The Commentariat -- December 5

Randeep Ramesh of the Guardian: "Income inequality among working-age people has risen faster in Britain than in any other rich nation since the mid-1970s owing to the rise of a financial services elite who through education and marriage have concentrated wealth into the hands of a tiny minority, according to a new report by the OECD. Economists from the thinktank, which is funded by developed world taxpayers, say the annual average income in the UK of the top 10% in 2008 was just under £55,000, about 12 times higher than that of the bottom 10%, who had an average income of £4,700.... However, the report makes clear that even in countries viewed as 'fairer' – such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden – this pay gap between rich and poor is expanding: from five to one in the 1980s to six to one today. In the rising powers of Brazil, Russia, India and China the ratio is an alarming 50 to one." ...

... A One Percenter Speaks. Nick Hanauer in Bloomberg News: "I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software.... Even so, I’ve never been a 'job creator.' I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.... So let’s give a break to the true job creators. Let’s tax the rich like we once did and use that money to spur growth by putting purchasing power back in the hands of the middle class. And let’s remember that capitalists without customers are out of business." ...

     ... Rick Hertzberg comments: "Is it too 'partisan' to point out that the Obama Administration and most congressional Democrats want to do all these things? That they want infrastructure spending; aid to the states; and a slightly higher marginal-income tax rate on millionaires to finance the above plus extended unemployment relief and a cut in the payroll tax, which is a direct tax on jobs — and, therefore, on job creation? And does it show insufficient fealty to the 'sensible center' to note that congressional Republicans and the Republican Presidential candidates are essentially unanimous in their opposition to all these things?"

Paul Krugman: "And all indications are that [in their 2012 election coverage] the press will ... act as stenographers and refuse to tell readers and listeners when candidates lie. Because to do otherwise when the parties aren’t equally at fault — and they won’t be — would be 'biased'." CW: Krugman points out a PolitiFact error, about which I've written to PolitiFact -- no word yet.

CW: Scott Lemieux of Lawyers, Guns & Money elaborates on a point I made on Off Times Square the other day (although I wasn't aware this was a purposeful, oft-repeated practice): "... the Senate ... decided to punt on the question of whether the executive can arbitrarily and indefinitely detain American citizens simply by declaring them terrorists. While dismaying, this is part of an ongoing pattern many political scientists (including yours truly) have identified: legislators deliberately putting contested issues into the courts. Issues like the constitutionality of arbitrary detention end up in the courts not because the judiciary is 'usurping' legislative power but because that’s how legislative majorities want it." ...

... Here's Charlie Savage's underlying story, which is as helpful as it can be under the circumstance that Senators don't agree on WTF they voted for. As Lemieux writes, let the Supremes decide. ...

... Ray McGovern, in a TruthOut essay: "Conflicting legal interpretations of the bill are now more about whether military detentions would be mandatory or would the president still retain some discretion. In sum, the wording appears to create a parallel military justice system that, theoretically, we are all subject to. All that would be needed is an allegation by someone that we assisted someone who in some way assisted someone else in some way. An actual terrorist act would not be needed – and neither would a trial by one’s peers as guaranteed by the Constitution to determine actual 'guilt.'” Should you be worried? Sounds like it. Thanks to Valerie L.T. for the link.

Karen Garcia writes an excellent summary post on the issue of policing the Occupy movement. We've linked most of the articles Garcia pulls together in her post, but if you've missed them, do link through. The apparently coordinated police brutality targeting Occupy protesters, many of them young people, and the militaristic tactics U.S. police departments are employing today, are eating the republic alive.

Right Wing World

Dylan Byers of Politico: "Mitt Romney's vulnerabilities as a candidate are well known, yet a seemingly new one surfaced last week: his unusual brittleness in the face of media questions. With one prickly interview with Fox’s Bret Baier on Tuesday — in which the candidate appeared uncomfortable and even angry fielding basic questions about his record — the former Massachusetts governor set off a round of speculation about his ability to operate outside hermetically sealed campaign events, reminding both his rivals and the media of the extreme lengths to which he has gone to evade the national press."

