Treasury Sells AIG Stake. Makes $22.7B Profit From $182B Bailout.

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bailouts, Good Decisions, Money

So much for moral hazard…

9:39AM EST December 11. 2012 – WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Treasury Department said Tuesday that it has sold all its remaining shares of American International Group (AIG), moving to wrap up the government’s biggest bailout of the 2008 financial crisis.

Treasury said it received $32.50 per share for its 234.2 million remaining shares, which represented a 16% ownership stake in the giant insurance company.

And let’s remember how much of AIG we owned…

Treasury conducted six public offerings of AIG stock the past 19 months, selling a total of 1.66 billion shares of the company. At the start of the sales, Treasury had owned 92% of AIG’s outstanding common stock.

Listen, nobody liked it, and AIG was at the heart of why we were plunged into The Great Recession.

But four years later we’re in a much stronger position. And let’s remember that the bailout happened under George W. Bush’s watch. Hardly somebody who believed in bailouts.

The moral of this story: extraordinary times sometimes call for extraordinary measures. This was one of them. And we did the exact opposite of losing our ass. And it only took 4 years.

Basically, it would have been catastrophically irresponsible to let AIG fail and just wait to see what would happen to the companies it was insuring against massive losses.

Last, but certainly not least…

With the AIG stock sales, the government has gotten back $380 billion, or more than 90% of the $418 billion it disbursed through TARP.

More as it develops…


December 11th, 2012 | Permalink| 9 Comments »

Warren Buffet Proposes Minimum Tax On Highest Income

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Democrats, Republicans, Taxes

Before we get into the details…Buffett points out the single biggest logic flaw of all the arguments from those who oppose higher taxes for the wealthiest. And it’s stupid simple.

Here we go…

Suppose that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.”

Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist.

In other words…people want to make money. And whether their profits get taxed at 15% or 25%…they’ll still want to keep making money. Duh.

This also goes back to my firm belief that a lot of Americans DO NOT understand how our progressive taxation system works. Granted, this is based on non-scientific evidence, but I bet you that if you asked 20 people how we were taxed, at least 5 would say that when you earn over a certain amount of money…it’s ALL taxed at that rate, not just the amount that goes above that threshold. I was shocked at how many of my friends and colleagues didn’t understand something this basic, but they didn’t. And that’s what the Norquists of the world have been preying upon.

Anyway, back to Buffet’s proposal…

The Forbes 400, the wealthiest individuals in America, hit a new group record for wealth this year: $1.7 trillion. That’s more than five times the $300 billion total in 1992. In recent years, my gang has been leaving the middle class in the dust.

A huge tail wind from tax cuts has pushed us along. In 1992, the tax paid by the 400 highest incomes in the United States (a different universe from the Forbes list) averaged 26.4 percent of adjusted gross income. In 2009, the most recent year reported, the rate was 19.9 percent. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

The group’s average income in 2009 was $202 million — which works out to a “wage” of $97,000 per hour, based on a 40-hour workweek. (I’m assuming they’re paid during lunch hours.) Yet more than a quarter of these ultrawealthy paid less than 15 percent of their take in combined federal income and payroll taxes. Half of this crew paid less than 20 percent. And — brace yourself — a few actually paid nothing.

This outrage points to the necessity for more than a simple revision in upper-end tax rates, though that’s the place to start. I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so.

Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.

It is simple enough in theory, but does anybody think it’ll fly with Congress? Seriously doubt it. Especially when the House is still under GOP control.

Still, there have been signs that Republicans are willing to work on this and ignore the Norquist pledge. But they’ve said that income tax rates can’t be touched. Revenue must come from other sources. Is that a sign that they’ll agree to up the payroll tax and hike the capital gains tax?

At this point, I’m not really sure what we’re going to be seeing with regards to a grand bargain, but I like Buffet’s plan.

What do you think?

Digg This! Stumble It! Add to Mixx! Share on Facebook Discuss on Newsvine Add to del.icio.us


November 26th, 2012 | Permalink| 45 Comments »

VIDEO: Republicans Condemn Romney’s “Gifts” Comment

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Republicans, Romney, Video

Well, it didn’t take long for Mitt to put his foot in his mouth yet again and make him seem completely out of step with where the rest of the country is.

First, let’s listen to what he said…

I like how when Obama gives people money…they’re gifts. When Mitt gives people money…it’s sound economic policy.

I believe Governor Bobby Jindal was the first Republican to come out and say these comments were not smart. Here’s that interview…

Next, former RNC chairman Michael Steele calls the comments stupid…

Last, Senator Kelly Ayotte has a softer rebuke…

Digg This! Stumble It! Add to Mixx! Share on Facebook Discuss on Newsvine Add to del.icio.us


November 15th, 2012 | Permalink| 5 Comments »

VIDEO: Lee Atwater Interview About Racist Southern Strategy In 1981

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Republicans, Video

Obviously we never condone the use of racial slurs, but the following clip illustrates how craven the Republican strategy has been with regards to securing the white southern vote. In other words, get ready for a string of N-word references.

