The Right has reacted to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in their three usual ways. First up was Mike Huckabee who blamed the public schools for taking God out students' lives. This struck me as odd as any student (or person, for that matter) has the right to go to whatever church they want and participate in the many after school and weekend activities. In fact, they could fill up much more time doing church activities than being at school if they really wanted to do so.
Their second reaction was Don't Take Away My Gun. This has never made any sense to me. Neither has the term "gun grabber." Nikto, a contributor here, was recently accused of being a gun grabber when all he called for was a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. He did not call for banning rifles, handguns or other types of weapons that are not semi-automatic capacity. Apparently, the leap from certain types of guns to ALL guns is about an inch. Or less.
Of course, a ban like this will not prevent these types of incidents from happening and this is why I say that the two main sides in this debate, which we are likely to see quite a bit of over the next few weeks, are essentially wrong. By attacking the guns, that side avoids the real issue of mental health and the need for increased security in schools anyway for other issues (drugs, theft, fighting). How about marshals for schools like we have for airlines?
The other side has yet to provide a reason that is not grounded in paranoia and fantasy as to why people should be able to own the type of gun that Adam Lanza used last Friday. Obviously, these same people think that there are number of weapons that should not be owned by average citizens. So why not these? I'd like an answer that is not an emotional and frilled up sermon, please.
The third reaction (and perhaps the most disturbing) is They Should Have Armed Themselves. A completely ridiculous notion when you consider that Nancy Lanza was well armed and got shot with her own weapon! It would be one thing if they were calling for an increased police presence but that's not it. They want teachers wearing guns...a truly stupid idea simply on the basis that teachers don't have time to go through all the training necessary to be safe with a weapon. They are there to educate.
All of these reactions truly suck at a depth that I didn't think was possible to discover. It's been interesting to note that, aside from above, the reaction has largely been quiet from the gun lobby. Perhaps they are finally reflecting on the fact that their usual rag isn't going to work this time. In fact, what they should really be reflecting on is this question: What if the shooter last Friday was a Muslim? What would their reaction have been?
Further, I can't figure out why such a loud and large group of people are apoplectic about Benghazi, where 2 CIA Contractors, a Navy Seal, and a US Ambassador (all of whom were trained for being in massively unstable situations), were are killed and then turn around be completely laissez faire about this incident where little girls were shot as many as ten times. They fault the president for the former and want him to do nothing for the latter.
And that makes me fucking nauseous.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Sunday, December 16, 2012
The Dismal Science Advances One Funeral at a Time
There's an interesting piece by Barry Ritholz in the Washington Post about economics entitled "Why Don't Bad Ideas Ever Die?" It summarizes succinctly what's wrong with Republican prescriptions for the economy from zombie theories such as shareholder value, self-interested rational actors, austerity, supply-side economics, and efficient self-regulating markets, to human failings such as greed, sloth, inability to deal with hard data, bias and the failure of incompetent people to recognize how little they really know.
The last point is extremely important: competent people are well aware of their own limitations. Scientists who work in the hard sciences like physics, medicine and chemistry, as well as the engineering disciplines, are good at knowing what they do know, knowing what they don't know, and being aware that there are things they don't know that they don't know. This concept made famous by Donald Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns speech in his push to invade Iraq.
Because economists use numbers and math, they like to pretend their discipline is some kind of hard science. It's useful for documenting the mistakes of the past, but mostly useless for predicting the results of new approaches. That makes it even less of a science than psychology, where they at least run experiments and double-blind studies.
It's not really the fault of economics (dubbed the Dismal Science by Thomas Carlyle) that it's not a real science. Running experiments in economics would be like performing open heart surgery on a runner during a marathon. Economics is therefore at best a form of numerical philosophy.
But sometimes we do run economic experiments. George W. Bush's tax cuts tested supply-side theories. Europe tested drastic austerity measures after the 2008 recession, while Barack Obama tested mild economic stimulus. We now have the results: the Bush tax cuts did nothing to improve the economy after 2001. Europe's austerity measures have resulted in further recession, while Obama's stimulus has yielded slow and steady improvement. Yet Republicans ignore the data from these experiments and continue to push for tax cuts for the wealthy and extreme austerity for the US economy.
Republicans know very little about the reality of aggregate human economic behavior. They don't know their known knowns, their known unknowns or acknowledge the existence of unknown unknowns. In other words, the young and the incompetent always think they know everything.
Now, I have no doubt that Republicans are smart enough to know that supply-side economics and austerity will trash the economy. They just don't care. They want government to shrink and are completely willing to destroy the economy to make that happen. It's for the greater good, they console themselves, while pocketing millions from the billionaires who donate to their campaigns and think tanks while muttering about moochers and the 47%.
Ritholz ends his article with a paraphrase from Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, that perfectly expresses a thought I've long held about problems such as racism, homophobia, and now Republican economic theories: "Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time.”
The last point is extremely important: competent people are well aware of their own limitations. Scientists who work in the hard sciences like physics, medicine and chemistry, as well as the engineering disciplines, are good at knowing what they do know, knowing what they don't know, and being aware that there are things they don't know that they don't know. This concept made famous by Donald Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns speech in his push to invade Iraq.
Because economists use numbers and math, they like to pretend their discipline is some kind of hard science. It's useful for documenting the mistakes of the past, but mostly useless for predicting the results of new approaches. That makes it even less of a science than psychology, where they at least run experiments and double-blind studies.
It's not really the fault of economics (dubbed the Dismal Science by Thomas Carlyle) that it's not a real science. Running experiments in economics would be like performing open heart surgery on a runner during a marathon. Economics is therefore at best a form of numerical philosophy.
But sometimes we do run economic experiments. George W. Bush's tax cuts tested supply-side theories. Europe tested drastic austerity measures after the 2008 recession, while Barack Obama tested mild economic stimulus. We now have the results: the Bush tax cuts did nothing to improve the economy after 2001. Europe's austerity measures have resulted in further recession, while Obama's stimulus has yielded slow and steady improvement. Yet Republicans ignore the data from these experiments and continue to push for tax cuts for the wealthy and extreme austerity for the US economy.
Republicans know very little about the reality of aggregate human economic behavior. They don't know their known knowns, their known unknowns or acknowledge the existence of unknown unknowns. In other words, the young and the incompetent always think they know everything.
Now, I have no doubt that Republicans are smart enough to know that supply-side economics and austerity will trash the economy. They just don't care. They want government to shrink and are completely willing to destroy the economy to make that happen. It's for the greater good, they console themselves, while pocketing millions from the billionaires who donate to their campaigns and think tanks while muttering about moochers and the 47%.
Ritholz ends his article with a paraphrase from Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, that perfectly expresses a thought I've long held about problems such as racism, homophobia, and now Republican economic theories: "Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time.”
Saturday, December 15, 2012
The Greatest Nation, Impotent Before Madmen
Last month Senate Republicans dragged Susan Rice before a committee, tearing her a new one because Al Qaeda-linked terrorists killed four Americans in a foreign country still rebuilding after civil war. The Republicans were demanding answers because Rice didn't immediately blame terrorists for those murders. She said what she did on advice of the CIA, who was still ascertaining the details and didn't want to alert the bad guys.
For years Republicans have reacted pretty much this same way every time there's been a terrorist attack on Americans. They get irate when suicidal Muslim maniacs murder Americans, and demand immediate retributive action. They have cast aside the rule of law, eliminated habeas corpus, tortured suspects to get information, tapped phones without court-issued warrants, and detained indefinitely anyone they suspect of terrorist intentions, be they foreigners or Americans citizens.
But when suicidal American maniacs commit terroristic acts and kill hundreds of children, movie-goers, shoppers, worshippers, congressional constituents, office workers, and on and on, these same Republicans throw up their hands impotently. They say we are completely powerless to deter suicidal crazy Americans, while at the same time are willing to stop at nothing to deter suicidal crazy Muslims.
Are we, the most powerful nation on earth, completely powerless to stop ourselves from killing each other senselessly? We have spent literally trillions of dollars trying to foil the plans of madmen hiding in mountains and deserts on the other side of the planet, but we can't do a single thing to stop people like Adam Lanza?
Sometimes Republicans do propose solutions, but they are, as they themselves love to say, laughable. If only those teachers had guns, they insist, this tragedy could have been averted. The facts of the incident show what a pale fantasy this is. The shooter's first victim, his mother, was killed with her own gun. Imagine how arming schoolteachers would work, with millions of guns squirreled away in the desk drawers of harried and distracted little old ladies and young women who have zero experience with firearms. Nothing could possibly go wrong there, could it?
And then they trot out that guy in China who just hacked up a bunch of kids at a school. Are we going to outlaw knives too, they demand inquisitorially? But details matter. Technology matters. The death toll from the Chinese knife-wielding maniac: 0. The death toll from the American gun-toting maniac: 26. America wins!
At the time of Revolutionary War weapons technology had evolved very slowly over centuries: the weapons were little different 90 years later during the Civil War. The Brown Bess flintlock musket of the Revolution was not very accurate and had a time-consuming, error-prone, dozen-plus-step reloading process. Misfires were common, powder got wet or slid out of the pan, balls rolled back out of barrels, and musketeers dropped their ramrods and powder horns while fumbling to reload. Even the best infantryman would be hard-pressed to get off more than a couple of shots per minute. The semiautomatic pistols used in Connecticut fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, perhaps two, three or even four rounds per second. You can switch clips that hold 10, 17 or even 33 rounds in seconds.
We already have laws that keep fully automatic weapons out of civilian hands. NRA gun apologists who quote Franklin about safety and freedom and talk about the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution also have to acknowledge that population density and technology have changed drastically in the last 221 years since the Well-Regulated Militia Amendment passed. The semiautomatic weapons the shooter used in Sandy Hook have more carnage potential relative to flintlock muskets than full-auto AK47s have relative to Glock pistols.
Does the president of the NRA, the greatest enabler of on-demand gun purchases in this country, really think Ben Franklin and George Washington would advocate doing absolutely nothing while madmen gun down children in our schools, movie theaters and malls?
The Senate should drag him before a committee and demand some answers.
For years Republicans have reacted pretty much this same way every time there's been a terrorist attack on Americans. They get irate when suicidal Muslim maniacs murder Americans, and demand immediate retributive action. They have cast aside the rule of law, eliminated habeas corpus, tortured suspects to get information, tapped phones without court-issued warrants, and detained indefinitely anyone they suspect of terrorist intentions, be they foreigners or Americans citizens.
But when suicidal American maniacs commit terroristic acts and kill hundreds of children, movie-goers, shoppers, worshippers, congressional constituents, office workers, and on and on, these same Republicans throw up their hands impotently. They say we are completely powerless to deter suicidal crazy Americans, while at the same time are willing to stop at nothing to deter suicidal crazy Muslims.
Are we, the most powerful nation on earth, completely powerless to stop ourselves from killing each other senselessly? We have spent literally trillions of dollars trying to foil the plans of madmen hiding in mountains and deserts on the other side of the planet, but we can't do a single thing to stop people like Adam Lanza?
Sometimes Republicans do propose solutions, but they are, as they themselves love to say, laughable. If only those teachers had guns, they insist, this tragedy could have been averted. The facts of the incident show what a pale fantasy this is. The shooter's first victim, his mother, was killed with her own gun. Imagine how arming schoolteachers would work, with millions of guns squirreled away in the desk drawers of harried and distracted little old ladies and young women who have zero experience with firearms. Nothing could possibly go wrong there, could it?
And then they trot out that guy in China who just hacked up a bunch of kids at a school. Are we going to outlaw knives too, they demand inquisitorially? But details matter. Technology matters. The death toll from the Chinese knife-wielding maniac: 0. The death toll from the American gun-toting maniac: 26. America wins!
At the time of Revolutionary War weapons technology had evolved very slowly over centuries: the weapons were little different 90 years later during the Civil War. The Brown Bess flintlock musket of the Revolution was not very accurate and had a time-consuming, error-prone, dozen-plus-step reloading process. Misfires were common, powder got wet or slid out of the pan, balls rolled back out of barrels, and musketeers dropped their ramrods and powder horns while fumbling to reload. Even the best infantryman would be hard-pressed to get off more than a couple of shots per minute. The semiautomatic pistols used in Connecticut fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, perhaps two, three or even four rounds per second. You can switch clips that hold 10, 17 or even 33 rounds in seconds.
We already have laws that keep fully automatic weapons out of civilian hands. NRA gun apologists who quote Franklin about safety and freedom and talk about the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution also have to acknowledge that population density and technology have changed drastically in the last 221 years since the Well-Regulated Militia Amendment passed. The semiautomatic weapons the shooter used in Sandy Hook have more carnage potential relative to flintlock muskets than full-auto AK47s have relative to Glock pistols.
