There's an interesting piece by Barry Ritholz in the Washington Post about economics entitled "Why Don't Bad Ideas Ever Die?" It summarizes succinctly what's wrong with Republican prescriptions for the economy from zombie theories such as shareholder value, self-interested rational actors, austerity, supply-side economics, and efficient self-regulating markets, to human failings such as greed, sloth, inability to deal with hard data, bias and the failure of incompetent people to recognize how little they really know.
The last point is extremely important: competent people are well aware of their own limitations. Scientists who work in the hard sciences like physics, medicine and chemistry, as well as the engineering disciplines, are good at knowing what they do know, knowing what they don't know, and being aware that there are things they don't know that they don't know. This concept made famous by Donald Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns speech in his push to invade Iraq.
Because economists use numbers and math, they like to pretend their discipline is some kind of hard science. It's useful for documenting the mistakes of the past, but mostly useless for predicting the results of new approaches. That makes it even less of a science than psychology, where they at least run experiments and double-blind studies.
It's not really the fault of economics (dubbed the Dismal Science by Thomas Carlyle) that it's not a real science. Running experiments in economics would be like performing open heart surgery on a runner during a marathon. Economics is therefore at best a form of numerical philosophy.
But sometimes we do run economic experiments. George W. Bush's tax cuts tested supply-side theories. Europe tested drastic austerity measures after the 2008 recession, while Barack Obama tested mild economic stimulus. We now have the results: the Bush tax cuts did nothing to improve the economy after 2001. Europe's austerity measures have resulted in further recession, while Obama's stimulus has yielded slow and steady improvement. Yet Republicans ignore the data from these experiments and continue to push for tax cuts for the wealthy and extreme austerity for the US economy.
Republicans know very little about the reality of aggregate human economic behavior. They don't know their known knowns, their known unknowns or acknowledge the existence of unknown unknowns. In other words, the young and the incompetent always think they know everything.
Now, I have no doubt that Republicans are smart enough to know that supply-side economics and austerity will trash the economy. They just don't care. They want government to shrink and are completely willing to destroy the economy to make that happen. It's for the greater good, they console themselves, while pocketing millions from the billionaires who donate to their campaigns and think tanks while muttering about moochers and the 47%.
Ritholz ends his article with a paraphrase from Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, that perfectly expresses a thought I've long held about problems such as racism, homophobia, and now Republican economic theories: "Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time.”
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
The Greatest Nation, Impotent Before Madmen
Last month Senate Republicans dragged Susan Rice before a committee, tearing her a new one because Al Qaeda-linked terrorists killed four Americans in a foreign country still rebuilding after civil war. The Republicans were demanding answers because Rice didn't immediately blame terrorists for those murders. She said what she did on advice of the CIA, who was still ascertaining the details and didn't want to alert the bad guys.
For years Republicans have reacted pretty much this same way every time there's been a terrorist attack on Americans. They get irate when suicidal Muslim maniacs murder Americans, and demand immediate retributive action. They have cast aside the rule of law, eliminated habeas corpus, tortured suspects to get information, tapped phones without court-issued warrants, and detained indefinitely anyone they suspect of terrorist intentions, be they foreigners or Americans citizens.
But when suicidal American maniacs commit terroristic acts and kill hundreds of children, movie-goers, shoppers, worshippers, congressional constituents, office workers, and on and on, these same Republicans throw up their hands impotently. They say we are completely powerless to deter suicidal crazy Americans, while at the same time are willing to stop at nothing to deter suicidal crazy Muslims.
Are we, the most powerful nation on earth, completely powerless to stop ourselves from killing each other senselessly? We have spent literally trillions of dollars trying to foil the plans of madmen hiding in mountains and deserts on the other side of the planet, but we can't do a single thing to stop people like Adam Lanza?
Sometimes Republicans do propose solutions, but they are, as they themselves love to say, laughable. If only those teachers had guns, they insist, this tragedy could have been averted. The facts of the incident show what a pale fantasy this is. The shooter's first victim, his mother, was killed with her own gun. Imagine how arming schoolteachers would work, with millions of guns squirreled away in the desk drawers of harried and distracted little old ladies and young women who have zero experience with firearms. Nothing could possibly go wrong there, could it?
And then they trot out that guy in China who just hacked up a bunch of kids at a school. Are we going to outlaw knives too, they demand inquisitorially? But details matter. Technology matters. The death toll from the Chinese knife-wielding maniac: 0. The death toll from the American gun-toting maniac: 26. America wins!
At the time of Revolutionary War weapons technology had evolved very slowly over centuries: the weapons were little different 90 years later during the Civil War. The Brown Bess flintlock musket of the Revolution was not very accurate and had a time-consuming, error-prone, dozen-plus-step reloading process. Misfires were common, powder got wet or slid out of the pan, balls rolled back out of barrels, and musketeers dropped their ramrods and powder horns while fumbling to reload. Even the best infantryman would be hard-pressed to get off more than a couple of shots per minute. The semiautomatic pistols used in Connecticut fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, perhaps two, three or even four rounds per second. You can switch clips that hold 10, 17 or even 33 rounds in seconds.
We already have laws that keep fully automatic weapons out of civilian hands. NRA gun apologists who quote Franklin about safety and freedom and talk about the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution also have to acknowledge that population density and technology have changed drastically in the last 221 years since the Well-Regulated Militia Amendment passed. The semiautomatic weapons the shooter used in Sandy Hook have more carnage potential relative to flintlock muskets than full-auto AK47s have relative to Glock pistols.
Does the president of the NRA, the greatest enabler of on-demand gun purchases in this country, really think Ben Franklin and George Washington would advocate doing absolutely nothing while madmen gun down children in our schools, movie theaters and malls?
The Senate should drag him before a committee and demand some answers.
For years Republicans have reacted pretty much this same way every time there's been a terrorist attack on Americans. They get irate when suicidal Muslim maniacs murder Americans, and demand immediate retributive action. They have cast aside the rule of law, eliminated habeas corpus, tortured suspects to get information, tapped phones without court-issued warrants, and detained indefinitely anyone they suspect of terrorist intentions, be they foreigners or Americans citizens.
But when suicidal American maniacs commit terroristic acts and kill hundreds of children, movie-goers, shoppers, worshippers, congressional constituents, office workers, and on and on, these same Republicans throw up their hands impotently. They say we are completely powerless to deter suicidal crazy Americans, while at the same time are willing to stop at nothing to deter suicidal crazy Muslims.
Are we, the most powerful nation on earth, completely powerless to stop ourselves from killing each other senselessly? We have spent literally trillions of dollars trying to foil the plans of madmen hiding in mountains and deserts on the other side of the planet, but we can't do a single thing to stop people like Adam Lanza?
Sometimes Republicans do propose solutions, but they are, as they themselves love to say, laughable. If only those teachers had guns, they insist, this tragedy could have been averted. The facts of the incident show what a pale fantasy this is. The shooter's first victim, his mother, was killed with her own gun. Imagine how arming schoolteachers would work, with millions of guns squirreled away in the desk drawers of harried and distracted little old ladies and young women who have zero experience with firearms. Nothing could possibly go wrong there, could it?
And then they trot out that guy in China who just hacked up a bunch of kids at a school. Are we going to outlaw knives too, they demand inquisitorially? But details matter. Technology matters. The death toll from the Chinese knife-wielding maniac: 0. The death toll from the American gun-toting maniac: 26. America wins!
