Senator Arlen Specter has seen the handwriting on the wall. His decision to switch from the Republican Party to the Democrats is probably partly due to his personal interest in holding his seat in the wake of an ultra-conservative primary challenge. Still, his decision to switch parties handed President Obama an unexpected boost on the eve of his 100-day anniversary by giving Democrats the potential of soon having that coveted 60th Senate seat – a filibuster proof margin. But most of all, it signaled further Republican decline in the Northeast. This sends a clear warning that the GOP's complete opposition to Obama’s policies is causing long-term damage to their party and playing right into Democratic hands.
GOP prospects of limiting Obama's congressional control in 2010 grow dimmer by the day. Some initial polling already shows they may have trouble putting a dent in the solid Democratic working margin In the Senate, early analysis shows that the most endangered Senate seats next year are held mostly by Republicans. Not only are they not likely to regain a majority in 2010, recent studies of the changing American electorate underscore that Republicans face a long-term challenge because of Obama's support in the country's two fastest growing voter groups, Hispanics and the Millennial generation.
According to Meghan McCain, John McCain’s daughter, Republicans did not just lose young people during the recent election – they potentially lost them for a lifetime. The election of Obama in 2008 had the makings of a sea change, much like 1980 was for Republicans. Voters ages 18 to 30 shifted to the Democrats in massive numbers. An indication that there was something deeper going on than just Obama’s personal appeal, House Democrats won by 29 points, just five points less than Obama himself. Moreover, young voters registered overwhelmingly with the Democratic Party, and, as has been often pointed out, once voters choose a party, they stick with it more often than not.
The Democracy Corps polling group recently surveyed this group of voters to see how they were feeling today about the two parties and the competing arguments being made by Obama and Republicans:
First, the Democracy Corps survey found that young voters' support for Obama has improved markedly since the election – he is viewed favorably by a margin of 65-21, as compared with 58-31 in October. Even more impressive, his job approval ratings stand at 74-17 among these voters, at least 10 points ahead of most general surveys. Perhaps most importantly, unlike surveys of older voters, there is no drop-off between Obama's personal support and that for his policies. Young voters favor the stimulus package by a proportion of 68-20, with the same 68 percent saying they are confident it will improve their own economic situations.
Second, Democrats are building on their partisan edge among young voters. Young voters give Democrats a 32-point advantage on the economy (up eight points from 2007) and a 45-point advantage on "paying attention to issues that affect young people" (up six points from 2007). In fact, only 14% said they favor Republicans.
What is most heartening, by large numbers, the survey finds that young voters are paying close attention to what is happening in Washington, which is not surprising, given that the recession is taking a heavier toll on them than on the population as a whole. And unlike Obama, who is proposing solutions to the specific problems they are facing, they do not hear any concrete ideas from Republicans that are relevant to them. Republicans are playing the same recording they have for decades – more tax cuts for the wealthy and cut Medicaid (for the poor) and Medicare (for the aging). They seem unaware the young voters are worried about having money to attend college and, afterwards, finding good-paying jobs.
In a survey commissioned by the Peterson Foundation in February, 60% of voters 18 to 34 said that the growing budget deficit and national debt is a very big threat to our country and out future. These young voters are worried about the price they may ultimately pay for today's deficit spending, but according to the “Obama Generation” survey, they place a much higher priority on taking bold action now to jump-start the economy and invest in long-term growth.
The report on the Millennial Generation, often called the "Obama Generation," should at least cause the Republicans to rethink their negative strategy, if not absolutely scare them into dumping Jindal and Palin and finding someone on the same intellectual plane as Obama. Republicans are not only losing more ground on the issue of the day – they are, in the words of John McCain's own daughter, Meghan, "on the precipice of becoming irrelevant…."
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
No respect for the teabaggers
One way to get a good sense of the current state of the GOP, and also to see how little has really changed, is to look at the “tea parties” that were held across the country on Wednesday. These parties — supposedly anti-taxation demonstrations set up to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so. (Paul Krugman)
The sad truth is that the average American does not grasp fundamental economic concepts. This is why we have so many people looking at mortgages and credit card bills they can't pay. I live in a state which just about always votes Republican. Most of the same people here who are complaining about Obama's budget/tax policies are the same ones who just got a new tax cut – one of which they are apparently unaware. Although it is a small tax cut, add it onto what was given under the last administration, and the middle class is paying less in taxes than it has for decades. If a person makes under $20,000 a year, they barely get taxed. Yet it is astounding how most of these people seem to think that if taxes are raised on the very wealthy, they will somehow be raised on everyone. These are the same people who danced for joy when they got their stimulus money from George W. Bush.
There is no real point in blaming this on politics alone. Most of it is due to the lack of good education and listening to right-wing entertainment news. If you want politics to be truly fair and just, make sure Americans are well informed and can discern fact from fiction. TV entertainment-style news will never be able to replace a good education – nor will checking your brain at the church door.
This brings us to the teabaggers:
Teabaggers do not seem to understand that it is not the ‘liberal media bias’ that caused the hostile reaction toward them. There are other reasons why people mock and insult teabaggers. First, it's because they are offensive - calling names and telling lies like children in middle school, and showing great ignorance about our country’s history.
Second, Republicans lost badly in the election – thrown out of power because their policies ruined this country – but the Republican base (and Fox News) cannot accept the results of the election. This hardcore base is incoherently blaming Obama for problems that Republican policies caused. When someone tells them the facts, they get angry and refuse to listen. I can almost see their collective fingers in their ears.
Third, the election only just happened; the new president only just started governing three months ago. Republicans haven't given his policies – which have a clear voters' mandate – a chance to succeed or fail. Most of us believe that these members of the hardcore base are just piling it on because Obama is a Democrat; and with a bigoted minority, it is because he is black. They question Obama's citizenship and call him a Kenyan while referring to themselves as “real Americans.” But think about this: in about twenty more years the American WASP (white Anglo Saxon protestant) will be in a clear minority. The United States will be a brown-skinned country. Instead of accepting this fact and learning to interact with brown-skinned people, this group of people scream their anger about ‘losing their country.’ All of America saw those horrible racist signs that were held up during the “tea parties.” We all heard many teabaggers call our President a fascist and a monkey – which proved their bigotry and ignorance (they clearly do not know what fascism is).
Fourth, Republicans have started to walk with the crazies: white supremacists, secessionists, and anti-government terrorists (as in Timothy McVeigh). These crazies were once on the far right and ignored by all.
For years now, more than two-thirds of Americans have disapproved of Republican policies, and especially disapproved of Bush. Yet there is always a stubborn, fanatical 27 percent who adored Bush to the bitter end. "Who are these fools?" people would ask each other when the polls came out. "What are they on (as in mind altering drugs)?" So naturally, when we see them garner attention as they gathered in their teabagging groups (which was the core of the Bush base flaunting its legendary ignorance), be aware that it is not entirely friendly attention lavished upon them because people blame the Neo-con core of the Republican Party for inflicting Bush on the world.
If this minority group ever watched anything other than Fox “news” or listened to anyone else beside Rush Limbaugh, they might realize that they are in what is considered by most citizens of this nation to be a group of hardcore, far-right loonies. I know some teabaggers understand this because of their ludicrous attempts to pose as a movement containing Democrats and Independents. It isn’t. Their unconvincing efforts to try and hide the fact that they are 100% the hardcore right-wing Republican base speak volumes.
These people follow the loudmouthed insanity on Fox News and CNN, eating up the lies fed to them as if it were candy – and it shows. But how many people are actually involved – are actually gullible enough to be led into such a stunt? If one adds up the number of total teabaggers last Wednesday, there might be around 250,000 of them. This really is not a large number. The United States is a very big country with a huge population of just over 306,000,000 (that’s millions). So, even though they are loud, the teabaggers are in a tiny minority. And they are out of touch with the majority of U.S. citizens with the most recent Gallup poll showing that 61% regard the income taxes they have to pay this year as fair.
