The first quarter of 2012 GDP report is in and the initial estimate (there are two more to follow) speaks volumes. US growth was at 2.2 percent. Of course, how you interpret this depends on whether or not you are a half full or half empty kind of person.
Any growth of 2 percent is good but with unemployment still over 8 percent that simply isn't enough to significantly bring the later number down. The good news is that this result suggest that the economy will continue expand into the year with analysts predicting 3 percent growth throughout the year and that will bring the unemployment rate down.
More importantly, this growth has been fueled by consumer spending which accounts for 70 percent of economic activity. It's also important to note that this marks the 11th straight quarter that the economy has expanded since the Great Recession of 2007-2009. This coincides with the election of President Obama so to say that he is "destroying the economy" is simply wrong when you consider these numbers. That also doesn't mean he's done an absolutely perfect job either. It simply means he's done the best he could given what he was handed and considering the mistake that was made in estimating how deep the recession was back at the time. In other words, a good (not poor or amazing) job.
Oh, and then there's this.
All levels of government are under pressure as they struggle to control budget deficits. Government spending fell at an annual rate of 3 percent in the first quarter.
But wait! I thought that when government cut spending, that would spur growth. Oh well, I guess not.
THE WEIGHT OF GOVERNMENT-Government spending cuts are weighing on the U.S. economy in a way that hasn't been seen in generations. Those cuts have reduced growth for six straight quarters - the longest stretch since 1955.Reduced government spending subtracted 0.6 percentage point from the first quarter's growth. Fortunately, the drag may decline the rest of this year. Defense spending fell sharply in the past two quarters, which isn't likely to continue. And state tax revenue is recovering, closing budget gaps."It's hard for the economy to accelerate when the government has its foot on the brake," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors.
This is why I have zero respect for right wing economic advice. It's simply wrong.
Some other notes from this report...
Many economists predict growth will strengthen in the second half of this year because they think hiring will continue to improve. Job growth has helped drive the unemployment rate to 8.2 percent in March from 9.1 percent in August and given households more money to spend.
That's good news for the president. If the unemployment rate drops below 8 percent, it is very likely he will win re-election.
Consumers this year have reduced their debt loads. Housing is inching back. State and local governments aren't cutting as much. Banks are lending more. And the threat from Europe's debt crisis has eased somewhat.
But no! The world is still ending!!! It has to be!!!
I'm nearly certain that the right will jump on this and spin it to be horrible and Armageddon-like but I guess I don't see how above 2 percent growth can be a bad thing. You certainly can't call it amazing but it's definitely good considering the external factors of 2011 some of which were simply unpredictable.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
We Want YOU!!!
Are you a washed up actor or actress that needs a gig before you get spit out the bottom of the porn industry?
Well, the right wing media industrial complex WANTS YOU!
Take Janine Turner, for example. She couldn't find work anymore in that liberal cesspool called Hollywood (buncha fucking socialists who don't want to make any money) so she parlayed her talents to reach a willfully ignorant audience of millions eager to fork over the hard earned cash to commiserate with others in their fear, paranoia, anger and hatred.
Here's an example of what YOU can do!
Here are some tools. When the Democrats start ranting, use the GIRLFRIENDS acronym to forge through the storm.
G: Get Reasonable. Want to teach your children that laws don’t matter? Be a Democrat.
I: Informed on Phony Contraception Battle. Want your children to lose their religious freedom? Be a Democrat.
R: Republicans Are the Women’s Party. Want your daughter to be constrained by government? Be a Democrat.
L: Legislative Liberty Is Lost. Want your child to live under tyranny? Be a Democrat.
F: Fuel and Energy Policies Are a Farce. Want your child’s transportation to be a horse? Be a Democrat.
R: Return Women to the Workforce. Want your daughter to live off the government? Be a Democrat.
I: Insolvency — Sinking in a Sea of Debt. Want your child to live in debt, hounded by creditors? Be a Democrat.
E: Entitlement Society — “Give me Liberty and Gimme, Gimme!” Want your child to be dependent on other people’s money? Be a Democrat.
N: National Security — We Are Vulnerable. Want to teach your child it’s okay to be bullied? Be a Democrat. D: Darkness — Democrats Want Us to Be in the Dark. Want your child to sit in the dark? Be a Democrat.
S: Sick — Our Health Care Will Soon Be Hopeless. Want your child to be sick for a year? Be a Democrat.
Steady paychecks guaranteed by Bill Whittle. And remember, it doesn't matter at all if you believe what you are saying or are even factual. This has $$$ written all over it!
So why let Sarah Palin get all the market share? This is one oil well that won't dry up (wink wink!)
Well, the right wing media industrial complex WANTS YOU!
Take Janine Turner, for example. She couldn't find work anymore in that liberal cesspool called Hollywood (buncha fucking socialists who don't want to make any money) so she parlayed her talents to reach a willfully ignorant audience of millions eager to fork over the hard earned cash to commiserate with others in their fear, paranoia, anger and hatred.
Here's an example of what YOU can do!
Here are some tools. When the Democrats start ranting, use the GIRLFRIENDS acronym to forge through the storm.
G: Get Reasonable. Want to teach your children that laws don’t matter? Be a Democrat.
I: Informed on Phony Contraception Battle. Want your children to lose their religious freedom? Be a Democrat.
R: Republicans Are the Women’s Party. Want your daughter to be constrained by government? Be a Democrat.
L: Legislative Liberty Is Lost. Want your child to live under tyranny? Be a Democrat.
