Third Way’s First 100 Days: Retirement Security Edition
As we’ve clarified, speaking as ever purely for myself and not as an institutional position of CAP/AF, Third Way’s First 100 Days agenda strikes me as pretty weak tea. For starter’s here’s their retirement security agenda:
Rebuild retirement wealth
- Federal 401(k) match. Provide federal matching funds to 401(k) and IRA contributions, up to $1,000 per worker per year.
- Temporary tax exemption for 401(k) withdrawals. Provide a temporary exemption from federal income taxes for the first $15,000 in 401(k) withdrawals for seniors who are withdrawing from their accounts.
- Streamlined consolidation of 401(k) accounts. Nearly half of all workers who switch jobs cash out their 401(k)s. Create a streamlined, automatic roll-over process for workers with multiple 401(k) accounts or who are switching jobs to avoid the problem of “cash out.”
- Federal 401(k) contribution insurance. For most workers today, a 401(k) account is the centerpiece of their retirement security and savings. Yet
workers approaching retirement are unprotected from having their investments decimated by market shocks. Create an entity modeled after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that would protect the principal contributed to workers’ 401(k) accounts until a worker retires.
The consolidations thing seems like a fine idea, although “create a streamlined, automatic roll-over process” is more of a placeholder than an actual policy. And I’m not sure I fully understand the 401(k) insurance proposal — how could it be modeled on the FDIC? 401(k)s don’t, as far as I’m aware, suffer from “runs” in the same way that bank deposits do. And a guarantee of this sort seems like it could create a substantial moral hazard problem in a way that’s not really true of bank deposits. It’s conceivable that this is a good idea, though, but you’d want to know more details — details that don’t seem to be available.
Federal matching funds for 401(k) and IRA contributions seems like a pretty ill-considered idea. In the short run, if this succeeded in boosting short-term savings rates it would have a contractionary impact on the economy and make things worse. In the long run, the idea of federal matches to boost savings has some merit, but this is an odd way of implementing it. In particular, it would be pretty regressive — an additional subsidy for families already sufficiently well-off to be saving money that does nothing for the economically struggling. CAP has, by contrast, proposed a Universal 401(k) approach that seeks to target aid to the neediest (for whom Third Way would do nothing) while not extending additional help to the wealthiest Americans.
104 Responses to “Third Way’s First 100 Days: Retirement Security Edition”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Hooray! Wherever you are, Matt, Jennifer’s come around to your way of thinking!
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 am
Well, that’s one way of addressing that elephant….
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 am
Dude. Duuuuuuuuuude. This is preposterous. Is Third Way paying you on a per post basis now?
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 am
Wherein Matt skull f*cks a Third Way policy position.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 am
Fair enough but “pretty weak tea” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it as “hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit”.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 am
Seriously, though… Third Way doesn’t even have a team in the think tank softball league.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
Why isn’t Social Security mentioned anywhere? Seems to me that the biggest Retirement Security program in the U.S could be helpful in assuring…retirement security.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Is this actually Yglesias posting, or is it Jennifer Palmieri, CEO of Center for American Progress?
In either case, why should we trust anything coming from CAP any more?
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Listen. Seriously. You are embarrassing yourself in a really profound way by not transparently addressing what happened with the Palmieri post. I don’t know what you are thinking, but your credibility is really, really taking on water. You need to lower your shields and talk about it. C’mon Matt — be bigger than this. People noticed.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:51 am
Commenters: Address the elephant in the room.
MY: In general, elephants are large and grey.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am
This has all the makings of a good slap fight.
Seriously, Matt, it’s time to say what’s really going on.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am
Anyone else reminded of Jonathan Martin when they read a Lord Yglesias piece? Seriously I think those two have about the same credibility right now.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Matt, this entire blog has been ruined by Jennifer’s post. I think the only option is to go back to TAP and start all over again.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Isn’t there an issue with 401(k) as the bedrock for retirement neither plan resolves? I lost a majority of my 401k in the last year – employee matching, tax waivers, etc would have given me slightly more money to lose, but wouldn’t have really redressed the fundamental problems that lead to so much retirement loss.
