Are the Republicans are Turning Us into China?

For the past two years Republicans have been calling Obama a socialist and a communist, insisting that his policies will destroy the American economy. But if we look at the economies of the world today, who's doing the best?

Without a doubt, it's China. The country run by the Communist Party of Mao has a centralized command economy that has harnessed the capitalist plow horse under the socialist yoke. China has bought hundreds of billions of dollars worth of US Treasury bills, propping up the US economy. China dictates trade policy to the world, coming into their full power during the Bush administration.

So, how is this economic miracle possible? Well, the workers who build all those computers and TVs and iPads get paid dirt, and are treated like dirt. Unions are run by the Communist Party, which also runs management. China has essentially no environmental regulations: remember how they had to shut down all their factories for weeks to host the Olympics? They burn so much coal the skies over Beijing are a perpetual filthy brown. And, finally, American and European companies have turned their backs on their own workers, first shifting production to China and are now sending high-tech design centers to China. Companies like Walmart, with their insistence on constantly-decreased prices (and, incidentally, quality) have forced most of their American suppliers to produce their goods in China.

In other words, China has become what the United States and Britain were in the 1890s: a land where government and big business are one, and workers have no control over their own fates.

The old notions of communism and capitalism no longer make any sense. What matters now is how much control average people have over their own lives, and the quality of life (clean air, clean water, reasonable working hours, decent pay and housing, etc.).

China has reached the point where government has absorbed big business and the two have merged into one. The Republicans and their big business backers are doing the same thing from the other direction: big business is swallowing Republican politicians and therefore government, giving business a free hand to do whatever they please. Big business can spend unlimited amounts of cash to buy elections now; it doesn't always work (ask Meg Whitman), but in a close race it makes all the difference.

And it's not just me saying that this is what Republicans think: remember the heartfelt apology Joe Barton gave BP during the hearings about the Gulf oil spill? All the Republicans were saying the same thing he was, except he that he gushed as much as the oil well in his fawning over BP. And all throughout the election Republicans keep screaming about reducing regulations despite the fact that in the last nine years the lack of regulation and the lack of enforcement of existing regulations has resulted in some of the the largest financial and environmental calamities we've ever seen.

And don't get me wrong. Some Democrats have been co-opted by big business as well. They're too comfortable with Wall Street and Big Energy. But as a party and an ideology, the Democrats clearly want to maintain a healthy separation between government and big business, while the Republicans are running headlong into the government/big business/no regulation singularity.

The Republicans are leading us to the same place that China is today. Just from the other direction.

Helping the Terrorists Win

Recently there's been an uproar over body scanners at airports. People are worried about X-ray dosages and the invasion of privacy. Others are calling for mass protests to opt out of scans and getting a pat-down instead, and many of those same people are then screaming that they don't want to be touched. This will cause massive slowdowns and cost lots of money in delays.

Those people are helping the terrorists win.

The purpose of the 9/11 attacks, the shoe and underwear bombers, and the recent printer toner cartridge bombs is not to inflict maximum carnage. It's to inflict maximum economic distress, to slow down our economy and make us change the way we do business. They want to raise fears in the American public to demand security measures which would then make the cost of doing business so high that it will eventually bankrupt us. They want us to make people fear and hate our government by making our government do things people hate.

The Republicans have aided and abetted the terrorists the whole time. Every time Bush needed a push in the polls in the 2004 election he'd jack up the terror alert level to orange. The Bush administration created the Department of Homeland Security (that name still gives me Orwellian chills) and the TSA as sprawling bureaucracies with the mandate to invade our privacy and make us take off our shoes every time we board a plane, tap our phone messages and read our email.

The current scanner brouhaha was started during the Bush administration, which ordered the installation of the machines at airports. So far the whiners are complaining about having their junk touched. But in another few weeks I'm sure we'll be into full-blown nut-case conspiracy mode, where right-wingers insist that Obama's socialist/communist/fascist agenda is behind all this, and Janet Napolitano wants to get pictures of us all naked and let child molesters cop feels.

The terrorists behind the recent package bombing attempts recently published an article about their exploits. They claimed the whole thing only cost them about $4,200 to pull off. Think about it. They only had to spend 4,000 bucks to get us to spend billions of dollars in additional security measures. If terrorism were a business it would have the biggest profit margin ever.

Which really makes you wonder: Bush used the terrorism card to get votes. How many of these guys are using terrorism to get rich? Well, at least one: Michael Chertoff, the former DHS secretary under Bush, has been pushing for full-body scans now for years. It turned out that he also shills for the company that makes the scanners.

To be honest, I'm surprised that the security backlash has taken this long. I've always felt that the reaction to 9/11 was overblown, that we've sold our privacy and our souls and wasted billions of dollars on security measures that do very little, and actually make us feel less safe. I didn't think it would take us nine years to get tired of all this nonsense at airports. We're not as courageous and clear-sighted as I thought we were

And to make matters worse, the scanners are already obsolete. Al Qaeda doesn't bother doing the same thing twice once they've failed. They also take their time plotting their next big thing, often waiting years before the next attempt. The shoe bomb didn't work, and the underwear bomb didn't work. What's next?

Al Qaeda has already attempted an assassination using a bomb hidden in a body cavity. They haven't tried this on a plane yet, but if they do no body scanner will detect it. Another question: are body scanners being used at the foreign airports where the shoe and underwear bombers boarded?

Right now the nexus of terrorism seems to be Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, all ostensible allies. That tells us something very important: anti-Americanism flows from internal dissent. We're in the middle of a domestic squabble. In a way, that's a good thing. Getting out from between two feuding brothers should be easier than toppling a dictatorship or stopping a madman from getting nuclear weapons.

