Ramblings

Authoritarianism again?

2011-11-28T20:16:00.001-05:00

What is it about conservatives and authoritarianism? I can only shake my head after reading a number of postings and comments saying that the campus security officer at U.C. Davis should not feel bad about pepper-spraying peaceful protestors. After all, he told them to move, right? And if a cop tells you to move, you'd better do it or prepare to face the consequences, as disproportionate as they might be.

And what the heck is up with Megyn Kelly? Pepper spray is a food product? Really? That's almost as good as Rush Limbaugh saying waterboarding and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib is "sort of like hazing, a fraternity prank."

Krauthammer at it again

2011-10-16T20:45:00.002-04:00

Charles Krauthammer's hypocrisy always amazes, even if it doesn't surprise. It's nice to see that the worst conservative intellect this side of David Brooks hasn't lost anything.

His latest WP column was just reprinted by the local paper, which likes to lean rightward on Sundays. There have been weeks where there are only right-wing pieces in the Sunday Forum section. I guess he's a reliable mouthpiece for conservative thought.

Besides Krauthammer's usual specious criticisms of the Obama administration, there are three things that struck me about the column:

1. Krauthammer scoffs at revenue raised by a hypothetical tax increase as a "rounding error," because it would have dropped last fiscal year's deficit from $1.29 trillion to "only" $1.21 trillion. That's /$80 billion/. Eighty billion dollars is a rounding error? When a few million to fund public broadcasting and Planned Parenthood are unaffordable luxuries? When funding FEMA to the tune of $1 billion for disaster relief is worth a government shutdown?

I guess $80 billion is not worth getting only when it comes from the wealthy.

2. The Tea Party "program" of lower taxes, less (social) spending, and less deregulation is what caused the economic crisis, and the calls for reduced federal spending has helped prolong it. How is this something worth defending as having intellectual value? It's like Paul Ryan's economic plan.

3. How is it fair to grumble that the Occupy Wall Street protestors shouldn't complain if they don't offer a solution to the problems? It was, after all, good enough for the Republicans, with no Krauthammer objections.

Connie Schultz

2011-10-16T20:37:00.002-04:00

I'm catching up on some topics from the past month. Sorry for the delay.

I'm saddened at Connie Schultz's departure from The Plain Dealer, but not surprised. It's hard to work without management support, and Schultz's publicly humiliated and demoted her. I'll miss her columns, which were an antidote to The Plain Dealer's continuing rightward trend.

Class Warfare?

2011-10-16T20:21:00.004-04:00

The Republicans have said the proposed minimum tax rate for millionaires is "class warfare" that "punishes job creation." OK. So what about this picture do they think is wrong?

Tax rates are as low as they've been in sixty years, we've been through a decade of deregulation that is partly to blame for the worldwide economic meltdown, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in capital, and the "job creators" are getting wealthier -- poised to use that wealth for the greater good.

Conditions are ideal. There has never been a better time for an economic boom.

Why, then, is unemployment so high? Where are the jobs conservative dogma says should have been created? And why, after having promised to do so when elected, have Congressional Republicans declined to introduce any jobs legislation to take advantage of the conditions?

Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-16T19:33:00.002-04:00

In the last week, I've had three or four people ask me "what's up with those goddamn kids in New York?" It's not that hard to figure out.

Let's see who the players are. On the one hand, we have people who brought the world economy to the brink of failure while adding nothing of value to it, needed to be saved from themselves by the taxpayers, and changed nothing. Nothing. The bonuses after the Great Recession and the bailout were as big as before, and nobody lost his job.

On the other hand, we have everybody else.

In 2008, after being rescued to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars by the taxpayers, Wall Street firms paid out $18 billion in bonuses. (On which they paid very little taxes, but that's a post for another day.) At the same time, everyone else suffered. Prices for energy and food spiked. Seniors living on savings lost money as interest rates cratered.