At the time of Revolutionary War weapons technology had evolved very slowly over centuries: the weapons were little different 90 years later during the Civil War. The Brown Bess flintlock musket of the Revolution was not very accurate and had a time-consuming, error-prone, dozen-plus-step reloading process. Misfires were common, powder got wet or slid out of the pan, balls rolled back out of barrels, and musketeers dropped their ramrods and powder horns while fumbling to reload. Even the best infantryman would be hard-pressed to get off more than a couple of shots per minute. The semiautomatic pistols used in Connecticut fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, perhaps two, three or even four rounds per second. You can switch clips that hold 10, 17 or even 33 rounds in seconds.
We already have laws that keep fully automatic weapons out of civilian hands. NRA gun apologists who quote Franklin about safety and freedom and talk about the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution also have to acknowledge that population density and technology have changed drastically in the last 221 years since the Well-Regulated Militia Amendment passed. The semiautomatic weapons the shooter used in Sandy Hook have more carnage potential relative to flintlock muskets than full-auto AK47s have relative to Glock pistols.
Does the president of the NRA, the greatest enabler of on-demand gun purchases in this country, really think Ben Franklin and George Washington would advocate doing absolutely nothing while madmen gun down children in our schools, movie theaters and malls?
The Senate should drag him before a committee and demand some answers.
The Right Question
I have a lot to say about the shooting yesterday in Newton, Connecticut at Sandy Hook Elementary School so I'm just going to put out all of my thoughts however they come out regardless of organization.
My first reaction was surprise at myself for how I under reacted when I heard the news. Another school shooting...oh well...it happens all the time now. I guess I'm used to it. I'm used to being revolted at yet another story about how someone walks into a school and starts shooting. Am I just numb to it now?
We run lock down drills at our school all the time. They do at my children's school as well. Will they be enough?
It won't be long now before we find out that the shooter, Adam Lanza, was taking an SSRI. This is the commonality of all of the mass shootings of the last 14 years or so...mental illness and an SSRI. With all this talk about new gun laws, maybe the first new law should be about pharmaceuticals, not guns.
There was no gun law that could have prevented this from happening. The latest information is that the guns were owned by Lanza's mom and not his. Connecticut has strict gun laws and, as a 20 year old, he could not legally own any of them. It's not right, I know, to speak ill of the dead, but she obviously did not practice adequate gun safety. Had these been under lock and key (with only her knowing the combination), this never would have happened.
Of course, should people with mental disorders, even over 21, be allowed to buy guns? Should anyone who takes an SSRI be allowed to own a gun? My thought is no.
The wall to wall coverage in the media for the next week is going to make it seem like this happens everywhere all the time. It doesn't. Violence continues to drop in this country and around the world. Things are not getting worse. They are getting better.
Every other story is about gun control now and how "something has to be done." Again, new gun laws won't help. The problem isn't the guns. It's people. They suck. And they always will.
I don't like the gun control people and I don't care much for the gun rights people either. Where does that leave me?
In my search for a solution, I wonder if haven't taken a moment to think about the children of that school...those who lost their lives and their families and those who have to live with the memories of what was essentially a war zone. I can't even imagine it. As everyone out there has been saying, it doesn't seem real. And I think I have been far too insensitive.
Are any of these questions I'm asking the right ones? Is there such a thing?
Late afternoon yesterday, I had a conversation with my daughter's principal and we asked each other many of these questions. Right before I left, she told me something that her father used to say and it applies here.
Anything that can be fixed is not a problem.
My first reaction was surprise at myself for how I under reacted when I heard the news. Another school shooting...oh well...it happens all the time now. I guess I'm used to it. I'm used to being revolted at yet another story about how someone walks into a school and starts shooting. Am I just numb to it now?
We run lock down drills at our school all the time. They do at my children's school as well. Will they be enough?
It won't be long now before we find out that the shooter, Adam Lanza, was taking an SSRI. This is the commonality of all of the mass shootings of the last 14 years or so...mental illness and an SSRI. With all this talk about new gun laws, maybe the first new law should be about pharmaceuticals, not guns.
There was no gun law that could have prevented this from happening. The latest information is that the guns were owned by Lanza's mom and not his. Connecticut has strict gun laws and, as a 20 year old, he could not legally own any of them. It's not right, I know, to speak ill of the dead, but she obviously did not practice adequate gun safety. Had these been under lock and key (with only her knowing the combination), this never would have happened.
Of course, should people with mental disorders, even over 21, be allowed to buy guns? Should anyone who takes an SSRI be allowed to own a gun? My thought is no.
The wall to wall coverage in the media for the next week is going to make it seem like this happens everywhere all the time. It doesn't. Violence continues to drop in this country and around the world. Things are not getting worse. They are getting better.
Every other story is about gun control now and how "something has to be done." Again, new gun laws won't help. The problem isn't the guns. It's people. They suck. And they always will.
I don't like the gun control people and I don't care much for the gun rights people either. Where does that leave me?
In my search for a solution, I wonder if haven't taken a moment to think about the children of that school...those who lost their lives and their families and those who have to live with the memories of what was essentially a war zone. I can't even imagine it. As everyone out there has been saying, it doesn't seem real. And I think I have been far too insensitive.
Are any of these questions I'm asking the right ones? Is there such a thing?
Late afternoon yesterday, I had a conversation with my daughter's principal and we asked each other many of these questions. Right before I left, she told me something that her father used to say and it applies here.
Anything that can be fixed is not a problem.
Friday, December 14, 2012
On Stiglitz Part Five
I ran across this piece last week and thought it would make an excellent summation before a return to Stiglitz.
One conservative message on inequality is to say that it doesn't matter, and we should accept rises in both pre-tax and post-tax inequality. This is the implication of studies periodically put out by the Heritage Foundation, arguing that poor people aren't really poor if they have microwave ovens. This isn't an appealing argument.
The problem with rising inequality is not that lower-income families can't afford ever-cheaper electronics; it's that they can't keep pace with the rising costs of health care, education and (in certain parts of the country) housing. There's also no reason to think that, whatever standard of living we start from, an economy where nearly all the improvements accrue to a small fraction of families is either politically sustainable or morally acceptable.
Excatly. In a nutshell, that is the foundation that is laid in the four chapters of his book. The cost of inequality is no health care, no education (past high school), and inadequate housing. Millions are affected by one, two or all three of these issues in an adverse way. So what's the result?
A Democracy in Peril-the title of Chapter 5 in "The Price of Inequality."
Stiglitz starts off in this chapter talking about the disillusionment, lower trust, and general loss of perceived fairness that has mounted due to inequality. This leads to an erosion of civic virtue.
No doubt, this is a chief reason why we see less than 60 percent voter turnout. It gets worse.
Well, that's where we are headed and what makes matters worse are the policies aimed to further this disenfranchisement, most of which are aimed at the poor. Photo ID laws and resistance against extended voting hours and times add to this feeling of disillusionment (which works in the favor of those who support these endeavors) resulting in continued low turnout at the polls.
Stiglitz goes on to talk about how Citizen's United makes matters worse and it is there that he and I part ways in agreement (in fact, this is my least favorite chapter in the book). His book was written before the election this year so he couldn't know that his predictions in this chapter regarding this case were going to be wrong.
