Some people don’t like that I’m so hard on the New Democrats. I don’t want to over state it, but there is a reason: they have been destroying the nation for two decades! So now we find Robert Rubin ranting on about “financial discipline.” On the pages of the Financial Times he tells us, Sound Government Finances Will Promote Recovery. He thinks he is threading the needle. More or less he is saying, “We don’t have to make a choice between job creation and economic austerity because economic austerity will create jobs!” This is a funny attempt to thread the needle give that this is exactly the argument that those calling for economic austerity have always made. I’m afraid Rubin has missed the eye of the needle by quite a ways.

As I discussed last year in, Alberto Alesina Wasn’t Right, the idea of “expansionary austerity” has been shown to be a cruel joke. Alesina argued that if businesses saw that governments were balancing their budgets, they would decide that the future looked bright and start spending. This is, of course, a supply side story of how the economy works. By this way of thinking, what drives the economy is the supply of goods rather than the demand for goods. It doesn’t work that way at all. Even a child should see, businesses create the products that they believe their customers will want. Thus, if a business owner sees that most of his customers are unemployed and have very little money, he will not hire more people to produce more products that his customers won’t buy.

But I’m not an economist, so let’s hear what a great economist has to say about the rubbish that Rubin is shoveling. Brad DeLong wrote, Department of “Huh”?!: Where is the Arithmetic in Robert Rubin’s Financial Times Piece?[1] So DeLong provides the math and it turns out that stimulus is a great idea and austerity is not:

Of course, I have an answer to DeLong’s question. There is no math in Rubin’s op-ed because austerity is a matter of faith, not economics. When business owners are asked why they aren’t hiring, they say it is lack of demand for their goods. It isn’t that they think the government is going backrupt. It isn’t that they are concerned about “regulations” (although I’ll admit with all the right wing propaganda, a lot of businesses are unnecessarily worried about Obamacare). It is that they don’t have the customers and cutting spending will—Are you ready to be shocked?!—make the situation worse.

For four and a half years, Robert Rubin was Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. And as such, he was the architect of Clinton’s strong dollar policy. I understand that people who don’t know much about economics immediately think, “But don’t we want a strong dollar?” And the answer is, “Yes! If you don’t want a job!” A strong dollar is great for people who already have lots of money. It means they can buy imports very cheaply. But it also means that our exports are very expensive. Thus, other countries don’t buy as many of them. Thus, fewer Americans are employed. When you hear “strong dollar” just think “gift for the rich from the poor.”

This is a great example of why our government is so messed up. The Democrats are supposed to be liberal. But the last two Democratic Presidents and the current one are all economically conservative. This is why the Republican Party has stopped being conservative and is now radical. Given that the Democratic elites have taken over all the old conservative economic policies (and in many cases made them even more conservative), what are the Republicans to do? Truly, I don’t know what their options were, but the one they picked was, “Go crazy!”

So we are left with a country where even conservative voters are to the left of the Democrats on economic issues. Yes, I still think we must vote for the Democrats. If the party wins presidential election after presidential election and controls huge majorities in Congress, the party will move to the left on economic issues. But the Democrats are currently not much of a choice. If you only care about gay marriage, then the Democrats are not bad. If you care about abortion rights, then the Democrats are pretty good. If you care about birth control, the Democrats are very good. But if you care about anyone who might exercise those rights having a decent job, then the Democrats are really quite bad. And Robert Rubin’s career and recent op-ed proves that.

[1] DeLong is a great economist, ’tis true. As a writer, not so much. That should have been, “Huh?!” Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

You’ve probably heard of the George Washington Bridge closure story. Even though it was a small story, it was too delicious for liberals. What it looked like was that henchmen of Chris Christie caused a huge traffic jam in Fort Lee because it’s Democratic mayor endorsed Barbara Buono rather than Christie. Now it has been shown that as improbable as it sounded, this is exactly what happened.

Before I get into this, I want to state again that the Democratic Party (in New Jersey especially) acted unconscionably. When this story first broke, I think a lot of people thought, “Didn’t all the Democratic mayors endorse the Democratic candidate for governor?” And the answer is, “No. The elected Democrats of New Jersey showed exceptional disloyalty even by Democratic standards.”

