December 25, 2008 8:13 PM

Fox News: "Historians Pretty Much Agree" That FDR Prolonged the Great Depression

I appeared on Fox News yesterday to discuss both the Blagojevich flap and the imminent economic recovery package from the Obama administration. You can watch the clip here. As you'll see, on that latter issue, Fox News is starting its campaign to stop Obama's big spending plan by stating - as assumed fact - that "historians pretty much agree" that Franklin Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression, and that therefore, Obama shouldn't try another New Deal.

When I say Fox News' assertion about historians is patently false, they literally laugh at me as if I've said something so clearly untrue, something Americans supposedly assume is so obviously stupid, that it's worthy of ridicule.

The Depression issue was brought up by conservative pundit Monica Crowley - not surprising since this is the conservative talking point du jour ever since the "center-right nation" meme started looking idiotic and ever since fringe-right-wing bloviator Amity Shlaes published her since-discredited book claiming FDR essentially created the Great Depression. Crowley supported her the "FDR ruined the country" meme with the very authoritative-sounding statement that "based on all kinds of studies and academic work done on the great depression" she knows that the New Deal's "massive government intervention prolonged the Great Depression."

Of course, she doesn't offer up a single study or "academic work" as any kind of proof, and yet, when I say her assertion is absurd, Fox News anchor Greg Jarrett starts laughing at me - as if my assertion that FDR's New Deal helped end the Great Depression is so fantastical as to prompt guffawing. Jarrett proceeds to state that historians "pretty much agree" that FDR prolonged the Great Depression, and resorts to insisting that he knows that's true because "it's in the books" - whatever the hell that means. Indeed, Fox wants us to believe that what was only very recently the deranged propaganda of a handful of conservative political pundits is now such a consensus opinion among historians that to say otherwise is to evoke laughter.

Now, it's true - back in 2004, two UCLA professors published a little-noticed report claiming the New Deal's government intervention prolonged the Great Depression. But that assertion has been subsequently eviscerated by, ya know, actual data.

Here's University of California historian Eric Rauchway:

For a start, New Deal intervention saved the banks. During Hoover's presidency, around 20 percent of American banks failed, and, without deposit insurance, one collapse prompted another as savers pulled their money out of the shaky system. When Roosevelt came into office, he ordered the banks closed and audited. A week later, authorities began reopening banks, and deposits returned to vaults.

Congress also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which, as economists Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz wrote, was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War." After the creation of the FDIC, bank failures almost entirely disappeared. New Dealers also recapitalized banks by buying about a billion dollars of preferred stock...

The most important thing to know about Roosevelt's economics is that, despite claims to the contrary, the economy recovered during the New Deal. During Roosevelt's first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent, with the exception of the recession year of 1937-1938...

Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms. In part, the jobs came from Washington, which directly employed as many as 3.6 million people to build roads, bridges, ports, airports, stadiums, and schools -- as well as, of course, to paint murals and stage plays. But new jobs also came from the private sector, where manufacturing work increased apace.

This basic fact is clear -- unless you quote only the unemployment rate for the recession year 1938 and count government employees hired under the New Deal as unemployed, which conservative commenters have taken to doing.

So, as Rauchway says, the hard data about bank closures, job creation and overall economic growth rates proves the regulations and spending of the New Deal helped end the Great Depression. In fact, Rauchway notes that the data actually suggests that the major, data-driven criticism of the New Deal is that it didn't spend enough money fast enough.

But, OK - let's say you want to cherry pick the unemployment numbers like a right-wing pundit. Let's say that, as Rauchway notes, you are a conservative dittohead totally comfortable dishonestly "quot[ing] only the unemployment rate for the recession year 1938 and count[ing] government employees hired under the New Deal as unemployed." Shouldn't you be blaming conservative ideology, and not New Deal-ism, for those numbers? After all, as Paul Krugman recently explained to a stunningly ignorant George Will on ABC News, 1937-1938 was the period Roosevelt dialed back the New Deal in the name of conservative demands that he stop spending:

By 1937 things were a lot better than they were in 1933. Then [FDR] was persuaded to balance the budget or try to and he raised taxes and cut spending and the economy went back down again and then it took an enormous public works program known as World War II to bring the economy out of the depression.