Hundreds of millions of dollars were poured at President Obama in the hopes of defeating him and all of it failed. Certainly, the president had a lot of money behind him. Yet he also had a massive network of people that not only contributed small amounts of money but also formed a very solid foundation of motivated people that got out the vote. So, Stiglitz was wrong. In this case, people triumphed over money.
His analysis of Citizen's United wasn't the only point he made with which I disagreed. The rest of the chapter has to do with globalization and he's far too vague in his criticism of it. He somewhat wrongly assumes that the lack of voter enthusiasm can be entirely attributed to civic disillusionment
and not mere laziness (see: The Michael Jordan Generation). He also leaves out the raised prosperity around the world as a result of the spread of free markets and capitalism. He seems to call of return to protectionism which, in my view, would be a giant mistake. And this chapter is generally far too repetitive regarding disillusionment with our democracy.
He does have two good points that round out the chapter in regards to financial markets and American's place in the global economy. If America is going to lecture countries around the world about economic stability, then it should practice what it preaches. We have indeed lost credibility around the world because of our financial markets.
Right. Until we chuck the "Wall Street Government," we aren't going to have as much respect around the world and voter disillusionment is going to continue at home. This point also serves to put an end, once and for all, to the notion that a successful business leader would make a successful civic leader (and that a rating from S&P means nothing).
The title of Stiglitz's next chapter is "1984 is Upon Us" and it details how perception is manipulated to continue inequality.
One conservative message on inequality is to say that it doesn't matter, and we should accept rises in both pre-tax and post-tax inequality. This is the implication of studies periodically put out by the Heritage Foundation, arguing that poor people aren't really poor if they have microwave ovens. This isn't an appealing argument.
The problem with rising inequality is not that lower-income families can't afford ever-cheaper electronics; it's that they can't keep pace with the rising costs of health care, education and (in certain parts of the country) housing. There's also no reason to think that, whatever standard of living we start from, an economy where nearly all the improvements accrue to a small fraction of families is either politically sustainable or morally acceptable.
Excatly. In a nutshell, that is the foundation that is laid in the four chapters of his book. The cost of inequality is no health care, no education (past high school), and inadequate housing. Millions are affected by one, two or all three of these issues in an adverse way. So what's the result?
A Democracy in Peril-the title of Chapter 5 in "The Price of Inequality."
Stiglitz starts off in this chapter talking about the disillusionment, lower trust, and general loss of perceived fairness that has mounted due to inequality. This leads to an erosion of civic virtue.
Such civic virtue should not be taken for granted. If the belief takes hold that the political system is stacked, that it's unfair, individuals will feel released from the obligations of civic virtue. When the social contract is abrogated, when trust between government and its citizens fails, disillusionment, disengagement, or worse follows. In the United States today and in many other democracies around the world mistrust is ascendent.
No doubt, this is a chief reason why we see less than 60 percent voter turnout. It gets worse.
Social capital is the glue that holds societies together. If individuals believe the economic and political system is unfair, the glue doesn't work and societies don't function well. As I've traveled around the world, particularly in my job as chief economist of the World Bank, I've seen instances where social capital has been strong and societies have worked together. I've also seen instances where social cohesion has been destroyed and societies have become dysfunctional.
Well, that's where we are headed and what makes matters worse are the policies aimed to further this disenfranchisement, most of which are aimed at the poor. Photo ID laws and resistance against extended voting hours and times add to this feeling of disillusionment (which works in the favor of those who support these endeavors) resulting in continued low turnout at the polls.
Stiglitz goes on to talk about how Citizen's United makes matters worse and it is there that he and I part ways in agreement (in fact, this is my least favorite chapter in the book). His book was written before the election this year so he couldn't know that his predictions in this chapter regarding this case were going to be wrong.
Hundreds of millions of dollars were poured at President Obama in the hopes of defeating him and all of it failed. Certainly, the president had a lot of money behind him. Yet he also had a massive network of people that not only contributed small amounts of money but also formed a very solid foundation of motivated people that got out the vote. So, Stiglitz was wrong. In this case, people triumphed over money.
His analysis of Citizen's United wasn't the only point he made with which I disagreed. The rest of the chapter has to do with globalization and he's far too vague in his criticism of it. He somewhat wrongly assumes that the lack of voter enthusiasm can be entirely attributed to civic disillusionment
and not mere laziness (see: The Michael Jordan Generation). He also leaves out the raised prosperity around the world as a result of the spread of free markets and capitalism. He seems to call of return to protectionism which, in my view, would be a giant mistake. And this chapter is generally far too repetitive regarding disillusionment with our democracy.
He does have two good points that round out the chapter in regards to financial markets and American's place in the global economy. If America is going to lecture countries around the world about economic stability, then it should practice what it preaches. We have indeed lost credibility around the world because of our financial markets.
Proponents of the financial markets like to claim that one of the virtues of open capital market is that they provide "discipline." But the markets are a fickle disciplinarian, giving an A rating one moment and turning around with an F rating the next. Even worse, financial markets' interests frequently do not coincide with those of the country. The markets are shortsighted and have a political and economic agenda that seeks the advancement of the well being of financiers rather than that of the country as a whole.
Right. Until we chuck the "Wall Street Government," we aren't going to have as much respect around the world and voter disillusionment is going to continue at home. This point also serves to put an end, once and for all, to the notion that a successful business leader would make a successful civic leader (and that a rating from S&P means nothing).
The title of Stiglitz's next chapter is "1984 is Upon Us" and it details how perception is manipulated to continue inequality.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
No Easy Answers
With the passage of the right to work law in Michigan, it's clear that there are no easy answers to protecting the middle class while also protecting a company's right to make money. On the surface, it seems tremendously unfair to make someone pay union dues. If they don't want to pay, that should be OK, right?
Similar to the health care issue, however, the problem arises when the people that don't pay then free ride and enjoy the benefits of what the unions do for laborers. In many ways, unions are all that is left in this country in protecting the rights of the individual versus the billions of a corporation and, more importantly, from keeping inequality from getting even worse. We have many states in this country that have had right to work laws in place for years. Wages have not gotten better and the owners have reaped the benefits. They've stagnated and gotten worse so Governor Snyder is mistaken when says this will help workers. It won't.
Of course, the larger picture says that nothing is going to help laborers because of globalization. When you spread free market ideals and capitalism around the world, this is what you get: a giant pool of cheap labor. In the long run, this is a good thing but in the short run, people are having to make do with less money and it really, really sucks for most Americans. Further, it has inhibited our growth economically and made the middle class a vapor of what it once was.
There are no easy answers and I know that I don't have them. My initial thought is we need some fresh, new ideas in place of the old and stale arguments being fought out in Michigan right now. I was absolutely appalled to see the fights that had broken out and the violence, largely instigated by the union protesters and supporters. There is no excuse whatsoever for this sort of behavior and it only hurts their cause. It's likely going to be worse until some one or several someones put on their contstructivists caps and start answer some questions.
How do we support these laborers who are unintended victims of globalization, if at all? Just tell them to ride it and out it will get better (which it will, eventually)? Remember, that it stands to reason that if people are making less here that some people are making more elsewhere (more, of course, than the absolute shit they used to make). I'm not trying to diminish the exploitation that goes on by MNC's around the world but we shouldn't ignore how they have raised prosperity in many Global South countries. This doesn't help our own laborers, obviously.