I didn’t pay a lot of attention to this story. I was sorry for the people of Fort Lee, but it was not an especially important story—especially on the national level. But I did notice something interesting about the reactions. On the left, there were a lot of people who really wanted it to be true. First, Christie is a bully and this story played right into that narrative. What’s more, he had just won an election that he didn’t deserve to. The people of New Jersey should have rejected him powerfully given that he stands for pretty much everything they are against. And there was a certain sense in which it served as a good lesson to the people of New Jersey coming right after the election.

But the more common reaction, even on the left was skepticism. I heard more than one person say, “Why would he do it?” That really struck me because that is exactly what the Foreign Editor says in All the President’s Men about Watergate. The arguments were even the same: Christie (Nixon) was way ahead of Buono (McGovern). It just didn’t make sense.

I was of two minds about this. First, they were right: it didn’t make sense. Second, many other things that Christie did during the campaign didn’t make sense either. For example, why have the Senate election a couple of weeks before the general election? That wasn’t going to make Buono win. That was done just to add a couple of percentage points onto his election win. What I think it mostly means is that Christie has created effectively a kind of criminal enterprise in the State of New Jersey, just as Nixon had nationally.

Jonathan Chait wrote a good column this morning, Chris Christie 2016: A Bridge to Nowhere. He argues that whatever chance Christie had to run for president in 2016 is now gone. And Chait has long agreed with me that Christie had little real chance. My problem always was that the whole “New Jersey asshole” act that northeasterners seem to love, does not play well elsewhere. This scandal just feeds into it. It used to be that he seemed a lot like Tony Soprano (just not as nice). Now it seems he is Tony Soprano. And the fact that he didn’t have to be directly involved in this petty act of political retribution only makes the image stick more.

But the real reason that this kills Christie’s presidential dreams is that reporters are now going to go crazy looking into every scandal the man has ever been involved in. If Christie’s people were willing to go after a small town (Less than 40,000 population!) mayor for the sin of sticking by his own party, what would they all not be capable of.

The ultimate resolution to this would be that Christie would be forced to step down as governor. And then, Obama could nominate him to run the Department of Transportation. That’s a joke of course. There is no way Christie will be forced to step down. But the part about Obama putting him in charge of Transportation is exactly the kind of thing that Obama would do. Remember: Democrats aren’t loyal. After all, the Democratic president did not endorse Barbara Buono. What a great opportunity for Obama to polish his bipartisan credential even more.

Larry J. Sabato is a political scientist with a long history of accurately predicting the outcomes of elections. He hasn’t done such a good job during the last two election cycles, so of course, now he’s writing for Politico. He just published, Republicans Really Could Win it All This Year. That’s a pretty stupid title when you consider a few things. First, they obviously can’t win the presidency. Second, they already have the House of Representatives, and no one really expects them to lose it. And third, everyone knows that that the Republicans might take control of the Senate. That’s why I recently argued in Don’t Cry for the Democrats that even if they lose the Senate in 2014, they will almost certainly get it back in 2016. What Sabato should have titled his article is, “Republicans Really Could Win the Senate This Year.” It would have been a boring title, but it would have the advantage of being accurate and just as boring as the article itself.

Sabato claims that there are three things that really matter for the 2014 elections. First, is presidential approval. His argument is that presidential approval often hurts congressional candidates of his party. But not always. He also makes the totally unsubstantiated claim that it is just as likely that Obama’s approval rating will fall as that it will climb. I don’t see that at all. Obama is not Bush the Younger. I think he’s gotten about as unpopular as he can possibly get. What’s more, his current unpopularity is mostly due to the bad Obamacare roll-out, and that is definitely on the mend. Now, I don’t see Obama’s approval rating going way up, but I do expect it to get somewhat better over the next ten months.

The second important issue is the economy. File this one under “Sherlock, No Shit.” Still, he spends only two paragraphs on the subject. Mostly, he uses it to make an incoherent argument that a bad economy will be good for the Republicans but a good economy will not help the Democrats. He concludes with a perfect example of statement that says nothing but appears to, “So even if the economy continues to improve, Obama and the Democrats might not reap an electoral benefit.” That’s right, if the economy is booming, it might not help the Democrats. Alternately, if the economy is booming, it might help the Democrats. In other words: Sabato has nothing to say on the subject.

The final issue can also be filed under “Sherlock, No Shit”: the electoral playing field. This is what everyone is talking about and is the basis of, Don’t Cry for the Democrats: there are a lot more Democrats up for re-election than there are Republicans. There are 21 Democrats up and only 14 Republicans. But in 2012, there were 23 Democrats versus 10 Republicans and the Democrats managed to gain two seats. What’s more, the Democrats can lose 5 seats and still maintain control of the Senate.

