Cogitamus

A Simple Answer To A Complex Problem

*

I'd like to expand on a point that I made in comments to this post, which is that whatever problems Social Security has can be addressed by helping more Americans get to work and encouraging and/or requiring corporations to pay a fair wage for a day's work.

While it's true that even the worst doomsday scenario for Social Security can be averted by adjusting the amount of income subject to payroll taxes and/or reducing benefits by just a few percentage points, the better solution is to get more Americans working.  The lower our unemployment numbers, the better off the program is.

But it's about more than Social Security.  As Robert Reich and AFSCME President Gerald McEntee have both said, we don't have a deficit problem.  We have a revenue problem.  Reich in particular goes further than just addressing the deficit and lays out a good path to follow for total economic recovery:

Big American companies are sitting on almost $2 trillion of cash because there aren't enough customers to buy additional goods and services. The only people with money are the richest 10 percent whose stock portfolios have been roaring back to life, but their spending isn't enough to spur much additional hiring.

The Republican bromide -- cut federal spending -- is precisely the wrong response to this ongoing crisis, which is more analogous to the Great Depression than to any recent recession. Herbert Hoover responded the same way between 1929 and 1932. Insufficient spending only deepened the Great Depression.

The best way to revive the economy is not to cut the federal deficit right now. It's to put more money into the pockets of average working families. Not until they start spending again big time will companies begin to hire again big time.

Don't cut the government services they rely on -- college loans, home heating oil, community services, and the rest. State and local budget cuts are already causing enough pain.

The most direct way to get more money into their pockets is to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (a wage subsidy) all the way up through people earning $50,000, and reduce their income taxes to zero. Taxes on incomes between $50,000 and $90,000 should be cut to 10 percent; between $90,000 and $150,000 to 20 percent; between $150,000 and $250,000 to 30 percent.

And exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes.

Make up the revenues by increasing taxes on incomes between $250,000 to $500,000 to 40 percent; between $500,000 and $5 million, to 50 percent; between $5 million and $15 million, to 60 percent; and anything over $15 million, to 70 percent.

And raise the ceiling on the portion of income subject to payroll taxes to $500,000.

It's called progressive taxation.

The lion's share of America's income and wealth is at the top. Taxing the very rich won't hurt the economy. They spend a much smaller portion of their incomes than everyone else.

It's the economy, stupid.  It's always the economy, and by that I mean jobs and wages.  Republicans didn't take over the House of Representatives because of healthcare reform or spending or concerns over the deficit or even the fact that Obama is black, though all of those were factors. 

Wednesday Random Musings and Open Thread

 

"It Takes Balls to be a Woman" - Elizabeth Cook

- We'll dedicate this one to Nancy Pelosi.

- I wanted to return to the Obama budget proposal and future spending blueprint again and make the case that it is both a more progressive document than he is being credited for by many on the left and that it is well calibrated to deal with the tactical political moment as he prepares to square off with the extraordinarily right wing House.  Yes, the budget has some cuts in domestic discretionary spending -- but they are pretty modest.  (And no, I don't much like the idea of cutting home heating subsidies while dropping huge sums on Afghanistan.)  First, contrary to Krugman's depiction, there is considerable spending on infrastructure and Research and Development, both of which will have a stimulative effect on the economy.   This includes $53 billion for high speed rail, $336 billion for highways, and the creation of a national infrastructure bank of $30 billion.   Indeed, his plans have right wingers up in arms and Andrew Sullivan has the vapors because Obama is not proposing to obliterate the welfare state.  Let me repeat -- this is a political document.  Sadly, there is not a chance that it will be enacted as drafted.  But it is the President making the case for government as a driver of the economy, as a vital force in shaping the future and propelling growth.  It presents the opportunity for a compelling narrative for the role of government in a mixed economy as opposed to the silly Randian vision of government that Paul Ryan and John Boehner will be pushing.  And I think Obama shows every indication of being able to score political points in this fashion in a way that is going to make the Republicans either bend or make significant political errors, a process I believe has already started.    

- One of the reasons that from a political perspective it makes sense for Obama to address the deficit, even if largely in a symbolic way, is that the elite media are obsessed with the issue (singing as they always do off the Republican hymnal).  In yesterday's press conference, it appears to me that there were more questions about the deficit than about unemployment.   Again, from a political strategy perspecitve I think it's crucial to have a narrative that both makes the case for why spending is important now, but also to convey that the deficit is being addressed, because these clowns are going to keep hammering on the issue.  Jamelle Bouie had a good piece on the deficit yesteray. 

-   I also am pleased that Obama has already issued a veto threat regarding the Republican's spending plans.   I don't see the Administration being overly defensive as I think people fear.  I think they are willing to have the Republican propose draconian cuts and then have to own them in the event of a shutdown.

