Why do the Republicans even exist?

Robert Reich has an interesting blog post about how damaging it would be if the Republicans destroyed themselves. I don't know...If they took down the people who make sense and aren't bullies, that would be bad. But if they bullies go away how would that be bad? I mean, would it really be a bad thing if the absolute whackos in this country were silenced, or muzzled to a point of irrelevance? The Left has crazies too, but they do not dominate the discussion as the crazies on the Right does. Letting the party implode so that they prove to the country how whacked they are seems like it would allow the saner folks on the right to get back in the driver seat. We have become a country where we let our toddlers throw tantrums anytime they want without any discipline. That is wrong. I was raised better than that. Why is that tolerated now?

Reich's conclusion about needing two parties grounded in reality seems like the happy ideal. I don't think either party is grounded in reality right now. Having one party implode might shake the other party awake and get them grounded. I don't know. All I know is that I am absolutely terrified of what the next year could be for my family, and I'm not seeing much hope. A storm is coming.

Now, on that cheery note: How is it that Republicans can run around SCREAMING about how we need to pay for the payroll tax cut when these same assholes claims that all tax cuts pay for themselves and that offsets are unnecessary? Does that 'pay for itself' logic only apply when when vast majority of tax cuts go to wealthy earners? How about Paul Ryan, who claims to be worried about the federal budget, but was nowhere to be seen with these worries during the Bush Administration and who voted for the Medicare Part D drug plan. A plan whose cost is $400 billion and is completely unfunded except via debt? How does that work, sir? David Frum calls out how silly it's getting when the Wall St. Journal goes after House Republicans over the payroll tax.

On the ABC Sunday political talk show This Week Robert Reich, George Will, Barney Frank, and Paul Ryan debated each other over various topics. It was a good but odd debate. The debate was too short. But I found myself agreeing with Will and Ryan on how to deal with the banks. But if their ideas were proposed by a Democrat, then that Democrat would be called a Socialist by Will and Ryan. Republicans = Cognitive Dissonance.

See the show below:


Part one of the debate:


Part two:


One of the things that I've been wondering is how rich people have gotten so rich. If you look at the ones who earned their wealth not through inheritance, it is easy to come to the conclusion that these are folks that stuck with it through thick and thing, good times and bad, etc. People who are mentally tough and can take some abuse and dish it out. Yet as soon as Obama says that tax rates should go back to the 90's, and that there is income inequality, you see some of these lucky people go on television and whine about how they do agree that taxes should go up, but they are bothered by the tone. Are these folks babies? I don't get it. Life is tough. Shut up and deal with it. I was thinking about this, and then Krugman came to the same conclusion the other day, so that felt like a confirmation of sorts in my thinking.

Rick Perry has started collecting his government pension while still governor of Texas. WTF??? I thought greedy public employees were part of the problem. His response: "It's legal to do this in the state of Texas." Good for you, you douche. What he's saying is 'It's not me. It's THEM that are the problem.' Please go away, Rick Perry.

I can't answer why the Republican party still exists. But maybe Republicans will answer that all by themselves.

Not if but how

Bruce Bartlett weighs in on taxing the rich. Lots and LOTS of debunking here.

Editorial from Bloomberg News

Wow, what a day. TONS of great commentary. Starting off, there is a GREAT op-ed in Boomberg news about how taxing the rich is a good thing. Here's the link, but this is so good I'm just going to paste the whole thing here:

Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: Nick Hanauer

By Nick Hanauer - Nov 30, 2011

It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.
Trouble is, sometimes the things that we know to be true are dead wrong. For the larger part of human history, for example, people were sure that the sun circles the Earth and that we are at the center of the universe. It doesn’t, and we aren’t. The conventional wisdom that the rich and businesses are our nation’s “job creators” is every bit as false.
I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)
Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.

Theory of Evolution

When businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it is like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around.
It is unquestionably true that without entrepreneurs and investors, you can’t have a dynamic and growing capitalist economy. But it’s equally true that without consumers, you can’t have entrepreneurs and investors. And the more we have happy customers with lots of disposable income, the better our businesses will do.
That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When the American middle class defends a tax system in which the lion’s share of benefits accrues to the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.
And that’s what has been happening in the U.S. for the last 30 years.
Since 1980, the share of the nation’s income for fat cats like me in the top 0.1 percent has increased a shocking 400 percent, while the share for the bottom 50 percent of Americans has declined 33 percent. At the same time, effective tax rates on the superwealthy fell to 16.6 percent in 2007, from 42 percent at the peak of U.S. productivity in the early 1960s, and about 30 percent during the expansion of the 1990s. In my case, that means that this year, I paid an 11 percent rate on an eight-figure income.
One reason this policy is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the average American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, I go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.
It’s true that we do spend a lot more than the average family. Yet the one truly expensive line item in our budget is our airplane (which, by the way, was manufactured in France by Dassault Aviation SA (AM)), and those annual costs are mostly for fuel (from the Middle East). It’s just crazy to believe that any of this is more beneficial to our economy than hiring more teachers or police officers or investing in our infrastructure.

