Chalk one up for the good guys

http://www.truthout.org/obama-signs-sweeping-student-loan-reform-bill-into-law58162

Us vs. Them

I'll admit that I'm deriving a guilty pleasure from the media firestorm over the evening out at the West Hollywood "Voyeur Club" where bondage and such were featured for the high-ranking members of the RNC in the aftermath of their tough strategy meetings in Honolulu. The pleasure is only partly due to the media's conviction that the $2,000 tab is a story that trumps the $36 million it costs to fire a Predator Drone at a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist in Afghanistan or Pakistan unless we get on of the estimated hundred such bad guys left in that vicinity these days.

No, the irony in all this is that Republicans for a while now have been practicing a politics of "the other" that stigmatizes non-white, non-heterosexual, non-overtly-religious, and non-military folks as somehow failing the "true American" test. This is a party that has not had an African American in Congress since J.C. Watts retired some ten years ago. This is the party that eggs on birthers, tea-baggers, and boneheads who doubt that the President is an American citizen, who last week referred to Barney Frank as a faggot and John Lewis as a n***er. This is the party that carefully put Gay Marriage Iniatives on the ballots of eleven key states in the 2004 election. The same party that went ballistic when George W. Bush sought to introduce decent legislation to deal with the immigration problem in his second term because it would accelerate the process of the demise of the caucasians as the dominant race in the U.S.

Not all Republicans are intolerant, and not all Democrats are. But it's hardly rocket science to figure out why Latinos went so heavily for Obama in '08, and why the photos of Obama as the Joker or with a Hitler mustache show up at anti-healthcare rallies. When Sean Hannity has an Oliver North or another uniformed member of the Armed Services as a guest on his show when accompanied by a liberal, it's pathetic to watch Mr. Hannity fall all over himself referring to the uniformed guest as a "fine American" while the non-Republican guest is hardly treated hospitably.

To be sure, there are differences among us--some of us are sports fans, others are music fans, some are outdoors folks, some are homebodies, some like to hunt with rifles, others like to read for pleasure. But since when in America should it matter whether you're straight or gay, black, brown or white, a Christian evangelical or an atheist? And since when were we unself-conscious about referring to some as "true Americans" and others as seeking to destroy what America stands for?

If we're not better than that or if we're not willing to insist that there's no place for this form of us vs. them in this country, then we will surely pay the inevitable price for failing to heed Elie Wiesel's advice when he said, "All that it takes for evil to triumph in the world is for good people to say or do nothing in the face of those who perpetrate evil."

Surely, all "true Americans" are better than that--no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, party identification, or positions on issues on which we are bound to reach,in good faith and on grounds of varied yet honorable values, differing positions. In the end, there is a place where the "us vs. them" dichotomy does nothing to enhance our identity as humans who happen to be Americans as well.

And all this from a story about a stupid visit to a strip club in Hollywood by the paid staffers of the party of moral values. Is this a great country or what?!

a musical snack for you.

Just thought i'd share this youtube video i ran across.

enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpOUctySD68

California Republicanism vs Texas Republicanism

David Frum wrote an interesting column today where he compared GOP politics from WW II to 1988, where Republicans won the presidency 6 times with a Californian on the ticket. Since then, a Texan has been on the ticket 3 times.

Frum finds that a Californian on the ticket produced 100 more electoral votes on average than a Texan and suggests that "Californian" GOP was much appealing to a wide variety of individuals. He also writes about potential candiates Meg Whitman and Tom Campbell who may be able to win statewide offices in the 2010 elections. He cautions though, that the current primary state of the GOP makes it difficult for quality candidates to win elections without resorting to a far right platform.

Frum's message is that California GOP leaders could lead a comeback for the GOP, because they are forced to discuss common sense ideas rather than rhetoric in campaign stops. Whether his message will resonate with GOP primary voters is unclear. California GOPers recognize that their candidates have to have a strong independent push to win elections.

Pretty much the point I would make here is that maybe the way to solve the governing crisis is to eliminate the primary system. How about an open primary system where Republicans and Democrats run together and then a run-off between the top two candidates?? Maybe that would promote centrism and some bipartisan thinking.

Health Care Reform, Really?

Folk,

For those of you convinced that the unanimous No votes of the GOP, shouts of "Armageddon" from John Boehner, and declarations from many on the Right that last week's effort to reform our health care system -- No. 1 in the world in cost, No. 37 in terms of quality -- are truly the biggest threat to freedom in this country in more than half a century, take a look at the interview between Bill Moyers and Bill Winship:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/the-unbearable-lightness_b_515642.html

Benson, if you've not completed the statements protesting the policy, you'll find some atypical, yet persuave ones there.

Looking forward to doing some Q sorts tomorrow night, while spending a moment or two looking back at the craziness that has ensued this vote. If you haven't read Frank Rich's piece in the Sunday NYT, "It's not about healtcare," he's got a provocative piece that says, in effect, it's about race. My view (no. 135 among the readers' comments, is a bit more complex; and so far, it must be confusing the heck of the lefties and the righties, cuz it has almost no recommends). It's my opinion, though, and I'm sticking to it. I'm looking forward to what the rest of you think on what's motivating the outcry. Benson, for one, is doing a Q sort on it, so you will have a chance to weigh in that way. But it's a big story and we may have some time to discuss its historic and hysterical significance.