I won't even go into the rise of the Tea Party and their calls for lower government spending, even in the face of inadequate aggregate demand. It's hard enough to even try to explain inadequate aggregate demand.

So what's it all about? It's pretty easy: why hasn't anyone paid the price for this? I mean, among those who caused it -- everyone else, you and me included, paid the price. For the Wall Street folks, huge bonuses and job security. The only thing missing is negative consequences.

The "culture of accountability" in the United States? It exists, don't get me wrong. Just not on Wall Street.

We have to do better

2011-10-16T19:29:00.000-04:00

I read three things a few weeks ago that really bothered me. The national ratio of ceo-to-worker pay hit 325:1. The number of people in poverty hit 46.2 million (27.4% of blacks and 22% of children live below the poverty line). CEOs of 25 large corporations were paid more than their companies paid in taxes, thanks to rebates and tax credits.

Income inequality is the biggest obstacle to economic growth. It has been increasing steadily since 1980, with the largest increases going to the top 1%.

The top 20% control 85% of American wealth; the bottom 40% control around 0.3% (financial wealth is worse: the top 20% control 93%). The top 20% receive about 61% of income, the top 1% about 24%, and the rich are getting richer. The top 1% are getting richer the fastest. The bottom 60% of households saw income fall in 2010.

We hear a lot about income tax, but very little about the payroll tax, which provides nearly the same amount of revenue, and hits the poor and middle classes much harder. Or that the Bush tax cuts are primarily responsible for increases in "zero tax liability."

We hear that returning tax levels to what they were ten years ago would be a "crushing blow." That anyone who favors higher tax rates for the wealthy is a "socialist." That having everyone pay payroll taxes on all his income would be "crippling." We need more.

The best approach is probably a combination of a more progressive tax system with fewer loopholes and rebates and higher top rates, and a government-led effort to reduce unemployment.

Bottom line: We are a wealthy country. We can do better.

A rose by another name, right?

2011-06-27T22:20:00.002-04:00

Medicare, as it exists today, is a single-payer medical care program, funded by the U.S. government. The government insures all seniors, guaranteed, and pays all major medical bills. Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, want to replace this with a voucher system, where you get a voucher and have to go buy private insurance. Oh, and the voucher doesn't keep pace with inflation, nor is there a guarantee it will cover your insurance costs.

We can replace Medicare with any kind of program we like, no matter how different, but as long as we call it Medicare, we're not ending it? That's what Politifact, among others, is claiming.

If you inherit the hatchet George Washington used to cut down the cherry tree, and you replace the head one year and the handle the next, do you still get to call it Washington's hatchet?

Who needs Wall Street?

2011-05-12T15:13:00.000-04:00

In fact, who needs the entire financial services industry? Look at your average hedge fund manager. What does he do to be so impressively compensated? He creates nothing, builds nothing, adds nothing of value to the economy.

When did we start valuing the valueless?

There is a war on the middle class

2011-05-12T15:10:00.000-04:00

Whether the average voter believes it or not, the numbers don't lie. The middle class is shrinking, and nearly all of that wealth is being redistributed upward.

Since Ronald Reagan's presidency, there has been a steady transfer of wealth away from the middle class. Tax cuts favoring the rich, a steady diet of deregulation, hostility towards unions and collective bargaining, fetishizing the free market, and determined efforts to chip away at the social safety net have all contributed.

Look at the results. 42% of the financial wealth in this country is controlled by 1% of the population -- numbers that haven't been seen since the Great Depression. The top 10% control 93% of the wealth. The wealthiest Americans saw huge income gains during the Bush presidency (73% of the total growth), while income for the middle class decreased when adjusted for inflation. Since 1979, the top 1% have seen an average increase in income of $741,000, while the middle fifth has seen a $9400 decrease. Could it be any clearer?

Conservatives have been the champions of the policies that have caused this shift. We hear them saying that the country can't go on with the current tax burden on the highest earners -- rates that, with the exception of a couple of years in the late 1980s, are actually lower than they have been in 80 years.