- One of the more frustrating things in American political and economic life is the continuous stream of disinformation about the solvency of Social Security and its impact on the deficit.  Kevin Drum had a very good post yesterday putting the Social Security issue in very clear perspective.  Claims that Social Security is somehow irretrievably broken or a Ponzi Scheme are just so much nonsense.  As Drum points out, in the future, with minor tweaks all promised benefits can be delivered.  Even in a worst case scenario with no changes to the program something on the order of 75-80% of benefits would be provided -- that is literally with doing nothing.  But there is no reason that the little that will likely need to be done cannot be done in the future.  It is nothing that needs to be addressed now.  Indeed I would argue against touching the program now what with the many other more pressing issues facing the U.S.  

- Let me flog party difference and reproductive rights once more.  The beatings will stop when the lesson is absorbed. 

- If she can get it to a DC jury, I predict that they will break it off in that demented cracker ass motherfucker, if you know what I'm saying -- and I think you do. 

What's happening? 

Kansas: As Bigoted As You Think*

A House Republican rejected a claim Monday she made a racist comment during a committee meeting when pointing to people with "olive complexion" as immigrants potentially in the country illegally. . .

[Rep. Connie O'Brien} said the controversy started last week when she offered an opinion about the repeal bill in a meeting of the House State and Federal Affairs Committee.

She spoke during the meeting of her son's difficulty paying for classes in 2010 at Kansas City (Kan.) Community College and a feeling of despair at waiting in line at the college with a female student who appeared to them to have been born outside the United States.

“My son, who’s a Kansas resident, born here, raised here, didn’t qualify for any financial aid,” according to a recording of her statement to the committee. “Yet this girl was going to get financial aid.”

"My son was kinda upset about it because he works and pays for his own schooling and his books and everything and he didn’t think that was fair. We didn’t ask the girl what nationality she was, we didn’t think that was proper. But we could tell by looking at her that she was not originally from this country," she says on the recording.

How were O'Brien and her son able to determine that the girl was not originally from this country?

"Well, she wasn't black," O'Brien said. "She wasn't Asian. And she had the olive complexion."

But that's not racist, you see, and suggesting that O'Brien is a racist for thinking that she is able to determine citizenship status by a person's skin color is simply ridiculous, right?  After all,

"She didn't have identification," O'Brien said. "She's driving on our streets with no driver's license."

Again, O'Brien didn't see her behind the wheel of a car, didn't get her name, didn't see whether she had any identification or not, and doesn't actually know if the girl in question is receiving any financial aid, let alone what kind or how much. 

What it really comes down to is that O'Brien apparently doesn't think that a non-white person should even be allowed to apply for financial aid.  Probably O'Brien would be happier if she wasn't able to stand in the same line as her son, perhaps even use a separate entrance.  God knows what would have happened if O'Brien and that young lady had both felt the need to use the restroom at the same time.

 

*The tourism slogan for Kansas is "Kansas:  As Big As You Think."  In response to the passing of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, people started making bumper stickers and t-shirts with the slogan used as the post's title.

Man Vs. Machine

First off, disclosure. I was a contestant on Jeopardy! I even won a game That's pretty cool when you remember that 2/3's of the contestants every day are losers. The experience that I had was great. Even very smart, hypercompetetive people can gather together, and have a great time while sustaining a high level of competition.

Most of the credit for that revolves around the production staff. They create an environment where everybody in the game knows that the rules will be followed, the playing field will be level, and that it all comes down to each player, their knowledge base, their speed on the buzzer, and the luck of the questions being asked.

I absolutely encourage everybody to check for a local contestant search and give it a shot. You truly have nothing to lose. I passed the initial testing process three times before I was selected as a contestant. Like most things in life, it takes skill, perserverance, and luck to achieve.

DIGRESSION ALERT!

On one of the testing forays I made while we were all in line waiting to take the initial 10 question test to qualify for the 50 question test the next day, there was a guy in the line ahead of me who was trying to impress everybody with how much he knew and how smart he was. This is not a good thing to do when you're dealing with potential Jeopardy contestants. They are all smart. Accept that and you'll have a lot more fun. Accept that you are probably not the smartest person in the room, even if that's a reasonable assumption in your life. Relax. Have fun. There is lot's of fun to be had.

So, there we were in line waiting, with blowhard up there expounding on the smart wonderfulness of himself. He had a great looking young woman with him who largely remained silent and focused on her job of making him also look cool because he was smart, well dressed and in the company of a great looking young woman which means that he is even more successful, more attractive, and smarter than he is letting on.

Just before we went into the testing area the staff began to ask folks in line if they were there to take the test. If not, they were asked to step out of the line and wait in another area while the other people took the test. The great looking girl said that she wasn't there to test. As she was leaving, I spoke up and said "Hey, why not give it a shot? It's only ten questions and you might get lucky and be asked ten questions that you know. You're probably smarter than you think you are. I know you're smarter than he thinks you are."

She took the ten question test. She passed. He didn't.

So, down to the business of the day.

Today Jeopardy begins a three day event where the two greatest players in the game's run, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter (74 consecutive wins for Ken, and the only undefeated contestant ever for Brad) go up against Watson. A breakthrough AI computing marvel.

Check your local listings.

But, also, really for reals, there are contestant searches online and all over the country. Give it a try.

If you make the cut, you'll have a great time, and you'll have me in your corner for tips and tricks.

