In a two week span in which the East Coast of the United States was beset by a monstrous hurricane, states in the same area had their strongest earthquake since World War II and Colorado experienced its most violent quake since 1967, we were reminded once again of the important role played by federal government in our society.

Now, I’m no constitutional scholar - like, say, Michele Bachmann - but I remember something in that document about government’s responsibility for “the general welfare”, which I can only assume means that if the state you live in comes to resemble Waterworld there is probably a useful role for the government in helping you keep your head above water.

This is not only a progressive view of governance. It is also one rooted in reality and based on US history and culture. In the early days of the republic, the Congressional Act of 1803 provided assistance to a New Hampshire town damaged severely by a fire.

This pattern would continue as Congress would help the victims of natural disasters in the two centuries to follow - not including Lady Gaga’s performance at the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards or Tim Pawlenty’s presidential campaign, of course.

The stories like the fire in New Hampshire, however, have not formed the dominant narrative since that actor-who-climbed-into-bed-with-the-monkey transformed government into something that was on your back or just for those “welfare queens”.

Reagan and his ideological soulmates understood quite well that as Josef Stalin infamously said, while “the death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”

In other words, if Americans realize that a single-payer healthcare system will help protect their parents and children from disease, then they’ll be for it. But if it can be something abstract that just helps those other people who are mere statistics at best, supplied by an amorphous “big government” with no human face, long tentacles and the ability to force you to drink fluorinated water or strictly require a pulse to purchase a firearm - well, then, it’s easy to hate.

And hate it they do. As long as it is government spending for you, and not them.

Because the truth is, with very few exceptions, conservative elected officials (of both parties) are hypocrites when it comes to spending money.

Continue reading »

enlarge

Credit: New Yorker

This is the cover of the New Yorker coming out this week.

DOWNLOADS: (24)

PLAYS: (363)

Embed

Gov. Nikki Haley (R) told the Lexington Rotary Club Thursday that she wants South Carolinians to undergo drug screenings before they can receive unemployment benefits.

"I so want drug testing," she said. "I so want it."

"The problem is that I've got to make sure the numbers work... It's certainly not off the table for me. It's something that I've been wanting since the first day I walked into office, but we do have not make sure it's not politically popular, it's actually a good feasible thing to do."

The South Carolina Republican recalled a story about the high rate of drug test failures at the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River National Laboratory.

"Down on River Site, they were hiring a few hundred people, and when we sat down and talked to them -- this was back before the campaign -- when we sat down and talked to them, they said of everybody they interviewed, half of them failed a drug test, and of the half that was left, of that 50 percent, the other half couldn't read and write properly," Haley explained.

But Department of Energy spokesman Jim Giusti told The Huffington Post's Arthur Delaney that the failure rate was far lower than Haley had claimed.

"Half the people who applied for a job last year or year 2009 did not fail the drug test," Giusti said. "At the peak of hiring under the Recovery Act, we had less than 1 percent of those hired test positive."

He added that job applicants are not even tested at the River Site until after they have been hired.

enlarge

While Krugman had positive things to say about Obama's jobs plan (click on the link for the rest), I think the more interesting news here is his report that Chicago's Federal Reserve chief gave a speech about unemployment:

First things first: I was favorably surprised by the new Obama jobs plan, which is significantly bolder and better than I expected. It’s not nearly as bold as the plan I’d want in an ideal world. But if it actually became law, it would probably make a significant dent in unemployment.

Of course, it isn’t likely to become law, thanks to GOP. opposition. Nor is anything else likely to happen that will do much to help the 14 million Americans out of work. And that is both a tragedy and an outrage.

Before I get to the Obama plan, let me talk about the other important economic speech of the week, which was given by Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve of Chicago. Mr. Evans said, forthrightly, what some of us have been hoping to hear from Fed officials for years now.

As Mr. Evans pointed out, the Fed, both as a matter of law and as a matter of social responsibility, should try to keep both inflation and unemployment low — and while inflation seems likely to stay near or below the Fed’s target of around 2 percent, unemployment remains extremely high.

So how should the Fed be reacting? Mr. Evans: “Imagine that inflation was running at 5 percent against our inflation objective of 2 percent. Is there a doubt that any central banker worth their salt would be reacting strongly to fight this high inflation rate? No, there isn’t any doubt. They would be acting as if their hair was on fire. We should be similarly energized about improving conditions in the labor market.”

Continue reading »

My chiropractor is a nice guy - a Republican, but open-minded. But because he's so busy, he doesn't know that much about what's going on (like the majority of Americans). I think he's fairly representative of the interested but under-informed voter.

Anyway, he asked me if I'd seen the Republican presidential debate; he wanted to know what I thought. "If I were a Republican? The only one I'd consider voting for is Huntsman," I said. "But of course you have to be a nut to win the Republican primaries."

"I thought Herman Cain seemed pretty smart. He was talking about making Social Security like the Chilean model," he said. "What do you know about that?"

"Oh, jeebus," I said. "The Chilean model. The same one that right-wingers have been trying to shove down our throats for 30 years." (This was all mumbled, since I was face down on his table at the time.)