Does the president of the NRA, the greatest enabler of on-demand gun purchases in this country, really think Ben Franklin and George Washington would advocate doing absolutely nothing while madmen gun down children in our schools, movie theaters and malls?
The Senate should drag him before a committee and demand some answers.
The Right Question
I have a lot to say about the shooting yesterday in Newton, Connecticut at Sandy Hook Elementary School so I'm just going to put out all of my thoughts however they come out regardless of organization.
My first reaction was surprise at myself for how I under reacted when I heard the news. Another school shooting...oh well...it happens all the time now. I guess I'm used to it. I'm used to being revolted at yet another story about how someone walks into a school and starts shooting. Am I just numb to it now?
We run lock down drills at our school all the time. They do at my children's school as well. Will they be enough?
It won't be long now before we find out that the shooter, Adam Lanza, was taking an SSRI. This is the commonality of all of the mass shootings of the last 14 years or so...mental illness and an SSRI. With all this talk about new gun laws, maybe the first new law should be about pharmaceuticals, not guns.
There was no gun law that could have prevented this from happening. The latest information is that the guns were owned by Lanza's mom and not his. Connecticut has strict gun laws and, as a 20 year old, he could not legally own any of them. It's not right, I know, to speak ill of the dead, but she obviously did not practice adequate gun safety. Had these been under lock and key (with only her knowing the combination), this never would have happened.
Of course, should people with mental disorders, even over 21, be allowed to buy guns? Should anyone who takes an SSRI be allowed to own a gun? My thought is no.
The wall to wall coverage in the media for the next week is going to make it seem like this happens everywhere all the time. It doesn't. Violence continues to drop in this country and around the world. Things are not getting worse. They are getting better.
Every other story is about gun control now and how "something has to be done." Again, new gun laws won't help. The problem isn't the guns. It's people. They suck. And they always will.
I don't like the gun control people and I don't care much for the gun rights people either. Where does that leave me?
In my search for a solution, I wonder if haven't taken a moment to think about the children of that school...those who lost their lives and their families and those who have to live with the memories of what was essentially a war zone. I can't even imagine it. As everyone out there has been saying, it doesn't seem real. And I think I have been far too insensitive.
Are any of these questions I'm asking the right ones? Is there such a thing?
Late afternoon yesterday, I had a conversation with my daughter's principal and we asked each other many of these questions. Right before I left, she told me something that her father used to say and it applies here.
Anything that can be fixed is not a problem.
My first reaction was surprise at myself for how I under reacted when I heard the news. Another school shooting...oh well...it happens all the time now. I guess I'm used to it. I'm used to being revolted at yet another story about how someone walks into a school and starts shooting. Am I just numb to it now?
We run lock down drills at our school all the time. They do at my children's school as well. Will they be enough?
It won't be long now before we find out that the shooter, Adam Lanza, was taking an SSRI. This is the commonality of all of the mass shootings of the last 14 years or so...mental illness and an SSRI. With all this talk about new gun laws, maybe the first new law should be about pharmaceuticals, not guns.
There was no gun law that could have prevented this from happening. The latest information is that the guns were owned by Lanza's mom and not his. Connecticut has strict gun laws and, as a 20 year old, he could not legally own any of them. It's not right, I know, to speak ill of the dead, but she obviously did not practice adequate gun safety. Had these been under lock and key (with only her knowing the combination), this never would have happened.
Of course, should people with mental disorders, even over 21, be allowed to buy guns? Should anyone who takes an SSRI be allowed to own a gun? My thought is no.
The wall to wall coverage in the media for the next week is going to make it seem like this happens everywhere all the time. It doesn't. Violence continues to drop in this country and around the world. Things are not getting worse. They are getting better.
Every other story is about gun control now and how "something has to be done." Again, new gun laws won't help. The problem isn't the guns. It's people. They suck. And they always will.
I don't like the gun control people and I don't care much for the gun rights people either. Where does that leave me?
In my search for a solution, I wonder if haven't taken a moment to think about the children of that school...those who lost their lives and their families and those who have to live with the memories of what was essentially a war zone. I can't even imagine it. As everyone out there has been saying, it doesn't seem real. And I think I have been far too insensitive.
Are any of these questions I'm asking the right ones? Is there such a thing?
Late afternoon yesterday, I had a conversation with my daughter's principal and we asked each other many of these questions. Right before I left, she told me something that her father used to say and it applies here.
Anything that can be fixed is not a problem.
Friday, December 14, 2012
On Stiglitz Part Five
I ran across this piece last week and thought it would make an excellent summation before a return to Stiglitz.
One conservative message on inequality is to say that it doesn't matter, and we should accept rises in both pre-tax and post-tax inequality. This is the implication of studies periodically put out by the Heritage Foundation, arguing that poor people aren't really poor if they have microwave ovens. This isn't an appealing argument.
The problem with rising inequality is not that lower-income families can't afford ever-cheaper electronics; it's that they can't keep pace with the rising costs of health care, education and (in certain parts of the country) housing. There's also no reason to think that, whatever standard of living we start from, an economy where nearly all the improvements accrue to a small fraction of families is either politically sustainable or morally acceptable.
Excatly. In a nutshell, that is the foundation that is laid in the four chapters of his book. The cost of inequality is no health care, no education (past high school), and inadequate housing. Millions are affected by one, two or all three of these issues in an adverse way. So what's the result?
A Democracy in Peril-the title of Chapter 5 in "The Price of Inequality."
Stiglitz starts off in this chapter talking about the disillusionment, lower trust, and general loss of perceived fairness that has mounted due to inequality. This leads to an erosion of civic virtue.
No doubt, this is a chief reason why we see less than 60 percent voter turnout. It gets worse.
Well, that's where we are headed and what makes matters worse are the policies aimed to further this disenfranchisement, most of which are aimed at the poor. Photo ID laws and resistance against extended voting hours and times add to this feeling of disillusionment (which works in the favor of those who support these endeavors) resulting in continued low turnout at the polls.
Stiglitz goes on to talk about how Citizen's United makes matters worse and it is there that he and I part ways in agreement (in fact, this is my least favorite chapter in the book). His book was written before the election this year so he couldn't know that his predictions in this chapter regarding this case were going to be wrong.
Hundreds of millions of dollars were poured at President Obama in the hopes of defeating him and all of it failed. Certainly, the president had a lot of money behind him. Yet he also had a massive network of people that not only contributed small amounts of money but also formed a very solid foundation of motivated people that got out the vote. So, Stiglitz was wrong. In this case, people triumphed over money.
His analysis of Citizen's United wasn't the only point he made with which I disagreed. The rest of the chapter has to do with globalization and he's far too vague in his criticism of it. He somewhat wrongly assumes that the lack of voter enthusiasm can be entirely attributed to civic disillusionment
and not mere laziness (see: The Michael Jordan Generation). He also leaves out the raised prosperity around the world as a result of the spread of free markets and capitalism. He seems to call of return to protectionism which, in my view, would be a giant mistake. And this chapter is generally far too repetitive regarding disillusionment with our democracy.
He does have two good points that round out the chapter in regards to financial markets and American's place in the global economy. If America is going to lecture countries around the world about economic stability, then it should practice what it preaches. We have indeed lost credibility around the world because of our financial markets.
Right. Until we chuck the "Wall Street Government," we aren't going to have as much respect around the world and voter disillusionment is going to continue at home. This point also serves to put an end, once and for all, to the notion that a successful business leader would make a successful civic leader (and that a rating from S&P means nothing).
The title of Stiglitz's next chapter is "1984 is Upon Us" and it details how perception is manipulated to continue inequality.
One conservative message on inequality is to say that it doesn't matter, and we should accept rises in both pre-tax and post-tax inequality. This is the implication of studies periodically put out by the Heritage Foundation, arguing that poor people aren't really poor if they have microwave ovens. This isn't an appealing argument.
The problem with rising inequality is not that lower-income families can't afford ever-cheaper electronics; it's that they can't keep pace with the rising costs of health care, education and (in certain parts of the country) housing. There's also no reason to think that, whatever standard of living we start from, an economy where nearly all the improvements accrue to a small fraction of families is either politically sustainable or morally acceptable.
Excatly. In a nutshell, that is the foundation that is laid in the four chapters of his book. The cost of inequality is no health care, no education (past high school), and inadequate housing. Millions are affected by one, two or all three of these issues in an adverse way. So what's the result?
A Democracy in Peril-the title of Chapter 5 in "The Price of Inequality."
Stiglitz starts off in this chapter talking about the disillusionment, lower trust, and general loss of perceived fairness that has mounted due to inequality. This leads to an erosion of civic virtue.
Such civic virtue should not be taken for granted. If the belief takes hold that the political system is stacked, that it's unfair, individuals will feel released from the obligations of civic virtue. When the social contract is abrogated, when trust between government and its citizens fails, disillusionment, disengagement, or worse follows. In the United States today and in many other democracies around the world mistrust is ascendent.
No doubt, this is a chief reason why we see less than 60 percent voter turnout. It gets worse.
Social capital is the glue that holds societies together. If individuals believe the economic and political system is unfair, the glue doesn't work and societies don't function well. As I've traveled around the world, particularly in my job as chief economist of the World Bank, I've seen instances where social capital has been strong and societies have worked together. I've also seen instances where social cohesion has been destroyed and societies have become dysfunctional.
Well, that's where we are headed and what makes matters worse are the policies aimed to further this disenfranchisement, most of which are aimed at the poor. Photo ID laws and resistance against extended voting hours and times add to this feeling of disillusionment (which works in the favor of those who support these endeavors) resulting in continued low turnout at the polls.
Stiglitz goes on to talk about how Citizen's United makes matters worse and it is there that he and I part ways in agreement (in fact, this is my least favorite chapter in the book). His book was written before the election this year so he couldn't know that his predictions in this chapter regarding this case were going to be wrong.
Hundreds of millions of dollars were poured at President Obama in the hopes of defeating him and all of it failed. Certainly, the president had a lot of money behind him. Yet he also had a massive network of people that not only contributed small amounts of money but also formed a very solid foundation of motivated people that got out the vote. So, Stiglitz was wrong. In this case, people triumphed over money.
His analysis of Citizen's United wasn't the only point he made with which I disagreed. The rest of the chapter has to do with globalization and he's far too vague in his criticism of it. He somewhat wrongly assumes that the lack of voter enthusiasm can be entirely attributed to civic disillusionment
and not mere laziness (see: The Michael Jordan Generation). He also leaves out the raised prosperity around the world as a result of the spread of free markets and capitalism. He seems to call of return to protectionism which, in my view, would be a giant mistake. And this chapter is generally far too repetitive regarding disillusionment with our democracy.
He does have two good points that round out the chapter in regards to financial markets and American's place in the global economy. If America is going to lecture countries around the world about economic stability, then it should practice what it preaches. We have indeed lost credibility around the world because of our financial markets.
Proponents of the financial markets like to claim that one of the virtues of open capital market is that they provide "discipline." But the markets are a fickle disciplinarian, giving an A rating one moment and turning around with an F rating the next. Even worse, financial markets' interests frequently do not coincide with those of the country. The markets are shortsighted and have a political and economic agenda that seeks the advancement of the well being of financiers rather than that of the country as a whole.
Right. Until we chuck the "Wall Street Government," we aren't going to have as much respect around the world and voter disillusionment is going to continue at home. This point also serves to put an end, once and for all, to the notion that a successful business leader would make a successful civic leader (and that a rating from S&P means nothing).
The title of Stiglitz's next chapter is "1984 is Upon Us" and it details how perception is manipulated to continue inequality.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
No Easy Answers
With the passage of the right to work law in Michigan, it's clear that there are no easy answers to protecting the middle class while also protecting a company's right to make money. On the surface, it seems tremendously unfair to make someone pay union dues. If they don't want to pay, that should be OK, right?
Similar to the health care issue, however, the problem arises when the people that don't pay then free ride and enjoy the benefits of what the unions do for laborers. In many ways, unions are all that is left in this country in protecting the rights of the individual versus the billions of a corporation and, more importantly, from keeping inequality from getting even worse. We have many states in this country that have had right to work laws in place for years. Wages have not gotten better and the owners have reaped the benefits. They've stagnated and gotten worse so Governor Snyder is mistaken when says this will help workers. It won't.
Of course, the larger picture says that nothing is going to help laborers because of globalization. When you spread free market ideals and capitalism around the world, this is what you get: a giant pool of cheap labor. In the long run, this is a good thing but in the short run, people are having to make do with less money and it really, really sucks for most Americans. Further, it has inhibited our growth economically and made the middle class a vapor of what it once was.