More Shoppers Needed

I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the tens of millions of middle-class families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.
If the average American family still got the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would have an astounding $13,000 more in their pockets a year. It’s worth pausing to consider what our economy would be like today if middle-class consumers had that additional income to spend.
It is mathematically impossible to invest enough in our economy and our country to sustain the middle class (our customers) without taxing the top 1 percent at reasonable levels again. Shifting the burden from the 99 percent to the 1 percent is the surest and best way to get our consumer-based economy rolling again.
Significant tax increases on the about $1.5 trillion in collective income of those of us in the top 1 percent could create hundreds of billions of dollars to invest in our economy, rather than letting it pile up in a few bank accounts like a huge clot in our nation’s economic circulatory system.
Consider, for example, that a puny 3 percent surtax on incomes above $1 million would be enough to maintain and expand the current payroll tax cut beyond December, preventing a $1,000 increase on the average worker’s taxes at the worst possible time for the economy. With a few more pennies on the dollar, we could invest in rebuilding schools and infrastructure. And even if we imposed a millionaires’ surtax and rolled back the Bush- era tax cuts for those at the top, the taxes on the richest Americans would still be historically low, and their incomes would still be astronomically high.
We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Middle-class consumers do, and when they thrive, U.S. businesses grow and profit. That’s why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.
So let’s give a break to the true job creators. Let’s tax the rich like we once did and use that money to spur growth by putting purchasing power back in the hands of the middle class. And let’s remember that capitalists without customers are out of business.

And along that vein, here is a great op-ed on the decision to throw out the SEC-Citigroup no wrongdoing settlement that was handed down on Monday.

Here's another op-ed on how inequality is being portrayed incorrectly by both sides of the US political classes.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities continues it's examination of income inequality.

It seems that things are starting to tilt: Occupy Wall Street has changed the conversation that this country is having about inequality, Massachusetts is bringing a really strong case against the banks over the housing mess, and the court system is staring to dislike the smell that is coming from the partnership the banks have with the SEC.I hope this trend continues, as this is very encouraging.

Muffingate, or how to shoot yourself in the foot

Large organizations, be they private or public are wasteful. I know this because I work for a large Fortune 500 company, and choke every day on the amount of bureaucracy I and my coworkers have to deal with. We all see waste in government as well. A recent flare up over government waste involved a report issued by the Justice Department where they stated that $4500 was spent on 250 muffins, or $16 per muffin at a conference at the Capitol Hilton. Naturally this set the Right Wingers off on a crazy diatribe about how wasteful the government is. Of course, the $16 muffins turned out to be false. $4500 was spent at the conference, but it was spent on the event space and refreshments but the original invoice just listed the total spend and the muffins. So no $16 muffins. But then the Justice Dept does an audit on this to dispel any myths about government waste and....wait for it: I present to you a 150 page audit report that defines exactly what was spent. 150 pages. WAY TO GO!!! So instead of just saying 'no we bought more than just muffins.' we get a huge report that no one reads except to get a good laugh at how dumb things can get. Here's the report. Now we DO have proof of government waste. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. I'm not against audits. It's good to check things. But instead of wasting how many thousands of dollars paying people to write a report to cover your ass, why not TRAIN your people on how to do proper inventory and invoicing? Waste is going to happen. It's human nature. But let's try to learn from it so that it won't happen again.

Save the Job Creators!

It's a classic quote from Conservatives: Too many people rely on the government. Of course, with 9.1% unemployment, people are hurting. Heck, if my wife's company doesn't find work soon, she will probably lose her job in 6 months and then be on unemployment while she searches for a job. Is that too much reliance on the government? Are you going to call me and my wife LAZY for not finding work? We were certainly dumb to buy a house in 2005, but we are current on our mortgage. If we were to walk away from that, we would be ostracized as layabouts. (Don't mention how the banks that routinely walk away from bad investments are the ones calling us lazy)

People who are protesting Wall Street are protesting the status quo, which means if you are middle class or poor, you will rack up debt just to survive and you still won't get ahead. These folks are complaining about why these bankers give them CRAP for complaining about having debt. Meanwhile these same bankers were given free reign to run around and bet OUR MONEY on anything they wanted, and in 10 years racked up a TON of leverage (debt) and nearly wiped out our economy and were BAILED OUT by US. But it's bad if we taxpayers complain about how these jerks messed everything up. We bailed them out, they not only survive, but THRIVE to the tune of 2 trillion in bonuses since 2008, yet when these protesters call foul, they are demonized as degenerate hippies.