Go Humans!

A Further Illustration of the Absence of Difference Between the Parties

I want to do a longer post on the proposed Obama budget and its purpose and import, but with only limited time available I just wanted to throw this little tidbit out to you, via Roy Edroso, in which the Republican dominated legislature in South Dakota (Republicans hold 51 of 70 House seats and 30 of 35 Senate seats) is seeking to make the killing of an abortion provider an act of justifiable homicide in some instances.  

(There are, by the way, no abortion providers in the entire state of South Dakota.  Planned Parenthood flies a doctor into Sioux Falls once a week to see patients. I am sure said doctor or doctors are thrilled by this development.  This despite the fact that the voters of South Dakota have twice overwhelmingly rejected referenda to outlaw abortion in the state.)  

Oh, by the way, the Obama Administration is proposing to increase Title X federal family planning funds by $10 million in the next fiscal year, raising the cost of the program to $327 million.  The Republicans are proposing to zero the program out and are acting in concert with the despicable Live Action group.  But again, no meaningful difference there, nothing to really motivate anyone to vote, donate money, volunteer, etc. 

Update:  See Cogressmen Steve King on the Republican determination to "smack down" Planned Parenthood. 

The Obama budget: I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed

As usual, I think Krugman has it pretty much right:

There was an old Washingtoon, probably from the mid-1980s, in which Democrats meet to plan their new centrist strategy — which consists of tax cuts for the rich, reduced spending on the needy, and big defense budgets. “But how is this different from the Republicans?” asks one member of the group. “Compassion,” replies the leader. “We care about the victims of our policies.”

That’s pretty much my initial reaction to what we know so far about the Obama budget. It’s much less awful than the Republican proposal, but it moves in the same direction: listening to the administration, you’d think that discretionary spending, not health care, is at the heart of our long-run deficit problems — and you’d also think that the job of rescuing the economy was done, with unemployment still at 9 percent.

It could be worse — the GOP proposal is — but it’s hardly something to cheer about.

There were really two ways to play this budget: one was to play the triangulation game and do some serious budget-cutting, but just not quite as bad as what the GOP would like to do.  The other would be to put up a budget appropriate for both an era of unemployment in the 9-10% range and an era where we really need to be spending serious money on repairing and modernizing our infrastructure, by proposing spending serious money on infrastructure in a way that put people back to work over the next year or two.

Obama chose the first option.  I can only assume the calculus was entirely political, because it's hard to imagine this is Obama's vision of what government should be doing.

The political calculus was presumably to sound like Mr. Reasonable, and make the GOP look a bit crazy when they thundered that these cuts were insufficient.  The problem is that if the Democratic position is to push through some pretty serious cuts, then that makes the GOP position of even deeper cuts look considerably less extreme.

Meanwhile, he's letting the GOP determine that the conversation will be about deficits, and balancing the budget through spending cuts.  It will NOT be about jobs, because our Democratic President isn't talking about jobs and unemployment, and if the Dems in Congress are doing so, they're saying it pretty quietly.  So there's nobody left out there, other than us hippie bloggers, who's holding up our end of the conversation on this.

Dammit, Dems, it's time to stop running, and finally turn, stand, and fight for something worth fighting for, such as Americans and their livelihoods.  I'm tired of being depressed because our side seems to have abandoned the field.

 

Why We Can't Have Nice Things

E.D. Kain, whom I generally think of as a pretty conservative fellow despite posting at Balloon Juice, has an excellent post over at the The League of Ordinary Gentlemen arguing in favor not of cutting public employees' defined benefit pension plans, which seems to be de rigeur these days, but rather makes the case that private sector workers also need the security that comes with a guaranteed pension for life.  This is a big concern of mine as well and I think E.D. makes the case rather well.

Defined benefit plans are those which pay a retiree a set monthly amount for life based on some sort of defined formula.  Plans typically provide lifetime benefits as well for surviving spouses.  A defined benefit participant does not have to worry about outliving his/her pension money or about market risk.  

There is a tremendous amount of disinformation about the viability of defined benefit plans and the cause of their current problems, particularly as they relate to the public sector.  Again, the answer is for the most part pretty simple -- plans are in trouble now because of the horrific investment performance during the aughts.  Most pension plans are funded on the premise that they will earn 7% to 7.5% annually on investments over the long term.  Historically this has not been that difficult to accomplish with a diversified portfolio of high quality stocks and bonds.  However, during the period 2000 to 2008, the stock market was actually negative.  Most plans earned next to nothing in this period, when their assets should have grown substantially.  (I was just reviewing the performance of one of my clients, which was by no means an investment laggard, and saw that they earned an annualized 3.5% during the decade -- meaning that they got only half of their expected return for a ten year period.  This will inevitably blow a hole in your balance sheet.)

In order to recover, most of these plans are going to have to trim future benefits and add additional contributions and then hope that the market returns to a more normal rate of return, which, blessedly, appears to be happening.   Now there are problems in some states in terms of being too aggressive with benefit improvements and playing games with levels of employer contributions over the years.  New Jersey is notable for this latter behavior.  But by and large, the state pension plans will recover as the market recovers.