The terrorists are using attacks on America to coerce us into changing our policies toward their countries. And it works: the prima facie reason bin Laden attacked us was because of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, where they had been stationed since Gulf War. Bush pulled all our troops from that country in 2003, giving bin Laden exactly what he wanted.

Terrorists attack us because they believe the US is occupying their country, American companies are interfering with their lives and prosperity, or the US is propping up an illegitimate regime. We need to seriously examine what we're doing in those countries and ask ourselves whether it's helping or hurting us.

Worth A Million Words

Our culture is very visual these days so I think it's important that we see the difference between the Democrat's tax plans and the GOP tax plans.

Now, I hear a lot of mouth foaming about how the Democrats are all rich too and they bend over backwards (and forwards) for the wealthy just like the GOP does. But I don't really see it here. Why would they make a tax policy that cut into their profits? Why would guys like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and George Soros promote policies that dictate less tax breaks for the wealthy? I guess there's my answer and then there's the unreality of the fact free zone.

Seriously, though, look at the top bracket. How can you not laugh?

Give Me My Damn Government Health Care...Stat!

In what has to be the finest example of hypocrisy I have EVER seen (and I've seen quite a bit every day on here and in the political world), Andy Harris, the newly elected Maryland GOP Congressmen, demanded his government health care a month early.

Apparently, Rep. Harris, who ran on an anti-Obamacare platform, was at an orientation meeting and wondered when his government run health care was available to utilize. Apparently, it doesn't kick in until Feb 1, 2011 which he was not happy with at all. "He stood up and asked the ladies who were answering questions why it took so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care," a congressional staffer related.

Why, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, Dr. Harris!

Dr. Harris then wondered if he could buy his insurance early. No, Dr. Harris, you can't. Sorry...we don't have that option with health care. Remember, socialized medicine is a boiling pit of sewage.

Check out this clip of Dr. Harris demonizing government run health care.



What a tool...

Well, Let's Hear It!

I've done it. I have balanced the United States federal budget.

Click here for Mark's results!

I'd like to see how the rest of you would fair. It's easy to reset and do your own so get on with it. I've heard a lot of griping about the government but now YOU are in charge. What cuts will you make? How will you balance the budget?

Cut and paste your link in comments. I expect to hear from all of my regulars.

Lame Ducks (In Every Sense of the Word)

The lame duck Congress reconvenes this week and the Democrats will have their curtain call. Anyone out there think they will do anything worthwhile?

I don't.

In fact, I think they will do their usual pussy dance and cower in fear of the now much further right GOP. They could repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" but they won't because people like John McCain, who said we would repeal the law if the generals gave the OK, has now gone back on that because he wants to stay in good graces with the anti gay crowd on the right. The Democrats will follow suit and, even though 70 percent of the country favors repeal, give in (once again) to the very vocal and VERY bigoted minority. (side rant: This would be a classic example of how the minority wins time and again for those of you who have wondered. It's related to spinal muscular atrophy.) The Democrats could do something on immigration or energy. But they won't. Again, their complete lack of spine will send them cowering in fear in the face of the likes of the Koch brothers. But these issues aren't even the worst transgression. That trophy belongs to the Bush tax cuts.

I think we can all agree that making all the tax cuts (save for the top 2 percent of nation's earners) permanent is a good thing. It is my view that the middle class drives this economy and letting their tax cuts expire in a recession is a monumentally stupid thing.

But the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of this country should expire. Why? First, they aren't going to end up paying those taxes anyway because they will move their money around and pay less due to the simple fact that they can afford teams of lawyers and accountants. Second, the MYTH that the less the rich are taxed the more they invest in the economy has been completely torpedoed. They don't invest in shit except derivatives and hedge funds that simply make them more money. Third, they will make the deficit much worse. Cry all you want about spending but until you show me where you are going to stand up and make cuts, we are going to need more revenue. We'll need it anyway.

Finally, they should pay more because they are wealthy.

Now, I know all of you charity-to-the-wealthy lovers just had an epileptic seizure and began to foam at the mouth about redistribution of wealth/socialism/guns/statism blah blah blah. And I know how offensive it is to ask criminals, who risk our money-not theirs, to part with their ill gotten millions. But one of the men that you tout as being an authority on how markets should be run has said as much. That man's name is Adam Smith.

For those of you who aren't familiar with Mr. Smith, he wrote a masterpiece on free market economics called The Wealth of Nations (1776). The basic gist of his treatise is that there should be as little government interference in the market and "the invisible hand" should be allowed to work its magic. This invisible hand is roughly defined as men acting in their own self interest will unknowingly serve the interests of other, less fortunate members of society.

Setting aside the fact (which many libertarians and right wingers conveniently ignore) that the terms "economics" and "capitalism" weren't in use at the time of his writing, those who tout Smith completely fail to point out this line from the piece.

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

Or this one.

The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Or this one (especially dedicated to those of you who howl at me about your money being taken by the butt of a gun)

Every tax, however, is, to the person who pays it, a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty. It denotes that he is the subject of government;,indeed but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master.

In other words, progressive taxes are fair, honest, and what work best. Bear in mind that Smith saw all this from a society that was a dominated by feudalism. I wonder what he would think of out little plutonomy today given the similarities....hmmm....