Income inequality is a huge problem in this country. I'm going to quote an Mark Blythe, an economist that I follow:
"There’s a crisis of income growth in this country that’s papered over by credit. That’s why there’s $56-billion in student loan debt. That’s why there’s $14-trillion in mortgage debt. That’s why there’s more than $1-trillion in home equity lines of credit outstanding. Because people have been borrowing against an uncertain future to finance an ever more expensive present. At the same time income has stagnated. Let’s be clear. When you adjust wages for prices, when you look at the real wage, it’s stagnant for 40 percent of the population; and for the next 20 percent of the population it’s barely edged up over 25 years. Meanwhile the top one percent has increased its share from the late 1970s, from 9 percent of national income to 24 percent just now. You can’t say these things are not causally related… Economically, inequality is a bad thing. You don’t even need to make a moral argument. You don’t have to mention the word justice once. More equal societies grow faster."

Our country is hurting right now, but the pain is not being shared equally. The pain was created by everyone, but the burden is not being carried equally. That is why people are protesting. They want fairness.  Look at how well this country did in the 1990's, and that is when the highest tax rate was 39.5%. But if we go to that rate today, then it is Socialism! Give me a brake. The highest tax rate under Ronald Reagan was 70%. Yet he is touted as a model Republican. I don't think that Reagan would be a viable nominee in today's GOP field. These protests we are seeing are related to the Arab spring and the riots in London. People are seeing that the game is rigged, and that their voice is muffled politically. So the only option that is left is to take to the streets. I'm not saying that the country should go the way of Sweden. Some inequality is good, because some people work harder than others and should be rewarded for that. But we do believe in fairness in this country, and fairness is NOT what is going on on Wall Street, where the risks have been socialized (the bailouts) but the profits have been privitized (the bonuses). This also extends to a lot of the Fortune 500 CEOs, Boards, and executives as well. Look at HP. They just fired their last CEO who was on the job for 11 months, but he still left with a severance of millions of dollars after taking the stock and driving it into the ground. What is that? That's not capitalism.

I do not buy for one instant the idea that Social Security is going bust. It's simply not true. It needs a little bit of help, but even after payroll taxes are unable to match benefits 1-1 in 2035 it will still pay out 70% of benefits. To fix that, just raise the cap on payroll taxes from the current limit of $106,000. The real problem is healthcare costs. Note that I said healthcare and not Medicare. Medicare is expensive because healthcare in this country is ridiculously expensive. We are riding a healthcare expense bubble that is going to pop and end very badly unless we get these costs under control. To do that, we have to exact pain on an industry that is starting to run amok. And in doing so we will exact some pain on ourselves but we will end this madness. Why is healthcare so expensive? Because of competition Hospitals need to compete with each other, so they offer more services. More services are expensive. But because of the way we deal paying for our healthcare in this country, we tend to not worry about prices.

Hearing GOP leaders whine about regulations is ridiculous. Regulations just decide who pays them. The costs are already there. Ideally, regulations make those responsible deal with those costs. Of course you can go overboard, but this wholesale movement to repeal regulation is just dumb and is what helped get us into this bind in the first place.

I also find it sad that the current GOP orthodoxy is that raising taxes on the rich is a terrible thing and is the equivalent of a huge transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor yet giving the rich tax cuts is a huge transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich and that is ok. Poll after poll says that most Americans want to raise taxes on the rich, even most Republican voters agree with this. 

Occupy Wall Street

So the protests that started on Wall Street are still going and are going national. This is good. Are these folks the Tea Party equivalent of the Left? I'm having a hard time thinking so. There really isn't much difference between the left and right. Both sides are bought and paid for (left with super strong unions and the right with super strong corporations, with each side sharing the banks. This is simplistic, I know).So what is this movement all about? I'm not sure. Hopefully it can coalesce into something with political clout, cuz sign me up! Let's get money out of politics (Money is NOT Free Speech), let's break up the banks, let's turn off our TVs and get some good discourse going here.

Paul Krugman is saying that these protests are scaring the crud out of the wealthy elites because the elites know how gamed the system is.

Robert Reich is saying that Democrats are going to have a hard time joining with the Occupy Wall Street movement.

While I agree that some of the folks in this movement are a bit misguided, this is no different from those in the Tea Party who demand that the government keep its hands off of Medicare. The 'We are 99%' sub movement is also gaining ground and also has some misguided souls on its tumblr feed. That's ok. All this movement really wants is to bring attention that the current status quo is not sustainable nor inclusive, and the only way to get attention is to exercise a constitutional right and take to the streets. It does not help this movement if it becomes violent, however. If the cops keep aggressively trying to suppress supporters or onlookers, then things will get ugly. (Imagine the potential violence if those over 55 suddenly realize their benefits could be cut. The Horror!!)

A lot of right-wing commentators are saying how OWS is doing things wrong and they should do things differently, but as Yves Smith notes on her blog, the movement continues to spread with favorable media coverage.

Some criticism is being made towards the protectors use of corporate goods. Not all corps are bad, but these critics don't seem to get that and are still stuck in the us vs. them mentality.