And what of the issue of inequality? No doubt, right to work laws make it worse. This is where the federal government could help by eliminating the avenues of rent seeking that so many of the top earners and private firms take advantage of every day. With the fiscal cliff talks going nowhere everyday, this seems unlikely so our march to look more and more like a Third World country is being realized.
I don't know...I really don't. Honestly, I don't think anyone does and that's the problem.
Similar to the health care issue, however, the problem arises when the people that don't pay then free ride and enjoy the benefits of what the unions do for laborers. In many ways, unions are all that is left in this country in protecting the rights of the individual versus the billions of a corporation and, more importantly, from keeping inequality from getting even worse. We have many states in this country that have had right to work laws in place for years. Wages have not gotten better and the owners have reaped the benefits. They've stagnated and gotten worse so Governor Snyder is mistaken when says this will help workers. It won't.
Of course, the larger picture says that nothing is going to help laborers because of globalization. When you spread free market ideals and capitalism around the world, this is what you get: a giant pool of cheap labor. In the long run, this is a good thing but in the short run, people are having to make do with less money and it really, really sucks for most Americans. Further, it has inhibited our growth economically and made the middle class a vapor of what it once was.
There are no easy answers and I know that I don't have them. My initial thought is we need some fresh, new ideas in place of the old and stale arguments being fought out in Michigan right now. I was absolutely appalled to see the fights that had broken out and the violence, largely instigated by the union protesters and supporters. There is no excuse whatsoever for this sort of behavior and it only hurts their cause. It's likely going to be worse until some one or several someones put on their contstructivists caps and start answer some questions.
How do we support these laborers who are unintended victims of globalization, if at all? Just tell them to ride it and out it will get better (which it will, eventually)? Remember, that it stands to reason that if people are making less here that some people are making more elsewhere (more, of course, than the absolute shit they used to make). I'm not trying to diminish the exploitation that goes on by MNC's around the world but we shouldn't ignore how they have raised prosperity in many Global South countries. This doesn't help our own laborers, obviously.
And what of the issue of inequality? No doubt, right to work laws make it worse. This is where the federal government could help by eliminating the avenues of rent seeking that so many of the top earners and private firms take advantage of every day. With the fiscal cliff talks going nowhere everyday, this seems unlikely so our march to look more and more like a Third World country is being realized.
I don't know...I really don't. Honestly, I don't think anyone does and that's the problem.
Is It Time Yet?
(Alas, between the time I wrote this and scheduled it for Wednesday morning there was yet another shooting, this time at a mall in Portland. No details as of now, but it only emphasizes the point.)
Last week conservatives went ballistic when Bob Costas talked on Sunday Night Football about Jovan Belcher shooting his girlfriend and then committing suicide in front of his coach. So, as Jon Stewart wondered on the Daily Show, has enough time passed now to talk about this subject?
I guess the answer is no, because this crap happens every damned day:
Exactly. That's the point. Why the hell do these idiots have guns?
The three accidental shooters obviously lack the mental capacity to use and store weapons safely. Jovan Belcher and mass murderers like Jared Loughner and James Holmes have a history of domestic violence and/or mental disorders. How are any of these nut jobs qualified to own guns?
Voting is every much a constitutional right as gun ownership, yet conservatives are willing to disenfranchise millions of voters across the country to stop a few incidents of voter fraud. And still they are completely opposed to even talking about reasonable measures to prevent 30,000 gun deaths each year. Those deaths are caused by gun suicide, kids playing with loaded guns, accidental discharge by half-witted gun enthusiasts, cuckolded husbands and cheated-on wives, fired employees, vigilantes like George Zimmerman and Byron Smith executing interlopers, murderous rampages by psychopaths and shootings of bystanders in gang wars and drive-bys. There must be solutions to at least some of these problems.
Our per-capita gun death rate is not quite at the banana-republic rate, but it's two to 100 times greater than comparable countries, including Canada, Australia, Germany, England, Italy, Switzerland, South Korea and Japan. Part of it is the stupidity of the war on drugs (which is partly why Latin American has such a high death rate), but there's more to it than that.
Instead of yelling "Shut up!" every time anyone brings up the subject, conservatives should instead talk seriously about concrete measures to make guns safer and less likely to kill accidentally, as well as keep them out of the hands of people who are too crazy, too dangerous, too incompetent or too stupid to own weapons that can kill at the merest touch of the trigger.
Or consider this: we spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars on airport security every year, taking off our shoes every time we board a plane, and exposing ourselves to X-ray scans to make sure terrorists don't sneak sophisticated shoe and underwear bombs onto airplanes. People with guns kill ten times as many Americans as died on 9/11 every year: we've spent probably five trillion dollars on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, our worldwide war on terrorism and airport security. Yet here in the United States you can buy semiautomatic rifles without a background check at any gun show. Such rifles can hold a hundred rounds and easily be converted to full auto, allowing terrorists -- or kooks like James Holmes -- to pull off a Mumbai-style terrorist attack here. Yet the NRA fought tooth and nail to have the FBI destroy the records of people who undergo background checks for gun purchases.
Even discounting the terrorist bogeyman, consider this: the nitwit who killed his son at the gun store in Pennsylvania could have just as easily shot anyone else in the parking lot. Do you really want dorks like that visiting the same gun store you do?
Last week conservatives went ballistic when Bob Costas talked on Sunday Night Football about Jovan Belcher shooting his girlfriend and then committing suicide in front of his coach. So, as Jon Stewart wondered on the Daily Show, has enough time passed now to talk about this subject?
I guess the answer is no, because this crap happens every damned day:
- Sunday night a man in Rochester, MN, shot his sixteen-year-old granddaughter when she was coming home.
- Last week in St. Paul, MN, a four-year-old boy shot and killed his two-year-old brother with a gun his father had hidden behind a pillow.
- Last week a father in Pennsylvania accidentally shot his seven-year-old son to death in the parking lot of a gun store.
- Last month a retired State Department security officer shot and killed two teenagers who broke into his house. Byron David Smith shot the boy with a Mini 14 as the kid walked down the stairs, then shot him in the face as he lay on the floor. He then shot the girl as she came down, and she too tumbled down. When his rifle jammed she laughed (she was probably high), so he shot her several times in the chest with a .22 caliber revolver. She was still breathing, so he dragged her next to to the boy and blew her brains out with a shot under the chin.
- Let's not forget criminals that shoot cops (and each other) with guns they've stolen from houses they've broken into.
- And then there's the mass shootings that occur on an almost monthly basis at movie theaters, high schools, colleges, Sikh temples, strip malls, office complexes, etc., etc., etc.
Exactly. That's the point. Why the hell do these idiots have guns?
The three accidental shooters obviously lack the mental capacity to use and store weapons safely. Jovan Belcher and mass murderers like Jared Loughner and James Holmes have a history of domestic violence and/or mental disorders. How are any of these nut jobs qualified to own guns?