So with all of that data, let's go back to Fox News' main assertion: Is it really true that "historians pretty much agree" that the New Deal's government intervention prolonged the Great Depression? Of course not, as New York Times economics writer Daniel Gross says:

It was only with the passage of New Deal efforts--the SEC, the FDIC, the FSLIC--that the mechanisms of private capital began to kick back into gear. Don't take it from me. Take it from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who wrote the following in Essays on the Great Depression: "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression."...

The argument that the New Deal's efforts "perhaps had prolonged, the Depression," is a canard. One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian--I mean a serious historian, not a think-tank wanker, not an economist, not a journalist--who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression. (emphasis added)

In other words, it's the opposite of what Fox News says. "Historians pretty much agree" on one thing when it comes to Roosevelt: The New Deal helped end the Great Depression. But I would go even further than that, and agree with economist Brad DeLong who said that whether you are a historian or not - to argue what Jarrett and Crowley argued yesterday is to publicly declare oneself as divorced from the facts as the most ridiculed conspiracy theorists. As DeLong says, "A normal person would not argue that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression."

But, then, these are not "normal people" - those making these arguments are right-wing automatons whose claim that we shouldn't look at actual data, we should simply accept the truth of their claims because they insist "it's in the books!" or they've supposedly seen "all kinds of studies and academic work" that proves their hysteria true.

Of course, the good news is what I said on Fox News before they cut me off: While the right's historical revisionism is dishonest, it's doing progressives a big favor.

If the right wants to try to stop a serious economic recovery package and financial regulations by trying to vilify one of the most popular presidents and popular policy programs in American history, then I'll say what George Bush once said: Bring it on. Every high school civics class teaches the broad truth about Roosevelt, the New Deal and how it helped end the Great Depression, and if the conservative movement has gone so off the deep end that they want to make crazy-sounding arguments that even high schoolers know are silly, then the progressive movement is in an even better position than we may have thought.

December 24, 2008 12:49 PM

Maddow Busts Morgan Stanley Board Member for Conflict of Interest

Obama, team lawyered up for inquiries
By: Carrie Budoff Brown and Kenneth P. Vogel
December 24, 2008 03:30 PM EST

It seemed like a typical day: a trip to the gym, back home for a shower, and then a press conference followed by a day in the Chicago transition office. But last Thursday President-elect Barack Obama was interviewed for two hours by two FBI agents and two federal prosecutors investigating charges that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich had tried to sell off the Senate seat Obama vacated after winning the presidency.

Obama's interview--and those with two of his top incoming White House lieutenants, Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett--only became public Tuesday, the day before Christmas Eve, when they were mentioned in passing in the transition's five-page report intended to demonstrate that no ethical or legal lines had been crossed in their dealings with Blagojevich. None of the three have yet spoken to the press about the investigation since the report's release.

While neither Obama nor any member of his transition team appear to be a target of the investigation, it's now nonetheless dominating time, energy and headlines for a third week, and new details have continued to emerge about the FBI interview with the soon-to-be most powerful man in the world, who had already emphatically declared that he "had no contact with the governor's office. I did not speak to the governor about these issues."

Obama was not under oath, but was represented in the FBI interview--as well as throughout the internal review--by Bob Bauer, the shrewdly pugnacious Washington super lawyer who represented Obama's campaign. Each of the four Obama associates referenced in the internal report also retained attorneys, although only Emanuel and Jarrett sat for interviews with U.S. attorneys and FBI agents.

Two days after the governor's arrest on Dec. 9, incoming White House counsel Greg Craig launched a formal internal inquiry that involved multiple interviews--first with the attorneys representing key figures, then with the figures themselves.

While the report disclosed little about its methodology, a transition aide said that Craig briefed the attorneys on the information he wanted. The attorneys returned to their clients to gather the information. And Craig followed up with personal interviews with Emanuel, Jarrett and senior adviser David Axelrod.

Craig did not speak directly to Eric Whitaker, but only with his attorney, the transition aide said.

Jarrett hired Vince J. Connelly, a partner in the Chicago office of Mayer Brown and former prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago.

Emanuel's attorney, W. Neil Eggleston, served as an associate White House counsel under President Bill Clinton. A Washington defense attorney at Debevois & Plimpton, Eggleston represented former White House Political Director Sara Taylor during the federal probe into the 2006 dismissals of federal prosecutors.

It is unclear who represented Axelrod and Whitaker. The report does not say, and transition sources said they did not know.

