Thursday, August 16, 2012
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Taking One for the Team
Early next year fiscal Armageddon is scheduled to take place when the budget is sequestered -- which means automatic spending cuts to everything. Conservatives have been screaming bloody murder about how this will gut the Defense Department, claiming that the budget will be "slashed by more than $600 billion."
Turns out this claim is false.
Depending on how you want to count, the United States spends as much as the next 10 or 12 countries on defense. Yes, we are in a special situation, and we do have a larger responsibility to ourselves and the rest of the world for defense. But defense is just another government program, and is quite prone to overcharging and outright deception by private contractors to whom most of the defense budget flows. As someone who's worked in the industry I've seen firsthand how it works.
This whole problem could be solved if all those patriotic defense contractors pitched in and cut their prices by 10%. It would best for them in the long run to avoid having to make hard choices about which programs to cut, wouldn't it?
As Republican keep telling us, it's about time the people sucking on the government teat took one for the team.
Turns out this claim is false.
The oft-repeated higher figure of $600 billion is actually the total in projected deficit reduction that the government would get by cutting $492 billion from the military. The extra $108 billion in projected savings would come via interest payments the government wouldn't have to make. Since the government would be spending less, it could borrow less and thus save on interest. [...]
Both a Congressional Budget Office report and the head of the Office of Management and Budget concur that the proper figure for the cuts is $492 billion, or about $55 billion annually over nine years.Now the Defense Department's budget is $550 billion, so a $55 billion annual cut could easily be achieved by cutting a few junkets by DoD honchos, shutting down a few useless bases and eliminating a few worthless weapons systems that are sops to powerful congressmen funneling earmarks to their districts. In addition, the war in Afghanistan is drawing down, so defense spending just doesn't need to maintain its current levels.
Depending on how you want to count, the United States spends as much as the next 10 or 12 countries on defense. Yes, we are in a special situation, and we do have a larger responsibility to ourselves and the rest of the world for defense. But defense is just another government program, and is quite prone to overcharging and outright deception by private contractors to whom most of the defense budget flows. As someone who's worked in the industry I've seen firsthand how it works.
This whole problem could be solved if all those patriotic defense contractors pitched in and cut their prices by 10%. It would best for them in the long run to avoid having to make hard choices about which programs to cut, wouldn't it?
As Republican keep telling us, it's about time the people sucking on the government teat took one for the team.
Yeah, Not So Much
Remember all that business about how voter fraud was rampant and every state needed to pass laws to stop this awful law breaking.
Yeah, not so much.
The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000.
10? Good grief, someone call the CDC. This epidemic is out of control!!!
With 146 million registered voters in the United States, those represent about one for every 15 million prospective voters.
Well, now I can see why this was such a concern and why we now need photo ID's.
Oh, wait. Here's why.
Yeah, not so much.
The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000.
10? Good grief, someone call the CDC. This epidemic is out of control!!!
With 146 million registered voters in the United States, those represent about one for every 15 million prospective voters.
Well, now I can see why this was such a concern and why we now need photo ID's.
Oh, wait. Here's why.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Placing the Blame Where It Belongs
There's an interesting article from Bruce Bartlett, a policy advisor to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, in the New York Times.
In "Blaming Obama for George W. Bush's Policies," Bartlett points out that it was Bush's tax cuts, Bush's wars in the Middle East, and Bush's Medicare Part D that turned the $236 billion surplus Bill Clinton bequeathed to Bush into a $1.3 trillion deficit in 2009. And it was Dick Cheney, Bush's VP, who said that deficits don't matter.
Bartlett then likens the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama managed to push through Congress to an inadequate dose of medicine. Obama's advisors (and economists like Paul Krugman) said this was too small. It was like a tuberculosis patient taking only half the antibiotics: the disease is suppressed, but not cured. That's why there aren't more jobs: consumers don't have enough cash on hand to increase demand for products, so businesses can't hire more people to increase production.
Bartlett ends his piece with:
Now Paul Ryan, the apostle of Ayn Rand, has been anointed to deliver the ultimatum of economic blackmail: give the wealthy gigantic tax cuts or they'll tank the economy again.
In "Blaming Obama for George W. Bush's Policies," Bartlett points out that it was Bush's tax cuts, Bush's wars in the Middle East, and Bush's Medicare Part D that turned the $236 billion surplus Bill Clinton bequeathed to Bush into a $1.3 trillion deficit in 2009. And it was Dick Cheney, Bush's VP, who said that deficits don't matter.
