tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-292233312024-03-07T22:11:26.347-06:00Sen Sen No SenPBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.comBlogger395125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-7349219829878716232011-10-18T21:06:00.004-05:002011-10-18T21:06:52.582-05:00In Transition<div style="text-align: justify;">
Apologies to regular readers for not posting in recent weeks, but as some of you know, I recently accepted a new job in another part of the country. So, as my wife and I transition from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Louis,_Missouri" target="_blank">Saint Louis</a> back to my native stomping grounds of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_england" target="_blank">New England</a> over the next couple of months, posts are likely to be few and far between. Please be assured, however, that I intend to resume regular blogging at the earliest opportunity!</div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-45424240920254005372011-09-05T15:56:00.000-05:002011-09-05T21:42:30.526-05:00The Regressive Legacy of Reaganomics<div align="justify">
Over at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_times" target="_blank"><i>New York Times</i></a>, former <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Labor" target="_blank">Secretary of Labor</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich" target="_blank">Robert Reich</a> has an excellent <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/jobs-will-follow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">article</a> on the current state of the middle class. The points he makes are all worthwhile, but the truly killer element of his column is the accompanying chart. I've written about this topic a number of times - most recently in <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2011/05/punishing-worker-success-doesnt-count.html" target="_blank"><i>Punishing Worker Success Doesn't Count</i></a> - but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and Mr. Reich's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html" target="_blank">all-encompassing chart</a> starkly illustrate the damage wrought by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics" target="_blank">Reaganomics</a> and its adherents.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="768" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3HfCHLloL9WBfflP1mCAdjjMASfpEiHW09L-mCp25ZKqwhu2zncdzN-If1YZJeTKiTGl_H8ep57VdjRrEfq8mpofO32SWe1jpcuIsnfajx2j-A1fwzSMsGm-YRENj0hY6H8p3KA/s640/04reich-graphic-popup.jpg" style="cursor: move;" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr style="color: #ff6600;"><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><b>Click on chart to view at full size.</b></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-82922092965116076652011-08-20T17:56:00.006-05:002011-08-20T18:19:23.539-05:00Taxes, Debt and Welfare Queen States<div align="justify"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://s3.credoaction.com.s3.amazonaws.com/comics/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/TMW2011-08-17colorlowres.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiC7juAMLD5dD11nVESfo2PYksRVmf3e-kgoQSZ_JtrS7WsB-b6U62hLKXuztOQXi-7mHB6A6cdSKZpVoaxd9wlGCYUWMwLuqu_Fplivrdq6fvklcFEDb3Df8K8jEnYC7YCiV1Bw/s1600/TMW2011-08-17colorlowres.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Last Sunday, billionaire investor <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/warren_buffet" target="_blank">Warren Buffet</a> caused a significant stir with an opinion piece he wrote for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times" target="_blank"><i>New York Times</i></a> entitled "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html" target="_blank">Stop Coddling the Super-Rich</a>". In it, he noted that, since his income is generated through <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains" target="_blank">capital gains</a>, even though he made nearly $41 million last year, he was taxed at an effective rate of only 17%. Meanwhile, everyone else in his office - who performed actual labor - was taxed at an average rate of more than twice that much. Mr. Buffett then went further, directly confronting the long-held, but factually unsupported talking point that somewhat higher taxes will broadly discourage investment:<br />
<blockquote><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/us/tax-revenue-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-in-the-developed-world/article2114914/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeYPc1KhuphIyi6-l98Sq4XQ0h8cdZ0nRS9pr_gVCHoUdEh1m9I8Qkk_6p4CNIfEtD4yc-QhrXYgt6U-cKFhl5AGB1w8FdKz-jHNPcJxREyapOZPM8PkjfKp27qyYuUt70UrCDAQ/s640/TMW2011-08-17colorlowres.jpg" width="289" /></a></td></tr>
<tr style="color: #ff6600;"><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><i>Tax Burdens in the Developed World<br />
(click on image to view at full size)</i></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table><i>If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine - most likely by a lot.<br />
<br />
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.<br />
<br />
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.<br />
<br />
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation. </i></blockquote>Mr. Buffett is completely correct. Americans not only have one of the smallest tax burdens in the developed world, that burden is lower now than it was in 1965. In fact, the entire notion that "confidence" about the regulatory and tax landscapes coupled with free cash flow create jobs is utter nonsense. Demand is what drives the economy and spurs employment; always has been and always will be. Investor confidence about regulation and taxes can tweak demand, but it can't drive it.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB5xGWkTNscGcFU5aQtqE2gbI8NPA9vyNN_R6dc6BabKybFrr35ttgkuQAQLHtBKa5POlf_SyZ3yujX8TrbjxrbaXRK6rLPpMBSxe8SKx0iWbcOO5212e7ZEGP9nk6q3QLEAuiXw/s1600/TMW2011-08-17colorlowres.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB5xGWkTNscGcFU5aQtqE2gbI8NPA9vyNN_R6dc6BabKybFrr35ttgkuQAQLHtBKa5POlf_SyZ3yujX8TrbjxrbaXRK6rLPpMBSxe8SKx0iWbcOO5212e7ZEGP9nk6q3QLEAuiXw/s320/TMW2011-08-17colorlowres.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr style="color: #ff6600;"><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><b>Federal Taxes Minus Spending<br />
(click on image to view at full size)</b></i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>But with regard to taxation, not only is there great disparity between economic classes, there are <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union" target="_blank">significant geographic differences</a> in the flow of public funds. Twenty-two states effectively support the other 28, sometimes to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Over the two decades from 1990 to 2009, for instance, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/new_york" target="_blank">New York</a> paid nearly a trillion dollars more to the federal coffers than it received back. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/virginia" target="_blank">Virginia</a>, on the other hand, took in almost $600 billion more than it contributed.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/28/us/charting-the-american-debt-crisis.html?hp#accumulate" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="301" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjer1xNF3_Pj-AMINjM-Kb6MJqhKs94RY_vEA2Oh7li00NPZbTW5T0THgR3wpxUuBdbqXCx3HrKP_AmDq_ZhqiyLA22_pLollcN-P3UORmw8kkVqLa_2y7GYrxkhGM_vkQgDkp3GQ/s320/TMW2011-08-17colorlowres.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr style="color: #ff6600;"><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><i>Origins of U.S. Debt<br />
(click on image to view at full size)</i></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>Of the 28 states that ran a transfer of tax funds deficit during this period, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2008.svg" target="_blank">two thirds of them</a> voted for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain" target="_blank">John McCain</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin" target="_blank">Sarah Palin</a> in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_electoral_college#Election_results" target="_blank">2008 election</a>. Assuming those ballots were cast because voters approved of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Republican</a> tax-cut policy and deficit spending, and opposed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama" target="_blank">Barack Obama</a>'s "socialism", given the orgy of unfunded expenses incurred under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/george_w_bush" target="_blank">President George W. Bush</a>, perhaps there is a simple solution to the "debt crisis" which has become the obsession of both the political and chattering classes.<br />
<br />
Maybe we could just take that whole issue off the table by having those states with a declared preference for "self-reliance" and an aversion to "government interference" pay their own way for a change. That would free up cash flow to use in parts of the country that understand that there is a role for government in the economy - especially during recessions.<br />
<br />
And no, this is not a serious policy proposal.<br />
<br />
I'm kidding.<br />
<br />
Mostly.<br />
<br />
<hr align="center" style="color: #999999;" width="85%" /><br />
On Thursday, in a truly outstanding segment, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jon_Stewart" target="_blank">Jon Stewart</a> ripped into the nonsensical idea that the rich are under siege, and thoroughly exposed the accounting double standards used by those advocating spending cuts and defending the failure to raise taxes on those who can afford it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:394982" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" wmode="window"></embed><br />
<br />
<embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:394983" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" wmode="window"></embed></center></div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-87902313270200754822011-08-13T16:23:00.011-05:002011-08-13T18:51:10.166-05:00Things Just Got Dumber<div align="justify"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="363" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhve2kBUK9OFx1_vnJ4cymvz8cp1ZKU_6Cg7VGl7XQMjL1nXaBz97WdxM5uOaaenwqdv895b0ZDh0olzPQIn3UePTX0J3aJG61BXWrIPAoZCFex9N1a3Yy-0OhOS9yUvy9W2hsqhA/s640/Image1.jpg" width="704" /></a></td></tr>
<tr style="color: #ff6600;"><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><i>One of these men is the aspiring leader of an increasingly desperate people whose culture is collapsing under the weight</i></b><br />
<b><i>of its own ignorance and short-sightedness. The other is a character from the movie "<a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/idiocracy/" target="_blank">Idiocracy</a>".</i></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
If you believed the field of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Republican</a> president candidates was already about as venal, dumb, hypocritical and incompetent as it could get, you were wrong. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry" target="_blank">Texas Governor Rick Perry</a>, a man who can best be described as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush" target="_blank">George W. Bush</a> for people who didn't think George W. Bush was George W. Bush-enough, has <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/13/perry/index.html" target="_blank">thrown his hat in the ring</a>.<br />
<br />
If the thought of fellow <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">GOP</a> contenders <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/michele_bachmann" target="_blank">Michele Bachmann</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rick_santorum" target="_blank">Rick Santorum</a> working to restore the American theocracy that never was, but which <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-ultimate-collection-of-stupid-michele-bachmann" target="_blank">haunts</a> their fever dreams, scares you, get ready for Mr. Perry, who is not only fresh from an organized prayer vigil for which he <a href="http://www.aclutx.org/2011/07/20/aclu-of-texas-demands-that-governor-perry-disclose-use-of-public-resources-for-prayer-event/" target="_blank">used state resources</a> to publicize, but which is apparently his plan for when, you know, <i>actual policy</i> fails.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately for the governor, at the same time that 30,000 conservative Christians showed up to all wish together that the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-drought-2011-08" target="_blank">historic drought</a> plaguing their state would end and that things would get better, just down the road, more than three times that number of desperate Texans <a href="http://www.austinpost.org/content/the-biggest-gathering-houston-sunday" target="_blank">lined up</a> for donations of school supplies, immunizations, fresh produce, and school uniforms. If there is a better illustration for the leadership of Rick Perry, one would be hard-pressed to find it.<br />
<br />
Still, what makes the chief executive of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/texas" target="_blank">Lone Star State</a> so dangerous is that voters may be able to ignore his radical religious outlook, his <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/12/294753/rick-perry-says-social-security-and-medicare-are-unconstitutional/" target="_blank">contention</a> that Medicare and Social Security are unconsitutional, or even his <a href="http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2009/04/perry-says-texas-can-leave-the-union-if-it-wants-to/" target="_blank">statement</a> that perhaps Texas should secede from the United States, if the fairy tale of job creation within the so-called "Texas Miracle" gains any traction. Texas has, in fact, added jobs even during the current recession, but at a <a href="http://blog.chron.com/partisangridlock/2011/06/how-rick-perry-created-all-those-jobs/" target="_blank">terrible price</a>: massive cuts to education coupled with the layoff of 100,000 teachers; the highest level of airborne carcinogens in the country; and sweeping empowerment of corporations at the expense of individuals. Oh, and those jobs? The <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/194560/20110808/rick-perry-president-rick-perry-campaign-rick-perry-announcement-rick-perry-2012-rick-perry-gay.htm" target="_blank">majority</a> are low-paying, low-skill, hourly positions. <br />
<br />
Today, despite all the hype, Texas is <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/New-study-finds-dire-reality-for-children-977680.php" target="_blank">ranked dead last</a> among states in health coverage for children; <a href="http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/01/texas-teen-pregnancy-ranking-4.html" target="_blank">fourth</a> in teen pregnancies; and again, <a href="http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/wwstand/wws0512ed/" target="_blank">dead last</a> in the percentage of the population with a high school diploma. The Texas Miracle is really a Texas Debacle, and a blueprint for winning a race to the bottom. In a field of terrible candidates, Rick Perry may well be the worst.</div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-60086240287452864262011-08-04T20:17:00.001-05:002016-11-15T21:08:43.276-06:00Contemplating the Culture of Exceptionalism and Victimization<div align="justify">
More quick and dirty posting while I remain focused on finding my next job. This is about a week old, but still well worth your time, as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jon_stewart" target="_blank">Jon Stewart</a> absolutely demolishes the talking points around the right wing culture of exceptionalism and victimization that underpins so much of today's political discourse, and which has been especially abhorrent in the wake of the recent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_shooting" target="_blank">mass murder in Norway</a>. <br />
<br />
<center>
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;">
<div style="padding: 4px;">
<embed autoplay="no" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="https://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:393255" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed></div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;">
<div style="padding: 4px;">
<embed autoplay="no" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="https://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:393256" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed></div>
</div>
</center>
</div>
PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-12106294987762445972011-07-28T18:52:00.002-05:002011-07-29T10:23:13.555-05:00Five and Half Minutes of Truth-Telling<div style="text-align: justify;">I know I wrote in my last post that I was going to take a break, but the following really is required viewing. On Wednesday, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bartlett">Bruce Bartlett</a>, a former domestic policy adviser to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan">President Ronald Reagan</a>, as well as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U._S._Treasury_Department">Treasury</a> official under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H.W._Bush">President George H.W. Bush</a>, appeared on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardball_with_Chris_Matthews"><i>Hardball</i></a> for an interview with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Matthews">Chris Matthews</a>. In a five and a half minute conversation, the two men discussed the chart below, and Mr. Matthews, who is well-known for frequentlty interrupting his guests, sat back for a change, and let Mr. Bartlett speak freely. The result was a very concise explanation of exactly where our current debt problems originate, along with some particularly direct criticism for Republicans. </div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?scp=1&sq=policy%20changes%20under%20two%20presidents&st=cse" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0zEFWbxtnEdlDE7Vw5mjyoYc9QPSsBvS_DIinHiaXJKD3wC7t8ItAOC5s58A7Ehnf8ah3G6WP-zi2663bSHgp0oodjdvHrvqterrzQXxUBHu_HwYPqlW0nWdMxnpAa0j2ThG5jA/s640/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif" width="576" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<center><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0" height="294" id="msnbc7a6ebc" width="504"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=43917503&width=504&height=294" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc7a6ebc" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="504" height="294" FlashVars="launch=43917503&width=504&height=294" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><br />