Bauer, a private attorney who will continue to represent the Obamas personally as well as on political matters, gained some renown during the campaign for his aggressive advocacy, including his ambush of a press conference call held by Hillary Clinton's rival campaign.

But he was less loquacious when Politico called him on his cell phone the day the Obama Team announced its internal review. Bauer hung up on the reporter, then punched subsequent calls straight through to voice mail.

December 22, 2008 12:27 PM

Viva Las Vegas?

The week before last, I traveled to Las Vegas for the annual Progressive States Network/EARN conference for state legislators. It was a great event - lots of terrific legislators are planning to do a lot of really progressive things in the upcoming legislative sessions. But as I say in my new newspaper column this week, I left struck by the city of Las Vegas itself - and specifically struck by how it is such a perfect symbol for the predicament our country now faces.

Vegas* is a monument to our nation's environmental and economic hubris - and gluttony. It is the product of our long-held "what me, worry?" attitude about things like energy and water, its lights helping make Nevada the fastest growing carbon emitter in the country, its desert location threatening the existence of Lake Mead.

Likewise, Vegas' central industry - gambling - represents both desperation and the root core of what crushed our economy in the first place. People come to Vegas hoping beyond hope that they can bet their way out of economic pressure, and that gambling impulse is what now guides our financial industry towards catastrophe.

But the thing is, Vegas isn't just limited to Vegas - Vegas as a concept is people everywhere wasting energy in their homes, buying gas guzzlers, using too much water spending too much on credit and betting too big with their 401(k)'s. And so the question, as I say in the column, is whether we as a country can mature beyond that Vegas attitude during this moment of crisis? Are we ready for all the lifestyle and public policy sacrifices that this new era will demand? I think we are, but it's going to take a radical societal and legislative shifts.

Read the whole column here. Not surprisingly, it has elicited some angry responses from people who live in Vegas - such as this one in the Los Angeles Times that refuses to concede even the most basic point about the problem of fast-growing population centers in the most ecologically unsustainable environment's possible. But that' sto be expected - and if the column generates debate, then that's a good thing.

The column relies on grassroots support, so if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.

* The best part about Vegas IMHO is that it is a major union success story in the service industry. While that doesn't negate my point about the entire concept and geography of Vegas, it is worth pointing out at this moment when the commentariat seems intent on bashing organized labor.

December 20, 2008 12:44 PM

Gov. Paterson Is Either Deliberately Deceptive Or Grossly Uninformed

Based on his interview last night with Bill Moyers on PBS, it's fair to conclude that New York Gov. David Paterson (D), who wants to raise taxes on working class people and shield the super wealthy from any income tax increase, is either lying or grossly uninformed. Here's what he said:

BILL MOYERS: You're not asking the wealthy to pay more in income taxes. And people are saying is that fair?

GOVERNOR DAVID PATERSON: I'm not ruling it out, Bill. What I have learned is that when you tax the wealthy in the downturn of an economy, you have an automatic link of a loss of job opportunities and then a loss of population. New York loses 150,000 people from its population every year, people moving to other states looking for greater opportunities.

BILL MOYERS: And lower taxes?

GOVERNOR DAVID PATERSON: And lower taxes. Lower property taxes and lower costs for food and for energy. What I'm afraid of is taxing the wealthy now, which in New York we're very fond of doing, still having a deficit, where are we going to go then? Tax the wealthy again? No. (emphasis added)

Paterson reiterated these comments in the New York Times today, telling the paper that increasing taxes on the rich should be "the last place you want to go, because it automatically kicks in less job creation and leads to people leaving the state."

In September 2008, Princeton University researchers looked at the claims Paterson is making, and concluded they are patently false.

Continue reading Gov. Paterson Is Either Deliberately Deceptive Or Grossly Uninformed

December 20, 2008 11:50 AM

We WERE Punked

Hale "Bonddad" Stewart at the Huffington Post counters the argument I made on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show this week and that I've been making in my columns and blog postings for the better part of the last three months. He says the American people weren't deceived on the Wall Street bailout; implies that handing over a trillion-dollar no-strings-attached blank check to the financial industry was perfectly appropriate; and explicitly states that "to say we were 'punked by Wall Street' flies in the face of every available fact on the crisis."

Oddly, Bonddad then goes on to prove - arguably better than anyone else to date - that we were, in fact, punked.