This is not the case, however, for the individuals who only have a 401(k) or individual account style of retirement vehicle.  If you had bad timing in this market and sustained heavy losses near your date of retirement, you will most likely not be able to make up for these losses.  All of the market risk is on you.  Very few people have the excess income needed to fund a decent retirement via a 401(k) and fewer still have the expertise to comfortably make the investment decisions necessary to prudently manage this money. 

The day is coming -- and relatively soon -- when we realize that there is a retirement crisis brewing.  When that day comes, a lot of working and middle class people will regret the day that traditional pension plans ceased to be an ordinary part of the economic social contract.     

Valentine's Day Open Thread

 

"Rocky Took a Lover" - Bell X1

He said 'The sun gives life, and it takes it away
But like all the greats, it'll burn out someday'
She said 'I don't mind, I don't want to get bored
I don't want to end up beached on this shore
I want to be that star'

And then I'll shine for you. Then I'll burn for you.
Then I can shine for you. That's what I'll do

Had to go with a romantic song -- especially one that has the line "she said you're such an asshole when you're drunk, he said at least I'm okay in the mornings."  Not that I have any experience with that kind of dialogue.

Long day of meetings and whatnot ahead.  What are you hearting or not hearting? 

Sunday Open Thread

 

"Between the Wars" - Billy Bragg

I kept the faith and I kept voting
Not for the iron fist but for the helping hand
For theirs is a land with a wall around it
And mine is a faith in my fellow man

(And Billy doesn't lip sync -- not even on TOTP)

And a drink to the memory of Tony Judt and Michael Harrington and all of those on the left who kept the faith and kept fighting, smartly and humanely, through these last difficult decades.  May we be worthy heirs.

Here is the pertinent question as Judt phrased it regarding his adopted country:

Why is it that here in the United States we have such difficulty even imagining a different sort of society from the one whose dysfunctions and inequalities trouble us so? We appear to have lost the capacity to question the present, much less offer alternatives to it. Why is it so beyond us to conceive of a different set of arrangements to our common advantage?

And here was a brief description of his exploration of this question:

For the last thirty years, in much of the English-speaking world (though less so in continental Europe and elsewhere), when asking ourselves whether we support a proposal or initiative, we have not asked, is it good or bad? Instead we inquire: Is it efficient? Is it productive? Would it benefit gross domestic product? Will it contribute to growth? This propensity to avoid moral considerations, to restrict ourselves to issues of profit and loss—economic questions in the narrowest sense—is not an instinctive human condition. It is an acquired taste.

Our task, it seems to me, is to find that moral language, that persuasive narrative, that makes enough people look beyond their prejudices and tribal identities, that allows us to get beyond the tyranny of this economic world view and build a politics that responds to actual human need and the way that most of us, if we thought about it at length, would want to live.  (Thanks to bbw for the inspiration.) 

Thoughts? 

Rule by Bullies and Know-Nothings

Charles Blow with a surprisingly sharp column today (not normally a big fan) about the viciously reactionary agenda of the new state legislatures where the Republicans achieved majorities during the last election.  What do you know, putative concerns about the economy and fiscal health of the states have given way to a spate of mean-spirited bills attacking undocumented immigrants, women's reproductive rights, and the rights of gays.  In other words, the same old, same old, but with extra spite -- there has been no great flowering of libertarian conservatism, no tea party revolution that elevates fiscal prudence over the primacy of social issues: it's the Republican Party 2.0 - the same party that brought us disaster, only meaner, more bigoted, more patriarchal, more homophobic, and even less respectful of freedom.    

But it's not just the social issues.  No, we've got the new union busting Republican governor of Wisconsin -- threatening to use the National Guard for his purposes no less -- and Florida's new Republican governor -- as reptilian a character as I can recall in American politics -- trying to gut spending on education and the environment while eliminating 7% of state jobs, all in the service of cutting corporate and property taxes (Florida has no income tax). 

We are witnessing an assault on everything we hold dear, from public education to collective bargaining to reproductive freedom to basic notions of equality and human decency.  The states are, in many respects, the front line in this battle. 

At the risk of becoming johnny one note, let me repeat, defeating the Republican Party is the most important thing we can do -- indeed, it is the essential prerequisite to any kind of progressive future in this country.  They are our enemies and we are at (metaphorical) war over the future of this country.  They know this -- and they aim to crush us.  We need to be prepared to do the same to them.

Bryan Fischer Is A Victim

Just like every other conservative, Christian, white male in America that makes a good living typing on a computer:

On Tuesday, I posted a column on the settlement of America by Europeans. The column generated so much intense, vitriolic and profane reaction that it threatened to take on a life of its own, and serve as a distraction to the fundamental mission of AFA, even though when I blog I am speaking only for myself and not for the organization. So we took it down.

Blah, blah, blah, then:

[T]his is a conversation that needs to take place. But based on the reaction to my column of Tuesday, America is not mature enough right now for that robust dialogue to occur. Until it is…

Oh, can you hear the aggrieved tone?  Can you see Father's disappointment in us, that his attempt at a robust dialogue was greeted with vitriol and profanity? 