And on a sad note, R.I.P. Steve Jobs. You will be missed.

A little disappointment with The Daily Show

Jon Stewart had a favorite guest on his show Wednesday: Bill O'Reilly. This is just a day or two after Stewart showed a clip of O'Reilly saying that if his taxes increase to 50%, he might just quit. So Stewart asked him about this and some other things in the two parts of his interview below:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Bill O'Reilly Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

My breakdown of the interview:

So of course O'Reilly fesses up to the fact that he won't quit even if that happens. Of course not. No rich person would. Yet they say they might, and this makes people believe them. Now, I never believed that when I saw the clip, yet folks use that very idea to convince people that they could quit or move away in an effort to keep taxes low. It's BS and the rich know it. The non-rich think "Well, rich people must be smart or they wouldn't be rich, so what they are saying must be true." It's not. Jon did a decent job of trying to tear his argument down here. Bill was really on his game, and much faster than Jon was with quips.

O'Reilly's Solyndra comment was valid, and I though Jon did a decent job of putting the $500 million loan Solyndra got into the correct context. But then Jon should have mentioned all the WASTE that goes into Defense spending. That would have put O'Reilly on the defensive with his own talking point about having the government spend money efficiently. I can't argue against what O'Reilly is talking about when he says he wants to see the government spend money efficiently. How can you? But most politicians DON'T want to see efficiency because their donors will make less money. That's where I take issue with the Right and their ideas of efficiency. Efficiency means CUTS. O'Reilly even brings this up later in the interview, and I think that Stewart rightly puts it into the correct context again.

So then O'Reilly mentions the $16 muffin story. This is complete bunk. ABC news debunked this story here. It's too bad, because Stewart could have nailed him with this one. Disappointed with Stewart. He tried to save face by mentioning the bailouts, but the point was already won by O'Reilly. Stewart tries to paint O'Reilly into the box that most Republicans put themselves into by saying that all regulation is bad and business should be unfettered, but O'Reilly rightly denies that and mentions the efficiency comment again.

End of interview part 1. Part 2:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Bill O'Reilly Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

O'Reilly admits that he's a Democrat in terms of Financial regulation. Great. His flat tax wouldn't work, but the VAT (consumption tax) is awesome and we should do that. (Don't mention to him that is what most of Europe (socialists!!) does). O'Reilly's whine about all of the taxes is dumb. It's not the FEDERAL government's fault that his property, state, sales, etc are so high. Jon then brings up the good point about how little the top 1% pay in income taxes. O'Reilly's attempt to hide behind the other taxes he has to pay is lame, because EVERYONE else is paying those taxes too. Rich people pay income taxes because they have all the money.

O'Reilly's 10% across the board cuts is...nuts. A LOT of spending can be cut, but not across the board. Some government programs work a lot better than others.

Stewart should have brought up the class warfare comments that are all over Fox news, then asked him if Eisenhower is a socialist for having a 90% tax on the wealthy after WWII. It's a shame, as I would have enjoyed hearing O'Reilly's comments on the subject. Stewart's constant giggling was a little irritating, and something I wish he did less of that.

Oh well. Overall, a good interview even with a mildly disappointing performance by Stewart. I think O'Reilly has reasonable views, but he is so bombastic that I just can't be a fan.

Equality

Why do very wealthy people get indignant when someone points out to them how crazy their wealth is (5 homes, private jets, yachts, etc) then these same folks think that it is just fine to point out how 'crazy' it is for low income people to call themselves poor when they own a fridge or a dish washer.

When things are going bad

I'm worried about the future. I'm worried that my kids will live in a world that is much worse than it is now. We can all see the signs. Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, the world is heating up. Prices are going up while wages stay stagnant. I don't know what to do about it. A lot of Baby Boomers don't seem to get this. It's a crying shame, really. Here we have one of the most privileged generations to ever walk the earth, and they are convinced that the best way forward is to tear everything down (except those things that benefit them directly). I know I'm doing my share of bashing the Boomers, but it's hard not to.

Here is one Boomer who gets it:



HUGE government investment in schools, roads, and other infrastructure were done while the Boomers were growing up. Never has the world seen such expansion and prosperity among so many. But that was mostly low-hanging fruit. After the Boomers came up through that system, they looked at how well their parents were doing and wanted a piece of that action. But somehow it has become acceptable in the past 30 years that selfishness leads to prosperity for all. That is so wrong. Yet the war on those who are less fortunate is gaining steam in its death throes. Jon Stewart points this out well:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
World of Class Warfare - Warren Buffett vs. Wealthy Conservatives
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

And the second part of the segment here:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

For a look an how bad income inequality is in this country, look at what Business Insider put together.

Last week, the President made a good speech. But why NOW?? Why wasn't he saying this 2 YEARS AGO!!! Like Jon Stewart said in last night's Daily Show, he's a TRANSFORMER!! "

Americans must give up the pipe dream that an inspirational leader can govern successfully, and embrace an America whose greatest resource is campaign-driven drivel." 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Transformer
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

We will only see things get better when we learn that selfishness is not the way forward.