F: Fuel and Energy Policies Are a Farce. Want your child’s transportation to be a horse? Be a Democrat.
R: Return Women to the Workforce. Want your daughter to live off the government? Be a Democrat.
I: Insolvency — Sinking in a Sea of Debt. Want your child to live in debt, hounded by creditors? Be a Democrat.
E: Entitlement Society — “Give me Liberty and Gimme, Gimme!” Want your child to be dependent on other people’s money? Be a Democrat.
N: National Security — We Are Vulnerable. Want to teach your child it’s okay to be bullied? Be a Democrat. D: Darkness — Democrats Want Us to Be in the Dark. Want your child to sit in the dark? Be a Democrat.
S: Sick — Our Health Care Will Soon Be Hopeless. Want your child to be sick for a year? Be a Democrat.
Steady paychecks guaranteed by Bill Whittle. And remember, it doesn't matter at all if you believe what you are saying or are even factual. This has $$$ written all over it!
So why let Sarah Palin get all the market share? This is one oil well that won't dry up (wink wink!)
Should I?
I can't help but think of Mike Lofgren when I watch this video which just came up on my dashboard courtesy of Cult Grand Wizard, Kevin Baker.
I'm wondering if he would recant his promise to post this once a month considering that he and his readers have assured me on several occasions that they are, in fact, logical and mathematical thinkers yet there are no facts or evidence supporting most of the claims in the video (aside from the usual War On Christmas type anecdotes).
Are there any facts I could present them that would change their mind? Should I bother?:)
I'm wondering if he would recant his promise to post this once a month considering that he and his readers have assured me on several occasions that they are, in fact, logical and mathematical thinkers yet there are no facts or evidence supporting most of the claims in the video (aside from the usual War On Christmas type anecdotes).
Are there any facts I could present them that would change their mind? Should I bother?:)
Look Out! They....aren't coming...
Talk to any conservative these days about illegal immigration and they' ll tell you that our country is being overrun and our president is doing a terrible job of protecting our borders and stopping it.
As with many things they foam at the mouth about, this simply is not true.
Roughly 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S. last year, down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to the Pew Hispanic Center study released Monday. It was the biggest sustained drop in modern history, believed to be surpassed in scale only by losses in the Mexican-born U.S. population during the Great Depression.
About 1.4 million Mexicans left the U.S. between 2005 and 2010, double the number who did so a decade earlier. In the meantime, the number of Mexicans who entered the U.S. sharply fell to about 1.4 million, putting net migration from Mexico at a standstill. More recent data suggest that most of the movement is now heading back to Mexico, accounting for the drop in the illegal immigrant population.
Why is this happening?
Much of the drop in illegal immigrants is due to the persistently weak U.S. economy, which has shrunk construction and service-sector jobs attractive to Mexican workers following the housing bust. But increased deportations, heightened U.S. patrols and violence along the border also have played a role, as well as demographic changes, such as Mexico's declining birth rate.
So, the president deserves some of the credit as well.
The Christian Science Monitor has a great piece on why Mexicans are staying home and why its likely to continue. Here's a video to go along with it.
I think we are going to see more of these types of stories as prosperity continues to rise worldwide and as we shift into a multipoloar world.
As with many things they foam at the mouth about, this simply is not true.
Roughly 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S. last year, down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to the Pew Hispanic Center study released Monday. It was the biggest sustained drop in modern history, believed to be surpassed in scale only by losses in the Mexican-born U.S. population during the Great Depression.
About 1.4 million Mexicans left the U.S. between 2005 and 2010, double the number who did so a decade earlier. In the meantime, the number of Mexicans who entered the U.S. sharply fell to about 1.4 million, putting net migration from Mexico at a standstill. More recent data suggest that most of the movement is now heading back to Mexico, accounting for the drop in the illegal immigrant population.
Why is this happening?
Much of the drop in illegal immigrants is due to the persistently weak U.S. economy, which has shrunk construction and service-sector jobs attractive to Mexican workers following the housing bust. But increased deportations, heightened U.S. patrols and violence along the border also have played a role, as well as demographic changes, such as Mexico's declining birth rate.
So, the president deserves some of the credit as well.
The Christian Science Monitor has a great piece on why Mexicans are staying home and why its likely to continue. Here's a video to go along with it.
I think we are going to see more of these types of stories as prosperity continues to rise worldwide and as we shift into a multipoloar world.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
My Oh My
As I perused the Wall Street Journal this morning, I was positively stunned to see this headline.
High Tax Rates Won't Slow Growth
Holy fucking balls on a Popsicle stick!!
Well, it is the opinion page so I suppose they can be forgiven for such heresy.
But they sure do make a convincing argument with (ahem) numbers, facts and stuff. Let's start with a few basic ones.
The share of pre-tax income accruing to the top 1% of earners in the U.S. has more than doubled to about 20% in 2010 from less than 10% in the 1970s. At the same time, the average federal income tax rate on top earners has declined significantly.
Of course, this begs a key question.
Will taxable incomes of the top 1% respond to a tax increase by declining so much that revenue rises very little or even drops? In other words, are we already near or beyond the peak of the famous Laffer Curve, the revenue-maximizing tax rate?
What is that Laffer Curve thing again?
The Laffer Curve is used to illustrate the concept of taxable income "elasticity,"—i.e., that taxable income will change in response to a change in the rate of taxation. Top earners can, of course, move taxable income between years to subject them to lower tax rates, for example, by changing the timing of charitable donations and realized capital gains. And some can convert earned income into capital gains, and avoid higher taxes in other ways. But existing studies do not show much change in actual work being done.