Cheers,
DT

Why Fox News Gets all the conservative journalists

http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/10/14/slave-to-the-cocktail-circuit/

This blog discusses the recent fallout over David Frum's resignation (or forced removal) from AEI and the subsequent suggestion from one conservative that Frum attacked current conservatism as a way to be "invited to all the liberal social Georgetown parties." The article then goes on to say that opportunities for moderate conservatives (David Brooks, David Frum, etc.) at mainstream publications such as the New York Times are limited.

So what do aspiring conservative journalists do? According to this guy, they became right-wing ideologues, knowing such a mindset will land them a contract at conservative magazines or news programs. To me, it suggests that individuals like Limbaugh are not the true believers in their show, but understand it's the best to make money.

So, I raise the question (as Abhay and I did in our Limbaugh research): Are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others the true believers they claim to be or just raking it in on an act?

Good news--from Tom Friedman

This is from Tom Friedman's column for Sunday, March 21st. It's an interesting follow-on to Zirra's piece and to the whole volume. Here it is:

America’s Real Dream Team
Twitter
E-Mail
Send To Phone
Print

Share
CloseLinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: March 20, 2010
Went to a big Washington dinner last week. You know the kind: Large hall; black ties; long dresses. But this was no ordinary dinner. There were 40 guests of honor. So here’s my Sunday news quiz: I’ll give you the names of most of the honorees, and you tell me what dinner I was at. Ready?

Skip to next paragraph

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman

Go to Columnist Page »Linda Zhou, Alice Wei Zhao, Lori Ying, Angela Yu-Yun Yeung, Lynnelle Lin Ye, Kevin Young Xu, Benjamin Chang Sun, Jane Yoonhae Suh, Katheryn Cheng Shi, Sunanda Sharma, Sarine Gayaneh Shahmirian, Arjun Ranganath Puranik, Raman Venkat Nelakant, Akhil Mathew, Paul Masih Das, David Chienyun Liu, Elisa Bisi Lin, Yifan Li, Lanair Amaad Lett, Ruoyi Jiang, Otana Agape Jakpor, Peter Danming Hu, Yale Wang Fan, Yuval Yaacov Calev, Levent Alpoge, John Vincenzo Capodilupo and Namrata Anand.

No, sorry, it was not a dinner of the China-India Friendship League. Give up?

O.K. All these kids are American high school students. They were the majority of the 40 finalists in the 2010 Intel Science Talent Search, which, through a national contest, identifies and honors the top math and science high school students in America, based on their solutions to scientific problems. The awards dinner was Tuesday, and, as you can see from the above list, most finalists hailed from immigrant families, largely from Asia.

Indeed, if you need any more convincing about the virtues of immigration, just come to the Intel science finals. I am a pro-immigration fanatic. I think keeping a constant flow of legal immigrants into our country — whether they wear blue collars or lab coats — is the key to keeping us ahead of China. Because when you mix all of these energetic, high-aspiring people with a democratic system and free markets, magic happens. If we hope to keep that magic, we need immigration reform that guarantees that we will always attract and retain, in an orderly fashion, the world’s first-round aspirational and intellectual draft choices.

This isn’t complicated. In today’s wired world, the most important economic competition is no longer between countries or companies. The most important economic competition is actually between you and your own imagination. Because what your kids imagine, they can now act on farther, faster, cheaper than ever before — as individuals. Today, just about everything is becoming a commodity, except imagination, except the ability to spark new ideas.

If I just have the spark of an idea now, I can get a designer in Taiwan to design it. I can get a factory in China to produce a prototype. I can get a factory in Vietnam to mass manufacture it. I can use Amazon.com to handle fulfillment. I can use freelancer.com to find someone to do my logo and manage by backroom. And I can do all this at incredibly low prices. The one thing that is not a commodity and never will be is that spark of an idea. And this Intel dinner was all about our best sparklers.

Before the dinner started, each contestant stood by a storyboard explaining their specific project. Namrata Anand, a 17-year-old from the Harker School in California, patiently explained to me her research, which used spectral analysis and other data to expose information about the chemical enrichment history of “Andromeda Galaxy.” I did not understand a word she said, but I sure caught the gleam in her eye.

My favorite chat, though, was with Amanda Alonzo, a 30-year-old biology teacher at Lynbrook High School in San Jose, Calif. She had taught two of the finalists. When I asked her the secret, she said it was the resources provided by her school, extremely “supportive parents” and a grant from Intel that let her spend part of each day inspiring and preparing students to enter this contest. Then she told me this: Local San Jose realtors are running ads in newspapers in China and India telling potential immigrants to “buy a home” in her Lynbrook school district because it produced “two Intel science winners.”

Seriously, ESPN or MTV should broadcast the Intel finals live. All of the 40 finalist are introduced, with little stories about their lives and aspirations. Then the winners of the nine best projects are announced. And finally, with great drama, the overall winner of the $100,000 award for the best project of the 40 is identified. This year it was Erika Alden DeBenedictis of New Mexico for developing a software navigation system that would enable spacecraft to more efficiently “travel through the solar system.” After her name was called, she was swarmed by her fellow competitor-geeks.