Great first sentence, too.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am
“As we’ve clarified …” We?
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Criticizing Obama and the Democratic Party? This is outrageous. What is Jennifer doing?
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Have a care, sir: You may be on double-secret probation.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Tell us how you feel about their transportation proposals…
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Um, in this comment (#37) “Yglesias” says he’s agreed not to mention Third Way any more. Was that not Matt commenting?
The situation is at best confusing, and this blog is effectively broken until Matt addresses the issue head-on in a dedicated post.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Oops, my bad, he criticizes Third Way. This is even more outrageous. Jennifer, where are you?
(But good for you Matt, screw them)
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Matt, do you have any insight into what’s up with the TW/CAP Homeland Security presidential transition report? I can’t object to the idea that, of course, an incoming president needs to be prepared to handle any terrorist attack, should one occur. But the emphasis on upping the public profile of Homeland Security, and the recommendation that Obama start inserting Homeland Security references into all of his speeches put me off a bit. Not so sure I love the idea of combining Homeland Security functions with NSC function either. And I find it a bit – dare I say it? – creepy that this effort at promoting the agency and its efforts is coming at the same time as ABC is coming out with a new Cops-like reality show based on the Homeland Security Department, especially the border-enforcement missions thereof.
It’s enough to set off a fellow’s paranoid conspiracy meter. I was hoping that with the Obama administration we might get an end to the domestic fear regime created by Bush. Then I read that report. I continue to wonder if DHS is a department that should never have been created.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
The next time somebody serves me a cup of weak tea, I’ll accuse them of hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Seriously — it’s always been the case that my blog’s views aren’t institutional positions of CAP or CAPAF. Today is a day like any other.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
if Matt doesn’t address this controversy, I will never know who really listens to the sucky music he posts here
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
The Jennifer Palmieri meme is already tired (and dammit, I missed the whole thing by being offline yesterday.)
What’s Matt supposed to do, anyway? If he addresses it directly, he’s basically telling his boss in public to f*ck off. If he doesn’t address it, every single thread here is going to be spammed with comments calling him a milquetoast.
Commenters, may I suggest you give Matt a break? Kos, DeLong, Greenwald and John Cole have all weighed in on their blogs on the topic. The point has been made.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Shouldn’t this post be accompanied by a disclosure statement that Third Way is a partner of the Center for American Progress?
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Soooo…are we going to address the bizarre post yesterday? Or just pretend it didn’t happen? Was the number of comments on that post indicative of something you should react to? (Hint: the answer to the last question was yes)
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Oh c’mon, you guys really think Matt’s gonna outright bitch about CAP? Like Ben Smith pointed out, the Center isn’t just a think tank any more; it’s linked with the Obama transition.
As for the issue at hand, I agree with StevenAttewell. We should be more concerned with more accessible retirement protection. Maybe I should read that CAP proposal. I bet it’s not hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Matt, you are a whore for Third Way!
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
This blog isn’t being ruined because some idiot CEO did a stupid post and then Matt continued criticizing Third Way.
It’s being ruined by ridiculously whiny, melodramatic commenters who have apparently decided that “editors can be intrusive, short-sighted, and stupid” is a fact that was just revealed yesterday and must be discussed at length.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Matt, it’s a step in the right direction, but address the what, how and why of Jennifer Palmieri’s post.
You really know that you’ll have too anyway. Seriously we know you got screwed over here, and that you are in a bind cause the last thing you want is to pick a fight with your (acting) boss. But ignoring this will further the damage she did to your blog and lessen the value of this blog to capaf. You’re not to blame for this and it’s unfortunately that you’re the one that has to solve it. But you know it needs to be addressed.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Careful Matt, you don’t want to piss off The Third Way or you might end up with a horses head in your bed.
As far as this marketing buzzword release… “Streamlined consolidation of 401(k) accounts.”
I got a better idea. How about letting me invest my 401k with the investment advisor of MY CHOICE!?