So what would that rate be on the top earners before we would see a decline in revenue?
According to our analysis of current tax rates and their elasticity, the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50%-70% (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes). Thus we conclude that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases at least until we reach the 50% rate that held during the first Reagan administration, and possibly until the 70% rate of the 1970s. To reduce tax avoidance opportunities, tax rates on capital gains and dividends should increase along with the basic rate. Closing loopholes and stepping up enforcement would further limit tax avoidance and evasion.
Holy SHEEEIT! That's a higher rate than even I have considered!!! So, what does it say that the fucking Wall Street Journal is recommending it? I've been told several times that they are a reputable source, after all.
Assuming the revenue problem is solved, how about the issue of economic growth. After all, we've been told time and again that high taxes mean less growth.
Will raising top tax rates significantly lower economic growth? In the postwar U.S., higher top tax rates tend to go with higher economic growth—not lower. Indeed, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP annual growth per capita (to adjust for population growth) averaged 1.68% between 1980 and 2010 when top tax rates were relatively low, while growth averaged 2.23% between 1950 and 1980 when top tax rates were at or above 70%.
Good grief, that can't be true, can it? Well, let's get back to revenue.
One cannot evaluate the ultimate growth effects of raising more revenue without identifying what is done with the revenue. If part of the revenue is used to reduce the federal debt, more of savings go into capital investment, enhancing growth. The fact that those paying higher taxes will reduce their savings somewhat does not fully offset this effect as some of their higher taxes would come out of consumption.
If some of the additional revenue is used for public investments with a high return, such as education, infrastructure and research, it raises growth further. The neglect of public investment over the last few decades suggests that the returns could be quite high.
Which is exactly what the president has been saying for his entire term. So why are the Republicans and others on the right against this given these facts?
High Tax Rates Won't Slow Growth
Holy fucking balls on a Popsicle stick!!
Well, it is the opinion page so I suppose they can be forgiven for such heresy.
But they sure do make a convincing argument with (ahem) numbers, facts and stuff. Let's start with a few basic ones.
The share of pre-tax income accruing to the top 1% of earners in the U.S. has more than doubled to about 20% in 2010 from less than 10% in the 1970s. At the same time, the average federal income tax rate on top earners has declined significantly.
Of course, this begs a key question.
Will taxable incomes of the top 1% respond to a tax increase by declining so much that revenue rises very little or even drops? In other words, are we already near or beyond the peak of the famous Laffer Curve, the revenue-maximizing tax rate?
What is that Laffer Curve thing again?
The Laffer Curve is used to illustrate the concept of taxable income "elasticity,"—i.e., that taxable income will change in response to a change in the rate of taxation. Top earners can, of course, move taxable income between years to subject them to lower tax rates, for example, by changing the timing of charitable donations and realized capital gains. And some can convert earned income into capital gains, and avoid higher taxes in other ways. But existing studies do not show much change in actual work being done.
So what would that rate be on the top earners before we would see a decline in revenue?
According to our analysis of current tax rates and their elasticity, the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50%-70% (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes). Thus we conclude that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases at least until we reach the 50% rate that held during the first Reagan administration, and possibly until the 70% rate of the 1970s. To reduce tax avoidance opportunities, tax rates on capital gains and dividends should increase along with the basic rate. Closing loopholes and stepping up enforcement would further limit tax avoidance and evasion.
Holy SHEEEIT! That's a higher rate than even I have considered!!! So, what does it say that the fucking Wall Street Journal is recommending it? I've been told several times that they are a reputable source, after all.
Assuming the revenue problem is solved, how about the issue of economic growth. After all, we've been told time and again that high taxes mean less growth.
Will raising top tax rates significantly lower economic growth? In the postwar U.S., higher top tax rates tend to go with higher economic growth—not lower. Indeed, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP annual growth per capita (to adjust for population growth) averaged 1.68% between 1980 and 2010 when top tax rates were relatively low, while growth averaged 2.23% between 1950 and 1980 when top tax rates were at or above 70%.
Good grief, that can't be true, can it? Well, let's get back to revenue.
One cannot evaluate the ultimate growth effects of raising more revenue without identifying what is done with the revenue. If part of the revenue is used to reduce the federal debt, more of savings go into capital investment, enhancing growth. The fact that those paying higher taxes will reduce their savings somewhat does not fully offset this effect as some of their higher taxes would come out of consumption.
If some of the additional revenue is used for public investments with a high return, such as education, infrastructure and research, it raises growth further. The neglect of public investment over the last few decades suggests that the returns could be quite high.
Which is exactly what the president has been saying for his entire term. So why are the Republicans and others on the right against this given these facts?
Monday, April 23, 2012
RandLand
I had the distinct pleasure over the weekend to spend some time with my friend of 32 years, John Waxey. He owns a cottage in Wisconsin and we stayed up late on Saturday night/Sunday morning shooting the breeze. As is usually the case, one of the topics we discuss is politics and he came up with a very interesting idea that I am going to turn into an ongoing theme on this site.
Every day we hear conservatives/libertarians complain about the size of government, the lack of religious values, and....well...just about everything else in this country. They blame liberals and say that they are fucking everything up (despite many facts to the contrary) and if only they could run things the way they should be run, everything would be great. Essentially, their vision of how a country should be run is superior and the liberal vision is inferior.
So, John's idea was simple. Allow them to annex a few states and form their own country. That way, they can govern as they see fit and not have to worry about liberals messing things up. I knew right away what it should be called: RandLand.