There are no easy answers and I know that I don't have them. My initial thought is we need some fresh, new ideas in place of the old and stale arguments being fought out in Michigan right now. I was absolutely appalled to see the fights that had broken out and the violence, largely instigated by the union protesters and supporters. There is no excuse whatsoever for this sort of behavior and it only hurts their cause. It's likely going to be worse until some one or several someones put on their contstructivists caps and start answer some questions.
How do we support these laborers who are unintended victims of globalization, if at all? Just tell them to ride it and out it will get better (which it will, eventually)? Remember, that it stands to reason that if people are making less here that some people are making more elsewhere (more, of course, than the absolute shit they used to make). I'm not trying to diminish the exploitation that goes on by MNC's around the world but we shouldn't ignore how they have raised prosperity in many Global South countries. This doesn't help our own laborers, obviously.
And what of the issue of inequality? No doubt, right to work laws make it worse. This is where the federal government could help by eliminating the avenues of rent seeking that so many of the top earners and private firms take advantage of every day. With the fiscal cliff talks going nowhere everyday, this seems unlikely so our march to look more and more like a Third World country is being realized.
I don't know...I really don't. Honestly, I don't think anyone does and that's the problem.
Similar to the health care issue, however, the problem arises when the people that don't pay then free ride and enjoy the benefits of what the unions do for laborers. In many ways, unions are all that is left in this country in protecting the rights of the individual versus the billions of a corporation and, more importantly, from keeping inequality from getting even worse. We have many states in this country that have had right to work laws in place for years. Wages have not gotten better and the owners have reaped the benefits. They've stagnated and gotten worse so Governor Snyder is mistaken when says this will help workers. It won't.
Of course, the larger picture says that nothing is going to help laborers because of globalization. When you spread free market ideals and capitalism around the world, this is what you get: a giant pool of cheap labor. In the long run, this is a good thing but in the short run, people are having to make do with less money and it really, really sucks for most Americans. Further, it has inhibited our growth economically and made the middle class a vapor of what it once was.
There are no easy answers and I know that I don't have them. My initial thought is we need some fresh, new ideas in place of the old and stale arguments being fought out in Michigan right now. I was absolutely appalled to see the fights that had broken out and the violence, largely instigated by the union protesters and supporters. There is no excuse whatsoever for this sort of behavior and it only hurts their cause. It's likely going to be worse until some one or several someones put on their contstructivists caps and start answer some questions.
How do we support these laborers who are unintended victims of globalization, if at all? Just tell them to ride it and out it will get better (which it will, eventually)? Remember, that it stands to reason that if people are making less here that some people are making more elsewhere (more, of course, than the absolute shit they used to make). I'm not trying to diminish the exploitation that goes on by MNC's around the world but we shouldn't ignore how they have raised prosperity in many Global South countries. This doesn't help our own laborers, obviously.
And what of the issue of inequality? No doubt, right to work laws make it worse. This is where the federal government could help by eliminating the avenues of rent seeking that so many of the top earners and private firms take advantage of every day. With the fiscal cliff talks going nowhere everyday, this seems unlikely so our march to look more and more like a Third World country is being realized.
I don't know...I really don't. Honestly, I don't think anyone does and that's the problem.
Is It Time Yet?
(Alas, between the time I wrote this and scheduled it for Wednesday morning there was yet another shooting, this time at a mall in Portland. No details as of now, but it only emphasizes the point.)
Last week conservatives went ballistic when Bob Costas talked on Sunday Night Football about Jovan Belcher shooting his girlfriend and then committing suicide in front of his coach. So, as Jon Stewart wondered on the Daily Show, has enough time passed now to talk about this subject?
I guess the answer is no, because this crap happens every damned day:
Exactly. That's the point. Why the hell do these idiots have guns?
The three accidental shooters obviously lack the mental capacity to use and store weapons safely. Jovan Belcher and mass murderers like Jared Loughner and James Holmes have a history of domestic violence and/or mental disorders. How are any of these nut jobs qualified to own guns?
Voting is every much a constitutional right as gun ownership, yet conservatives are willing to disenfranchise millions of voters across the country to stop a few incidents of voter fraud. And still they are completely opposed to even talking about reasonable measures to prevent 30,000 gun deaths each year. Those deaths are caused by gun suicide, kids playing with loaded guns, accidental discharge by half-witted gun enthusiasts, cuckolded husbands and cheated-on wives, fired employees, vigilantes like George Zimmerman and Byron Smith executing interlopers, murderous rampages by psychopaths and shootings of bystanders in gang wars and drive-bys. There must be solutions to at least some of these problems.
Our per-capita gun death rate is not quite at the banana-republic rate, but it's two to 100 times greater than comparable countries, including Canada, Australia, Germany, England, Italy, Switzerland, South Korea and Japan. Part of it is the stupidity of the war on drugs (which is partly why Latin American has such a high death rate), but there's more to it than that.
Instead of yelling "Shut up!" every time anyone brings up the subject, conservatives should instead talk seriously about concrete measures to make guns safer and less likely to kill accidentally, as well as keep them out of the hands of people who are too crazy, too dangerous, too incompetent or too stupid to own weapons that can kill at the merest touch of the trigger.
Or consider this: we spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars on airport security every year, taking off our shoes every time we board a plane, and exposing ourselves to X-ray scans to make sure terrorists don't sneak sophisticated shoe and underwear bombs onto airplanes. People with guns kill ten times as many Americans as died on 9/11 every year: we've spent probably five trillion dollars on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, our worldwide war on terrorism and airport security. Yet here in the United States you can buy semiautomatic rifles without a background check at any gun show. Such rifles can hold a hundred rounds and easily be converted to full auto, allowing terrorists -- or kooks like James Holmes -- to pull off a Mumbai-style terrorist attack here. Yet the NRA fought tooth and nail to have the FBI destroy the records of people who undergo background checks for gun purchases.
Even discounting the terrorist bogeyman, consider this: the nitwit who killed his son at the gun store in Pennsylvania could have just as easily shot anyone else in the parking lot. Do you really want dorks like that visiting the same gun store you do?
Last week conservatives went ballistic when Bob Costas talked on Sunday Night Football about Jovan Belcher shooting his girlfriend and then committing suicide in front of his coach. So, as Jon Stewart wondered on the Daily Show, has enough time passed now to talk about this subject?
I guess the answer is no, because this crap happens every damned day:
- Sunday night a man in Rochester, MN, shot his sixteen-year-old granddaughter when she was coming home.
- Last week in St. Paul, MN, a four-year-old boy shot and killed his two-year-old brother with a gun his father had hidden behind a pillow.
- Last week a father in Pennsylvania accidentally shot his seven-year-old son to death in the parking lot of a gun store.
- Last month a retired State Department security officer shot and killed two teenagers who broke into his house. Byron David Smith shot the boy with a Mini 14 as the kid walked down the stairs, then shot him in the face as he lay on the floor. He then shot the girl as she came down, and she too tumbled down. When his rifle jammed she laughed (she was probably high), so he shot her several times in the chest with a .22 caliber revolver. She was still breathing, so he dragged her next to to the boy and blew her brains out with a shot under the chin.
- Let's not forget criminals that shoot cops (and each other) with guns they've stolen from houses they've broken into.
- And then there's the mass shootings that occur on an almost monthly basis at movie theaters, high schools, colleges, Sikh temples, strip malls, office complexes, etc., etc., etc.
Exactly. That's the point. Why the hell do these idiots have guns?
The three accidental shooters obviously lack the mental capacity to use and store weapons safely. Jovan Belcher and mass murderers like Jared Loughner and James Holmes have a history of domestic violence and/or mental disorders. How are any of these nut jobs qualified to own guns?
Voting is every much a constitutional right as gun ownership, yet conservatives are willing to disenfranchise millions of voters across the country to stop a few incidents of voter fraud. And still they are completely opposed to even talking about reasonable measures to prevent 30,000 gun deaths each year. Those deaths are caused by gun suicide, kids playing with loaded guns, accidental discharge by half-witted gun enthusiasts, cuckolded husbands and cheated-on wives, fired employees, vigilantes like George Zimmerman and Byron Smith executing interlopers, murderous rampages by psychopaths and shootings of bystanders in gang wars and drive-bys. There must be solutions to at least some of these problems.
Our per-capita gun death rate is not quite at the banana-republic rate, but it's two to 100 times greater than comparable countries, including Canada, Australia, Germany, England, Italy, Switzerland, South Korea and Japan. Part of it is the stupidity of the war on drugs (which is partly why Latin American has such a high death rate), but there's more to it than that.
Instead of yelling "Shut up!" every time anyone brings up the subject, conservatives should instead talk seriously about concrete measures to make guns safer and less likely to kill accidentally, as well as keep them out of the hands of people who are too crazy, too dangerous, too incompetent or too stupid to own weapons that can kill at the merest touch of the trigger.
Or consider this: we spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars on airport security every year, taking off our shoes every time we board a plane, and exposing ourselves to X-ray scans to make sure terrorists don't sneak sophisticated shoe and underwear bombs onto airplanes. People with guns kill ten times as many Americans as died on 9/11 every year: we've spent probably five trillion dollars on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, our worldwide war on terrorism and airport security. Yet here in the United States you can buy semiautomatic rifles without a background check at any gun show. Such rifles can hold a hundred rounds and easily be converted to full auto, allowing terrorists -- or kooks like James Holmes -- to pull off a Mumbai-style terrorist attack here. Yet the NRA fought tooth and nail to have the FBI destroy the records of people who undergo background checks for gun purchases.
Even discounting the terrorist bogeyman, consider this: the nitwit who killed his son at the gun store in Pennsylvania could have just as easily shot anyone else in the parking lot. Do you really want dorks like that visiting the same gun store you do?
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Minority Rule in the House of Representatives
The other day I wrote about the tyranny of the minority in the United States Senate. Sadly, it's also true in the House of Representatives.
Republicans in next year's Congress, the 113th, will hold 234 of the 435 seats, or 54%. That must mean Republican House candidates that they won the majority of the votes cast, right?
Wrong. Democratic House candidates won 50.5% of the national vote, but took only 46% of the seats. How is this completely undemocratic outcome possible? Two reasons: incumbency and gerrymandering.
Because so many state legislatures were controlled by Republicans in 2010, they controlled the redistricting process. They redrew the lines to give themselves more seats in Congress in a process called gerrymandering. It was particularly egregious in North Carolina, where Democratic House candidates received 51% of the vote, but got only 27% of the seats.
As Republicans and Democrats negotiate over the "fiscal cliff," both sides are claiming that they won decisive political victories. Eight-five percent of House Republicans won re-election with 55% of the vote, with more than half winning more than 60%.
Republicans say this means voters are demanding they carry through on campaign promises. They are wrong: what voters really want is for Congress to do their job and stop screwing around.
Most House members win in "landslides" because their districts are gerrymandered. Running against an incumbent is such a losing proposition that opponents are nearly always unqualified sacrificial goats, placed on the ballot in the hope that the incumbent commits an unpardonable gaffe on the scale of Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comment.
But even that doesn't always help. Tennessee Republican Congressman Scott DesJarlais is a doctor who claims to be a pro-life family-values conservative. A month before the election it came out that he had affairs with six coworkers and patients (!) and told one of them to get an abortion. Oh, and he and his ex-wife had two abortions. And this guy still won by 18.5 percent!
Results like this show quite clearly that winning any single election says nothing about what the voters want or think about the positions candidates espouse. Winning one particular race only means that you got more votes than the other guy, and that can be for any reason. But the biggest reasons are incumbency and district boundaries.
Ohio is a particularly blatant example of gerrymandering. John Boehner appears to think he won his district by 98% because the voters agree with everything he says. The fact is, he ran unopposed but only got 248,378 votes, the lowest vote total in an Ohio district. A Democrat, Marcia Fudge, ran unopposed in Ohio's 11th district but she got 100% of the vote, with 258,359 votes cast: 4% more than Boehner. Other districts had as many as 368,474 votes, almost 50% more than Boehner's district. Yet the population is supposed to be equal in all districts.
Although Obama won the state 50.1% to Romney's 48.2%, Ohio is sending four Democrats and 12 Republicans to Washington in January. In contested races Democrats won by margins from 42% to 50%; Republicans won by far more meager margins of 4% to 27%. How is that possible? Because the Republican-dominated Ohio legislature packed all the Democrats into four districts. (Pennsylvania is in a similar situation.)
What does John Boehner owe the people in his district that didn't vote for him? What does he owe the people in the rest of Ohio? What does he owe the people in the other 49 states?
Republicans need to get over this idea that they represent only the people that vote for them or donate to their campaigns. If one of Mr. Boehner's constituents was having a problem getting Social Security or veteran's benefits, I am absolutely certain he would help them get it fixed, regardless of who they voted for in the last election.