Everything that critics mock about these parties has long been standard practice within the Republican Party. Thus, President Obama being called a "socialist" or “fascist” who seeks to destroy capitalism is nothing new. Democratic presidents through the years have been called the same. Why are they calling Obama a socialist? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, let’s see, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. These hardcore right-wingers do not understand that this particular tax increase does not affect them. Why? They get their information from Fox entertainment news and Rush Limbaugh who LIE to them in order to stir them up. It’s like stirring up a nest of hornets that are already mad because a black man is president.
So really, whether they know it or not, everything about the teabaggers is very offensive to most Americans. But I hope they keep it up, please, because they will be further relegated to the loony bin and continue to lose elections.
And that is why the majority of U.S. citizens have no respect for teabaggers.
The sad truth is that the average American does not grasp fundamental economic concepts. This is why we have so many people looking at mortgages and credit card bills they can't pay. I live in a state which just about always votes Republican. Most of the same people here who are complaining about Obama's budget/tax policies are the same ones who just got a new tax cut – one of which they are apparently unaware. Although it is a small tax cut, add it onto what was given under the last administration, and the middle class is paying less in taxes than it has for decades. If a person makes under $20,000 a year, they barely get taxed. Yet it is astounding how most of these people seem to think that if taxes are raised on the very wealthy, they will somehow be raised on everyone. These are the same people who danced for joy when they got their stimulus money from George W. Bush.
There is no real point in blaming this on politics alone. Most of it is due to the lack of good education and listening to right-wing entertainment news. If you want politics to be truly fair and just, make sure Americans are well informed and can discern fact from fiction. TV entertainment-style news will never be able to replace a good education – nor will checking your brain at the church door.
This brings us to the teabaggers:
Teabaggers do not seem to understand that it is not the ‘liberal media bias’ that caused the hostile reaction toward them. There are other reasons why people mock and insult teabaggers. First, it's because they are offensive - calling names and telling lies like children in middle school, and showing great ignorance about our country’s history.
Second, Republicans lost badly in the election – thrown out of power because their policies ruined this country – but the Republican base (and Fox News) cannot accept the results of the election. This hardcore base is incoherently blaming Obama for problems that Republican policies caused. When someone tells them the facts, they get angry and refuse to listen. I can almost see their collective fingers in their ears.
Third, the election only just happened; the new president only just started governing three months ago. Republicans haven't given his policies – which have a clear voters' mandate – a chance to succeed or fail. Most of us believe that these members of the hardcore base are just piling it on because Obama is a Democrat; and with a bigoted minority, it is because he is black. They question Obama's citizenship and call him a Kenyan while referring to themselves as “real Americans.” But think about this: in about twenty more years the American WASP (white Anglo Saxon protestant) will be in a clear minority. The United States will be a brown-skinned country. Instead of accepting this fact and learning to interact with brown-skinned people, this group of people scream their anger about ‘losing their country.’ All of America saw those horrible racist signs that were held up during the “tea parties.” We all heard many teabaggers call our President a fascist and a monkey – which proved their bigotry and ignorance (they clearly do not know what fascism is).
Fourth, Republicans have started to walk with the crazies: white supremacists, secessionists, and anti-government terrorists (as in Timothy McVeigh). These crazies were once on the far right and ignored by all.
For years now, more than two-thirds of Americans have disapproved of Republican policies, and especially disapproved of Bush. Yet there is always a stubborn, fanatical 27 percent who adored Bush to the bitter end. "Who are these fools?" people would ask each other when the polls came out. "What are they on (as in mind altering drugs)?" So naturally, when we see them garner attention as they gathered in their teabagging groups (which was the core of the Bush base flaunting its legendary ignorance), be aware that it is not entirely friendly attention lavished upon them because people blame the Neo-con core of the Republican Party for inflicting Bush on the world.
If this minority group ever watched anything other than Fox “news” or listened to anyone else beside Rush Limbaugh, they might realize that they are in what is considered by most citizens of this nation to be a group of hardcore, far-right loonies. I know some teabaggers understand this because of their ludicrous attempts to pose as a movement containing Democrats and Independents. It isn’t. Their unconvincing efforts to try and hide the fact that they are 100% the hardcore right-wing Republican base speak volumes.
These people follow the loudmouthed insanity on Fox News and CNN, eating up the lies fed to them as if it were candy – and it shows. But how many people are actually involved – are actually gullible enough to be led into such a stunt? If one adds up the number of total teabaggers last Wednesday, there might be around 250,000 of them. This really is not a large number. The United States is a very big country with a huge population of just over 306,000,000 (that’s millions). So, even though they are loud, the teabaggers are in a tiny minority. And they are out of touch with the majority of U.S. citizens with the most recent Gallup poll showing that 61% regard the income taxes they have to pay this year as fair.
Everything that critics mock about these parties has long been standard practice within the Republican Party. Thus, President Obama being called a "socialist" or “fascist” who seeks to destroy capitalism is nothing new. Democratic presidents through the years have been called the same. Why are they calling Obama a socialist? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, let’s see, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. These hardcore right-wingers do not understand that this particular tax increase does not affect them. Why? They get their information from Fox entertainment news and Rush Limbaugh who LIE to them in order to stir them up. It’s like stirring up a nest of hornets that are already mad because a black man is president.
So really, whether they know it or not, everything about the teabaggers is very offensive to most Americans. But I hope they keep it up, please, because they will be further relegated to the loony bin and continue to lose elections.
And that is why the majority of U.S. citizens have no respect for teabaggers.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Cinderella
It is all over television these days – reality shows where rudeness, crudeness, cruelty and arrogance runs rampant. I do not watch them. Which is why the moment I saw a news story about Susan Boyle it immediately captured my attention. I found the video on YouTube and watched Susan sing. Tears streamed down my face as I listened to a pure, angelic voice come from a person who looks like an average, frumpy middle-aged woman from the countryside. That’s the point – frumpy does not mean there is no talent. Yet in today’s world it is expected that one must be beautiful to have talent or intelligence. Mama Cass could not make it on the music scene today.
On “Britain’s Got Talent,” this good lady, because of her looks, was prejudged as a loser the minute she walked onto the stage. It was disheartening to see 3,000 people in the audience roll their eyes as they welcomed the middle-aged lady with snickers and disbelief. Many of these same people don't have the talent or the courage to set foot on that stage.
But her inner beauty and talent shown forth from the moment she started singing "I Dreamed a Dream" from Les Misérables. At the end of her performance, she got a well deserved standing ovation from all. Judge Piers Morgan told her "When you said you wanted to be like Elaine Paige everyone laughed at you, but no one is laughing now. …It was stunning!" When you make Simon smile with pleasure, you have accomplished something. Some good does come from these reality shows after all.
It had not occurred to anyone that she might be a great singer. Why?
In our society only the beautiful are expected to succeed. Some studies say we humans are predisposed to equate beauty with goodness and that only the beautiful "deserve" fame. It sometimes seems as if you have to be attractive just to simply deserve common every day respect – if you are overweight (or what is considered overweight in our anorexic society), beyond your prime, or don't wear expensive clothes, people look past you as if you do not exist.
This brave soul stepped onto a national (now international) stage and was greeted as a public joke. This is the point where most of us would just walk away and go hide - yet she didn't. After a few moments of eye rolling by Simon Cowell, Amanda Holden, and Piers Morgan and an audience of 3,000 on the reality show "Britain's Got Talent," who were all prepared to ridicule Ms. Boyle once she sang; the angel courageously opened her mouth and started singing.
She knocked them off their feet.
As a 47-year-old Scottish spinster who spent her life caring for her elderly parents, Susan is unemployed, unmarried and, according to her, "never been kissed." She isn't glamorous on the outside, but she is a lovely woman who took care of her family in their time of need, just as millions of unglamorous people do each and every day. Although many may have spent money on fancy clothes at some point in their younger years, life hit them with full force – suddenly sweats or blue jeans seem to be the outfit of choice. Going to the gym to keep that youthful figure becomes less and less important until it becomes just a nuisance. When you wake up one morning to discover you gained 50 lbs, you may care somewhere deep down inside, but the pounds won’t budge so you get on with life.
This is the reason why this story has struck a chord with so many millions of people around the world.
It is wonderful when something good happens to a person like Susan – especially when they deserve it. It is wonderful to watch a middle aged, rounded woman with little or no makeup in an old-fashioned dress go on stage and beat the ridicule and prejudgments with one of the most beautiful voices you will ever hear.