Then I’d have freedom to work for anybody, and the only criteria would be how much their match is. Not whether they use Fidelity or Principal.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“As we’ve clarified, speaking as ever purely for myself and not as an institutional position of CAP/AF . . .”
Hold on Matt, I need to get a bigger bullshit meter.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
jennifer always says Third Way or the highway
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Seriously — it’s always been the case that my blog’s views aren’t institutional positions of CAP or CAPAF. Today is a day like any other.
On most days, your boss doesn’t commandeer your blog to make that point. If it was CAP’s view that a clarification of the relationship between your blog and CAP, and an encouraging word for the Third Way, absolutely must be posted in your blog, why didn’t you carry the message yourself?
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
What’s going on here is pretty obvious: Matt doesn’t like that Third Way demanded the editorial wrist-slap that appeared on his blog, but doesn’t want to directly criticize his boss. So, having covered CAP’s ass with the previous post, he is now going to make a project of picking on Third Way with special relish. What is it people want Matt to address here, exactly?
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
(But good for you Matt, screw them)
Um. This post should not get him off the hook – #10 is spot on.
Someone who, at the least, does a good job pretending to be Matt Yglesias, has posted a comment with the following ludicrous< explanation:
I had been mistaken about certain of Third Way’s policies and practices, and Jennifer Palmieri dealt with the situation in a timely and appropriate manner while I was away.
But, of course, Matt didn’t make any concrete factual claims and Jennifer didn’t refute any. Jennifer obviously screwed up, or her actions wouldn’t have dissolved Matt’s comment section and become the blogosphere’s topic of the day. This crap is insulting to our intelligence.
Matt needs to make a front page post where he explains what happened, what CAP’s editorial policies are, what he’s learned from the experience and what we can and cannot expect in the future in the way of corrections and in the way of criticism of CAP’s allies. Of course, I have no ability nor right to issue commands. But as it is, Matt’s non-response to this mess is rapidly becoming more damaging to his & his employers’ credibility than CAP’s boneheaded initial action.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Don’t assume that people commenting in the comment section are Matt Yglesias.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
…create a streamlined, automatic roll-over process” is more of a placeholder than an actual policy.
Funny. I’ve always wanted the government to do something along these lines. Your 401K belongs to you, the worker, but it always has seemed a bit of a clunky program — too heavily controlled by your employer — and the biggest problem for this is lack of choice (i.e, you’ve got to use your employer’s investment manager). Would be much better to simply have 401K accounts fully under the control of each worker. When you get a new job, there would be no need to fill out forms to get your cash released. You’d simply sign up with your new HR to have deductions (and the match if they’re offering anything) deposited directly into your 401k. Other than that no employer involvement. The Third Way is AWESOME!
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
This is like when my girlfriend broke up with me, and I decided to address the issue by writing a long blog post detailing why her favorite band sucks.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
At first this post left me wanting, and it still does in a way. But, in thinking about it more, I like it. Matt calls out Third Way’s hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit, and Jennifer Palmieri says “Matt does not speak for CAP, and we think Third Way is top notch.” Matt simply responds by giving a concrete example of Third Way’s hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit. It was a nice slap down in a passive aggressive sort of way.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
What is it people want Matt to address here, exactly?
If this blog is to retain much of its credibility, its readers need to know who is writing it, and under what constraints. This does not require Matt to denounce his boss, only to explain what happened, and what CAP’s policies are. Matt is apparently attempting to demonstrate in practice that he is allowed to criticize Third Way, without responding directly. That’s not good enough – it doesn’t allow us to be sure that we know enough about the source of the words we’re reading to accurately judge how to take them. The issue is essentially the same, on a smaller scale, as when the TV networks run retired generals with continuing Pentagon and defense contractor ties as “independent analysts”, and is no better addressed by posts like this than the issue of the generals is solved by pointing to a criticism or two one has made of the conduct of the war.
