Amen

Here is the full statement of Nick Hanauer, venture capitalist billionaire, given on June 5th of this year before the Subcommittee on Economic Policy (Senate Committee on Banking, House, and Urban Affairs).

For 30 years, Americans on the right and left have accepted a particular explanation for the origins of prosperity in capitalist economies. It is- that rich business people like me are “Job Creators” - That if taxes go up- on us or our companies, we will create fewer jobs. And that the lower our taxes are, the more jobs we will create and the more general prosperity we’ll have. Many of you in this room are certain that these claims are true. But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. 

For thousands of years people were certain, positive, that earth was at the center of the universe. It’s not, and anyone who doesn’t know that would have a very hard time doing astronomy. My argument today is this: In the same way that it’s a fact that the sun, not earth is the center of the solar system, it’s also a fact that the middle class, not rich business people like me are the center of America’s economy. I’ll argue here that prosperity in capitalist economies never trickles down from the top. Prosperity is built from the middle out. As an entrepreneur and investor, I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all would have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated. That’s why I am so sure that rich business people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. 

What does lead to more employment is a “circle of life” like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. That's why the real job creators in America are middle-class consumers. The more money they have, and the more they can buy, the more people like me have to hire to meet demand. So when businesspeople like me take credit for creating jobs, it’s a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around. Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do if and only if increasing customer demand requires it. Further, that the goal of every business- profit-, is largely a measure of our relative ability to not create jobs compared to our competitors. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous. 

That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer. Since 1980 the share of income for the richest 1% of Americans has tripled while our effective tax rates have by approximately 50%. If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. If it was true that more profit for corporations or lower tax rates for corporations lead to more job creation, -then it could not also be true that both corporate profits and unemployment are at 50 year highs. There can never be enough super rich Americans like me to power a great economy. I earn 1000 times the median wage, but I do not buy1000 times as much stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally. I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages. This is why the fast increasing inequality in our society is killing our economy. 

When most of the money in the economy ends up in just a few hands, it strangles consumption and creates a death spiral of falling demand. Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being perceived as “job creators” at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it is a small step from “job creator” to “The Creator”. When someone like me calls himself a job creator, it sounds like we are describing how the economy works. What we are actually doing is making a claim on status, power and privileges. The extraordinary differential between the 15-20% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 39% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is just one of those privileges. We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years. 

Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Rather, jobs are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit- in a virtuous cycle of increasing returns that benefits everyone. I’d like to finish with a quick story. About 500 years ago, Copernicus and his pal Galileo came along and proved that the earth wasn’t the center of the solar system. A great achievement, but it didn’t go to well for them with the political leaders of the time. Remember that Galileo invented the telescope, so one could see, with ones own eyes, the fact that he was right. You may recall however, that the leaders of the time didn’t much care, because if earth wasn’t the center of the universe, then earth was diminished-and if earth was diminished, so were they. And that fact- their status and power- was the only fact they really cared about. 

So they told Galileo to stick his telescope where the sun didn’t shine –and put him in jail for the rest of his life. And by so doing, put themselves on the wrong side of history forever. 500 years later, we are arguing about what or whom is at the center of the economic universe. A few rich guys like me, or the American Middle class. But as sure as the sun is the center of our solar system, the middle class is the center of our economy. If we care about building a fast growing economy that provides opportunity for every American, then me must enact policies that build it from the middle out, not the top down. Tax the wealthy and corporations-as we once did in this country- and invest that money in the middle class-as we once did in this country. Those polices won’t just be great for the middle class, they’ll be great for the poor, for businesses large and small, and the rich. 

Since when did investing in our country's infrastructure becoming communism?

Nothing Is The Matter With Kansas After All

A Win for Science in Kansas 

So. apparently. the Kansas State Board of Education voted to adopt the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), a new science curriculum that treats evolution and climate change as fact and promotes hands-on learning. The board passed the new standards in an 8-2 vote, and encountered significantly less opposition to evolution and climate change principles than in the past.

Recall that the state voted to weaken evolution teaching in 1999 and 2005, although it adopted an evolution-friendly science curriculum in 2007. What does this mean?

Progress.

Good Point

Attacking Syria May be the Right Thing to Do, but There Will Be Consequences...