Continue reading We WERE Punked

December 18, 2008 11:19 AM

CO-SEN: Potential Huge Differences Between Candidates Have National Implications

Note: I'm going to be guest-hosting the big progressive drive-time radio show in Colorado starting this Friday (12/19) for a week. Tune in locally at AM760 on your dial between 6am-10am MST, or online at AM760.net. We'll be talking all about this potential appointment, and have some live interviews with some of the contenders (they are all being invited to come on the show). - D

The lobbying among Democratic politicos here in Colorado for Ken Salazar's soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat is fast and furious. The Denver Post's front-page story today goes through some of the candidates. Strangely, there's only passing mention of what could be the most important differences between them all - their stances on the huge national issues that will be toughest to get through the Senate: namely, health care reform and the Employee Free Choice Act.

Continue reading CO-SEN: Potential Huge Differences Between Candidates Have National Implications

December 18, 2008 7:29 AM

Kirk as USTR - Changeiness or Change?

News this morning is that former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk is going to be nominated U.S. Trade Representative, after fair-trader Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) dropped out. So does this appointment represent only changeiness or does it represent real change? Hard to say.

On the changeiness side is the Dallas Morning News report noting that labor leaders "aren't sure what to make" of Kirk on trade, and that as mayor, he was "considered an ally of business interests." Additionally, Kirk has been a corporate lobbyist for the tobacco, energy and transportation industries - all which have an interest in continuing the NAFTA trade model.

On the real change side, however, is Kirk's positions during is failed 2002 U.S. Senate run and his strong statement advocating for Obama on CNN in 2008.

The Nation's John Nichols noted in 2002 that "Rep. Ken Bentsen, a Houston Democrat who voted for the current Fast Track proposal when it came before the House last December, lost a March Democratic primary for an open U.S. Senate seat after his opponent, former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, said he would have opposed Fast Track." Likewise, during the Democratic primary when Hillary Clinton was trying to pretend she never advocated for NAFTA, Kirk appeared on CNN to advocate for Obama by explicitly touting the Illinois senator's commitment to fair trade. Kirk said, "We're never going to have a more responsible trade policy if we don't change the climate in Washington" (h/t The Custom House).

Thus, on balance, it's difficult to know what the Kirk nomination represents. I'd say it's clearly a less overtly progressive nomination than an explicit fair trader like Becerra, and, considering Kirk's business ties, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk ended up being the standard-issue corporate sycophant who has occupied the U.S. Trade Representative office for the last few decades.

Then again, there is reason to believe he could be a progressive and that implementing Obama's fair-trade campaign promises wouldn't be totally antithetical to his past positions/statements in support of "a more responsible trade policy." Granted, that's a nebulous phrase - corporate lobbyists, for instance, think a "more responsible trade policy" is one with more corporate protections and fewer protections for humans. Meanwhile, progressives think a "more responsible trade policy" is one that better prioritizes workers, the environment and the macro economy. I'm inclined to believe Kirk meant the latter, not the former, as he was advocating the candidacy of a guy campaigning as a progressive.

So, in short, it's difficult to state anything totally conclusive about the Kirk nomination. As the Texas AFL-CIO says today, "The jury's out."

December 17, 2008 12:27 PM

Maddow: Did America Get Punked On the Bailout? Yes...Now Here's What to Do.

I appeared on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show last night to discuss my latest newspaper column about the bailout. You can watch the clip here. Rachel's first question really is the question of our time: Did we get punked? As progressive bailout critics have been saying since the current Wall Street bailout was first proposed, the answer is yes.

As the Minneapolis Federal Reserve reports, the major claims about a credit crisis that justified Congress cutting a trillion-dollar blank check to Wall Street were demonstrably false. And new data and reports show they remain demonstrably false.

For instance, take a look at line 1 and line 5 of this December Federal Reserve report on bank lending. That's right - you see no significant decrease in lending, and in some cases, an increase. Interbank lending has dropped some, but certainly not at the crisis levels the Bush administration and banks claimed.