<div style="background: transparent; color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; margin-top: 5px; text-align: center; width: 504px;"></div></center>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-10186365681560964232011-07-24T15:34:00.000-05:002011-07-24T15:34:39.215-05:00Break Needed<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2kKu6FgIgaTDhpQujQ4frJqWylZoC5E3K2Rp_DsYSu3fVmtF9QONNNy5H5FWL_LSBVGERthECHhX-vEFaNhv4bw53MJQC8fEZx_VGGgx3lNQ5q0ZGvZg0q9oXI6rGPmOWE-2Qcw/s1600/Need-a-Break1-300x231.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2kKu6FgIgaTDhpQujQ4frJqWylZoC5E3K2Rp_DsYSu3fVmtF9QONNNy5H5FWL_LSBVGERthECHhX-vEFaNhv4bw53MJQC8fEZx_VGGgx3lNQ5q0ZGvZg0q9oXI6rGPmOWE-2Qcw/s1600/Need-a-Break1-300x231.jpg" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I'm taking a break this week, and articles at <i>Sensen No Sen</i> may not be posted with their usual regularity in the next few months. My current job is coming to an end in early August, and I am now in the thick of hunting for new employment. That, along with some family illness issues, is creating enough stress that I don't have the focus to write constructively. Hopefully I'll be through this stretch in a relatively short period, and will be able to give this blog the attention it deserves, but until then, stay cool and enjoy your summer!</div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-19220286967907261152011-07-17T16:03:00.003-05:002011-07-17T16:11:40.338-05:00A Handy Guide to Biblical Marriage<div style="text-align: justify;">Just a quick thought to share today on the definition of "traditional marriage" - that favorite weapon of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right" target="_blank">Christian right</a> in their campaign to discriminate against same-sex couples. The graphic below provides a handy guide to all the types of marriage found in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible" target="_blank">Bible</a>, and puts the lie to the argument that it's only ever loving matrimony between one man and one woman.</div><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC1k0FX5AHTQygZQ9oQkuDdaStiGoeIrfKWAqW2AD4vPWL1_FjWbbapD0z3rJi5ZsQI1jndu5QSnbxE665agnU9zXlWufWOMWGXdjIUoX2zXSsPSaRhJJ1KEltGvAoUAkiGRm3DQ/s1600/marriage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="486" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC1k0FX5AHTQygZQ9oQkuDdaStiGoeIrfKWAqW2AD4vPWL1_FjWbbapD0z3rJi5ZsQI1jndu5QSnbxE665agnU9zXlWufWOMWGXdjIUoX2zXSsPSaRhJJ1KEltGvAoUAkiGRm3DQ/s640/marriage.jpg" target="_blank" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Click on image to view at full size.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-2809123412658787552011-07-10T18:23:00.005-05:002011-07-13T22:04:25.105-05:00Even a Stopped Clock Is Right Twice a Day<div align="justify"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://debtceilingcat.tumblr.com/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvHqKnInLsoTGJcUhgWrCVKYtOh5f3GWrPXjD-i_u4QlMSar5Unh8neAP36Zym6bt2iKjSyFWmc0d-LsYXWH1oDh4Xq7YKliONtBdO93Wy0XP17EAhfB7fyTe6-qPxnart9wLHpg/s640/tumblr_lnz6buFTH71qmztveo1_500.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
Over the past three decades, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Republican Party</a> has spiraled from the center-right policies of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ronald_reagan" target="_blank">Ronald Reagan</a> - who, <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2011/02/leadership-by-fantasy.html" target="_blank">among other actions</a> that would have him drummed out of his party today, <a href="http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002094.htm#one" target="_blank">tripled the debt</a>, <a href="http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002094.htm#two" target="_blank">raised taxes 11 times</a>, and <a href="http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002094.htm#three" target="_blank">expanded the size of government</a> - to a tragically mis-informed extremism embodied by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement" target="_blank">Tea Party</a> zealots and a crop of erstwhile presidential candidates that features the likes of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/michele_bachmann" target="_blank">Michele Bachmann</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tim_pawlenty" target="_blank">Tim Pawlenty</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rick_santorum" target="_blank">Rick Santorum</a>.<br />
<br />
During that same 30-year span, however, the Very Serious People in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C." target="_blank">Washington</a> - along with a lot of otherwise sensible <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">GOP</a> rank-and-file - pretended that this descent into venal arrogance and ineptitude was all OK; that the single-minded <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2010/06/with-apologies-to-snl-this-just-in-fox.html" target="_blank">effort</a> to continue dumbing-down the citizenry, the outrageous hypocrisy on everything from <a href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/National-Debt-GDP-L.gif" target="_blank">fiscal issues</a> to "<a href="http://www.nerve.com/news/politics/republican-sex-scandals-outnumber-democrat-sex-scandals-two-to-one" target="_blank">morality</a>", the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/michele-bachmann-john-quincy-adams_n_885868.html" target="_blank">pride in ignorance</a>, the <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/grovernorq182534.html" target="_blank">demonization</a> of government and taxation, and the culture of <a href="http://jalopnik.com/5819522/reporter-if-new-york-city-gets-bike-lanes-the-terrorists-win" target="_blank">fear</a> and <a href="http://www.rationalresponders.com/sites/www.rationalresponders.com/files/images/ChristianHelp.gif" target="_blank">victimhood</a> that are the hallmarks of today's movement conservatism weren't core aspects of the modern Republican Party. Instead, it was much more convenient to pretend that this race to the bottom was just another way of looking at things - the other side of the conversation, if you will - a manifestations of homespun Americanism resurgent against the repression of liberal elitism.<br />
<br />
Last week, however, with the likelihood that the United States might catastrophically default on its debt <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/10/2308083/treasury-secretary-repeats-warnings.html" target="_blank">looming increasingly large</a>, cracks in that facade appeared, and there seems to be some genuine alarm now that there is clearly a faction of the Republican Party which genuinely believes it would be better to tank the U.S. economy than to raise taxes in any way, whatsoever. The GOP has reached a tipping point of extremism, and so, apparently, have some of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beltway" target="_blank">Beltway</a> opinion-makers who have made a career out of treating people like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/mitt_romney" target="_blank">Mitt Romney</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/john_mccain" target="_blank">John McCain</a> as if they were qualified, well-informed leaders who haven't sold their souls for the approval of an ever-more-radical right wing base.<br />
<br />
It's hard to know if traditional GOP <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluffer" target="_blank">fluffers</a> like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_%28journalist%29" target="_blank">David Brooks</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cohen_%28columnist%29" target="_blank">Richard Cohen</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_McArdle" target="_blank">Megan McArdle</a> - Very Serious People, all - are genuinely shocked by what is going on and didn't see this coming, or if they have suddenly realized that the amusing, lucrative game they have been playing in which they lend legitimacy to right wing fanatics and corporate stooges isn't really a game, after all. In the first instance, this makes them morons; in the second greedy hypocrites, but in either case - amazingly - they have all recently written columns that are, for a change, firmly grounded in reality.<br />
<br />
A longtime darling of the center-right establishment, Mr. Brooks had <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1" target="_blank">this</a> to say:<br />
<blockquote><i>... The Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.<br />
<br />
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.<br />
<br />
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.<br />
<br />
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.<br />
<br />
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.<br />
<br />
But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol. </i></blockquote>Meanwhile, Ms. McArdle, a prolific, if often <a href="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/03/stupidest-woman.html" target="_blank">logic-</a> and <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/02/04/megan-mcardle-is-always-wrong-again-kitchen-history-edition/" target="_blank">fact-challenged</a>, self-sytled <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservative" target="_blank">libertarian conservative</a>, made this <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/why-cant-the-gop-get-to-yes/241437/" target="_blank">cogent observation</a>:<br />
<blockquote><i>... I am getting the same sinking feeling that Brooks is having - that there is a sizeable faction on the right, and worse, in the GOP caucus, that is willing to default rather than make any deal at all. In fact, I think it's worse than Brooks suggests. It would be bad enough if these people were simply against higher taxes, because then you might persuade them by pointing out that if we default, we're probably going to end up with higher taxes, right now, in order to close the current gap between spending and tax revenue.<br />
<br />
But when I point this out, the response in my comments and e-mail and twitter is "Fine, I'll accept higher taxes, as long as they come with radical changes in spending." The BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement) is default on either our debt, or entitlements like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Social Security</a> that people have planned their lives around; the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Democrats</a> properly view this as a disaster. But I'm hearing from people who seem to think that it's better than raising one thin new dime in taxes. This makes me very much afraid of where this is headed.<br />
<br />
The political logic is infantile. The American public does not want you to cut <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Medicare</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid" target="_blank">Medicaid</a>, or Social Security. There is no monopartisan substitute for persuading people to agree with you...</i></blockquote>Even the <a href="http://wonkette.com/410151/worlds-worst-writer-richard-cohen-back-in-form-pens-worst-article-anywhere-on-the-internet-right-now" target="_blank">serially hackish</a> Richard Cohen lifted his eyes from his navel long enough to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-grand-old-cult/2011/07/02/gHQAOnlByH_story.html" target="_blank">point out</a> what has been blisteringly obvious to anyone who has been paying attention since the installation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/george_w_bush" target="_blank">George W. Bush</a> in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/white_house" target="_blank">White House</a>:<br />
<blockquote><i>... The hallmark of a cult is to replace reason with feverish belief. This the GOP has done when it comes to the government’s ability to stimulate the economy. History proves this works - it’s how the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/great_depression" target="_blank">Great Depression</a> ended - but Republicans will not acknowledge it.<br />
<br />
The Depression in fact <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2011/06/condemned-to-repeat-history.html" target="_blank">deepened in 1937</a> when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fdr" target="_blank">Franklin D. Roosevelt</a> tried to balance the budget and was ended entirely by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/world_war_ii" target="_blank">World War II</a>, which, besides being a noble cause, was also a huge stimulus program. Here, though, is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shelby" target="_blank">Sen. Richard Shelby</a> mouthing GOP dogma: Stimulus programs “did not bring us out of the Depression,” he recently told <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_News" target="_blank">ABC</a>’s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiane_Amanpour" target="_blank">Christiane Amanpour</a>, but “the war did.” In other words, a really huge stimulus program hugely worked. Might not a more modest one succeed modestly? Shelby ought to follow his own logic.<br />
<br />
Something similar has happened with global warming. It has become a conviction of much of the GOP that you and I, with our cars and factories and leaf blowers and barbecue pits, are off the hook — innocent of cooking the atmosphere. That being the case, it therefore is not the case that anything has to be done about it. Only much of science, common sense and your average walrus differ, but the GOP soldiers on. This is a version of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nancy_reagan" target="_blank">Nancy Reagan</a>’s pledge: Just say no.<br />
[...]<br />
This intellectual rigidity has produced a GOP presidential field that’s a virtual political <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown" target="_blank">Jonestown</a>. The Grand Old Party, so named when it really did evoke America, has so narrowed its base that it has become a political cult. It is a redoubt of certainty over reason and in itself significantly responsible for the government deficit that matters most: leadership...<br />
</i></blockquote>It is rare indeed to survey the works of David Brooks, Megan McArdle and Richard Cohen and come away nodding in agreement at the sensible arguments they have made, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. This moment of journalistic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29" target="_blank">syzygy</a> should be noticed not just for its rarity, however, but for what it portends for the Republican Party. The GOP old money has painted itself into a corner with the Tea Party movement, and it is going to have to either double down on the crazy in order to keep the Teabaggers happy, or spend a lot of resources to rein in the monster it has created.<br />
<br />
In either case, the ongoing debt ceiling crisis looks like it might be the beginning of the end of the Tea Party as an effective political entity. Deeper extremism will only continue to make both it and its Republican parent less appealing to the electorate, and the alternative - ongoing internecine strife - is a recipe for rapidly diminishing influence. As long as the grown-ups have enough leverage to keep the radicals from sinking the economic ship by way of default, what's on the other side of the debt ceiling crisis may actually end up being greener pastures for more rational politics.<br />
<br />
<hr align="center" style="color: #999999;" width="85%" /><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bill_maher" target="_blank">Bill Maher</a> points out the role of ignorance, misinformation and wealth fantasy in supporting the Republican Party:<br />
<br />
<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="405" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G3bSCywUtf8?rel=0" width="500"></iframe></center></div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-7033890695465490282011-06-25T17:42:00.001-05:002011-06-25T17:42:28.651-05:00Mixed Message on Libya<div align="justify">In what has got to be one of the great political mixed messages of all time, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives">House of Representatives</a> on Friday <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/libya-vote-scolds-obama/1177284">voted</a> to deny congressional approval to extend U.S. involvement in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/libya">Libya</a> for up to one year, but then refused to deny funding to continue prosecuting our ongoing military activity in that country. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/barack_obama">President Obama</a> is already <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2011/06/object-lesson-9568-on-corrupting.html">in violation</a> of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/war_powers_resolution">War Powers Resolution</a>, so it remains to be seen what effect, if any, this will have on American interventionism. Perhaps the idea <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_Bolling">Ruben Bolling</a> expresses below is what we need...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2011/06/24/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwNARuhsX2Z95wYJw6Qh1Ly6vVHUdS-hQ0NMfhMfRRdQE6flqAYKPveabwgxaCNTCu-RSX3b0rik8pBl4s9eHVffasA6dOMiaZdc1Vu2ojVrad1WRuWvhXL-UUp4a4MYHhP0T21g/s1600/c7cefe707fdb012ee3c400163e41dd5b.gif" /></a></div></div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-87464094275653139392011-06-19T17:26:00.004-05:002011-06-19T17:31:00.972-05:00Object Lesson 9,568 on the Corrupting Effects of Power<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8xiXD8gpx9aRnwvZLlIVGGGg43yFE1vyvKPcTzWuuKeMazXomAZZU2uaieBhSBCYkfBqRJyrNGKkPXsqVyoWwzC8NjEhTk7_FBP3EZnkNbUiMZtIGPuogw5mMKDZueYpgilYSIA/s1600/Zawiyah+Libya.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8xiXD8gpx9aRnwvZLlIVGGGg43yFE1vyvKPcTzWuuKeMazXomAZZU2uaieBhSBCYkfBqRJyrNGKkPXsqVyoWwzC8NjEhTk7_FBP3EZnkNbUiMZtIGPuogw5mMKDZueYpgilYSIA/s1600/Zawiyah+Libya.jpg" /></a></div><div align="justify"><br />
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution" target="_blank">checks and balances</a> that underpin the federal government - the system by which each of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative" target="_blank">legislative</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_%28government%29" target="_blank">executive</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial" target="_blank">judicial</a> branches limit the power of the other two - are crucial to the continued success, however occasionally wobbly, of representative democracy in the United States. <br />
<br />
Under the <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview" target="_blank">Constitution</a>, war powers are divided between the President and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress" target="_blank">Congress</a>. Congress may declare war, raise and support military forces, control war funding and make laws necessary to carrying out armed conflict. The President, meanwhile, is commander-in-chief of the military, with the power to repel attacks against U.S. territory, responsibility for leading the armed forces, and, as with all legislative acts, the power to veto acts of Congress, including declarations of war. <br />
<br />
This fundamental structure was bolstered by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution" target="_blank">War Powers Resolution of 1973</a>, which was passed in order to further restrain the president from taking the United States without the agreement of the legislature. The Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action, and prohibits military forces from remaining in combat for more than 60 days (allowing an additional 30 days for withdrawal) unless Congress had provided an authorization for the use of military force or a declaration of war.<br />
<br />
