Look Out!

Just re-discovered this chestnut from last year that I lost in my "Ideas" file.

You bought into the myth that unions are the cause of America’s demise. You didn’t bother to learn America became a world power when union membership was at its peak. You didn’t bother to learn America became the envy of the world while 1 of every 3 Americans was a union member.

Right. But remember, unions are the biggest threat to our country what with all those teachers, police officers, firefighters and city clerks that make millions a year. Look out!

To make matters worse, you’re again being played for a chump. The same puppets who did nothing while your standard of living decreased are now using the oldest gimmick in the book — jealousy — to continue their assault on American workers. Rather than protect Americans’ jobs, they deflect your attention through jealousy.

“Cut the pay of government workers,” they cry. “Increase their health premiums. Decrease their pensions. Break their unions. After all, you’ve suffered so they should suffer too.” And in your misery, you buy their argument while more jobs head oversees. Pretty stupid, eh?

That's why it cracks me up when I hear all this talk about envy. As usual, it's accurate but it's more of a self description.

Misery does indeed love company.

The Antithetical Man

Your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love. 

 ---from a letter that group of Jesuit scholars and other Georgetown University faculty members wrote to Paul Ryan last week.

And just like that, any sort of capital the right had built up with Catholic leaders after the contraceptive flap evaporated.

Thankfully, there are many other folks out there that see Paul Ryan's budget exactly for what it is.

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I write to urge you to resist for moral and human reasons unacceptable cuts to hunger and nutrition programs. The committee has been instructed to reduce agricultural programs by an additional $33.2 billion. In allocating these reductions, the committee should protect essential programs that serve poor and hungry people over subsidies that assist large and relatively well-off agricultural enterprises. Cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment. These cuts are unjustified and wrong.

Huh. They must see the same thing I do when I see Ryan's budget: cutting food stamps to the poor. Ah well, I guess they are liars too. I guess Paul Ryan is a liar now as well.

Ryan argued that government welfare "dissolves the common good of society and it dishonors the dignity of the human person." He would restore human dignity by removing antipoverty programs.

What's terribly ironic about all of this is that Ryan himself said recently that he used "his Catholic faith" as inspiration for his budget. Really?

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.

2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first. 

3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

I'd say that's a Trifecta of Failure, according the leaders of his faith. Of course, this is what I was talking about when I wondered how Ayn Rand and the teachings of Jesus can somehow be magically fit together. The truth is they can't.

Unless you live inside the bubble.

In which case, subsidies and tax cuts for the wealthy are just fine.

Health Care Fallout

Conventional wisdom says that if you voted against the health care law then you are safe, right?

Wrong.

Representatives Jason Altmire and Tim Holden both lost in primaries to opponents who joined together with activist groups to pummel the veteran lawmakers over the opposition to the new health care law and climate change legislation — positions they had used to their advantage in the past to show their independence from President Obama and the Democratic Party.

Ooops.

Further...

While Republicans have seized on the health care law as a political weapon to employ against the president and Congressional Democrats, many Democratic voters and party activists see it as a major achievement and are poised to punish Democrats who fought it. The results on Tuesday also suggest health care could be a major rallying cry if the Supreme Court overturns all or part of the law this summer.

Obviously, I'd like to see the Supreme Court uphold the law. But perhaps I'm wrong in thinking this. What if they do overturn it? That could galvanize a mildly listless base out to vote. Moreover, I still maintain if it is overturned, then you will see a revival of "Medicare For All" that may actually happen.

Oh, and if you are keeping score (and I know some of you are:)), if the Supreme Court does overturn the law AND there is increased voter turnout and/or renewed life for a single payer, government option, that would be an example of losing the argument and still achieving the goal.

Backwards

Here's another piece to go along with my latest post on immigration.

According to the Pew Research Center, the net migration between the U.S. and Mexico over the last five years was essentially zero, and the downward trend suggests that flow of both legal and illegal immigrants may have actually reversed back toward Mexico.

Again, they aren't coming, folks.

The First GDP Report of 2012

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.

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!)

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?:)

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.

Not Just Fox

True not only of Fox but the general thinking of the base and its pundits as well.

Oh, Really?

Minnesota GOP gets eviction notice, after being behind in rent since August

 

The party of fiscal responsibility...hmph.

Explain, Ass Hats...

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?

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!

My Kinda Joe!

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!

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:

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 significantly

Yes, 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.