Bryan, I sincerely doubt you'll ever see these words, but if you do, I have an extremely important message for you.

It is the absolute height of vitriol to suggest that the peoples who had settled across the North and South American continents deserved to be pushed off their land at gunpoint and slaughtered because they didn't know about Jesus.

It is utterly profane to believe that the European settlers who raped, robbed and murdered Indians on these continents were acting as the righteous agents of a just god.

You dared to call evil "good."  You dared to suggest that it was a holy Christian mission for white Europeans to commit genocide, to wipe out entire civilizations. 

Then after showing yourself to suffer from a complete lack of common human decency and morality, you have the utter gall to suggest that the people who rightly greeted your filth with anger are the ones in the wrong, that you are the only adult in the conversation. 

You disgust me.  You dirty the name of Jesus with your garbage.  If Hell was a real place you would have ensured your ticket many times over.

Friday Open Thread

 

"Black History Month" - Death From Above 1979

- Now comes the difficult part.  Mubarak is gone, but the powerful institutional interests of the Egyptian military -- which has run the country since 1952 -- remain.  Those interests surely include the protection of high level officers who have engaged in pretty brutal suppression of civilian opponents and massive amounts of corruption.  Mubarak alone is rumored to have amassed a fortune in the tens of billions.  (Deborah points out that the Swiss have now frozen his accounts -- bad day all around for Hosni.)  The most hopeful regional model is that of the Turkish Army, which seems to have moved to a posture of not intervening in civilian politics after launching coups periodically over the course of several decades.  A genuine move toward civilian parliamentary politics in Egypt would be of enormous regional consequence.

- I found this to be a pretty interesting article regarding the demographic changes that have occurred in Montgomery County Maryland over the last decade.  Montgomery County is immediately northwest of DC and was historically a pretty affluent, pretty white part of the world -- Bethesda and Chevy Chase being its two most recognizable communities.  However, over the last two decades, the population of the county has swelled to 972,000, with most of the growth occurring in the county's more affordable northern and eastern reaches.  There has been an enormous influx of Hispanics into the County and the DC metropolitan region writ large.  As a result, whites are now a minority in Montgomery County, where they make up 49% of the population, as well as Prince Georges County, the county on the northeastern and southeastern borders of DC (the country's first majority black suburban area), where whites now make up only 15% of the population, with Hispanics now representing about 24% of the population.  (PG County has about 840,000 people).  I think the implications of this trend are just beginning to be felt.  If Hispanic voters begin turning out at levels comparable to black voters, this is going to have hugely negative implications for the Republicans, who nonetheless appear to have doubled down on nativism. 

- Good luck with Governor Luther Deborah.  Jesus.

- Soviet-style trains. Atrios had this bit about Congressman John Mica (also of Florida - Sorry Deborah), denouncing Amtrak's Soviet-style train system.  I will simply note that having been on it, if the rest of the Soviet Union functioned half as well as its subway they would, in fact, have buried us.  It's a  tremendously huge and efficient system -- the longest I ever waited for a train was 3 minutes on a Sunday afternoon.  And the stations are gorgeous.  I also took a train from St. Petersburg to Moscow and found it to be both comfortable and on time.   (I hear they make a great assault rifle too -- that might be more up Mica's alley.)

- Also via Atrios, urban living is in many respects ideal for the elderly.  My mother in law moved to DC thirteen years ago and despite having spent her entire adult life up to age 78 as a suburban housewife, totally fell in love with city living.  The ability to live in an apartment and avoid upkeep on a home and yard, easy access to the bus, subway, and taxis, the ability to walk to a grocery store or pharmacy or bank, the option to rarely or never drive, the availability of cultural activities and services for the elderly -- all of these things are incredibly well suited to older people.   The tyranny of the car is really crappy for old people -- (and dangerous for teenagers).

Update: Yep, hardly any meaningful difference between the two parties.  (And to carry on my discussion with Toast below, what, he couldn't get the Pinkertons?)   [These new Republican governors sure look like they aren't interested in the old pragmatic governance model that is the stuff of David Broder's nocturnal emissions.)   

What else is on your minds?                 

CPAC, where mythmaking is a piece of cake! ~ OPEN THREAD ~

As I said in my e-mail to Blue Gal* a little earlier (and since this is a Republican event, I will issue a Republican apology beforehand and say, I'm sorry if any southerners take this the wrong way):

Check out this CPAC Reagan cake, via Media Matters.  Of course they misspelled Berlin.  Of course.

Robert said it was probably a case of "Hey, Billy Joe Bob, I'm frostin' the cake--should ah spay-ell that Yoo-ro-peen place lahk Mama spay-ells her name--L-Y-N-N-E--or is it jes' plain ol L-Y-N after the BER.  Also, d'ya think ah made his eyebrows too bushy and furriner-lookin'?"

*P.S. Some joyful news on the Professional Left front: Blue Gal and Driftglass--friends of Cogitamus since its inception--are tying the knot.  (How's that for burying the lead?!)