Gotta say, it was the most inspiring evening I’ve had in D.C. in 20 years. It left me thinking, “If we can just get a few things right — immigration, education standards, bandwidth, fiscal policy — maybe we’ll be O.K.” It left me feeling that maybe Alice Wei Zhao of North High School in Sheboygan, Wis., chosen by her fellow finalists to be their spokeswoman, was right when she told the audience: “Don’t sweat about the problems our generation will have to deal with. Believe me, our future is in good hands.”

As long as we don’t shut our doors.

How to Not Get Hot, Flat, andCrowded: 10 steps to guide you through the green revolution.

Listen. The word’s telling you it doesn’t want your crap anymore. So here’s a quick and easy guide to walk you through saving yourself and the planet...according to sire Thomas Friedman... let’s hope he’s right.

Step 1: Don’t go anywhere birds don’t fly

Unfortunately, we’re already living in that zone. Our hot, flat and crowded earth is turning Americans into Russians. Gone are the good-old days of Clinton-like diplomacy. Freidman says that in America nowadays, birds don’t fly because there’s nothing “on the other side” of the War on Terror.

Americans are known to be friendly, so please don’t go cold turkey on us. Here’s how you (America) can help: Freidman says innovate. Invite those who innovate, collaborate with those who innovate, lead those who innovate—don’t keep talking green, live green America! Show the birds you’re where the nests are, or the birds will simply go to Russia... or maybe even China.

Freidman says it starts now. 1 E.C. E means that the world is hot (just look outside. This time last year, the snow didn’t melt until after Easter!). The world is flat: it’s been flat for a while, hence imports from Seychelles through Amazon. com. The world is crowded: think New York City, not China or India. It’s closer than you think.

So, with warmer weather conditions, easier commerce and communication, and more brains to innovate, it should be easier right? Apparently, not quite. Don’t become the nation where birds don’t fly: direct the birds to their right nests. The world still wants America to be a global leader. Greening is becoming an international trend and America should lead it. Not Costa Rica or Switzerland or France.

Step 2: Stop the Carbon Copies

Taller buildings mean improved civilization, so why should the World stop displaying the wonders of modern architecture just because America’s done with its construction work? We’ve heard of Doha and Dalian, Dubai and Durban, but there are thousands more skyscraper cities sprouting up around the world, and it just won’t stop. If the world enjoys copying America, how about re-defining what it means to be American? How about leading and encouraging the newest stage of green construction? Friedman says it’s all in the design. It only makes sense to save money while designing new buildings, and this nation probably won’t want to bite its tongue, nagging China to become green while the West was the hub of the pollution industry only a few years ago.

Step 3: Don’t feed the Petro-dictatorships

Make way! The Russians are coming! And so are the Arabs!

The countries with the largest supply of oil tend to be the worst dictatorships. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela lead the way for other deviant oil producing countries. Freidman found that as oil prices go up, so does corruption and repression in petro-dictatorship nations.

How you can help: establish proper relations with alternative oil-producing nations such as Norway, Angola, Nigeria, and Mexico—countries that have, based on common trends, welcomed improved U.S foreign relations. This nation could also manage its energy use more efficiently and channel its use of petro-energy to the most beneficial uses. There need not be a complete boycott of oil resources, but proper management is surely needed.

Step 4: Give to the poor

Poor people won’t think twice about saving the environment. America may work ten thousand times harder to become green, but the poorest Congolese, Chinese, and Indians won’t think twice about setting their entire country ablaze if it meant better living conditions for their families. All this green work is being thrown off in another country—no matter if they are rich or poor nations, where air-conditioners are used 24-hours a day, seven days a week three hundred and sixty six days a leap year, because it’s too hot. Desperately poor countries really won’t care about the environment in their suffering—they’re too hot to be bothered, and they can’t afford to be green. If we all live in the same world, the nations that can afford to be green will have to share the price of this burden, or else, we’ll all soon be fried. Rich and poor nations, alike.

Step 5: Don’t be afraid of government

Though none of us likes to be ruled or controlled, governments exist because nations can’t be managed communally—there’s simply no other way to do it. Governments and politics exist for a reason. In the United States, the littlest government-proposed reform seems to spark the greatest amount of political squabble. Goodness America! Why are you so scared of socialism? Have you ever lived in a socialist nation before? Do you know what it means to actually live in one? As a great, literate, wealthy, and powerful nation with no history, apparent or immediate desire to become a China, Russia or even England in the least, why is the American populace so scared of the slightest proposal of government management? Government management in America simply means direction from the government in a worldwide context, and successful nations do it everyday. It will save this nation energy, time, and money if it agreed to be lead by its government, and the populace worked with government more often, rather than constantly criticize its proposals. Does being American really mean being red and blue? As Friedman says, green is the new red, white and blue. It’s important to make consensus. The Democrat-Republican battle is leading to no progress, quite frankly.