It's amazing what short memories people have. John McCain is calling Obama's failure to act on Syria "disgraceful." But a decade ago, John McCain and George Bush had their way: they invaded Iraq based on false claims of "yellowcake" and a pack of lies told us by an Iranian spy (Ahmad Chalabi) and an informant named "Curveball" (who the Germans knew was lying).

Now Iraq is an Iranian ally and China is getting all the Iraqi oil we "liberated" from Saddam.

Osama bin Laden ran planes into buildings on 9/11 because we had left American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War. The Tsarnaev brothers bombed the Boston Marathon because they were angry about the innocents Americans had killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nearly all the recent terrorist attacks (Fort Hood, Times Square, etc.) have been in retribution for the wars. And we can't forget the almost 10,000 American troops who have died, and the hundreds of thousands who have been maimed and scarred for life.

Attacking Syria will mean killing Hezbollah fighters who are coming from Lebanon to help Assad. Americans will be directly responsible for the deaths of Hezbollah fighters. Thus far Hezbollah has left Americans pretty much alone unless we've stationed troops there. Remember Saint Ronald's biggest foreign policy disaster was his response to the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Almost 300 American and French troops were killed by Hezbollah. Reagan talked tough, but eventually turned tail and pulled them all out. The attack was apparently motivated by the deaths of innocent by-standers by an American missile.  Sound familiar?

If we attack Syria in any significant fashion, we will kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent Syrians, as well as Hezbollah fighters and, potentially, Iranian and Russian advisers. The survivors will be angry and will want revenge. It may take 10 years, as it did for bin Laden and the Tsarnaevs, but we know for certain that some number of these angry young men will attempt to take revenge on America for these deaths. And we know for certain that some of them will succeed.

We are, at the same time McCain is demanding we invade Syria, deciding that the illusion of safety is more important than our privacy: we think it's okay for NSA to watch every single thing we do. Yet McCain is proposing an action that will inevitably endanger a whole new generation of Americans by making a whole new generation of Middle Easterners in yet another country hate us.

If we make war on Syria, we will make more terrorists. In five or 10 years, those terrorists will eventually try blow up the Pentagon or open fire on crowds of children at Disneyworld with AK-47s they can buy without background checks at gun shows in the United States. (Which they can buy with using a cell phone or the Internet.) Dozens if not hundreds or thousands of Americans will die because of an invasion of Syria. At that point millions of oblivious Americans will wail, "Why do they hate us so much?" just like they did after 9/11.

Well, this is why: when Americans kill people, their friends and relatives want revenge. Obliviously, Americans think that those people should be thanking us for freeing them from tyrants. But they don't see Assad as a tyrant: many Syrians are tied to his regime by inescapable political, family and religious ties. They perceive his acts of cruelty against Syrian rebels as necessary to protect their safety (sound familiar?).

Helping the Syrian rebels might be the right thing to do. But directly attacking Syria with American planes, ships and troops will have consequences: not only will American troops die, but eventually terrorists seeking revenge will kill innocent Americans here at home. And will the people who take power after Assad is gone be any better than he is? Is the current prime minister of Iraq any better than Saddam? Based on the number of Iraqis still getting blown up in the streets every day, it would seem not.

So, I wonder: why is the risk of American deaths from waging war on Syria so much more preferable to the risk of American deaths by having the NSA butt out of our personal lives?

Direct Military Aid to Syrian Rebels

I don't know if this is a good idea at all. I realize the president is feeling pressure from all points across the political spectrum to do something but do we really know who these guys are? There are various reports that claim that they Syrian rebels have been infiltrated by Al Qaeda. We've done this dance before in Afghanistan in the late 1970s and early 1980s and that didn't turn out so well.

And speaking of Russia, the fact that they are now sending missiles to aid the Assad government is perhaps more troubling. So, now Putin is arming the Syrian government and we are arming the rebels. Does anyone else think this situation is likely going to massively blow up at any moment.

No Shit

And....Back to Rape...

GOP congressman: Rate of pregnancies from rape is ‘very low’

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), whose measure banning abortions after 20 weeks was being considered in the House Judiciary Committee, argued against a Democratic amendment to make exceptions for rape and incest by suggesting that pregnancy from rape is rare. “Before, when my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject — because, you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” Franks said.