There’s an additional imperative for front-page clarification now that we have people named “Matthew Yglesias”, “Yglesias”, and “myglesias” running around the comment section offering various more-or-less offensive explanations of their own.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Matt… yooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooure FIRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Now that this is several hours old, can we pronounce the whole thing dead-and-buried? You blog in someone’s institutional space, you say what you want, and at arbitrary moments the institutional voice is roused to remind readers that you don’t always represent the institution. It’s clumsy, but it’s nothing horrible.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
One thing that makes today not like any other, it’s the day that Jennifer Palmieri jumped in to disagree with a post about Third Way — in particular, a post in which you spoke of their “hyper-timid incremental bullshit”.
Her post had the ring of someone with an interest to protect, all damage control mode and carefully worded PR statement. It was the kind of thing that tends to get blog readers’ radar switched on. Because it makes you wonder what’s so important about Third Way to provoke such a reaction, and to what extent CAP intends to defend Third Way on its blog platforms in the future.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
@49:
Uh, Matt? We need to talk.
It’s about your trust fund…
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
@46:
Screw you, Jennifer. My trust fund is more than sufficient to live off the interest until I find another job.
It’s been safely invested with one of the most highly regarded financial planners in New York. I forget his name…
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Today is a day like any other.
No, it’s the day you had your balls cut off in public and didn’t say anything about it.
I don’t read this blog anyway, so I don’t really give a fuck. But it sets a bad precedent.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Look, I attack Matt all the time for his numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. But this whole “ohmigodhehasnocredibility” whining is a bit much. So the TP CEO wrote a moronic post. So what?
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Kal at #45 is right.
The comment by Jennifer Palmieri was an disastrous screw up because it creates real questions about under what restrictions MY is working.
Having your boss commandeer your blog to deliver a message that runs counter your own is kinda a big deal, and deserves an explanation as to why. Of course explaining why this happened is something that Jennifer Palmieri herself should have done when she posted her entry and all would’ve been avoided but we already established that she’s truly incompetent at this.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I’m Spartacus!
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
How about heavily taxing short-term capital gains to encourage people to hang on to stocks for longer?
Also, how about addressing things directly rather than obliquely?
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation you guys are creating for Matt, don’t you think, guys? I hate this whole business, and it could have been handled much better– but it seems like some people think the only thing worse than Matt not criticizing Third Way is Matt criticizing Third Way.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Yeah, I’m not exactly clear on the “FDIC” idea. Most 401(k)s offer the ability to buy treasuries, right? I mean I know my retirement program (which is not technically a 401(k)) has a “bond fund” which is based on treasuries and supposedly safe corporate bonds. That fund hasn’t lost any value this year, and has actually gone up 2%.
But a government guarantee of principle would result in people investing in the craziest nonsense, knowing they’d never lose their principle. My employer matches twice what I put in (although my portfolio lost about a third of it’s value) so it wouldn’t affect me too much.
But for people who only get matched half or not much at all, this would be like being able to go into a casino and be guaranteed to walk out with at least 80% of what you went in with.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Time. To. Leave.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I think it’s safe to assume Matt is not going to pull an Ackerman.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Guys, seriously, Matt just called me on my cell phone and asked you all to stay on topic. He tried saying something in the comments, but people couldn’t be sure it was him. And then he thought about posting on the front page, but Jen’s refreshing that puppy like cold lemonade on a hot day.
So it falls to me, southpaw, acting CEO of the Timid Bloggers Union to address this issue on his behalf. Matt, obviously, is embarrassed by the whole thing, but he likes his paycheck and its a down economy and he’s tired of moving this mother- to a new url every seven days. So, stiff upper lip and all that is the policy going forward. That’s the word; you heard it here first . . .
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
“Federal matching funds for 401(k) and IRA contributions seems like a pretty ill-considered idea”
TW’s plan – “Federal 401(k) match. Provide federal matching funds to 401(k) and IRA contributions, up to $1,000 per worker per year.
“CAP has, by contrast, proposed a Universal 401(k) approach that seeks to target aid to the neediest (for whom Third Way would do nothing) while not extending additional help to the wealthiest Americans.”