There is a party that wants wealth redistribution: the Republicans. If there's a war, they're winning.

You go, Sarah

2010-05-24T21:50:00.002-04:00

How does she manage to carry this off without her head exploding?

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/palin-accuses-obama-of-being-in-bed-with-big-oil-video.php

Socialism?

2010-03-12T14:27:00.007-05:00

You know, "socialism" is a word with a specific political and economic meaning. How much is it to ask that someone who wants to use it look in a dictionary and find out what it means?

Conservatives throw the word around to mean "any government program or policy that might benefit someone whom I consider undeserving."

Does that mean I can call it socialism when Wall Street traders don't pay income tax rates on their income, but instead pay taxes at the much lower rate for capital gains?

Assume we have a can opener ...

2010-02-26T17:49:00.002-05:00

This is really funny:

So there's a blizzard and Paul Krugman, John Cochrane, and Barack Obama are trapped in a room together. The power goes out and it gets cold fast.

PK: It's cold in here, let's build a fire.
BO: That's a good idea, Paul, but we have to be careful not to burn the house down.
PK: Look, if we build it in the fireplace...
JC: You guys are both idiots. The conservation of energy dictates that any heat created by a fire would be offset by heat lost somewhere else. The heat has to come from somewhere! Looks like you two need to go back to school and study your physics.
PK: ...
BO: Ok, here's what we'll do. I'll light this candle for two minutes, then to be sure we don't burn the house down, we'll blow it out. It'll be timely, targeted, and tempory.
PK: That's not gonna work. It's too small.
JC: We don't need to intervene with the climate! If we let nature take its course, eventually it'll be spring and we won't be cold anymore. Nature means for us to be cold right now; do you doubt the devine plan of nature?
BO: Ok, here goes... *he lights the candle*
JC: It's no warmer in here, I told you it wouldn't work. The heat has to come from somewhere!
BO: Nonesense, I have a team of scientists whose complex thermodynamic models show that it's .0003% warmer than it would have been without the candle.
PK: Ok, I give up.

This was a comment on Paul Krugman's blog. Thanks to Anthony C.

Come on, Cantor

2010-02-19T16:46:00.002-05:00

In a way, it's admirable how well Eric Cantor stays on message, despite evidence of the falseness of his statements.

When he says "these bills are ultimately designed to lead this country to a single-payer system, something that the American people reject," I guess he means the Americans he talks to -- the wealthy and corporations who support him and conservatives who oppose expanding any part of the social safety net.

Unfortunately, many polls show that Americans actually favor single-payer: a NYT/CBS News poll from a few weeks back, some older polls. Polls have always shown people consistently support the public plan as well.

The Republicans have done a great job with obscuring the issues, though: polls also show that most people opposed to health care reform get the details of the plans incorrect when asked (for instance, insisting that the bills will increase the budget deficit when the CBO scoring of the House and Senate bills indicates the bills will reduce it). There is also the disingenuous strategy of pointing to polls indicating a plurality of opposition to the current health care reform bills without taking into account the opposition from the left that feels the current bills don't go far enough, or claiming that the Democrats are acting without Republican involvement, conveniently forgetting all the time wasted negotiating with the Gang of Six.

The Doc and Zen show

2010-02-19T16:19:00.003-05:00

Ironic that Doc Rivers and Phil Jackson are both complaining about the salary-cap trade that shipped Zydrunas Ilguaskas from the Cavs to the Wizards. Everybody expects Z to get a buyout and go back to the Cavs after 30 days.

Even Rivers admitted it was great when the Celtics did the same thing with Gary Payton a few years back: “I loved it three years ago when we did it with Gary Payton if you remember, but now I think it sucks."

And how can the Lakers complain when they pulled a trade with a team whose GM at the time was Mr. Laker, Jerry West, and got Pau Gasol for a rack of balls and a case of Gatorade?