Who likes Maternity leave?

Megyn Kelly was against Maternity Leave before she was for it. Thank you, Daily Show!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Lactate Intolerance
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

So Patty Murray is on the Super Congress

I'm trying to decide what to write to Patty Murray, one of my state's Senator's that is on the Super Congress.

I'll post my letter to her here.

Dear Senator Murray,

Congratulations on being named to the Super Congress. I am proud that a Senator from our state has been chosen to this group. As a constituent, I have some points I would like to make.

If gridlock in the SC happens, I will welcome the enormous Defense cuts that will occur as part of the trigger. We spend way too much on defense. I know this would hurt some of our citizens who work for Boeing here in the state, but so be it.

I agree that Medicare needs to be revamped, but the Republican proposals are simply cost shifting and not real solutions. Medicare should be able to negotiate with drug companies and import drugs from Canada. Fee for service is a broken and wasteful delivery model. I'm not sure what good raising the retirement age does. Protecting the current Medicare model for citizens 55 years or older is simply pandering and as a citizen that must pay taxes to support that current model while seeing my future benefits decline is unfair. We ALL must pay a price here, including senior citizens and baby boomers. Another way to save billions a year in Medicare is to strengthen it's fraud investigation branch. 60 minutes ran a story a couple years ago about how easy it is to rip off Medicare with stolen SS numbers, since Medicare must reimburse all claims within 30 days. The fraud enforcement office of Medicare is underfunded and understaffed. This kind of scenario is exactly the kind of fuel that is used to encourage distrust in Government. This has to stop.

Social Security can be fixed by simply lifting the current ceiling on wages. Right now, Social Security only taxes about 86% of all income. If you raise this to 90% as it used to be in the 80's, then Social Security is fine. Social Security did NOT cause our deficits.

Medicaid gets the short end of the stick on entitlements. It is bare bones already, and cutting it more with make things worse.

Revenues must go up. I am completely ok with having my taxes rise with the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts. My wife and I earned about $110k last year, so I'm not one of the $250k income people who are used as the floor of the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. We all need to chip in more to pay for the things that we demand of our government. The loopholes that the President mentioned during the debt limit talks should also be in play, as well as oil company tax breaks an the ability of hedge fund managers to only be taxed at 15%. A majority of Americans support higher taxes to pay the deficit. Not just Democrats or Republicans, but Americans. Please listen to our citizens.

Perhaps something that the SC can propose would be the elimination of campaign contributions to elected officials. ALL of our problems with pork and tax loopholes and lobbying and corruption are because of money in politics. Money is NOT free speech, and purging money from politics would eliminate all the other problems that we talk about, like Citizen's United, Campaign Finance Reform, etc. We should have public financing of elections, with a cap on how much each campaign can spend. I want you and all of your Congressional colleagues to stop begging for money and do you jobs of running the country.

The current London riots are a preview of what is to come to our shores unless something is done about the gross inequality that we have in this country.

Yes, we do have a long-term budget deficit, but our priority should be on putting our citizens back to work. I implore you to not let the Republican's talking points infect your discussions with the media and your fellow members of Congress. What is good for business is not always good for America; stop calling the rich 'job creators'; we are not in a country that is over taxed and over regulated; we are in a jobs crisis, not a debt crisis; the stimulus did work, but it was too small; knowing what we know now about how bad it was in 2008. The very markets that Republicans are telling us know best are FLOODING money into buying Treasuries irregardless of S&P's downgrade on our debt. It is so cheap for the US to borrow money right now. This proves that markets are not concerned about our deficit, but about the health of the world economy.

With President Obama seemingly incapable of standing up to Republicans (or not wanting to thinking that it hurts his chances of re-election), this means the task falls to you. Don't let us down.

And please keep your talks secret so that we can avoid the posturing that we saw all sides do during the debt ceiling debate.

I know that a lot of this is a wish list of liberal ideas, but the fact that we have this Super Congress for cutting seems to be a fulfillment of a wish of our right-leaning citizens who despise the welfare state, so why not have some liberal ideas in the mix?

Thank you for your Service,

Travis Fischer

Duh!

Ezra Klein has a post worth reading. What is sad about this is that people are JUST NOW realizing this. To assume that Republicans would compromise is...just nuts. It's not that Republicans are crazy, but crazy smart at playing the game. They are like a spoiled brat kid who knows that her parents won't let anything bad happen to her. So she can do whatever she wants and will get bailed out EVERY TIME. Even if she does get in some trouble, mom and dad are right there to help her. There is never a chance at giving her responsibility and letting her deal with the consequences.