The legislative process should work the same way. Boehner should take into account the needs and opinions of everyone he represents, and that's not just the people in his gerrymandered Republican district. As speaker of the House, he is in line for the presidency. He therefore represents everyone in the country, and has to consider broader electoral results when formulating national policy.
The fact is, 98% of the people who voted for Mr. Boehner won't be affected by the president's compromise proposal on taxes. In the 2012 election cycle Boehner received at least $11.8 million in campaign donations, almost all of it from outside his district, almost all of it from people who will be affected by the president's compromise proposal on taxes.
Does Boehner really think he owes those donors more consideration than the rest of the people in the country?
Republicans in next year's Congress, the 113th, will hold 234 of the 435 seats, or 54%. That must mean Republican House candidates that they won the majority of the votes cast, right?
Wrong. Democratic House candidates won 50.5% of the national vote, but took only 46% of the seats. How is this completely undemocratic outcome possible? Two reasons: incumbency and gerrymandering.
Because so many state legislatures were controlled by Republicans in 2010, they controlled the redistricting process. They redrew the lines to give themselves more seats in Congress in a process called gerrymandering. It was particularly egregious in North Carolina, where Democratic House candidates received 51% of the vote, but got only 27% of the seats.
As Republicans and Democrats negotiate over the "fiscal cliff," both sides are claiming that they won decisive political victories. Eight-five percent of House Republicans won re-election with 55% of the vote, with more than half winning more than 60%.
Republicans say this means voters are demanding they carry through on campaign promises. They are wrong: what voters really want is for Congress to do their job and stop screwing around.
Most House members win in "landslides" because their districts are gerrymandered. Running against an incumbent is such a losing proposition that opponents are nearly always unqualified sacrificial goats, placed on the ballot in the hope that the incumbent commits an unpardonable gaffe on the scale of Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comment.
But even that doesn't always help. Tennessee Republican Congressman Scott DesJarlais is a doctor who claims to be a pro-life family-values conservative. A month before the election it came out that he had affairs with six coworkers and patients (!) and told one of them to get an abortion. Oh, and he and his ex-wife had two abortions. And this guy still won by 18.5 percent!
Results like this show quite clearly that winning any single election says nothing about what the voters want or think about the positions candidates espouse. Winning one particular race only means that you got more votes than the other guy, and that can be for any reason. But the biggest reasons are incumbency and district boundaries.
Ohio is a particularly blatant example of gerrymandering. John Boehner appears to think he won his district by 98% because the voters agree with everything he says. The fact is, he ran unopposed but only got 248,378 votes, the lowest vote total in an Ohio district. A Democrat, Marcia Fudge, ran unopposed in Ohio's 11th district but she got 100% of the vote, with 258,359 votes cast: 4% more than Boehner. Other districts had as many as 368,474 votes, almost 50% more than Boehner's district. Yet the population is supposed to be equal in all districts.
Although Obama won the state 50.1% to Romney's 48.2%, Ohio is sending four Democrats and 12 Republicans to Washington in January. In contested races Democrats won by margins from 42% to 50%; Republicans won by far more meager margins of 4% to 27%. How is that possible? Because the Republican-dominated Ohio legislature packed all the Democrats into four districts. (Pennsylvania is in a similar situation.)
What does John Boehner owe the people in his district that didn't vote for him? What does he owe the people in the rest of Ohio? What does he owe the people in the other 49 states?
Republicans need to get over this idea that they represent only the people that vote for them or donate to their campaigns. If one of Mr. Boehner's constituents was having a problem getting Social Security or veteran's benefits, I am absolutely certain he would help them get it fixed, regardless of who they voted for in the last election.
The legislative process should work the same way. Boehner should take into account the needs and opinions of everyone he represents, and that's not just the people in his gerrymandered Republican district. As speaker of the House, he is in line for the presidency. He therefore represents everyone in the country, and has to consider broader electoral results when formulating national policy.
The fact is, 98% of the people who voted for Mr. Boehner won't be affected by the president's compromise proposal on taxes. In the 2012 election cycle Boehner received at least $11.8 million in campaign donations, almost all of it from outside his district, almost all of it from people who will be affected by the president's compromise proposal on taxes.
Does Boehner really think he owes those donors more consideration than the rest of the people in the country?
Monday, December 10, 2012
A Minnesotan Message
Alright, Minnesotans...
1) After a snowstorm, driving a few miles under the speed limit is prudent. Driving 5 miles an hour everywhere is irritating. And continuing to move at the same (if not worse) snail like pace when you are pushing a cart around Target is massively fucking irritating.
2)Just because we had some snow doesn't mean that every single person who can drive in the seven country metro area should get out and do so...
3) We've had snow here before so enough with the buffoon like confusion. Stop doing stupid things you wouldn't normally do like changing lanes 9 times in the space of five minutes on the highway.
4)Whoever is in charge of stoplights, reset them to normal and not have them be on green for -5 seconds.
5) Whoever is in charge of plowing, say no to that 5th doughnut and actually PLOW THE ROADS!!
(can you tell we just got our first snowfall of the year?)
1) After a snowstorm, driving a few miles under the speed limit is prudent. Driving 5 miles an hour everywhere is irritating. And continuing to move at the same (if not worse) snail like pace when you are pushing a cart around Target is massively fucking irritating.
2)Just because we had some snow doesn't mean that every single person who can drive in the seven country metro area should get out and do so...
3) We've had snow here before so enough with the buffoon like confusion. Stop doing stupid things you wouldn't normally do like changing lanes 9 times in the space of five minutes on the highway.
4)Whoever is in charge of stoplights, reset them to normal and not have them be on green for -5 seconds.
5) Whoever is in charge of plowing, say no to that 5th doughnut and actually PLOW THE ROADS!!
(can you tell we just got our first snowfall of the year?)
Sunday, December 09, 2012
The Cure for DeMintia
For decades the pinnacle of Republican intellectualism was the art of coming up with a word or phrase that served as a codeword to their followers and cynically trivialized an issue. Sometimes these were passingly clever, like "Obamanation," but mostly they were phrases like "states rights," "trickle-down economics,""welfare queens," and "death panels."
An entire industry of conservative think tanks sprang up to spend millions of dollars slapping fresh coats of paint on tired Republican tropes to deceive voters into thinking Republicans had new ideas.
Therefore, in honor of the upcoming departure of Tea Party favorite Jim DeMint from the Senate, I am following in the Grand Old Tradition of the Grand Old Party. I'm coining the term "DeMintia."
DeMintia is the political atherosclerosis that prevents passage of legislation necessary to the health of the nation for narrow partisan gain. DeMintia has afflicted the United States Senate for years, but has become especially acute since 2010.
Years ago, most legislation in the Senate was enacted by simple majority vote. It was still possible for a single man to stop something egregious from passing, but it required a herculean effort. In the days of Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington a senator wishing to do so had to filibuster -- hold the floor in debate. He could do so as long as he had the stamina. To stop the filibuster a two-thirds cloture vote was required.
Over the years the filibuster has become more and more common -- though no one ever actually has to debate. Today a single senator can stop any action on the Senate floor simply by threatening to filibuster. The effect is that no legislation can pass unless it has 60 votes. Since there are 45 Republican senators and they nearly always vote in a bloc, any one man can completely gum up the works.
Thus, the Senate, which was constituted to prevent the tyranny of the majority, has descended into the tyranny of the minority -- a minority as small as one. This narrowing of the legislative arteries is what has lead us to the budget impasse we're at today.
Gladly, there is a cure for DeMintia: filibuster reform. The Constitution says nothing about the filibuster; it's only Senate rules that make it so. Senate majority leader Harry Reid has finally grown a spine and says he will enact filibuster reform. Instead of just whining Republicans should accept this and engage the Democrats in a spirit of compromise to reform other Senate rules that make it difficult for the minority to offer amendments ("filling the tree").
Republicans are complaining that this is the end of Democracy as we know it. The fact is, the minority is still quite powerful. Even with a simple majority vote, the very structure of the Senate allows a small minority of the population to completely stymie the legislative process: the 51 senators representing the smallest 26 states, which contain only 55 million people, constitute only 18% of the population. With the existing filibuster rule, the 41 senators required to keep a filibuster going could represent as few as 35 million citizens, or just 11% percent of the nation.
There's nothing sacred about a tiny percentage of the population being able to blackmail the rest of the country every time they don't get their way.
Though it was Mitch McConnell who in 2010 said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," no Republican tried more fervently than Jim DeMint to thwart the president's every initiative in the Senate. He tried but failed to pack the Senate with Tea Party louts like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, who were even more thuggish than himself.
With filibuster reform DeMint was doomed to become just another useless yammering Republican in the Senate. So, like Sarah Palin, he's quitting in mid-term to cash out. But instead of working for Fox News, he's going to work for one of those Republican "think" tanks, the Heritage Foundation.
I'm betting his first pitch to wealthy donors will go something like this: "The single most important thing we can achieve is to prevent President Obama from becoming a three-term president. That's why you need to donate one million dollars to our 2016 Future Freedom Fund to prevent Obama from repealing the twenty-second amendment."
Judging by how many millionaires suffered from DeMintia in the last election, I'm sure he'll get quite a haul. Those crazy old rich coots will believe anything.
An entire industry of conservative think tanks sprang up to spend millions of dollars slapping fresh coats of paint on tired Republican tropes to deceive voters into thinking Republicans had new ideas.
Therefore, in honor of the upcoming departure of Tea Party favorite Jim DeMint from the Senate, I am following in the Grand Old Tradition of the Grand Old Party. I'm coining the term "DeMintia."
DeMintia is the political atherosclerosis that prevents passage of legislation necessary to the health of the nation for narrow partisan gain. DeMintia has afflicted the United States Senate for years, but has become especially acute since 2010.
Years ago, most legislation in the Senate was enacted by simple majority vote. It was still possible for a single man to stop something egregious from passing, but it required a herculean effort. In the days of Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington a senator wishing to do so had to filibuster -- hold the floor in debate. He could do so as long as he had the stamina. To stop the filibuster a two-thirds cloture vote was required.
Over the years the filibuster has become more and more common -- though no one ever actually has to debate. Today a single senator can stop any action on the Senate floor simply by threatening to filibuster. The effect is that no legislation can pass unless it has 60 votes. Since there are 45 Republican senators and they nearly always vote in a bloc, any one man can completely gum up the works.
Thus, the Senate, which was constituted to prevent the tyranny of the majority, has descended into the tyranny of the minority -- a minority as small as one. This narrowing of the legislative arteries is what has lead us to the budget impasse we're at today.
Gladly, there is a cure for DeMintia: filibuster reform. The Constitution says nothing about the filibuster; it's only Senate rules that make it so. Senate majority leader Harry Reid has finally grown a spine and says he will enact filibuster reform. Instead of just whining Republicans should accept this and engage the Democrats in a spirit of compromise to reform other Senate rules that make it difficult for the minority to offer amendments ("filling the tree").
Republicans are complaining that this is the end of Democracy as we know it. The fact is, the minority is still quite powerful. Even with a simple majority vote, the very structure of the Senate allows a small minority of the population to completely stymie the legislative process: the 51 senators representing the smallest 26 states, which contain only 55 million people, constitute only 18% of the population. With the existing filibuster rule, the 41 senators required to keep a filibuster going could represent as few as 35 million citizens, or just 11% percent of the nation.
There's nothing sacred about a tiny percentage of the population being able to blackmail the rest of the country every time they don't get their way.
Though it was Mitch McConnell who in 2010 said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," no Republican tried more fervently than Jim DeMint to thwart the president's every initiative in the Senate. He tried but failed to pack the Senate with Tea Party louts like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, who were even more thuggish than himself.
With filibuster reform DeMint was doomed to become just another useless yammering Republican in the Senate. So, like Sarah Palin, he's quitting in mid-term to cash out. But instead of working for Fox News, he's going to work for one of those Republican "think" tanks, the Heritage Foundation.
I'm betting his first pitch to wealthy donors will go something like this: "The single most important thing we can achieve is to prevent President Obama from becoming a three-term president. That's why you need to donate one million dollars to our 2016 Future Freedom Fund to prevent Obama from repealing the twenty-second amendment."
Judging by how many millionaires suffered from DeMintia in the last election, I'm sure he'll get quite a haul. Those crazy old rich coots will believe anything.
Saturday, December 08, 2012
Friday, December 07, 2012
Ah, It Was HIS Waterloo
Jim DeMint to resign to head Heritage Foundation
The most telling quote from the piece?
The mistake the GOP made over the past four years, DeMint told reporters, was focusing too much on what the party was against rather than putting forth “bold ideas to get people inspired and behind us.”
Right. I wonder if any of the commenters over at The Smallest Minority will take this quote to heart regarding yours truly:)
With this resignation, the age of the "Angry White Man" has now officially concluded.
The most telling quote from the piece?