Anyway, the Democrats, in light of these obvious truths, should draw a line in the sand (like the right always does and invariably succeeds) and tell the minority for the next 6 weeks to pound salt up their ass. Bring a vote to the floor for the middle class tax cuts only and, if the GOP has an eight year old boy temper tantrum, let them try to explain to the American people, upon taking over in January 2011, how they let all the tax cuts expire. In other words, play HARDBALL like the right does all the time. Democrats should send a two word message to the GOP in this lame duck session.

"Fuck" and "Off."

Bill channels Markadelphia

On any normal day, I'm the one that usually channels my inner Maher and riffs off of it. A couple of weeks back, though, I think it was the reverse.

During his final New Rule on November 5, 2010, Maher lamented the Stewart-Colbert rally and, at several points during the commentary, he sounded just like me.

You see, Republicans keep staking out position that is further and further right and then demand that the Democrats meet them in the middle. Which is now not the middle anymore.

Sound familiar? It should because I've been saying it for years now. In a non Bizzaro world, I am center left. In a world that has been consumed by the right wing blogsphere and the likes of pathological ideologues like Thomas Sowell, I am condemned as a communist.

Of course, it's not entirely their fault.

And the biggest mistake of modern media has been this notion of balance for balance's sake; that the left is just as cruel and violent as the right; that reverse racism is just as damaging as racism.

Until more people stand up and call the Right for what it is now, we will continue to have this distorted view of reality. Unfortunately, this is going to either require large quantities of cash or for people not care about cash and actually think. The latter is going to be a tough row to hoe.

The simple fact is that these people have convinced millions of American citizens that donating money to rich people is a good thing. And protecting the wealth of rich people against the Big Bad Wolf (government) is the very definition of freedom. Talk about useful idiots....

Here's the full clip:

Martin Luther King spoke on that mall in the capital, and he didn't say, "Remember, folks, those sheriffs with with the fire hoses and the German Shepherds, they had a point too!" No. He said, "I have a dream. They have a nightmare."

Indeed. Make no mistake about it. It IS a nightmare. Like Bill, I'm through pretending.

The Fact Free Zone

I've been quite amused watching the feud between Sarah Palin and the Wall Street Journal. It's a pretty good indicator as to what her presidency might be like.

Air Force General: Madam President., here are the facts. The F-22 can't land on aircraft carriers. It's land based.

President Palin (winking): Oh...c'mon there now, General. Let's just hook up a couple of static lines and we'll be good to go...you betcha!

It still amazes me that people think she is qualified to be president.

Friday Funnies

Why We Fight

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

----General Dwight David Eishenhower

Find a veteran today...take their hand...thank them for the service.

WTF Has Obama Done?

Extended benefits of same sex partners of federal employees.

In A Nutshell

If an alien were to land on our planet and wonder what the difference between a Democrat and a Republican was in how they governed, Andy at electoral-vote.com summed it up perfectly the other day.

The Democratic Party wants government to help the sick, the weak, the poor, and the middle class in their perpetual struggle for a better life against powerful forces that want to exploit them. The Republicans oppose this and believe it is "every man for himself." They want a smaller government that intrudes less in people's lives (except when it comes to anything touching sex, like abortion and homosexuality, in which case the government should dictate acceptable behavior).

I suppose I get why people are against abortion because they see it as murder. That's fine. But why all the anti-contraception stuff then? More importantly, why do they care so much about gay marriage? It makes no sense to me whatsoever coming from the same crowd who is pathologically against government intrusion into people's lives.

In our state we are currently going through yet another recount. Should the battle drag on past January, Tim Pawlenty has vowed to stay on as governor with the Republicans having won back both houses in the state legislature. Their first priority?

A state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

WTF Has Obama Done?

Tax Cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health coverage.

The Sharia Strawman

A judge has blocked the so-called "Sharia law" amendment in Oklahoma. This law, supposedly intended to prevent Sharia and foreign law from taking hold in America, was never about that. It was always about inflaming the electorate, raising up a bogeyman that never existed. In short, another Republican election stunt.

The law, called State Question 775, forbids courts “from considering or using international law” and “from considering or using Sharia Law.”

The US legal system is based on Anglo-Saxon common law. Many of the original thirteen colonies have clauses in their constitutions stating that British common law should be used where state and federal laws have no precedents. The Northwest Ordinance passed by the Congress of the Confederation (the interim Congress before the Constitution was enacted) in 1787 said that common law would be used to adjudicate cases. Every state in the Union uses common law except Louisiana, which uses Napoleonic law.

For centuries -- before and ever since the Revolution -- American courts have cited English common law cases -- international law -- in their decisions. That means that it has always been perfectly reasonable for American judges to cite common law decisions from England, Scotland and Wales. It's also reasonable to consider common law decisions from other common law nations, which include Malaysia, Singapore, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, India, Ghana, Cameroon, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong and Australia. And since Louisiana is based on Napoleonic law, it's reasonable for them to cite decisions from France and French colonies.

If Oklahoma wants to forbid courts from considering decisions in China, Russia, Myanmar, Germany, Sweden, Finland and Burkina Faso, that's one thing -- we don't have any legal history with those countries. But you just can't toss out four centuries of American judicial precedent because you hate Muslims and "activist judges."

But what about Sharia law? In the original case that sparked this whole mess, a judge decided against a restraining order a wife requested against her abusive husband. The judge said the man was abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties.

First, this decision was overturned. So the application of Sharia law in New Jersey? Not happening.