Step 6: Change your habits, and government will follow

Freidman thinks it’s more effective to influence your leaders, but if don’t like their recommendations, then start with these “simple” steps and save energy on your own:

i) Ditch your car. Call for public transportation and the Waverly City Council will have to develop one.

ii) Make it smaller. Everything in the U.S is big. Not too many people are oversized. Smaller building space, smaller cars, smaller Big Macs, and smaller stuff will lead to less energy consumption and more effective use of resources.

iii) Recycle. This country is already quite good with that. Make it easy, convenient and cheap.

iv) Play the guilt card if you have to. No one likes to be a jerk. If you notice anti-green behavior, discourage immediately.

v) Compete. Why so blue? Green is the new black! Countries like China will like to pick up on this new trend. Others in the Middle-East will like to boost their image with the latest green fashion. Challenge your friends on the internet... but don’t leave your computer on for too long.

Step 7: Become a tree-hugging, vaguely European nation.

The world listens to America. When Americans endorse Susan Boyle, the world took note. When Americans objected to the treatment of the Dalai Lama, the world heard. If Americans protest against the razing of the Amazon, the world will listen. Do not under-estimate the socio-political clout of this nation, despite its economic struggles. When the U.S. reacts, the world will respond (at least slightly).

Freidman highlights loss of biodiversity as a theme throughout his book. Climate change is evident and energy resource supply and demand provide conditions for the development of a tree-hugging, vaguely European nation. Freidman says, “If it isn’t boring, it isn’t green.” The word “green” has espoused bad public relations sentiments, but it can become a standard. If Americans adopt the tree-hugging fad, this country can make it look cool, and the world will follow.

Step 8: Sustain yourself

Don’t buy too much (like I need to tell you that) don’t consume too much, and don’t “live” away too much stuff. Use just enough. (This is Freidman’s underlying theme). I know—easier said than done, but it saves time, money and energy if done.

Feeling tempted?

You should.

Step 9: Negotiate

A theme that stretches throughout the book. Friedman says we’ll have to negotiate with the NGOs, developing and developed countries, their citizens and governments, and different groups. There are too many Noah’s and too many arks. If we don’t bother to negotiate now, the world will become terribly crowded and very soon, we’ll all be able to see Russians from our houses. (Which would be quite cool, actually).

Step 10: Declare a War on Climate Change

Five themes highlight the book: Energy and resource supply and demand, Petro-dictatorships, Biodiversity loss, Climate Change, Energy poverty

Freidman endorses “out-greening” as a strategy for fighting terrorism, and it’s very convincing. Encourage Obama to declare a War on Climate Change; and the birds will soon fly again. Weather conditions will be more favorable, and though the world may still be flat and crowded, we will not be so hot, which just makes everything much more bearable.

I should know. I’m from Africa :)

Goodluck!

And so it goes . . .

For those who are readers of Nicholas Kristof's column, today's was on access to health care--what else? It points out that access to health care was greater in this country in the mid-1940s than now.

If you're into the comments that follow these editorials -- veritable treasure troves of Q statements -- check out the one numbered 109 among the "highlighted" comments in blue following Mr. Kristof's piece. Here's the link:

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/opinion/18kristof.html

I'm still seeking a free downloadable copy of Samuel P. Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations?" Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993, vol. 72, the article that became the controversial book of the same title. But I'm having inexplicable trouble accessing the article via our library, which is very strange. But I'll not give up as it is to supplement our reviews of Friedman on Monday night, the 22nd.

The health care debate in two pictures?

So says Nate Silver at 538.com http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/two-pictures-tell-story-on-health-care.html

Tax Fairness: The Missing Piece to DIgging Out

This piece appeared in AlterNet recently, and cuts to the heart of why I personally have reservations with Obama's weak-tea effort to address our backlog of policy problems in a way that doesn't restore fairness to our tax code. The Reagan and Bush II Administrations didn't apologize for reducing the marginal rates on the taxes for the wealthy, and Democrats Bill Clinton did not get a single Republican vote for his first budget, which wasn't much different than George Herbert Walker Bush's FY91 budget except it set the top rate at 39.6% kincking in at $250,000 annual household income and Barack Obama, who will let the Bush tax lapse in January 2011. In other words, he'll go back to the marginal rate at the top that Clinton passsd without a single Republican vote, only to see three consecutive balance budgets and a net attition of 22 million jobs during his presidency. The right-wing lunatics who predicted disaster in 1992 are doing the same with Obama's "assault ofn the successful," as if Democrats are only interested in punishing success. True Democrats need to look back at the progressive tax code that created a middle class and avoided thr massive race to the bottom that we've seen under the so-called supply-side innovation. To fear the super-rich and to allow them to pile up extraordinary wealth is to deprive talented Americans of modest means of the opportunities that previous generations of Americans had and to distort the social contract whereby we admit that those to whom much is given are fairly expected to return the favor, acknowledging that their success was not entirely the product of their own effort and ability. Normally, this is an ethical judgment made by democratically elected governments whose leaders don't run and hide whenever the cheesy charge of "class warfare" is levied against a sincere attempt to restore fairness to the tax code. A brief look at the pre-Reagan tax code is instructive. At some point, a true Democrat will not be bashful about asking those whose fortunes expanded beyond reason to either pay their fair share or find a better place to live iive with a more regressive tax rate.