The mistake the GOP made over the past four years, DeMint told reporters, was focusing too much on what the party was against rather than putting forth “bold ideas to get people inspired and behind us.”
Right. I wonder if any of the commenters over at The Smallest Minority will take this quote to heart regarding yours truly:)
With this resignation, the age of the "Angry White Man" has now officially concluded.
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Biggest Conservative Campaign Donor a Liberal
Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire who spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get Republicans elected, is a liberal. He said so himself in an interview published in The Wall Street Journal.
“Look, I’m basically a social liberal, I know nobody will believe that,” Mr. Adelson said, as Dr. Adelson nodded.He's also for the DREAM Act and socialized health care:
“Number one, I’m supporting stem-cell research,” he said, pointing to a chart of the new Adelson medical research foundation that is funding some stem-cell based science.
“I’m pro choice,” he said. Republicans are pro-life, but he and his wife are not pro-life in politics, he said.
“You can take your own religious beliefs …and live your life with your own beliefs. But to make it a portion of the government’s policies?” He shook his head.
“Abortion shouldn’t be brought up as a political issue,” he said.
Finally, he said casually: “And by the way I’m in favor of a socialized-like health care.”Then what the hell is he doing in the Republican Party?According to Politico he has six core issues:
Asked he was sure he was in the right party, he and his wife laughed.
“Look, nobody agrees with 100 % of their planks” in the GOP platform, he and Dr. Adelson both said. [They endorse the Israeli system of socialized medicine.]
1) Paranoia. He thinks Obama will retaliate against him for spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat him. He thinks the investigations into money laundering in his Vegas casino and violation of bribery laws at his Macau casino are evidence of this, and tried to buy a change to the federal corrupt practices act in this last election.
2) Union busting. He hates them. He runs the only non-union casino in Vegas. He appears to compensate employees well, but like any Big Man he doesn't like his authority to be challenged and wants his employees to be beholden to him and no one else.
3) Latkes. One of his major gripes is that Bush ran out of potato pancakes at the last Hanukah party he attended at the White House.
4) Czars. Adelson and the right has this fantasy that there's a shadow government accountable to no one because Obama has appointed "czars" to oversee particular aspects of the government. The Congress and Republican presidents have been appointing such czars for decades, especially "drug czars." Nixon and Reagan were famous for doing this. In management speak it's called "delegation of authority," and is no different that a company hiring another manager to run a new project. Of course, these czars answer to the president and the Congress and the courts, so they're hardly above the law.
5) Control. Adelson wants to control the message the right is putting out. By dangling money in front of these guys, he can control what they say. By threatening to cut them off he dictates what they do.
6) Israel. He wants to dictate American policy on Israel, and buying a Republican -- any Republican -- into the White House would give him what he wants.
There you have it. Adelson is a Republican not because he believes in any of the planks in the party's platform, or has an enduring belief in any of the party's ideology and philosophy, but because he feels persecuted by Democrats and Republicans will give him more stuff.
In other words, Adelson is just another one of those people who voted for Romney because he promised them "stuff."
Why aren't these Tea Party guys drumming Adelson out of the Republican Party?
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
A Nickel on the Dollar
The other day execs from defense contractors told Congress that they're fine with having their taxes raised back to what they were during the Clinton administration. They should be: their salaries are paid by our tax dollars. Other CEOs, such as Lloyd Blankfein (Goldman Sachs) and Randall Stephenson (AT&T) said that a budget deal will require raising the marginal rate.
Many Republicans still refuse to bend to that reality, saying that it will destroy job creation and stifle everyone's incentive to earn more money. At issue is Obama's proposal to allow the top two marginal rates for the wealthiest taxpayers (married couples making more than $250,000) from 33% and 35%, to 36% and 39.6%. What exactly would that mean?
First, to be clear: these are marginal increases, so someone making $250,000 does not simply pay 39.6% of their salary. First you get to make a bunch of deductions, including the standard deduction, child allowances, mortgage, charitable contributions, state taxes, etc. This generally decreases wealthy people's taxes by a bunch right off the bat. (We'll ignore capital gains taxes for now, which Obama is proposing to raise from 15% to 20%, which is still a fabulous deal for the wealthy.)
So, let's say your taxable income after all those deductions is $250,000 a year. If you make $251,000 your taxes will go up by all of $46. Yes, by the magic of marginal tax rates each dollar you earn over $250,000 will cost you less than a nickel.
The Republican disincentive argument is so much hot air. Who in their right mind would turn down a promotion and a raise because their taxes will go up a nickel for each dollar more they earn?
But because there are so many rich people who make so much money, this nickel on the dollar would raise $800 billion over the next 10 years. That alone won't solve the deficit: some loopholes must be closed and programs will have to be cut, including defense, other discretionary spending and entitlements.
Why tax the wealthy instead of regular Americans? Why is that fair?
The wealthy will take a penny of that nickel and stick it in some foreign bank account. Another penny will go to buy an interest in a casino in Macau or a factory in China. Two more cents will be used to flip stock in the Wall Street casino (the companies will never see a penny from that "investment" and cannot hire a single worker from the sale of that stock). The last cent might be invested in something that might create a job here at home, an IPO, corporate or municipal bonds, take a cruise to the Greek Islands like Newt Gingrich after announcing a run for the presidency, or buy a yacht or a third mansion.
On the other hand, middle-class Americans will immediately spend four cents of that nickel on things right now: clothes (from Walmart), food (from Walmart, Kraft and Nabisco), drink (from Coca Cola and Anheuser Busch), cell phones (Apple and AT&T), and housing (which benefits construction companies across the country). The remaining penny might be spent to buy down debt, put into savings for retirement, college or a vacation, and nearly all of it will ultimately be spent here in the United States.
In short, tax cuts for the middle class are immediately converted to profits for corporate behemoths like Walmart, AT&T and Apple, and therefore the wealthy who reap the profits.
By contrast, the Republican plan to eliminate loopholes would hit middle-class Americans just as hard as the wealthy, reducing their disposable income and therefore corporate profits.
The president and the Congress need to understand the larger-scale workings of the economy instead of getting bogged down in arguments over class warfare and government picking winners and losers. Almost every cent middle-income Americans get in tax relief is going to wind up as profit on a corporate balance sheet, which means higher salaries, big bonuses and increased dividends for the wealthy.
It's a great return for the country for only a nickel on the dollar.
Many Republicans still refuse to bend to that reality, saying that it will destroy job creation and stifle everyone's incentive to earn more money. At issue is Obama's proposal to allow the top two marginal rates for the wealthiest taxpayers (married couples making more than $250,000) from 33% and 35%, to 36% and 39.6%. What exactly would that mean?
First, to be clear: these are marginal increases, so someone making $250,000 does not simply pay 39.6% of their salary. First you get to make a bunch of deductions, including the standard deduction, child allowances, mortgage, charitable contributions, state taxes, etc. This generally decreases wealthy people's taxes by a bunch right off the bat. (We'll ignore capital gains taxes for now, which Obama is proposing to raise from 15% to 20%, which is still a fabulous deal for the wealthy.)
So, let's say your taxable income after all those deductions is $250,000 a year. If you make $251,000 your taxes will go up by all of $46. Yes, by the magic of marginal tax rates each dollar you earn over $250,000 will cost you less than a nickel.
The Republican disincentive argument is so much hot air. Who in their right mind would turn down a promotion and a raise because their taxes will go up a nickel for each dollar more they earn?
But because there are so many rich people who make so much money, this nickel on the dollar would raise $800 billion over the next 10 years. That alone won't solve the deficit: some loopholes must be closed and programs will have to be cut, including defense, other discretionary spending and entitlements.
Why tax the wealthy instead of regular Americans? Why is that fair?
The wealthy will take a penny of that nickel and stick it in some foreign bank account. Another penny will go to buy an interest in a casino in Macau or a factory in China. Two more cents will be used to flip stock in the Wall Street casino (the companies will never see a penny from that "investment" and cannot hire a single worker from the sale of that stock). The last cent might be invested in something that might create a job here at home, an IPO, corporate or municipal bonds, take a cruise to the Greek Islands like Newt Gingrich after announcing a run for the presidency, or buy a yacht or a third mansion.
On the other hand, middle-class Americans will immediately spend four cents of that nickel on things right now: clothes (from Walmart), food (from Walmart, Kraft and Nabisco), drink (from Coca Cola and Anheuser Busch), cell phones (Apple and AT&T), and housing (which benefits construction companies across the country). The remaining penny might be spent to buy down debt, put into savings for retirement, college or a vacation, and nearly all of it will ultimately be spent here in the United States.
In short, tax cuts for the middle class are immediately converted to profits for corporate behemoths like Walmart, AT&T and Apple, and therefore the wealthy who reap the profits.
By contrast, the Republican plan to eliminate loopholes would hit middle-class Americans just as hard as the wealthy, reducing their disposable income and therefore corporate profits.
The president and the Congress need to understand the larger-scale workings of the economy instead of getting bogged down in arguments over class warfare and government picking winners and losers. Almost every cent middle-income Americans get in tax relief is going to wind up as profit on a corporate balance sheet, which means higher salaries, big bonuses and increased dividends for the wealthy.
It's a great return for the country for only a nickel on the dollar.
Ballistic, Benched, and Befuddled!
I guess the Civil War in the GOP has officially begun.
“You saw just a conservative purge in the House, you’ve seen the Washington insiders all saying, ‘Well we have to back off of our principles, and get away from certain issues and compromise on others,’” former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum told POLITICO. “Tomorrow we should all call John Boehner’s office to remind him to call Congressman Amash,” tweeted RedState.com’s Erick Erickson.
We knew it was only a matter of time before they started to turn on each other and I predict it's going to get worse as Speaker Boehner is going to have to cave. If he doesn't, the public will blame the House Republicans in the next election.
Speaking of blame, Roger Ailes is tired of Dick Morris and Karl Rove being wrong all the time so they have been told to grab some wood at Fox News. Life in the bubble is shrinking and it's largely due to a complete ignorance of facts. The American people know this and that's why the Right lost the election.
Of course, the bubble isn't fully shrunk yet as someone needs to explain to me why 38 Senators are convinced that the UN is going to use disabled people around the world to create a New World Order. Any takers?
“You saw just a conservative purge in the House, you’ve seen the Washington insiders all saying, ‘Well we have to back off of our principles, and get away from certain issues and compromise on others,’” former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum told POLITICO. “Tomorrow we should all call John Boehner’s office to remind him to call Congressman Amash,” tweeted RedState.com’s Erick Erickson.
We knew it was only a matter of time before they started to turn on each other and I predict it's going to get worse as Speaker Boehner is going to have to cave. If he doesn't, the public will blame the House Republicans in the next election.
Speaking of blame, Roger Ailes is tired of Dick Morris and Karl Rove being wrong all the time so they have been told to grab some wood at Fox News. Life in the bubble is shrinking and it's largely due to a complete ignorance of facts. The American people know this and that's why the Right lost the election.
Of course, the bubble isn't fully shrunk yet as someone needs to explain to me why 38 Senators are convinced that the UN is going to use disabled people around the world to create a New World Order. Any takers?
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
Boehner's Cynical Offer
Yesterday John Boehner made a cynical counterproposal to the president's proposal to keep the Bush tax cuts for everyone but the wealthiest taxpayers.
Boehner's plan includes $800 billion in revenues gained by eliminating unspecified loopholes in the tax code. This is essentially a retread of the Romney/Ryan plan, which also refused to specify anything concrete.
The problem with closing loopholes is that there are thousands of them in the tax code. Half the legislation Congress passes provides tax relief to encourage one sort of economic behavior or other. Those are the very loopholes Boehner wants to eliminate.
Reagan's tax reform in the 1980s was this exact kind of rate deduction and loophole closure. Lo and behold, 30 years later we have a tax code encrusted with thousands upon thousands of tax deductions, incentives and loopholes.
That's why Boehner's proposal is the height of cynicism. Boehner knows quite well that any loopholes Congress closes in a budget deal will be as fleeting as the morning dew: they'll all be immediately replaced by new deductions and incentives to "help the job creators create more jobs."
Tax rate increases are the only durable method to raise revenues, and that's why the Republicans are so adamantly against them. They know closing loopholes is just a temporary cosmetic fix. And that's why conservative Republicans are pushing back against the very plan they supported just a few weeks ago when it was the centerpiece of the Romney campaign. They have to provide the public the illusion that they will somehow be making a compromise by accepting the elimination of loopholes. The whole loophole thing is just another Republican scam.
The only people who've gotten bonuses and salary increases over the last four years have been the 1%. Middle- and low-income workers' wages have declined in real terms. For that reason, raising tax rates on the 1% is is the only way to make the wealthy pay their fair share.
