Tag: Premium

David Graham doubts tonight’s speech will change much:

As expected, Obama didn’t offer many huge initiatives. But this was not a downcast president, nor—with a couple notable exceptions—was it a stern scold attacking Congress. Obama seemed energetic and ready for his “year of action.” Yet many of the policies he talked about tonight were exactly the same ones he mentioned last year. With midterm elections on the horizon, is he likely to make more progress in 2014 than he did in 2013?

Josh Marshall’s view:

[A]s much as anything he seems comfortable (perhaps in some way liberated) with the fact that the legislative phase of his presidency is most likely over and seemed to be announcing what we call its rhetorical phase, using the bully pulpit to point a path for the country to move forward, using executive authority to nudge it forward where he can but mainly leaving a Congress that refuses to function to its own devices.

Ponnuru thought it was forgettable:

It seemed like a laundry list of mostly dinky initiatives, and as such a return to Clinton’s style of State of the Union addresses. Those speeches got some bad reviews as oratory but were pretty popular and I suspect this one will go over well too. The speech gives the president the opportunity to present himself as a reasonable guy working hard for the American public, and he did an effective job of that. A few of the ideas in the speech may even be good ones: the “myRA” proposal, for example, seems like it’s worth considering. But nobody is going to remember this speech two days from now–with the exception of Obama’s very moving closing remarks about Sergeant First Class Cory Remsburg.

Drum liked the speech:

Before the speech, the big buzz was about how Obama was going to focus on executive powers. If Congress wouldn’t give him what he wanted, he’d do it himself with the stroke of a presidential pen. And thanks to that buzz, this is something that every talking head was emphasizing in the postgame wrap-ups. But in reality, there was very little of that in the speech itself. Obama repeatedly used phrases like “if Congress wants to help me, they can _____” but very few of them sounded to me like ultimatums. They sounded like pretty sincere desires to work with Congress, and I’m pretty sure that’s how they came across to viewers who listened to the speech without benefit of all the pre-speech framing. If there was an iron fist of executive orders behind this, it was mostly wrapped in a velvet glove.

Wilkinson weighs in:

This was the speech of a beaten-down president putting a brave face on his struggles. Mr Obama was zippy and upbeat, but the lack of an ambitious unifying vision and the vagueness of his proposals communicated the president’s resignation to his impotence in the face of the GOP’s unrelenting, stone-walling opposition. He’s not expecting much, and neither should we.

Jonah Goldberg calls it a “remarkably boring speech, intellectually and rhetorically”:

My general impression was this was a r. Not every idea was terrible. But no idea was particularly exciting, or all that significant. Because it lacked ambition, it was a far less offensive speech that I thought it would be. He soft-pedaled the inequality schtick, preferring instead to talk the more optimistic topic of “opportunity.” I thought this fell flat, at least in part because he tried to make it sound like the economy was going if not great, than really well. That’s a hard message to sell against the backdrop of Americans’ lived experience, not to mention the White House’s insistence that America desperately needs “emergency” extensions of unemployment payments etc.

Kilgore is more positive:

My general reaction was that this was kind of a minimalist version of one of those second-term Clinton SOTUs that covered a lot of ground and conveyed the sense that the president was snapping his fingers impatiently at the louts sitting down there on the other side of the aisle. I regret he didn’t hit the inequality theme a lot harder—profits sky-high, wages stagnant, long-term unemployed left behind—but he made for some uncomfortable moments for GOP solons on the UI and minimum-wage issues.

Yuval Levin’s take:

The fact is, the president and his agenda seemed exhausted in this speech. It’s not easy to remember any particular proposal or idea — except maybe another retirement savings vehicle, which might be fine, but the Treasury will probably have to work pretty hard to make it seem different than those that have long been available.

David Corn wanted more fireworks:

Obama barely called out Republicans in this speech; he did not exploit this high-profile moment to confront the obstructionist opposition. He delivered heartfelt anecdotes about Americans who need a raise or who rely on Obamacare. His tone was positive; his rhetoric was uplifting. He sought to move CEOs and citizens to action. But he did little to influence the political landscape.

Chait doesn’t blame Obama for not calling out the GOP:

Plumer lists seven actions Obama said he would take unilaterally. The one that has gotten the most attention:

Boost the minimum wage for federal contract workers to $10.10 per hour.This will be phased in slowly, starting in 2015 — the federal government will give preference to companies that pay workers higher wages. This could raise pay for some 200,000 workers, although it will only affect future federal contracts, not existing ones. See here for more details.