RandLand is a right wing dream, folks, and I'm here to tell you that I want to make it come true. Not only would the right be happy but the rest of us rational people would be too. With them out of the way doing their own thing, we wouldn't have to waste our time on all that hate, paranoia, anger, and fear. They could just do that in their own country.
I figure you could give them South Carolina, maybe a few other states in the south, and then Montana. Those would be more than enough to sustain them with each of those states have plenty of natural resources and access to the ocean to allow free trade. Of course, their xenophobia might be a problem but I'm sure they'd figure out a work around.
Think of the possibilities, though. Laissez faire economics...no drivel about climate change...abortion illegal...prayer in school...no gun laws...no social security...medicare...lazy fuckers on food stamps...no weird foreign people (or people who aren't white for that matter)...you know, REAL Americans.
Of course, I haven't even mentioned the best part. They could FINALLY prove folks like me wrong by having a living example of how well all their ideas would work in action. Moreover, they wouldn't have anyone to blame if (ahem, when) their policies failed because, after all, no liberals will live in RandLand. So, the responsibility would all be on them. I say we give them their moment to shine.
Now, I know some of you might be laughing by now and thinking that I'm just being silly but, I assure you, I'm not. In fact, I think this is the only way to show folks on the right how their little ideas would work in practical application. They need to live it and have no one standing in their way (see: no one to blame but themselves).
So, who's with me? Let's make RandLand the 197th country in the world!
Every day we hear conservatives/libertarians complain about the size of government, the lack of religious values, and....well...just about everything else in this country. They blame liberals and say that they are fucking everything up (despite many facts to the contrary) and if only they could run things the way they should be run, everything would be great. Essentially, their vision of how a country should be run is superior and the liberal vision is inferior.
So, John's idea was simple. Allow them to annex a few states and form their own country. That way, they can govern as they see fit and not have to worry about liberals messing things up. I knew right away what it should be called: RandLand.
RandLand is a right wing dream, folks, and I'm here to tell you that I want to make it come true. Not only would the right be happy but the rest of us rational people would be too. With them out of the way doing their own thing, we wouldn't have to waste our time on all that hate, paranoia, anger, and fear. They could just do that in their own country.
I figure you could give them South Carolina, maybe a few other states in the south, and then Montana. Those would be more than enough to sustain them with each of those states have plenty of natural resources and access to the ocean to allow free trade. Of course, their xenophobia might be a problem but I'm sure they'd figure out a work around.
Think of the possibilities, though. Laissez faire economics...no drivel about climate change...abortion illegal...prayer in school...no gun laws...no social security...medicare...lazy fuckers on food stamps...no weird foreign people (or people who aren't white for that matter)...you know, REAL Americans.
Of course, I haven't even mentioned the best part. They could FINALLY prove folks like me wrong by having a living example of how well all their ideas would work in action. Moreover, they wouldn't have anyone to blame if (ahem, when) their policies failed because, after all, no liberals will live in RandLand. So, the responsibility would all be on them. I say we give them their moment to shine.
Now, I know some of you might be laughing by now and thinking that I'm just being silly but, I assure you, I'm not. In fact, I think this is the only way to show folks on the right how their little ideas would work in practical application. They need to live it and have no one standing in their way (see: no one to blame but themselves).
So, who's with me? Let's make RandLand the 197th country in the world!
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Voices In My Head (Double Live Gonzo Edition)
If you can’t galvanize and promote and recruit people to vote for Mitt Romney, we’re done. We’ll be a suburb of Indonesia next year. Our president, attorney general, vice president, Hillary Clinton–they’re criminals. They’re criminals. Who doesn’t know the crimes our government are committing?
We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November! Any questions?
If Barack Obama is elected, I'll either be dead or in jail this time next year
---Ted Nugent (at the NRA meeting last weekend in St. Louis)
I'd say Ted has done a fine job of summing up what Charely Pierce wrote about recently in Esquire. I hope to God that he sticks around and keeps talking from now until November 6th!
We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November! Any questions?
If Barack Obama is elected, I'll either be dead or in jail this time next year
---Ted Nugent (at the NRA meeting last weekend in St. Louis)
I'd say Ted has done a fine job of summing up what Charely Pierce wrote about recently in Esquire. I hope to God that he sticks around and keeps talking from now until November 6th!
Friday, April 20, 2012
Another Skirmish in the War on Women
The Republican-controlled Minnesota state legislature recently passed bills requiring women to take RU 486 (mifepristone, or the abortion pill) in the physical presence of a doctor. It's common practice for this drug to be administered via video conferencing.
Republicans claim that this is to protect women's health, but it's obviously just another bogus road block to prevent women from getting abortions. According to the bill's sponsor, Joyce Peppin:
By comparison, the death rate for Viagra is about 5 out of every 100,000. A fact which led Phyllis Kahn to make an amendment to require men take Viagra under the supervision of a physician.
What's even more outrageous is the mortality rate among pregnant women in the United States:
Why do we have all these maternal deaths? Basically, lack of health insurance, family planning services and prenatal care. Since a pregnant woman has a preexisting condition, insurance companies will be able to deny pregnant women insurance until the ACA takes full effect.
Mifepristone is one of the safest drugs on the market. Why? It's just a big dose of contraceptive hormones that cause the uterine lining to shed, something which happens naturally every month. This also happens spontaneously in a quarter (and some sources say as much as 50 or 75%) of all pregnancies, resulting in miscarriages, or spontaneous abortions.