Doom

Who says the US is still a great nation? I'm sorry, but this whole 'US needs to be #1 at everything' while turning a blind eye to the wealthy elite who own and control everything around here are deluding themselves. To still be shocked by the Democrats seemingly helplessness over Republicans hostage taking (yet Obama will still rake in a BILLION dollars in campaign contributions, with millions coming from WallStreet) just don't seem to get it. The system is rigged and we are really doomed. It's just a matter of time.

The Tragedy that is the Tea Party

Tea Party people are angry! Tea Party People hate government!

They are mad because their economic hopes from the last 30 years have been shattered. They want to turn to a third party, but the way our system is structured, they can't. So they go with what they think is the lesser of two evils and hope to bring change from within. But they don't understand how government works. They just don't like certain parts of it. So therefore ALL government is bad. Why they turned to Republican's is an odd choice. This party is mostly responsible for the degredation of our society and environment, the greed, the hypocrisy. Bohener wants a deal, but he wants to keep the Speakership more. The Tea Party has been co opted by the very people who are responsible for their anger. It's an impressive coup: Feed the electorate lies about regulation, taxes, trickle-down theory, individualism. When the whole thing crashes down the players responsible are made whole by taxpayers. The players then sweep into the front of the angry mob and lead them against the party that has the best chance to turn things around and fix things. This keeps the irresponsible players in the game while squeezing the last few drops of blood and treasure from the masses until the whole system collapses beyond repair. But by then, the big fish have left the pond and are living it up on yachts in Tahiti while the rest of us are left with the mess and the check. Of course, Obama is complicit in this. Why else would he NOT demand a pound of flesh from the banks in early 2009? Frank Rich's article about how Obama blew it puts the nail on the head. Instead, the Tea Party populism was grabbed by the likes of Sarah Palin and put to use for the very forces that brought about the recession.

Free Markets work, but the pain they cause isn't worth it for some areas. Free Markets work great for cell phones, cereal, and diapers. Not so good in health care, police work, water supply. But diapers and cell phones don't KILL YOU (ok, sometimes they do but not as often as polluted water supplies or rampant crime. Yet, we have rules for cell phones and diapers and cereal. Oh no! BIG GOVERNMENT. I can't think of one item that isn't completely free from some kind of rule. But I don't think that is bad. Why do some people think that?). Free Markets DID exist for our water supply before the EPA and Clean Water Act came into existence. Do you want to see rivers catch fire again from all the chemicals that get poured into them? Free Markets do the cleanup AFTER the fact. After customers DEMAND change in the face of mistakes. Free Markets are a tornado. Sometimes the tornado cleans our all the junk. Sometimes the tornado destroys your whole town. Regulation tries to prevent the tornado from every happening. In a lot of cases this is good. The Tea Party doesn't understand this. It's a balance. You can over regulate. The Tea Party has Bush II thinking: You are either with us, or the Terrorists. It's all black and white. Life isn't like that. Life isn't like TV. But that's a tough pill to swallow. Our culture doesn't like nuance. We've told ourselves for decades that nuance is for sissies. Big government is bad, but the Tea Party seems to be just fine with Big Corporations. It's about balance.

I think that there will be another Tea Party, but this one will be made up of 'liberal' voters who are disgusted with how corporations have take this country over. Call them the white collar 'Coffee Party'. This will come about once the next crash/recession/depression hits and the men behind the curtain are exposed for who they really are. But with how our infrastructure is crumbling, our education system breaking down, our planet becoming more hostile to human habitation, it may be too late to swing the pendulum back towards the center.

Why I might not vote for anyone for president in 2012

It's been a long while since my last post. Lots happening. This debt ceiling debate is really putting things into perspective. It's teaching me that: a) I don't think I will ever vote Republican ever again. b) Obama has got be the worst negotiator ever. David Frum does a great summation of what Obama has done wrong. You can't argue against it. Obama's last few press conferences have been showing his increasing frustration. Too little, too late. If he still thinks the Republicans will be adults he needs to leave office. These people are ASSHOLES, nothing more or less.

Then we get the sanctimonious David Brooks on the News Hour on Friday saying how Obama's 'tone' at the press conference is terrible and unproductive. How nice it must be to be David Brooks. A week and a half after he calls out the Republicans with the same 'tone' that Obama used today he says that Obama is not helping the situation. Please. Republicans are doing this because the KNOW what they are doing is unpopular. But this is their last chance to dismantle the welfare state, and the only way to make it happen is through a President who is a Democrat. If the Republicans lose big but manage to fatally wound SS and Medicare/Medicaid, it's worth it to them. They know how difficult it was to get these programs enacted in the first place. Destroy them now and even if the next Congress tries to reverse things, they will never be like they are today. If Republican's can't have their version of 'America', then no one can have any America.