Second, and more importantly, his decision was not based on Sharia law. This was based on the man's belief. If that man was a Christian or Jew who believed the same thing (and there are plenty of them), the judge would have ruled the same. Courts often take into account the beliefs and fears of the individuals when making decisions and imposing sentences. For example, in many jurisdictions you can shoot someone in cold blood if you are afraid. Don't believe it? Well, consider the case of Yoshihiro Hattori, the Japanese kid who was shot and killed in Louisiana one Halloween. The police didn't even think the shooter should be charged. He was finally tried and acquitted because Louisiana lets you shoot burglars, which of course the Japanese kid was not. But the killer thought he was, and was afraid. So he got 007 status.

Finally, some judges are, to put it kindly, loathe to grant restraining orders against husbands who demand spousal benefits. They pretend that the courts shouldn't get involved in family disputes. So they reach for any handy reason to give for why they think the man should get his way. The growing number of dead wives is a testament to this short-sightedness.

So, if the danger of Sharia law having any effect in Oklahoma is nil, why did they bring this up? Was Rex Duncan, the Oklahoma representative who authored the amendment, woefully ignorant of the huge body of international Anglo-Saxon common law precedents cited in American jurisprudence? Or did he knowingly and willfully ignore this and press ahead with this amendment because it serves his political purposes? The same purposes that were served by all the screaming about the Ground Zero mosque? Which, by the way, isn't a mosque (it has basketball courts!) and isn't at Ground Zero.

It's one thing to spout lies and nonsense on FOX News to get your guys elected. But messing with the Constitution of your state to score political points is unethical, immoral and downright dangerous.

WTF Has Obama Done?

Starting today, and going into the foreseeable future, will be a new prologue to each post. WTF has Obama done so far? is a very wonderful web site that has been making the rounds on FaceBook and it's just too good to not do a similar deal here.

So, just like a "thought of the day" or a "word of the day," I will be showcasing our president's accomplishments here. Today's WTF...

Established a Credit Card Bill of Rights, preventing credit card companies from imposing arbitrary rate increases on customers.

Saving Capitalism

Beginning when in the middle of FDR's first term, strict regulation and oversight of the financial sector of this country began. For nearly five decades, as a result of these policies, our nation's economy suffered no serious financial crises.

But then an era of deregulation began and financial crises have now become a cyclical thing. We have seen several over the last three decades and will continue to see them even with the new financial reform bill passed by the Democrats in Congress and President Obama. Certainly the bill is a start but it's nowhere close to the barriers we need to break the deadly interconnectivity between the various financial institutions in this country. The massive tide of greed and OCD we have in our culture towards money will be an Everest like mountain to conquer.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that deans and professors of our country's most respected economics schools (Harvard, Columbia, Yale) are all whores for the private financial sector--filling up the minds of students with drivel about the benefits of a truly free and unregulated market. The amount of money that these men make from the likes of AIG and Goldman Sachs in sitting on their boards is in direct conflict with their duty, as educators, to be impartial and unbiased when assessing economic trends.

These professors, along with their partners in crime (literally) on Wall Street, have set up a narrative which essentially paints the Democrats, and their leader President Obama, as being socialists who want to redistribute wealth and destroy free market capitalism. Ironic, because it was these same people who begged the United States government to be bailed out of their mess created by blind greed and compulsion. But this is a small irony compared to one very massive and titanic fact.

President Obama saved capitalism.

In a recent piece in the New York Times, Timothy Egan successfully argues that this is exactly what happened.

Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated....As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.

Not bad, hmmm? Imagine investing that money in January of 2007 and seeing the result on Election Day 2008. The drop would give even the strongest heart great pains.

Of course, markets aren't entirely a measure of what drives our economy, as Egan points out. So let's take a look at the banks and the auto industry--the "two motors that drive our economy."

The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.

These are indisputable facts. What is also not up for debate in how thankless the banks are. They know that they were part of the problem but don't want to admit to it. Nor do they want to admit that this small form of socialism saved their asses.

Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama’s political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.

Also, completely indisputable facts although I'm sure many who are highly emotional and sensitive about the government will try.

“An apology is due Barack Obama,” wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal — one of Obama’s signature economic successes.

Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.

Profits indeed. Corporations are borrowing at record low rates but they aren't hiring. That's where the problem lies. Why is this? Well, greed is the overriding factor. The real reason, though, is they are seeing how long they can hold out on jobs and hopefully force the federal government to ease the new (and paltry) regulations. They want to see if they can get away with it and the latest election proves that they just might. The champions of deregulation have won again...even though that is the EXACT reason why things got so fucked up in the first place.

“I think corporate America is in fabulous shape,” said, Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase told a meeting of The Business Council, a group whose 150 by-invitation-only members personify industrial and financial power.

Really? Huh. I thought the Democrats were destroying capitalism and redistributing wealth. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

Does President Barack Obama deserve credit for the fact that corporate profits have risen faster under him than during any other 18-month period since the 1920s?

Profits have surged 62 percent from the start of 2009 to mid-2010, according to the Commerce Department. That is faster than any other year and a half in the Fabulous ’50s, the Go-Go ’60s or the booms under Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton

Under another president, especially a Republican president, the data on corporate profits would be envied. George W. Bush, who dedicated a good deal of his presidency to tax cuts aimed at boosting business profits, probably would have loved such results. It took Bush nearly four years to post the gains that Obama has managed in less than half the time.

To answer the first question, yes, he does deserve the credit. The more accurate question is why isn't he getting it? The answer, thankfully, is simple.

His opponents don't like him, they hate being wrong, their chief goal is to win the argument regardless of facts, and they want him to fail. In other words, their frustration, which extends to many more emotional issues than just this list (more on that later), propels them to very narrow minded thinking. This tunnel vision is the guide to their pathological ideology.

Obama is wrong. No. Matter. What.

Egan carries this idea further.

All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.

The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority.

