantage insurers, reforming the payment structure and reducing the payments we make to drug makers, care providers and medical device vendors.

Of course, Eric Cantor and the entire Tea-GOP not only voted against these measures; they demonized the advisory boards as “death panels” and more.  CBS’s Harry couldn’t remember any of that, so Cantor’s lies were home free.

Then it was Debbie’s turn to unenlighten us.  To Harry’s question, “why don’t Democrats have a plan,” she did not say, “there is a plan, and it’s in the ACA that Cantor and Republicans voted against.”   Instead, she mumbled, stumbled and fell back on her talking points.

But even if she’d given at least the stock “it’s in the ACA” answer, it’s highly doubtful Harry would have thought to ask, “but why did Democrats exempt important items from the advisory boards, and delay their implementation?   Isn’t the problem private provider and drug costs?  And if so, why didn’t the Democrats’ bill go after the drugsters?  Impose drug negotiations?  Repeal anti-trust exemptions? Tighter controls on hospital charges?  Do you think it was a mistake for the White House to cut separate deals with PhRMA and the hospitals and to secretly kill the public option even though the CBO said that would lower costs?  And since Medicare is cheaper than Medicare Advantage and other private options, why did the Democrats allow Joe Lieberman to kill a Medicare buy-in for those under 65?”

Despite all the interest and questions/answers relating to Medicare, there was no one on that show who could enlighten us on what really matters.  We had a GOP liar, an uninformed interviewer who may believe the lies, and a compromised Democrat who had to protect Obama’s deals rather than fight not only for the people who actually need Medicare but for a structure that benefits everyone else too.

And that failure illustrates everything that’s wrong with most of these talk shows, and especially Face the Nation. Fix it or shut it down.

More from Digby: NBC’s Meet the Press panel was just as bad.

Climate expert Bill McKibben, activist and founder of the global climate campaign 350.org, recently wrote an op ed for the Washington Post gently pointing out the coincidence between climate change predictions and the growing number of deadly “natural” disasters that seem to be sweeping across the globe.

Deadly tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts in some regions and floods in others happen every year; it’s difficult to attribute every single weather episode directly to global climate change, even though the evidence suggests with more warming, we will see more, and more extreme, weather-related events.

But as we’ve seen 100-year events happen twice in a few years, or record temperatures several years out the last ten, extreme weather causing record or near record deaths time after time, you’d think even the most skeptical would at least begin to ask, what’s going on? And shouldn’t we start to worry about this?

Don’t expect the Tea-GOP leaders to get this logic. They’re led by Republican leader Eric Cantor, who not only hides in deep denial but complements that by telling the victims of the Joplin and other tornadoes that he’ll consider helping them rebuild only if Congress cuts something else, like funding for NOAA, climate studies or alternative energy budgets.

That’s not just stupid; it’s cruel. There’s no way to reach people like that. But what about others?

McKibben notes the many recent environmental retreats by the Administration and Congress and then frames the attitude of our ostrich-like government:

It is vitally important not to make connections. . . .

It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advisable to try to connect them in your mind with, say, the fires burning across Texas — fires that have burned more of America at this point this year than any wildfires have in previous years. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they’ve ever been — the drought is worse than that of the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if they’re somehow connected.

If you did wonder, you see, you would also have to wonder about whether this year’s record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest — resulting in record flooding along the Mississippi — could somehow be related. And then you might find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming, and to the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold air.

It’s far smarter to repeat to yourself the comforting mantra that no single weather event can ever be directly tied to climate change. There have been tornadoes before, and floods — that’s the important thing. Just be careful to make sure you don’t let yourself wonder why all these record-breaking events are happening in such proximity — that is, why there have been unprecedented megafloods in Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan in the past year. Why it’s just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of years. . . .

Read the rest of this entry →

The lead front page story in today’s delivered New York Times reported that the stock market fell after the rating firm S.&P. threatened to downgrade the US credit rating unless the US got its spending under control.

The GOP, led by noted economist Eric Cantor, was quick to predict a US economic collapse unless we used the debt limit vote to eliminate Medicare.