Sabato ends his column with nothing more than a bunch of speculation, stated as though it is proof:

Basically, all he’s got here is that the 2014 election will be a wash in the House and the Republicans have a decent chance of taking over the Senate with a slim majority. This is exactly what I’ve been saying for at least the last year. But let me put a positive spin on what Sabato wrote:

In other words: Larry Sabato has added nothing of value to the discussion of the 2014 election.

Afterword

I want to be very clear here. My point is that Sabato is adding nothing to the discussion and that he seems to be cheer leading for the GOP. His conclusions are pretty much the same as mine in, The Next Three Election Cycles. That conclusion is that the Republicans will do slightly better than the Democrats but that mostly it will be a wash. But the way that Sabato puts it, it is that it is going to be a great year for the Republicans. It could be, just as it could be a great year for the Democrats. But the information he provides points to a wash. He seems to be pushing back against a groundswell of pundits saying that the Democrats are going to do well in 2014. No one is saying that.

The Senate managed to overcome a filibuster because a whole six Republicans voted to allow formal debate on a bill that would provide extended unemployment benefits for another three months. Wow. What an amazing show of empathy and compassion from the party that hugs the Bible so close to its chest. Only 37 Republicans (Just 86%!) of those present voted not to allow debate about extend unemployment insurance. This is what we call a triumph of bipartisanship!

Of course, it basically means nothing. The Senate has passed a lot of stuff in the past that hasn’t gone anywhere. John Harwood laid out the current situation:

I know he’s serious because Harwood is not a jokester. To me, it would have been clear enough to tweet, “Boehner aide: despite Senate procedural vote, unemployment benefits extension likely to go to the House of Representatives.” Under the control the modern Republican Party, that is nowhere. You know the old song:

For some reason, Jonathan Chait is sounding very optimistic this morning, How Democrats Can Force Republicans to Help the Unemployed. His basic idea is to tell the Republicans that unless they pass the unemployment extension, they will scuttle the Farm Bill. I don’t think that will work, but Chait is certainly right when he says, “Agriculture subsidies are a huge, bloated entitlement that shouldn’t exist at all on the merits, but Republicans like them because they benefit rich white people.” Again: wow. I didn’t think Chait was willing to come right out and speak the truth on that matter.

He also brought up an issue that is very aggravating to us liberals:

This is all quite true, but it is also the kind of thing that liberals tell each other. Conservatives tell themselves something different, “Well, the deficit wasn’t so bad back then. Anyway, we’ve learned our lesson!” This is total crap, but I think it is important for liberals to understand that this is what conservatives are thinking. It can be easily destroyed with a little history. When Reagan was running for president, one of his biggest complaints was our out of control spending. Once he was in office, he ballooned the deficit in unprecedented ways. Once Clinton was in office, the budget again became a big deal. But then once it was actually balanced, the Republicans claimed that that was a bad thing. Still, deficits mattered, but surpluses were no good. So Bush got rid of the surpluses and then some and then some more. It was, after all, under Bush that we got our first trillion dollar deficit. Under Obama, that deficit has nearly been cut in half. But today, all the Republicans claim that Bush was wrong. Again, while a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans have learned their lesson: budget deficits are bad. So any claim by Republicans that this time is different and that they aren’t like old Republicans is just bunk.

Of course, Chait is only talking about the past. If the Democrats offered up a huge tax cut for the rich, the Republicans would not be concerned about adding “to the deficit in an irresponsible way.” If it was an unnecessary war with Iran, there would be no budgetary concerns. In fact, it wouldn’t matter what the money was spent on, as long as it ultimately went to the rich. This is why Republicans continue to push the totally refuted claim that “tax cuts pay for themselves.”

The reason that Republicans scream “class warfare” every time income inequality is brought up by liberals is that the Republican Party really is engaged in a class war. This is why last year at this time they had no problem getting rid of the highly progressive payroll tax holiday, but fought to the end to stop taxes going up a couple of percentage points on the rich. The problem with hopeful articles like Chait’s is that liberals tend to underestimate just how much the Republicans hate the poor. Sure, they want to give money to rich white farmers. But they don’t want to do it as much as they want to take money away from the poor, who I assume they always image as black.

But Chait could be right. I hope that he is. But recent history has shown that you can’t “triangulate” Republicans. They are determined to hurt the poor and (just as important) stop Obama from getting anything he wants.