CAP’s plan -
“Generous $2-to-$1 government matching contributions for initial savings of low-income families and $1-to-$1 matches for middle-income families. By targeting new incentives to those families having the hardest time saving, the Universal 401(k) would be designed to leverage new private savings.”
Considering ‘the rich’ contribute 4k-5k to their IRA’s and 12-15K (or more) to their 401K’s per year, a 1000 buck cap means that these plans aren’t all that much different (except the 2-1 at the low end).
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
401K’s are a great way to force people to invest in the stock market. I don’t know a single person that has actually made money off their 401K. they are a sham.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Ah, what the hell. Pull an Ackerman! New year, new blog! That’s the rule, right?
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Dare I say that the Third Way’s retirement stuff seems as needlessly complicated and “market-driven” as the Cato Institute’s plan for Social Security Privatization. If you want to ensure that the government perpetually needs to bailout assholes on Wall Street, one way would be to put a lot of government money in service of their highly leveraged positions. Let’s open the floodgates of credit, and pray really, really hard that nothing bad happens! That seems to be the Third Way’s position, which is pretty similar to the Cato Institute’s position.
Details, however, may vary to make the whole thing seem more amendable to left-wingers than right-wingers and vice versa. But I think my point stands.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Those were policy positions up there? I thought it was a laundry list of topics designed to afford no controversy at your office holiday party.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Interested parties should know that Ms. Palmieri is currently taking phone calls and faxes at the following numbers:
Center for American Progress
202-682-1611
Fax: 202-682-1867
One might call her and ask her if Matt was notified if she was gonna bigfoot prior to her actually bigfooting.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
If you haven’t already figured that out, you’re somewhat clueless.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Well played, MY. Thank you for more info on an organization I’m more interested in learning about due to some CEO.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
i’m very confused. does this mean that matt is speaking for cap now? or maybe cap is speaking for matt? i just can’t sem to grasp how names and opinions and ownsership of ideas work. could someone please, please clarify for me????
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
“As we’ve clarified, speaking as ever purely for myself and not as an institutional position of CAP/AF”
Yah, like we can tell the difference between the real thing and faux-self-effacing-sock-puppetry.
And yes, there IS reason to doubt.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Matt, I hope you’re job-hunting actively. TAP is no longer worthy of you — or of our support, for that matter. I am not interested in facilitating Dame Palmieri’s return to insider-hack status.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Pathetic. Matt, grow some.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
“We” have been assimilated into the Borg. Resistance is futile. We love Big Brother.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Clear something up for me, please, fellow commenters. It looks to me like Matt called the Third Way “hyper-incrementalist bullshit”, and a few posts later, his editor made the unprecedented move of posting personally to disclaim his opinions – in other words, reiterating well-known policy. However, I think I’ve also seen people calling this Orwellian, as if Matt had had a post but it was removed and replaced by that disclaimer. I haven’t been able to find any evidence of that one way or the other.
So, which is it? Is it just the disclaimer, which creates an appearance of impropriety, or did something go down the memory hole?
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
NOOOOOOO!!! Matthew, no! How could you ever say such things? I think you have irreparably damaged the progressive movement with these shockingly antagonistic comments. For shame.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
What’s weak tea is your inability to address the obvious issue of editorial control of your blog, which is the topic du jour of every other political blog on the Internet except for this one.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
@Aristedes:
If you haven’t already figured that out, you’re somewhat clueless.
Ok. So I’m clueless, and you’re not. I guess you can help me, then. Is Matt allowed to call “bullshit” on CAP’s friends? Or can he only say “weak tea”? Will he get an unpleasant talking-to each time he does? What has he not written here at CAP that he might have if he were still at the Atlantic, or what will he not write? On which subjects should we discount Matt’s writing because it is biased by the needs of his employers’ realpolitik? Which of the various bullshit explanations provided in comments by persons pretending to be Matt were really from Matt, and which were not?