Voting is every much a constitutional right as gun ownership, yet conservatives are willing to disenfranchise millions of voters across the country to stop a few incidents of voter fraud. And still they are completely opposed to even talking about reasonable measures to prevent 30,000 gun deaths each year. Those deaths are caused by gun suicide, kids playing with loaded guns, accidental discharge by half-witted gun enthusiasts, cuckolded husbands and cheated-on wives, fired employees, vigilantes like George Zimmerman and Byron Smith executing interlopers, murderous rampages by psychopaths and shootings of bystanders in gang wars and drive-bys. There must be solutions to at least some of these problems.
Our per-capita gun death rate is not quite at the banana-republic rate, but it's two to 100 times greater than comparable countries, including Canada, Australia, Germany, England, Italy, Switzerland, South Korea and Japan. Part of it is the stupidity of the war on drugs (which is partly why Latin American has such a high death rate), but there's more to it than that.
Instead of yelling "Shut up!" every time anyone brings up the subject, conservatives should instead talk seriously about concrete measures to make guns safer and less likely to kill accidentally, as well as keep them out of the hands of people who are too crazy, too dangerous, too incompetent or too stupid to own weapons that can kill at the merest touch of the trigger.
Or consider this: we spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars on airport security every year, taking off our shoes every time we board a plane, and exposing ourselves to X-ray scans to make sure terrorists don't sneak sophisticated shoe and underwear bombs onto airplanes. People with guns kill ten times as many Americans as died on 9/11 every year: we've spent probably five trillion dollars on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, our worldwide war on terrorism and airport security. Yet here in the United States you can buy semiautomatic rifles without a background check at any gun show. Such rifles can hold a hundred rounds and easily be converted to full auto, allowing terrorists -- or kooks like James Holmes -- to pull off a Mumbai-style terrorist attack here. Yet the NRA fought tooth and nail to have the FBI destroy the records of people who undergo background checks for gun purchases.
Even discounting the terrorist bogeyman, consider this: the nitwit who killed his son at the gun store in Pennsylvania could have just as easily shot anyone else in the parking lot. Do you really want dorks like that visiting the same gun store you do?
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Minority Rule in the House of Representatives
The other day I wrote about the tyranny of the minority in the United States Senate. Sadly, it's also true in the House of Representatives.
Republicans in next year's Congress, the 113th, will hold 234 of the 435 seats, or 54%. That must mean Republican House candidates that they won the majority of the votes cast, right?
Wrong. Democratic House candidates won 50.5% of the national vote, but took only 46% of the seats. How is this completely undemocratic outcome possible? Two reasons: incumbency and gerrymandering.
Because so many state legislatures were controlled by Republicans in 2010, they controlled the redistricting process. They redrew the lines to give themselves more seats in Congress in a process called gerrymandering. It was particularly egregious in North Carolina, where Democratic House candidates received 51% of the vote, but got only 27% of the seats.
As Republicans and Democrats negotiate over the "fiscal cliff," both sides are claiming that they won decisive political victories. Eight-five percent of House Republicans won re-election with 55% of the vote, with more than half winning more than 60%.
Republicans say this means voters are demanding they carry through on campaign promises. They are wrong: what voters really want is for Congress to do their job and stop screwing around.
Most House members win in "landslides" because their districts are gerrymandered. Running against an incumbent is such a losing proposition that opponents are nearly always unqualified sacrificial goats, placed on the ballot in the hope that the incumbent commits an unpardonable gaffe on the scale of Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comment.
But even that doesn't always help. Tennessee Republican Congressman Scott DesJarlais is a doctor who claims to be a pro-life family-values conservative. A month before the election it came out that he had affairs with six coworkers and patients (!) and told one of them to get an abortion. Oh, and he and his ex-wife had two abortions. And this guy still won by 18.5 percent!
Results like this show quite clearly that winning any single election says nothing about what the voters want or think about the positions candidates espouse. Winning one particular race only means that you got more votes than the other guy, and that can be for any reason. But the biggest reasons are incumbency and district boundaries.
Ohio is a particularly blatant example of gerrymandering. John Boehner appears to think he won his district by 98% because the voters agree with everything he says. The fact is, he ran unopposed but only got 248,378 votes, the lowest vote total in an Ohio district. A Democrat, Marcia Fudge, ran unopposed in Ohio's 11th district but she got 100% of the vote, with 258,359 votes cast: 4% more than Boehner. Other districts had as many as 368,474 votes, almost 50% more than Boehner's district. Yet the population is supposed to be equal in all districts.
Although Obama won the state 50.1% to Romney's 48.2%, Ohio is sending four Democrats and 12 Republicans to Washington in January. In contested races Democrats won by margins from 42% to 50%; Republicans won by far more meager margins of 4% to 27%. How is that possible? Because the Republican-dominated Ohio legislature packed all the Democrats into four districts. (Pennsylvania is in a similar situation.)
What does John Boehner owe the people in his district that didn't vote for him? What does he owe the people in the rest of Ohio? What does he owe the people in the other 49 states?
Republicans need to get over this idea that they represent only the people that vote for them or donate to their campaigns. If one of Mr. Boehner's constituents was having a problem getting Social Security or veteran's benefits, I am absolutely certain he would help them get it fixed, regardless of who they voted for in the last election.
The legislative process should work the same way. Boehner should take into account the needs and opinions of everyone he represents, and that's not just the people in his gerrymandered Republican district. As speaker of the House, he is in line for the presidency. He therefore represents everyone in the country, and has to consider broader electoral results when formulating national policy.
The fact is, 98% of the people who voted for Mr. Boehner won't be affected by the president's compromise proposal on taxes. In the 2012 election cycle Boehner received at least $11.8 million in campaign donations, almost all of it from outside his district, almost all of it from people who will be affected by the president's compromise proposal on taxes.
Does Boehner really think he owes those donors more consideration than the rest of the people in the country?
Republicans in next year's Congress, the 113th, will hold 234 of the 435 seats, or 54%. That must mean Republican House candidates that they won the majority of the votes cast, right?
Wrong. Democratic House candidates won 50.5% of the national vote, but took only 46% of the seats. How is this completely undemocratic outcome possible? Two reasons: incumbency and gerrymandering.
Because so many state legislatures were controlled by Republicans in 2010, they controlled the redistricting process. They redrew the lines to give themselves more seats in Congress in a process called gerrymandering. It was particularly egregious in North Carolina, where Democratic House candidates received 51% of the vote, but got only 27% of the seats.
As Republicans and Democrats negotiate over the "fiscal cliff," both sides are claiming that they won decisive political victories. Eight-five percent of House Republicans won re-election with 55% of the vote, with more than half winning more than 60%.
Republicans say this means voters are demanding they carry through on campaign promises. They are wrong: what voters really want is for Congress to do their job and stop screwing around.
Most House members win in "landslides" because their districts are gerrymandered. Running against an incumbent is such a losing proposition that opponents are nearly always unqualified sacrificial goats, placed on the ballot in the hope that the incumbent commits an unpardonable gaffe on the scale of Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comment.
But even that doesn't always help. Tennessee Republican Congressman Scott DesJarlais is a doctor who claims to be a pro-life family-values conservative. A month before the election it came out that he had affairs with six coworkers and patients (!) and told one of them to get an abortion. Oh, and he and his ex-wife had two abortions. And this guy still won by 18.5 percent!
Results like this show quite clearly that winning any single election says nothing about what the voters want or think about the positions candidates espouse. Winning one particular race only means that you got more votes than the other guy, and that can be for any reason. But the biggest reasons are incumbency and district boundaries.