Republicans are out of their minds. This nonsense that we can pay our interest on the debt, meet Social Security and Medicare payments, pay the troops, and do the other things that we want to do AND then cut wasteful spending without raising the ceiling are simply false. But Obama seems to think that meeting these loonies halfway is a good idea. I don't think so. The man is increasingly naive, and more and more disappointing. The Bush Tax cuts are terrible. They need to go. Sure, my taxes will go up. I want to have a country, so I gotta pay for it. Baby Boomers, you want all this crap, then PAY FOR IT. And let's not forget the real truth here:

Macys.com

Just had a CRAZY conversation with a macys.com phone support person about an order I made for Mother's Day. I feel bad for folks that have to work the phones. It's a tough job. But the reason they gave me for why my order didn't get the guarantee was BONKERS, CRAZY GO NUTS.

I ordered my gift for my wife for Mother's Day on May 3. Macy's has a website that explains that if you order before May 4, you are guaranteed to have the order by Mother's Day. So I'm a day early. Great.

I get an shipping confirmation on May 5. I track the order. No order by Friday. Nothing by Saturday. Sunday morning, the order arrives in Redmond. UPS tracking says the order will arrive on Monday, May 9. Ugh!

My wife is way cool about it and doesn't mind the delay, but I do. So I call up Macy's and ask about my order. I have the following exchange: "Your order does not qualify for the guarantee because it was made on May 3. The guarantee only applies to orders made between May 4 - May 8. "

"What? That's not what the website says."

"Sir, that is what the guarantee is for. Only orders made on May 4 - May 8."

"So if I made an order on May 7, UPS would show up and deliver the package by the next day? How is that possible, when UPS doesn't deliver on weekends?"

"...."

"They have a...special....delivery...." (I'm not kidding about all the pauses)

"I would like to speak to your supervisor."

"Ok, but my supervisor will tell you the same thing."

"Great, I want to hear them tell me that. What you said doesn't make any sense."

"Ok, please hold."

After a couple of minutes of waiting, I am told that I will be getting an accommodation for the guarantee. Good. That is why I called.

So we'll see what the accommodation is. It should be what the website says. This isn't a big deal, but I'll be darned if some corporation is going to try to stick it to me like that.

I would be understanding if they said the order was delayed due to weather or something. But to just say absolute bullshit like that is upsetting. I'm not going to be scared off like that, Macys.

UPDATE: My Accommodation is they are resending me my order! I don't want another order! I want what the guarantee is. Oh well. I'm just going to return this order to a local Macy's store and get my money back. Same as the guarantee, except I can spend the money where ever I want and not just Macys.

Some old thoughts and new thoughts

I wrote this first part about a month ago but never posted it until now. Think back to when Paul Ryan released his budget and you'll be in the right frame of mind.

Republicans are bullys and want to go back to 1925.

Paul Ryan's budget is courageous in the fact that it reveals what true Conservatives have always wanted: A dismantling of the welfare state and a return to the rule of Robber Barons. The real kicker here is that the President is letting them hold the narrative. I can't really take anything that doesn't include tax increases seriously, because it just ignores reality. Paul Ryan voted for Medicare Part D, the perscription drug benefit that is completely unfunded and was used to buy senior voters for the 2004 Presidential election. So Mr. Ryan is not on my list of People Who Want to Get Things Done The Right Way. Voters want all this stuff government provides, and polls show that they would be willing to pay more taxes to avoid benefit cuts. But they don't really need to pay much more. Just let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and make some tweaks (eliminate the cap on Social Security Taxes from $107k to everything, use the government's power to negotiate cheap drug prices and medical equipment). Why don't Republicans propose increases? Because it would go against what the rich people who run the party behind the scenes want and care about. Plus, the idiotic Constitutional Amendment just signed by all 47 Republican members of the Senate would invalidate all the years of the Reagan Presidency and George Bush Presidency. But the past doesn't matter. Republicans are bullies.

Ezra Klein is lamenting the fact that Obama is almost nowhere to be seen as far as leadership goes.

E.J. Dionne is saying that if Obama doesn't stand up to Republicans, it will be the end of Progressive government.

While I can sympathize with the Tea Party's anger, it has been co-opted by the very forces that have caused their ire. How good must it be to be rich? You spend the last 30 years slowing removing all the restraints set up to keep banking and finance from going crazy. Then when banking is unleashed, you make a TON of money while destroying whatever value the other 99% less wealthy Americans have. After you nearly destroy the economy, you get a government bailout to 'save the system'. A whole bunch of regular Americans see their wealth dry up, their 401(k)'s implode, and stupid wealthy people getting bailed out with taxpayer dollars. Naturally, these Americans take to the streets in protest. Somehow, you are able to co-opt these fed up Americans and convince them that they need to direct their anger not at the wealthy bastards who jiggered the system, but at the government! You have somehow convinced the angry mob that is at your doorstop to turn around and go after the the auto workers and teachers! It's amazing. I guess that you rich people deserve your wealth if you are able to convince that many people to fight against the very institutions that were designed to protect them from the likes of you.

Look at this quote from Thomas Jefferson about corporations:

"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country."