When Are The Jobs?

Weird way of phrasing it, and the website is frankly ugly.  But that, to me, is a big part of why it works so well:

When are the jobs?

The reality is not that Rep. Boehner and the rest of the conservative power structure don't care about creating jobs.  They care deeply about making sure that jobs are not created, that people are kept out of work so long as a Democrat lives in the White House.

The Republican party is dedicated to sabotaging the American economy whenever the blame can be placed on Democrats, and strengthening the economy when they get the credit only insofar as it keeps them in power and enriches the most wealthy.  The rest of the time they put on big shows to distract their supporters from the way they're being abused.

The leadership of the GOP is no less a collection of traitors than the Confederates they continue to venerate.

The Bible Doesn't Belong To The Fundamentalists

In a comment to my last post, kathy a. wrote, "i'm no biblical scholar, but every time i hear of leviticus, it is used to justify some piece of hatefulness."

She's hardly alone in this, as I've seen this happen too often to count.  But the book of Leviticus is much more than one of the few places in the entire Christian canon that references homosexuality.  Leviticus 18 is a portion of the book devoted to the type of sexual practices forbidden to the ancient Hebrews; most of it is spent prohibiting incestuous relationships and then restating the prohibition in another way.  Then it goes on to prohibiting affairs with one's "neighbor's" wife.  Leviticus 18:22 states that a man should not have sex with another man as one does with a woman.  So yes, it's there just as the fundies say, but it seems odd to me that they spend so much time and energy on something only gets mentioned in this section as one statement while everything else is emphasized over and over.

But that's not my point.  My point is to draw attention to the next chapter, Leviticus 19.  It has this to say about the way the ancient Hebrews were to live:

Spain: Please do what the U.S. won't. Prosecute torturers.

Bush just canceled a trip to Switzerland because he learned that the Center for Constitutional Rights and Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights were seeking an indictment of him for torture.  Since he -- and Cheney -- bragged publicly about condoning torture, he has something to worry about.

The Obama administration has used back-door dealings to persuade both Spain and Italy to drop plans to prosecute the Bush era war criminals.  Let's try to un-persuade them.  You can sign a petition to the Spanish people and contribute money to this cause here.

Astonishing

In all the discussions about the European settlement of the New World, one feature has been conspicuously absent: the role that the superstition, savagery and sexual immorality of native Americans played in making them morally disqualified from sovereign control of American soil.

So writes Bryan Fischer, who is

Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association, and is the host of the daily ‘Focal Point’ radio talk program on AFR Talk, a division of the American Family Association. ‘Focal Point’ airs live from 1-3 pm Central Time, and is also simulcast on the AFA Channel, which can be seen on the Sky Angel network.

That is to say, this man is part of the massive Wingnut Welfare network in this country.  He makes a living being a conservative.  He makes money by writing and saying things that other conservatives listen to and take seriously.

He has written a column which claims, over and over, that Native Americans deserved to be removed from their lands, slaughtered and abused by Europeans over centuries.  And the reasons, if they can be called such, is that the Indians fought wars against each other and were sexually immoral.

Because, see, white Europeans did not ever fight wars - never, for example, pitting one European nation against another - and never practiced sexual immorality of any kind.  The term "missionary position" certainly wasn't coined because it was the preferred way for celibate European missionaries to rape Indian women. 

Locking these people up, lobotomizing and heavily medicating them would be an act of charity at this point - not to us, but to them.  No one should have to live with such serious and dangerous delusions.

Napolitano Strikes Terror into Our Hearts

More predictable bullshit from the predictably incompetent Janet Napolitano and friends.  They must be getting ready to roll out some new abusive procedure.  Or mount another false flag operation à la Abdulmutallab the Crotch Bomber.  And the sheeple will fall into line.  Because they love it.  They love being terrified and they love to lick the authoritarian boot.

(Of course, if these were the boots, I might get on board.  But they don't sell these at Walmart.)

 

UPDATE:  Speaking of waste, fraud, and abuse . . . Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the TSA’s proposed budget for fiscal 2012, which raises spending 5.7 percent, to $8.1 billion. Much of the $459 million increase would go to hiring another 3,270 employees, for a total TSA work force of 58,401, most of them screeners.  As I keep saying, employment in a down economy -- TSA molester, DHS spy, or soldier of fortune -- jobs, jobs, jobs -- the benefits of a permanent state of war!

Stop Fast-Track Reauthorization of the Patriot Act

From the Montgomery County Civil Rights Coalition:

We’re joining with other groups like Get FISA Right to oppose HR514, a “fast track” bill that would extend some of the PATRIOT Act’s worst provisions set to lose authorization, such as Section 215 secret court orders allowing access to Internet and financial records, roving wiretaps, and “lone wolf” wiretaps weakening already flimsy restrictions on domestic surveillance.

How you can help:

1. Join us by contacting your Congressional representatives here, at our new POPVOX site.  (You can also monitor the bill’s status there, or read its provisions.)
2. Then share that action link with friends by…
   1. shouting it from your rooftop,
   2. using two cans and a string, or
   3. adopting more modern methods such as email, Facebook, or Twitter.  You can share this blog post with the “Share” button at the bottom of the post.