Ohio is a particularly blatant example of gerrymandering. John Boehner appears to think he won his district by 98% because the voters agree with everything he says. The fact is, he ran unopposed but only got 248,378 votes, the lowest vote total in an Ohio district. A Democrat, Marcia Fudge, ran unopposed in Ohio's 11th district but she got 100% of the vote, with 258,359 votes cast: 4% more than Boehner. Other districts had as many as 368,474 votes, almost 50% more than Boehner's district. Yet the population is supposed to be equal in all districts.
Although Obama won the state 50.1% to Romney's 48.2%, Ohio is sending four Democrats and 12 Republicans to Washington in January. In contested races Democrats won by margins from 42% to 50%; Republicans won by far more meager margins of 4% to 27%. How is that possible? Because the Republican-dominated Ohio legislature packed all the Democrats into four districts. (Pennsylvania is in a similar situation.)
What does John Boehner owe the people in his district that didn't vote for him? What does he owe the people in the rest of Ohio? What does he owe the people in the other 49 states?
Republicans need to get over this idea that they represent only the people that vote for them or donate to their campaigns. If one of Mr. Boehner's constituents was having a problem getting Social Security or veteran's benefits, I am absolutely certain he would help them get it fixed, regardless of who they voted for in the last election.
The legislative process should work the same way. Boehner should take into account the needs and opinions of everyone he represents, and that's not just the people in his gerrymandered Republican district. As speaker of the House, he is in line for the presidency. He therefore represents everyone in the country, and has to consider broader electoral results when formulating national policy.
The fact is, 98% of the people who voted for Mr. Boehner won't be affected by the president's compromise proposal on taxes. In the 2012 election cycle Boehner received at least $11.8 million in campaign donations, almost all of it from outside his district, almost all of it from people who will be affected by the president's compromise proposal on taxes.
Does Boehner really think he owes those donors more consideration than the rest of the people in the country?
Monday, December 10, 2012
A Minnesotan Message
Alright, Minnesotans...
1) After a snowstorm, driving a few miles under the speed limit is prudent. Driving 5 miles an hour everywhere is irritating. And continuing to move at the same (if not worse) snail like pace when you are pushing a cart around Target is massively fucking irritating.
2)Just because we had some snow doesn't mean that every single person who can drive in the seven country metro area should get out and do so...
3) We've had snow here before so enough with the buffoon like confusion. Stop doing stupid things you wouldn't normally do like changing lanes 9 times in the space of five minutes on the highway.
4)Whoever is in charge of stoplights, reset them to normal and not have them be on green for -5 seconds.
5) Whoever is in charge of plowing, say no to that 5th doughnut and actually PLOW THE ROADS!!
(can you tell we just got our first snowfall of the year?)
1) After a snowstorm, driving a few miles under the speed limit is prudent. Driving 5 miles an hour everywhere is irritating. And continuing to move at the same (if not worse) snail like pace when you are pushing a cart around Target is massively fucking irritating.
2)Just because we had some snow doesn't mean that every single person who can drive in the seven country metro area should get out and do so...
3) We've had snow here before so enough with the buffoon like confusion. Stop doing stupid things you wouldn't normally do like changing lanes 9 times in the space of five minutes on the highway.
4)Whoever is in charge of stoplights, reset them to normal and not have them be on green for -5 seconds.
5) Whoever is in charge of plowing, say no to that 5th doughnut and actually PLOW THE ROADS!!
(can you tell we just got our first snowfall of the year?)
Sunday, December 09, 2012
The Cure for DeMintia
For decades the pinnacle of Republican intellectualism was the art of coming up with a word or phrase that served as a codeword to their followers and cynically trivialized an issue. Sometimes these were passingly clever, like "Obamanation," but mostly they were phrases like "states rights," "trickle-down economics,""welfare queens," and "death panels."
An entire industry of conservative think tanks sprang up to spend millions of dollars slapping fresh coats of paint on tired Republican tropes to deceive voters into thinking Republicans had new ideas.
Therefore, in honor of the upcoming departure of Tea Party favorite Jim DeMint from the Senate, I am following in the Grand Old Tradition of the Grand Old Party. I'm coining the term "DeMintia."
DeMintia is the political atherosclerosis that prevents passage of legislation necessary to the health of the nation for narrow partisan gain. DeMintia has afflicted the United States Senate for years, but has become especially acute since 2010.
Years ago, most legislation in the Senate was enacted by simple majority vote. It was still possible for a single man to stop something egregious from passing, but it required a herculean effort. In the days of Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington a senator wishing to do so had to filibuster -- hold the floor in debate. He could do so as long as he had the stamina. To stop the filibuster a two-thirds cloture vote was required.
Over the years the filibuster has become more and more common -- though no one ever actually has to debate. Today a single senator can stop any action on the Senate floor simply by threatening to filibuster. The effect is that no legislation can pass unless it has 60 votes. Since there are 45 Republican senators and they nearly always vote in a bloc, any one man can completely gum up the works.
Thus, the Senate, which was constituted to prevent the tyranny of the majority, has descended into the tyranny of the minority -- a minority as small as one. This narrowing of the legislative arteries is what has lead us to the budget impasse we're at today.
Gladly, there is a cure for DeMintia: filibuster reform. The Constitution says nothing about the filibuster; it's only Senate rules that make it so. Senate majority leader Harry Reid has finally grown a spine and says he will enact filibuster reform. Instead of just whining Republicans should accept this and engage the Democrats in a spirit of compromise to reform other Senate rules that make it difficult for the minority to offer amendments ("filling the tree").
Republicans are complaining that this is the end of Democracy as we know it. The fact is, the minority is still quite powerful. Even with a simple majority vote, the very structure of the Senate allows a small minority of the population to completely stymie the legislative process: the 51 senators representing the smallest 26 states, which contain only 55 million people, constitute only 18% of the population. With the existing filibuster rule, the 41 senators required to keep a filibuster going could represent as few as 35 million citizens, or just 11% percent of the nation.
There's nothing sacred about a tiny percentage of the population being able to blackmail the rest of the country every time they don't get their way.
Though it was Mitch McConnell who in 2010 said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," no Republican tried more fervently than Jim DeMint to thwart the president's every initiative in the Senate. He tried but failed to pack the Senate with Tea Party louts like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, who were even more thuggish than himself.
With filibuster reform DeMint was doomed to become just another useless yammering Republican in the Senate. So, like Sarah Palin, he's quitting in mid-term to cash out. But instead of working for Fox News, he's going to work for one of those Republican "think" tanks, the Heritage Foundation.
I'm betting his first pitch to wealthy donors will go something like this: "The single most important thing we can achieve is to prevent President Obama from becoming a three-term president. That's why you need to donate one million dollars to our 2016 Future Freedom Fund to prevent Obama from repealing the twenty-second amendment."
Judging by how many millionaires suffered from DeMintia in the last election, I'm sure he'll get quite a haul. Those crazy old rich coots will believe anything.
An entire industry of conservative think tanks sprang up to spend millions of dollars slapping fresh coats of paint on tired Republican tropes to deceive voters into thinking Republicans had new ideas.
Therefore, in honor of the upcoming departure of Tea Party favorite Jim DeMint from the Senate, I am following in the Grand Old Tradition of the Grand Old Party. I'm coining the term "DeMintia."