Maybe the answers are “yes”, “no”, “no”, “nothing”, “none”, and “none”. But then, why doesn’t Matt just say so? We would be silly to simply take him at his word, but it would give us better reason not to dismiss his future writing as smarter-than-average propaganda than his current silence.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Have these people heard of Social Security? This plan sounds like welfare for the well off. Give money to people who make enough to save money. Get employers off the hook for matching funds, or quadruple the savings if your employer matches.
I have a better plan: remove the cutoff in FUTA taxes, then most people who have money to save won’t have it anymore. Social Security is everyone’s 401k.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
401Ks are idiotic. Yes great, require me to gamble some of my money every paycheck. We saw how good your super-safe modest return funds were doing eh?
C’mon Jennifer! A little bit more convincing in the future. Or are you Matt? Well I’m sure she’s got her hands around your throat. Maybe next time.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
If this blog is to retain much of its credibility, its readers need to know who is writing it, and under what constraints. This does not require Matt to denounce his boss, only to explain what happened, and what CAP’s policies are. Matt is apparently attempting to demonstrate in practice that he is allowed to criticize Third Way, without responding directly. That’s not good enough – it doesn’t allow us to be sure that we know enough about the source of the words we’re reading to accurately judge how to take them. The issue is essentially the same, on a smaller scale, as when the TV networks run retired generals with continuing Pentagon and defense contractor ties as “independent analysts”, and is no better addressed by posts like this than the issue of the generals is solved by pointing to a criticism or two one has made of the conduct of the war.
While a nice post explicitly addressing the whole thing might be nice, comparing this to fake generals on TV is a bit overboard.
The ham handed nature of Palmieri’s post really ought to tell you most of what you need to know. One of the very wrongest ways to handle the situation, certainly. But at least she identified herself (”This is Jennifer Palmieri…”).
I mean, surely everyone already knew the site is on CAPAF servers, right? And the editors have the technical ability to post anywhere? But it’s not as if she actually pretended to be Matt. OR erased the original post. And now there’s a front page post from Matt criticizing Third Way again.
None of this is very consistent with some attempt by CAPAF to muzzle Matt. It certainly doesn’t justify all the weird existential doubt about “who’s really writing these posts?”.
(I mean, would it have helped you guys figure out who’s who if the blog had a byline, and there had been a little “-jpalmieri” line at the end of that post? That’s pretty damn superficial.)
Anyway, sure, Matt could be pulling punches on things. Or maybe a super-secret team of CAP interns from Betelgeuse has been writing his posts all along. As always, its up to you to decide. But I don’t see how Palmieri’s dumb post is any evidence one way or the other.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Now that pretty much all the bloggers in Matt’s circuit have commented (negatively) on the Palmieri issue, is Matt going to be the only one who doesn’t say anything substantive? As such a prolific blogger, it would be strange not to comment about such a heavily discussed issue even if it didn’t concern him personally in the least.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
What a bunch of holier-than-thou pissy-pants comments on this blog. Look, Matt’s tendency to go libertarian as a solution to many of the country’s economic problems (when the exact opposite is required), and his earlier cavalier dimissal of the economic well-being of the industrial Midwest, pissed me off too. But I attribute to his being raised in an overprivileged bubble and young, not to his “journalistic integrity” (as is that phrase can be uttered anymore with a mordant chuckle) being compromised.
If anything, my perception of his integrity is strengthened by Palmierei’s ham-handed intervention on his blog. She is the one owing an explanation, not Matt.
Start your own blogs, or admit that the gratuitous slaps at Matt are getting tiresome. It reflects worse on you than it does on Matt.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Jesus Fucking Christ. I’ve never seen such a howling pack of heterosexual drama queens. No wonder Dick Cheney holds you in such contempt.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
They would never do this in Finland.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Re Matthew’s comment “401(k)s don’t, as far as I’m aware, suffer from “runs” in the same way that bank deposits do. ”
————-
That’s because people are too fucking stupid to realize what’s going on. Those life savings are in “before tax dollars ” –can be taxed as high as the government wants. They are also recorded in detail in government databases.