So when these people claim that they're passing all these laws to protect women's health, they're lying. They're really pushing a religious or political agenda attacking women's freedoms and rights.
Republicans claim that this is to protect women's health, but it's obviously just another bogus road block to prevent women from getting abortions. According to the bill's sponsor, Joyce Peppin:
This bill is about women’s health, Just a few statistics about this type of drug: 14 deaths, 612 hospitalizations, 58 ectopic pregnancies. That’s something to be taken seriously.What Peppin neglects to mention is that these 14 deaths occurred over 10 years, between September, 2001 and April, 2011. According to the FDA 1.52 million women used the drug and 14 died: eight of those deaths were due to Chlostridium infections and the rest were due to illegal drug overdose, methadone overdose, murder, toxic shock and septic shock. Even if you include the questionably attributed cases, that's only 0.9 deaths per 100,000.
By comparison, the death rate for Viagra is about 5 out of every 100,000. A fact which led Phyllis Kahn to make an amendment to require men take Viagra under the supervision of a physician.
What's even more outrageous is the mortality rate among pregnant women in the United States:
Maternal mortality ratios have increased from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2006. While some of the recorded increase is due to improved data collection, the fact remains that maternal mortality ratios have risen significantlyYes, a pregnant woman is 15 times more likely to die if she brings a child to term than if she uses mifepristone. By comparison, the death rate for people taking aspirin and other NSAIDs is between 21 and 24 deaths per 100,000, and the death rate for Tylenol is 150 or more per 100,000.
Why do we have all these maternal deaths? Basically, lack of health insurance, family planning services and prenatal care. Since a pregnant woman has a preexisting condition, insurance companies will be able to deny pregnant women insurance until the ACA takes full effect.
Mifepristone is one of the safest drugs on the market. Why? It's just a big dose of contraceptive hormones that cause the uterine lining to shed, something which happens naturally every month. This also happens spontaneously in a quarter (and some sources say as much as 50 or 75%) of all pregnancies, resulting in miscarriages, or spontaneous abortions.
So when these people claim that they're passing all these laws to protect women's health, they're lying. They're really pushing a religious or political agenda attacking women's freedoms and rights.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Cynical Republican Stance Against Gay Marriage Fading
NPR is running a series of stories on big campaign donors in the wake of the Citizen's United decision. The other day they ran a story on Paul Singer, a Wall Street vulture investor who preys on vulnerable companies. Singer is backing Romney, who has a similar background.
But the interesting thing about Singer is that he's also backing gay marriage. Singer's son is gay, and was married in Massachusetts. Singer has donated more than $8 million to the cause. From the story:
George Bush won the 2004 election largely on the strength of the anti-gay marriage fervor that was spreading across the country in the wake of court decisions at the time. Yet Bush's campaign manager, his representative at the Supreme Court and his running mate actually thought gay marriage should be allowed on constitutional grounds.
For years the Republican Party has been cynically manipulating popular sentiment against gay marriage for political advantage, knowing in their heart of hearts that it's wrong to deny people equal rights and force one religious group's beliefs on an entire nation. Now many of them are making their true feelings known, since the handwriting is on the wall and opposition to gay marriage is making its last desperate gasp.
Abortion is exactly the same: it's a personal freedom issue, just like gay marriage. The government shouldn't be telling me who I can and can't marry, and it shouldn't be telling my wife what she can do with her own body. It's a total Republican no-brainer: women must be free to use birth control and have abortions, within reasonable limits and with exceptions like those Rick Santorum's wife used. Sometimes the responsible thing for a pregnant woman is to carry the child to term, and sometimes the responsible thing is to get an abortion. Any true Republican knows in the core of his being that it has to be this way.
This Republican strategy is particularly cynical in their recruitment of Catholic voters. Republicans have used gay marriage and abortion to get Catholics to vote Republican, while taking stands that affect far more people and that Catholics have always opposed: the death penalty, the proliferation of guns and callously killing kids on the street, endless wars in foreign countries, harsh treatment of immigrants, degradation of the environment, cutting taxes on the rich while cutting programs for the poor and middle class, and on and on. John Boehner's recent rejection of Catholic bishop's criticism of House budget priorities is proof of this.
Voters of faith have to look beyond hot-button social issues and view the entirety of a party's platform. Their stands on social issues can blow with the wind, completely dependent on the whims of the big-money men or the schemes of political strategists. Because in the end, the rights guaranteed in our Constitution have to trump religious predilections.
Wealthy Republicans like Paul Singer are now openly supporting gay marriage. If he had a daughter who needed birth control or an abortion, you can be sure he would be able to flout whatever laws were in his way, by sending them abroad if necessary, and then spend millions to get those laws changed to ensure his granddaughters would have the same opportunity to exercise their right to control their own destinies.
But the interesting thing about Singer is that he's also backing gay marriage. Singer's son is gay, and was married in Massachusetts. Singer has donated more than $8 million to the cause. From the story:
"I believe a generation from now, gay marriage will be seen as a profoundly traditionalizing act. It will have channeled love into the most powerful social institution on earth: marriage itself," said Singer in a video posted on the gay news blog Towleroad.
He was speaking at a 2010 fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Chad Griffin, a political strategist and board president for the group, says Singer supports gay marriage not in spite of being a Republican, but because he is a Republican.