All told, it’s a relatively incremental step. Boosting the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, by contrast, would require an act of Congress. (And here’s an earlier look at why economists disagree so much on whether a higher minimum wage helps or hurts unemployment.)

Jordan Weissmann expects this to make little difference:

A mere 16,000 federal employees made the minimum wage or less in 2016, and according to The Wall Street Journal, it’s unclear how many of them were actually contractors. To tabulate the full effect of the hike, you’d have to know how many federal hands-for-hire earn less than $10.10 an hour, but the general point remains: This is a useful, but largely symbolic move.

Jonathan Cohn looks at other data:

A 2013 report from the think-tank Demos (where I used to be a fellow) found that nearly 2 million workers paid through federal contracts and other arrangements made less than $12 an hour. And a 2009 report from the Economic Policy Institute, based on 2006 data, found that about 400,000 workers for federal contractors had wages lower than $10 an hour. And that’s despite laws, like the Davis-Bacon Act, that require federal contractors to pay “prevailing wages” in their communities.

Philip Klein throws cold water:

Though the 2 million figure [from Demos] has been widely cited, it’s worth clarifying several points. To start, the 2 million estimate didn’t only include people who were employed through federal contracts, but also workers whose wages Demos estimated were funded through other federal spending, such as Small Business Administration loans, Medicare, and Medicaid. According to the Demos study, the number of workers who are employed directly through federal contracts was 560,000. A spokesman for Demos told the Washington Examiner that this is the category of people the group believes to be covered by the executive order.

But the number covered by the executive order would still be less than this 560,000.

One reason is that Obama’s executive order would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, which is lower than the $12 threshold used by Demos.

Drum wonders about the politics of the executive order:

On the one hand, public support for a higher minimum wage is very broad. On the other hand, this reinforces the widening gap between private sector workers and those who are paid (directly or indirectly) by taxpayer dollars. One side watches its wages stagnate and its standard of living drop, while its taxes are used to fund ever higher wages for the lucky few working for the government.

McArdle seizes on this point:

At a time of great economic insecurity, it’s not great politics to make government workers the “haves” of the labor market: paid above-market wages and shielded from the chronic risk of job loss that most of the rest of America faces. Oh, sure, this is true for everyone — professionals often have to take a pay cut to work for the government. But to the average person sweating it out through rounds of layoffs at a job they don’t like very much, government workers seem to have it very good by comparison.

Jay Richards is against the executive order:

In many parts of the U.S., such as the Washington, D.C., metro area, it would be tough to provide for a family of four with one full-time job that pays only $10.10 an hour. So why does the president not call for raising the minimum wage for all workers to, say, $50 an hour? Because such a policy would lead to massive and demonstrable unemployment among those whose labor is worth less than that. The fact that the president is calling for a minimum wage of only $10.10 an hour suggests that he understands these economic realities can’t be dissolved by executive order. The proposed wage hike would still harm the least-skilled workers, but at $10.10, that harm will be much harder to identify.

Ryan Avent looks at the mixed research on raising the minimum wage:

Under what assumptions can forcing a business to pay a higher wage be good for its business? The White House press release, which also cites the example of retailer Costco which pays well above the minimum wage, seems to invoke efficiency wage theory. This theory, which incoming Federal Reserve chairwoman Janet Yellen helped develop, suggests firms may pay above the market-clearing wage because to pay less would damage morale and productivity and raise turnover. This theory can certainly explain why some firms, such as Costco, sometimes choose to pay above the market wage. But it cannot justify forcing all firms to do so all the time. This would presume that numerous firms are systematically hurting themselves through their small-minded refusal to pay more. Sure, there are situations where people can be forced into doing something that makes them better off (wearing a seatbelt, getting vaccinated) but is it plausible that WalMart or McDonald’s know their own business so poorly that they are systematically hurting themselves by paying too little?

Finally, Christopher Flavelle notes that raising the minimum wage is a really low priority for the public:

So long as the public rates aiding the poor so low on Washington’s to-do list, Republicans will continue to calculate that blocking a higher minimum wage carries no significant political cost — even if a majority of Americans say they support raising the minimum wage.