How the hell do you think the government plans on paying off the disasterous $11.3 Trillion debt run up by fiscal conservatives Ronald Reagan, George H BUsh, and George W Bush?
How will the Democrats make good on their promise of Social Security –essential to their survival — if they don’t ..er..Rob Peter to Pay Peter.
If any of you Sherlocks have two fucking brains cells to rub together, ask yourself why you would want to put your money into a gigantic trap.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
No, it’s more like:
Commenters: Address the elephant in the room.
MY: I have some more ivory for sale.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
It looks like brewmn is right. Or Don Williams. Since I haven’t had any response to my previous question, I assume the answer is the more innocuous one, that Palmieri just made a disclaimer and didn’t actually vanish anything – still, by all means, correct me if I’m wrong here – and, if so, this is ridiculous. Probably a thousand comments by now claiming that Matt’s boss’s caution reflects badly on him? Fine, call it tone-deaf and toadying or cowardice or careerism instead of mere caution; it’s still a huge reach to call it even remotely deceptive, let alone to lay the blame on Matt.
Also, all this talk about Matt’s balls on Palmieri’s desk? I think that criticism would have taken a different form if the boss had been named “James” rather than “Jennifer.” I’m just saying…
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Nothing was disappeared, Orwell made no appearance at any time. We just suffered a spasm of hyper-rude, drama queening that is hard to distinguish from what you’d hear at the Free Republic, which isn’t to say that there isn’t legitimate criticism to be made of how Palmieiri handled the situation, there is and nearly everyone has made it including myself, but a lot of these comments have been straight ridiculous and over the top (bringing a lot more than legitimate critique), which I guess is par for the course in any netroots environment, and always very amusing.
Matt, you should quit your job!
Matt, tell your boss to fuck off!
Matt, give her the finger!
Matt, fight back against the Orwellian overlords!
Matt, I will never read your blog again (even though I probably wasn’t to begin with)!
Matt, this is disturbing in a Terrorist Information Awareness or Guantamano way!
Matt, this is related to Cheney implying that Democratic lawmakers encouraged the detention program!
What?
Please, people need to reread Orwell, take their heads out of their asses, and then move on to a deeper and more subtle thinker like Aldous Huxley.
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
While a nice post explicitly addressing the whole thing might be nice, comparing this to fake generals on TV is a bit overboard.
I said, different scale, of course. Matt’s peccadilloes are less important, and important to the extent they are for a different reason – not because he has any significant policy influence, but because he’s supposed to be part of a progressive movement which ought to hold itself to a higher standard.
Anyway, sure, Matt could be pulling punches on things. Or maybe a super-secret team of CAP interns from Betelgeuse has been writing his posts all along.
We need to make a distinction between the jokes about the who’s really writing the posts, and the real underlying concern about the degree to which Matt’s writing is affected by the parochial interests of his employers.
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Also, all this talk about Matt’s balls on Palmieri’s desk? I think that criticism would have taken a different form if the boss had been named “James” rather than “Jennifer.” I’m just saying…
Good point. People need to cut that shit out.
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Matt can blog at half a dozen other places, no questions asked, after which no one will look at CAP’s crappy website again.
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Now Matt, this is more like you. Their agenda is weak. Plain simple. Period. No other way around. It’s just amazing Bush wins a narrow election and he’s out to blow away social security. Democrats win overwhelming victories and they have a very timid and soft agenda.
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Matt, I think this goes away when Jennifer/CAP posts a clear apology. CAP needs to do that otherwise no matter what you write people will get all meta on you. This has seriously affected your relationship with your readers. CAP’s too of course.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
We need to make a distinction between the jokes about the who’s really writing the posts, and the real underlying concern about the degree to which Matt’s writing is affected by the parochial interests of his employers.
OK. But I fail to see how Jennifer’s post is at all illuminating in this regard.
If you insist on drawing conclusions from it, the fact that she posted herself, and in a rather poorly thought out way, rather suggests the opposite of the conclusion most commenters seem to have drawn.