And there's the rub. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/barack_obama" target="_blank">President Obama</a> began providing military support to rebels in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war" target="_blank">Libya</a> fighting to overthrow <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi" target="_blank">Muammar Gadaffi</a> well over two months ago, and while he <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya" target="_blank">duly informed</a> Congress of this action, there has been no authorization for the use of military force or declaration or war from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill" target="_blank">Capitol Hill</a> since. In other words, Mr. Obama's 60 days are up. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dennis_kucinich" target="_blank">Congressman Dennis Kucinich</a>, <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/7745-house-passes-weak-libya-war-resolution-defeats-one-ending-war" target="_blank">stymied</a> in his attempt to advance a resolution in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">House of Representatives</a> demanding the president end his unconstitutional involvement of American forces in Libya, is <a href="http://www.bnd.com/2011/06/15/1749495/10-congressmen-sue-obama-over.html" target="_blank">leading nine other congressmen</a> in <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/7898-kucinich-colleagues-sue-obama-over-libya-war" target="_blank">suing</a> Mr. Obama in federal court - along with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_Defense_Robert_Gates" target="_blank">Secretary of Defense Robert Gates</a> - to end the U.S. presence in Libya.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/glenn_greenwald" target="_blank">Glenn Greenwald</a> breaks down the ludicrous <i>post-hoc</i> legal contortions the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/white_house" target="_blank">White House</a> is using to try and justify our continued involvement in <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/19/libya/index.html" target="_blank"><i>The Illegal War in Libya</i></a>, but while the jurisprudence surrounding armed conflict is indeed interesting, it this paragraph that is chillingly at the heart of the reasons why unilateral presidential war-making is of such concern:<br />
<blockquote><i>It was equally clear from the start that this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian" target="_blank">Orwellian</a>-named "<a href="http://alittleleftofright.com/?p=251" target="_blank">kinetic humanitarian action</a>" was, in fact, a "war" in every sense, including the Constitutional sense, but that's especially undeniable now. While the President, in his <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52093.html#ixzz1JbuIcfBM" target="_blank">after-the-fact speech justifying the war</a>, pledged that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake," it is now clear that is exactly what is happening. "Regime change" quickly <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8452877/The-bombing-continues-until-Gaddafi-goes.html" target="_blank">became the explicit goal</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nato" target="_blank">NATO</a> has <a href="http://rt.com/news/nato-gaddafi-killing-airstrikes/" target="_blank">repeatedly sought to kill Gadaffi with bombs</a>; one attack <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-29/libyan-forces-keep-up-attacks-as-nato-shifts-to-target-qaddafi-s-troops.html" target="_blank">killed his youngest son and three grandchildren</a> and almost killed his whole family including his wife, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/19/muammar-gaddafi-family-tunisia" target="_blank">forcing them to flee to Tunisia</a>. If sending your armed forces and its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC-130" target="_blank">AC-130</a>s and drones to another country to attack that country's military and kill its leader isn't a "war," then nothing is.</i> </blockquote>In my view, that is entirely correct, and while it may well be that there are very good reasons for supporting the rebellion against Libya's longtime despot, if they're not good enough to pass muster on the Hill, then, by law and by definition, they are not good enough to justify our continued military intervention.<br />
<br />
Several years ago, Barack Obama at least purported to agree that constitutionally-unsupported military adventurism was beyond the pale. In a <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CpHR" target="_blank">speech</a> in August of 2007, then-candidate Obama laid out the principles by which he stated he would operate if he were elected to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oval_office" target="_blank">Oval Office</a>:<br />
<blockquote><i>No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fisa_court" target="_blank">FISA court</a> works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary. </i></blockquote>He followed up those broad strokes a few months later, with specifics in a <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/" target="_blank">Q&A</a> with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/boston_globe" target="_blank"><i>Boston Globe</i></a> reporter <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/charlie_savage" target="_blank">Charlie Savage</a> wherein then-candidate Obama was unequivocal in his belief that Congress must ultimately authorize long-term conflict:<br />
<blockquote><i>The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.</i><br />
<br />
<i>As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.</i></blockquote>What we are seeing with Barack Obama in office is a man not only diametrically different on the subject of war powers from the man who campaigned for the presidency, but one who has <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2010/06/long-term-dangers-of-obamas-failure-on.html" target="_blank">enshrined</a> the worst civil liberties abuses of his predecessor despite speaking out against them in the past, and a man who is now bringing an <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,768344,00.html" target="_blank">unprecendented number</a> of prosecutions against government whistleblowers.<br />
<br />
To be clear, the problem is not with the Constitution, the law or with those who expose malfeasance, as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivist" target="_blank">hacktivist</a> collective <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29" target="_blank">Anonymous</a> warned NATO in a <a href="http://youtu.be/MspXpvz6jI4" target="_blank">recent statement</a>:<br />
<blockquote><i>The government makes the law. This does not give them the right to break it. If the government was doing nothing underhand or illegal, there would be nothing "embarassing" about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks" target="_blank">Wikileaks</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_published_by_WikiLeaks" target="_blank">revelations</a>, nor would there have been any scandal emanating from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBGary" target="_blank">HBGary</a>. The resulting scandals were not a result of Anonymous' or Wikileaks' revelations, they were the result of the CONTENT of those revelations. And responsibility for that content can be laid solely at the doorstep of policymakers who, like any corrupt entity, naively believed that they were above the law and that they would not be caught.</i></blockquote>It is unclear whether or not Barack Obama was lying about his consitutional convictions on the campaign trail; it is perhaps more likely that someone or something convinced him to abandon his stated principles for the heavy-handed law-breaking and anti-civil-liberties practices of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/george_w_bush" target="_blank">George W. Bush</a>. In any case, in the end, it simply doesn't matter; the president's job is not to "protect" us, but to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">uphold the Constitution</a> - as he promised to do when he was sworn in - and even the administration's top lawyers have <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all" target="_blank">advised</a> the President that he is violating the law with regard to Libya. <br />
<br />
By continuing to maintain American military involvement in Libya without the approval of Congress, Mr. Obama is arrogating powers to himself that the foundational laws of this country do not grant him, violating his oath of office, and continuing the distractions that keep us from addressing the corruption and class warfare that continues to turn the once-proud United States into a banana republic kleptocracy for the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE" target="_blank">benefit of a few</a>.<br />
<br />
<hr align="center" style="color: #999999;" width="85%" /><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/john_mccain" target="_blank">Senator John McCain</a> today <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-mccain-chastises-2012-republican-field-isolationism/story?id=13878570" target="_blank">criticized</a> the field of 2012 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Republican</a> presidential candidates for what he termed their "isolationism" in not strongly supporting involvement in Libya. Bulletin to the senior senator from Arizona: if you want America to continue its intervention in Libya, get a declaration of war or an authorization for the use of military force. We've had enough conflict without end, and so have the troops:<br />
<br />
<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Q4y_twnvSxU?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center></div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-60220730098237134472011-06-11T11:37:00.003-05:002011-06-11T11:37:00.826-05:0044th Annual Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai International Tournament and Seminars<div align="justify"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://jkr.com/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjICj7ckIn5A2FCyAzUB7JB_NNX423TUc1la3P_zebpIHbIIk3Smo96_lNQu8B8A4TpMRKNTk2bpk4ShtPBlka_ACDfaTqBb8ZrJKF35CgVw0GLbS8btbq7a65QchCwUCG9JL8IcA/s320/JKR_Logo_-_Kanji__300dpi__Layer.jpg" width="317" /></a></div><br />
No post this week. I'm attending the <a href="http://jkr.com/">44th Annual Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai International Tournament and Seminars</a>. Time for some good clean martial arts fun!</div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-26215938638968321692011-06-05T12:37:00.003-05:002011-06-07T12:51:22.458-05:00Condemned to Repeat History<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXitr7iLfZykEZvqIFO2iA0WH3KDUNMdr3zSg_t2pDGTMxA7WV_oMgU_EStNEH6d1zInTFxDmrw47JIqI8ZOURlroQleyKtZZVhxWo0J-nBtpwkTf91oNbA5sNOvvCozh5vLCb3w/s1600/Capture.JPG" /></a></div><br />
The big economic news of the past several days has been that our current slow, jobless recovery has gotten even more sluggish, with <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE7492P720110603" target="_blank">unemployment moving back up</a> over nine percent, the stock market <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hpUylkb66hFAn87Stooi0eSkv3Gw?docId=083a960fd718499b969a69358c874db0" target="_blank">softening</a>, consumer confidence <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/43268037" target="_blank">eroding</a>, housing prices continuing to <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Business/housing-prices-double-dip-downward-spiral/story?id=13723919" target="_blank">crater</a>, and growth in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdp" target="_blank">gross domestic product (GDP)</a> <a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth" target="_blank">dropping</a> from over three percent to under two. As alarming as all of this, it should surprise no one.<br />
<br />
The reason that it should surpise no one is that the United States has been in this position before, and we are in the process of repeating the same mistakes we made then. In 1933, when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fdr" target="_blank">Franklin Roosevelt</a> became President, the economy had been languishing for years in the wake of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/great_depression" target="_blank">Great Depression</a>, which had begun under his predecessor, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/herbert_hoover" target="_blank">Herbert Hoover</a>, with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_stock_market_crash" target="_blank">stock market crash of 1929</a>. In response, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fdr" target="_blank">FDR</a> began implementing a set of programs and policies that, together, were known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal" target="_blank">New Deal</a>. The New Deal utilized government spending - particularly around infrastructure and jobs creation - to kickstart the American economy, producing results with which it was hard to argue.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiho2yzEXK1MMRpQ4q1oPefczbRHdTENxJCDpGLMrDK-PlTWMoGfWU1MpPbVlyLi45LgAfdE5pY4suG9y3NsxI35JsT-8mfL3ufmY_lSINskTe27eoezKVyP1cOvfWOQdQHHDDhWg/s1600/Great+Depression+GDP.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiho2yzEXK1MMRpQ4q1oPefczbRHdTENxJCDpGLMrDK-PlTWMoGfWU1MpPbVlyLi45LgAfdE5pY4suG9y3NsxI35JsT-8mfL3ufmY_lSINskTe27eoezKVyP1cOvfWOQdQHHDDhWg/s1600/Great+Depression+GDP.jpg" /></a>Once America's gross domestic product had surpassed pre-carsh levels, however, some of Rooselvelt's advisers advocated cutting back on New Deal initiatives, and their arguments would be familiar to anyone listening to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">GOP</a>'s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan" target="_blank">self-styled budget hawks</a> of 2011. Tremendous concern was expressed about the budget deficit, inflation and the national debt, with the result that government stimulus programs were sharply curtailed in 1937 in the name of a balanced budget. The result? One year after the U.S. GDP had climbed to a record high, it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937" target="_blank">contracted sharply</a>. The reason? The private sector had still not recovered from the damage wrought by the Great Depression, and the only player with the wherewithal to stoke the demand that drives the economy - the government - was no longer spending.<br />
<br />
In a nutshell, this is very likely what we are seeing today, and it is potentially the beginning of, if not a double-dip recession, at least stagnation. A <a href="http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/more-stimulus-please" target="_blank">number</a> of leading economists - perhaps most notably, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/paul_krugman" target="_blank">Paul Krugman</a> - have been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opinion/02krugman.html" target="_blank">saying</a> for a long time that a second stimulus package was probably needed, but that advice has been effectively buried under a blizzard of conservative opposition rooted in the belief that - despite the weight of history and basic economic principles - "<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/30/note_to_obama_only_private_sector_creates_wealth_jobs_99341.html" target="_blank">the government cannot create wealth or value; only the private sector can</a>", and therefore cannot help drive the economy.<br />
<br />
Since that maxim is so often repeated, let me in turn reiterate the necessary response: that is utter and complete nonsense. All economies - despite claims that we must do things like cut taxes so the wealthy can "creat jobs" - are driven by demand. Period. End of story. No one in the private sector - and I do mean no one - creates a job unless he believes there is a demand for whatever the output of that job happens to be. If the purchasing public doesn't have enough disposable income to buy a lot of new automobiles, no car company in the world is going to start adding to its workforce because it got a tax break and now has more cash on hand. It just doesn't happen. <br />
<br />
Don't believe me? Well, American companies are sitting on <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312104575298652567988246.html" target="_blank">more cash</a> right now than at any other time in history, but <a href="http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp" target="_blank">unemployment</a> hasn't been below 7.4% since <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/george_w_bush" target="_blank">George W. Bush</a> left office, and it's over nine percent right now. Despite being highly liquid, and despite gigantic companies like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/general_electric" target="_blank">General Electric</a> paying an effective tax rate of <a href="http://www.newser.com/story/114937/general-electric-americas-biggest-firm-pays-no-us-tax.html" target="_blank">zero</a> - yes, <i><b>zero</b></i> - private sector firms simply aren't "creating jobs." There's a very good reason for this: there isn't enough unmet demand to justify generating additional supply through hiring, and the consequences of over-staffing and creating excess capacity for a private sector company are compressed margins, losses, or even bankruptcy - none of which are desirable if you're a CEO.<br />
<br />
If private industry isn't providing jobs, the only other mechanism capable of putting money in the hands of people who will spend it is the public sector. This can be accomplished through a variety of tactics including social welfare payments, the creation of government jobs, and tax cuts. The last, however, only make sense to pursue if private sector cash reserves aren't already at record highs. Further, social welfare payments are quickly spent by their recipients - they need the money, remember - while tax cuts often result in saving or building cash reserves - as we see today - which do nothing to spark the economic engine.<br />
<br />
Additional government spending will unquestionably increase the budget deficit and the national debt in the short term, but both of those are readily addressed once demand has been reignited, consumption resumed, and taxation of that economic activity commences. Tax cuts, by contrast - even ignoring the cash currently being horded by non-job-creating "job creators" - take longer to work, and by their very nature, diminish the rate at which government debt and the budget deficit can be reduced because the government is collecting less revenue. (There are still <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50735.html" target="_blank">claims</a> made that cutting tax rates raises aggregate tax revenues - i.e. although less money is collected on each transaction or from each individual or corporation, the volume of activity makes up for that fact - but there is <a href="http://arec.oregonstate.edu/jaeger/taxation/FAQtax2.html" target="_blank">no actual data whatsoever</a> to support that contention.)<br />
<br />
So, where does that leave us? Well, until the news media, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/barack_obama" target="_blank">President Obama</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress" target="_blank">Congress</a> stop fixating on government debt and the deficit - or in the case of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">House</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Republicans</a>, pretty much <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2011/03/crisis-averted.html" target="_blank">anything <i><b>but</b></i> jobs</a> - and begin focusing on growing employment, exactly where we are today: limping along with a massive pool of unemployed workers and stagnating growth.<br />
<br />
Get used to it, America; there are strong indications we're going to be here for a while.</div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-59144526749634729702011-05-28T09:56:00.008-05:002011-05-30T13:26:53.752-05:00Home and Away<div align="justify"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosendahl/2526162196/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="432" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTTy0u88lps_xcF9uFUYWp-MS0a_qcy6JjdlRcwag_hhJUi94QNGbD8v0LaKRr4-nl_lA_3ZOqAP7bZy2v7ydYFRSl_f8Gkgn60DGiP4AxvAZTTZfwA__zJX02AqnZNCwaDqq9wQ/s640/2526162196_ed49646bd4.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_day">Memorial Day</a> weekend is traditionally regarded as the beginning of the summer season, but while barbecues, pool parties, picnics and time with family and friends are indeed wonderful things, it's important also to remember that the holiday is dedicated to the men and women who have died in service to our country. <br />