David Graham expects Obama to go small tonight:

Don’t tune in looking for a sweeping vision for transforming America: The White House has been telegraphing that this speech will feature the familiar litany of policy proposals but few grand ideas. (If it’s anything else, the White House has faked the press out very effectively.) That’s a recognition of reality. As the death of gun control and immigration reform show, Obama can’t force his ideas through a Republican House, and he can’t rely on getting anything past a filibuster in the Senate, either. Add to that jittery lawmakers facing voters in November’s midterm elections and you get a recipe for smallbore ideas.

Kilgore dreads tonight’s speech:

This year’s SOTU will likely represent an agenda of items the president thinks he can accomplish on his own, perhaps with a shout-out to an immigration reform contingency that Republican feel compelled to entertain as a possibility, perhaps a defiant defense of the Affordable Care Act, perhaps the long-awaited peroration on inequality (though the latest buzz is that Obama will return to the less threatening language of “opportunity,” which suggests some extensive focus-grouping). The president will be subject to vast exercises in armchair psychology as his mood, his energy-level, his “resolve,” are evaluated by way of how he delivers a rehearsed prepared text.

Sargent explains Obama’s executive-action plan:

Scott Wilson has a must read on what’s really driving the new thinking. Short version: Obama advisers have concluded that he’s coming across as too much of a prisoner of the Congressional stalemate that has resulted from GOP obstructionism.

Resorting to executive authority is also about resetting the prism through which the American people evaluate the president’s performance and his engagement with them — by conveying a sense that he has a plan to move the country forward, and he’s acting on it.

John Dickerson goes into more detail:

The president and his team say he will take executive action on the environment and the economy, with a special emphasis on improving social mobility. This may require a smaller definition of action and promoting a longer timeline for results than administrations usually use. An aide described one of the president’s proposed actions as merely “starting a conversation.” Or, the president might simply try to cajole CEOs of private companies.

Sometimes the president will hope to just plant a program he hopes will grow in other administrations. Earlier this month the president announced the creation of a manufacturing hub in North Carolina to spur innovation. It’s a tiny version of a larger program he proposed in last year’s State of the Union address. It won’t have a big effect on the economy, but if the program succeeds perhaps it will create the appetite for developing it further in later administrations.

Ambers zooms out:

As much as Republicans are carping today about the president’s imperial power grab, which apparently consists of recess appointments and strongly worded missives, the importance attached to the State of the Union says as much about the evolution of the presidency as it does about the president in power. Our political culture does not really recognize three equal branches. Only one gets the opportunity to set an agenda. (The “response” doesn’t count. When was the last response that actually moved anything?) The SOTU is important to America as a ritual reminder of the president’s monarchic status, subordinated just that night to the power of the people, who invited him there, who keep him captive, just long enough for them to listen to him, shake his hand, and then send him off.

Pro-Life Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Will Deliver State of the Union Response Tonight http://t.co/wuNoF9S5Rs pic.twitter.com/Qs2aXKoGBm

— Steven Ertelt (@StevenErtelt) January 28, 2014

Alex Altman previews tonight’s GOP responses. The main event:

The official Republican response will be delivered by Washington Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House. A married mom of three, she is “proof that with humility, hard work and dedication, you can overcome any obstacle,” House Speaker John Boehner said. More important, she offers a visual and biographical counterpoint to Democrats’ charges that the party is inhospitable to women. McMorris Rodgers is a dull speaker, but she sticks to the script. For a party struggling with message discipline, that may be enough.

Nora Caplan-Bricker calls McMorris Rodgers the “the quintessential Republican counterpoint to the contraceptive-popping, In-Leaning feminist Democratic voter”:

Like her male colleagues, she has dismissed charges of a Republican war on women as a “myth” and a “war on reality.” But like the most popular women on the left, she has embraced gender as a defining part of her identity.

Colleagues expect her family to anchor her speech. “What better type of person than a mom, and the parent of a disabled child, to talk about what we as Americans want and need right now,” Congressman Pete Sessions, who co-founded the Congressional Down Syndrome Caucus with McMorris Rodgers, told me. “Whether it be the Affordable Care Act, or our ability to create jobs for our children, all these things are immediately on parents’, and especially moms’ wish lists. She’s personally impacted by the decisions that are made in Washington, D.C.”