You can listen to the full audio over at The Nation, and they provide more context…

The back-story goes like this. In 1981, Atwater, after a decade as South Carolina’s most effective Republican operative, was working in Ronald Reagan’s White House when he was interviewed by Alexander Lamis, a political scientist at Case Western Reserve University. Lamis published the interview without using Atwater’s name in his 1984 book The Two-Party South. Fifteen years later—and eight years after Atwater passed away from cancer—Lamis republished the interview in another book using Atwater’s name. For seven years no one paid much attention. Then the New York Times’ Bob Herbert, a bit of an Atwater obsessive, quoted it in an October 6, 2005 column—then five more times over the next four years.

Those words soon became legend—quoted in both screeds (The GOP-Haters Handbook, 2007) and scholarship (Corey Robin’s 2011 classic work of political theory, The Reactionary Mind). Google Books records its use in ten books published so far this year alone. Curious about the remarks’ context, Carter, who learned Lamis had died in 2012, asked his widow if she would consider releasing the audio of the interview, especially in light of the use of race-baiting dog-whistles (lies about Obama ending work requirements for welfare; “jokes” about his supposed Kenyan provenance) in the Romney presidential campaign. Renée Lamis, an Obama donor, agreed that very same night. For one thing she was “upset,” Carter told me, that “for some time, conservatives believed [her] husband made up the Atwater interview.” For another, she was eager to illustrate that her husband’s use of the Atwater quote was scholarly, not political.

It’s shocking to hear it so plainly spoken, but there it is.

By the way, if you ever want to know how ruthless Atwater was, it’s detailed in the fantastic documentary Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story. The parts with Michael Dukakis are particularly telling as to how Atwater could dismantle somebody’s entire political life with little more than outright lies shrouded in specious attack ads.

Digg This! Stumble It! Add to Mixx! Share on Facebook Discuss on Newsvine Add to del.icio.us


November 13th, 2012 | Permalink| 2 Comments »

Having An Affair With David Petraeus? Writing A Book About Him?

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Books, Comedy, Military

Don’t have this be the title…

I’m just saying…

Here’s some background from Air Force Times about what’s in her book and how it’s climbing the charts on Amazon…

Broadwell wrote in the preface to “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” published by Penguin in January, that while at Harvard, Petraeus passed along his card and offered to help her academic work on leadership. The book’s ranking on Amazon.com jumped from 76,792 on Friday to 111 by midday Saturday.

“I later discovered that he was famous for this type of mentoring and networking, especially with aspiring soldier-scholars,” Broadwell wrote, adding that “I took full advantage of his open-door policy to seek insight and share perspectives.”

As you know, we don’t write about the politics of personal destruction very often here at Donklephant, but when we do…it’s hilarious.

You’re welcome.

Digg This! Stumble It! Add to Mixx! Share on Facebook Discuss on Newsvine Add to del.icio.us


November 11th, 2012 | Permalink| 1 Comment »

Electoral Math Looks Grim For Republicans In 2016 & Beyond

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Democrats, Elections, Electoral College, Republicans

So Nate Silver is out with some more numbers today that prove how clueless the Republicans were with regards to the electoral college.

Know why?

Because Ohio isn’t the state that swung it for Obama. It was Colorado. And he took at that state by nearly 5%.

The state after that? Virginia, which he easily won by 3%.

True, Ohio and Florida were close, but that was electoral gravy.

Here are the numbers…

And here’s what’s truly scary for Republicans…

Based on a preliminary analysis of the returns, Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College. [...]

Had the popular vote been a tie – assuming that the margin in each state shifted uniformly – he would still have won re-election with 285 electoral votes, carrying Colorado and Virginia, although losing Florida and Ohio.

That’s a serious shift…and the country isn’t going to get LESS diverse. And with Obama’s GOTV machine being praised as quite possibly the best in political history, the Dems have a serious advantage going into the next election.

So, Repubs are going to have to do some serious reinvention otherwise they’re going to have a tough time in the coming years. And the Tea Party movement isn’t paving the way for success.

Digg This! Stumble It! Add to Mixx! Share on Facebook Discuss on Newsvine Add to del.icio.us


November 8th, 2012 | Permalink| 8 Comments »

Will Republicans Learn From The Romney/Kerry Problem?

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Democrats, Obama, Romney

Disclaimer: I’m going to brag a little bit.

I predicted that Romney was the John Kerry of the Republican party in October 2011…

Do know I think Romney will take it and ultimately lose because he’s the John Kerry of the Republican party…only less politically successful…but it’s an interesting trend nonetheless.

And, in a separate post in January of this year, I outlined the similarities…

And how about between 2004 and 2012? Although this time it’s not a comparison between the GOPers, but between Mitt Romney and John Kerry.

  • Massachusetts politician
  • Super wealthy
  • Base isn’t excited about him
  • Is seen as a flip-flopper
  • Voted for or implemented key policy of opponent. For Kerry it was the Iraq war. For Romney it’s mandated health care.
  • Running as the “Anybody But” candidate

Why am I bringing this up? Just want to brag? Of course…not.