DeMintia is the political atherosclerosis that prevents passage of legislation necessary to the health of the nation for narrow partisan gain. DeMintia has afflicted the United States Senate for years, but has become especially acute since 2010.
Years ago, most legislation in the Senate was enacted by simple majority vote. It was still possible for a single man to stop something egregious from passing, but it required a herculean effort. In the days of Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington a senator wishing to do so had to filibuster -- hold the floor in debate. He could do so as long as he had the stamina. To stop the filibuster a two-thirds cloture vote was required.
Over the years the filibuster has become more and more common -- though no one ever actually has to debate. Today a single senator can stop any action on the Senate floor simply by threatening to filibuster. The effect is that no legislation can pass unless it has 60 votes. Since there are 45 Republican senators and they nearly always vote in a bloc, any one man can completely gum up the works.
Thus, the Senate, which was constituted to prevent the tyranny of the majority, has descended into the tyranny of the minority -- a minority as small as one. This narrowing of the legislative arteries is what has lead us to the budget impasse we're at today.
Gladly, there is a cure for DeMintia: filibuster reform. The Constitution says nothing about the filibuster; it's only Senate rules that make it so. Senate majority leader Harry Reid has finally grown a spine and says he will enact filibuster reform. Instead of just whining Republicans should accept this and engage the Democrats in a spirit of compromise to reform other Senate rules that make it difficult for the minority to offer amendments ("filling the tree").
Republicans are complaining that this is the end of Democracy as we know it. The fact is, the minority is still quite powerful. Even with a simple majority vote, the very structure of the Senate allows a small minority of the population to completely stymie the legislative process: the 51 senators representing the smallest 26 states, which contain only 55 million people, constitute only 18% of the population. With the existing filibuster rule, the 41 senators required to keep a filibuster going could represent as few as 35 million citizens, or just 11% percent of the nation.
There's nothing sacred about a tiny percentage of the population being able to blackmail the rest of the country every time they don't get their way.
Though it was Mitch McConnell who in 2010 said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," no Republican tried more fervently than Jim DeMint to thwart the president's every initiative in the Senate. He tried but failed to pack the Senate with Tea Party louts like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, who were even more thuggish than himself.
With filibuster reform DeMint was doomed to become just another useless yammering Republican in the Senate. So, like Sarah Palin, he's quitting in mid-term to cash out. But instead of working for Fox News, he's going to work for one of those Republican "think" tanks, the Heritage Foundation.
I'm betting his first pitch to wealthy donors will go something like this: "The single most important thing we can achieve is to prevent President Obama from becoming a three-term president. That's why you need to donate one million dollars to our 2016 Future Freedom Fund to prevent Obama from repealing the twenty-second amendment."
Judging by how many millionaires suffered from DeMintia in the last election, I'm sure he'll get quite a haul. Those crazy old rich coots will believe anything.
Saturday, December 08, 2012
Friday, December 07, 2012
Ah, It Was HIS Waterloo
Jim DeMint to resign to head Heritage Foundation
The most telling quote from the piece?
The mistake the GOP made over the past four years, DeMint told reporters, was focusing too much on what the party was against rather than putting forth “bold ideas to get people inspired and behind us.”
Right. I wonder if any of the commenters over at The Smallest Minority will take this quote to heart regarding yours truly:)
With this resignation, the age of the "Angry White Man" has now officially concluded.
The most telling quote from the piece?
The mistake the GOP made over the past four years, DeMint told reporters, was focusing too much on what the party was against rather than putting forth “bold ideas to get people inspired and behind us.”
Right. I wonder if any of the commenters over at The Smallest Minority will take this quote to heart regarding yours truly:)
With this resignation, the age of the "Angry White Man" has now officially concluded.
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Biggest Conservative Campaign Donor a Liberal
Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire who spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get Republicans elected, is a liberal. He said so himself in an interview published in The Wall Street Journal.
“Look, I’m basically a social liberal, I know nobody will believe that,” Mr. Adelson said, as Dr. Adelson nodded.He's also for the DREAM Act and socialized health care:
“Number one, I’m supporting stem-cell research,” he said, pointing to a chart of the new Adelson medical research foundation that is funding some stem-cell based science.
“I’m pro choice,” he said. Republicans are pro-life, but he and his wife are not pro-life in politics, he said.
“You can take your own religious beliefs …and live your life with your own beliefs. But to make it a portion of the government’s policies?” He shook his head.
“Abortion shouldn’t be brought up as a political issue,” he said.
Finally, he said casually: “And by the way I’m in favor of a socialized-like health care.”Then what the hell is he doing in the Republican Party?According to Politico he has six core issues:
Asked he was sure he was in the right party, he and his wife laughed.
“Look, nobody agrees with 100 % of their planks” in the GOP platform, he and Dr. Adelson both said. [They endorse the Israeli system of socialized medicine.]
1) Paranoia. He thinks Obama will retaliate against him for spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat him. He thinks the investigations into money laundering in his Vegas casino and violation of bribery laws at his Macau casino are evidence of this, and tried to buy a change to the federal corrupt practices act in this last election.
2) Union busting. He hates them. He runs the only non-union casino in Vegas. He appears to compensate employees well, but like any Big Man he doesn't like his authority to be challenged and wants his employees to be beholden to him and no one else.
3) Latkes. One of his major gripes is that Bush ran out of potato pancakes at the last Hanukah party he attended at the White House.
4) Czars. Adelson and the right has this fantasy that there's a shadow government accountable to no one because Obama has appointed "czars" to oversee particular aspects of the government. The Congress and Republican presidents have been appointing such czars for decades, especially "drug czars." Nixon and Reagan were famous for doing this. In management speak it's called "delegation of authority," and is no different that a company hiring another manager to run a new project. Of course, these czars answer to the president and the Congress and the courts, so they're hardly above the law.
5) Control. Adelson wants to control the message the right is putting out. By dangling money in front of these guys, he can control what they say. By threatening to cut them off he dictates what they do.
6) Israel. He wants to dictate American policy on Israel, and buying a Republican -- any Republican -- into the White House would give him what he wants.
There you have it. Adelson is a Republican not because he believes in any of the planks in the party's platform, or has an enduring belief in any of the party's ideology and philosophy, but because he feels persecuted by Democrats and Republicans will give him more stuff.
In other words, Adelson is just another one of those people who voted for Romney because he promised them "stuff."
Why aren't these Tea Party guys drumming Adelson out of the Republican Party?
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
A Nickel on the Dollar
The other day execs from defense contractors told Congress that they're fine with having their taxes raised back to what they were during the Clinton administration. They should be: their salaries are paid by our tax dollars. Other CEOs, such as Lloyd Blankfein (Goldman Sachs) and Randall Stephenson (AT&T) said that a budget deal will require raising the marginal rate.
Many Republicans still refuse to bend to that reality, saying that it will destroy job creation and stifle everyone's incentive to earn more money. At issue is Obama's proposal to allow the top two marginal rates for the wealthiest taxpayers (married couples making more than $250,000) from 33% and 35%, to 36% and 39.6%. What exactly would that mean?