So, yes, the president should accept Boehner's offer to close loopholes. The tax code is larded with crap that benefits the few at the expense of the many. But the wealthy still need to pay taxes at a higher rate, because they've increased corporate profits by laying off some workers and milking the remaining workers for increased productivity while holding their wages down.
And the biggest loophole of all, the 15% rich man's special tax rate on dividends and capital gains, should be at the top of the president's list of rates to increase.
Boehner's plan includes $800 billion in revenues gained by eliminating unspecified loopholes in the tax code. This is essentially a retread of the Romney/Ryan plan, which also refused to specify anything concrete.
The problem with closing loopholes is that there are thousands of them in the tax code. Half the legislation Congress passes provides tax relief to encourage one sort of economic behavior or other. Those are the very loopholes Boehner wants to eliminate.
Reagan's tax reform in the 1980s was this exact kind of rate deduction and loophole closure. Lo and behold, 30 years later we have a tax code encrusted with thousands upon thousands of tax deductions, incentives and loopholes.
That's why Boehner's proposal is the height of cynicism. Boehner knows quite well that any loopholes Congress closes in a budget deal will be as fleeting as the morning dew: they'll all be immediately replaced by new deductions and incentives to "help the job creators create more jobs."
Tax rate increases are the only durable method to raise revenues, and that's why the Republicans are so adamantly against them. They know closing loopholes is just a temporary cosmetic fix. And that's why conservative Republicans are pushing back against the very plan they supported just a few weeks ago when it was the centerpiece of the Romney campaign. They have to provide the public the illusion that they will somehow be making a compromise by accepting the elimination of loopholes. The whole loophole thing is just another Republican scam.
The only people who've gotten bonuses and salary increases over the last four years have been the 1%. Middle- and low-income workers' wages have declined in real terms. For that reason, raising tax rates on the 1% is is the only way to make the wealthy pay their fair share.
So, yes, the president should accept Boehner's offer to close loopholes. The tax code is larded with crap that benefits the few at the expense of the many. But the wealthy still need to pay taxes at a higher rate, because they've increased corporate profits by laying off some workers and milking the remaining workers for increased productivity while holding their wages down.
And the biggest loophole of all, the 15% rich man's special tax rate on dividends and capital gains, should be at the top of the president's list of rates to increase.
Monday, December 03, 2012
The Role Reversal
As I write this on Dec. 3, sitting in my office in Minnesota, it is 52 degrees outside. It's raining. On Nov. 10 four tornadoes hit Minnesota. There was a little snow just before Thanksgiving, but highs in the 40s and 50s have melted it all.
For 25 years we've been going to volleyball matches at the University of Minnesota. For years November and December were bearish months: it snowed half the time and traffic was always snarled. Traffic is still snarled these days, but for the last 10 years our drive has been marred by snow less than a handful of times.
Twenty-five years ago we had to wait till May for the snow to melt to play volleyball outdoors in the sand. We've been able to play in early March and April for several years now.
When I was a kid I had to walk a mile to school in hip-deep snow. Unlike my father, only one way was uphill.
I'm engaging in that age-old pastime of geezerhood: talking about how it used to be in the old days, complaining about how much it's changed, and how everything is going down the drain and kids these days don't know how easy they have it.
It's not just me. Scientists have documented global temperature increases, increased frequency of tornadoes, increased intensity and size of hurricanes like Sandy and Irene, which are fueled by higher ocean temperatures. They've documented the earlier springs and later falls and their effects on wildlife migration and reproduction. They've documented the opening of the Northwest Passage and the drastically smaller ice cap.
But, incredibly, millions of Republicans my age have completely forgotten what life was like 20 or 30 years ago. They insist that global warming is a hoax and that everything is completely normal and just like it always was.
In Doha, Qatar, the UN climate conference is in full swing. They've just released a report saying that rising CO2 levels will cause a global temperature increase of 4 to 6 degrees C by 2100. That will cause sea levels to rise more than three feet, 60% faster than was previously projected (actual measurements are in line with that faster pace).
Our local public radio station ran a segment this morning about young voters, how they propelled President Obama to re-election, and what they want the president to do. One of their top concerns was global warming.
Why are these kids willing to acknowledge the reality of global warming, while people who actually lived through those colder, snowier times refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence, as well as the evidence of their own senses?
Why have the roles of the young and the old reversed in this country? Why are supposedly responsible adults acting like spoiled children, putting their fingers in their ears and babbling to keep from hearing the truth?
I'm probably the first geezer to say this, but it seems our kids have more sense than their parents.
For 25 years we've been going to volleyball matches at the University of Minnesota. For years November and December were bearish months: it snowed half the time and traffic was always snarled. Traffic is still snarled these days, but for the last 10 years our drive has been marred by snow less than a handful of times.
Twenty-five years ago we had to wait till May for the snow to melt to play volleyball outdoors in the sand. We've been able to play in early March and April for several years now.
When I was a kid I had to walk a mile to school in hip-deep snow. Unlike my father, only one way was uphill.
I'm engaging in that age-old pastime of geezerhood: talking about how it used to be in the old days, complaining about how much it's changed, and how everything is going down the drain and kids these days don't know how easy they have it.
It's not just me. Scientists have documented global temperature increases, increased frequency of tornadoes, increased intensity and size of hurricanes like Sandy and Irene, which are fueled by higher ocean temperatures. They've documented the earlier springs and later falls and their effects on wildlife migration and reproduction. They've documented the opening of the Northwest Passage and the drastically smaller ice cap.
But, incredibly, millions of Republicans my age have completely forgotten what life was like 20 or 30 years ago. They insist that global warming is a hoax and that everything is completely normal and just like it always was.
In Doha, Qatar, the UN climate conference is in full swing. They've just released a report saying that rising CO2 levels will cause a global temperature increase of 4 to 6 degrees C by 2100. That will cause sea levels to rise more than three feet, 60% faster than was previously projected (actual measurements are in line with that faster pace).
Our local public radio station ran a segment this morning about young voters, how they propelled President Obama to re-election, and what they want the president to do. One of their top concerns was global warming.
Why are these kids willing to acknowledge the reality of global warming, while people who actually lived through those colder, snowier times refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence, as well as the evidence of their own senses?
Why have the roles of the young and the old reversed in this country? Why are supposedly responsible adults acting like spoiled children, putting their fingers in their ears and babbling to keep from hearing the truth?
I'm probably the first geezer to say this, but it seems our kids have more sense than their parents.
Heed His Warning
It's easy after the last election for Democrats to feel confident. The president only dropped two states from 2008. Gains were seen in both the House and Senate (netting 8 seats in the former and 2 in the latter). The GOP hasn't gotten above 300 electoral votes since 1988 with the Democrats winning 4 of the last 6 presidential elections.
And, as the absentee ballots are counted, we see that the president got 65.3 million votes so his lower totals than 2008 weren't as low as originally thought (Mitt Romney is now at 60.7 so he did get 1 million more votes than McCain in 2008).
But, as Rahm Emanuel notes in this piece, we can't rest on our laurels.
We cannot expect Republicans to cede the economic argument so readily, or to fall so far short on campaign mechanics, the next time around. So, instead of resting on false assurances of underlying demographic advantages, the Democratic Party must follow through on our No. 1 priority, which the president set when he took office and reemphasized throughout this campaign: It is time to come home and rebuild America.
Right. This is no time for end zone dances. We have to deliver. What's a key way we do that?
Honestly, it starts with education and that means high stakes testing for every subject across the board, especially social studies. Many on the Right take the view that Democrats coddle those in the education system. Clearly, they have not read the fact sheet on Race to the Top. If they did, they would see that the president and many of his supporters (including me) wholeheartedly support this endeavor.
If the students that are in school now receive a higher quality education, they are going to be a very strong backbone of this country in the next decade. Take some time to look through the fact sheet listed above and see how these changes have to made to our education system in order for our economy to improve.
For the Democrats, this should be one of the main policies to vigorously pursue in the president's second term. This is one of a few key policies that is going to help win election after election.
And, as the absentee ballots are counted, we see that the president got 65.3 million votes so his lower totals than 2008 weren't as low as originally thought (Mitt Romney is now at 60.7 so he did get 1 million more votes than McCain in 2008).
But, as Rahm Emanuel notes in this piece, we can't rest on our laurels.
We cannot expect Republicans to cede the economic argument so readily, or to fall so far short on campaign mechanics, the next time around. So, instead of resting on false assurances of underlying demographic advantages, the Democratic Party must follow through on our No. 1 priority, which the president set when he took office and reemphasized throughout this campaign: It is time to come home and rebuild America.
Right. This is no time for end zone dances. We have to deliver. What's a key way we do that?
If we want to build a future in which the middle class can succeed, we must continue the push for reform that the president began with Race to the Top, bringing responsibility and accountability to our teachers and principals.
Honestly, it starts with education and that means high stakes testing for every subject across the board, especially social studies. Many on the Right take the view that Democrats coddle those in the education system. Clearly, they have not read the fact sheet on Race to the Top. If they did, they would see that the president and many of his supporters (including me) wholeheartedly support this endeavor.
If the students that are in school now receive a higher quality education, they are going to be a very strong backbone of this country in the next decade. Take some time to look through the fact sheet listed above and see how these changes have to made to our education system in order for our economy to improve.
For the Democrats, this should be one of the main policies to vigorously pursue in the president's second term. This is one of a few key policies that is going to help win election after election.
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Texas: King of Corporate Welfare
The New York Times is running a series of articles about how much money states and localities are spending to induce corporations to locate in their area. Corporations receive more than $80 billion of taxpayer money every year, in the form of cash grants, income tax credits and exemptions, property tax abatements, sales tax breaks and free services.
This is redistribution of wealth on a massive scale, welfare for the wealthy. We spend more on this corporate welfare than we do on food stamps (which was $78 billion last year).
The state with the biggest giveaways is Texas: Texas taxpayers foot $19 billion in annual giveaways to corporations. That's $759 per capita and 51 cents for every dollar of the state budget. By comparison Minnesota is a piker: only $239 million, or $45 per capita and a penny per dollar of the state budget.
Companies like GM, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Twitter, Walmart, Shell Oil and major league sports franchises are the usual recipients of this largesse. But the Times finds that the local governments giving all that money away have no idea how many jobs are actually created and how much they actually benefit.
When Minnesota has done this it hasn't turned out so well. The state gave Northwest Airlines sweetheart deals to relocate call centers and maintenance facilities in the state, only to get screwed after Delta bought them out and moved those jobs out of state. Promises corporations make are rarely kept and consequences for breaking them are even rarer.
Companies that play by the rules, pay their taxes and remain loyal to their home states get the shaft, and wind up paying for state officials to lure competitors into the area. To get the same deals those local companies have to threaten to leave, soliciting other states and localities to bribe them away. It's a cynical game that states can never win as they impoverish themselves.
At the end of the day corporations won't make moves that make no business sense. Companies have to locate where resources, transportation and customers dictate. That means most of the states competing for these companies don't have a chance to win, and they're foolishly wasting their time and money even trying. They're just being used as leverage to squeeze the sweetest deal out of the places where the companies actually need to locate.
This is crony capitalism at its worst. It's government picking winners and losers. It's legal, out-in-the-open bribery and extortion. But worst of all, it's a massive transfer of billions of dollars from middle-income and small-business taxpayers to giant multinational corporations.
This is redistribution of wealth on a massive scale, welfare for the wealthy. We spend more on this corporate welfare than we do on food stamps (which was $78 billion last year).
The state with the biggest giveaways is Texas: Texas taxpayers foot $19 billion in annual giveaways to corporations. That's $759 per capita and 51 cents for every dollar of the state budget. By comparison Minnesota is a piker: only $239 million, or $45 per capita and a penny per dollar of the state budget.
Companies like GM, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Twitter, Walmart, Shell Oil and major league sports franchises are the usual recipients of this largesse. But the Times finds that the local governments giving all that money away have no idea how many jobs are actually created and how much they actually benefit.
When Minnesota has done this it hasn't turned out so well. The state gave Northwest Airlines sweetheart deals to relocate call centers and maintenance facilities in the state, only to get screwed after Delta bought them out and moved those jobs out of state. Promises corporations make are rarely kept and consequences for breaking them are even rarer.
Companies that play by the rules, pay their taxes and remain loyal to their home states get the shaft, and wind up paying for state officials to lure competitors into the area. To get the same deals those local companies have to threaten to leave, soliciting other states and localities to bribe them away. It's a cynical game that states can never win as they impoverish themselves.
At the end of the day corporations won't make moves that make no business sense. Companies have to locate where resources, transportation and customers dictate. That means most of the states competing for these companies don't have a chance to win, and they're foolishly wasting their time and money even trying. They're just being used as leverage to squeeze the sweetest deal out of the places where the companies actually need to locate.