"Susan Boyle is the ugly duckling who didn't need to turn into a swan; she has fulfilled the dreams of millions who, downtrodden by the cruelty of a culture that judges them on their appearance, have settled for life without looking in the mirror," wrote Miranda Sawyer, of the Daily Mirror, "No woman gets to perform publicly unless she looks like Mariah Carey. If you're a female singer, you are required by showbiz law to appear sexy at all times. Poor Madonna and Kylie are desperately keeping up appearances, holding back the years with Botox and face-fillers just so they're allowed to continue with their careers."
I cried when I first heard her sing because she reminds us to hope, to never lose track of our dreams, to keep putting one foot in front of the other no matter what others say or think.
This is a true Cinderella story. A star has been born. Susan has said that she has no intentions of changing the way she looks. Whether she will leave a dent on our prejudices about age and appearance remains to be seen. Susan’s dream is about to come true as all of us plain everyday folk cheer her on.
Please watch her amazing performance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY&feature=related
On “Britain’s Got Talent,” this good lady, because of her looks, was prejudged as a loser the minute she walked onto the stage. It was disheartening to see 3,000 people in the audience roll their eyes as they welcomed the middle-aged lady with snickers and disbelief. Many of these same people don't have the talent or the courage to set foot on that stage.
But her inner beauty and talent shown forth from the moment she started singing "I Dreamed a Dream" from Les Misérables. At the end of her performance, she got a well deserved standing ovation from all. Judge Piers Morgan told her "When you said you wanted to be like Elaine Paige everyone laughed at you, but no one is laughing now. …It was stunning!" When you make Simon smile with pleasure, you have accomplished something. Some good does come from these reality shows after all.
It had not occurred to anyone that she might be a great singer. Why?
In our society only the beautiful are expected to succeed. Some studies say we humans are predisposed to equate beauty with goodness and that only the beautiful "deserve" fame. It sometimes seems as if you have to be attractive just to simply deserve common every day respect – if you are overweight (or what is considered overweight in our anorexic society), beyond your prime, or don't wear expensive clothes, people look past you as if you do not exist.
This brave soul stepped onto a national (now international) stage and was greeted as a public joke. This is the point where most of us would just walk away and go hide - yet she didn't. After a few moments of eye rolling by Simon Cowell, Amanda Holden, and Piers Morgan and an audience of 3,000 on the reality show "Britain's Got Talent," who were all prepared to ridicule Ms. Boyle once she sang; the angel courageously opened her mouth and started singing.
She knocked them off their feet.
As a 47-year-old Scottish spinster who spent her life caring for her elderly parents, Susan is unemployed, unmarried and, according to her, "never been kissed." She isn't glamorous on the outside, but she is a lovely woman who took care of her family in their time of need, just as millions of unglamorous people do each and every day. Although many may have spent money on fancy clothes at some point in their younger years, life hit them with full force – suddenly sweats or blue jeans seem to be the outfit of choice. Going to the gym to keep that youthful figure becomes less and less important until it becomes just a nuisance. When you wake up one morning to discover you gained 50 lbs, you may care somewhere deep down inside, but the pounds won’t budge so you get on with life.
This is the reason why this story has struck a chord with so many millions of people around the world.
It is wonderful when something good happens to a person like Susan – especially when they deserve it. It is wonderful to watch a middle aged, rounded woman with little or no makeup in an old-fashioned dress go on stage and beat the ridicule and prejudgments with one of the most beautiful voices you will ever hear.
"Susan Boyle is the ugly duckling who didn't need to turn into a swan; she has fulfilled the dreams of millions who, downtrodden by the cruelty of a culture that judges them on their appearance, have settled for life without looking in the mirror," wrote Miranda Sawyer, of the Daily Mirror, "No woman gets to perform publicly unless she looks like Mariah Carey. If you're a female singer, you are required by showbiz law to appear sexy at all times. Poor Madonna and Kylie are desperately keeping up appearances, holding back the years with Botox and face-fillers just so they're allowed to continue with their careers."
I cried when I first heard her sing because she reminds us to hope, to never lose track of our dreams, to keep putting one foot in front of the other no matter what others say or think.
This is a true Cinderella story. A star has been born. Susan has said that she has no intentions of changing the way she looks. Whether she will leave a dent on our prejudices about age and appearance remains to be seen. Susan’s dream is about to come true as all of us plain everyday folk cheer her on.
Please watch her amazing performance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY&feature=related
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Economics 101
President Obama gave one excellent speech yesterday explaining the economy and why he is doing what he is doing – and a statement today about overhauling the tax system to make it fairer. For those who never took economics and just don’t get it (like the so-called ‘tea baggers’), here is a short lesson on the difference between the two opposing theories of economics and why one really works better than the other:
First and foremost, economic ‘equilibrium’ is always the goal.
Under the very pragmatic Keynesian theory of economics, government spending is done with an eye to restoring and maintaining equilibrium. Once equilibrium is achieved, government should recapture enough money, through some taxes on the increased economic activity, to pay back the treasury and have a cushion/surplus for the next downturn.
In his 1981 book, Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action, Bruce Bartlett opens with a discussion of Say's Law: “The essence of Say's Law, named for the French economist Jean Baptiste Say, is that goods are ultimately paid for with other goods. Thus, production limits the satisfaction of human wants, not the ability to consume. Jean Baptiste Say, in 1803, argued that the encouragement of mere consumption is no benefit to commerce; for the difficulty lies in supplying the means, not in stimulating the desire of consumption; and we see that production alone furnishes those means. Thus, it is the aim of good governments to stimulate production, and the aim of bad governments to encourage consumption.”
Say's Law was the cornerstone of economic theory, until mortally wounded by John Maynard Keynes in his 1936 book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. One of the most important ideas of 20th century economics was Keynes demonstration that Say's Law does not hold true for large economies. Jean Baptiste Say argued that economies will right themselves and find equilibrium without help. Keynes showed that all too often an economy rights itself only by sinking to the bottom.
Yet, Republicans, through Reaganomics, hold onto Say’s theory as if it were God’s Truth.
The idea that an economy can only stabilize after a severe crash to the bottom was Keynes’ reason for publishing his book about government spending during a downturn. Keynes observed that "one man's expenditure is another man's income." This means if everyone stops buying, there will be fewer jobs, less income, which means less buying, which means even more incentive for businesses to wait for cheaper labor and production. In a deep recession, or a depression, prices never seem to fall enough to get the economic engine going again. That is why the huge amount of government spending for WWII is what pulled us out of the Great Depression. It takes large amounts of government spending to pull us out of a deep downturn. This is why Roosevelt’s work programs were only partly effective; the spending was not of sufficient magnitude.
When disequilibrium takes hold, it is necessary for the government to stimulate the economy and bail out the economic engines (banks, mortgage companies, etc). This must include providing relief to people who made bad decisions. Since it is impossible to go through and decide on a case by case basis whether a person made a risky, but reasonable, decision, it is better to set rules that the majority finds reasonable, and then have relief even for those who might have been outside those boundaries. Government must provide restructuring, basically forgiving sins and wiping the slate clean. This usually means helping everyone so that while people might lose all or most of what they have, they are not so wiped out economically as to be out of the game entirely. Those who are out of the game are the source of an economy spiraling downward.
The policies of the Republicans have been pro-cyclical. Republicans run deficits when times are good, throw fuel on the inflation fire, and create bubbles that people can chase. Pro-cyclical policies, liberals have been pointing out, are unsustainable, because when crisis comes, counter-cyclical action will be needed. This is why hearing now from people who are concerned about running up the deficit is insane. Where were they when it was time to reduce deficits and build up a surplus during the last administration? Many were calling for further tax cuts to return money to the taxpayers (meaning the rich).
We are not in a typical down cycle – we are presently in a “reset” mode.