"He is a real force in the fight for full equality in this country," Griffin says.Singer isn't the only such Republican: it's well known that Dick Cheney supports gay marriage (his daughter is gay), and George W. Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, came out as gay two years ago. Bush's first Solicitor General, Theodore Olson, successfully led the challenge to California's Prop 8 gay marriage ban.
George Bush won the 2004 election largely on the strength of the anti-gay marriage fervor that was spreading across the country in the wake of court decisions at the time. Yet Bush's campaign manager, his representative at the Supreme Court and his running mate actually thought gay marriage should be allowed on constitutional grounds.
For years the Republican Party has been cynically manipulating popular sentiment against gay marriage for political advantage, knowing in their heart of hearts that it's wrong to deny people equal rights and force one religious group's beliefs on an entire nation. Now many of them are making their true feelings known, since the handwriting is on the wall and opposition to gay marriage is making its last desperate gasp.
Abortion is exactly the same: it's a personal freedom issue, just like gay marriage. The government shouldn't be telling me who I can and can't marry, and it shouldn't be telling my wife what she can do with her own body. It's a total Republican no-brainer: women must be free to use birth control and have abortions, within reasonable limits and with exceptions like those Rick Santorum's wife used. Sometimes the responsible thing for a pregnant woman is to carry the child to term, and sometimes the responsible thing is to get an abortion. Any true Republican knows in the core of his being that it has to be this way.
This Republican strategy is particularly cynical in their recruitment of Catholic voters. Republicans have used gay marriage and abortion to get Catholics to vote Republican, while taking stands that affect far more people and that Catholics have always opposed: the death penalty, the proliferation of guns and callously killing kids on the street, endless wars in foreign countries, harsh treatment of immigrants, degradation of the environment, cutting taxes on the rich while cutting programs for the poor and middle class, and on and on. John Boehner's recent rejection of Catholic bishop's criticism of House budget priorities is proof of this.
Voters of faith have to look beyond hot-button social issues and view the entirety of a party's platform. Their stands on social issues can blow with the wind, completely dependent on the whims of the big-money men or the schemes of political strategists. Because in the end, the rights guaranteed in our Constitution have to trump religious predilections.
Wealthy Republicans like Paul Singer are now openly supporting gay marriage. If he had a daughter who needed birth control or an abortion, you can be sure he would be able to flout whatever laws were in his way, by sending them abroad if necessary, and then spend millions to get those laws changed to ensure his granddaughters would have the same opportunity to exercise their right to control their own destinies.
Thanks, Charlie!
My first thought at Charley Pierce's brilliant piece in Esquire was, "Hey, he's stealing my shit!" which quickly turned to some inner rumblings about imitation being the highest form of flattery. In fact, he very simply defined the exact reason why I spend so much time talking about the conservative base.
Pierce echoes Mike Lofgren's tell all from a while back and sums up the current political situation quite well.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Republican party, root and branch, from its deepest grass roots to its highest levels, has become completely demented. This does not mean that it is incapable of winning elections; on the contrary, the 2010 midterms, as well as the statewide elections around the country, ushered in a class of politicians so thoroughly dedicated to turning nonsense into public policy that future historians are going to marvel at our ability to survive what we wrought upon ourselves.
This isn't merely an opinion anymore. It's a fact.
It is now impossible to become an elected Republican politician in this country if, for example, you believe in the overwhelming scientific consensus that exists behind the concept of anthropogenic global warming. Just recently, birth control, an issue most people thought pretty well had been settled in the 1960s, became yet another litmus test for Republican candidates, as did the Keystone XL pipeline, to which every Republican presidential candidate pledged unyielding fealty despite the fact that several prairie Republicans and an army of conservative farmers and ranchers are scared to death of the thing.
Again, all facts. But here's the worst part.
Eventually, as was proven by the failed candidacies of Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle, which helped lose the Republicans a golden chance at controlling the Senate as well in 2010, these people cared less about whether the party succeeded than they did that their ideology was kept pure and their private universe invulnerable.
They cared less about whether their party succeeded...in other words, they don't care if they win or lose elections. When you reach that level of irrationality, it makes me wonder what else you are capable of doing. This is exactly what the Democrats don't understand and why, I fear, they severely underestimate the conservative base of this country.
Certainly, this is a mistake I have made in the past but no longer. I know what I ...what we are up against.
Armed with the power of its extraparty institutions, there is a strong element within the Republican base that does not care if the party loses one, two, or three elections as long as their ideology remains pure. There is nobody so powerful in politics as influential people who don't care if they lose. The Republicans have these in abundance.
Pierce doesn't hold out much hope for the Democrats.
The Democrats don't have them at all. This is what keeps the Democrats from being able to make the Republicans pay full price for their party's departure from reality on so many issues. In 2006, the Republicans were handed a defeat in the midterms every bit as resounding as the one suffered by the Democrats four years later. The difference is that there were so many institutions enabling and validating the Republicans' outré ideas that they didn't see any need to moderate them as a result of the 2006 debacle. They simply rode out the 2008 presidential election and retooled those ideas for the age of Obama. Suddenly, we started hearing about "czars," and more talk about socialism than you would have heard at Eugene V. Debs's bachelor party. What were once moderate Republican ideas were now the thin edge of the collectivist wedge. The transformation was complete. And it was remarkable.
Never underestimate the ugly side of American populism and what it can become.
So, is there a solution?
The Democratic party has an obligation to beat the Republican party so badly, over and over again, that rationality once again becomes a quality to be desired. It must be done by persuading the country of this simple fact. It cannot be done by reasoning with the Republicans, because the next two generations of them are too far gone.
Hence, one of the main reasons for this site.