Way to go, Oracle

2010-02-14T22:44:00.004-05:00

No, not that Oracle. Congratulations to BMW Oracle for winning the Deed of Gift Match and the 33rd America's Cup.

Voinovich: "deficit hawk"?

2010-02-14T15:16:00.004-05:00

What's up with George Voinovich? Now that he's a voluntary lame duck, he's suddenly found his true inner distaste for deficits? Where were these principles when they could have made a difference?

Few Senators are greater hypocrites than Voinovich. The Obama administration is responsible for about 10% of the current deficit, mostly through its efforts to stimulate demand via government spending. The economic downturn had already accounted for more. But the biggest contributors to the deficit, by far, are the two Bush tax cuts, the unfunded Medicare drug plan, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were funded outside the budget process. Voinovich voted for all of these without complaint, and voted against provisions to make them more affordable, such as an amendment that would have allowed Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

Voinovich is only concerned about deficits when Democrats are in power and spending to increase the social safety net.

John McCain slips again

2010-02-12T19:55:00.004-05:00

Leonard Pitts writes gold:

"Republican Sen. John McCain, more politically agile now that he has jettisoned the weight of integrity, promptly reversed a four-year-old promise that he would be guided in this matter by the opinion of military leaders, instead pronouncing himself ``deeply disappointed'' by Mullen and Gates's testimony."

Read the entire column at http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/1471808.html.

Facebook Follies

2010-02-12T13:33:00.003-05:00

Oh. My. God.

Depending on your perspective, the comment stream accompanying this post is either pathetic, horrifying, or hilarious. Maybe all three.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php

(h/t to Daring Fireball)

Time to bring it

2010-02-03T22:07:00.002-05:00

A letter I wrote to the local paper recently:

Now that Scott Brown has won the vacant Senate seat from Massachusetts,
we'll really see what our federal government is all about.

So-called independent voters have already started calling for more
"bipartisanship", by which most seem to mean that the Democrats should
let the Republicans write legislation for them and pass the result.

Ever since President Obama's inauguration, the Republicans, the party
of "I've got mine," have done nothing but oppose. Bipartisanship takes
parties willing to compromise. The Democrats have bent over backward
to produce legislation that might possibly appeal to the Republican
minority, and to what end? Republicans are never going to vote for
anything that might anger their corporate sponsors, so any attempt at
bipartisanship was a wasted effort to begin with.

What can we expect from the Republicans? More of nothing: no proposals,
no legislation, no attempt at actual governance. As has been proven
again and again, Republicans are simply out of ideas.

What should the Democrats do? Pass legislation that helps people, starting
with health care reform. Clean up the huge mess the Bush administration
left behind. Make the Republicans stand up for whatever it is they believe
in. I, for one, would be interested in whether the Republicans stand for
anything (except, of course, tax cuts -- the solution to every problem).

The Democrats have a huge majority for a reason: Republicans proved
incapable of governing. People want the change Democrats promised to
bring. It's time to bring it.

Tom Udall is right

2010-01-30T22:11:00.003-05:00

This is the kind of change we need. The filibuster is out of control.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-udall/its-time-for-the-constitu_b_436935.html

For Pete's sake, can anyone argue that the Senate is dysfunctional? A body in which one member (Jim Demint) can block the President's nominee to head the TSA because he's afraid the guy might let TSA screeners join a union? Really?

The gentleman from Connecticut

2010-01-30T16:21:00.001-05:00

I'm probably a little behind the curve on this one, but what is keeping the Senate Democrats from kicking Joe Lieberman out of the caucus? It's not like he adds value. He's just channeling Zell Miller.

Introduction

2010-01-30T15:49:00.001-05:00

Well, I guess I'll try this blogging thing. I won't pretend to have any significant insights, and there won't really be a theme. It's just a place to collect my thoughts on various issues.