As progressives call for broader action to remove the sources of disequilibrium from society, the wealthy just want someone else, not themselves, to pay for the cost of having the instability removed, and then they want to have things go back to the way they were before. But it isn't enough just to get back to where things were before because the way things were before was what created the mess in the first place. But giving tax cuts to the wealthy does not work because the wealthy will mostly buy unproductive labor. That is, they will buy things like expensive art, gold, land, high priced items, or buy out competitors and put them out of production. They may employ a few more servants and other forms of labor which does not help to increase the wealth of society. Thus, according to Keynesian economics, that is why tax cuts do not work. When an economy needs a stimulus, government is a better "buyer of last resort" than the wealthy because the money is spent where it is needed.
The key to government spending during an economic collapse is to divide it into very different kinds of spending. One is to just keep citizens from going bankrupt and not being ever able to participate in the middle class again. The second type of spending is restructuring. If government did not spend at this time, we could not bring about equilibrium, as economist Paul Krugman pointed out in his "Depression Economics" editorial in the New York Times, because the result is a downward spiral that will destroy economic trade within the country and around the world.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told lawmakers recently that massive government spending and bailouts are necessary to revive the economy because when people and businesses pull back someone has to fill the void or the economy goes straight into a very deep depression. Government is the only entity that can do this on a large enough scale. He made this statement even though he shares the concern about aid for ailing companies like AIG. Bernanke said, "We are better off moving aggressively today to solve our economic problems. The alternative could be a prolonged episode of economic stagnation that would not only contribute to further deterioration in the fiscal situation, but would also imply lower output, employment, and incomes for an extended period."
To put it simply: it takes money to make money.
Our economy was circling the drain when President Obama took the oath of office. After the Federal Reserve's unprecedented moves to aid the financial sector, and after the stimulus package has started to filter down to cities and counties, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said yesterday that the programs are having the intended effect of lowering the cost and increasing the availability of credit to American consumers and businesses. And if you ask why people are still losing their jobs – it’s because unemployment is a lagging factor. The banks and stock market always turn around first; then the general economy begins to get better – then last, always last, employment begins to increase.
The Tarp is beginning to work. Two banks, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sacs, have announced that they are now able to begin paying back the money. Most states have set aside plans to lay off teachers and policemen for the next year.
The Congressional Republicans and followers, some ‘conservative’ Democrats, and Fox News just do not get it. It’s time to send them back to school for Economics 101.
First and foremost, economic ‘equilibrium’ is always the goal.
Under the very pragmatic Keynesian theory of economics, government spending is done with an eye to restoring and maintaining equilibrium. Once equilibrium is achieved, government should recapture enough money, through some taxes on the increased economic activity, to pay back the treasury and have a cushion/surplus for the next downturn.
In his 1981 book, Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action, Bruce Bartlett opens with a discussion of Say's Law: “The essence of Say's Law, named for the French economist Jean Baptiste Say, is that goods are ultimately paid for with other goods. Thus, production limits the satisfaction of human wants, not the ability to consume. Jean Baptiste Say, in 1803, argued that the encouragement of mere consumption is no benefit to commerce; for the difficulty lies in supplying the means, not in stimulating the desire of consumption; and we see that production alone furnishes those means. Thus, it is the aim of good governments to stimulate production, and the aim of bad governments to encourage consumption.”
Say's Law was the cornerstone of economic theory, until mortally wounded by John Maynard Keynes in his 1936 book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. One of the most important ideas of 20th century economics was Keynes demonstration that Say's Law does not hold true for large economies. Jean Baptiste Say argued that economies will right themselves and find equilibrium without help. Keynes showed that all too often an economy rights itself only by sinking to the bottom.
Yet, Republicans, through Reaganomics, hold onto Say’s theory as if it were God’s Truth.
The idea that an economy can only stabilize after a severe crash to the bottom was Keynes’ reason for publishing his book about government spending during a downturn. Keynes observed that "one man's expenditure is another man's income." This means if everyone stops buying, there will be fewer jobs, less income, which means less buying, which means even more incentive for businesses to wait for cheaper labor and production. In a deep recession, or a depression, prices never seem to fall enough to get the economic engine going again. That is why the huge amount of government spending for WWII is what pulled us out of the Great Depression. It takes large amounts of government spending to pull us out of a deep downturn. This is why Roosevelt’s work programs were only partly effective; the spending was not of sufficient magnitude.
When disequilibrium takes hold, it is necessary for the government to stimulate the economy and bail out the economic engines (banks, mortgage companies, etc). This must include providing relief to people who made bad decisions. Since it is impossible to go through and decide on a case by case basis whether a person made a risky, but reasonable, decision, it is better to set rules that the majority finds reasonable, and then have relief even for those who might have been outside those boundaries. Government must provide restructuring, basically forgiving sins and wiping the slate clean. This usually means helping everyone so that while people might lose all or most of what they have, they are not so wiped out economically as to be out of the game entirely. Those who are out of the game are the source of an economy spiraling downward.
The policies of the Republicans have been pro-cyclical. Republicans run deficits when times are good, throw fuel on the inflation fire, and create bubbles that people can chase. Pro-cyclical policies, liberals have been pointing out, are unsustainable, because when crisis comes, counter-cyclical action will be needed. This is why hearing now from people who are concerned about running up the deficit is insane. Where were they when it was time to reduce deficits and build up a surplus during the last administration? Many were calling for further tax cuts to return money to the taxpayers (meaning the rich).
We are not in a typical down cycle – we are presently in a “reset” mode.
As progressives call for broader action to remove the sources of disequilibrium from society, the wealthy just want someone else, not themselves, to pay for the cost of having the instability removed, and then they want to have things go back to the way they were before. But it isn't enough just to get back to where things were before because the way things were before was what created the mess in the first place. But giving tax cuts to the wealthy does not work because the wealthy will mostly buy unproductive labor. That is, they will buy things like expensive art, gold, land, high priced items, or buy out competitors and put them out of production. They may employ a few more servants and other forms of labor which does not help to increase the wealth of society. Thus, according to Keynesian economics, that is why tax cuts do not work. When an economy needs a stimulus, government is a better "buyer of last resort" than the wealthy because the money is spent where it is needed.
The key to government spending during an economic collapse is to divide it into very different kinds of spending. One is to just keep citizens from going bankrupt and not being ever able to participate in the middle class again. The second type of spending is restructuring. If government did not spend at this time, we could not bring about equilibrium, as economist Paul Krugman pointed out in his "Depression Economics" editorial in the New York Times, because the result is a downward spiral that will destroy economic trade within the country and around the world.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told lawmakers recently that massive government spending and bailouts are necessary to revive the economy because when people and businesses pull back someone has to fill the void or the economy goes straight into a very deep depression. Government is the only entity that can do this on a large enough scale. He made this statement even though he shares the concern about aid for ailing companies like AIG. Bernanke said, "We are better off moving aggressively today to solve our economic problems. The alternative could be a prolonged episode of economic stagnation that would not only contribute to further deterioration in the fiscal situation, but would also imply lower output, employment, and incomes for an extended period."
To put it simply: it takes money to make money.
Our economy was circling the drain when President Obama took the oath of office. After the Federal Reserve's unprecedented moves to aid the financial sector, and after the stimulus package has started to filter down to cities and counties, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said yesterday that the programs are having the intended effect of lowering the cost and increasing the availability of credit to American consumers and businesses. And if you ask why people are still losing their jobs – it’s because unemployment is a lagging factor. The banks and stock market always turn around first; then the general economy begins to get better – then last, always last, employment begins to increase.
The Tarp is beginning to work. Two banks, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sacs, have announced that they are now able to begin paying back the money. Most states have set aside plans to lay off teachers and policemen for the next year.
The Congressional Republicans and followers, some ‘conservative’ Democrats, and Fox News just do not get it. It’s time to send them back to school for Economics 101.
Monday, April 13, 2009
He passed his first test
Obama would have been held responsible and blamed if the operation had failed because he was ultimately in charge. By authorizing deadly force so early, Obama did the right thing. The order to rescue the captain of the Maersk Alabama was approved by President Obama on Friday, and a standing order to shoot to kill the pirates if necessary was issued on Saturday. Regardless of what you think of Obama's politics, he deserves credit for this decision. Had this situation been allowed to drag on and on, it would have been a black eye for the USA, making us appear weak.
Score one for President Obama.