AlterNet / By Les Leopold COMMENTS: 98 Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?
We are told that we’re already living well beyond our means we’ve got to cut back on government programs at all levels. Meanwhile, the super-rich are still having a ball.
March 12, 2010 |

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Our nation is already deeply in debt. How can we possibly afford to invest in our infrastructure, renewable energy, health care, our schools — and create the millions of jobs that our unemployed desperately need?

We are told that we’re already living well beyond our means — that entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security will bankrupt us. Forget the solar panels, the smaller classes and the new jobs — we’ve got to cut back on government programs at all levels.

Meanwhile, the super-rich are still having a ball. In his annual shareholder letter, mega-investor Warren Buffett wrote, “We’ve put a lot of money to work during the chaos of the last two years. When it’s raining gold, reach for a bucket, not a thimble.” And Forbes Magazine adds, “Many plutocrats did just that. Indeed, last year’s wealth wasteland has become a billionaire bonanza. Most of the richest people on the planet have seen their fortunes soar in the past year.”

Which brings us back to the federal budget. There are two sides to every ledger: the expenses…and the income. We need to start looking at the income side. With a fairer tax system, we could retrieve some of that money downpour that the elite has been siphoning away from us for decades.

In the 1950s the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $3 million a year (in today’s dollars) was 91 percent. By 1990 it was 28 percent. The IRS says that the top 400 richest tax filers actually paid a rate of just 16 percent in 2007 (the latest numbers we have). Yep, the richest earners — people who took in an average of $343 million each — probably paid a lower rate than you did. Something to consider as you sign your 2009 return.

By the way, those 400 people who do so well on tax day have a combined net worth of nearly $1.37 trillion. (According to Forbes Magazine their wealth has gone up on average by more than 16 percent over the past year — the worst economic year since the Great Depression during which 29 million Americans are without work or forced into part-time jobs. )

How do we even wrap our minds around a number so large? Here’s the example that brings it down to earth for me. If we had progressive taxes that reduced their wealth to a trifling $100 million each, we’d have enough money to set up a trust fund whose interest could provide tuition-free higher education for students at every public college and university in perpetuity. Imagine that. Our kids could actually leave college without carrying tens of thousands of dollars of debt on their backs.

Could those 400 special people be able to get by on just $100 million a year? I think they might.

So why are we so fearful of taxing the super-rich? Here are the arguments I’ve heard.

1. They’ve earned it.
Really? The concept of “earning” is murky when you consider the array of corporate welfare programs we provide. Oil companies have their depletion allowances. Big sugar farmers have their sweet subsidies. The health insurance industry is exempt from anti-trust laws.

One way corporations spend their welfare checks is by providing top management with mind-boggling compensation packages. For instance, in 2009, our financial wizards netted about $150 billion in bonuses – as if in reward for crashing the economy. Were it not for our $10 trillion (not billion) in bailout funds, they would have earned nothing at all. In fact, the financial sector’s reckless gambling has lost us over $6 trillion in wealth. But the execs did quite well, thanks to taxpayer largesse.

You’d think we’d be crying out for a windfall profits tax to reclaim our money. But no.

2. Redistribution of Income is Un-American.
During the 2008 campaign, Joe the Plumber got his 15 minutes of fame when he slammed Obama for daring to utter the phrase “redistribution of income.” Of course, we redistribute income primarily through progressive taxation – having the rich pay a higher rate.

Joe didn’t mention that we already live in a world of massive redistribution. Only it’s from the bottom to the top. We still hear about how poor folks game the system and mooch off our hard earned tax dollars. They go to emergency rooms and don’t pay. They get Medicaid for free. And many don’t pay any taxes at all (mostly because their incomes are so impossibly low). But all of that is chump change compared to the gaming going on at the other end of the economic scale.

Just think of all the scams corporations and the rich are running: ever-rising credit card fees, predatory mortgages, usurious interest rates, check cashing ripoffs, monopoly pricing. They turn income into lower taxed capital gains, find offshore tax shelters, collect subsidies for their runaway shops. And then they netted the big one: Wall Street bailouts. Post-baillout, these too-big-to fail companies are getting even bigger. It all adds up to a major redistribution plan — from the many to the few.

During the post-WWII boom we had one of the fairest income distributions in the world. Not anymore. Today the gap between rich and poor is wider than at any time in U.S. history. Here’s a telling statistic: In 1970 the compensation ratio of the top 100 CEOs compared to the average worker was 45 to one. By 2008 it was 1,071 to one. You think they got that much smarter?

3. If we tax the wealthy, we’ll hinder investment and kill jobs.
This was the justification politicians and pundits used when they started cutting taxes and eliminating regulations in the late 1970s. Tax cuts were supposed to create a robust investment class whose dollars would fuel the new service economy. Since only the wealthy can make such investments, the argument went, we have to make sure they have the money they need to invest. Otherwise, where will all the new jobs come from?