Jonathan Riehl wonders whether shutdown crusader Mike Lee, who will deliver the Tea Party response, will be able to “rebrand the Tea Party image”:

Few Americans may actually watch Lee’s entire speech on Tuesday, which will be broadcast just after Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) delivers the official GOP State of the Union response. But the Tea Party faithful are likely to tune in, and that will drive activism from the moment Lee’s address ends until its sound bites show up in TV spots and fundraising letters. Rather than a hectoring Joe McCarthy-stand-in, viewers are likely to see an amiable Utahan, an average man who speaks with a heartfelt and moderate tone.

Pareene notes that Rand Paul will also be giving a response:

Rand Paul’s response won’t be on the networks, because Rand Paul’s audience isn’t everyone, and his intention isn’t necessarily to persuade the median voter. He will sit for cable news interviews after the speech, and hit up the Sunday show circuit a few days later, because he’s still campaigning for 2016 and needs as much free media as possible, but a YouTube response sent directly to people who already support Paul is mainly about energizing and expanding his list.

And that’s sort of the problem the Republican Party faces right now: For Paul, there’s not really any reason not to distract from the “official” party response with a nakedly self-serving bit of early campaigning.

Friedersdorf fails to see the point:

If tonight’s State of the Union address is anything like the ones that President Obama delivered in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, here’s what to expect: a banal, risk-averse, scattershot speech that could be cancelled without any great consequence. Obama is a capable orator. It’s easy to remember some of his best speeches. He rarely gets to address America in prime time with Congress assembled. I’d like to see him focus on one issue, or even one theme, and marshal logic to persuade Americans that some substantive step or other ought to be taken.

But that would be unconventional and risky. Everyone with a pet cause that wasn’t mentioned due to the narrowed focus would be upset. That’s why the speech is likely to be broad and shallow, addressing so many subjects that nothing deep or lasting can be said about any of them.

Favreau, who helped write Obama’s previous SOTUs, defends the ritual:

Along with a few championship games and award shows, the State of the Union is one of the few annual events that tens of millions of Americans still watch together, as a country.

For a brief moment, we get to witness our system of government as the proud, democratic institution it was meant to be, not the sad, partisan spectacle it has too often become. Elected officials of both parties gather in one chamber, and (minus Joe Wilson) treat each other with civility, respect, and even warmth. Republicans will line up early to pose for pictures with President Obama, just as Democrats would reach over their colleagues to shake hands with President Bush. Sure, there are many times during the speech where one party applauds and the other does not. But there are many more times when both parties stand to cheer their president’s words: about our troops or our veterans; our children or our workers; our shared love of this country and its special, indispensible place in the world.

Jeff Shesol, another former speechwriter, wishes for a modernized SOTU:

What compels this speech to drag as it does? The answer has to be inertia, an unwillingness to challenge convention—because no principle of aesthetics, no provision of the Constitution, requires the State of the Union to take this shape. The Constitution states only that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” I’m no constitutional scholar, but I see nothing in there about shout-outs to the Interstate Highway System. When George Washington delivered America’s first annual message, in 1790, he limited himself to a thousand words. If you had suggested to him that he increase its length by six thousand words and pack it with legislative proposals that stood no chance of passing, he would have given you that look. (It was not a nice look.)

It’s time, then, to save this speech—this gas-guzzling boat of a speech—from itself.

As Republican leaders prepare to circulate a new “statement of principles” on immigration reform later this week, Sargent proposes a litmus test:

Here’s the question: What will Republicans demand as a condition for legalization?

If their basic principle is that legalization will be contingent on undocumented immigrants paying back taxes and a fine, and on the Department of Homeland Security producing a border security plan (as in the Senate bill), that could be a real stepping stone to negotiations and possibly even something approximating comprehensive reform.

But if their basic principle is that legalization will only happen after various border security metrics being met — such as E-Verify being fully operational, or proof that 90 percent of border crossers must be being apprehended and 100 percent of the border must be being surveilled — then that’s going to be a very discouraging sign.

Allie Jones doubts anything will come of it:

Democrats and Republicans may be able to find some middle ground with the Republicans’ new plan. While the Democrat-backed Senate bill includes a path to citizenship for children and adults who came into the country illegally, the Republican plan, which is really just a “statement of principles,” provides a path to citizenship for Dreamers only. This could possibly allay Republican fears that embracing immigration reform means handing Democrats 11 million new voters. Under the Republican plan, undocumented adults would be still be offered a path to “legal status.”

