The Economic and Political Consequences of an inadequate stimulus

Krugman:

What we do know is that the inadequacy of the stimulus has been a political catastrophe. Yes, things are better than they would have been without the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: the unemployment rate would probably be close to 12 percent right now if the administration hadn’t passed its plan. But voters respond to facts, not counterfactuals, and the perception is that the administration’s policies have failed.

The tragedy here is that if voters do turn on Democrats, they will in effect be voting to make things even worse.

The resurgent Republicans have learned nothing from the economic crisis, except that doing everything they can to undermine Mr. Obama is a winning political strategy. Tax cuts and deregulation are still the alpha and omega of their economic vision.

What the Democrats are up against, part 2:

More here.

What the Democrats are up against:

Review of "Unequal Democracy"

My review of Larry Bartels' Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age.

The Effects of the Citizens United Ruling, phase I

Back in January, when Scott Brown was elected as the junior Senator from Massachusetts, Democrats were handed a defeat that would prove to be a giant thorn in their sides, as passing anything out of the Senate become much more complicated. The day after Brown's election, another event, however, was deemed--by myself and many others--as a much deeper long-term blow to Democratic electoral prospects: The Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which has opened a floodgate of undisclosed corporate-funded ads that attack Democratic candidates and support Republicans:

In 1907, direct corporate donations to candidates were legally barred in a campaign finance reform push by President Theodore Roosevelt. But that law and others — the foundation for many Watergate convictions — are all but obsolete. This is why many supporters of strict campaign finance laws are wringing their hands.

Certainly, it is still illegal for corporations to contribute directly to candidates. But they now have equally potent ways to exert their influence. This election year is the first since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allows corporations for the first time to finance ads that directly support or oppose political candidates. And tax laws and loopholes have permitted a shadow campaign network of Republican-leaning nonprofit groups to collect a flood of anonymous donations and spend it widely.

If the Republicans make big gains in the House and Senate on Election Day, there is rare bipartisan consensus that they will owe part of their victory to the millions of dollars raised and spent by these nonprofit groups, much of which has come from businesses.

The groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, the American Action Network and Crossroads GPS, which is linked to the Republican strategist Karl Rove, have committed to spending well over $150 million this year. President Obama has railed against these groups as they have poured money into races in which once-secure Democrats are hanging by a thread.

Tea and Crumpets

Three excellent articles--each with a slightly different angle--on the phenomenon known as the Tea Party Movement:

Kevin Drum, writing for Mother Jones: Tea Party: Old Whine in New Bottles

Matt Taibbi, writing for Rolling Stone magazine: How Corporate Interests and Republican Insiders built the Tea Party

Mark Lilla, writing for The New York Review of Books: The Tea Party Jacobins

Libertarianism