This is crony capitalism at its worst. It's government picking winners and losers. It's legal, out-in-the-open bribery and extortion. But worst of all, it's a massive transfer of billions of dollars from middle-income and small-business taxpayers to giant multinational corporations.
Saturday, December 01, 2012
Friday, November 30, 2012
Obama Stops Doing the Republicans' Job
Timothy Geithner delivered Obama's plan for the fiscal cliff to congressional Republicans yesterday, and they don't like it:
In the past Obama has tried take Republicans requirements under consideration and work them into his legislation. That's why he abandoned single-payer health care and adopted Romneycare as the basis for health care reform. He naively hoped that would coax some Republicans to vote for it. But they rejected the plan anyway as a basic tactic to deny him any victories whatsoever, and continue to whine about it to this day.
Again and again Obama has crafted proposals to meet Republicans half way even before he started talking to them. Naturally, Republicans turn Obama's already-compromised proposals into starting points, and demand even more concessions.
Obama has finally learned his lesson. He has proposed only those things that he thinks are important: extending tax cuts for everyone but the top 2% and eliminating the idiotic debt limit authorization process. The latter will prevent Congress from blackmailing the president (be he Democrat or Republican) every time it becomes necessary to increase the debt limit.
So instead of negotiating with himself trying to figure out what Republicans want, Obama is laying his requirements on the table. Now it's up to Republicans to propose the budget cuts and entitlement "reforms" they want to make up the rest of the budget balancing act.
Yes, Obama is going to let Republicans take all the heat from Social Security and Medicare recipients by forcing John Boehner to propose the cuts he wants. If Republicans want to keep taxing Mitt Romney at at one-half to one-third the rate middle-income Americans pay, Obama is going to make them propose that. If Republicans want to keep bloated weapons procurement programs afloat, Obama is going to make them propose cuts to veterans' programs, NASA, highway construction, farm subsidies, education, and programs that people need to feed their children.
Instead of constantly negotiating with himself beforehand, Obama is finally making Republicans do their job. It's up to Republicans to stop stalling and calling for Obama to "lead." He's done so. Now it's the Republicans' turn.
“If the president is going to lead on this critical issue, he has to propose a plan that can actually pass,” said Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri. “This is simply not a serious proposal.”The real problem the Republicans have is that Obama is now negotiating exactly the same way they do: he's only proposing tax cuts and stimulus, and is totally ignoring Republican demands. Since Republicans seem to think cutting the budget is so easy, he's going to let them propose those cuts.
In the past Obama has tried take Republicans requirements under consideration and work them into his legislation. That's why he abandoned single-payer health care and adopted Romneycare as the basis for health care reform. He naively hoped that would coax some Republicans to vote for it. But they rejected the plan anyway as a basic tactic to deny him any victories whatsoever, and continue to whine about it to this day.
Again and again Obama has crafted proposals to meet Republicans half way even before he started talking to them. Naturally, Republicans turn Obama's already-compromised proposals into starting points, and demand even more concessions.
Obama has finally learned his lesson. He has proposed only those things that he thinks are important: extending tax cuts for everyone but the top 2% and eliminating the idiotic debt limit authorization process. The latter will prevent Congress from blackmailing the president (be he Democrat or Republican) every time it becomes necessary to increase the debt limit.
So instead of negotiating with himself trying to figure out what Republicans want, Obama is laying his requirements on the table. Now it's up to Republicans to propose the budget cuts and entitlement "reforms" they want to make up the rest of the budget balancing act.
Yes, Obama is going to let Republicans take all the heat from Social Security and Medicare recipients by forcing John Boehner to propose the cuts he wants. If Republicans want to keep taxing Mitt Romney at at one-half to one-third the rate middle-income Americans pay, Obama is going to make them propose that. If Republicans want to keep bloated weapons procurement programs afloat, Obama is going to make them propose cuts to veterans' programs, NASA, highway construction, farm subsidies, education, and programs that people need to feed their children.
Instead of constantly negotiating with himself beforehand, Obama is finally making Republicans do their job. It's up to Republicans to stop stalling and calling for Obama to "lead." He's done so. Now it's the Republicans' turn.
The Factory is Closing
The overall birthrate decreased by 8 percent between 2007 and 2010, with a much bigger drop of 14 percent among foreign-born women. The overall birthrate is at its lowest since 1920, the earliest year with reliable records. The 2011 figures don’t have breakdowns for immigrants yet, but the preliminary findings indicate that they will follow the same trend.This has raised some concerns that there won't be enough young people to support the aging population. We've been depending on immigrants (who have a higher birthrate than native Americans) to prop up Social Security to keep the population growing.
For most of this time of steep decline Republicans have been on an anti-immigrant tirade. The primary claim has been that Mexicans come here to have "anchor babies" so that they can enjoy the fabulous welfare and medical benefits America has to offer. In response states like Arizona passed laws of questionable constitutionality in response to this fear mongering. The reality is different:
But after 2007, as the worst recession in decades dried up jobs and economic prospects across the nation, the birthrate for immigrant women plunged. One of the most dramatic drops was among Mexican immigrants — 23 percent.At the peak of anti-immigrant hysteria the exact thing that Republicans were decrying was declining. But since Mitt Romney's devastating loss to President Obama Republicans have been doing a total 180 on immigration. Now they want to make nice with Hispanics.
The truth is, the recession hit the poorest people — including immigrants — the hardest. Immigrants don't come to this country to bear their children, they come here to get jobs that pay more than they can make at home. The fact is, health care in Mexico is free. Many Americans have gone to Mexico to take advantage of this. So there's little incentive for pregnant women to leave their extended families and free health care in Mexico to come to the United States where they're in constant danger of being deported and they have to register with the government to obtain welfare benefits.
Republicans have always tried to frame the immigration debate in terms of illegal aliens coming to this country to steal our jobs (or steal our welfare, they can never decide which). But the real problem has always been that employers created an attractive nuisance by hiring illegal aliens for more than they can make in their home countries, while paying wages lower than native Americans can afford to accept. The proof is in the pudding: when the recession made those jobs dry up, illegal immigration declined.
But the other side of this is that when people move to America they become Americans:
Latino immigrants who have been here longer tend to adopt U.S. attitudes and behavior, including having smaller families, Suro said. He added that the decline in the birthrate among Mexican immigrants is probably so sharp because the rate was so high that there was more room for it to fall.As a Salvadoran said while pregnant with her third child:
“To have more babies, it costs more,” she said as her 2-year-old son Emanuel played nearby.
Pointing to her belly, she said she plans to have her tubes tied after giving birth. “The factory is closing,” she said with a smile.
Hey, Check Out The New Sidebar!
I've made some changes to the sidebar and brought the site more in line with the 21st century. Scroll down and you will see the latest political news, world news, business news, US news and (for my local homies) Minnesota news. A little further down is a list of the tags (finally) on the front page. Click on any tag (US Debt, US Deficit, for example) and you can see all my posts on said subject.
One other note...since the election, we've doubled our traffic here at Markadelphia and get between 400 and 500 page loads a day with over 7,000 page views in the last month. Mega!
One other note...since the election, we've doubled our traffic here at Markadelphia and get between 400 and 500 page loads a day with over 7,000 page views in the last month. Mega!
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Where is the Sense?
Peter Bergen's recent piece pretty much jibes with what I have been saying all along regarding the GOP mental meltdown over Benghazi. Mr. Bergen is CNN's national security analyst and the author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden -- From 9/11 to Abbottabad."
What is the Republican theory of the case against Rice? It appears to boil down to the idea that leading Democrats covered up the involvement of terrorists in some way connected to al Qaeda in the Benghazi attack during the run-up to the close presidential election because President Obama and others in his administration had for some time said that al Qaeda was close to strategic defeat.
I guess that's it but, again, I have to wonder...where was the outrage after 9-11? Then we had 3000 civilians killed on our home soil in the worst attack in US History. This was an attack in a massively destabilized country on a CIA listening station (not an embassy or consulate as is commonly thought) with a US Ambassador, who knew the risks, two CIA contractors and a Navy seal losing their lives. To the Right, this means that all of our women and children were raped/tortured/killed by Islamists whilst they were shitting on the flag.
Anyway, Bergen raises an interesting question, which I put to all of you..
Does this case make sense? First, you would have to accept that Obama, Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all knowingly deceived the American public about what had happened at the Benghazi consulate.
Second, it was the intelligence community, not officials at the White House or State Department, that eliminated from the talking points used by Rice after the Benghazi attack the suspected involvement of the Libyan jihadist group, Ansar al-Sharia.
That's right. How do we know this?
According to accounts of former CIA director David Petraeus' closed door testimony about Benghazi to congressional intelligence committees earlier this month, the intelligence community eliminated references to Ansar al-Sharia in the talking points so as not to tip off members of the terrorist group that the CIA believed that they were responsible for the attack.
The conspiracy therefore was not to mislead the American public but to mislead America's enemies.
Hmmm...sounds familiar, eh?
If Rice had gone beyond her unclassified talking points and said that Ansar al-Sharia was suspected to be behind the Benghazi attacks, no doubt she would now be being hounded for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
Exactly.
Bergen also raises a third point that isn't discussed enough.
Third, it is worth recalling that whenever there is a news event in a chaotic country on the other side of the world, first accounts about the event are often wrong. Remember the erroneous reports about another big news event last year; the death of Osama bin Laden. Initially, it was portrayed by the Obama administration that bin Laden had died during a firefight with U.S. forces in Pakistan and had used his wife as a human shield. As more accurate information subsequently came in from the field, administration officials clarified that bin Laden put up no resistance and had not used his wife as a shield. This is not conspiracy; this is the fog of war.
If the Obama administration had said, "We don't know what happened" how would that have honestly looked? McCain and his little band of pants squirters know this and they are just playing politics.
Some more great points...
It is also worth recalling that the situation in Benghazi was so chaotic and dangerous that it took three weeks for the FBI to get in to the city to investigate what had happened at the consulate. And it took even more time for the facts to emerge that the Benghazi mission wasn't really a consulate in any conventional sense, but was more of a CIA listening station and that two of the four Americans who had died in the attack weren't diplomats as initially portrayed but were, in fact, CIA contractors.
Facts, folks, are stubborn things.
I have no doubt that the witch hunt is going to continue and accusations will be flying around about cover-ups and the suffix "gate" is going to be attached to all of this. But I predict that right around that time or maybe a little after, we're going to catch some of the guys that were responsible for the attack and then the truth will come out.
And that's when McCain and the others are going to realize why the GOP keeps losing elections.
What is the Republican theory of the case against Rice? It appears to boil down to the idea that leading Democrats covered up the involvement of terrorists in some way connected to al Qaeda in the Benghazi attack during the run-up to the close presidential election because President Obama and others in his administration had for some time said that al Qaeda was close to strategic defeat.
I guess that's it but, again, I have to wonder...where was the outrage after 9-11? Then we had 3000 civilians killed on our home soil in the worst attack in US History. This was an attack in a massively destabilized country on a CIA listening station (not an embassy or consulate as is commonly thought) with a US Ambassador, who knew the risks, two CIA contractors and a Navy seal losing their lives. To the Right, this means that all of our women and children were raped/tortured/killed by Islamists whilst they were shitting on the flag.
Anyway, Bergen raises an interesting question, which I put to all of you..
Does this case make sense? First, you would have to accept that Obama, Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all knowingly deceived the American public about what had happened at the Benghazi consulate.
Second, it was the intelligence community, not officials at the White House or State Department, that eliminated from the talking points used by Rice after the Benghazi attack the suspected involvement of the Libyan jihadist group, Ansar al-Sharia.
That's right. How do we know this?
According to accounts of former CIA director David Petraeus' closed door testimony about Benghazi to congressional intelligence committees earlier this month, the intelligence community eliminated references to Ansar al-Sharia in the talking points so as not to tip off members of the terrorist group that the CIA believed that they were responsible for the attack.
The conspiracy therefore was not to mislead the American public but to mislead America's enemies.
Hmmm...sounds familiar, eh?
If Rice had gone beyond her unclassified talking points and said that Ansar al-Sharia was suspected to be behind the Benghazi attacks, no doubt she would now be being hounded for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
Exactly.
Bergen also raises a third point that isn't discussed enough.
Third, it is worth recalling that whenever there is a news event in a chaotic country on the other side of the world, first accounts about the event are often wrong. Remember the erroneous reports about another big news event last year; the death of Osama bin Laden. Initially, it was portrayed by the Obama administration that bin Laden had died during a firefight with U.S. forces in Pakistan and had used his wife as a human shield. As more accurate information subsequently came in from the field, administration officials clarified that bin Laden put up no resistance and had not used his wife as a shield. This is not conspiracy; this is the fog of war.