No, but here’s the thing…Republicans in 2012 fell into the same trap that Democrats did in 2004. They nominated a guy who was stiff, cold and didn’t stand for much. And Dems did that TWICE. First with Gore in 2000 and then on to Kerry. But then they got wise. Yes, they could have nominated establishment Hillary in 2008…but they didn’t. They went with the wild card. And they have now won big twice.

So…here’s another prediction I’m willing to make. The Republicans are going to make the same mistake in 2016. The name on everybody’s lips right now is Jeb Bush…and barring any craziness…I’m almost certain he will run. He has a much more progressive outlook on immigration reform so he can court the Hispanic vote and he passed a series of health care and tort reforms in Florida that will make the conservative base swoon. Nobody else is in a position like him. But he’s going to lose.

No, he’s no Al Gore or John Kerry. He’s not bloodless. But he’s not exactly charismatic either. Here’s his 2012 RNC speech.

Basically, he won’t be bringing anything new to the table. Republicans need somebody who they can be passionate about. And I’m betting that in 4 years time our economy will be in a much better place and Obama will have passed a number of moderate policy initiatives that neutralize anything that Jeb would want to do to appear more moderate.

So who is the guy? Marco Rubio. He’ll be 45 in 2016 and he has the energy and passion to get the Republicans fired up again. His speech at RNC 2012 was fantastic and it certainly mirrored the response Obama got in 2004. He would have an obvious appeal to the growing Latino base and he has Tea Party bonafides…without coming off as stringent or cloying.

Now, I suppose Jeb Bush could get nominated and pick Rubio as his Veep. Jeb is already on the record as saying Rubio is ready. But that would feel like Biden getting the nomination and having Obama riding shotgun. Just doesn’t excite the collective imagination.

Republicans, you have been warned.

Digg This! Stumble It! Add to Mixx! Share on Facebook Discuss on Newsvine Add to del.icio.us


November 8th, 2012 | Permalink| 12 Comments »

Obama Won. So Did Nate Silver.

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Obama, Polls, Romney

While I wasn’t expecting such a sweeping victory, one guy was: Nate Silver.

His Five Thirty Eight blog was a must read throughout the campaign and his projections consistently showed a very likely Obama win. Romney never really came close to defeating Obama in the numbers game except for the week immediately after the first debate. That’s it. And all the while Silver had Obama at above 300 electoral college votes when pundits were calling him a hack.

I recently had a conversation with a VERY conservative friend of mine about reading the polling tea leaves. My friend insisted something big was happening and Romney would win a sweeping victory. I asked him why he thought that. He pointed to a Gallup poll and another general election poll. After seeing how accurate Silver was in 2008, I became a fan, so I told him I thought that wasn’t the best analysis and pointed to Five Thirty Eight. He dismissed it because Silver started out doing his projections for Daily Kos and he was most certainly dolling out partisan projections. I cautioned him to not think that just because Silver is a Dem that he’d be slanting his analysis. After all, if he’s wrong then he’s done. And Silver is a young guy. He has a lot more career in front of him.

Well, guess what? Silver nailed it to the wall. 50 out of 50 states right. Yes, votes still need to get counted in Florida, but it’s very likely that will go for Obama. Who else got that right? Well, most likely a lot of poll aggregators got a majority of the projections right…but all 50? Impressive. Well done Nate

Now…on to the 2014 midterms!

Digg This! Stumble It! Add to Mixx! Share on Facebook Discuss on Newsvine Add to del.icio.us


November 7th, 2012 | Permalink| 2 Comments »

Obama Leads In Majority Of National Polls

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Obama, Polls, Romney

Nate Silver pulls together the new national numbers…

So this definitely puts a wrinkle in the Romney narrative about winning the popular vote, but not the electoral. Of course that was a silly notion to begin with, but I’ve been seeing it all over Facebook and Twitter, as I’m sure you have too.

Okay, so what does Silver’s model have Obama vs. Romney ending up with on popular vote percentages? 50.5% vs. 48.5% respectively. Not a huge spread, and not like the 52.9% vs. 45.7% clock-cleaning Obama delivered against McCain. But let’s take a walk down memory lane and revisit Bush vs. Kerry…

What was the popular vote spread? 50.7% vs 48.3%.

And that was an election where people thought that the Dem turnout would be much higher than the Repub turnout given that Dems were angry with Bush. But Bush had a superior ground game…and Obama has proven he has a pretty damn good one too. Also, Kerry wasn’t compelling…and neither is Romney. And both were branded as flip-floppers…and both are Massachusetts politicians.

Long story short, the parallels are pronounced in this election cycle, but we’ll see what shakes out on Tuesday.

Digg This! Stumble It! Add to Mixx! Share on Facebook Discuss on Newsvine Add to del.icio.us


November 4th, 2012 | Permalink| 6 Comments »

Ohio Floods

By donar | Related entries in Political Graffiti

Digg This! Stumble It! Add to Mixx! Share on Facebook Discuss on Newsvine Add to del.icio.us


October 31st, 2012 | Permalink| 3 Comments »