Still, the likelihood that the GOP comes to full agreement and puts this plan in action before November is slim.

The fact that the party can’t come to any consensus on the issue makes Byron York skeptical:

House Republicans are likely to remain deeply divided over legalization. And their divisions simply reflect larger divisions within the conservative world.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page is solidly pro-reform. National Review is solidly against it. The Weekly Standard is split, with editor William Kristol advising Republicans “don’t even try” to pass reform this year, and executive editor Fred Barnes praising McCarthy’s decision to support legalization as a blow against the “nativist axis” and a “brave step for his party and America.”

China was the first country to formally identify “Internet addiction” as a clinical disorder, according to Hilla Medalia and Shosh Shlam, whose documentary Web Junkie was recently adapted as an NYT short:

The two filmmakers discuss the global pathologies of the Internet:

[Whitney] Mallett: With this film and Love Child, about a couple who neglect their child for a computer game, there are a couple of cautionary tales about the dangers of the Internet premiering at Sundance. But your film really ends up being less about the Internet and more about rebuilding these families’ relationships. Do you think the internet is the problem, or merely a symptom of deeper problems?

Medalia: First of all, these kids are escaping something, that’s for sure. … In our premiere there was a woman who after the screening raised her hand for the Q&A and told us she has a 20-year-old who is addicted to Internet games and has been going in and out of rehab, and every time he will go through a program, when he comes back home, again the problem arises because the Internet is such an integral a part of your life – unlike heroin, where you can and should live without it. Here it’s like, how do you moderate it? And I think the fact the woman shared her story shows it’s such a global issue.

Shlam: The reason why we did it is not to show the story of China. It can be. But we add the point of view that it’s universal. It happens in China, but China is a mirror for other places.

As Medalia notes, the American Psychiatric Association listed Internet Gaming Disorder as “a condition warranting more clinical research” in its latest edition of the DSM; meanwhile, America’s first inpatient treatment center for Internet addiction opened late last year.

Readers counter my take on the California Bar rejecting Stephen Glass:

I’m a lawyer, and I take my obligations – imposed by a rigorous code of ethics put in place by the state – very seriously. That code of ethics is designed to protect clients, who trust in their lawyer, and David Plotz’s “buyer beware” view is antithetical to that. (I also am required to make payments into a fund used to reimburse clients who are cheated by their attorneys, and I don’t think we need to add a known sociopathic liar into that pool.) While I agree that Mr. Glass deserves a second chance at a career, I don’t think that a career in a highly regulated profession that is governed by a strict code of ethics is the right place for a known liar who has already blown through one professional code. The right second chance for a money launderer isn’t working at a bank; the right second chance for a rapist isn’t as a guard in a women’s prison; and the right second chance for liar isn’t in a position of trust.

Another lawyer agrees:

It irks me that I’ve seen commentators (with a questionable grasp of legal concepts) argue that “lawyers = dishonesty, Glass = dishonesty, therefore Glass = lawyer”. Given the public’s palpable distrust of lawyers (and by extension the law and the courts), why should we worsen that view by allowing Glass to practice law?

Another:

California lawyer here, and one who is roughly a contemporary of Glass.  I agree that the tone of the California Supreme Court decision is somewhat snide, but I do not disagree with the outcome. Even after his falsehoods as a journalist were discovered, Glass was dishonest on his application to the New York State Bar.

Later, he was not entirely honest on his application in California.  Glass had the opportunity – twice – to complete bar applications with honesty and integrity.  A lack of candor on an application for determination of moral fitness suggests the candidate has not rehabilitated himself, and should be disqualifying. End of story.

A paralegal studying for the LSAT:

Admission to a bar isn’t just about paying an obscene amount of money to a law school then passing a test. It requires a rigorous background check that ensures that each an every person admitted to that bar is a person of good moral character. If you want journalists to hold disgraced lawyers to that standard, then maybe journalists should create a licensing administration the way lawyers have. But I don’t think bars should cheapen theirs.

Others focus on the journalism side:

The First Amendment lets journalists lie (subject to libel laws) anytime they want.  If their audience is happy with it, they can even make a lucrative career of it. Mr. Glass was apparently unlucky enough to have an audience who wasn’t happy with it.