The Hollywood version of a rescue usually has the President sitting in the White House Situation Room with a video link to the U.S. forces on scene. The President gives the orders to shoot and the guys with the guns jump into action. But that’s not reality.
The decision to deploy forces is based on high-level operation plans, concept plans, functional plans, and operation orders (see link below). The ultimate decision to deploy forces abroad is made together by the President and the Secretary of Defense. They oversee the entire Joint Planning and Execution Community, which includes, among others, the regional combatant commanders, the U.S. Transportation Command, and the U.S. Joint Forces Command.
The first step in the case of the Maersk Alabama was an Alert and Deployment Order. This Order, which is issued by the Secretary of Defense under the President’s knowledge and authority, alerts the relevant military forces that will be required to participate. In other words, if the SEALs are tasked to conduct the rescue they will have to fly to the scene. This means that Transportation Command is tasked to provide aircraft to move the force to the scene. The Alert and Deployment Order gets the forces moving.
To those who do not understand why an order was issued on Friday, and another on Saturday, there were no forces on the scene capable of affecting a rescue on Friday. It takes time for those forces to be alerted, grab their gear, and board a plane. Then, once in the air, they have to have a place to land and get on the ship. There were two orders –1) Alert and Deployment and 2) Execute Order. Once the forces have arrived on scene an Execute Order is issued. Again, this is signed out by the Secretary of Defense under Presidential authority and with the full knowledge of the President. The Order stipulates who can shoot whom, under what circumstances, and what is to be done with the dead and wounded.
Even in the Alert and Deployment Order there probably was a paragraph authorizing Emergency Assault and defining the conditions under which that should occur. The personnel capable of doing the shooting did not get on board the ship until sometime on Saturday. The Execute Order included ROE (rules of engagement) and Emergency Assault Authority at the discretion of the on scene commander.
If you had a chance to listen to the Admiral’s briefing on the operation, it was clear that this is how the mission went down. Obama gave the order early to the on scene commander to use force if necessary, leaving it up to the on scene commander to use his own best judgment. This is the way things should be done.
Whether you like or dislike Obama, he should be given credit by all citizens for doing the operation the way it is supposed to be done. He gave the proper order early, kept quiet about what was going down (even though many news entertainment networks were blabbing about his ‘absence’ in this affair), and did not create obstacles.
Obama was tested, and he passed the test.
Go here: JOPES http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/dod/docs/pub1_97/Chap7.html
Score one for President Obama.
The Hollywood version of a rescue usually has the President sitting in the White House Situation Room with a video link to the U.S. forces on scene. The President gives the orders to shoot and the guys with the guns jump into action. But that’s not reality.
The decision to deploy forces is based on high-level operation plans, concept plans, functional plans, and operation orders (see link below). The ultimate decision to deploy forces abroad is made together by the President and the Secretary of Defense. They oversee the entire Joint Planning and Execution Community, which includes, among others, the regional combatant commanders, the U.S. Transportation Command, and the U.S. Joint Forces Command.
The first step in the case of the Maersk Alabama was an Alert and Deployment Order. This Order, which is issued by the Secretary of Defense under the President’s knowledge and authority, alerts the relevant military forces that will be required to participate. In other words, if the SEALs are tasked to conduct the rescue they will have to fly to the scene. This means that Transportation Command is tasked to provide aircraft to move the force to the scene. The Alert and Deployment Order gets the forces moving.
To those who do not understand why an order was issued on Friday, and another on Saturday, there were no forces on the scene capable of affecting a rescue on Friday. It takes time for those forces to be alerted, grab their gear, and board a plane. Then, once in the air, they have to have a place to land and get on the ship. There were two orders –1) Alert and Deployment and 2) Execute Order. Once the forces have arrived on scene an Execute Order is issued. Again, this is signed out by the Secretary of Defense under Presidential authority and with the full knowledge of the President. The Order stipulates who can shoot whom, under what circumstances, and what is to be done with the dead and wounded.
Even in the Alert and Deployment Order there probably was a paragraph authorizing Emergency Assault and defining the conditions under which that should occur. The personnel capable of doing the shooting did not get on board the ship until sometime on Saturday. The Execute Order included ROE (rules of engagement) and Emergency Assault Authority at the discretion of the on scene commander.
If you had a chance to listen to the Admiral’s briefing on the operation, it was clear that this is how the mission went down. Obama gave the order early to the on scene commander to use force if necessary, leaving it up to the on scene commander to use his own best judgment. This is the way things should be done.
Whether you like or dislike Obama, he should be given credit by all citizens for doing the operation the way it is supposed to be done. He gave the proper order early, kept quiet about what was going down (even though many news entertainment networks were blabbing about his ‘absence’ in this affair), and did not create obstacles.
Obama was tested, and he passed the test.
Go here: JOPES http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/dod/docs/pub1_97/Chap7.html
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The least of these
On Easter, Christians reflect on salvation and renewal. But many, in celebrating their “atonement”, all too readily forget the mission that was charged to them:
The Son of Man will put the sheep (good people) on his right and the goats (bad people) on his left. Then the king will say to those good people on his right, 'Come. My Father has given you great blessings. Come and get the kingdom God promised you. That kingdom has been prepared for you since the world was made. You can have this kingdom, because I was hungry and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was alone and away from home, and you invited me into your home. I was without clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you came to visit me… I tell you the truth. Anything you did for any of my people here, you also did for me.'
Matthew 25:33-40
Over the years, I have heard many say that "America is a land of opportunity" and that the poor are poor because of laziness, drugs, drink, etc. For some, this is true, but for many it is not. Poverty touches too many lives in this wealthy country. They are not “just statistics,” but rather an indicator that tens of millions of people lack the security and opportunities they need to thrive and contribute fully. According to the latest available statistics, average incomes for the bottom fifth of U.S. households were lower in 2007 than in 2000 ($11,551 versus $12,229), and average incomes for the next highest quintile were also lower ($29,442 versus $30,353).
The Center for American Progress reports that between 1959 and 1973, poverty in the United States fell by 50 percent. More recently, in the seven years between 1993 and 2000, poverty fell by 25 percent, and child poverty fell by 29 percent. In both periods, a near full-employment economy was combined with federal, state, and local policies and efforts that directly sought to address unemployment and poverty. But the record of the past eight years demonstrates that without such an effort, poverty increased exponentially. Our governmental policy choices have a great deal to do with determining whether many win the benefits of economic growth, or only a few.
These days there are too many folks who are all too willing to blame poverty on the poor themselves. Poverty will end for individuals, this group tells us, when they pull themselves up by their bootstraps and go to work. But this overlooks the side of the problem the Bible does not overlook. There are social, economic and political forces at work that contribute to poverty. There are many places where double-digit unemployment has been the norm, even before the economic downturn, rather than the exception. This suggests a lack of jobs, not a lack of willing workers.
The Bible does portray some poverty as having its roots in personal behavior. Proverbs warns that those who refuse to work, or those who do not lay aside resources for a rainy day, or who indulge various desires can quickly become poor. That these behaviors contribute to poverty is obvious.
However, the biblical witness spends considerable more time on other causes of poverty. The frequent use of the expression "widows and orphans" is understood to mean those who are economically disadvantaged and powerless to do anything about it. Often the poor are those who are victimized by the powerful for personal or political gain. Some become poor, the prophets point out, because the marketplace is not fair. There are many warnings in the Bible about unfair scales and unfair wages. In all of these instances, the Bible is critical of the institutions and systems that take unfair advantage of people who are powerless against them, not of the individuals who happen to be poor.
We have seen it all over the news the last few months. Due to deregulation of the financial industry the marketplace has not been fair. It was rigged to help the rich become richer at the expense of millions of hapless individuals. This recent greedy misadventure of Wall Street into credit default swaps (derivatives) and subprime mortgages is what brought the economy down and hard times for millions of Americans. If unemployment rates reach double-digits, as some economists fear, nearly 7 million people will lose their jobs, more than 7 million will lose their health coverage, and more than 12 million will fall into poverty.