So naturally, I immediately slashed my personal spending by cancelling my Times Saturday and Sunday delivery subscription, hoping to save the economy from imminent collapse. That seemed to help, as the stock market was back up today. The market knows everything, it seems.

Not knowing what else to do, I was later greatly relieved to learn that having grasped the seriousness of S.& P.’s warning, the Times invited several economists to explain the impending doom. Here’s a sample of what they said.

First, Tyler Cowen seems to think S&P was right to warn us of our profligacy, but he worrys the stock market didn’t panic enough:

The fall in the stock market on Monday just wasn’t big enough to put a scare into most of these people. Few political leaders see realism as a winning political message, and making realism scarier, as the S.&P. announcement did, won’t get them there easily.

It’s a common argument that the U.S. need not worry about its borrowing because interest rates on Treasury debt are so low. That’s a mistake. The low rates mean that investors expect to be paid back; they don’t mean that U.S. debt levels are healthy.

So, the market went down because investors think the US can pay its debt obligations, but the market isn’t smart enough to know it won’t. Huh.

Next, Mark Thoma thinks we shouldn’t be stampeded into hurting the vulnerable when there’s no immediate threat:

. . . Don’t let the downgrade allow those with wealth and power to push through the wrong solution. . . .

The main worry about the debt is that, at some point in the future, interest rates will rise as the world becomes reluctant to lend more to us. A rise in interest rates would lead to reduced investment, growth and employment. So far, however, bond markets show little sign of worry and interest rates remain low.

So if there’s no immediate threat, what’s going on? Barry Ritholz says he stopped paying attention to S.& P.:

After Standard & Poor’s missed the greatest collapse in history – indeed, they helped create it by rating junk mortgage backed securities Triple AAA – they are now over-compensating. As I mentioned on The Big Picture, there is an old Wall Street joke about analysts: “You don’t need them in a Bull Market, and you don’t want them in a Bear Market.” That especially seems apt with regard to S.&P.

The deficit has been with us for a long time. Since investors are continuing to lend money to Uncle Sam at exceedingly low rates, there does not appear to be any real fear of a default. That is what matters most to bond buyers — and it why I never care what S.&P. thinks on this.

Next, L. Randall Wray thinks this is just S.& P. doing politics instead of credible ratings based on sound economic analysis:

Mind you, this has nothing to do with economics, government solvency or involuntary default. A sovereign government can always make payments as they come due by crediting bank accounts — something recognized by Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said the Fed spends by marking up the size of the reserve accounts of banks.
Similarly Chairman Alan Greenspan said that Social Security can never go broke because government can meet all its obligations by “creating money.”

Instead, sovereign government spending is constrained by budgeting procedure and by Congressionally imposed debt limits. In other words, by self-imposed constraints rather than by market constraints.

And Yves Smith says S.& P. should be embarrassed:

The United States is simply not at risk of default. Default is impossible for a sovereign currency issuer.

The Standard & Poor’s rating firm should be embarrassed. If there is any political judgment at work here, it is S.&P. falling for politically motivated scare mongering. But given its track record with mortgage securities and collateralized debt obligations, why should we be surprised to see a rating agency relying on conventional wisdom rather than analysis?

Yves and many others note that in addition to complicity in misrepresenting the risks of mortgage-based securities, the rating agencies were consistently wrong about Japan’s experience and that repeated ratings downgrades had essentially no effect on Japan’s ability to borrow at low rates.

There are more derivise opinions from James Galbraith, Paul Krugman, Dean Baker and others listed at Naked Capitalism.

The bottom line is this: The New York Times got duped by the Beltway conventional wisdom driving deficit hysteria. The credit rating companies have little or no credibility and suffer from massive conflicts of interest and their own political agenda; S.& P.’s views are particularly suspect.

The economic theory they’re hawking is wrong and the available evidence contradicts them. And plenty of people easily available to the Times knew this, but the Times neglected to ask them before it wrote its misleading story. The only thing worse is to have the Administration send Secretary Geithner to implicitly confirm the flawed theory by promising to do what the deficit hysterics want.

Given that track record, there is only one thing left for the Times to do, as it prints a retraction and apology to its readers: fire the incompetent editors who went with the phony scare story.