Thanks, Charlie!
Pierce echoes Mike Lofgren's tell all from a while back and sums up the current political situation quite well.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Republican party, root and branch, from its deepest grass roots to its highest levels, has become completely demented. This does not mean that it is incapable of winning elections; on the contrary, the 2010 midterms, as well as the statewide elections around the country, ushered in a class of politicians so thoroughly dedicated to turning nonsense into public policy that future historians are going to marvel at our ability to survive what we wrought upon ourselves.
This isn't merely an opinion anymore. It's a fact.
It is now impossible to become an elected Republican politician in this country if, for example, you believe in the overwhelming scientific consensus that exists behind the concept of anthropogenic global warming. Just recently, birth control, an issue most people thought pretty well had been settled in the 1960s, became yet another litmus test for Republican candidates, as did the Keystone XL pipeline, to which every Republican presidential candidate pledged unyielding fealty despite the fact that several prairie Republicans and an army of conservative farmers and ranchers are scared to death of the thing.
Again, all facts. But here's the worst part.
Eventually, as was proven by the failed candidacies of Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle, which helped lose the Republicans a golden chance at controlling the Senate as well in 2010, these people cared less about whether the party succeeded than they did that their ideology was kept pure and their private universe invulnerable.
They cared less about whether their party succeeded...in other words, they don't care if they win or lose elections. When you reach that level of irrationality, it makes me wonder what else you are capable of doing. This is exactly what the Democrats don't understand and why, I fear, they severely underestimate the conservative base of this country.
Certainly, this is a mistake I have made in the past but no longer. I know what I ...what we are up against.
Armed with the power of its extraparty institutions, there is a strong element within the Republican base that does not care if the party loses one, two, or three elections as long as their ideology remains pure. There is nobody so powerful in politics as influential people who don't care if they lose. The Republicans have these in abundance.
Pierce doesn't hold out much hope for the Democrats.
The Democrats don't have them at all. This is what keeps the Democrats from being able to make the Republicans pay full price for their party's departure from reality on so many issues. In 2006, the Republicans were handed a defeat in the midterms every bit as resounding as the one suffered by the Democrats four years later. The difference is that there were so many institutions enabling and validating the Republicans' outré ideas that they didn't see any need to moderate them as a result of the 2006 debacle. They simply rode out the 2008 presidential election and retooled those ideas for the age of Obama. Suddenly, we started hearing about "czars," and more talk about socialism than you would have heard at Eugene V. Debs's bachelor party. What were once moderate Republican ideas were now the thin edge of the collectivist wedge. The transformation was complete. And it was remarkable.
Never underestimate the ugly side of American populism and what it can become.
So, is there a solution?
The Democratic party has an obligation to beat the Republican party so badly, over and over again, that rationality once again becomes a quality to be desired. It must be done by persuading the country of this simple fact. It cannot be done by reasoning with the Republicans, because the next two generations of them are too far gone.
Hence, one of the main reasons for this site.
Thanks, Charlie!
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Four Family Tableaux
There's been a firestorm of artificial outrage in conservative circles since Hilary Rosen said that Ann Romney hasn't worked a day in her life. Rosen said this in the context of Mitt Romney asserting that he understood the average woman's concerns about the economy because his wife tells him what to think.
The point isn't really whether Ann Romney worked, but whether she has had to make the family and economic decisions and sacrifices that the average woman does. So let's have a reality check with a common situation in modern American families. Here's the initial conversation, followed by the discussion that follows in four different types of families:
The point isn't really whether Ann Romney worked, but whether she has had to make the family and economic decisions and sacrifices that the average woman does. So let's have a reality check with a common situation in modern American families. Here's the initial conversation, followed by the discussion that follows in four different types of families:
Son: Mom, I need $2,000 for soccer club.Traditional nuclear family, stay-at-home mom:
Mom: I'll talk it over with your father.
Mom: Our son needs $2,000 for soccer club.
Dad: Two thousand bucks? We can't afford that kind of money for soccer. And isn't the soccer season over?
Mom: Yes, but that's high school. He's really good, and he might be able to get a college scholarship if he sticks with it. Without the club he'll never get noticed by college coaches.
Dad: But two thousand bucks. That's impossible. I'm already working two jobs.
Mom: I could get a job...
Dad: And who'll take care of the kids? Do you know how much day care costs? I'm sorry, but we just can't afford it. He'll have to get a part-time job or do without.
Typical family, both parents working:
Mom: Our son needs $2,000 for soccer club.
Dad: Two thousand bucks? We can't afford that kind of money for soccer. And isn't the soccer season over?
Mom: Yes, but that's high school. He's really good, and he might be able to get a college scholarship if he sticks with it. Without the club he'll never get noticed by college coaches.
Dad: But two thousand bucks. I'd have to get a second job. Can't he work part-time?
Mom: Between school and soccer practice he already has no free time.
Dad: Okay, okay. I think I saw an opening at Walmart.
Divorced parents:
Mom: Your son needs $2,000 for soccer club.
Dad: Two thousand bucks? I'm already paying you a ton for child support. And isn't the soccer season over?
Mom: Yes, but that's high school. He's really good, and he might be able to get a college scholarship if he sticks with it. Without the club he'll never get noticed by college coaches.
Dad: But I already have another family to support.
Mom: Who's fault is that? If you hadn't knocked up your secretary we wouldn't be in this mess.
Dad: Tell him to get a job.
Mom: You're so out of it. He already works 20 hours a week at Burger King. Between that and soccer practice, he's just barely able to keep his grades high enough to stay on the team.