Bartlett then likens the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama managed to push through Congress to an inadequate dose of medicine. Obama's advisors (and economists like Paul Krugman) said this was too small. It was like a tuberculosis patient taking only half the antibiotics: the disease is suppressed, but not cured. That's why there aren't more jobs: consumers don't have enough cash on hand to increase demand for products, so businesses can't hire more people to increase production.
Bartlett ends his piece with:
But it was Republican policies during the Bush administration that brought on the sickness and Republicans in Congress who have denied the economy an adequate dosage of the cure. Now they want to implicitly blame President Obama for causing the recession and the failure of stimulus to fix the problem, asserting that fiscal stimulus is per se ineffective.
There is a word for this: chutzpah.There's another word for it: sabotage. Republicans have done everything they can to keep the economy in the tank to gain partisan advantage in the 2012 election.
Now Paul Ryan, the apostle of Ayn Rand, has been anointed to deliver the ultimatum of economic blackmail: give the wealthy gigantic tax cuts or they'll tank the economy again.
They Like Him But...
Nearly all of my conservative friends are overjoyed at the pick of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's VP. I'm still trying to figure out why Mittens picked someone to fire up the base. With all of them foaming at the mouth about making President Obama a one term president, was he really worried that they wouldn't turn out and vote for him?
These same conservative friends of mine cry foul when I point out facts about Congressmen Ryan. They think I'm lying when I say he has never really worked in the private sector. They think I'm lying when I say that he has been a career politician. They really get pissed when I demonstrate how he used Social Security benefits to pull himself up by his bootstraps.
How pissed will they be when they read this?
In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.
That's not some raging liberal writing here. That's David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's OMB guy from 1981-1985. In true propeller head fashion, Stockman breaks down the numbers of the Ryan Budget and shows it for all it is...a plan that won't reduce the debt or the deficit.
Folks, here are the facts about The Great Thinker's plans. His Road Map didn't see a balanced budget until the 2060s and added 60 trillion dollars to the national debt. His revised plan was at least a little better with a balanced budget in the 2030s and 14 trillion dollars to the debt. I challenge anyone to take a hard look at these plans and check the numbers.
So what does his plan actually do? Here's an excellent primer from The Christian Science Monitor.
These same conservative friends of mine cry foul when I point out facts about Congressmen Ryan. They think I'm lying when I say he has never really worked in the private sector. They think I'm lying when I say that he has been a career politician. They really get pissed when I demonstrate how he used Social Security benefits to pull himself up by his bootstraps.
How pissed will they be when they read this?
In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.
That's not some raging liberal writing here. That's David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's OMB guy from 1981-1985. In true propeller head fashion, Stockman breaks down the numbers of the Ryan Budget and shows it for all it is...a plan that won't reduce the debt or the deficit.
Folks, here are the facts about The Great Thinker's plans. His Road Map didn't see a balanced budget until the 2060s and added 60 trillion dollars to the national debt. His revised plan was at least a little better with a balanced budget in the 2030s and 14 trillion dollars to the debt. I challenge anyone to take a hard look at these plans and check the numbers.
So what does his plan actually do? Here's an excellent primer from The Christian Science Monitor.
Monday, August 13, 2012
It's True
Here's a photo that has been making the rounds lately...
Is it true? As we say in Minnesota, "You betcha!"
When Paul Ryan's dad died suddenly of a heart attack when the VP pick was 16, he used the Social Security death benefits to pay for college. Once again, I find it enormously frustrating that someone on the right shits all over the nice place in which he lives simply because he read Ayn Rand and is on an adolescent power trip.
Oh, and I also don't want to hear any more bitching about the "liberal media" after this piece in the New York Times.
His self-reliance followed him to summer camp, where as a counselor he canoed and hiked, and into young adulthood, where he took up deer hunting, a fact noted in his engagement notice in 2000 in The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. “Ryan is an avid hunter and fisherman,” the paper reported, “who does his own skinning and butchering and makes his own Polish sausage and bratwurst.”
Self reliance aided by...someone else...and something else...Social Security. In fact, isn't Paul Ryan a living example of what President Obama meant by not doing everything on your own?
Is it true? As we say in Minnesota, "You betcha!"
When Paul Ryan's dad died suddenly of a heart attack when the VP pick was 16, he used the Social Security death benefits to pay for college. Once again, I find it enormously frustrating that someone on the right shits all over the nice place in which he lives simply because he read Ayn Rand and is on an adolescent power trip.