In theory this sounds good. But we tried this experiment, and it didn’t work. When we cut taxes on the super-rich, we got a different kind of investment boom than the politicians and economists had promised. The wealthy literally ran out of investments in factories, equipment and even services. So they flocked to financial investments — which were supposedly safer and more profitable anyway. The super-rich laid their money down in the Wall Street casino, and helped puff up bubble after bubble. Profits in the financial sector soared. In 1960, the sector accounted for about 15 per cent of all corporate profits. By 2008 (before the crash, that is), it was almost 40 percent. The financial sector crased as the direct result of tax cuts for the super-rich and Wall Street deregulation.

4. Government’s too big already. We should be cutting the public sector, not raising taxes to expand it.
Many people (like those in and around the Tea Party) dislike tax scams by the wealthy, but dislike government even more. They’re outraged that public sector workers often have better wages and pensions than people in the private sector. They’ve made attacking public employees the new national blood sport.

With unemployment so high, public sector workers are an easy target. Why should taxpayers, many of whom have no pensions, finance the pensions of public sector workers? Why should we protect public sector jobs when we ourselves are unemployed?

Here’s one reason: Because cutting state and local payrolls would actually add to our economic woes. If we fire public sector workers, they’ll stop paying taxes — which will only add to the tax burden on those people who still have jobs.

Laid off public sector workers — and even those whose wages and benefits have been cut — don’t buy as many goods and services. This drop in demand triggers layoffs in the private sector — and a further slide in tax revenues. In short, public sector cutbacks contribute to an economic death spiral: plummeting tax revenues and ever more cutbacks.

By failing to tax the super-rich, we’re burrowing even deeper into a billionaire bailout society in which the rich keep on gambling away our money, knowing that we will bail them out if they lose. Yes, we need to regulate Wall Street. But we also need to recognize that these gambling addicts have too much money in their pockets. And society needs that money for constructive investments, not for more gambling.

In the end the real fiscal crisis is in our minds. We don’t have to keep fighting over the scraps the wealthy have left us. We can build a new kind of economy, but only if can summon up some courage. Do we have the nerve to tax the super-rich?

Remember the Student-Loan Reform Bill?

Well, here's the latest: It's bizarre, but then why wouldn't it be?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/12/student-loan-overhaul-tak_n_496899.html

Dan Froomkin froomkin@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting Become a Fan Get Email Alerts from this Reporter Student Loan Overhaul Taking Filibuster-Proof Route To Overcome Corporate Opposition

Senate reconciliation rules to the rescue, hopefully, of the defenseless program of subsidizing banks to loaning money to students,who pay back the banks with interest, or, if they default, the federal government insures the loan and the interest. It's a $80 billion a year subsidy, and why should banks be beneficiaries for serving as middlemen for whom all risk is socialized and profit is privatized? This is not capitalism as it supposed to work, where the crony contributors to congressional campaigns are paid handsomely for their "investments." It's not really democracy either. Nor does it get the media coverage that it does deserves, because bankers' motives and their means for exercising influence to exploit the indefensible debt burden assumed by today's generation of college students whose families or scholarships or personal work earnings cannot meet the exploding costs of attending college. It's perverse public policy, it's immoral, and it's one more case of American exceptionalism run amok. And one more reason why young people ignore the antics of American politics at their own peril. The same mess described by Friedman in Hot, Flat, and Crowded -- namely, a political process that is charitably described as brain-dead -- is allowed to pesist because the illusion is created that nothing can be done to change the indefensible realities. There is much that can be done because there is no way the status quo can win on the merits when the policy pro's and con's are debated--unless the victims are so misinformed -- inadvertently or by self-insulation -- or out of the loop that they allow themselves to be victimized out of powerlessness.

Teach for the World?

Nicholas Kristof's piece in the NYT today contains a simple idea that doesn't cost a lot, that Wartburg could even take a look at and run with -- although it has experimented with it already on a smaller scale with Diers' Program overseas experiences. The attractive part, to me, is the idea that Princeton and one other school are looking at for a "gap-year" experience abroad. This would be the international version of Teach for America, a more streamlined and yet larger version of the Peace Corps. The promised pay-off is in the added maturity of students when entering college formally, and in a host of other benefits, many of which are pertinent to a flat and crowded world that is now considered a big outlier -- deservedly so -- by the rest of the world. "Teach for the World" might be seen by some as an attempt to Americanize the world even further, but the promise to me is the reverse: it would broaden the horizons of participants, reduce harmful and ill-informed stereotypes of other nationals the world over, and create democratic citizens in the deepest and broadest sense that are ready to take the fullest advantage of the formal college experience. An interesting idea for all of us as members of the higher-ed community, but of special relevance perhaps to the IR folks. Thoughts?

The Pelosi Predicament, cont'd.

SPOILER ALERT: Don't read this comment if you haven't decided how you'd vote and my own vote might influence yours--either affirmatively or negatively.