Then there's this story from the Wall Street Journal looking at a new study by the National Federation of Independent Business:

The report found that among small businesses "no "credit crunch" has appeared to date beyond the normal cyclical tightening of credit." The NFIB found that worries about interest rates and financing were a concern to only 3% of respondents...By and large, the story of the NFIB report was that if credit is going untapped, it's largely because company operators are not choosing to pursue the credit. It's not that companies can't get the extra money, it's that they don't want or need it because of the broader slowdown in economic activity. (emphasis added)

That last point is the big one: The real crisis is in the real economy - ya know, the real world of jobs, wages, health care premiums and pensions that Washington has totally ignored as it keeps writing checks to its well-heeled campaign contributors on Wall Street under the guise of a lending crisis. Adding insult to injury is the last thing I discussed with Rachel - the fact that because the bailout money came with almost no strings attached, the financial industry recipients of the taxpayer largesse are either hoarding the money, using it to pay shareholder dividends and executive bonuses, or devoting it to efforts to buy up smaller competitors.

So what to do?

First thing's first - we have to pressure, cajole, lambaste and downright humiliate Wall Street stooges on Capitol Hill who claim nothing can be done. These are people like New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D). The recent subject of a scathing New York Times profile examining his complicity in the financial crisis, Schumer insisted to the Wall Street Journal that despite Congress's clear power to reform - or even revoke - the bailout, "there's not much we can do other than jawbone." It's the old Innocent Bystander Fable, designed to make us think Congress can do nothing other than keep forking over the money to campaign contributors. And it's a straight-up lie.

Second, Congress can reject the Bush administration's request to release the next $350 billion installment of no-strings-attached bailout money for Wall Street, if that request happens.

Third, Congress can add all the strings and oversight measures to the remaining money that bailout critics originally said were necessary. That means eliminating gaping loopholes in the executive pay limits; preventing the money from subsidizing shareholder dividends, forcing the government to buy voting shares of bank stock (rather than non-voting stock as it is doing today) so that regulators have the leverage to clean out bad bank management; following Britain's lead in making the money contingent on increased lending; and expanding the ways the money can be used, so that it can be allocated to the real economy (ie. manufacturing companies, etc.).

Finally, Congress can allocate the unspent bailout money to a robust economic recovery package focused on job-creating infrastructure and health care priorities - and Congress can pass that economic recovery package right now, rather than waiting for the next president.

Looking at what's gone on in the last 3 months, we see a classic example of Naomi Klein's "shock doctrine" and subsequent disaster capitalism. Bailout critics were attacked as "irresponsible" by Establishment pundits and politicians - even though the data showed that those pundits and politicians were using an admittedly real problem to manufacture the perception of a full-on earth-shattering crisis so as to justify the biggest taxpayer heist in contemporary American history. And though that data was largely ignored by the same media that beat the drum for the bailout, it is now becoming too compelling to ignore.

As the real economy is ignored by Washington and as the government's own numbers expose the shameless dishonesty of the Beltway's bailout proponents, it's time for our leaders to listen to the real pragmatists who have been right all along.

Cross-posted from the Campaign for America's Future

December 17, 2008 7:35 AM

Becerra Turns Down USTR

This story from Bloomberg is too bad - but let's hope Obama selects another fair-trader for the position:

Representative Xavier Becerra, a California Democrat, said he turned down an offer by President- elect Barack Obama to be U.S. Trade Representative and will stay in Congress.

In an interview with La Opinion, a Spanish-language newspaper in his hometown of Los Angeles, Becerra said that he didn't want the job because trade was not a priority for Obama.

"My concern is how much weight this position would have had, and I reached the conclusion that it would not be a top priority, or even second or third priority," Becerra told the newspaper's editorial board.

That last part about the priority of trade is a bit disturbing, although it could mean that Obama passing new bilateral trade deals will not be a priority. Considering that bilateral trade deals have almost all been NAFTA-style in structure, not passing anymore of those would be progress.

December 16, 2008 10:50 AM

In a Recession, Should States Raise Taxes Or Slash Spending?

I appeared on Your World with Neil Cavuto yesterday to talk taxes. This follows my recent CNBC debate with Grover Norquist on the same issue just a few weeks ago. Cavuto, of course, was much less partisan than Norquist - and yesterday's conversation was pretty substantive.

The question of our discussion was whether states, facing deficits, should raise taxes? Cavuto voiced the standard line that raising taxes could hurt the economy. I countered by pointing out that states - unlike the federal government - are legally unable to go into deficit, and so the choice is not whether to raise taxes in a vacuum, but whether to raise taxes OR cut spending? Because at the state level, you have to do one or the other during deficit-inducing recessions. Faced with that choice, it's clear the better policy is the former, not the latter.