If the Obama administration had said, "We don't know what happened" how would that have honestly looked? McCain and his little band of pants squirters know this and they are just playing politics.
Some more great points...
It is also worth recalling that the situation in Benghazi was so chaotic and dangerous that it took three weeks for the FBI to get in to the city to investigate what had happened at the consulate. And it took even more time for the facts to emerge that the Benghazi mission wasn't really a consulate in any conventional sense, but was more of a CIA listening station and that two of the four Americans who had died in the attack weren't diplomats as initially portrayed but were, in fact, CIA contractors.
Facts, folks, are stubborn things.
I have no doubt that the witch hunt is going to continue and accusations will be flying around about cover-ups and the suffix "gate" is going to be attached to all of this. But I predict that right around that time or maybe a little after, we're going to catch some of the guys that were responsible for the attack and then the truth will come out.
And that's when McCain and the others are going to realize why the GOP keeps losing elections.
Let Warren Unburden Them
Warren Buffett's recent opinion piece seen in many papers and online over the last few days is a fine example of how completely ridiculous the Right is in regards to federal government tax policy. He begins with an anecdote.
Only in all their imaginations does such a response exist. I can say with near certainty that anyone on the Right that says they do this or has known people to act in this fashion is lying. As Mr. Buffett has said many times previously, people invest to make money. Government tax policy doesn't enter into it.
And facts are facts...
They both gained ground because there was less inequality. The money that was used from the higher tax revenues paid for investments in infrastructure and education (the GI Bill, for example). This, in turn, led to a higher skilled labor force and an economy that was robust and innovative. This is not the case today.
This is how money has been transferred upwards as Stiglitz mentions in "The Price of Inequality."
So what does Warren think should be done about this?
And what will the result be?
I agree and, as Warren notes, this will involve major concessions by the Right and the Left. All sides in this debate have signaled a willingness to bend so I do have some hope.
And what about that figment of the Right's imagination who is overly obsessed with "uncertainty?"
Maybe I should send ol' DJ from TSM to Mr. Buffett...hee hee...:)
Suppose that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. "This is a good one," he says enthusiastically. "I'm in it, and I think you should be, too."
Would your reply possibly be this? "Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you're saying we're going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent." Only in Grover Norquist's imagination does such a response exist.
Only in all their imaginations does such a response exist. I can say with near certainty that anyone on the Right that says they do this or has known people to act in this fashion is lying. As Mr. Buffett has said many times previously, people invest to make money. Government tax policy doesn't enter into it.
And facts are facts...
Between 1951 and 1954, when the capital gains rate was 25 percent and marginal rates on dividends reached 91 percent in extreme cases, I sold securities and did pretty well. In the years from 1956 to 1969, the top marginal rate fell modestly, but was still a lofty 70 percent -- and the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was managing funds for investors then.
Never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity I offered.
Under those burdensome rates, moreover, both employment and the gross domestic product (a measure of the nation's economic output) increased at a rapid clip. The middle class and the rich alike gained ground.
They both gained ground because there was less inequality. The money that was used from the higher tax revenues paid for investments in infrastructure and education (the GI Bill, for example). This, in turn, led to a higher skilled labor force and an economy that was robust and innovative. This is not the case today.
The group's average income in 2009 was $202 million -- which works out to a "wage" of $97,000 per hour, based on a 40-hour workweek. (I'm assuming they're paid during lunch hours.) Yet more than a quarter of these ultrawealthy paid less than 15 percent of their take in combined federal income and payroll taxes. Half of this crew paid less than 20 percent. And -- brace yourself -- a few actually paid nothing.
This is how money has been transferred upwards as Stiglitz mentions in "The Price of Inequality."
So what does Warren think should be done about this?
We need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.
And what will the result be?
Our government's goal should be to bring in revenues of 18.5 percent of GDP and spend about 21 percent of GDP -- levels that have been attained over extended periods in the past and can clearly be reached again. As the math makes clear, this won't stem our budget deficits; in fact, it will continue them. But assuming even conservative projections about inflation and economic growth, this ratio of revenue to spending will keep America's debt stable in relation to the country's economic output.
I agree and, as Warren notes, this will involve major concessions by the Right and the Left. All sides in this debate have signaled a willingness to bend so I do have some hope.
And what about that figment of the Right's imagination who is overly obsessed with "uncertainty?"
In the meantime, maybe you'll run into someone with a terrific investment idea, who won't go forward with it because of the tax he would owe when it succeeds. Send him my way. Let me unburden him.
Maybe I should send ol' DJ from TSM to Mr. Buffett...hee hee...:)
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Vampire Capitalists Drain Life from Hostess
Everyone is lamenting the death of the Twinkie now that Hostess is declaring bankruptcy. The right is blaming the unions for staking their favorite snack food in the heart. However, the untold story is that greedy CEOs, hedge funds, and a private equity firm not unlike Bain Capital all had a hand in the demise of Hostess.
But like a zombie in The Walking Dead, Hostess will rise from the grave and start producing deathless Twinkies once again. How do I know? We've seen this horror show once before.
An article in Fortune from last July goes into detail on the current fiasco and its genesis. The last time Hostess declared bankruptcy was in 2004. A private equity firm, Ripplewood Holdings, bought up the assets:
Hostess was able to exit bankruptcy in 2009 for three reasons. The first was Ripplewood's equity infusion of $130 million in return for control of the company (it currently owns about two-thirds of the equity). The second reason: substantial concessions by the two big unions. Annual labor cost savings to the company were about $110 million; thousands of union members lost their jobs. The third reason: Lenders agreed to stay in the game rather than drive Hostess into liquidation and take whatever pieces were left. The key lenders were Silver Point and Monarch. Both are hedge funds that specialize in investing in distressed companies -- whether you call them saviors or vultures depends on whether you're getting fed or getting eaten.The unions already took a big hit at Hostess, so the current dilemma is not all their fault: we can also blame the vulture capitalists and greedy CEOs, of which Hostess had six over eight years:
[Brian] Driscoll, the CEO, departed suddenly and without explanation in March. It may have been that the Teamsters no longer felt it could trust him. In early February, Hostess had asked the bankruptcy judge to approve a sweet new employment deal for Driscoll. Its terms guaranteed him a base annual salary of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and "long-term incentive" compensation of up to $2 million. If Hostess liquidated or Driscoll were fired without cause, he'd still get severance pay of $1.95 million as long as he honored a noncompete agreement.
When the Teamsters saw the court motion, Ken Hall, the union's secretary-treasurer and No. 2 man, was irate. So much, he thought, for what he described as Driscoll's "happy talk" about "shared sacrifice." Hall says he tracked Driscoll down by phone and told him, "If you don't withdraw this motion, these negotiations are done." Hostess withdrew the motion a few weeks later when Driscoll left -- the same Driscoll who, Hostess told the court in its motion, was "key" to "reestablishing" Hostess's "competitive position going forward."The unions are not blameless either, as is clear from their demands for featherbedding (different drivers must be used to deliver different products). But you can certainly see why they're so intransigent in the face of such blatant incompetence and greed in management, after giving up so much the last time.
Thus, there's a whole host of reasons why Hostess is in trouble. Not the least of which is that demand is down for its products because they're simply bad for your health.
But bankruptcy doesn't mean the end of the Hostess brands, just like the last time. In bankruptcy the recipes, trademarks and facilities of Hostess will be liquidated. Which means private equity firms and hedge funds—maybe even run by the same guys—will be able to buy them for pennies on the dollar. And go right back into business, but this time with a much bigger hammer to smash the unions with.
And that's really the point here. These days the balance of power between unions and management is heavily weighted toward management. In the past labor staged strikes, but that's increasingly rare. Now we hear almost exclusively about lockouts. From Hostess, to tire factories, to sugar beet processing plants, to operas and symphony orchestras, to national basketball, football and hockey leagues, management doesn't care if they drive their organizations into the ground with lockouts, as long as they can break the unions.
Despite what Mitt Romney says, corporations, private equity firms and hedge funds are not people. Like vampires, they can die and be resurrected from the dead only to suck the life out of the people who work for and invest in them.
The entire purpose of corporations is to insulate management from personal financial responsibility for their decisions. Hedge funds and private equity firms use other people's money to engineer takeovers. Corporate bankruptcy laws encourage the hedge fund managers to destroy the company in order to start over with a clean slate. All the while these ghouls pay the ridiculously low 15% capital gains tax rates on their salaries because of a loophole in the tax code.
These vampire capitalists drain the life out of companies like Hostess, yet always increase their own wealth, without ever having to risk their own financial well-being. They can then dissolve into corporate bankruptcy, only to reform in their crypts under a new corporate logo.
Those of you who thought you had staked the last vampire capitalist when Mitt Romney lost the election were wrong. Go get your garlic, holy water and crucifixes. There's more work to do.
Florida Republicans Admit Voter Suppression
An article in the Palm Beach Post reveals that Republican efforts in Florida to change election laws to restrict early voting were intended to suppress the votes of Democrats and minorities:
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” [former Florida Republican Party chairman Jim] Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist concurs:
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
Crist said party leaders approached him during his 2007-2011 gubernatorial term about changing early voting, in an effort to suppress Democrat turnout. Crist is now at odds with the GOP, since abandoning the party to run for U.S. Senate as an independent in 2010. He is rumored to be planning another run for governor, as a Democrat.On the bright side, it's not necessarily about racism: “The sad thing about that is yes, there is prejudice and racism in the [Republican] party but the real prevailing thought is that they don’t think minorities will ever vote Republican,” Greer said.
Crist said in a telephone interview this month that he did not recall conversations about early voting specifically targeting black voters “but it looked to me like that was what was being suggested. And I didn’t want them to go there at all.”
But a GOP consultant who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retribution said black voters were a concern.According to the article, other former Republican campaign consultants confirm the accusations of voter suppression, which the Florida Republican Party denies. Instead they're attacking the men who ratted on them. They've indicted Greer for taking money from the party, which he admits is true but says they knew about it. And Crist became a persona non-grata when he ran as an independent for Senate.
“I know that the cutting out of the Sunday before Election Day was one of their targets only because that’s a big day when the black churches organize themselves,” he said.
The simple fact is, more people in this country are inclined to vote Democratic than Republican. Two-thirds of Americans self-identify as liberal or moderate, which means they're much more likely to be Democrats given the stridently radical stands of the current Republican Party.
Minority voters tend to be on the lower end of the economic scale, which means they have a harder time getting to the polls on election day. Things that make it easier for them to register and vote make it harder for Republicans to win. So Republicans want to make it harder for them to vote by restricting registration and taking away early voting.
Come on, now. Was that really so hard to admit?
Tom Ricks Pokes The Bubble
I guess this is what happens when you bring reality into the bubble...you have a 90 second interview!
I still don't get the anaphylaxis over Benghazi. The Right bitches about letting our enemies know too much information (pulling out of Irag, Afghanistand timelines) and then they turn around and bitch when we don't say enough (Susan Rice's comments following the attack). Which is it?
That's I LFMAO when I read stuff like this. What is John McCain "significantly troubled" about? The fact that he's attempting to still be politically relevant? Susan Rice was going on the intel she had at the time from the CIA (the public story). Or she deliberately made misleading statements in order to deflect attention away from the investigation that is going on behind the scenes. I'm predicting that when we catch these guys, we're going to find out and Sens McCain, Graham, and Ayotte are going to look pretty fucking dumb.
Of course, we all know what this is really about...a deflection away from the American Taliban who make the GOP look bad when they release moronic and highly bigoted videos. All that bluster makes for good theater!
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
I Guess The Answer Is Yes
The other say I asked if we were seeing the beginning of the end of Grover Norquist. I think it's safe to say now that the answer is yes.
Elections have consequences and the main one that we seem to be seeing so far is a return to sanity. While there has not been any sort of deal yet on avoiding the so called "fiscal cliff," the signals from many Republican leaders say that they are willing to be flexible. That's a good thing.
Right up until the election, I was pretty pessimistic at the thought of there possibly being a day when we no longer had to manage the fantasies of the Right. Now, there is indeed a glimmer of light. Sure, there will still be people like Bill Whittle running around and making money off of his merry band of followers but they won't have any effect on elections.
And that is a very, very good thing!
Elections have consequences and the main one that we seem to be seeing so far is a return to sanity. While there has not been any sort of deal yet on avoiding the so called "fiscal cliff," the signals from many Republican leaders say that they are willing to be flexible. That's a good thing.
Right up until the election, I was pretty pessimistic at the thought of there possibly being a day when we no longer had to manage the fantasies of the Right. Now, there is indeed a glimmer of light. Sure, there will still be people like Bill Whittle running around and making money off of his merry band of followers but they won't have any effect on elections.
And that is a very, very good thing!
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)