Recognizing that this might be tantamount to a vote for a single term for Obama, I would cast my own vote against the Senate bill. I would do so despite the arguments of people like Howard Dean and Bill Clinton who see the weaknesses in this reform package but see an additional 30,000 that would receive coverage if this is passed. My own vote is most heavily influenced by Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, whose views on the issue can be accessed via Bill Moyers' program's website:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2010/03/is_the_presidents_health_bill.html

Her argument is that sham reform is worse than real reform and that attempted to patch a system predicated on profit for the insurers is doomed to failure without fundamental structural reforms--of the sort carried out by the Swiss, the last for-profit insurance-based system to decide to remove the profit motive from the insurance industry, allowing private insurers to continue to exist, but not as for-profit entities with shareholders or regulations on pricing. The Swiss, like Americans, were skeptical that this would work. Now, by all indications, they'd never go back. Leaving only the US alone among the western democracies as a system that allows profit-seeking to trump universal health care as a human right. I am hopeful that Angell's view that we'd be better off by scrapping the faux reform and requiring politicians to face up to the truth: that sooner or later, a system of "Medicare for all" is the sanest, most efficient, most morally defensible and, in the end, politically profitable system. Of course, it means that we tell our current leaders -- at least those in the Senate that sold out to private insurance and, yes, the President, that this is not the change we need, that we'll bank on Democrats nominating a real advocate for real reform -- say, a Howard Dean -- to split the Democrats in a manner that in the end will serve the party and the country, though in the short term it will help the hapless Republicans. Barack Obama is a good man, a decent person, and a bright individual. He's just not what we need as president at this point in our history. I say this inspite of his personal approval ratings, which arent' great but are better than they should be for an economy that's still not hiring workers and has yet to deliver on a single campaign promise from the long march and lopsided victory in 2008. Can anyone honestly say that they know where Obama's core convictions lie? Can anyone honestly justify his ill-considered efforts at bipartisanship that produced a total of three votes for a stimulus package that was too modest given the depths to which the economy hand shrunk? Can anyone honestly justify the escalation of US troop commitments in Afghanistan when there are fewer than 100 members of al-Qaeda in the entire country? Can anyone honestly defend the president's budget: the so-called "freeze" on non-security related, domestic discretionary spending, which amounts to 14% of the budget? Likewise, for the increase in the defense budget to well over 700 billion annually, greater than one-half of the entire world's defense expenditures, when we operate 700 bases outside of the US in countries all over the world while running deficits of over a trillion and fearing to raise taxes on the very wealthy whose already obscene wealth saw huge, indefensible growth under Bush 43? Are these the actions of a Democratic reformer? I say they are not even close, and this is no time for a holding-pattern presidency that seems more concerned with maintaining a semblance of popularity by "embracing" nondescript centrist "solutions" to problems that cry out for fundamental, wholesale change. That's a mouthfull, to be sure, but you can no doubt get the point. Let's put the health care "debate" we've wasted a year and one-half on behind us, cut our losses, and demand the kind of courageous leadership that the times require by sending a message to both parties: business as usual, whether under the guise of a phony reform or under the guise of "principled" opposition to a reform measure that's a big give-away to the corporate culprits that are the enemies of justice on health care, taxes, deficits, campaign finance, student loan-reform, you name it. Enough is enough!!

When the dust has settled, I remain toptimistic that this course will end up benefitting more people to a greater degree than going forward now with a fake effort of reform that doesn't take effect for three years anyway. Now please don't confuse me with the tea-baggers who oppose the HCR plan so as to prevent a government takeover. My opposition to the current reform effort is intended to do the very opposite: i,e., speed up and deepen a government takeover so that Medicare for All becomes reality sooner rather than much later.

Cheers,
DT

The Pelosi Predicament

Hi gang, happy championship week aka Mid-winter Break Week aka prelude to March Madness aka Mr. Massa's Fifteen Minutes of Infamy.... enough nonsense. We've got important matters before us, and now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country (or this country, which is in need of aid).

As promised, I'm weighing in for what it's worth on the Health Care homestretch as Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer try to count votes in the House for the so-called "reform" measure that passed the Senate on December 24, 2009. The White House is busy "going public," today in St. Louis, earlier this week in Pennsylvania, in an effort to drum up support from enough citizens to make it seem like a groundswell of genuine support for the House to pass the Senate version on the hope (and prayer) that tweaks to the Senate bill will be made via "reconciliation" aka simple-majority budget rules afterward.

So let's weigh the pro's and con's. From the Speaker's point of view, this is a tall order. The House version differed substantially in two key ways from the Senate version. First, it had a strong public option; and second, it created three new tax brackets among the rich to pay for it while the Senate bill utilizes an excise tax on so-called "cadillac" health plans, but due to Labor opposition, this wouldn't go into effect until 2018. Both bills contain mandates requiring that the uninsured purchase insurance, but the Senate bill falls short of universal coverage by some 6%. Both bills expand COBRA coverage for young people currently covered by their parents' insurance, from age 24 to 26. According to the CBO, both bills would bend the "cost curve" -- i.e., slow down the growth of Medicare and Medicaid entitlements -- though this is in dispute by a Harvard Medical School projection on the Senate bill.

From Speaker Pelosi's standpoint, you can see why this is a tough vote. Members in the House who voted for the House version would have to hold their nose to vote for the Senate version. Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the initial House version because it was not a Single-Payer system, has already said he won't vote for the Senate version. And there are currently twelve Democrats that voted for the House bill who, following Bart Stupak (D-MI) are convinced that the Senate language prohibiting publicly-financed abortions is not strong enough and are threatening to vote against the Senate bill for that reason. Kucinich has called the Senate version a huge "bailout" for the health insurance industry since it gives millions of new customers to the private providers without any real guarantee that premium costs will be controlled. The recent announcements by Iowa and California branches of Blue Cross-Blue Shield that rates will increase for some by 12% to 39% this year give support to Kucinich's view. But the White House responds by saying that the failure to act -- i.e., to continue on the course we're on -- is unsustainable. We'll be bankrupt due to the health entitlements by 2020.