By 2007, the percentage of poor Americans who are living in poverty had reached a 32-year high. (This closely coincides, by the way, with the timeline of Reaganomics). Millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen. After tapping friends and family, maxing out their credit cards and sufficiently swallowing their pride, at least 23 million Americans stood in food lines last year – many of them the working poor, according to America's Second Harvest, the Chicago-based hunger relief organization. The surge in food demand is fueled by several forces – job losses, expired unemployment benefits, soaring health-care and housing costs, and the inability of many people to find jobs that match the income and benefits of the jobs they lost.
According to Stacy Dean, director of food stamp policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the reach of the economic slowdown has really taken down many folks who never expected to be poor. And according to Robert Forney, CEO of America's Second Harvest, this is not just a function of unemployment – a larger percentage of Americans are working poor, and the numbers have been growing for nine years. This may be the low-water mark for the economy, but for a whole lot of Americans – 43 million of them – the option of earning a living wage and benefits is not possible.
Blessed are the poor, for they need Christians' help:
The Bible is filled with significant and frequent references to God's concern for the poor. The evangelical social group Call to Renewal calls this situation "a moral outrage that our country refuses to do better." What role should people of faith have in making it better?
If Christians truly want to help our country do a better job of dealing with increasing poverty, where should we start? This goes beyond taking a turkey dinner to a poor family for Thanksgiving and then feeling good about oneself for giving charity or spending a day, even a week, helping to build a house with Habitat. If the faith community is going to participate in a response to the problem of poverty, we cannot overlook the economic and social forces that are beyond the reach of individual willpower. It means looking at tax codes, educational opportunities, healthcare, job creation, wages and benefits. It means re-regulating banks, mortgage, and insurance companies. It also means, if you are wealthy, paying more taxes in support of your government, country, and the social lifelines it provides for the “least of these.”
Jesus understood the obstacles we would encounter. Taking on the economically and politically powerful entities that create and maintain poverty in our world in order to increase their own wealth is no small task. But if we are to make a difference on behalf of the poor, that's exactly what Christians must do. When Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor," he was not saying poverty is blessed, but that the poor are not wicked or lazy. Jesus’ sermon was to remind us that the poor are not always responsible for their poverty.
As you celebrate the Resurrection and Atonement, where are you looking for Jesus? He is among those who have lost their homes through bankruptcy due to serious illness and not having enough or no health insurance; he is among those who have been abused; he is among those who have lost their jobs, and, consequently, their homes; he is among those who are caught in war zones; and the list goes on.
Jesus made it clear that in helping the "least of these” we also serve him. Whom or what do you serve?
The Son of Man will put the sheep (good people) on his right and the goats (bad people) on his left. Then the king will say to those good people on his right, 'Come. My Father has given you great blessings. Come and get the kingdom God promised you. That kingdom has been prepared for you since the world was made. You can have this kingdom, because I was hungry and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was alone and away from home, and you invited me into your home. I was without clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you came to visit me… I tell you the truth. Anything you did for any of my people here, you also did for me.'
Matthew 25:33-40
Over the years, I have heard many say that "America is a land of opportunity" and that the poor are poor because of laziness, drugs, drink, etc. For some, this is true, but for many it is not. Poverty touches too many lives in this wealthy country. They are not “just statistics,” but rather an indicator that tens of millions of people lack the security and opportunities they need to thrive and contribute fully. According to the latest available statistics, average incomes for the bottom fifth of U.S. households were lower in 2007 than in 2000 ($11,551 versus $12,229), and average incomes for the next highest quintile were also lower ($29,442 versus $30,353).
The Center for American Progress reports that between 1959 and 1973, poverty in the United States fell by 50 percent. More recently, in the seven years between 1993 and 2000, poverty fell by 25 percent, and child poverty fell by 29 percent. In both periods, a near full-employment economy was combined with federal, state, and local policies and efforts that directly sought to address unemployment and poverty. But the record of the past eight years demonstrates that without such an effort, poverty increased exponentially. Our governmental policy choices have a great deal to do with determining whether many win the benefits of economic growth, or only a few.
These days there are too many folks who are all too willing to blame poverty on the poor themselves. Poverty will end for individuals, this group tells us, when they pull themselves up by their bootstraps and go to work. But this overlooks the side of the problem the Bible does not overlook. There are social, economic and political forces at work that contribute to poverty. There are many places where double-digit unemployment has been the norm, even before the economic downturn, rather than the exception. This suggests a lack of jobs, not a lack of willing workers.
The Bible does portray some poverty as having its roots in personal behavior. Proverbs warns that those who refuse to work, or those who do not lay aside resources for a rainy day, or who indulge various desires can quickly become poor. That these behaviors contribute to poverty is obvious.
However, the biblical witness spends considerable more time on other causes of poverty. The frequent use of the expression "widows and orphans" is understood to mean those who are economically disadvantaged and powerless to do anything about it. Often the poor are those who are victimized by the powerful for personal or political gain. Some become poor, the prophets point out, because the marketplace is not fair. There are many warnings in the Bible about unfair scales and unfair wages. In all of these instances, the Bible is critical of the institutions and systems that take unfair advantage of people who are powerless against them, not of the individuals who happen to be poor.
We have seen it all over the news the last few months. Due to deregulation of the financial industry the marketplace has not been fair. It was rigged to help the rich become richer at the expense of millions of hapless individuals. This recent greedy misadventure of Wall Street into credit default swaps (derivatives) and subprime mortgages is what brought the economy down and hard times for millions of Americans. If unemployment rates reach double-digits, as some economists fear, nearly 7 million people will lose their jobs, more than 7 million will lose their health coverage, and more than 12 million will fall into poverty.
By 2007, the percentage of poor Americans who are living in poverty had reached a 32-year high. (This closely coincides, by the way, with the timeline of Reaganomics). Millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen. After tapping friends and family, maxing out their credit cards and sufficiently swallowing their pride, at least 23 million Americans stood in food lines last year – many of them the working poor, according to America's Second Harvest, the Chicago-based hunger relief organization. The surge in food demand is fueled by several forces – job losses, expired unemployment benefits, soaring health-care and housing costs, and the inability of many people to find jobs that match the income and benefits of the jobs they lost.
According to Stacy Dean, director of food stamp policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the reach of the economic slowdown has really taken down many folks who never expected to be poor. And according to Robert Forney, CEO of America's Second Harvest, this is not just a function of unemployment – a larger percentage of Americans are working poor, and the numbers have been growing for nine years. This may be the low-water mark for the economy, but for a whole lot of Americans – 43 million of them – the option of earning a living wage and benefits is not possible.
Blessed are the poor, for they need Christians' help:
The Bible is filled with significant and frequent references to God's concern for the poor. The evangelical social group Call to Renewal calls this situation "a moral outrage that our country refuses to do better." What role should people of faith have in making it better?
If Christians truly want to help our country do a better job of dealing with increasing poverty, where should we start? This goes beyond taking a turkey dinner to a poor family for Thanksgiving and then feeling good about oneself for giving charity or spending a day, even a week, helping to build a house with Habitat. If the faith community is going to participate in a response to the problem of poverty, we cannot overlook the economic and social forces that are beyond the reach of individual willpower. It means looking at tax codes, educational opportunities, healthcare, job creation, wages and benefits. It means re-regulating banks, mortgage, and insurance companies. It also means, if you are wealthy, paying more taxes in support of your government, country, and the social lifelines it provides for the “least of these.”
Jesus understood the obstacles we would encounter. Taking on the economically and politically powerful entities that create and maintain poverty in our world in order to increase their own wealth is no small task. But if we are to make a difference on behalf of the poor, that's exactly what Christians must do. When Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor," he was not saying poverty is blessed, but that the poor are not wicked or lazy. Jesus’ sermon was to remind us that the poor are not always responsible for their poverty.
As you celebrate the Resurrection and Atonement, where are you looking for Jesus? He is among those who have lost their homes through bankruptcy due to serious illness and not having enough or no health insurance; he is among those who have been abused; he is among those who have lost their jobs, and, consequently, their homes; he is among those who are caught in war zones; and the list goes on.
Jesus made it clear that in helping the "least of these” we also serve him. Whom or what do you serve?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
I will never become a Twit.