But really, what NEW information do we have here? Matt’s bosses/editors read his posts? I hope this wasn’t surprising. Matt’s bosses/editors can post to his blog? Again, nope. Matt’s position isn’t always the official CAPAF line? Not news, or reassuring if anything. So what is it?
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Matt’s bosses/editors read his posts? I hope this wasn’t surprising. Matt’s bosses/editors can post to his blog? Again, nope. Matt’s position isn’t always the official CAPAF line? Not news, or reassuring if anything. So what is it?
Well, the new information is that Matt’s bosses/editors at CAP are tone-deaf establishmentarians who will happily make themselves look like jackasses and Matt look like a tool in front of his readership in order to placate their centrist institutional buddies. Which isn’t exactly shocking – CAP is a Washington think tank, after all – but is unfortunate.
As I said in the newer thread, I think by responding Matt’s now done all he needs to.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
“Matt’s tendency to go libertarian as a solution to many of the country’s economic problems”
WTF? Since when? Do you even read this blog at all? Matt HATES libertarians (which is hard for him because he doesn’t even know what they are). And since when is hit advocacy for government intervention in the banking business the least bit “libertarian?”
Who are these idiots coming out of the woodwork to post here today?
Finally, to solve Matt’s problems, work for yourself, Matt. Dump these institutional clowns, host your own blog, and then you can become the wannabe pundit clown you’ve always wanted to be. You can piss on everybody’s shoes! That’s how you get big in the real world!
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Hi:
I work for a state government, and thus have a 457 account instead of a 401(k), but the rules are about the same.
Over the years I’ve deposited many thousands of dollars into my 457 account, especially when I hit 50 and could protect even more income from taxes. Saving $1,000 a payday only cost me $700 because of the tax break, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
And the investments were pretty good too, so my balance went up and up. Until lately. Now it goes down and down. Since I don’t have to use the money today, I can let the investments sit and see if they eventually recover their value.
But the point here is that the value of my 457 account is probably half what I put into it now, because of the crummy stock markets world wide. (One of my investments is a mutual fund that specializes in overseas stocks, it’s down too!). The insurance for 401s is talking about putting a floor in your account, so that you can’t lose the money you invested, just the growth you received while your investments prospered.
I like that idea, since I’d have multiple tens of thousands of dollars available for my retirement, which starts in 2 days!
But it’s too late for me, I’m screwed!
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Seems to me, the selection of Peter Orszag for director of OMB says that actual 401(K) changes will have a healthy dose of Behavioral Finance (opt-out instead of opt-in), and funny haircuts.
December 24th, 2008 at 4:01 am
401Ks are fucking stupid. People who have worked hard their whole lives, and have retired within the past couple of months have shit for savings because of the market they know nothing about. The Reason 3rd way wants to use 401Ks even more is because they are an organization of obscenely rich bankers, the vampires of this country. The average American does not remotely understand the stock market, or anything all these vampires do to play games and make billions without creating anything of value at all. Go lookup the board of directors of Third Way. They have nothing in common with average Americans, they wouldn’t tell you the time of day if you saw them outside their limos at the country club. All these Wall Street traders are making a killing off of the ignorant idiots who are in the market. People holding 401Ks are not making choices about their money, it is the people who sit on the board of trustees for Third Way who decide how to further enrich themselves by moving the public’s money in the 401Ks they control for you. 401K is a redistribution of wealth from workers to the Vampires – who create nothing of value. This is class warfare, and workers are losing.
BTW, Matt can’t say anything bad about his boss on the bosses website. That should be obvious to anybody who has ever had a job.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Prescription pills http://MyRxPill.com
March 1st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
cialis
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 am
buy viagra online
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:38 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Give please. There are no wise few. Every aristocracy that has ever existed has behaved, in all essential points, exactly like a small mob.
I am from Kiribati and too bad know English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Looking for cheap airline ticket? Stop!! We offer the cheapest flights, hotel rooms, rental cars and friendly online or call booking.”