Then there is the politics at stake. Failure to act would be scored politically as a victory for the Republicans, and this is a terrible precedent -- though it's not really a precedent given unanimous GOP opposition to Clinton's first budget in 1993 -- given the indefensible course we're presently on. By the same token, there is plenty to object to with these bills, though the principles for objection voiced by Republicans ("opening the door to a public takeover of health care") and by progressives like Kucinich ("it's a give-away to the insurance companies") are from parallel universes. Given the cowardly way that the Senate bill has contrived to pay for the reform -- by "binding" future Congresses to implement a tax they don't have the guts to implement -- it is hard to be enthusiastic about the Senate bill. It is possible to argue that we'd be better off by canning the reform effort now and let this play out in the 2010 and 2012 elections. It might be better, in fact, to let these elections become referenda on the issue of health care reform than to go forward with the difficult-to-describe and more difficult-to-defend monstrosity that the Senate bill has become. Indeed, it could be that this would split the Democratic party between those favoring "Medicare for all" (the preference of the Pelosi Democrats) and the "Republican-lite Democrats" who think that reform is possible without changing the for-profit insurance industry that is the moral and financial enemy of reform in the first place.

This, then, is the "Pelosi predicament." She is asked to take one for the team by whipping a vote for the Senate bill, but she has real doubts about the likelihood that the Senate bill will produce the reform needed. So, before I go on record and declare how I'd vote were I a member of the House (in the Democratic Caucus, obviously), I'll solicit the group's wisdom on how Nancy should proceed and whether he choice will prove fruitful. So, what's your verdict?

Disappointed...

This morning, I woke up, walked to the Senate office for my office hours and turned on the the President's statement on the future of healthcare reform. I was optimistic that today would mark the day that the President would take a position on healthcare, but instead, he confirmed the widespread belief that he is unable to take a position. On anything.

"On one end of the spectrum, there are some who've suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with a government-run health care system. And though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, and this includes most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry -- whether it's state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. The argument is, is that that will somehow lower costs. I disagree with that approach. I'm concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care.

So I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it's time to give the American people more control over their health care and their health insurance."

(Source: Whitehouse.gov)

I am, well, disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I wasn't open-minded to DT's perspective that the President is unable to pick a side and make some on the other side unhappy, but I think it finally hit me today when the President walked into a room filled with Doctors, nurses and physician assistants (nice touch, by the way) and stated the obvious: that the American people should have control over their healthcare. The only real piece of news was that that he has asked Democratic leadership in Congress to schedule a vote within the next three weeks.

The statement lasted about 20 minutes, in which he vaguely outlined the tax breaks for the middle class so insurance would more profitable for them (although, essentially, the government would be subsidizing their premiums and the insurance companies will still make bank).

Quite frankly, other than being disappointed, I don't know what to think of this whole situation anymore. Part of me says that incrementalism is necessary in any major reform, that we have to take steps to fix the healthcare crisis. But if so, how many steps do we take? And how many how much more can we afford to spend?

I'm open to ideas.

When the economy goes south . . .

According to today's Waterloo Courier, reports of child abuse were up 11% in 2009, a rise that is attributed to the familial stress induced by the economic downturn. This news comes on the nheals of Jim Bunning's solo filibuster on extending unemployment benefits to the millions of Americans out of work for a year more more. In the remarks of Jon Kyl, his Republican colleague from AZ, Bunning has a real point: "unemployment insurance provides a strong disincentive to look for work." He's likely serious, since this is only an extreme version of a very American tendency to either consciously refuse, or unonsciously fail, to connect the dots between distal events in the socio-economic environment and their personal lives.

In a sense, isn't this the "rationale" for Republican opposition to a "government takeover" of a healthcare policy that, they really believe, belongs in the hands of the private sector. Government "intervention" --though it exists in the VA and in Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP -- in the health of Americans serves to enable obesity, smoking, lack of exercise, refusal to accept personal responsibility for keeping oneself well. I honestly believe that this sensibility is sincere: that this as other cases of "American exceptionalism" is predicated on the "cultural" premise that not only do we NOT have obligations to provide a safety-net or floor of universally-met human needs, but to do so interferes with the Darwinian instinctfor survival. Those that have what it takes to survive need no one to help them survive and thrive; only the weak, the losers, and the unfit need this help. If we help them we do a disservice to Nature's Law of "surival of the fittest." Thoughts?

Transparency=Gridlock?

This was an interesting perspective offered by David Frum...suggesting that open government regulations led to more gridlock and that government was simply more efficient in the past because of the authoritarian committee chair system, etc.

Seemed like an interesting perspective, and relatively simple for what has caused this partisan gridlock.

http://www.frumforum.com/trading-in-smoke-filled-rooms-for-gridlock