Continue reading In a Recession, Should States Raise Taxes Or Slash Spending?

December 16, 2008 9:26 AM

Executive Pay Packages: We Told You So, Part 4

My newspaper column this week looks at three new government reports that prove progressives were right in their criticism/predictions about the economy, and our Beltway Bailout artists were wrong - wildly wrong. But let me now add a fourth "we told you so" example to the pile - this one arguably the most frustrating of all.

Back in September when Congress was debating the bailout bill, I and others reported on the Treasury Department secretly reassuring Wall Street executives and analysts that the bill's supposedly tough executive compensation rules were written to be unenforceable.

The closest we got to traditional media coverage of this scandal was (oddly enough) Fox News on 10/1. The network noted my In These Times report, and then asked Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) about it (she replied "I don't know if it's true, I would be surprised" and then added that if it was true, "that would obviously hurt" the bailout bill's prospects in the House). But other than that Fox News report, Democratic politicians were allowed to blanket the radio and television airwaves insisting that they had really "improved" the bill by including tough executive compensation limits.

Now, months later, we get this front-page story in the Washington Post (which is a carbon copy of a November report from Bloomberg News):

Continue reading Executive Pay Packages: We Told You So, Part 4

December 15, 2008 8:08 AM

What's the Difference Between Corruption and Fundraising?

With the scandal around Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich still raging, some may be asking a simple question: What's the difference between corruption and fundraising? It's a question I had when I saw the front page of the Denver Post's business section on Sunday:

Notice the lefthand column. The first story is headlined "Power Player Boosts Profile" and looks at an invitation-only group of Big Money executives called "Colorado Concern" whose goal is "to shape public policy." The story reports that "facing $250,000 in campaign debts after winning the race to become Colorado's 41st governor, Democrat Bill Ritter turned to [the] group" for cash. This, we are told, is standard non-corrupt fundraising, and we are expected to believe that Ritter traded nothing at all - no legislative commitments, no promises, nothing - for a quarter million dollars from a Republican group whose goal is "to shape public policy."*

The story right below that one is a column by Al Lewis about Chicago corruption through the lens of Blagojevich trying to auction off a Senate appointment. He notes that "what many Americans indignantly call corruption is just business in the Windy City, named for the constant rush of air from its politicians," adding that "shakedowns, kickbacks, threats and extortion -- these are very harsh words for what many Illinois leaders, historically, have preferred to think of as just a highly deregulated market." But that's the thing - it's clearly not just Illinois. Run-of-the-mill, perfectly legal fundraising is a form of corruption, even if it can't get you sent to jail. And it happens everywhere, all the time.

Sure, what Blagojevich allegedly tried to do is outrageous - but the only thing he did that is truly different from others is get on the phone and make it so explicit. Indeed, the idea that his alleged attempt to sell a government favor (ie. a Senate appointment) is out of the ordinary is utterly preposterous. This is how our government works without public financing of elections.

And for every Blagojevich that becomes a poster-child for illegal activity, there are probably 50 examples of politicians doing things like this:

Rep. Gregory Meeks' decision to skip an auto industry bailout hearing to spend a weekend in Las Vegas won him few friends in the working-class Queens neighborhoods he represents. Folks in St. Albans were disgusted by the Daily News' report that Meeks ducked a Dec. 5 congressional hearing to check into the Bellagio hotel on the Strip for a fund-raising weekend...The News reported yesterday Meeks regularly uses funds from his campaigns and his political-action committee for trips to exotic locales - often in sunny climes in chilly months. Meeks spent $20,000 on a fund-raiser that included tickets to last February's Super Bowl in Phoenix, plus hotel rooms and "access to NFL parties."

The point here is that we can all tell ourselves that Blagojevich's behavior is an anomaly and focus in only on his individual behavior. But that would once again miss an opportunity to have a far more honest debate about a corrupt political system whose campaign finance process systemically encourages politicians to try to sell as many favors as possible to fatten their coffers for reelection. Until we fix that system, our government will be run by hundreds of slightly smarter Rod Blagojeviches - smarter in that they don't do their business on the phone.

* Note: I'm not saying Ritter did trade anything - all I'm saying is that it's kind of ridiculous that we're just expected to ASSUME nothing was traded, as if Big Money interests just shower politicians in cash in exchange for absolutely nothing.