For more background on HR514, click here (BORDC); for a detailed critique of Section 215 and National Security Letters, click here(Constitution Project).

[Image via the fine Facebook group "Fix the PATRIOT Act and FISA"]

This isn't Good

TPM reports that Senator Jim Webb of Virginia will not seek reelection in 2012.

Webb, who was likely going to face a rematch with former Senator George Allen, has opted to bow out after only one term.  This is going to make the task of holding on to the Senate in 2012 much more dfficult   The Democrats are going to be defending 23 seats to the Republicans 10 in that election, including vulnerable seats in Montana, Missouri, Florida, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Virginia.  A net swing of four seats is all that is needed for the Republicans to gain a majority.     

Same Old Conservative Delusions

When winter hits hard with a bunch of snow, subzero temperatures and cloudy days, my reaction is to hibernate.  The good news is that my children and my house are at least moderately clean and we're not surviving entirely on Happy Meals.

Anyway, sorry for the lack of posting; this is my way of getting out of my hibernation.  It might be better to go outside or something, but baby steps, people.

I don't usually read right-wing blogs and websites, since I've long discovered that there really isn't anything for me to learn from them and I usually end up getting really angry.  I know that, as a liberal, I'm supposed to see value in each person and try to learn from them. But I just can't deal with people who think the world is 6,000 years old, that the idea of climate change is a worldwide conspiracy, who call themselves libertarian yet whine about the need for affirmative action to get conservatives tenured positions at public universities.  It works much better for me to let Roy Edroso, bless him, do the heavy lifting for me.  I think several of us Cogbloggers need to try to get to Netroots Nation this year for the sole purpose of buying him a bunch of expensive drinks.

Today, however, I did go slumming at Pajamas Media to read this unintentionally hilarious post from David Solway.  It's a great example of a variant of Poe's Law; not only is it easy to mistake satire of fundamentalism/conservatism as the real thing, it's hard to believe that the real thing isn't actually a ham-handed attempt at satire.

This is because for Solway, President Obama has a "penchant for getting things wrong" - constantly uttering malapropisms, ignorant about how many states the US has and what language Australians speak.  He's a dummy, people!

He also has "policy miscarriages he has implemented since taking office" that are "too numerous to mention in toto."  Of course they are.  But his most recent miscarriage of policy is "his opening the door to the ascendancy of the notorious Muslim Brotherhood into the corridors of power."

Really?  Does Solway mean the Muslim Brotherhood that is refusing to field a candidate in Egypt's upcoming free elections that also will not feature Hosni Mubarak?  Perhaps Solway is thinking of a different Muslim Brotherhood - the one that lives entirely in conservatives' heads, of course.

Solway then goes on to claim that Obama has "bungled" both Iraq and Afghanistan, though he of course offers no supporting evidence for the claim.  I disagree with a lot of what Obama has done, but the plain facts are that A) troop levels in Iraq are WAY down from the Bush years and their mission is no longer front-line combat and B) Afghanistan was so FUBAR by the time Obama took office that there hasn't been very much he or anyone else can do to turn it around.

He goes on, stating that "Obama is driving his country into the ground, espousing a social and economic agenda that can only lead to bankruptcy and increasing discord."  Never mind that our unemployment rolls are shrinking, Wall Street is back to breaking records  - although it would be nice for them to spread it around a little bit - and the economy is actually growing. 

But the main problem for Solway is that the USA is no longer united.  It's polarized and it's all Obama's fault.  Somehow it's never the fault of the people who deliberately and continually lie about the facts, who make outrageous claims about Obama without a shred of evidence, who actually think that they can accuse the President of the United States of being a traitor while blaming him for creating discord.

David Solway is a liar.  He doesn't get any benefit of the doubt, because the facts which disprove every single thing he claims are readily available to him.  And we know he's a liar, because he refuses to admit what is really driving his anger against Obama, which is the same thing driving every conservative's anger against him:  Barack Obama's Dusky Muslimic Kenyanitis.  I'm tired of these people getting away with this.

Further Reflection on the Left (Online and Otherwise)

We started this discussion a couple of weeks ago and I got diverted by events in Egypt and assorted mundane media stupidity (not to mention work), but I did want to return to it as I feel like there were things left unsaid by both me and many of you and that the topic really gets to the core of much of what many of us are grappling with daily -- how do we create a society that is consonant with our values and what would such a society look like.  (I don't want to overdo the latter topic -- as it will inevitably end with "and ponies" -- but I think it's worth at least giving some sense of where we'd like to see the U.S. in fifteen or twenty years from now.)

To circle back to where we started, Freddie DeBoer had bemoaned the fate of what I will call as shorthand the social democratic voice in the liberal-left blogosphere, arguing that more moderate liberal voices -- Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum, and Jonathan Chait were his main examples -- have crowded out more radical voices, particularly in the realm of economic policy.  DeBoer argues that the tendency of this group to embrace market-oriented solutions, often engaging with libertarian thinkers on these matters, and their putative preeminence in the eyes of more mainstream media as the exemplars of the online liberal-left, undermines any deeper critique of capitalism and any true alternative approach to economics from being given its proper due.  DeBoer made the case for a much more union oriented, collective-bargaining focused approach to liberal-left politics, suggesting in the process that such politics are really (or should be) the essence of what it means to be a member of the left.