<br />
With that in mind, please take a brief moment and click on the link below to visit <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnn">CNN</a>'s excellent <a href="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html"><i>Home and Away</i></a> site, which was set up to make sure that each of the more than 6,000 U.S. and coalition soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines killed in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war">Iraq</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_war">Afghanistan</a> to date are recognized as the living, breathing individuals they once were, rather than merely faceless numbers or names on a list of the dead.<br />
<br />
Have fun this weekend, and enjoy yourselves, but please don't forget the men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice. </div><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXfESR4FvryqPtFJvJwOKlCkb6FwWxr4mu-1cMHZl0DghNXiR0KidN4bvSFGknYalqnWhZGaLW_4ySsBwGlfW4k5UhlxzEBg7nrIs6h2FYEkVAgMoNC37Na308Ds9KPngc99LR8A/s1600/CNN_WarCasualties10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXfESR4FvryqPtFJvJwOKlCkb6FwWxr4mu-1cMHZl0DghNXiR0KidN4bvSFGknYalqnWhZGaLW_4ySsBwGlfW4k5UhlxzEBg7nrIs6h2FYEkVAgMoNC37Na308Ds9KPngc99LR8A/s400/CNN_WarCasualties10.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Click image to visit CNN's <i>Home and Away</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-88981274464227164382011-05-21T10:14:00.001-05:002011-05-20T22:17:56.287-05:00Backing Bill O'Reilly in a Debate: Like Rooting for a One-Legged Man in an Ass-Kicking Contest<div align="justify"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;" target="_blank"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.billoreilly.com/poll-center" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="486" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCA3hV_gNDtj6dWklJGzFmRnatvahsPZFA7CCc2UrhLx6V8DqqhpTTIE8ELNCgD_M-v6-uAk2A0jiRXo3KB7uvgTxQypWMnpOX1YBKHwSEga0a157uHu6sJCTrWiyIsAQMqTuCtA/s640/OReilly-PollResults.JPG" width="380" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Click image to visit the Bill O'Reilly Poll Center.</i><br />
<i>The Jon Stewart poll can be found in the archive for May 16, 2011</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>Last week, I <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-fox-news-channel-idiocy.html" target="_blank">noted</a> that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jon_stewart" target="_blank">Jon Stewart</a> had <a href="http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=647075&affid=fb" target="_blank">accepted</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_%28political_commentator%29" target="_blank">Bill O'Reilly</a>'s invitation to debate the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_%28rapper%29#White_House_Controversy" target="_blank">faux controversy</a> over rapper <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_%28rapper%29" target="_blank">Common</a>'s invitation to a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/white_house" target="_blank">White House</a> poetry slam. Mr. Stewart had earlier <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-fox-news-channel-idiocy.html" target="_blank">completely shredded</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel" target="_blank">Fox News Channel</a>'s choreographed hissy fit, and revealed it for the foolish manufactured outrage it was. My hope was that, given what appeared to be genuine frustration on the part of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_show" target="_blank"><i>Daily Show</i></a> host, there would be some fireworks, and Mr. Stewart didn't disappoint.<br />
<br />
The "debate" on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Reilly_Factor" target="_blank"><i>The O'Reilly Factor</i></a> was over pretty much within minutes. Mr. O'Reilly tried moving the goal posts several times, but was countered by a persistent, fact-based, cohesive argument that left him nowhere to go. While he certainly didn't concede anything - he never does - he quickly tried to avoid further embarrassment by abruptly shifting to questions designed to try and paint Mr. Stewart as representing the "far left". How bad was it for the <i>Factor</i> host? He invited the audience to vote on who had the more persuasive argument, and 79% of his own viewers came out against him.<br />
<br />
Enjoy...<br />
<br />
<center><script src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4698767&w=535&h=315" type="text/javascript">
</script><noscript>Watch the latest video at &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="http://video.foxnews.com"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;video.foxnews.com&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;</noscript></center></div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-60337293302442862072011-05-15T14:11:00.003-05:002011-05-20T22:08:45.421-05:00More Fox News Channel Idiocy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_%28rapper%29" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmXujhRlcEbOyBVUoL7KnnVH1_7MFkyG1lZkQKRQ5iSTawHkkfxXVfZbmGvKMYwkHghWkWt11xlYolAavfSfUd-R-_RkAp3F6ROARQcuM9FSMldsAVfv23Jmi17a6yeaF84tz1qg/s1600/Rapper-Common-act-on-movie.jpg" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The news of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden" target="_blank">Osama bin Laden</a>'s <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/01/national/main20058777.shtml" target="_blank">death</a> at the hands of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAL" target="_blank">U.S. Navy SEAL</a> team appears to have driven the <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2010/04/if-fox-news-had-existed-throughout.html" target="_blank">hacks</a> at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel" target="_blank">FOX News Channel</a> to new heights of <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2010/11/fox-news-and-glen-beck-still-digging.html" target="_blank">ridiculousness</a> in their quest to deflate the <a href="http://people-press.org/2011/05/03/public-relieved-by-bin-ladens-death-obamas-job-approval-rises/" target="_blank">surge</a> in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/barack_obama" target="_blank">President Obama</a>'s popularity. Exhibit A was the thoroughly ginned-up <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/transcript/should-controversial-rapper-common-have-been-invited-white-house" target="_blank">faux controversy</a> over First Lady <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_obama" target="_blank">Michelle Obama</a>'s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_%28rapper%29#White_House_Controversy" target="_blank">invitation</a> to rapper and poet <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_%28rapper%29" target="_blank">Common</a> to participate in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/white_house" target="_blank">White House</a> poetry reading, with virtually every single talking head on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_murdoch" target="_blank">Rupert Murdoch</a>'s propaganda network churning themselves into self-righteous fits of indignation in which they described Common as everything from an anti-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/george_w_bush" target="_blank">George W. Bush</a> zealot to someone who favors violence in general and cop-killing in particular.<br />
<br />
The only problem? Well, if you guessed that the Common was pretty much the exact opposite of his portrayal by the likes of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sean_hannity" target="_blank">Sean Hannity</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/karl_rove" target="_blank">Karl Rove</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_%28political_commentator%29" target="_blank">Bill O'Reilly</a>, you may not be a genius, but you're certainly familiar with the <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2010/06/with-apologies-to-snl-this-just-in-fox.html" target="_blank">awfulness of FOX News</a>.<br />
<br />
Normally, this is the type of thing that makes someone like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_show" target="_blank"><i>The Daily Show</i></a> host <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jon_stewart" target="_blank">Jon Stewart</a> happy; his job just gets easier when other people essentially write his material. This time seems a little different, however, as, after utterly destroying the FOX News smear efforts and calling it what it was: a desperate, sloppy, hypocritcal attempt to tear down the president by any means available, Mr. Stewart seems genuinely frustrated at the lows to which FOX has sunk. Bill O'Reilly invited him to debate the Common "controversy" on his show, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Reilly_Factor" target="_blank"><i>The O'Reilly Factor</i></a>, and the fact that Mr. Stewart <a href="http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=647075&affid=fb" target="_blank">accepted</a> may well indicate fireworks to come.<br />
<br />
One can only hope he will do to O'Reilly what he <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE" target="_blank">did</a> to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank"><i>Crossfire</i></a>...</div><br />
<hr align="center" style="color: #999999;" width="85%" /><br />
<center><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:386067" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed></center><br />
<br />
<center><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:386068" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed></center>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-53753770084687108792011-05-08T14:03:00.016-05:002011-05-08T20:22:53.791-05:00Punishing Worker Success Doesn't Count<div align="justify"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2011/05/obama-and-the-earthers/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="588" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYILaKZ-lQ_Wy3MDbMvdyTeI_bx4piGeLJgWp54m74z6J6JkTYPzs82S8nPQeP2EQ9Rg63bMeZcYMMNS_hPlNJqmBH1uqL-OMj2JQlnCWfdtY-JZS6AaG9z5A8htbE9hZa3lT_bQ/s640/story.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Admittedly a little dated now that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama" target="_blank">President Obama</a> has <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-04-27-obama-birth-certificate_n.htm?csp=34news" target="_blank">released</a> his long form birth certificate, but... well, you get the point.</span></i></div><br />
As the political and media classes continue to focus on the deficit rather than on creating jobs - or in the case of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Republicans</a> in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">House</a>, on ways to <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/republicans-re-introduce-forcible-rape/" target="_blank">redefine rape</a> to make it harder for women to obtain an abortion - there are essentially two methodologies for closing the budget gap under consideration, albeit with strikingly different levels of attention.<br />
<br />
The first, represented by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">GOP</a> <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2011/04/forget-politics-numbers-dont-add-up.html" target="_blank">budget proposal</a> from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wisconsin" target="_blank">Wisconsin</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan" target="_blank">Congressman Paul Ryan</a>, focuses on cutting government outlays by slashing social programs - while leaving defense spending untouched, no less - and claims reducing taxes further for the richest Americans will somehow create jobs, wealth and a larger tax base. The second, represented by pretty much nobody with much power to do anything, centers on increasing revenues through tax increases on the wealthy.<br />
<br />
Over the last 30 years, the top marginal tax rate has been cut and cut again, all in service to the ideology embodied by the Ryan plan, and the top tax bracket is now the lowest it has been in eighty years. As a result, we have a substantial amount of data to use in evaluating these two approaches.<br />
<br />
First, let's look at the history of the higest marginal tax rate. As one can see, during the birth and growth of the American middle class in the first thirty years of the post-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II" target="_blank">World War II</a> era, the top bracket was at 70% or higher, and during the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/eisenhower" target="_blank">Eisenhower Administration</a>, it was over ninety percent: <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="508" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH2cGDlgLMrYr9rZWX4alMtXxcRJokh8AKGlMd0z34bWQo7xckUOVrT2qrsDE2HNfddFdsQvjYkcdvXqHfVL8M09bPUWV2ajBLFoVwUYNodpwcCpQ3FfuJLYjmqaf5ioh2fL3AIw/s640/taxthresh3.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />
With the election of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ronald_reagan" target="_blank">Ronald Reagan</a> to the presidency in 1980, policy changed drastically behind the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ronald_reagan" target="_blank">Gipper</a>'s <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/80debates/cart4.html" target="_blank">pledge</a> to "take government off the backs of the people." Nobody likes to pay taxes, and that sounded great, especially when pretty much every one of us can share anecdotes of government malfeasance, bureacratic stupidity, or seemingly arbitrary decisions from on-high. Since then, it has become an article of faith that government is always incompetent, universally inferior to the private sector, and incapable of maximizing our success as a nation.<br />
<br />
So what's been the result of this change in philosophy and policy? As it happens, it has turned out pretty wretchedly for almost everybody. Yes, there were boom periods, but there were tremendous busts as well, and what we've been left with is a <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2010/07/land-of-greatly-diminished-opportunity.html" target="_blank">plutocracy</a> that has been institutionalized to funnel money from those with lower incomes to those with increasingly vast wealth.<br />
<br />
If that sounds strident, the data shows otherwise. In the years between World War II and Mr. Reagan's election, each year could generally be counted on to be better than the last with regard to wages. The rich were still much richer than the poor, but everybody's lot was improving fairly constantly, and in much the same way; it was a classic example of a rising tide lifting all boats. By contrast, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reganomics" target="_blank">Reaganomics</a> ushered in our current era, in which the wealthy have continued getting wealthy, but everyone else's growth curve has dropped off considerably:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOmimXTmmGEU57o53GECsDZ9xava8sPNH8lJ22VghE1q1r5f9Awpw6rLPTGi-UXkImKKutLv25z81pMhsPM6AmUj47glwWpNq-iXwLrYC4I-1Hz1MvHywaTRSJeYwKILLsraTpuA/s1600/fig5_FamIncomeRel1975.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="464" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOmimXTmmGEU57o53GECsDZ9xava8sPNH8lJ22VghE1q1r5f9Awpw6rLPTGi-UXkImKKutLv25z81pMhsPM6AmUj47glwWpNq-iXwLrYC4I-1Hz1MvHywaTRSJeYwKILLsraTpuA/s640/fig5_FamIncomeRel1975.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
What happened? Did the economy stop growing? On the contrary, in the years following World War II, United States <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product" target="_blank">gross domestic product (GDP)</a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOfEQpvA8u8UYpzFrNjGGqxet8JRzTguBypledtK8QhCjg3lGZ6a9201UaWeJN_-fUsw7E_sOlz78Gci9kF6GUM9eBmo1GweoN1E_wbmjEimjqw3S0pN-9Zm9DeiBaMPtVmW14qg/s1600/gdp-msn.gif" target="_blank">climbed steadily</a>, it's just that with the introduction of the tax-cuts-solve-everything-mentality, earnings for most people didn't didn't go up with it. This wage repression is even more startling when one understands that the growth in GDP was fueled by ever-better productivity from American workers.<br />
<br />
Up until the late 1970s, the growth in real wages grew alongside that steady rise in productivity, but after President Reagan took office, real wages actually <i><b>declined</b></i> for 20 years, and we transformed from a country in which the results of everyone's hard work were shared, to one where people were producing more than they ever had before but actually making <i><b>less</b></i> money than they used to: <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhIiAoQ9ZS2t4vVVNjIrtift_HXDhRdbpioBVCWDPfpqlfYC-7KAQCsO70eNWwB3eJy6vgUt2DcMcF7rn8KG2LriZv60olcOQBFyFpCXG5dNpxG1O4ChP7owR8YMrXeB7DBTXBCw/s1600/fig1_ProdWages.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="408" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhIiAoQ9ZS2t4vVVNjIrtift_HXDhRdbpioBVCWDPfpqlfYC-7KAQCsO70eNWwB3eJy6vgUt2DcMcF7rn8KG2LriZv60olcOQBFyFpCXG5dNpxG1O4ChP7owR8YMrXeB7DBTXBCw/s640/fig1_ProdWages.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
To put it more <a href="http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/171" target="_blank">precisely</a>, from 1950 through 1980, the share of total income in the U.S. going to all but the richest increased from 64 percent to 65 percent, and since the country's economy was expanding steadily, the average income for the bottom 90% of American wage earners grew, as well. Over that period, that 90% saw their pay balloon 75%, exploding from $17,719 to $30,941, as measured in constant 2008 dollars.<br />
<br />
Since then, however, although our economy has continued to grow, only a small fraction of the population at the very top has benefitted. In the years after 1980, the average income for the bottom 90% went from $30,941 to just $31,244. That's right; after posting an increase of more than $13,000 from 1950 to 1980, from 1980 to 2008, income for all but the top 10% rose just a tick over $300. Something drastic and deeply unfair had clearly occurred between those two periods, and that something is the now-ingrained belief that tax cuts are always a good thing.<br />
<br />
Worse, the tragic side effect of this new inequity was that as workers made less money in real dollars, they were unable to save as much as they had in the past, putting them on much shakier financial ground, and leading directly to widespread over-leveraging, perhaps best exemplified by the recent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_crisis" target="_blank">mortgage crisis</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhJf4on6Ov54oReScl1pvfTS89tI-ZSqO1IU_wqXunaaxfNknZu6bGIYFc3XvlE6eHDfGIlc4CsietdcFhlmkH2-Ye8FsmSPxpjrWnJW8lIaXvLTr62K81TSu656Slc8uLBsUDVA/s1600/fig3_Savings.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhJf4on6Ov54oReScl1pvfTS89tI-ZSqO1IU_wqXunaaxfNknZu6bGIYFc3XvlE6eHDfGIlc4CsietdcFhlmkH2-Ye8FsmSPxpjrWnJW8lIaXvLTr62K81TSu656Slc8uLBsUDVA/s640/fig3_Savings.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
Gross domestic product grew - as it also grew under more progressive taxation - but that expansion has served as a smoke screen for some very real and destructive changes in American society. GDP is a <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2009/01/gdp-smokescreen.html" target="_blank">terrible measure</a> of a nation's well being; it cares only for the aggregate number, and nothing about what underpins it. If our <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html" target="_blank">2010 GDP</a> of $14.72 trillion were divided equally among <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html" target="_blank">all</a> 313 million Americans, the way our country looks and functions would be much different than if 1 person held $14.71 trillion, and the remaining $10 billion was apportioned among everyone else. Gross domestic product, however, would look exactly the same.<br />