Oh, and I also don't want to hear any more bitching about the "liberal media" after this piece in the New York Times.
His self-reliance followed him to summer camp, where as a counselor he canoed and hiked, and into young adulthood, where he took up deer hunting, a fact noted in his engagement notice in 2000 in The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. “Ryan is an avid hunter and fisherman,” the paper reported, “who does his own skinning and butchering and makes his own Polish sausage and bratwurst.”
Self reliance aided by...someone else...and something else...Social Security. In fact, isn't Paul Ryan a living example of what President Obama meant by not doing everything on your own?
Ryan Plan Reduces Taxes on 1% to 1%
Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's pick for vice president, wants to make Harry Reid an honest man. His tax plan would eliminate taxes on wealthy people like Mitt Romney:
Talk about picking winners and losers.
Poor people who currently pay no taxes would pay drastically more with a VAT tax, which is a sales tax on everything.
Middle-class workers would see the price of everything they buy go up almost 10% because of the VAT, and their net taxes would actually go up because loopholes like the home interest deduction would have to be eliminated in order for the Ryan plan to work at all. That's because, even though corporations are people, my friends, they would pay no taxes under Ryan's plan, and someone has to pay for the gigantic military budget increases Romney is promising.
Meanwhile, rich people could simply rearrange some deck chairs with their fund managers to pay zero tax.
And that's why porn star Jenna Jameson endorsed Mitt Romney from the stage of a strip club, saying "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."
In his 2010 “Roadmap for America’s Future,” Ryan proposed eliminating taxes on corporate income, estates, dividends, interest and capital gains. He would simplify the individual income tax system into a two-rate structure topping out at 25 percent and impose what is effectively an 8.5 percent value-added tax.Under Ryan's tax plan Romney would pay less than 1% in taxes because so little of his income is earned; most of Romney's income is in dividends, interest and capital gains. He earned a paltry $593,996 in 2010, while making $21.9 million dollars and paying only 13.9% in taxes. This is because the Bush tax cuts include a 15% capital gains tax rate, which means rich guys like Romney can loaf around and do nothing while people who actually have to bust their asses doing real work pay up to 35%.
Talk about picking winners and losers.
Poor people who currently pay no taxes would pay drastically more with a VAT tax, which is a sales tax on everything.
Middle-class workers would see the price of everything they buy go up almost 10% because of the VAT, and their net taxes would actually go up because loopholes like the home interest deduction would have to be eliminated in order for the Ryan plan to work at all. That's because, even though corporations are people, my friends, they would pay no taxes under Ryan's plan, and someone has to pay for the gigantic military budget increases Romney is promising.
Meanwhile, rich people could simply rearrange some deck chairs with their fund managers to pay zero tax.
And that's why porn star Jenna Jameson endorsed Mitt Romney from the stage of a strip club, saying "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Sometimes The Bible Is Wrong
Who was it again who was telling me that conservative Christians were nothing like Islamic fundamentalism? just-dave? Some TSM commenters?
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The Veep
Today, Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan to be his vice president. Here are my initial thoughts.
By choosing Ryan, Romney has shown that he is essentially going to be a piss boy for the hard right. As Grover Norquist noted, all they really need is a guy to sign his name. I can't think of a more perfect way to illustrate a Romney presidency.
The "Ryan Budget" will now get an immense amount of scrutiny and I think that's a great thing. As is usually the case with the right, they thump their chest and issue loud declarations about how things like this will save us all before any serious analysis is done. Their emotions and beliefs kick in and they stop thinking. Well, now we get to critically examine the plan which means you can be certain his ideas for Medicare are going to be ripped to shreds.
How is Paul Ryan going to run as a Washington outsider? He's a 7 term congressmen. It will be interesting to see how that plays with the Tea Party crowd as he has never worked in the private sector.
And I'm still wondering why conservatives love Ryan so much...at least the Christian ones. As a card carrying member of the Rand Cult, that isn't really congruent. I want someone to ask him why he uses her as an ideological center-a woman who despises Christianity (and all religion for that matter) and is pro abortion.
People say the VP choice never really matters. Certainly that wasn't the CSS with Sarah Palin. I think the choice of Ryan will matter very, very much and perhaps moreso than Palin. How will this all play out?
By choosing Ryan, Romney has shown that he is essentially going to be a piss boy for the hard right. As Grover Norquist noted, all they really need is a guy to sign his name. I can't think of a more perfect way to illustrate a Romney presidency.