First, to be clear: these are marginal increases, so someone making $250,000 does not simply pay 39.6% of their salary. First you get to make a bunch of deductions, including the standard deduction, child allowances, mortgage, charitable contributions, state taxes, etc. This generally decreases wealthy people's taxes by a bunch right off the bat. (We'll ignore capital gains taxes for now, which Obama is proposing to raise from 15% to 20%, which is still a fabulous deal for the wealthy.)
So, let's say your taxable income after all those deductions is $250,000 a year. If you make $251,000 your taxes will go up by all of $46. Yes, by the magic of marginal tax rates each dollar you earn over $250,000 will cost you less than a nickel.
The Republican disincentive argument is so much hot air. Who in their right mind would turn down a promotion and a raise because their taxes will go up a nickel for each dollar more they earn?
But because there are so many rich people who make so much money, this nickel on the dollar would raise $800 billion over the next 10 years. That alone won't solve the deficit: some loopholes must be closed and programs will have to be cut, including defense, other discretionary spending and entitlements.
Why tax the wealthy instead of regular Americans? Why is that fair?
The wealthy will take a penny of that nickel and stick it in some foreign bank account. Another penny will go to buy an interest in a casino in Macau or a factory in China. Two more cents will be used to flip stock in the Wall Street casino (the companies will never see a penny from that "investment" and cannot hire a single worker from the sale of that stock). The last cent might be invested in something that might create a job here at home, an IPO, corporate or municipal bonds, take a cruise to the Greek Islands like Newt Gingrich after announcing a run for the presidency, or buy a yacht or a third mansion.
On the other hand, middle-class Americans will immediately spend four cents of that nickel on things right now: clothes (from Walmart), food (from Walmart, Kraft and Nabisco), drink (from Coca Cola and Anheuser Busch), cell phones (Apple and AT&T), and housing (which benefits construction companies across the country). The remaining penny might be spent to buy down debt, put into savings for retirement, college or a vacation, and nearly all of it will ultimately be spent here in the United States.
In short, tax cuts for the middle class are immediately converted to profits for corporate behemoths like Walmart, AT&T and Apple, and therefore the wealthy who reap the profits.
By contrast, the Republican plan to eliminate loopholes would hit middle-class Americans just as hard as the wealthy, reducing their disposable income and therefore corporate profits.
The president and the Congress need to understand the larger-scale workings of the economy instead of getting bogged down in arguments over class warfare and government picking winners and losers. Almost every cent middle-income Americans get in tax relief is going to wind up as profit on a corporate balance sheet, which means higher salaries, big bonuses and increased dividends for the wealthy.
It's a great return for the country for only a nickel on the dollar.
Many Republicans still refuse to bend to that reality, saying that it will destroy job creation and stifle everyone's incentive to earn more money. At issue is Obama's proposal to allow the top two marginal rates for the wealthiest taxpayers (married couples making more than $250,000) from 33% and 35%, to 36% and 39.6%. What exactly would that mean?
First, to be clear: these are marginal increases, so someone making $250,000 does not simply pay 39.6% of their salary. First you get to make a bunch of deductions, including the standard deduction, child allowances, mortgage, charitable contributions, state taxes, etc. This generally decreases wealthy people's taxes by a bunch right off the bat. (We'll ignore capital gains taxes for now, which Obama is proposing to raise from 15% to 20%, which is still a fabulous deal for the wealthy.)
So, let's say your taxable income after all those deductions is $250,000 a year. If you make $251,000 your taxes will go up by all of $46. Yes, by the magic of marginal tax rates each dollar you earn over $250,000 will cost you less than a nickel.
The Republican disincentive argument is so much hot air. Who in their right mind would turn down a promotion and a raise because their taxes will go up a nickel for each dollar more they earn?
But because there are so many rich people who make so much money, this nickel on the dollar would raise $800 billion over the next 10 years. That alone won't solve the deficit: some loopholes must be closed and programs will have to be cut, including defense, other discretionary spending and entitlements.
Why tax the wealthy instead of regular Americans? Why is that fair?
The wealthy will take a penny of that nickel and stick it in some foreign bank account. Another penny will go to buy an interest in a casino in Macau or a factory in China. Two more cents will be used to flip stock in the Wall Street casino (the companies will never see a penny from that "investment" and cannot hire a single worker from the sale of that stock). The last cent might be invested in something that might create a job here at home, an IPO, corporate or municipal bonds, take a cruise to the Greek Islands like Newt Gingrich after announcing a run for the presidency, or buy a yacht or a third mansion.
On the other hand, middle-class Americans will immediately spend four cents of that nickel on things right now: clothes (from Walmart), food (from Walmart, Kraft and Nabisco), drink (from Coca Cola and Anheuser Busch), cell phones (Apple and AT&T), and housing (which benefits construction companies across the country). The remaining penny might be spent to buy down debt, put into savings for retirement, college or a vacation, and nearly all of it will ultimately be spent here in the United States.
In short, tax cuts for the middle class are immediately converted to profits for corporate behemoths like Walmart, AT&T and Apple, and therefore the wealthy who reap the profits.
By contrast, the Republican plan to eliminate loopholes would hit middle-class Americans just as hard as the wealthy, reducing their disposable income and therefore corporate profits.
The president and the Congress need to understand the larger-scale workings of the economy instead of getting bogged down in arguments over class warfare and government picking winners and losers. Almost every cent middle-income Americans get in tax relief is going to wind up as profit on a corporate balance sheet, which means higher salaries, big bonuses and increased dividends for the wealthy.
It's a great return for the country for only a nickel on the dollar.
Ballistic, Benched, and Befuddled!
I guess the Civil War in the GOP has officially begun.
“You saw just a conservative purge in the House, you’ve seen the Washington insiders all saying, ‘Well we have to back off of our principles, and get away from certain issues and compromise on others,’” former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum told POLITICO. “Tomorrow we should all call John Boehner’s office to remind him to call Congressman Amash,” tweeted RedState.com’s Erick Erickson.
We knew it was only a matter of time before they started to turn on each other and I predict it's going to get worse as Speaker Boehner is going to have to cave. If he doesn't, the public will blame the House Republicans in the next election.
Speaking of blame, Roger Ailes is tired of Dick Morris and Karl Rove being wrong all the time so they have been told to grab some wood at Fox News. Life in the bubble is shrinking and it's largely due to a complete ignorance of facts. The American people know this and that's why the Right lost the election.
Of course, the bubble isn't fully shrunk yet as someone needs to explain to me why 38 Senators are convinced that the UN is going to use disabled people around the world to create a New World Order. Any takers?
“You saw just a conservative purge in the House, you’ve seen the Washington insiders all saying, ‘Well we have to back off of our principles, and get away from certain issues and compromise on others,’” former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum told POLITICO. “Tomorrow we should all call John Boehner’s office to remind him to call Congressman Amash,” tweeted RedState.com’s Erick Erickson.
We knew it was only a matter of time before they started to turn on each other and I predict it's going to get worse as Speaker Boehner is going to have to cave. If he doesn't, the public will blame the House Republicans in the next election.
Speaking of blame, Roger Ailes is tired of Dick Morris and Karl Rove being wrong all the time so they have been told to grab some wood at Fox News. Life in the bubble is shrinking and it's largely due to a complete ignorance of facts. The American people know this and that's why the Right lost the election.
Of course, the bubble isn't fully shrunk yet as someone needs to explain to me why 38 Senators are convinced that the UN is going to use disabled people around the world to create a New World Order. Any takers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)