<br />
And, that's where we are today: Minimal savings, working harder than we ever have before for less money, and with steadily increasing disparity in the rewards we can expect. As a country, we continue to flog the dead horse that tax cuts are the engine for society-wide growth, when even a casual glance at a few simple graphs makes it piercingly obvious that that is utter, complete nonsense without a shred of data to support it. <br />
<br />
Simply put, in conjunction with meaningful efforts to reduce waste, it's high time to raise taxes on upper income brackets to help get the country back on its feet. Such a declaraion will inevitably engender cries that we are "punishing success," but the truth of the matter is that we are already punishing success for the vast majority of Americans; one look at the rise in productivity versus the rise in wages is all you need to know that's a fact.<br />
<br />
Progessive taxation is, counter-intuitive though it might be, an engine for growth. It creates an incentive for people to re-invest their money so the government can't get it, rather than to engage in the profit-taking and hording we see today. If that sounds incredible, it isn't, but understanding this requires being prepared to draw conslusions from data rather than trying to fit facts into a predetermined worldview. Investigating what has actually happened in the age of Reaganomics reveals some <a href="http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106410/tax_cuts%3A_the_b.s._and_the_facts/?page=entire" target="_blank">very startling things</a>:<br />
<ul><li>Large income tax cuts are followed by a bubble and then a crash.</li>
<li>High income taxes correlate with economic growth.</li>
<li>Income tax increases are followed by economic growth.</li>
<li>Moderate income tax cuts are followed by a flat economy.</li>
<li>All of this is especially true as applied to the top tax rates, the amount paid on income that exceeds the highest bracket.</li>
</ul>There is a vast and sensible middle ground in which some people pay more to create an environment in which everyone has a better shot at success, and such an environment is crucial to avoiding the stagnation of our society and encouraging upward mobility. Success <i><b>should</b></i> be rewarded, but the plain fact is that, for most people, right now, it simply isn't.<br />
<br />
<hr align="center" style="color: #999999;" width="85%" /><br />
One of the most predicted side effects of raising taxes is that wealthy "job creators" will simply pick up and leave, whether that be to another city, another state or even another country. Unfortunately for those making that claim, a new <a href="http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/Migration_PERI_April13.pdf" target="_blank">study</a> (PDF) by researchers at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Massachusetts_Amherst" target="_blank">University of Massachusetts at Amherst</a>, reveals that that is simply not true. Certainly, some small number of people relocate to gain more favorable tax positions, but their number is insignificant and the vast majority simply do not move when taxes go up.</div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-51529564709508724372011-04-29T21:23:00.003-05:002011-04-29T21:50:54.741-05:00Gilded Age v2.0<div align="justify"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvYukgmil521xu8m_Y64YQHnia8E9RJUrgfhpiz35HM5BDEoqJVjGpSA1bqRkUuRhA-m5TomvXOKqevVzU_lgJaDEFnA-tzskiNwGTvmJYLs0FziShpCA86QZPJ1O7avc4sy7E2A/s1600/corporate_flag-1033.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="512" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvYukgmil521xu8m_Y64YQHnia8E9RJUrgfhpiz35HM5BDEoqJVjGpSA1bqRkUuRhA-m5TomvXOKqevVzU_lgJaDEFnA-tzskiNwGTvmJYLs0FziShpCA86QZPJ1O7avc4sy7E2A/s640/corporate_flag-1033.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
This week, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">Supreme Court</a> handed down a 5-4 <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-class-action-20110428,0,4701430.story" target="_blank">decision</a> in <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_v._Concepcion" target="_blank">AT&T Mobility v Concepcion</a></i> that protects certain types of corporate wrongdoing from class action lawsuits by consumers. As with <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission" target="_blank">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</a></i>, it represents yet another blow to the rights of citizens, and one more step forward in what has clearly become a concerted effort to consolidate corporate power to the detriment of the individual.<br />
<br />
<i>Citizens United</i> held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in elections cannot be limited, effectively giving those with the deepest pockets the loudest voice. <i>AT&T Mobility</i>, meanwhile, essentially permits companies to break the law, as long as they only do it a little bit at a time. Specifically, this finding allows corporations to use consumer and <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304117722_3" target="_blank">employment contracts</span> to take away customer rights to join <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action" target="_blank">class-action lawsuits</a>. What this means is that, if you sign a contract with a service provider, and that company mistreats you, your only path of redress is through arbitration. You cannot join other customers who have experienced the same problem in a class action to address what may be widespread, programmatic negligence, or even criminal activity.<br />
<br />
Imagine, for instance, that your phone company illegally charges you and one million other customers $10 a piece. The company is now $10 million richer, but under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, the company can use an arbitration “agreement” hidden in the depths of the contract you signed with them to prohibit you from working with other customers to hold the firm accountable for its actions. The fact is that almost no one has the time, the money or the expertise to take on an enormous corporation over ten dollars - or $100 or even $1,000 for that matter - and since customers must work separately to address this problem, the company is basically protected from having its widespread malfeasance stopped or even exposed.<br />
<br />
Even if one considers <i>AT&T Mobility</i> a relatively small thing on its own (I don't), the fact remains that we are, by <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2010/07/land-of-greatly-diminished-opportunity.html" target="_blank">all manner of measure</a>, witnessing a return to the worst excesses of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age" target="_blank">Gilded Age</a>. But where that period also saw the rise of unions in response to the untrammeled might of private, moneyed interests, todays titans of industry have been undermining their union counterweights in a three decades-long assault that is now reaching a fever pitch. In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/new_jersey" target="_blank">New Jersey</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">GOP</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie" target="_blank">Governor Chris Christie</a> has been <a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/afl-cio-nj-s-christie-used-60-minutes-plat" target="_blank">attacking unions</a> for some time now; in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ohio" target="_blank">Ohio</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Republican</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich" target="_blank">Governor John Kasich</a> has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/us/31ohio.html" target="_blank">signed</a> anti-union legislation; his fellow party member, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan" target="_blank">Michigan</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Snyder" target="_blank">Governor Rick Snyder</a>, has done <a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/105735/michigan-gop-pushes-anti-union-right-to-work-legislation" target="_blank">the same</a> and is now wielding <a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/maddow-republican-michigan-governor-thinks-d" target="_blank">flagrantly anti-democratic power</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida" target="_blank">Florida</a>'s Republican <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott" target="_blank">chief executive</a> is <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/29/2191770/fla-gov-scotts-anti-union-bill.html" target="_blank">pursuing</a> the same course; and most famously, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin" target="_blank">Wisconsin</a>'s GOP <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Walker_%28politician%29" target="_blank">Governor Scott Walker</a> has made crushing unions his <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20042122-503544.html" target="_blank">primary focus</a>. Meanwhile, in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/maine" target="_blank">Maine</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement" target="_blank">Tea Party</a>-backed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_LePage" target="_blank">Governor Paul LePage</a> is working to <a href="http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/04/28/child_labor_in_maine/index.html" target="_blank">loosen restrictions on child labor</a>, and of course, going after unions.<br />
<br />
At the same time, Republicans in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">House of Representatives</a> have put forth a <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2011/04/forget-politics-numbers-dont-add-up.html" target="_blank">budget bill</a> that would lower taxes on the wealthiest, end <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Medicare</a> as a defined benefit program, expand taxes on the middle class, and maintain or grow what can only be described as our current <a href="http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/us_vs_world.gif" target="_blank">insane levels</a> of defense spending. How out of whack, how tilted away from the needs of Americans and toward the aims of arms manufacturers and defense contractors are our current priorities? So misaligned, in fact, that two men serving under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff" target="_blank">Joint Chiefs of Staff</a> <a href="http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/25/what-in-the-world-the-militarys-secret-plan-to-shrink/" target="_blank">wrote</a> <i><a href="http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/A%20National%20Strategic%20Narrative.pdf" target="_blank">A National Strategic Narrative</a></i> (PDF), which brings us the remarkable sight of military personnel calling attention to the fact that the United States spends far too much on the military at the expense of everything else:<br />
<blockquote><i>The term “national security” only entered the foreign policy lexicon after 1947 to reflect the merger of defense and foreign affairs. Today our security lies as much or more in our prosperity as in our military capabilities. Our vocabulary, our institutions, and our assumptions must reflect that shift. “National security” has become a trump card, justifying military spending even as the domestic foundations of our national strength are crumbling. “National prosperity and security” reminds us where our true security begins. </i></blockquote>There are signs that, having played a patient game of attrition for years, corporatists in the United States may have become impatient enough that, their goals in sight, they have begun overplaying their hand. House Republicans are facing <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/politics/27congress.html" target="_blank">anger among their consistuents</a>, and organized labor - particularly in the public sector - has won <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01/polls-more-support-for-unions-in-wisconsin-labor-battle/" target="_blank">enormous support</a> in the wake of the anti-union actions of <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/120331509.html" target="_blank">demonstrably corrupt</a> hacks like Wisconsin's Walker, but it has taken a long time for Americans to <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2011/04/is-america-finally-waking-up.html" target="_blank">begin waking up</a> to the bill of goods they have been - and are being - sold. So far, there has been little sustained, organized resistance.<br />
<br />
Make no mistake, this attack on individual rights to meet the needs of corproations and the richest among us is a <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2011/03/out-of-equilibrium.html" target="_blank">concerted, sustained phenomenon</a>, one that lurked beneath the surface of American society for decades and that began gathering momentum after World War II, picked up steam with the presidency of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_reagan" target="_blank">Ronald Reagan</a>, grew into full-throated song in the wake <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/george_w_bush" target="_blank">George W. Bush</a>'s misrule, and continues today. It's got to be stopped.<br />
<br />
<hr align="center" style="color: #999999;" width="85%" /><br />
Excerpts from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower" target="_blank">President Dwight D. Eisenhower</a>'s <a href="http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm" target="_blank">farewell address</a>, in which he remarks specifically and forcefully about the dangers of combined military and economic power:<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8y06NSBBRtY?rel=0" width="480"></iframe></center><br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show" target="_blank"><i>The Daily Show</i></a>'s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart" target="_blank">Jon Stewart</a> explores the pitfalls of <i>Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission</i>:<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="293" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:262682" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="436"></embed></center></div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-5961834742787789892011-04-23T16:34:00.004-05:002011-04-23T17:52:54.084-05:00Is America Finally Waking Up?<div align="justify"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://comics.com/candorville/2011-04-23/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFibsc2XIpkt65Vip_kj6PTkAc4COAh0n69XAHb2emqVyk6KuJfDXgE0pGp0uiI4jRDFLd5VB4CNeIWr8RToXNNyLtM0nu1u9xOwC_Ryn1Bgm7SgY4PgHjsUR989HTYoSXv8um0A/s640/362509.full.gif" width="640" /></a></div><br />
As the battle over the 2012 federal budget continues to heat up, a variety of interesting and important things have taken place; some publicly trumpeted as terribly important, and others less well-observed.<br />
<br />
The item that has perhaps most dominated the news cycle in recent days has been, of course, the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110418-711068.html" target="_blank">downgrading</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_bonds#Treasury_bond" target="_blank">U.S. Treasury Bonds</a> from "stable" to "negative" by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street" target="_blank">Wall Street</a> ratings firm <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_and_Poor%27s" target="_blank">Standard & Poor</a>'s, followed quickly by <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-18/standard-poor-s-puts-negative-outlook-on-u-s-aaa-rating.html" target="_blank">warnings</a> from the company that America could even lose its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_credit_rating" target="_blank">AAA rating</a>. (A threat on which S&P <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sp-cuts-us-ratings-outlook-to-negative-2011-04-18-91500" target="_blank">did not make good</a>.) Much I-told-you-so clucking ensued from the chattering classes, but what went largely ignored outside the financial press was that the effect this announcement produced among investors was anything but sobering.<br />
<br />
After a quick climb in interest rates - the result one would expect if U.S. debt is now, in fact, riskier - the 10-year rate on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_bonds#Treasury_bond" target="_blank">T-bills</a> continued heading south, indicating - if anything - growing confidence in treasury bonds as a safe investment. Even leaving aside the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/14/rating-agencies-financial-crisis_n_849410.html" target="_blank">rank failure</a> of ratings agencies to do anything approaching a good job in the years leading up to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Economic_Meltdown" target="_blank">2008 financial crisis</a>, the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/bonds/2011-04-19-investors-love-treasury-bonds.htm" target="_blank">reaction</a> of the people actually investing their money is a far better indicator of expected performance than any pronouncement from the deservedly maligned Standard & Poor's. As <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/paul_krugman" target="_blank">Paul Krugman</a> <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/poor-standards/" target="_blank">put it</a>, "... this was a non-event."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNXhC__Tk81rWGbhWbolqdL7n3lppgLw660LP8MAFOxP2b3EsFbFVV_TUlRTxzTSYjG_t43-TyJ4NpOQfEk9ffn1F2ArhfTJB_nDRkhKAbJHIebeujHY0Zbk1LGzWRr2WBhklt-A/s1600/10year_s%2526p.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNXhC__Tk81rWGbhWbolqdL7n3lppgLw660LP8MAFOxP2b3EsFbFVV_TUlRTxzTSYjG_t43-TyJ4NpOQfEk9ffn1F2ArhfTJB_nDRkhKAbJHIebeujHY0Zbk1LGzWRr2WBhklt-A/s1600/10year_s%2526p.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Perhaps an even more surprising break from the established narrative, however - if even less reported - are the results of a number of surveys concerning the manner in which the American public wants its government to address our current financial situation. As we moved into 2010, there was already a <a href="http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/04/why_its_so_hard_to_cut_the_fed.html" target="_blank">broad disconnect</a> between the spending most Americans wanted to cut from the budget, and the significance of the impact such cuts would have on overall spending:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8mPvjImWLLEfmc9AZgC8dhPK9r1_hzGVRikZZaeaj55VgMDWNIxnpSEW7fDaVFVjUzjd5tf4WZogGmuCfpUIv5aLo5YSvBs_mkVfnGgiw4l3HA5YXFpEEg29197QlkF1NrFCBvQ/s1600/tp_vs_reality.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="465" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8mPvjImWLLEfmc9AZgC8dhPK9r1_hzGVRikZZaeaj55VgMDWNIxnpSEW7fDaVFVjUzjd5tf4WZogGmuCfpUIv5aLo5YSvBs_mkVfnGgiw4l3HA5YXFpEEg29197QlkF1NrFCBvQ/s640/tp_vs_reality.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />
That <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0411/Poll_Americans_way_off_on_public_broadcasting_funding.html" target="_blank">ignorance of actual budget priorities</a> has continued, and was most recently <a href="http://daryllang.com/blog/5055" target="_blank">best exemplified</a> by the hue and cry over federal funding for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/npr" target="_blank">National Public Radio (NPR)</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEMETlNv21F7AtsLkto2nRRiHcRggk3fAC6BnMPSdXwkhg2B41SsO_OKzAwgeo4NTFGkfWtaybJtsd4PwzljVpDVweE1iwdPZ5nEhuG0yvqRIRkiaEpd-hZ3ZmWmyrsejSJnCynQ/s1600/publicradiospending.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEMETlNv21F7AtsLkto2nRRiHcRggk3fAC6BnMPSdXwkhg2B41SsO_OKzAwgeo4NTFGkfWtaybJtsd4PwzljVpDVweE1iwdPZ5nEhuG0yvqRIRkiaEpd-hZ3ZmWmyrsejSJnCynQ/s640/publicradiospending.png" width="464" /></a></div><br />