But each of them, in its way, should strengthen the system. The health law will hold costs down, while giving millions the chance at getting care, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Financial reform seeks to prevent the kind of meltdown that caused the global economic collapse. And the stimulus, though it drastically raised the deficit, saved about 3 million jobs, again according to the CBO. It also gave a majority of taxpayers a one-time cut — even if 90 percent of Americans don’t know that, either.

I disagree with him on the financial reform package in light of the evidence presented in Inside Job. But the fact remains that the president took all of the actions that he did to save capitalism-just as FDR did with even more stringent regulations.

And, even though no one has noticed yet, he has accomplished that goal.

They will whine a fierce storm, the manipulators of great wealth. A war on business, they will claim. Not even close. Obama saved them, and the biggest cost was to him.

The Perils of Imprisoning Illegal Aliens

Benson, Arizona is the theme song for the cult classic film Dark Star, produced by John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon (of Aliens fame). It's not all that far from Tombstone. It was also the proposed site of a prison for women and children.

Yeah, a prison for women and children. According to Glenn Nichols, city manager of Benson, last year two men came to him to propose building a private prison to house illegal immigrants. You see, unbeknownst to Nichols, illegal immigrants were about to become big business in Arizona.

This was before all the noise caused by Arizona passing the "driving while Hispanic" law. Somehow these two guys knew that there was going to be a big demand for imprisoning women and children.

According to NPR's research, private prison companies like the Corrections Corporation of America had a hand in writing Arizona's immigration law. The law was drafted last December in Washington by ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council). This organization consists of conservative legislators, including Sen. Russell Pearce of Arizona, who sponsored the immigration law, and has members like Reynolds Tobacco, ExxonMobil, NRA and Corrections Corporation of America.

ALEC called the law the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act." This was the same name as the law signed by Jan Brewer that has caused such a stir. It appears that private companies are pushing this whole anti-immigrant thing just to make a buck. And they are disgustingly coy about it.

From the NPR story:

In May, The Geo Group [another private prison corporation] had a conference call with investors. When asked about the bill, company executives made light of it, asking, "Did they have some legislation on immigration?"

After company officials laughed, the company's president, Wayne Calabrese, cut in.

"This is Wayne," he said. "I can only believe the opportunities at the federal level are going to continue apace as a result of what's happening. Those people coming across the border and getting caught are going to have to be detained and that for me, at least I think, there's going to be enhanced opportunities for what we do."

Opportunities that prison companies helped create.

Private prison corporations -- and to be fair, prison guard unions -- have been pushing for harsher punishments for decades, to keep their prisons filled. The draconian drug laws we have on the books fill our prisons with non-violent drug offenders who are quickly turned into hardened criminals by their stints in prison. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and coincidentally, we have 264 private prisons.

Of course Pearce and CCA deny the company had any hand in this legislation. But thirty of the 36 sponsors of the Arizona law got money from private prison companies. Two of Jan Brewer's advisors are former prison company lobbyists.

And the whole thing is kind of weird because most people think that when you catch illegal immigrants you just send them back to where they came from and you're done with them. But no, there are billions of dollars to be made while warehousing men, women and children. Billions of dollars that you and I are paying to hunt down guys who just want to make 5 bucks an hour picking tomatoes, which coincidentally keeps you from paying 10 bucks a pound for tomatoes.

You can bicker about how inefficient government-run prisons are. But in the end, it just seems wrong for companies to profit from other people's misery. Because we all know that if there's a profit motive someone is going to take advantage of it. And don't think it hasn't already happened, it has: former Wilkes-Barre, PA judge Mark Ciavarella pleaded guilty in 2009 for accepting kickbacks to send kids to a private for-profit juvenile correctional facility. Ciavarella was finally exposed when he sent a high-school girl to the correctional facility for three months for making a MySpace parody of an assistant principal.

I'm not suggesting that CCA's hand in drafting the legislation was illegal. But why are they trying to keep it secret? Why are they afraid of letting the rest of us know the truth? Why do so many conservatives who complain about government spending always want to funnel more and more government spending into companies like CCA, Blackwater -- excuse me, Xe Services, Halliburton, and Bechtel?

Just as there are places where the government shouldn't intrude, there are places private corporations should stay out of, prisons being one of those places. Inflicting punishment on human beings shouldn't be part of any corporation's bottom line.

Oh, and if you haven't seen Dark Star, it's a hoot: a low-budget science fiction spoof that hilariously shows the perils of imprisoning illegal aliens.

Uh...guys?

Can someone please inform the...oh...I don't know....ENTIRE COUNTRY....that the Democrats held onto the Senate? Apparently our "liberal" media seem to be under the impression that Mitch McConnell is the new majority leader in the Senate. They are covering all of his latest statements as if he was releasing some news about Michael Jackson or Anna Nicole Smith.

Actually, someone should tell him that Harry Reid is still the boss over there (by the exact 53-47 margin that predicted b to the w) and the House can try to pass all the bills it wants but they have to go through the Senate as well. While we are on the topic of Reid, if the voters sent the message that they were rejecting Obama and the Democrats, why did he win? And by such a large margin in a state that is purple to red? Why are the Democrats still running the Senate? I'll the GOP props for the shellacking in the House but they hardly won a mandate given the results in the Senate.

What Is Karl Rove Afraid of?

Last week the Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving a Minnesota law that requires disclosure of corporate spending. The suit was filed by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the Taxpayer's League and a travel agency. This is one of the few reasonable decisions made by this court in a very long time.