Here are excerpts from an article written by Roger Ebert. (A link to the full article is given below.)
“…We have an urgent need, whether innate or evolved, to communicate as quickly and easily as possible outside our own minds. We can only shout so loud. Then come drums, beacons, messengers, mirrors, flags, the telegraph, radio, television, computers, the internet, the web, and now the time of PDAs. In the earliest days of the web, people created personal web pages to extend themselves into cyberspace. Then web sites invited users to have web pages without knowing much about HTML. With the advent of cell phones, the Web came into our portable possession. Then came texting and its simplified offspring, Twitter. All of this involved the communication of information, otherwise known as Talking....
...What interests me is the sight of our grandchildren in the presence of other people who are actually there, glancing down at an iPhone cupped in their palms like gamblers checking their cash. Then texting with their hands under the surface of the dinner table, as if sliding an ace up a sleeve. Sometimes receiving a message as surprising as a Royal Flush. OMG!
...I thought at first this compulsion desire was centered in teenagers. Then I began to observe it among editors, lawyers, cops, waiters, sports fans, construction workers, people in restaurants, even people watching movies. During President Obama's recent address to a joint session of Congress, a good many members of his audience could be observed twittering. This is as childish as throwing paper airplanes in class....
Members of both parties were observed. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) twittered: "Aggie basketball game is about to start on espn2 for those of you that aren't going to bother watching pelosi smirk for the next hour." A few minutes later his Twitter friends read: "Disregard that last Tweet from a staffer." How Barton, still sitting on the floor of Congress, pried the Blackberry from his staffer's cold, dead hands, I leave it for you to imagine....
...The point is that we are becoming a nation of twits. In the old days, when Mike Royko was stuck for a column subject, he'd call up the Chicago Daily News man at Police Headquarters or City Hall and ask what was happening. These days columnists seek to amaze us with their day's adventure on Twitter. OMG squared!
I will never become a Twit....I agree that many people find such sites useful. Cell phones have become an extension of the human ear. It is commonplace to find yourself standing next to people who are talking audibly, even loudly. They're hearing voices in their heads, but are not schizophrenic. What they are is elsewhere.
...Teenagers once were famous for shutting the bedroom door and talking with friends for hours on the phone. They still spend time on the phone, but some of them may spend more time texting. Instead of telling one friend "I think he's cool," they reach dozens: "Who thinks he's cool?" The answers twitter in. Me. Not me. No way. This is not conversation, but it is contact. I am here. I am me. We are joined in a web. We keep the matrix afloat. At 3 a.m.: Anybody awake? Me. Me too. Me too.
...The brain transmits tiny electrical signals. Eventually Twits will be able to twitter mentally, eliminating the Blackberry as a middle man. If a memory chip can one day be implanted in a human brain, a human could find himself occupying a new body. Where will the body be found? Why, at a clone farm, of course; they've already been invented in science fiction. Your body could be cloned and implanted with you, and you would be Benjamin Button now living toward the future.”
To read the whole article, The human race on a key ring by Roger Ebert, go here: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/the_human_race_on_a_key_ring.html#more
“…We have an urgent need, whether innate or evolved, to communicate as quickly and easily as possible outside our own minds. We can only shout so loud. Then come drums, beacons, messengers, mirrors, flags, the telegraph, radio, television, computers, the internet, the web, and now the time of PDAs. In the earliest days of the web, people created personal web pages to extend themselves into cyberspace. Then web sites invited users to have web pages without knowing much about HTML. With the advent of cell phones, the Web came into our portable possession. Then came texting and its simplified offspring, Twitter. All of this involved the communication of information, otherwise known as Talking....
...What interests me is the sight of our grandchildren in the presence of other people who are actually there, glancing down at an iPhone cupped in their palms like gamblers checking their cash. Then texting with their hands under the surface of the dinner table, as if sliding an ace up a sleeve. Sometimes receiving a message as surprising as a Royal Flush. OMG!
...I thought at first this compulsion desire was centered in teenagers. Then I began to observe it among editors, lawyers, cops, waiters, sports fans, construction workers, people in restaurants, even people watching movies. During President Obama's recent address to a joint session of Congress, a good many members of his audience could be observed twittering. This is as childish as throwing paper airplanes in class....
Members of both parties were observed. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) twittered: "Aggie basketball game is about to start on espn2 for those of you that aren't going to bother watching pelosi smirk for the next hour." A few minutes later his Twitter friends read: "Disregard that last Tweet from a staffer." How Barton, still sitting on the floor of Congress, pried the Blackberry from his staffer's cold, dead hands, I leave it for you to imagine....
...The point is that we are becoming a nation of twits. In the old days, when Mike Royko was stuck for a column subject, he'd call up the Chicago Daily News man at Police Headquarters or City Hall and ask what was happening. These days columnists seek to amaze us with their day's adventure on Twitter. OMG squared!
I will never become a Twit....I agree that many people find such sites useful. Cell phones have become an extension of the human ear. It is commonplace to find yourself standing next to people who are talking audibly, even loudly. They're hearing voices in their heads, but are not schizophrenic. What they are is elsewhere.
...Teenagers once were famous for shutting the bedroom door and talking with friends for hours on the phone. They still spend time on the phone, but some of them may spend more time texting. Instead of telling one friend "I think he's cool," they reach dozens: "Who thinks he's cool?" The answers twitter in. Me. Not me. No way. This is not conversation, but it is contact. I am here. I am me. We are joined in a web. We keep the matrix afloat. At 3 a.m.: Anybody awake? Me. Me too. Me too.
...The brain transmits tiny electrical signals. Eventually Twits will be able to twitter mentally, eliminating the Blackberry as a middle man. If a memory chip can one day be implanted in a human brain, a human could find himself occupying a new body. Where will the body be found? Why, at a clone farm, of course; they've already been invented in science fiction. Your body could be cloned and implanted with you, and you would be Benjamin Button now living toward the future.”
To read the whole article, The human race on a key ring by Roger Ebert, go here: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/the_human_race_on_a_key_ring.html#more
Friday, April 3, 2009
The joke is on us
As surely as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, Republicans will offer tax giveaways to the wealthy as the cure-all for surpluses, deficits, boom times, and recessions. The government’s Office of Management and Budget communications director Kenneth Baer said this about the Republican alternative budget, "I have two words for you: April Fool's."
Just to give you some context, as the Center for American Progress noted, the Bush tax cuts delivered a third of their total benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Their payday was staggering. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities detailed in 2008, in 2007 millionaires on average pocketed $120,000 from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Those in the top 1% were allowed to keep an extra $45,000 a year! As a result, millionaires saw their after-tax incomes rise by 7.6%, while the gains for the middle class and poor were basically stagnate.
As the Republicans try to give away billions to those who are already living high on the hog, what do they budget for health care, research on renewable energy, natural disasters, or to bring down the deficit? Do they actually put the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in their budget as Obama did in his?
While the Democratic budget cuts taxes for middle class families, and makes critical investments in health care, education and clean energy, the Republican budget released on Tuesday called for "a marginal tax rate for income up to $100,000 of 10 percent and 25 percent for any income thereafter," which would result in a massive reduction in government revenue and another generous tax break for the wealthy. They also propose to cut taxes for business, freeze most government spending for five years, halt spending approved in the economic stimulus package, and slash federal health programs for the poor and elderly. The Republican budget plan would gradually eliminate the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program, offering a stark alternative ‘voucher’ plan so the elderly would have to buy their insurance on the open market.
But please beware, Republicans are playing a shell game with the numbers: You, the taxpayer would get to choose whether you want the new tax rate or the old tax rate. This is how the Republicans offer the tax cut without factoring it into the budget's revenue – suggesting that Americans won't actually take advantage of the lower rates. Instead, the GOP budget permanently extends President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A Republican budget committee aid said that the revenues assumed in the GOP budget are based on the current tax structure. In other words, in order to give you, the public, a more favorable picture of the deficit their budget would create, Republicans are making the assumption that Americans will choose the higher rate – hence, the shell game.