Rape is like catnip to these guys....they just can't stop talking about it!

The Way out of Poverty!

Did you hear the one about Stephen Fincher, the Tennessee Republican congressman who quoted the Bible to justify cutting poor people off food stamps? From The Tennessean:

During the Agriculture Committee hearing last month, Democrats protested the food stamp cut, citing biblical verses about the need to care for the poor.

Fincher responded, “The Bible says a lot of things.” He added, “So we have to be careful how we pick and choose verses out of the Bible.”

In supporting the food stamp cut, the Tennessee member emphasized verses such as “Matthew” 26:11, in which Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.” He also pointed to “2 Thessalonians” 3:10, which says “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

That's bad enough, but that isn't the worst:

Fincher has received $3.48 million in federal farm subsidies since 1999, according to the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group that annually obtains figures from the Agriculture Department. In 2012, he received $70,574.

He ranks first among current members of Congress in receipt of such money, according to the group.

and

Fincher said in 2010 that farm subsidies don’t go into his pocket because he uses them to pay off agricultural loans.

(The FEC has also found Fincher in violation of federal campaign regulations for accepting a $250,000 loan from his father's bank without disclosing it on his filings.)

So, giving food stamps to hungry Americans is bad, but giving farm subsidies to a rich congressman to pay off a big bank is just fine.

Fincher has discovered the way to end poverty! Poor people should just take out big loans from banks and then get the federal government to pay it back.

But wait -- didn't that just happen five or six years ago to millions of Americans who took out home loans from big banks, only to lose everything when the economy tanked?

The federal government bailed out the banks -- and Fincher -- but the vast majority of Americans got the shaft. Now many of those people who lost their jobs and their homes are on food stamps, and Fincher wants to starve them out as well.

Did They Miss It?

Interesting piece from Martin Sandbu about the Occupy Movement. To a certain extent, I agree with him. They had a chance to become the left's equivalent of the Tea Party but the very structure of the organization lent itself to not quite get there. With the "no leader" pledge, they pretty much set themselves up to be irrelevant in the current socio-political framework.

Yet, they did leave behind the "Legacy of the Percent" meme which ended up defining Mitt Romney (the 47 percent). I think Sandbu and many people who chuckle at the "death" of the Occupy Movement aren't reflecting on just how much awareness they raised about inequality in this country. It's part of our political vernacular and has about as much chance of going away as the words "bloated and ineffective" being used in juxtaposition with "government."

And they remained true to their vision and did not sell out to corporate interests unlike the Tea Party. I certainly thought they would so I was clearly wrong on that one. My chief frustration with them still remains their insistence that physical protesting in the age of social media is still relevant. It isn't. If they want to truly "occupy," something, it should be the next version of Twitter or Instagram. That would get people's attention.

How about an Occupy App? :)

Snowden Shows NSA Can't be Trusted with Our Secrets

Looks like I was wrong about the NSA phone records scandal -- it is all Bush's fault. The massive surveillance programs that Edward Snowden revealed to the world all started under Bush.

Some people are angry about these domestic spying programs: Rand Paul is starting a class action suit (aren't conservatives against frivolous lawsuits?). Apparently Snowden is a big Ron Paul supporter; he appears to have donated $500 to Paul's 2012 campaign. And the ACLU has been beating the NSA drum for years.

But a lot of people don't care, especially on the right. They seem to be just fine with the NSA watching every phone call you make and every single thing you do on the Internet. Which is weird considering how bent out of shape they are over the IRS profiling conservative political groups filing for tax-exempt status (apparently something that a conservative Republican IRS employee started). But people like Marc Thiessen insist that there's no danger from  the NSA because "Big Brother is not watching you."

The thing is, Little Brother is watching you. A lovestruck FBI agent messing with this kind of data took down David Petraeus. There have been numerous stories of state employees rummaging through drivers license records looking at hot women.

The people calling Edward Snowden a traitor and a criminal are missing the larger point. By revealing the secret of this massive surveillance program, Snowden -- a low-level computer system administrator -- proved without a doubt that the "safeguards" against exposure of sensitive data are completely inadequate. And if we can't keep this kind of data safe, should we even be collecting it?