The law is the same one that revealed Target donated money to a conservative organization called MNForward to support Tom Emmer, the Republican candidate for governor of Minnesota. Several groups protested Target's donation -- which have usually been to worthy non-partisan causes -- because of Emmer's anti-gay stance.

The basis of MCCL's claim is that if people can find out who is anonymously donating money to political causes the privacy of the contributors will be violated and they will be harassed and intimidated. They trot out the protests and threats of boycotts against Target as evidence of this.

MCCL is an anti-abortion group. And anti-abortion groups know a thing or two about privacy violation, harassment and intimidation. Anti-abortion groups stage protests in front of abortion clinics, haranguing and video-taping women who enter the clinics -- even if those women are going there for prenatal checkups for babies they're planning to keep. Anti-abortion groups stand on street corners displaying disgusting giant posters of dead babies, and drive trucks with mobile billboards of the same dead babies haranguing passers-by with loudspeakers (I was exposed to this during the 2008 Republican National Convention). They harass doctors, following them home, staging protests outside their houses, calling them at all hours of the night. They post "wanted" posters of doctors who perform abortions in public places, giving their home and work addresses. Such doctors have been assassinated by nut-jobs afterwards, but that isn't the fault of the person who posted the wanted poster, now is it?

It is particularly galling that organizations that regularly violate the privacy of women in their most vulnerable moments should demand privacy for the fatcats who bankroll their program of intimidation and harassment.

CEOs now regularly make contributions to political campaigns and "non-profit action groups" without announcing it to their shareholders. At a minimum there should be a national law that requires corporations to disclose all corporate and union campaign contributions to all shareholders and union members, who as owners of the corporation or members of the union have the right to know when their company or union is being used to back one political cause or another. Better would be a law that requires immediate disclosure of all such donations to a national database that can be searched by the public. A law that requires approval of such expenditures by shareholders or union members is out of line: that's what elections to the board of directors or union leadership are for.

Unions are already publicly acknowledging their roles -- unions like AFSCME (#1 in independent election expenditures last week), NEA (#5) and SEIU (#4) are spending a lot of money this election cycle. But corporations are hiding behind the Chamber of Commerce (#2) and Karl Rove's shadow Republican National Committe (#3). But there are hundreds of organizations like MNForward in other states that are receiving secret corporate donations. Corporations are in all likelihood vastly outspending unions because they are so much bigger and wealthier. But of course we can't know for sure because they cower behind the curtain of anonymity.

Finally, there's been a stink about foreign donations to the US Chamber of Commerce, which of course is illegal. The right is insisting that there's no proof that the law is being broken. Of course, without any disclosure laws it's hard to come by proof. Which brings up the right's age-old argument, which they usually trot out when arguing that evidence found by illegal searches by cops should be used in trials: if you haven't done anything wrong, why are you afraid to let us search your car?

This is generally not seen to be hypocritical by the right. Why? The guy whose car the cops search illegally is usually some low-life Chicano, black dude or stupid white trash in a broken-down 82 Eldorado, who the cops are convinced is a drug user or dealer, while the contributors to Rove's war-chest and the Tea Party front organizations are guys like the Koch brothers (whose company paid the largest fine ever -- at that time -- for illegally discharging millions of gallons of oil into ponds, streams, lakes and bays) or Don Blankenship (the Massey Energy CEO who bought his own Virginia Supreme Court judge for a paltry $3 million).

If Karl Rove hasn't done anything wrong, why is he afraid to tell us who's giving him all that money?

Post Election A Go Go

--The media has made quite a big deal of The Tea Party but how did they really do in the last election? Not well. They won just over a third of their races and lost just under two thirds.

Essentially, The Tea Party rescued the GOP from oblivion. Had we not seen this social movement, the Democrats would've lost far less seats. Now comes the fun part....governing!

At some point next year, Congress is going to have to vote on raising the debt limit. Normally, this is a pro forma vote and mostly everyone goes along with it. But with Tea Party members in both houses, they are going to have to vote for this. Will they? Would anyone of you?

If they do, they become the governing hypocrites that they foamed at the mouth about for the last year and a half. If they don't, the United States might lose it's AAA credit rating. It's not easy being in charge and these folks are about to find out just how much fun it is making the tough choices.

--Apparently, money does NOT buy everything. Whitman and Fiorina poured millions into their campaigns and lost. The Right spent millions on Sharon Angle. They all lost. But why? Well, California is very blue so you can chalk up those losses to that. In the case of Angle, she was a bad candidate. Each of these losses basically torpedo the notion that money buys elections. And that Americans were fed up with the leftist agenda. Reid won by a much wider margin than most predicted and he was one of the "three heads of doom." Speaking of which....

--I'm very happy that Nancy Pelosi will be out of the limelight. The rage and mouth foaming that went on in regards to her was ridiculous. She had become, in they eyes of many, the fictional character that was created by the Right. Unlike the anger that was directed at George Bush (from parents whose children DIED because of his policies), the anger towards Ms. Pelosi was so irrational it was laughable. "That bitch in the House" as my uncle Bill put it to me never hurt anyone or killed anyone. She wasn't a perfect person (no one is) but she was not a demon.

--VERY happy to see the number of openly gay candidates elected this year. It was, in fact, a record. 164 openly gay candidates across the country won their elections including Jim Gray, the new mayor of Lexington, Kentucky. Kentucky! He also is quite conservative fiscally which gives me hope that the GOP will realize that they can expand their base if they ignore the anti gay crowd. I think I can safely say that this battle is, for all intents and purposes, over. We are still going to have bias some bias to deal with (some of it probably violent) but it's more of a mop up job now.