One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff. -- Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader

E. J. Dionne: "A party that lived by the tea crowd in 2010 is being severely hobbled by it now." ...

... Paul Krugman: "... whoever finally gets the Republican nomination will be a deeply flawed candidate. And these flaws won’t be an accident...; the fact that the party is committed to demonstrably false beliefs means that only fakers or the befuddled can get through the selection process." ...

... This GOP Candidate Will Say Anything. Remember, this is the best food stamp president in history. So more Americans today get food stamps than before. And we now give it away as cash -- you don't get food stamps. You get a credit card, and the credit card can be used for anything. We have people who take their food stamp money and use it to go to Hawaii. They give food stamps now to millionaires because, after all, don't you want to be compassionate? -- Newt Gingrich ...

... Each of Gingrich’s claims about food stamps is so ridiculous -- especially for a self-styled policy wonk -- that we wondered whether he was really intending to be serious.... But the transcript makes it sound like he wasn’t joking, so we’ll assume he wasn’t. For being so ridiculously wrong in so many ways, we rate his statement Pants on Fire. -- PolitiFact

The Congressional Budget Office is a reactionary socialist institution which does not believe in economic growth, does not believe in innovation and does not believe in data that it has not internally generated. -- Newt Gingrich ...

... ** Mr. Gingrich's charge is completely nonsense. -- Bruce Bartlett, New York Times

Al Hunt in the New York Times: Newt Gingrich's "personal past is messier than most. He is on his third marriage, and he left his first two wives when they were in poor health and while he was having affairs. Also, his version of events is replete with gaps and changing and contradictory stories; both of his two former wives have questioned his moral character." Will values voters give him a pass? ...

... Adam Hochschild in a New York Times op-ed: Newt Gingrich's doctoral dissertation wasn't racist; but it was a pile of crap.

Dafna Linzer of ProPublica: GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann & former Minnesota Sen. Norm Colman (R) both pressed for a pardon for a "reformed" ex-con who had become a "good Christian" and made lots of charitable donations -- like to Bachmann's & Coleman's campaigns -- even as said good Christian was allegedly running a big ole Ponzi scheme. Bachmann & Coleman have withdrawn their support for the guy.

Andy Borowitz publishes Herman Cain's farewell letter. Last words:

And that leads me to my final point: you disgust me, America. Right now if I had my way, I’d up and move to another country. I really, truly would. Only I don’t know where any of them are, and my wife won’t let me leave the house.

News Ledes

President Obama on extending the middle-class tax cut. Happily, he whacks Republican obstructionists:

New York Times: J. Randolph Babbitt, "the head of the Federal Aviation Administration, has been placed on leave after he was arrested over the weekend in Virginia on a drunken driving charge."

Politico: "President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are on a collision course with Republicans over extending a payroll tax break that expires at year’s end, with both sides pushing new proposals that diverge dramatically over how to pay for the tax cut."

New York Times: "European leaders are working overtime on a tentative deal to try to save the euro, which they hope to complete at a crucial summit meeting in Brussels this week. But rather than one transformative leap, the deal will have several moving parts, together meant to show resolve to protect Italy and Spain, revise the economic governance of the euro zone and prevent further debt crises, officials involved in the talks say."

Guardian: "The high court has paved the way for the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to pursue his case against extradition to Sweden in the supreme court. Two judges ruled that his case raised a question 'of general public importance' that should be decided by the highest court in the land 'as quickly as possible'."

New York Times: "A day after parliamentary elections delivered steep losses to United Russia, the party led by Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, Western monitors said the vote was marred by limited political competition, ballot box stuffing, and use of government resources for the party’s benefit."

We Are Amused. ABC News: "Queen Elizabeth II will see six consecutive years of frozen pay, as new austerity measures in the U.K. have cut funding for the royal household. Taxpayer funding for royal travel and royal palaces has also been put on the chopping block, so British taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for Prince William and Kate Middleton’s travels and security. The tab for the duke and duchess of Cambridge’s expenses will now be picked up by Prince Charles. The new measures also will lead to fewer royal parties and events, and no repairs for the royal palaces.... The move is the latest by Parliament to cut the U.K.’s major deficit problem."