~ Thomas Jefferson Nov. 12th, 1816

I do take issue with the Tea Party's line of 'take our country back.' Take it back from whom, the majority that voted democratic in 2008? Too bad, we live in America, where the majority rules from elections, not majority rules from poll results.

So now for a posting that is more current:

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how 9% unemployment means that we should ignore doing any kind of federal jobs program and instead focus on austerity measures like the UK for deficit reduction? How is this helpful? It's not. That's the big secret. If Republicans went for a federal jobs program, they would be in effect going against their 'principles' of small government. In terms of what small government means for Republicans, that means less regulation and more corporitization. That's what small government means. Trample the people to help the rich, entitled elites even more. It's reckless and irresponsible and no one who can really make a dent is calling them on this. All the while, we are increasing our defense spending??!?! How is this sensible? I am all for having some austerity in terms of world security. We don't belong on bases all over the place!!! It's dumb! Look at Great Britain. They have embraced austerity measures and have been immediately plunged into another recession. Brilliant, that. We slash our education and infrastructure spending while putting all that money towards nation building. It's idiotic. Even the Pentagon thinks so!

On a Paul Ryan budget note, even folks at the Economist are coming out against his ideas.

Bankers are drug dealers

We punish both drug buyers and drug dealers in this country. So why do we only punish the people who take out fraudulent loans? Aren't the bankers who sell the fraudulent loans just as much at fault? The market is NOT punishing the bankers, because the bankers are using the government to protect them. America is a Banana Republic.

And this is awesome (and has nothing to do with anything)

Reagan liked unions

I'm not sure that Reagan was that great of a president. His legacy is certainly being exploited by today's conservatives, who like to cherry pick his actions and ignore the things he did that go against current conservative ideology (raising taxes). This quote from his Labor Day speech in 1980 is no different:

"These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland ... They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." -

Makes you wonder about the reality we are being fed.

Griftopia is great...

But it's old news. Revolution is coming. So is disaster. People high up know it. The rich know it. Now you know it.

If Republican Ideology ran a house

First, they would max out the credit cards buying TVs and take out dinners. (borrow)

Second, they would either quit their job or get fired (tax cuts)

Third, they would then blame the spouse and kids for eating and wearing clothes (spending and anti-union)

Then, they would say that this situation isn't their fault and if they were in charge, things would be different.

That's what is happening in Wisconsin. Tax cuts worsen the state's revenue, then they blame the opposition party's supporters for causing the pain (unions) then they blame everyone else. WHY doen't people understand this? America, you are not getting it.

Sure, some things unions do are ridiculous (YOU can't move that forklift that is blocking your desk, YOU aren't a machinist. ONLY I can move that, but I'll move it when I'm good and ready.) But I work in a corporation, and it's all PROCESS PROCESS PROCESS. Process for the SAKE of Process. Not to make things better, or do things faster. (YOU can't use that tool, because we spend millions on THIS tool. I don't care if our tool is junk, USE IT.)

I firmly believe that when you get a bunch of human beings together in ANY large organization (government or company) you will have mess and waste. That's AMERICA. If you want absolute efficiency, go to China.

UPDATE: Great post by David Frum at FrumForum.

Someday, today’s 20-somethings will call their elders to account.

They will say:

“We faced the worst economic shock since World War II – and you accepted it as a problem without a solution.

“You lamented burdening us with debt, even as you refused to consider economic policies that might enable us ever to pay it.

“You worried over non-existent inflation even as we spent years out of work.

“As we lost our start in life, you protected Medicare for yourselves.

“You condemned us to a half-decade of idleness, then reproached us as video-game-playing slackers.”

UPDATE 2: In a delicious bit of irony, Chuck Koch is advocating that we look to Canada as a model of conservativism. Mitt Romney also singled out Canada at CPAC. WTF??? I thought Canada was evil, with all those REGULATIONS and SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE. MORONS!!! I may be going sour on Obama and his total intellectual capture of WallStreet, but I don't know if I will EVER vote Republican again with these douchebags acting like they know what they are talking about. Yuck.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is split. BIG Surprise

Is it surprising that the FCIC has 3 separate conclusions that are based on opposing ideology? No. Do we expect anything different from Congressional Baby Boomers? No.

The Municipal Bond Market is scaring me right now. Not good.

Yves Smith does an excellent takedown of Michael Lewis' book The Big Short here.

Horrors!! The CBO has revised their budget deficit for cast for 2011 from 1 trillion to 1.5 trillion because of the extended tax cuts. HOW can anyone claim that tax cuts don't cause deficiets? MORONS, that's who. Whoops, I'm sorry. I meant to say our distinguished collegues of the GOP. Want further proof? Just watch Paul Ryan's and Michelle Bachman's SOTU rebuttal speeched from Tuesday.

This whole 'have your cake and eat it too' BS of the lat 30 years is really causing some damage in it's death throes.