Dad: Then you get a job. I'm tired of paying to sit on your fat ass all day, you lying bitch!
Mom: What?! Taking care of six kids is a full-time job! And do you know how much day care costs? And if you had let me use birth control we wouldn't have six kids all under the age of 17!
Dad: The answer is no! (slams the phone down)
Romney family, Son #1:
Mom: Tagg needs $2,000 for soccer club.
Dad: (takes out wallet, counts out cash) Here.
Romney family, Son #2:
Mom: Matt needs $2,000 for soccer club.
Dad: (takes out checkbook, writes check) Here.
Romney family, Son #3:
Mom: Josh needs $2,000 for basketball club.
Dad: Didn't I just write a check for that the other day?
Mom: That was Matt, and it was soccer.
Dad: Okay, then. (writes out check) Here.
Romney family, Son #4:
Mom: Ben needs $2,000 for lacrosse club.
Dad: I left my checkbook in my other suit. Take it out of your pin money.
Romney family, Son #5:
Mom: Craig needs $2,000 for swim club.
Dad: Do you think I'm made of money?
Mom: Yes, I saw that picture of you with your Bain pals. Just buy another company, fire half the workers, then make the survivors take out a loan to repay you. Reap twice your original investment, walk away and let it go bankrupt.
Dad: Ha, ha, very funny. (writes out check)
The point isn't really whether Ann Romney worked, but how her perspective on average women's lives could possibly illuminate Mitt's thinking in any useful way. She has lived her entire economic existence in his shadow, completely dependent on him for all income, never wanting for anything.
My mom was a real stay-at-home mom, what Mitt Romney pretends his wife was. My mom raised six kids all by herself, while caring for her ailing father the last 20 years of his life. My dad was a janitor, real estate agent and bus driver, and worked all kinds of long and weird hours. When Ann Romney was having her first child, my mom was manually running clothes through a wringer washer (also known as a button-crusher and hand-masher), and then hanging them on the clothesline to dry. When we had pancakes for supper we kids thought it was a treat: little did we know it was because we didn't have any money. My mom had none of the nannies and cooks and maids and gardeners that people in Ann Romney's position can have.
Ann Romney has certainly had her trials and tribulation, and I have nothing bad to say about her. But worrying about whether she could afford the things her kids needed was never one of them. She's never had to make economic tradeoffs, favoring one child over another because she couldn't afford to give them all what they needed. She never had to sacrifice her time with them in order to make money to pay for the things they needed.
In other words, she's never had to face any of the hardest decisions that the vast majority of mothers in America have to face. That doesn't mean she can't sympathize or understand the trouble they have. But for Romney to claim that his wife has some kind of first-hand experience that would give her some kind of special insight to council him on the lives of average women is flat-out nonsense.
The truth is, average conservative women were already thinking what Hilary Rosen said about Ann Romney. And that seed of truth has to be ripped out and burned with the sharpest vitriol by the right-wing chattering classes as fast as possible, lest it take root and spread among the Republican base that already doesn't trust Mitt Romney for exactly this reason.
We Really Don't Know
The case of Trayvon Martin has been discussed quite a bit in the hallways and classrooms for the last 6 weeks. A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor is typical of the points of view that one would overhear in most any school that contains people of color.
Most people that are white, including myself, just don't really know what this is like. When you live with this sort of prejudice, day in and day out, it takes its toll. It's easy for people to throw out how they think people should act but until you've lived, you really don't have a clue.
Moreover, the following is something I hear frequently right around the time the driver's license is issued.
Instead of shopping, though, it's how to act when a policeman pulls you over. Keep both hands at 10 and 2 O'Clock, look right at the officer, smile, answer in shortly worded sentences etc. Imagine having to add this talk in to all the other ones that you have to have when a teenager starts to dri
So, Mr. Powell's situation is quite common and this is easily seen if you take the time to read the other testimonials. Perhaps after you read them, I'm hoping that you will see what Trayvon Martin was likely dealing with before he was shot.
Of course, we will never really know.
"You name it … walking, in stores, in my car, in malls, getting ice cream," says Mr. Powell, who grew up in Compton, Calif., and now also coaches high school football. "I'm always being racially profiled – by the police or women on the street who give me looks and clutch their purses tighter when they see me coming."
He says police pull him over four or five times a month on average, for "driving while black." Officers "go through my trunk, my glove compartment, look under and behind the seats," he says.
Most people that are white, including myself, just don't really know what this is like. When you live with this sort of prejudice, day in and day out, it takes its toll. It's easy for people to throw out how they think people should act but until you've lived, you really don't have a clue.
Moreover, the following is something I hear frequently right around the time the driver's license is issued.
Powell says his parents, like many parents of black boys, gave him the "talk" when he was growing up: how to dress, walk, act, and speak in situations from shopping in stores to being stopped by police.
"They said to be polite. Look people straight in the eyes. Tell them exactly what they want to hear without attitude. Always carry items out of the store in a bag."
Instead of shopping, though, it's how to act when a policeman pulls you over. Keep both hands at 10 and 2 O'Clock, look right at the officer, smile, answer in shortly worded sentences etc. Imagine having to add this talk in to all the other ones that you have to have when a teenager starts to dri
So, Mr. Powell's situation is quite common and this is easily seen if you take the time to read the other testimonials. Perhaps after you read them, I'm hoping that you will see what Trayvon Martin was likely dealing with before he was shot.
Of course, we will never really know.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)