--A correction....I've been informed by one of my friends who is an election judge here in MN that my totals for the MN-03 race are way off. The same software glitch that added more votes to the governor race added more to the MN-03 race. The problem was in Hennepin County. It was corrected for the governor's race but hadn't been at the time I put up my post cheering voter turnout in my district. The actual numbers for that race are: Paulsen 161, 172, Meffert 100, 240. It's actually lower than in 2006 which was expected.

Second Chances

The Republicans have been given a second chance with an overwhelming victory in the House by somewhere between 60 and 70 seats becoming red. What does all this mean?

Well, it means that Last in Line was closer than me, by far, on the prediction and that's all that matters.

Seriously, though, I have many thoughts on the election last night which will trickle out over the next few days but here is what I am thinking now.

First up is obvious frustration. How is it that the American people just voted a massive group of individuals into office most of whom were the chief cause of our massive economic problems? Our federal government failed to regulate the private sector and we just elected people who ran on a platform of less regulation. I don't get it. In my opinion, it's going to make things worse. Much worse.

Moreover, I don't get how a party which has now clearly moved to the right is saying they are going to "help" the American people when that help is from the government. Yet they are about less government. So they are....not going to help us? How is that going to work? Their platform makes no sense. It will be interesting to see how this plays out with the Tea Parties who won.

I actually liked John Boehner's speech last night although I'm wonder if my "thinkers and not feelers" in my readership did. He cried. Does that mean he's feeling instead of thinking? If that's the case, there might be some hope for him.

There also might be some hope for Republicans. They seemed quite humble in their victory and did not overreach too much. I guess we'll get to see if that translates into action when they get into session.

Going far right didn't work in the Senate, though. Harry Reid is still around and the GOP completely blew it in Delaware and possibly Colorado. And what will happen in Alaska with "Write In" beating Palin anointed and armed guard user Joe Miller? They could've had both houses and really blew it because of the Tea Party.

In my own home state, the GOP took control of both state houses but (probably) elected Mark Dayton as governor. WTF???!! Dayton made no bones about being very liberal and wanting to tax the rich. So he wins and others lose? It's going to be VERY interesting here.

In my own district (MN-03), I'm happy to report the highest voter turnout in our history! Over 485,000 votes were cast. Erik Paulsen, the Republican, will continue as my representative, getting 90 thousand more votes than he did in 2008. To give you an idea at how massive this is, Jim Meffert, his challenger, get the same number of votes this year (178K) that Paulsen got in 2008. I'm not happy with the result, obviously, but I'm very proud of the voter turnout. I hope we keep it up!

So, what was this election about? Was it really a condemnation of Obama's policies? Certainly those who don't like them will say that. I think it was more about anger and frustration--two emotions the right has always been able to harness quite well. I only need to point to this example.

Last summer, I ran into a friend of mine named Rachel at the gym one night. She lives in MN-03 just like me. The subject of politics came up and her faced turned mean. "I hope we throw our bum out of office. He's the worst rep we have ever had." Not knowing her exact politics, I said, "So you hate Paulsen then, huh?" She nodded her head and proceeded to go on a tirade about government, health care and entitlements. "But Paulsen voted against all those things. He's been a staunch conservative and against President Obama on everything," I politely informed her.

"You mean my rep is a Republican?" she replied. "I'm a Republican. Wait...what district do I live in again?"

I think I know the answer to my questions above.

Election Day

Today is election day. First of all, I want to say...GO VOTE. People that bitch about the state of things affected by politics (which is mostly everything) and don't vote are full of crap. It's like complaining about your sex life and refusing to engage in coitus. It makes no sense.

So what are my predictions for today?

The Senate will hold for the Democrats at 53-47. Given the unpredictability of Alaska right now, it could very well be 54-46 with Scott McAdams pulling out a victory. I'll stick with 53, though, as we could see some surprises.

The Democrats will lose a total of 40 seats in the House but pick up another 5 from some of the heavily Democratic districts held by Republicans. That puts the number at 220 D and 215 R. In all honesty, this is probably the worst outcome.

What I would like to see, based on all that has gone on since the last time I made a prediction, would be for the Republicans to net around 42 seats...putting them at 220 and the Dems at 215...give or take a few. When all the hysterical laughter has died down about "beating" Pelosi (which actually won't be true as she will probably be re-elected as well to her district) and the Right has enjoyed their main goal in life (winning the argument or, in this case, the vote), they are going to have to govern...govern with a dozen or more Tea Partiers who will now be in charge of committees. That means that people like Michelle Bachmann are going to be given the spotlight and, lordy oh lordy, I want them in that spotlight.

The American people want things yesterday. Generally speaking we are impatient little children who think that it only takes 18 months to fix giant catastrophes. Even ones that have taken 30 years to make. In the next couple of years, people are going to start to see the benefits of the work of the 111th Congress and President Obama. When they start to "feel it," as Velma Frank put it so eloquently to the president a few weeks ago, they need to see the contrast of Michelle Bachmann, John Boehner and the rest of the lapdogs to corporate money screaming about socialism. Finally, much of what I say on here will make sense.

"But wait," the electorate will ask, "these new programs work and actually help out country. Why are they foaming at the mouth?" For the most part, the American people need to see that contrast otherwise it won't make any sense to them. With a five vote majority in Congress for the Dems, they will never see it and the chances of Obama being a one term president rise significantly. If the 5 vote majority is the other way, it works out better. The GOP is essentially just as limp but still in charge which means the blame (and the increased attention) will go to them.