The "Ryan Budget" will now get an immense amount of scrutiny and I think that's a great thing. As is usually the case with the right, they thump their chest and issue loud declarations about how things like this will save us all before any serious analysis is done. Their emotions and beliefs kick in and they stop thinking. Well, now we get to critically examine the plan which means you can be certain his ideas for Medicare are going to be ripped to shreds.
How is Paul Ryan going to run as a Washington outsider? He's a 7 term congressmen. It will be interesting to see how that plays with the Tea Party crowd as he has never worked in the private sector.
And I'm still wondering why conservatives love Ryan so much...at least the Christian ones. As a card carrying member of the Rand Cult, that isn't really congruent. I want someone to ask him why he uses her as an ideological center-a woman who despises Christianity (and all religion for that matter) and is pro abortion.
People say the VP choice never really matters. Certainly that wasn't the CSS with Sarah Palin. I think the choice of Ryan will matter very, very much and perhaps moreso than Palin. How will this all play out?
Friday, August 10, 2012
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Shouldn't Romney Be Ahead By Now?
The question above is the exact question that Roger Simon asks in a new post over at Politco.
But what do the Great Gods of Politics, the opinion polls, show? They show a country that still likes Obama more than it likes Romney. And by quite a bit. As I have written for years, I have a simple — OK, simple-minded — way of determining who is going to win the presidency: The more likable candidate wins. Not always, but almost always. On Aug. 2, a survey published by the well-respected Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found Obama was leading Romney by 51-41 percent for the presidency, the eighth time in a row since January that Obama has led Romney by between 4 and 12 percentage points.
But more importantly by my Simple Simon standard of likability, Romney’s favorable/unfavorable rating was 37/52 compared with Obama’s 50/45. Which means Romney had a net unfavorable rating of 15 points while Obama had a net favorable of 5 points.
Very true and nicely illustrated at our year end tennis party this summer. Two of my co-workers, both of whom voted for John McCain in 2008 (and one who is my supervisor and life long Republican), were completely confounded by Romney's statements on his recent trip abroad.
"That was just rude...what he said about London," my supervisor remarked. "What was he thinking? You don't do that. And he wants to be president?"
"Yeah," my other co-worker said, "Obama is going to wipe the floor with him in the debates. Romney's a complete idiot and I don't really like him. I am voting for Obama."
"I may actually as well," my supervisor said. "He's not as bad as everyone makes him out to be. He's done a good job. I like him."
The conversation completely torpedoed the notion that your average Joe doesn't pay attention to politics until after Labor Day. People are paying attention to what Romney is doing and they don't really like what they see. Will they ever?
Oh, and why is John McCain, who has seen all 23 years of Romney's tax returns, not calling Harry Reid a "dirty liar?" I wonder why he hasn't really said much on the subject.
But what do the Great Gods of Politics, the opinion polls, show? They show a country that still likes Obama more than it likes Romney. And by quite a bit. As I have written for years, I have a simple — OK, simple-minded — way of determining who is going to win the presidency: The more likable candidate wins. Not always, but almost always. On Aug. 2, a survey published by the well-respected Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found Obama was leading Romney by 51-41 percent for the presidency, the eighth time in a row since January that Obama has led Romney by between 4 and 12 percentage points.
But more importantly by my Simple Simon standard of likability, Romney’s favorable/unfavorable rating was 37/52 compared with Obama’s 50/45. Which means Romney had a net unfavorable rating of 15 points while Obama had a net favorable of 5 points.
Very true and nicely illustrated at our year end tennis party this summer. Two of my co-workers, both of whom voted for John McCain in 2008 (and one who is my supervisor and life long Republican), were completely confounded by Romney's statements on his recent trip abroad.
"That was just rude...what he said about London," my supervisor remarked. "What was he thinking? You don't do that. And he wants to be president?"
"Yeah," my other co-worker said, "Obama is going to wipe the floor with him in the debates. Romney's a complete idiot and I don't really like him. I am voting for Obama."
"I may actually as well," my supervisor said. "He's not as bad as everyone makes him out to be. He's done a good job. I like him."
The conversation completely torpedoed the notion that your average Joe doesn't pay attention to politics until after Labor Day. People are paying attention to what Romney is doing and they don't really like what they see. Will they ever?
Oh, and why is John McCain, who has seen all 23 years of Romney's tax returns, not calling Harry Reid a "dirty liar?" I wonder why he hasn't really said much on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)