Nonetheless, despite the yawning chasm between general public perception of federal spending and actual budget realities, some very interesting trends can still be discerned from new polling. A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/washington_post" target="_blank"><i>Washington Post</i></a>/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/abc_news" target="_blank">ABC News</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-shows-americans-oppose-entitlement-cuts-to-deal-with-debt-problem/2011/04/19/AFoiAH9D_story.html" target="_blank">survey</a> from April 19th revealed that not only is the prospect of combining spending cuts with tax increases gaining traction, fully 72% of Americans believe taxes on those making $250,000 or more a year should be raised as one element of any plan to reduce the deficit. Likewise, two-thirds agreed that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Medicare</a> should remain a defined benefit program, rather than a voucher-driven initiatve subject to market forces, as <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2011/04/forget-politics-numbers-dont-add-up.html" target="_blank">proposed</a> by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Republicans</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQH92LzGVcDSQPBzHhVBjInXIhqEKsSELM1wHPG-YSROONd8WtI2ZVBFugLV6tKRvi6VZQaTwixxPWxm5i3pRPRBRIPg-mLnENaa3mwo8FofnKxlNQqoEsXSbiilA4TJ2D1uumDA/s1600/Capture.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQH92LzGVcDSQPBzHhVBjInXIhqEKsSELM1wHPG-YSROONd8WtI2ZVBFugLV6tKRvi6VZQaTwixxPWxm5i3pRPRBRIPg-mLnENaa3mwo8FofnKxlNQqoEsXSbiilA4TJ2D1uumDA/s1600/Capture.JPG" /></a></div><br />
Further, albeit with markedly less precise wording, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/new_york_times" target="_blank"><i>New York Times</i></a>/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cbs_news" target="_blank">CBS News</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/popular_taxes_on_the_rich_defense_cuts_unpopular_everything_else/2011/04/13/AFzJ2cOE_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein" target="_blank">poll</a> from last Friday revealed lower support for raising taxes in general, but again found that 72% of all adults would increase the taxes paid by those making more than $250,000 a year. Even more arresting is the fact that a majority of Republicans questioned feel this way:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSjrQud_KceVyeIHkSkR9Qvu-wqqVWPK8QAalDqvfooAl33fOGBwDnVwPgUTbbXM-xt5zSRzyh9NTOoo5yi3f7jvxBCsjb1ovMash4Po6OVjZRUE1cU4qJTUHqvMkqXFS0eKLiDg/s1600/Capture.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank" width:500px=""><img border="0" height="491" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSjrQud_KceVyeIHkSkR9Qvu-wqqVWPK8QAalDqvfooAl33fOGBwDnVwPgUTbbXM-xt5zSRzyh9NTOoo5yi3f7jvxBCsjb1ovMash4Po6OVjZRUE1cU4qJTUHqvMkqXFS0eKLiDg/s640/Capture.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br />
More worrying still for movement conservatives is the fact that a clear majority of all adults who took part in the <i>Times</i> poll again believe that government has a role to play in providing health care to the poor and the elderly, with even members of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">GOP</a> solidly behind federal involvement in medical care for seniors:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbu9ULrgRaQDVugRPXFJhe3dIOfdDvQVuEmCxBPPdHqTEEgxKtzfcwcZQ3kAL5Y5QFPytNt1l2HUKYkX7gMb4ThPJ5kDdLKGrCrIXnEAzNAV8oaqm0hD1wKKsssOY2KpXhT1KSuQ/s1600/healthresponsibility-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank" width:500px=""><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbu9ULrgRaQDVugRPXFJhe3dIOfdDvQVuEmCxBPPdHqTEEgxKtzfcwcZQ3kAL5Y5QFPytNt1l2HUKYkX7gMb4ThPJ5kDdLKGrCrIXnEAzNAV8oaqm0hD1wKKsssOY2KpXhT1KSuQ/s640/healthresponsibility-1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
And if all that weren't enough to have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/paul_ryan" target="_blank">Paul Ryan</a> tossing and turning in his bed at night, not only was it revealed that the Wisconsin GOP budget hawk - who frequently blames "entitlements" for the country's fiscal woes - had <a href="http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol19No2/Schneider19.2.html" target="_blank">received significant benefits</a> from Social Security as a child, but a third <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/poll-70-of-tea-partiers-oppose-cuts-to-medicare-medicaid.php" target="_blank">poll</a> from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McClatchy_News_Service" target="_blank">McClatchy</a>/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marist_College" target="_blank">Marist</a> also shows strong opposition to cuts in Medicare and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid" target="_blank">Medicaid</a> from all points on the political spectrum. Fully 80% of the McClatchy poll respondents are against reducing Medicare and Medicaid to close the deficit gap, as are - somewhat astoundingly, given their anti-government rhetoric - 70% of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement" target="_blank">Tea Party</a> supporters.<br />
<br />
What does all this mean? It's probably premature to draw fully-formed conclusions, but there are strong indications that not only have Republicans in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">House of Representatives</a> badly miscalculated with their <a href="http://swampland.time.com/2011/04/15/house-passes-ryans-budget-in-party-line-vote/" target="_blank">passage</a> of the Ryan budget proposal, but that Americans are starting to wake up to the extremist ideology at the heart of modern GOP leadership. It would be nice to think that realization stems from compassion, but the reality is that things have gotten so bad on such a broad basis that almost everyone either has firsthand experience of the economic downturn, or knows someone close to them who has. <br />
<br />
As <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/barack_obama" target="_blank">President Obama</a> recently <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/04/obama-republican-budget-plan-is-radical/1" target="_blank">said</a>, "Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless, or don’t have any lobbyists, or don’t have clout. I don’t think that’s particularly courageous." For whatever reason, more Americans seem to be realizing that, and that fact is - perhaps, just maybe, hopefully - indicative of better things to come.</div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-39899531977048476422011-04-16T16:33:00.000-05:002011-04-16T16:33:56.778-05:00Back Soon<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfw11HsFiquWLe9U8IiX4syQxmOrHTRLQUjFlgB__8VS7ClHo4duRaamcbpAimKIToFw15Nekv-p73KGGHpjtulJo-HyHyWB4HVMuGFSaRB1gNEwlqJfv15cWEjDXb6EoJOnz05A/s1600/back-soon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="388" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfw11HsFiquWLe9U8IiX4syQxmOrHTRLQUjFlgB__8VS7ClHo4duRaamcbpAimKIToFw15Nekv-p73KGGHpjtulJo-HyHyWB4HVMuGFSaRB1gNEwlqJfv15cWEjDXb6EoJOnz05A/s400/back-soon.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">It's been a high-stress couple of weeks at work, and I do not have either the energy or the focus for blogging at the moment. Back soon!</div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-40948186918939059282011-04-09T20:58:00.007-05:002011-04-10T11:45:30.944-05:00Forget the Politics, the Numbers Don't Add Up<div align="justify"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlYtjcXjOlCYz3abuCp7U3clxDYzSnn4FBZLmJPMAVCtorEF-rssAWUDi9TXwpcD1PDj-FKmIIIPd9-HLo8uoq0zLssl2dWTKiO7L2QZHc_zQsz1d4Q9oDVtgD6rxjWZhluSO_gQ/s1600/420x316-alg_paul-ryan.jpg" /></a></div>Late Friday night, a budget compromise was <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/04/09/shutdown_averted_after_furious_push_with_deal_for_39b_in_cuts/" target="_blank">finally reached</a> between the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/white_house" target="_blank">White House</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">Senate</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Democrats</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">GOP</a>-held <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives" target="_blank">House of Representatives</a>. The result was more than $38 billion in cuts for fiscal 2011, and the political brinksmanship involved in hammering out this agreement just barely avoided a shutdown of the government. While federal workers and military personnel breathed a sigh of relief - and hardcore right wing policy riders targeting abortion and environmental regulation were left out of the deal - the real fight is just about to start: the budget for 2012.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Republican</a> plan has been assembled by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Budget_Committee" target="_blank">Chairman of the House Budget Committee</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan" target="_blank">Representative Paul Ryan</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin" target="_blank">Wisconsin</a>. The GOP budget, tagged <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/06/us/politics/06budget-doc.html?ref=federalbudgetus" target="_blank"><i>The Path to Prosperity</i></a>, is unquestionably radical - it's author has <a href="http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/04/07/2341509/editorial-rep-ryans-plan-to-revamp.html" target="_blank">said</a> of it, "This isn't a budget. This is a cause." - but it is also a deeply flawed and reckless delusion spawned directly from the works of <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/80552/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rand" target="_blank">Mr. Ryan's hero</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ayn_rand" target="_blank">Ayn Rand</a>. This is perhaps unsurprising, as Rand's philosophy of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29" target="_blank">Objectivism</a>, embodied in her novel <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged" target="_blank"><i>Atlas Shrugged</i></a>, can probably be best <a href="http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html" target="_blank">described</a> as follows:<br />
<blockquote><i>There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: </i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_rings" target="_blank">The Lord of the Rings</a><i> and </i>Atlas Shrugged<i>. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc" target="_blank">orcs</a>.</i></blockquote>Despite all manner of effort to bolster Paul Ryan's credentials - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/charles_krauthammer" target="_blank">Charles Krauthammer</a> recently <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-ryans-leap-a-rush-of-deficit-demagoguery/2011/04/07/AFUfOXxC_story.html" target="_blank">praised</a> him as "super wonky" and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/david_brooks" target="_blank">David Brooks</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&hp" target="_blank">effused</a> that <i>The Path to Prosperity</i> is the "standard for seriousness" - there are a host of very big and very obvious problems with the Republican 2012 budget plan. Worse, for Mr. Ryan and the GOP, they aren't even philosophical, they're quantitative, and that's pretty troubling for a document that its author has repeatedly <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/5/gop-budget-plan-exceeds-obama-savings-by-48t/" target="_blank">claimed</a> is fact-based and doesn't rely on accounting tricks or gimmicks. <br />
<br />
First and foremost, Mr. Ryan's plan calls for cutting taxes - surprise! - for the wealthiest Americans, dropping the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 25%. The <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=543" target="_blank">last time</a> the top marginal rate was that low was 1931, before the advent of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Social Security</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Medicare</a>, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid" target="_blank">Medicaid</a>. What is more troubling however, is that somehow, with this rate cut in place and no reductions in defense spending, Mr. Ryan claims that public revenues will be held steady, while offering no specifics for how such a thing can be accomplished. The immediate answer from conservatives of course, is that more money in the hands of the "job creators" will cause them to hire more people, growing the economy, but that simply takes us back to the <a href="http://mydd.com/users/bonddad/posts/tax-cuts-raise-revenue-completely-debunked" target="_blank">fallacy</a> that lowering taxes will somehow increase federal revenues.<br />
<br />
The problem with this idea - besides that obvious flaw - is that the unemployment figures used in Mr. Ryan's plan to illustrate the effects of all this hypothetical hiring are, flatly, <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/ryan-the-ridiculous/" target="_blank">ridiculous</a>. Rather than rely on the non-partisan <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office" target="_blank">Congressional Budget Office (CBO)</a> for his assumptions and modeling, <i>The Path to Prosperity</i> instead rests on <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epkrugman/heritage1.pdf" target="_blank">numbers</a> from the ultra-conservative <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Foundation" target="_blank">Heritage Foundation</a>, and the Heritage Foundation claimes that the result of the Republican budget would be 2.8% unemployment by 2021! (Interestingly, this data was recently scrubbed from their website, as can be seen <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epkrugman/heritage2.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>. H/T <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman" target="_blank">Paul Krugman</a>.) For perspective, unemployment in the United States at the end of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bill_clinton" target="_blank">Clinton Administration</a>'s 8-year expansion was around 4%, and any downward trend wasn't starting from a point nearly as high we're experiencing today. More broadly, jobless rates haven't been under three percent since the post-war boom of the 1950s.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjH7sGs7TxFoAlzdrbyf9jSrub422iCBvw87VXz-ROPIDP9r_gyZhmWz55xrE_Q8ST0NejNbrxAzSunB7h9urC_R5_XS5gpKx_A6g3MSttynJNhE6QAxHtYRCfuf25nfRbmZYlEQ/s1600/Historical+Unemployment+Rate.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjH7sGs7TxFoAlzdrbyf9jSrub422iCBvw87VXz-ROPIDP9r_gyZhmWz55xrE_Q8ST0NejNbrxAzSunB7h9urC_R5_XS5gpKx_A6g3MSttynJNhE6QAxHtYRCfuf25nfRbmZYlEQ/s1600/Historical+Unemployment+Rate.JPG" /></a></div><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology" target="_blank">MIT</a> economist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Gruber_%28economist%29" target="_blank">Jonathan Gruber</a> has <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/paul-ryans-absurdly-optimistic-budget-projections-draw-widespread-ridicule.php?ref=fpblg" target="_blank">called</a> the Heritage Foundation numbers "insane", and using Congressman Ryan's Heritage data, projections for unemployment would take this extremely-hard-to-credit shape:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK1vD6fiLA0kxxUEnHI-GpUvbqZ96f1o_OaKCtSSUVJWb0Tk7t6K3qZr_B1g_pAkTE7jcm6WsiA4X1STtOGmGfsdNzjOJ90lCfBwJiM2ZwoWOnnc71Doa-M_nXqKHVRRCkI2oROg/s1600/heritage-ryan2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK1vD6fiLA0kxxUEnHI-GpUvbqZ96f1o_OaKCtSSUVJWb0Tk7t6K3qZr_B1g_pAkTE7jcm6WsiA4X1STtOGmGfsdNzjOJ90lCfBwJiM2ZwoWOnnc71Doa-M_nXqKHVRRCkI2oROg/s1600/heritage-ryan2.jpg" /></a></div><br />
But what if the Heritage Foundation is right? Do they have a solid track record we should take into consideration? Indeed, they are tremendously consistent - just not in a good way. In 2001, they <a href="http://origin.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2001/04/The-Economic-Impact-of-President-Bushs-Tax-Relief-Plan" target="_blank">analyzed</a> what they believed the effects of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts" target="_blank">Bush tax cuts</a> would be, and came up with an incremental 1.6 billion jobs over a decade. What actually happened was the <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/" target="_blank">worst jobs creation record</a> of any president in the last 60 years, with employment growth below even what was claimed would occur if no tax cuts took place:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr6SNOypuk5dUCjWajBos73-r1IXOl7zdR-Yg3Hw9seJU8OSxdS-7jm3GLQvIK-ateCm0cNRzyE8CJDZaUbNlcpBXzC3o9pfgAVePejRpNeTeUrf-Szmpw0hyphenhyphenIZDqgMiORh1q0Ag/s1600/fredgraph.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr6SNOypuk5dUCjWajBos73-r1IXOl7zdR-Yg3Hw9seJU8OSxdS-7jm3GLQvIK-ateCm0cNRzyE8CJDZaUbNlcpBXzC3o9pfgAVePejRpNeTeUrf-Szmpw0hyphenhyphenIZDqgMiORh1q0Ag/s1600/fredgraph.png" /></a></div><br />
As tranparently wrong as these assumptions are, however, the capper comes with regard to health care. Under the Republican plan, Americans currently younger than 55 would not be eligible for traditional Medicare benefits, receiving government insurance vouchers instead. The Congressional Budget Office <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/52365818/04-05-Ryan-Letter" target="_blank">reviewed</a> <i>The Path to Prosperity</i>'s health care provisions, however, and found that "Under the proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system." Worse, the effects would go far beyond just what senior citizens pay in health care costs. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Policy_Institute" target="_blank">Economic Policy Institute</a>'s analysis of the GOP budget found that the side-effects of its changes to Medicare would actually cost the country 2.9 million jobs:<br />
<blockquote><i>Over the next five years (during which time CBO projects that the economy will still be below potential), Chairman Ryan's Medicaid proposal would cut the program by $207 billion, which includes both eliminating the Medicaid expansion under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act" target="_blank">Affordable Care Act</a> and even deeper cuts to the Medicaid program. Using a standard macroeconomic model that is consistent with private- and public-sector forecasters, we find that a $207 billion cut would result in a loss of 2.1 million jobs over the next five years, or 2.9 million full-time equivalent jobs... These figures are in job-years, which refer to a job held for a single year, meaning that five jobs lost in a single year is the equivalent to one job lost over five years.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the job loss would overwhelmingly be in the private economy. Medicaid has very low overhead, as about 96% of the program’s funds go toward benefits which are spent in the private sector. Assuming the 96% ratio is relatively constant across states (or at least not systematically biased in one direction), Medicaid cuts of this magnitude would result in the loss of just under 2 million private-sector jobs, or 2.8 million full-time equivalent jobs.<br />
<br />