"First of all, it was a mess. It was imposed by Pinochet under his military dictatorship, and the generals revolted. They insisted they get to keep the old plan, and they did. Second, a lot of people didn't get anywhere near the money they actually needed to retire, but the administrators made a fortune."

I didn't even get into the meat of it. Chileans were charged exorbitant fees (15 to 20 percent for all costs) in order to choose which pension fund association in which to invest. Depending on which risk level they choose, they're equivalent to our mutual funds, IRAs or CDs; by law, they have to have a minimum return. From Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries, March/April 1998:

There are currently 13 privately run AFP's authorized to manage a private pension fund covering a group of workers. The original 12 in 1981 grew to 22 in 1993, but competition caused this to fall to 13. Investments now totaling around $30 billion are regulated by law, and about 28 percent is currently invested in equities, 42 percent in government bonds, 30 percent in Chilean financial institutions and companies, and a small amount in foreign securities.

So it's not like you get to watch CNBC all day and make a killing in the stock market -- you're limited to the official funds, and they all have roughly the same investments. And it's a much better deal for someone with a big paycheck. (IIRC, a big shortfall was caused by the fact that women, especially poor women, dropped out of the job market to raise children or take care of a sick relative. So when it came time to retire, they had very little money from which to draw. They since added a minimum benefit -- gee, sounds almost like their original Social Security program!)

The article goes on to warn about the private plans being pushed by Republicans at the time:

Continue reading »

President Obama is taking the American Jobs Act (AJA) on the road to the people with whom it will resonate most: the currently unemployed; young people in college facing a slow jobs market; and veterans back home looking for work. He is at his best in this environment. It's what I wish he would have done more of during the horrid debt-ceiling debate. He's not out there peddling high hopes, either.

After a month of brutal town halls where people were so angry at their Republican tea party representatives in Congress that some actually cancelled town halls, the President is speaking their language and it's worrisome to the obstructionist Republicans.

Here's the transcript of his closer in Richmond, Virginia. It wasn't an accident that his first stop was Eric Cantor's district:

So I’m asking all of you to lift up your voices, not just here in Richmond -- anybody watching, listening, following online -- I want you to call, I want you to email, I want you to tweet -- (laughter) -- I want you to fax, I want you to visit, I want you to Facebook, send a carrier pigeon -- (laughter.) I want you to tell your congressperson, the time for gridlock and games is over. The time for action is now. The time to create jobs is now. (Applause.)

Pass this bill. If you want construction workers on the worksite -- pass this bill. (Applause.) If you want teachers in the classroom -- pass this bill. (Applause.) You want small business owners to hire new people -- pass this bill. (Applause.) If you want veterans to get their fair share of opportunity that they helped create -- pass this bill. (Applause.) If you want a tax break -- pass this bill. (Applause.)

Prove you will fight as hard for tax cuts for workers and middle-class people as you do for oil companies and rich folks. Pass this bill. (Applause.) Let’s get something done. (Applause.)

The next election is 14 months away. We cannot wait. The American people do not have the luxury of waiting another 14 months for some action. Some of you are living paycheck to paycheck, week to week, day by day. Now is not the time for people in Washington to be worrying about their jobs. It's time for them to be worrying about your jobs. (Applause.) Now is the time to put Americans back to work. Now is the time to act. (Applause.)

We are not a people that just look and watch and wait to see what happens. We're Americans. We make things happen. (Applause.) We're tougher than these times. We are bigger than the smallness of our politics. We are patriots and we are pioneers, and innovators and entrepreneurs, who through individual effort and through a common commitment to one another will build an economy that is once again the engine and the envy of the world. (Applause.) And we will write our own destiny.

It's within our power. But we've got to seize the moment. So let’s just shake off all the naysaying and the anxiety and the hand-wringing. Enough of that. Let's get to work. (Applause.) Let’s show the world once again why America is the greatest nation on Earth.

Continue reading »

Let's focus again on jobs today, and on what President Obama has to do -- politically.

Lawyers, Guns & Money: Facing political mortality, Obama gave a pretty good speech. Not that anything will get done, mind you.

Taylor Marsh: Sure, it's all about politics, but Obama needs to be aggressive now, shaming Republicans into supporting a meaningful jobs bill.

The Moderate Voice: Obama's plan would put 1.9 million people back to work. But can he make it happen? Even part of it, what with Congress moving ever further to the right?

Round-up by Michael J.W. Stickings of The Reaction.

Send tips to mbru@crooksandliars.com.

enlarge

Credit: The Atlantic

As Kateoplis points out, Hey Atlantic Monthly, when did Fox News become a "Trusted Media Source"?

Friday night dance party! Here's some serious rock n roll from Jim Jones Revue's self- titled 2008 debut. Shake it!

The Jim Jones Revue
	Price: $8.99 (As of 09/10/11 03:19 am details)

This is tea party reporter, Susie Sampson in DC asking real Americans about jobs and labor.

She says, "All Obama cares about is jobs, mean while we're trying to get elected. Now I ask you, who's more democratic?"