Under the current tax code, an individual making more than $160,850 pays a 33 percent rate; under the Republican plan, that taxpayer could choose to pay 25 percent instead. (For a family, the income threshold is $195,850.) For a family earning more than $349,700, the rate rises to 35 percent, but filers could still choose the 25 percent rate. If taxpayers did decide to pay the lower rate, government revenue would plummet by roughly $300 billion per year, said economist Dean Baker of the liberal-leaning Center for Economic Policy Research. This would effectively gut most domestic programs such as healthcare and renewable energy research.
A study by the non-partisan ‘Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ demonstrated that the Bush tax cuts accounted for half of the mushrooming deficits during his tenure in the White House – and yet Republicans want to do more of the same. What’s worse, the Republicans have not put forward any credible deficit-reduction plans. Their main alternative to Obama's stimulus plan is a $3.6 trillion tax cut for the wealthy that will add that same amount to the national debt.
Once again Republicans want to give an overwhelming share of tax cuts to wealthier Americans. Yet the GOP plan fails to invest in high priorities such as education, infrastructure, public safety and biomedical research. And their plan for Medicare is that workers under the age of 55 would no longer be allowed to buy into the program but instead receive insurance premium subsidies. The Medicare move would gut the program and turn it into a voucher system. The Republicans are basically saying to the retired and elderly who often cannot qualify for insurance on the open market “here’s a small amount against your insurance premium – if you can find someone who will insure you.” The amount of the voucher would all too quickly fall behind the rising cost of health care.
Some of the features of the GOP budget are:
• Rescinding the newly passed economic stimulus package in 2010, except for unemployment insurance for those who have already lost their job;
• Freezing non-defense, non-veteran spending;
• Converting Medicaid into an allotment to states. Turn Medicare into an insurance voucher system. (Keeping current Medicare secure for those who are now over 55.)
• Privatize Social Security – if you lose the money in the stock market it will be your tough luck;
• Make permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts while setting up a parallel, simplified tax code that taxpayers could opt-in to. Taxpayers would have a choice of keeping the current system, or choosing one that would tax couples making $100,000 (or individuals making $50,000) at a10% rate and taxing those above at 25%.
• Cutting the corporate tax rate to 25% as a “job-creating measure”;
• Increasing offshore oil drilling; no cap-and-trade;
Here is a graph from Republican Paul Ryan's Wall Street Journal op-ed on the subject, because it's a blatant exaggeration. They are saying that this is based on Congressional Budget Office's Long-Term Alternative Fiscal Scenario, but the CBO has never done an analysis that runs through 2080. This graph supposedly compares the Democratic Budget and the Republican Alternative based on spending as a percentage of GDP all the way up to 2080:
The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Obama budget only through 2019, and it looks like this:
Apparently, Paul Ryan and his staff just took the CBO projections (above) that end in 2019 and drew a random line, extending upward at about a 45 degree angle, until 2080.
Census Bureau data reveal large, consistent differences in patterns of real pre-tax income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents since World War II. Democratic presidents have produced slightly more income growth for poor families than for rich families, resulting in a modest decrease in overall inequality. Republican presidents have produced a great deal more income growth for rich families than for poor families, resulting in a substantial increase in inequality. How can the average citizen not see that Republicans are in bed with the wealthy?
OMB’s Kenneth Baer was correct – the joke is on us.
Just to give you some context, as the Center for American Progress noted, the Bush tax cuts delivered a third of their total benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Their payday was staggering. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities detailed in 2008, in 2007 millionaires on average pocketed $120,000 from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Those in the top 1% were allowed to keep an extra $45,000 a year! As a result, millionaires saw their after-tax incomes rise by 7.6%, while the gains for the middle class and poor were basically stagnate.
As the Republicans try to give away billions to those who are already living high on the hog, what do they budget for health care, research on renewable energy, natural disasters, or to bring down the deficit? Do they actually put the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in their budget as Obama did in his?
While the Democratic budget cuts taxes for middle class families, and makes critical investments in health care, education and clean energy, the Republican budget released on Tuesday called for "a marginal tax rate for income up to $100,000 of 10 percent and 25 percent for any income thereafter," which would result in a massive reduction in government revenue and another generous tax break for the wealthy. They also propose to cut taxes for business, freeze most government spending for five years, halt spending approved in the economic stimulus package, and slash federal health programs for the poor and elderly. The Republican budget plan would gradually eliminate the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program, offering a stark alternative ‘voucher’ plan so the elderly would have to buy their insurance on the open market.
But please beware, Republicans are playing a shell game with the numbers: You, the taxpayer would get to choose whether you want the new tax rate or the old tax rate. This is how the Republicans offer the tax cut without factoring it into the budget's revenue – suggesting that Americans won't actually take advantage of the lower rates. Instead, the GOP budget permanently extends President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A Republican budget committee aid said that the revenues assumed in the GOP budget are based on the current tax structure. In other words, in order to give you, the public, a more favorable picture of the deficit their budget would create, Republicans are making the assumption that Americans will choose the higher rate – hence, the shell game.
Under the current tax code, an individual making more than $160,850 pays a 33 percent rate; under the Republican plan, that taxpayer could choose to pay 25 percent instead. (For a family, the income threshold is $195,850.) For a family earning more than $349,700, the rate rises to 35 percent, but filers could still choose the 25 percent rate. If taxpayers did decide to pay the lower rate, government revenue would plummet by roughly $300 billion per year, said economist Dean Baker of the liberal-leaning Center for Economic Policy Research. This would effectively gut most domestic programs such as healthcare and renewable energy research.
A study by the non-partisan ‘Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ demonstrated that the Bush tax cuts accounted for half of the mushrooming deficits during his tenure in the White House – and yet Republicans want to do more of the same. What’s worse, the Republicans have not put forward any credible deficit-reduction plans. Their main alternative to Obama's stimulus plan is a $3.6 trillion tax cut for the wealthy that will add that same amount to the national debt.
Once again Republicans want to give an overwhelming share of tax cuts to wealthier Americans. Yet the GOP plan fails to invest in high priorities such as education, infrastructure, public safety and biomedical research. And their plan for Medicare is that workers under the age of 55 would no longer be allowed to buy into the program but instead receive insurance premium subsidies. The Medicare move would gut the program and turn it into a voucher system. The Republicans are basically saying to the retired and elderly who often cannot qualify for insurance on the open market “here’s a small amount against your insurance premium – if you can find someone who will insure you.” The amount of the voucher would all too quickly fall behind the rising cost of health care.
Some of the features of the GOP budget are:
• Rescinding the newly passed economic stimulus package in 2010, except for unemployment insurance for those who have already lost their job;
• Freezing non-defense, non-veteran spending;
• Converting Medicaid into an allotment to states. Turn Medicare into an insurance voucher system. (Keeping current Medicare secure for those who are now over 55.)
• Privatize Social Security – if you lose the money in the stock market it will be your tough luck;
• Make permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts while setting up a parallel, simplified tax code that taxpayers could opt-in to. Taxpayers would have a choice of keeping the current system, or choosing one that would tax couples making $100,000 (or individuals making $50,000) at a10% rate and taxing those above at 25%.
• Cutting the corporate tax rate to 25% as a “job-creating measure”;
• Increasing offshore oil drilling; no cap-and-trade;
Here is a graph from Republican Paul Ryan's Wall Street Journal op-ed on the subject, because it's a blatant exaggeration. They are saying that this is based on Congressional Budget Office's Long-Term Alternative Fiscal Scenario, but the CBO has never done an analysis that runs through 2080. This graph supposedly compares the Democratic Budget and the Republican Alternative based on spending as a percentage of GDP all the way up to 2080:
The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Obama budget only through 2019, and it looks like this:
Apparently, Paul Ryan and his staff just took the CBO projections (above) that end in 2019 and drew a random line, extending upward at about a 45 degree angle, until 2080.
Census Bureau data reveal large, consistent differences in patterns of real pre-tax income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents since World War II. Democratic presidents have produced slightly more income growth for poor families than for rich families, resulting in a modest decrease in overall inequality. Republican presidents have produced a great deal more income growth for rich families than for poor families, resulting in a substantial increase in inequality. How can the average citizen not see that Republicans are in bed with the wealthy?
OMB’s Kenneth Baer was correct – the joke is on us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)