This estimate is conservative for two reasons. First, because Medicaid is a program that generally benefits low-income households - who out of necessity are much more likely to consume rather than save - a larger-than-normal share of these cuts will undermine demand in the private sector. This suggests that the cut to Medicaid would have an even larger impact on the economy than we estimate here. Second, it is likely that an even larger share of the job loss would fall on the private sector because overhead includes not only labor but equipment and supplies as well, which are provided by private companies.</i></blockquote>In other words, if 2.8% unemployment looked comically optimistic before, contemplate for a moment how ludicrous it is if 2.9 million net jobs are sacrificed while trying to get there.<br />
<br />
Depsite media-political bubble claims of "bravery," "seriousness" and a lack of gimmickry, Paul Ryan's 2012 Republican budget proposal is - politics aside - a mathematical joke. The assumptions it uses and the conclusions it reaches are clearly untethered from reality, it is bereft of specifics on spending cuts and revenue increases, and - worryingly for the Chairman of the House Budget Committee - the numbers simply do not add up.</div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-32658512152811574582011-04-01T22:39:00.000-05:002011-04-01T22:39:56.060-05:00The Ethics of Expedience<div align="justify"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.gocomics.com/tedrall/2011/04/01/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="500" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs6zUut8KUXP-xrGNETq68K8ak0yAuf2nQ4Dtg-mauf2xMnZm4MugrDHlmRT7kPiPYlpy93GZwnz_Dye6Ds18N9q6McRajKjeNv65p70CujWEgaFGldX_ysxaOqUhDG9NV51ITDQ/s640/imgsrv.gocomics.com.gif" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_rall">Ted Rall</a>'s work can be a bit hit or miss from my perspective, but when he's dialed in, he's capable of highly incisive social commentary, as the cartoon above illustrates.<br />
<br />
I don't think the conundrum described - that "our stragetic interests are at odds with our values" - is unique to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/barack_obama">Obama Administration</a>, or, for that matter, any of its predecessors. But while it's something with which all presidents struggle to one degree or another, it's a fight our values seem to have lost more often than not in recent years, whether in the arena of foreign policy or here at home. Worse, as in the case of <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/search/label/civil%20liberties">civil liberties</a>, the morality to which we aspire is increasingly outweighed not by strategic necessity, but by tactical expedience.<br />
<br />
Ethics are often inconvenient, but how well a nation adheres to its principles in difficult times is the measure of its character. Anything less is hypocrisy, and the fundamental issues of genuine consequence - things like equal justice, due process, and the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/posts.g?blogID=29223331&searchType=ALL&txtKeywords=&label=rule+of+law">rule of law</a>; not ginned-up wedge issues like "traditional values" or ersatz socialism - seem not just to be of fading importance, but the subjects of outright dismissal, as if America can no longer look itself in the mirror.</div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-76501907981846682412011-03-26T21:39:00.004-05:002011-03-26T21:46:02.551-05:00Out of Equilibrium<div align="justify"><div class="clear-block" id="node-body-top">In the March/April issue of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_%28magazine%29" target="_blank"><i>Mother Jones</i></a> there appears a series of charts under the heading <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph" target="_blank"><i>It's the Inequality, Stupid</i></a>, that go hand-in-hand with my post from last July, <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2010/07/land-of-greatly-diminished-opportunity.html" target="_blank"><i>The Land of Greatly Diminished Opportunity</i></a>. (Please be sure to check out both articles. In particular, there are extensive illustrations in the latter that do not appear below.) Taken together, they provide a shocking picture of America as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy" target="_blank">plutocracy</a>, with enormous - and growing - <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2sXjXcRhuFk8wKB7gZjaDhASPqbmwApJy2d-BN9UIOUl3qZOnM_tFyUpvoWWTenkbvU7H1JoloD_KYyVXb05XYft4lpLLtjxzlE3jD-HHWhW4wEkMK3xS1UmBePbq3yAj8B7iZQ/s1600/extremeinequalitychart.jpg" target="_blank">wealth gaps</a> between a very small class of the extremely rich and the rest of the work force not seen since the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age" target="_blank">Gilded Age</a>, <a href="http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:hLQccPUpxxUJ:elsa.berkeley.edu/%7Esaez/kopczuk-saez-songSSA07short.pdf+inequality+american+dream&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgcZu5DTakWjtUfRD9uHwtfiCYKn-gxPkgAyDLX1TY1moE6kZwPaJZNt0Pf-SsRP3uwx9keJ6yh9P0F57A4kl0VXI-jtt_3sONluLBHhQmKucl88SxWqvWLPtCy64NfrDsKRzWG&sig=AHIEtbQp0IonNfjbKStXejGlx-w525934Q&pli=1" target="_blank">ever-higher barriers to class mobility</a>, and average hourly earnings that have only recently climbed back to where they were at the end of the Carter Administration.</div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizBwDvBrxW9bjaRjOgXszBJ_P8378sPhdcOCGfepvyP3CEfikzbgV4mi03X1vH8Th0aCJKjNnecCx45f0KGWmTpWFlLCnOP7bLEmp1J6j5SrjwsIXF_-AP0bx8RdDr33dTkmvf7A/s1600/extremeinequalitychart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="385" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizBwDvBrxW9bjaRjOgXszBJ_P8378sPhdcOCGfepvyP3CEfikzbgV4mi03X1vH8Th0aCJKjNnecCx45f0KGWmTpWFlLCnOP7bLEmp1J6j5SrjwsIXF_-AP0bx8RdDr33dTkmvf7A/s640/extremeinequalitychart.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<div class="clear-block" id="node-body-top">This is, bluntly, bad for the country. The U.S. economy is driven by consumer spending, and the less disposable income available among the masses, the less that will be produced to meet shrinking demand. Likewise, these are the type of conditions that create and foment social unrest, and as the extreme political right seeks to put the capstone on their efforts to destroy the American labor movement, we are seeing the <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0221/Wisconsin-labor-unrest-spills-across-Lake-Michigan" target="_blank">first signs</a> of broad, popular resistance to the massive, sustained, three-decade flow of wealth from the bottom of the economic pyramid to the top. <br />
<br />
This is not an issue of favoring <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism" target="_blank">socialism</a> over <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism" target="_blank">capitalism</a>; as with most things, it is a question of balance. There is an equilibrium that rewards the innovative, the hard-working and the industrious while still providing opportunity to the poor, the disenfranchised and the weakest among us, and that equilibrium does not exist today. It is in the best interest of the wealthy, who have more to loose, to promote that kind of harmony, and to recognize the benefits of not only a stable society, but a robust market for the goods and services many of them help produce. If we have not yet reached a tipping point, we are close to doing so.<br />
<br />
<hr align="center" style="color: #999999;" width="85%" /><br />
Below are the charts from the <i>Mother Jones</i> article <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph" target="_blank"><i>It's the Inequality, Stupid</i></a>.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>How Rich Are the Super-Rich?</b></span><br />
<br />
A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.<br />
<br />
<center><img alt="Average Income by Family, distributed by income group." height="459" src="http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_1.png" width="630" /></center></div><br />
<center><img alt="The richest controls 2/3 of America's net worth" height="400" src="http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_therichest280.png" width="400" /></center><b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Note: The 2007 data (the most current) doesn't reflect the impact of the housing market crash. In 2007, the bottom 60% of Americans had 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes. The top 1%, in contrast, had just 10%. The housing crisis has no doubt further swelled the share of total net worth held by the super-rich.</i></span></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Winners Take All</b></span><br />
<br />
The super-rich have grabbed the bulk of the past three decades' gains.<br />
<br />
<center><img alt="Aevrage Household income before taxes." height="346" src="http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png" width="631" /></center><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Out of Balance</b></span><br />
<br />
A Harvard business professor and a behavioral economist recently asked more than 5,000 Americans how they thought wealth is distributed in the United States. Most thought that it’s more balanced than it actually is. Asked to choose their ideal distribution of wealth, 92% picked one that was even more equitable.<br />
<br />
<center><img alt="Average Income by Family, distributed by income group." height="263" src="http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png" width="630" /></center><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Capitol Gain</b></span><br />
<br />
Why Washington is closer to Wall Street than Main Street.<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><img alt="median net worth of american families, median net worth for mebers of congress, your odds of being a millionaire, member of congress's odds of being a millionaire" height="174" src="http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality_mediannetworth_1.png" width="630" /> <br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="3" style="width: 630px;"><thead>
<tr class="table-hdr"> <th><span class="plus">member</span></th> <th><span class="plus">max. est. net worth</span></th> </tr>
</thead> <tbody>
<tr class="even"> <td>Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)</td> <td>$451.1 million</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)</td> <td>$435.4 million</td> </tr>
<tr class="even"> <td>Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.)</td> <td>$366.2 million</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)</td> <td>$294.9 million</td> </tr>
<tr class="even"> <td>Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.)</td> <td>$285.1 million</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)</td> <td>$283.1 million</td> </tr>
<tr class="even"> <td>Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.)</td> <td>$231.2 million</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)</td> <td>$201.5 million</td> </tr>
<tr class="even"> <td>Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)</td> <td>$136.2 million</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)</td> <td>$108.1 million</td> </tr>
<tr class="sum"> <th><span class="plus">combined net worth:</span></th> <th><span class="plus">$2.8 billion</span></th> </tr>
</tbody> </table><br />
<center><img alt="10 Richest Members of Congress" height="404" src="http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-10richest_2.png" style="padding-right: 5px;" width="310" /> <img alt="100% Voted to extend the cuts" height="404" src="http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality_taxcuts_2.png" width="310" /></center></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><b>Congressional data from 2009. Family net worth data from 2007. Sources: Center for Responsive Politics; US Census; Edward Wolff, Bard College.</b></i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Who's Winning?</b></span><br />
<br />
For a healthy few, it's getting better all the time.<br />
<br />
<center><img alt="Gains and Losses in 2007-2009, Average CEO Pay vs. Average Worker Pay" height="614" src="http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-who%27swinning_3.png" width="631" /><br />
<br />
<img alt="A millionaire's atx rate, now and then. Share of Federal Tax revenue" height="683" src="http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-taxrate_3.png" width="631" /></center><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Your Loss, Their Gain</b></span><br />
<br />
How much income have you given up for the top 1 percent?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span class="inline inline-center"><img alt="" class="image image-preview " height="499" src="https://motherjones.com/files/images/lossgain_0.jpg" title="" width="620" /></span></div></div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-14319136804268353212011-03-19T15:19:00.001-05:002011-03-19T17:51:27.498-05:00UPDATED: Crisis Averted!<div align="justify"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpttCBoXOHmlEvSSTrrpVW3ag20cQTtddGxKYrXsGS2ZmIYaxnu6dR7C3HjZol5Q5xuu_Fbo9x3GBMHqV4CaTNnl9PCbD5N-2FdTom0FccoCN31bUUI9pD32YsUVx9NtVsifeU4A/s1600/republican-leadership.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="440" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpttCBoXOHmlEvSSTrrpVW3ag20cQTtddGxKYrXsGS2ZmIYaxnu6dR7C3HjZol5Q5xuu_Fbo9x3GBMHqV4CaTNnl9PCbD5N-2FdTom0FccoCN31bUUI9pD32YsUVx9NtVsifeU4A/s640/republican-leadership.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
Exit polling after the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_midterm_elections" target="_blank">2010 midterm elections</a> revealed a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010-midterms-political-price-economic-pain/story?id=12041739" target="_blank">very consistent story</a>: Voters felt that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Democrats</a> had not done enough to repair the devastation caused by the financial meltdown in the closing days of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/george_w_bush" target="_blank">George W. Bush</a>'s presidency, and their number one concern - by far - was job creation and the economic health of the country. The ballot box confirmed that sentiment, returning the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">House of Representatives</a> to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Republican</a> control, diminishing the Democratic majority in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">Senate</a>, and leading <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/barack_obama" target="_blank">President Obama</a> to <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/11/03/obama-takes-responsibility-for-midterm-election-losses" target="_blank">admit</a> his party had endured a "shellacking," for which he took responsibility.<br />
<br />
Instead of taking their direction from this clear tide of voter frustration, however, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">GOP</a> has concentrated on - literally - pretty much anything but job creation and the economy, and so far, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_Congress" target="_blank">112th Congress</a> has been the <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2011/01/same-old-pandering-hypocrisy-and.html" target="_blank">same old pandering, hypocrisy and legislated morality</a> that has been the hallmark of modern movement conservatism for the past three decades. Republican priorities since reclaiming the House have not been aimed at putting people back to work, but at rewarding their hardcore base and wallowing in social wedge issues.<br />
<br />
Here is what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives" target="_blank">Speaker of the House</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boehner" target="_blank">John Boehner</a> and his team have been working on with their mandate to kick-start the economy and foster job creation: <br />
<ul><li><a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/watch-live-constitution-reading.html" target="_blank">Reading the Constitution aloud</a> on the floor of the House of Representatives (An <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/us/politics/07constitution.html" target="_blank">edited version</a> of the <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview" target="_blank">Consitution</a>, no less, at a cost of over $1 million by one <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/01/how-much-will-it-cost-republicans-to-recite-the-constitution-on-the-house-floor.html" target="_blank">estimate</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/house-poised-vote-health-law-repeal/" target="_blank">Passing a symbolic repeal</a> of President Obama's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act" target="_blank">health care reform plan </a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.freepress.net/press-release/2011/2/28/boehners-attack-net-neutrality-not-based-reality" target="_blank">Backing telecommunications industry opposition</a> to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/net_neutrality" target="_blank">Net Neutrality</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Congressman-Vows-to-Continue-Controversial-Islamic-Radicalization-Hearings-117859424.html" target="_blank">Conducting a congressional hearing</a> into "Islamic radicalization" (And chairing that hearing with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King" target="_blank">Representative Peter King</a>, an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Support_for_the_IRA" target="_blank">admitted supporter</a> of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army" target="_blank">Irsih Republican Army (IRA)</a>, which has been designated a terrorist organization by both the United States and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/britain" target="_blank">Britain</a>.)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/15/house-prepares-chop-spending-remainder/" target="_blank">De-funding the president's teleprompter</a> (Seriously) </li>
<li><a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sc-dc-0305-marriage-law-web-20110304,0,4801320.story" target="_blank">Continuing to descriminate against gay couples</a> by supporting the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act" target="_blank">Defense of Marriage Act</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49689.html" target="_blank">Providing</a> birth control for wild horses</li>
<li><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-votes-strip-planned-parenthood-federal-funding/story?id=12951080" target="_blank">Stripping federal funding</a> from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/planned_parenthood" target="_blank">Planned Parenthood</a></li>
<li><a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortiontarget=" target="_blank">Redefining rape</a> in order to make it harder for women to get abortions </li>
<li><a href="http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/gop-bill-irs-abortion-audits" target="_blank">Empowering</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/internal_revenue-service" target="_blank">IRS</a> agents to investigate abortions during tax audits</li>
<li><a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49689.html" target="_blank">Cutting</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program" target="_blank">Head Start</a> aid to low-income families and children, but <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49689.html" target="_blank">continuing</a> billions of dollars in federal subsidies to oil companies</li>
<li><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/opinion/17thu3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion2" target="_blank">Eliminating funding</a> for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/national_public_radio" target="_blank">National Public Radio (NPR)</a> in an <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%20http://www.newser.com/story/114232/gop-calls-emergency-session-to-defund-npr.html" target="_blank">emergency</a> - that's right, emergency - session of Congress</li>