Had Snowden really been the villain his detractors say he is, he could have used his access to look at the phone records and Internet activity for Republican senators, conservative pundits and, say, the offices of right-wing political organizations applying for non-profit status -- data that could help determine whether those groups are really "social welfare groups" or just political operatives trying to evade taxes. Or he could have gotten their credit card and bank account numbers and passwords. Or sold that information to the FSB or Chinese intelligence or the Russian mob.

Even if you put aside worries of rogue government employees blackmailing you or selling your data, there's always the problem of theft, mistakes and incompetence. How many times over the past few years have we heard stories about hackers breaking into websites to steal credit card numbers? How many times have sysadmins screwed up and left a firewall open, or put a file full of critical data on an open website, or lost a laptop with the names and Social Security numbers of thousands of people?

Finally, this incident also shows how flawed the idea is of having massively overpaid corporate contractors handle critical government work. Snowden worked for a private company called Booz Allen Hamilton that gets billions of dollars in contracts from the government every year. Snowden has worked for both the CIA and Booz Allen, recently pulling down $200,000 a year as a computer systems administrator. Snowden doesn't have a college degree; he didn't even graduate from high school. Yet he was paid two to four times the regular salary for such a position. Apparently money does not buy loyalty.

However, there's good news: if you're a sysadmin there's a job opening at Booz Allen that pays really well!

Surprised

Flying under the radar of nearly everyone was the recent SCOTUS ruling on Arlington vs. FCC. The essential question of the case was this: if the law is ambiguous, who gets to interpret it? My local paper details why this ruling was nothing short of stunning.

The divisions within the court defied the usual ideological predictions. In a powerful opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court’s majority ruled that even when an agency is deciding on the scope of its own authority, it has the power to interpret ambiguities in the law. Scalia was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas.

Are you FUCKING kidding me? Clarence Fucking Thomas is saying that a government agency has the power to interpret ambiguities in the law? How can this be?

For almost three decades, the court has ruled that when Congress gives a federal agency the power to issue regulations, that agency is usually authorized to interpret ambiguities in the original legislation. For example, does the word “source” in the Clean Air Act mean each smokestack in a plant or the entire plant? The court has ruled that the agency is entitled to interpret such ambiguities as long as its interpretation is reasonable. The idea is that by giving rulemaking authority to agencies, Congress implicitly delegated interpretive power to them as well. The court also has noted that, compared with the courts, the agencies are politically accountable and have technical expertise.

Scalia contended that Roberts was quite wrong to say that courts could identify a separate category of cases — those involving the scope of an agency’s authority. The question is always whether the agency is acting within the bounds set by Congress. “There is no principled basis for carving out some arbitrary subset of cases,” Scalia wrote. Forcing lower courts to draw ad hoc lines would make the law unpredictable and produce chaos. Scalia also insisted that the danger of agency overreaching is to be avoided, not by an arbitrary carve-out, but by requiring agencies to respect congressional limits on their authority.

So, the government agencies must be watched by Congress, not the courts. This means that the Congress has to start doing its fucking job and actually govern which makes me very, very happy.

The Question They Can't Answer

Simple question, via Salon.com...why are there no libertarian countries?

My answer has always been this: the same reason why socialist fantasies never work in reality is the same reason why libertarian fantasies never work in reality...people. They really suck. If the state planned everything, they'd have too much power and corrupt people would be naturally drawn to it. If the state planned nothing and let the free market just sort everything out, the corrupt people would get away with everything they wanted.

Michael Lind, the writer of the piece, makes a few interesting points on this subject.

When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling. But this isn’t an adequate response. 

Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.

Yet they can't do it. It's been my experience that these same people are often "based in science and logic" and require "hard evidence" before they can justify something. Thus, it's quite odd that they continually perpetuate this myth that a libertarian society would be the best. Where is the proof?

While the liberal welfare-state left, with its Scandinavian role models, remains a vital force in world politics, the pro-communist left has been discredited by the failure of the Marxist-Leninist countries it held up as imperfect but genuine models. Libertarians have often proclaimed that the economic failure of Marxism-Leninism discredits not only all forms of socialism but also moderate social-democratic liberalism.

But think about this for a moment. If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.

Exactly right and there's a reason for that perfectly summed up in one word: anarchy.

Meanwhile...

Oh Really?