My own response to this was that I am both deeply sympathetic to a more union-oriented politics and deeply skeptical that this is a practical linchpin upon which to build a liberal-left that can effectively command an electoral majority, which, in turn, can practically implement something we would more or less agree corresponds to our societal vision.  In other words, the existing strength of the labor movement is simply not sufficient to serve as the preeminent actor in a renewed politics of the left -- moreover, what strength it has seems unlikely to me to grow, at least in the short term, with existing socio-political-economic conditions.  (So when I read some commenter at FDL opining that we need to abandon the Democratic Party and dedicate the next twenty or thirty years to creating a labor party, I despair at the delusion and the time wasting -- Keynes observation that in the long run we are all dead is beginning to resonate more and more with me in my 51st year -- I am interested in a politics whose success I, at least partially, might get to observe.)  

This means, inevitably, that successful liberal-left politics will need to be built on a coalition of diverse voices and concerns -- not only union members and supporters, but minority groups, feminists, gays, reproductive rights advocates, civil libertarians, environmentalists, and peace activists, among others -- groups that may not always agree on all things, but who hopefully can find enough areas of mutual concern that a governing majority and ethos can be forged that proves satisfactory, most of the time, to these diverse voices.  What would be the first principles that could draw such a diverse group together, while preserving an identity that could be reasonably characterized as liberal-left in a meaningful, historical context?  I am going to try to take a stab at setting forth the things that I see as pillars (just like Islam) of the liberal left-vision (and I invite you to both critique what I've suggested and add or substitute things you believe are central and compelling to a left vision of the world).  Rather than turn this into the longest post ever, one which might not be completed for weeks, I am going to try and tackle one topic at a time.  What better place than start with the concept of equality, which seems to me to be at or near the top of any hierarchy of liberal-left values: 

Tuesday Open Thread

 

"Bar Exam" - The Derailers

Sorry for the lack of posting.  The whole lawyer gig has been a bit on the busy side.

Speaking of which, throwing this one out there for Sara's husband, Andy, who is studying for the bar as we speak.  Good luck Andy. 

I am going to try to actually do something of substance tonight here in the bitter cold of our nation's capital after I break the news to Stanley that it's definitely a one walk night.  

What have you done to further the left-wing libertine - Jihadist alliance today?      

Sunday (and Super Bowl) Open Thread

 

"All Kinds of Time" - Fountains of Wayne

(Not to overdo the FOW, but really the best football song I can think of.)

Good column today by Frank Rich on the horrific U.S. media coverage of Egypt, the perennial ignorance of the American public with respect to foreign countries, and the weird and completely juvenile internet triumphalism that seems to inevitably attend these kinds of events these days.  Really folks -- the fucking revolution will not be tweeted.  These kinds of things happen as they always do -- with people willing to put themselves in serious harm's way in real space rather than cyberspace.  (And, of course, right on cue, Little Tommy Friedman spits out a column on Egypt invoking Twitter -- you can almost always count on Friedman for this kind of vacuous hackery.)  (Yesterday afternoon while going through the airport I noticed that CNN had on Alan Dershowitz to talk about Egypt -- seriously, what credentials does Alan Dershowitz have with respect to Egypt?  He's a once well regarded lawyer who has become increasingly a combination hack, publicity hound, right wing, and Likud apologist -- his opinion regarding events in Egypt could not really be less informative.)   

Our ignorance and arrogance is dangerous -- when do we figure that out? 

Enough ranting -- time to walk Stanley while the sun is shining.  Who is watching America's most overblown spectacle?  And wouldn't it make more sense to start having the Super Bowl on Saturday night rather than Sunday?  Think of the increase in productivity that would result.

A Sheltered White Lady's Remedial Lessons In Racial Relations

Things are going pretty nutty in the Inland Northwest.  First, the KKK snowman, then racist protests of taco stands, then the MLK bomb in Spokane.  Then repeat the taco stand harassment. 

I've been freaking out about this a little, and totally unsuccessful in making real conversation about it.  I've been shouting out into blogspace, but it feels lonely and self-righteous.  I decided to compile some of the lessons about discussing race and racism that I've learned that might be instructive to my neighbors who've been sheltered along with me.  If I've learned wrong, I'd appreciate any corrections.  

  
- Don't be defensive.  I could very well be racist.  If it's out there, someone's responsible for it - maybe that's me.

- Avoiding the discussion protects my own bad habits.

- If someone says I've offended them, they're not lying.  

- It's not about me.  I don't want to be racist, but not as badly as people of color don't want me to be racist.  

- I'll feel guilty and stupid, and say something wrong.

- Laws on the books are not always laws on the ground.

- Don't use your (nonwhite) friends as human shields, e.g. "Some of my best friends are black."