<li><a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/149585-house-gop-rejects-amendment-that-says-climate-change-is-occurring" target="_blank">Denying the reality</a> of climate change</li>
<li><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-10-lightbulbs10_ST_N.htm" target="_blank">Turning back</a> the transition from incandescent to compact fluorescent light bulbs</li>
<li><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703373404576148461616813694.html" target="_blank">Pushing for funding</a> to manufacture a jet engine the military did not need or want</li>
<li>Assembling a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021900503.html" target="_blank">plan to cut federal spending</a> that analysts <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-spending-plan-would-cost-700000-jobs-new-report-says/2011/02/28/ABBK9oJ_story.html" target="_blank">say</a> will not only reduce economic growth, but destroy 700,000 jobs in the process</li>
<li><a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/149999--mcconnell-next-stopgap-must-include-full-year-military-spending" target="_blank">Refusing to consider</a> any spending proposal that doesn't prioritize full military funding over all other budget considerations</li>
</ul>In short, Republican leadership is apparently operating under the impression that they made such significant gains in the last ballot because the public was unsatisfied with Democratic efforts to forge ahead with empty legislative gestures, draconian social policies, several flavors of bigotry and discimination, and the expenditure of federal dollars on defense no matter the cost to employment. To be blunt, they are wrong.<br />
<br />
A recent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipsos" target="_blank">Ipsos</a>/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/reuters" target="_blank">Reuters</a> <a href="http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5157" target="_blank">poll </a>found that 51% of Americans would prefer to cut spending for defense before taking the ax to either <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Medicare</a>/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid" target="_blank">Medicaid </a>or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Social Security</a>, compared to 28% who would exclusively target Medicare/Medicaid and just 18% who would focus on Social Security. Likewise, a new <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abc_news" target="_blank">ABC News</a>/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post" target="_blank"><i>Washington Post</i></a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/abc-news-washington-post-poll-confidence-government-falls/story?id=13134173&page=3" target="_blank">survey</a> determined that 64% of Americans prefer a combination of tax increases and expenditure reductions to reduce the deficit to spending cuts alone.<br />
<br />
At this rate, it's no wonder the <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/146567/Congressional-Approval-Back-Below.aspx" target="_blank">approval rating</a> for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">Congress</a> took only two months to plunge back below 20%, where it was when the Republicans took back the House of Representatives. While there was a certain inevitability that people like John Boehner, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/eric_cantor" target="_blank">Eric Cantor</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann" target="_blank">Michele Bachmann</a> would work dilligently to display the trademark incompetence they've exhibited for some time now, any pleasure that might be derived from watching their foolishness at full boil is vastly outweighed by the stark human costs of their legislative masturbation and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmlKCtvRet8" target="_blank">ridiculous posturing</a>.<br />
<br />
There are twenty months between now and the 2012 elections. It looks like they're going to be very long ones.<br />
<br />
<hr align="center" style="color: #999999;" width="85%" /><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_weiner" target="_blank">Congressman Anthony Weiner</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/new_york" target="_blank">New York</a> provides some much-needed perspective on the priority attached to defunding NPR: <br />
<br />
<br />
<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YJFivQYjC-Q?rel=0" title="YouTube video player" width="480"></iframe></center></div><br />
UPDATE: The "New Rules" segment from last night's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Time_with_Bill_Maher"><i>Real Time with Bill Maher</i></a> lampooned the propensity of the GOP to focus on fantasy problems rather than real issues (language not safe for work):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='480' height='327' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzB6yof1mzksaBsCqUN8hP8NsiCQ6Av9bhJpeFTHalXzZPP7IClPWNbYgG2VMxiJ_zb4RjwkH9yIPg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29223331.post-47837450618382805752011-03-13T18:10:00.011-05:002011-03-14T10:03:25.786-05:00Obama Embraces His Inner George W. Bush<div align="justify"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfNAQJB1kLpsEchyIN7oI3LWgt4j4g14wy5F_wP5xa8KEHLjuwJPppU31QGv5aZ-Hs6mzvTu1TcyOQXSAcCb2s7Aqnw8uMLESO7UwXRAK4UV8pWzNL40GxqW2XKQPM1aYUvdBmWw/s1600/obama_gitmo2_090520_mn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfNAQJB1kLpsEchyIN7oI3LWgt4j4g14wy5F_wP5xa8KEHLjuwJPppU31QGv5aZ-Hs6mzvTu1TcyOQXSAcCb2s7Aqnw8uMLESO7UwXRAK4UV8pWzNL40GxqW2XKQPM1aYUvdBmWw/s400/obama_gitmo2_090520_mn.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>Last week was an important milestone in the ongoing, decade-long betrayal of the rule of law in the United States of America. Together, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama" target="_blank">President Barack Obama</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress" target="_blank">United States Congress</a> legitimized the largest officially-sanctioned human rights sinkhole of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/george_w_bush" target="_blank">George W. Bush</a>'s administration by effectively giving bipartisan approval to the continued operation of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp" target="_blank">prison camp at Guantanamo Bay</a>. We are now officially a country that is not only willing to hold people against their will without genuine legal recourse and without the real possibility of release, but one that has cravenly accepted the increased likelihood for future civil liberties abuses, as well as the damage this wreaks on our national character and our reputation abroad.<br />
<br />
On Monday, the president signed an <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/Executive_Order_on_Periodic_Review.pdf" target="_blank">executive order</a> that both keeps the national blight that is Guantanamo Bay operational, and re-affirms the kangaroo court system of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006" target="_blank">military commissions</a>, the sole purpose of which is to bypass the higher standards of evidence required for prosecution in civilian court, and to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030704890.html" target="_blank">side-step</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poison_tree" target="_blank">fruit of the poison tree</a> arguments about confessions, testimony and evidence gathered through the torture of foreign nationals by American personnel.* <br />
<br />
And before anyone <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention" target="_blank">tries to defend</a> Mr. Obama's executive order by comparing it to the policies of the Bush <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/white_house" target="_blank">White House</a>, stop.<br />
<br />
Just... stop.<br />
<br />
The supposed legal protections included in the order are a joke, and using George W. Bush as the standard for anything doesn't raise the bar high enough to see daylight between it and the ground. This is nothing but a continuation - an enshrinement, in fact - of Bush Administration policies, as infallibly indicated by the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703386704576186791361222486.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop" target="_blank">gleeful approval</a> of that most wretched bastion of hardcore neoconservatism, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal_Editorial_Board" target="_blank">editorial page</a> of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal" target="_blank"><i>Wall Street Journal</i></a>:<br />
<blockquote><i>No one has done more to revive the reputation of Bush-era antiterror policies than the Obama Administration. In its latest policy reversal, yesterday Mr. Obama said the U.S. would resume the military tribunals for Guantanamo terrorists that he unilaterally suspended two years ago, and he may even begin referring new charges to military commissions within days or weeks.<br />
[...]<br />
On a conference call yesterday, senior Administration officials tried to sell their military commissions process as more "credible" than Mr. Bush's, but their policy changes are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis" target="_blank">de minimis</a></i><i>. </i><br />
<i>[...]<br />
The White House yesterday also stressed its commitment to civilian terror prosecutions going forward, but that also doesn't mean much. Last year the Democratic Congress <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hiCyuo47rG5_B_88fhT_MOqZU-Tw?docId=CNG.51f509667873509af134d2232a002dd1.551" target="_blank">barred funding</a> for transferring enemy combatants from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp" target="_blank">Gitmo</a> to the U.S., and that won't change with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gop" target="_blank">Republican</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">House</a>.<br />
<br />
The real news here is the final repudiation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General" target="_blank">Attorney General</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder" target="_blank">Eric Holder</a>'s attempt to try <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed" target="_blank">Khalid Sheikh Mohammed</a> and other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11" target="_blank">9/11</a> plotters as criminal defendants on U.S. soil. The killers at Guantanamo will now be brought to justice via a process that the President once depicted as akin to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Love" target="_blank">Ministry of Love</a> in "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four" target="_blank">1984</a>." On the campaign trail in 2008, Mr. Obama claimed that Mr. Bush "runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they're there or what they're charged with."<br />
<br />
In an August 2007 speech that his advisers touted at the time, Mr. Obama promised to repeal this "legal framework that does not work." He even claimed that Bush policies undermined "our <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview" target="_blank">Constitution</a> and our freedom" and that the Bush Administration had pressed a "false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand," a line he recycled in his Inaugural Address. He went out of his way to vote against the <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/2006/09/systematically-destroying-what-it.html" target="_blank">Military Commissions Act</a>.<br />
<br />
So much for all that. Yesterday the senior Administration officials even praised the "bipartisan effort" that produced that law... </i></blockquote>There is enormous peril associated with rolling back the rule of law so that the president - any president - has the authority to imprison indefinitely. Once one chief executive is permitted to do so, the cat is out of the bag, and it is immeasurably harder to reclaim the territory of acceptable behavior from his successors than it would have been to defend it from initial attack. President Obama's executive order on indefinite detention represents not a temporary measure taken to address extraordinary circumstance, but a fundamental redefinition of American justice to allow for imprisonment by decree.<br />
<br />
If that sounds like an overstatement, it is most assuredly not. In fact, we are seeing the ripple effect of this fundamental change with regard to U.S. citizens at this very moment. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_manning" target="_blank"> Private Bradley Manning</a>, the young man accused of delivering an enormous trove of classified documents to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks" target="_blank">WikiLeaks</a> - and who now faces <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41876046/ns/us_news-security/" target="_blank">additional charges</a> that carry the death penalty or life imprisonment with conviction - has been held under unusually harsh conditions for months, since being detained in the matter. Things have gotten bad enough, in fact, that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International" target="_blank">Amnesty International</a> has <a href="http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/us-accused-inhumane-treatment-over-wikileaks-soldier-case-2011-01-24" target="_blank">written</a> to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Defense" target="_blank">Secretary of Defense</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_Defense_Robert_Gates" target="_blank">Robert Gates</a> to protest the conditions of his detention. <br />
<br />
Private Manning is currently awaiting a pre-trial hearing - in other words, he has not been convicted of anything - and should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. With the assent of the Obama Administration, however, he is in 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement; prohibited from exercising in his cell; under suicide watch restrictions imposed over multiple recommendations from brig psychiatrists; and subject to prolonged, forced nudity intended to humiliate and degrade. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich" target="_blank">Representative Dennis Kucinich</a>, a member of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Committee_on_Oversight_and_Government_Reform" target="_blank">House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform</a>, requested that he be able to visit Private Manning, but has been <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/13/rep-kucinich-unable-to-visit-accused-wikileaks-source/" target="_blank">stonewalled</a> by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense" target="_blank">Department of Defense</a>. In the congressman's <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/there-will-be-consequences-for-mannings-mistreatment-kucinich-warns-sec-gates/" target="_blank">opinion</a>, "It appears they're trying to break him. This is not defensible. There is no way, stretch of the imagination that this could be allowed, or that this should be happening in America."<br />
<br />
In point of fact, this has happened before in America - and recently - with the case of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29" target="_blank">Jose Padilla</a> (about whom I <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/search/label/padilla" target="_blank">wrote extensively</a>), a man accused of involvement in a terrorist "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb" target="_blank">dirty bomb</a>" plot who was held without judicial review for years by the Bush Administration. The torture and extremely harsh conditions Mr. Padilla endured essentially left him a shell of a man, and while he was convicted of some hastily-introduced, last-minute charges that landed him in prison, he was never put on trial for any of the reasons he was originally arrested.<br />
<br />
This <i><u><b>DOES</b></u></i> happen in America, and we, the people are entirely complicit in allowing it to happen by accepting it. It doesn't matter whether the person doing it is "our guy," or if he is, overall, a significant improvement over his predecessor; if he is black or if he's white; Republican or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29" target="_blank">Democrat</a>. What we see with the continued operation of the legal abyss that is the Guantanamo Bay prison camp - and cases like Bradley Manning's, which are informed by the indefinite detention policies at work there - is simply, flatly, starkly wrong. Barack Obama has done some good things since he won the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oval_office" target="_blank">Oval Office</a>, but embracing and codifying the thoroughly un-American approach to human rights and civil liberties that characterized the administration of George W. Bush isn't one of them.<br />
<br />
<i>* I'm not going to re-hash the reasons why the argument waterboarding isn't torture is irredeemibly false, or once again refute the claim that somehow the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign nationals, or restate the irrefutable reasons why the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions" target="_blank">Geneva Conventions</a> are, in fact, U.S. law. I have done so extensively in <a href="http://sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com/search/label/torture" target="_blank">numerous posts</a>, and bluntly, those contentions are complete and utter nonsense, no more than spineless attempts to provide cover for actions that are both morally and legally bankrupt. If, however, you'd like a recent and very concise example of the hypocrisy involved in supporting things like waterboarding, please be sure to see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald" target="_blank">Glenn Greenwald</a>'s <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/09/journalism/index.html" target="_blank">succint and unerring exposure</a> of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_times" target="_blank">New York Times</a>' preposterous cowardice with regard to the use of the word "torture".</i><br />
<br />
<hr align="center" style="color: #999999;" width="85%" /><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart" target="_blank">Jon Stewart</a> makes some cutting observations about the implications that policies of indefinite detention have with regard to the importance of such pillars of judicial review as evidence.<br />
<br />
<center><div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;"><div style="padding: 4px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:376902" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed></div></div></center><br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Ratigan" target="_blank">Dylan Ratigan</a> points out that, while progressive activists are making noise about the treatment of Bradley Manning, so-called establishment liberals like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/harry_reid" target="_blank">Harry Reid</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nancy_pilosi" target="_blank">Nancy Pilosi</a> have remained painfully silent.<br />
<br />
<center><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0" height="245" id="msnbc1bed34" width="420"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=42036376&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc1bed34" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=42036376&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object></center></div>PBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643553811799195520noreply@blogger.com2