Another:

As a litigator who spent 15 years in journalism (and still freelances occasionally for the NYT), I’d like to share my perspective regarding Glass. In concluding that journalists would be more forgiving of an ethically-challenged lawyer entering the field than lawyers apparently are of an ethically-challenged journalists, I think you’re missing a very important distinction here: Attorneys are trusted with great power when it comes to monies and liberties.

I can, with a subpoena and a signature, compel you to appear in front of me and answer questions – even if you are not a party to a lawsuit. I can likewise demand you hand over most of your documents, assuming I can make a case such a request is vaguely relevant. Moreover, in many cases the attorneys on the other side provide me with their client’s secrets and, as a rule, trust me to keep those secrets.

Almost all of my time billed is on the honor system – no one knows how much I am really working except myself. I am frequently entrusted with large sums of money that I am expected to turn over to my client. In other cases, my collegues will oversee even larger sums held in trust until the beneficiaries reach a certain age.

There are many more similar points/situations I could point out to you where trust and honesty are everything in our profession. So, yes, attorneys are probably harder on prospective attorneys than journalists might be on prospective journalists.

One more:

You conclude your post on Stephen Glass with the following: “Would journalists say that of an ethically challenged lawyer seeking to write about the news? I doubt it.”

We have an interesting parallel that proves your point. Henry Blodget, whose Business Insider is backed by Jeff Bezos, is a proven fraud and crook on a scale much larger than anything Glass did.  Yet after agreeing to a lifetime ban from the securities industry (and a $2 million fine) for illegal and unethical acts that did far, far more direct and calculable damage than Glass’s misdeeds, Blodget is now considered a top entrepreneur and voice in American journalism. His rehabilitation, via Slate and elsewhere, is a real disgrace to American journalism.  In a just universe, he would be forbidden to publish or benefit financially from anything having to do with business.

A reader writes:

I think you’re almost giving too much credit to the financial masters of the universe and what they might feel “deep down” about their own failures in the past. I know a lot of these people personally, and to a man – and they’re almost all men – they truly believe that a) the financial crisis was brought about by a few bad apples and second-rate firms like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and that they personally had nothing to do with the crisis; b) that the big banks were forced to take the bailouts even if they didn’t need them because firms with more exposure were stupid and reckless and had to be covered for by forcing everyone to take a bailout – this has been fairly well documented, actually, as what Paulson did during the crisis – and c) the work they do is absolutely integral to a well-functioning capitalistic society, and the more money they have to work with and the less regulation there is, the better off everyone is.

Really, the best analogy is to Jack Nicholson’s character in A Few Good Men, Col. Jessup, when he gave the speech about needing him on that wall because even if we don’t like to think about how he protects us, his protection (and the “manner in which he provides it”) is vital, even if it might offend us. That’s how these guys see themselves, really, when it comes to the flow of money and capital throughout the system, full stop. No need to psychoanalyze further.

Another zooms in on Silicon Valley:

As someone who has been living for years in the Bay Area, I think many people’s analysis of Tom Perkins’ meltdown (including yours) misses a very critical element:

Silicon Valley’s relative insulation from the rest of the economy. The tech industry and its VCs and angel investors didn’t suffer much damage from the Great Recession, and in fact probably kept California’s incredibly high unemployment rate from going into space. Perkins, along with other investors in the Valley such as Y Combinator, did not have to be bailed out like Dimon and his Wall Street ilk were. These investors, along with a significant chunk of the local tech industry, have been living in a social bubble, which began to break last year in part due to significant protests in San Francisco and (to a lesser extent) Oakland.

Tom Perkins isn’t actually writing from the standpoint of the one-percent Wall Streeter who has been humbled. His angle is worse: He’s writing from the standpoint of an overreaching tech billionaire who has not been humbled, and is bemoaning the fact that the tech industry’s “disruption” of the Bay Area has not been welcomed and appreciated by native residents like he thinks it should, and fears it might lead them to being “humbled” as well. He is acting, in essence, more like Iraq invasion-era Cheney and Rumsfeld (“They would welcome us as liberators!”) than post-9/11 Cheney and Rumsfeld in general. In fact, if I dare say it, I don’t even think he is particularly talking about Obama, but rather supposed “lefties” in the Bay Area who are legitimately angry at being evicted from their homes and apartments and being unable to afford rent anywhere (let alone SF). In other words, the working class.