There is no doubt in my mind that the 111th Congress will be remembered as one that told the truth and took action when it wasn't politically advantageous to do so. Yeah, they were spineless about a few things but they could've been worse. They did what was best for the country regardless of their political lives. And now they might lose because of it. I think, in many ways, I have been way too critical of them.

At least they aren't our possible new Speaker who sends out a laughable "pledge" to America that doesn't offer anything that the movement they co-opted to stay alive actually wants in the way of spending cuts for entitlements. I think it's going to be quite enjoyable, should he win, to watch him try to placate the loud yet small group of mouth foamers that want to abolish Social Security on one hand and keep his base of frightened old people on the other. Pelosi might have her problems but she wasn't a gutless turd like Boehner is going to be.

If the GOP does end up winning small majority in the House (and I sincerely hope they do), moderates, liberals, progressives, and all the rest of us that are to the left of the one yard line on the football field need to take heart. I know it will be tough to see the adolescent glee at winning which they will take as being proved "right." Shining examples of this will be seen in comments should a GOP victory come to pass.

Like all bullies though, it doesn't take much to see the insecurity lurking beneath the surface. They know that the history of our country is filled with successful and very popular social FEDERAL programs as well as government regulation. They don't like that at all. An example of this distaste can be seen in the comments thread with my socialism pledge. None of them have taken it. Or refused to take it. What does that tell you?

Regardless of what happens today, they will still be afraid. Very afraid.

And that explains quite a lot.

Wednesday, November 3rd.

Tomorrow is the election. So what are our choices? A friend of mine on Facebook put it best.

Republicans - Toxic economic ideas, more interested in obstruction, power, and "winning the game" than actually helping people. Democrats -- Spineless. Unable to lead, inspire, or communicate the few good ideas they do have. Tea partiers -- Mostly too insane to hold office. Yay! Let's all go vote next Tuesday!

I completely agree. I think that many Americans do as well and that's why voter turnout will be low tomorrow. This, of course, favors the Republicans. If they win both or either house, what can we expect?

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one term president.----Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader.

So, it's not serve the American people. Winning is more important. What else can we expect?

This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles. ---John Boehner, likely Speaker of the House should the GOP win.

There will be no compromise---Mike Pence, GOP leader and Congressmen from Indiana.

Contrast this with what President Obama said would happen if the Republicans win.

If the Republicans don't agree with me on fiscal policy, maybe they'll agree with me on infrastructure. If they don't agree with me on infrastructure, I'll try to see if they agree with me on education. So I'm just going to keep trying to see where they want to move the country forward.

The answer, Mr. President, is nowhere. They want you to fail. They want you and the Democrats to lose. They could give two shits about the American people. All they care about is power and money. Why are Democrats so naive in thinking otherwise?

Another one of my Facebook friends had this question pose of him recently.

If all these things are so great, then why are so many Democrats shunning the President and running against him as well as Nanci Pelosi???

His answer was perfect.

Short Answer: "Poll Shows Americans Don't Know"

Longer Answer: We wouldn't have needed a stimulus package, had nearly 10% unemployment, we would have better than 2% growth if the economy had been managed properly during the previous administration.

Thank deregulation, lack of financial iindustry oversight, unnecessary, expensive and poorly executed wars/quagmires, and a ballooning government (have any idea how much the Department of Homeland Security cost?) during the Bush years. Instead of squandering the Clinton tax surplus and in-debting ourselves to China, it should have been used to pay down our debt and invested in infrastructure, energy independence and education.

The Republican platform that got us into this mess has not changed. There is no way to cut taxes and reduce the debt at the same time. There is no free lunch, Republicans. This isn't socialism, it's reality. Why don't people get this? Poll Shows Americans Don't Know

He's right. Take a look at this poll. And it's this lack of knowledge that the Republicans have exploited with fear and anger.

In a recent column, Thomas Friedman lamented how sad it is that you can't keep a bad idea down. Or several of them

--Let’s have more tax cuts, unlinked to any specific spending cuts and while we’re still fighting two wars — because that worked so well during the Bush years to make our economy strong and our deficit small.

--Let’s immediately cut government spending, instead of phasing cuts in gradually, while we’re still mired in a recession — because that worked so well in the Great Depression.

--Let’s roll back financial regulation — because we’ve learned from experience that Wall Street can police itself and average Americans will never have to bail it out.

--Let’s have no limits on corporate campaign spending so oil and coal companies can more easily and anonymously strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its powers to limit pollution in the air our kids breathe.

--Let’s discriminate against gays and lesbians who want to join the military and fight for their country.

--Let’s restrict immigration, because, after all, we don’t live in a world where America’s most important competitive advantage is its ability to attract the world’s best brains.

--Let’s repeal our limited health care reform rather than see what works and then fix it.

--Let’s oppose the free-trade system that made us rich.

--Let’s kowtow even more to public service unions so they’ll make even more money than private sector workers, so they’ll give even more money to Democrats who will give them even more generous pensions, so not only California and New York will go bankrupt but every other state too.

--Let’s pay for more tax cuts by uncovering waste I can’t identify, fraud I haven’t found and abuse that I’ll get back to you on later.

For those of you who wonder why I vote for Democrats, look to the statements in bold. The Democrats aren't perfect (and I do stand with Friedman on both of the issues he lays at their feet) but the Republicans are a fucking nightmare.

They will try their hardest (and may succeed) in adhering to every one of Friedman's statements that I have bolded. Make no mistake about it: all of these ideas are completely terrible for this country and are going to make our current situation worse.

As each of you head to the polls tomorrow, think long and hard about which party represents your interests...your best interests. And which one will do the best for your country.

It's abundantly clear to me.