Hullabaloo

Thursday, April 19, 2012

 
Debunking another big conservative lie about the economy

by David Atkins

One of the lines you'll frequently hear used to justify stagnating wages and austerity movements in the U.S. (and this goes for other industrialized nations, too) is that American workers "aren't competitive" on the global market. The argument seems somewhat persuasive at first: after all, it's hard to expect a company to hire an American worker at ten times the pay of a Chinese worker when the Chinese worker will work longer hours. Even if the Chinese work is only 75% the quality of the American worker, that's still probably a good business decision for the corporation. And hey, in tough economic times with global competition from companies overseas bringing low-cost goods into America, the only way to compete is by offshoring jobs and lowering American wages, right? Everybody has to cut back now, because we're not in Henry Ford's America. Even American corporations are making large amounts, even a majority of their sales in overseas markets. So it's not as if paying Americans decent wages is even terribly helpful to their consumer business.

So the line goes. And thus, policy makers have tried to paper over and compensate for that "reality" by expanding credit, keeping overseas goods cheap, and inflating asset bubbles to disguise the supposedly inevitable downward pressure on wages.

Except that there's one little wrinkle in that tidy little argument: CEO pay. As the AFL-CIO notes:

The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay between CEOs of the S&P; 500 Index companies and U.S. workers widened to 380 times in 2011 from 343 times in 2010. Back in 1980, the average large company CEO only received 42 times the average worker's pay.

CEOs supposedly deserve all this money for increasing shareholder value. However, while the average CEO pay increased 13.9 percent at S&P; 500 Index companies in 2011, the S&P; 500 Index ended the year at the same level as it started.

This double-digit increase in average CEO pay for the second consecutive year shows just how disconnected the top 1 percent is from the 99 percent. In 2011, average wages increased just 2.8 percent and average worker pay totaled $34,053.

While not all of these CEOs are of American companies, a great many of them are. And it hasn't mattered. If the argument about competitive wages and tight bottom lines for American companies were true, then the top of the pay scale should see some tightening as well. Sure, it's not quite as easy to outsource a CEO as it is to outsource an assembly line worker, but it's not that much more difficult. If competition is really that tight, then CEOs and other executives should feel the pinch as well in a global competitive environment.

And yet they don't. American corporations are still immensely profitable. In fact, American companies are are racking up the biggest profits in history, and it's mostly coming on the backs of workers.

It's certainly true that globalization and market forces have enabled corporations and their executives to maximize profits by reducing American standards of living. But it's not an inevitable consequence of competition to help American companies stay competitive. It's just being skimmed off the top for the richest 1%, and for the benefit of the top 1/5th of shareholder Americans who have any significant stock investments.

In other words, the line being fed to American workers about why their wages are stagnant is just that: a line. A lie that pretends that what globalization has allowed companies to do to their workers is something that competitive forces have required them to do, when in fact the benefits have simply accrued to the richest Americans.

And that, ultimately, is what the economic argument in this country is about (when it isn't about spending priorities and racial codes.) We can either choose to be a society that doesn't care that the old bond because executive and employee has been destroyed, and that doesn't care if American workers remain able to afford a decent standard of living. We can simply allow the forces to take their course, and let every man fend for himself.

Or we can choose to say "no." One way of saying no would be to retreat and fight against globalization itself. Some efforts on that front are appropriate, but a lot of them are not. There's no need to go out of one's way to sign free trade deals that are an affront to the American worker, and we should incentivize companies to keep their jobs here at home. But attempting to stop globalization itself is a mostly pointless endeavor.

And that is why progressive taxation is so important. If globalization so easily enables increases in income inequality, then it's extremely important that we as a nation claw some of those ill-earned gains back from the wealthy and spend it to rebuild the middle class.

We may not live in Henry Ford's American anymore. Modern executives may be able to rake in the dough without paying their workers. But that doesn't mean we have to live with that idea and do nothing about it.


.
thereisnospoon 4/19/2012 02:10:00 PM |

 
Boys and their toys

by digby

Michael Hastings has another blockbuster article in Rolling Stone about America's secret drone war:

During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the military conducted only a handful of drone missions. Today, the Pentagon deploys a fleet of 19,000 drones, relying on them for classified missions that once belonged exclusively to Special Forces units or covert operatives on the ground. American drones have been sent to spy on or kill targets in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia and Libya. Drones routinely patrol the Mexican border, and they provided aerial surveillance over Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. In his first three years, Obama has unleashed 268 covert drone strikes, five times the total George W. Bush ordered during his eight years in office. All told, drones have been used to kill more than 3,000 people designated as terrorists, including at least four U.S. citizens. In the process, according to human rights groups, they have also claimed the lives of more than 800 civilians.[...]

Drones have also radically altered the CIA, turning a civilian intelligence-gathering agency into a full-fledged paramilitary operation – one that routinely racks up nearly as many scalps as any branch of the military. But the implications of drones go far beyond a single combat unit or civilian agency. On a broader scale, the remote-control nature of unmanned missions enables politicians to wage war while claiming we're not at war – as the United States is currently doing in Pakistan. What's more, the Pentagon and the CIA can now launch military strikes or order assassinations without putting a single boot on the ground – and without worrying about a public backlash over U.S. soldiers coming home in body bags. The immediacy and secrecy of drones make it easier than ever for leaders to unleash America's military might – and harder than ever to evaluate the consequences of such clandestine attacks.

I can't help but be reminded of this every time I read one of these stories about the Drone War.

It’s an interesting anomaly of Barack Obama’s presidency that this liberal Democrat, known before the 2008 election for his antiwar views, has been so comfortable running America’s secret wars. Obama’s leadership style — and the continuity of his national security policies with those of his predecessor, George W. Bush — has left friends and foes scratching their heads. What has become of the “change we can believe in” style he showed as a candidate? The answer may be that he has disappeared into the secret world of the post-Sept. 11 presidency. [...]

 Obama is the commander in chief as covert operator. The flag-waving “mission accomplished” speeches of his predecessor aren’t Obama’s thing; even his public reaction to the death of bin Laden was relatively subdued. Watching Obama, the reticent, elusive man whose dual identity is chronicled in “Dreams From My Father,” you can’t help wondering if he has an affinity for the secret world. He is opaque, sometimes maddeningly so, in the way of an intelligence agent. Intelligence is certainly an area where the president appears confident and bold. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence who has been running spy agencies for more than 20 years, regards Obama as “a phenomenal user and understander of intelligence.” When Clapper briefs the president each morning, he brings along extra material to feed the president’s hunger for information.

This is a president, too, who prizes his authority to conduct covert action. Clapper’s predecessor, Adm. Dennis Blair, lost favor in part because he sought to interpose himself in the chain of covert action. That encroached on Obama, who aides say sees it as a unique partnership with the CIA... Perhaps Obama’s comfort level with his intelligence role helps explain why he has done other parts of the job less well. He likes making decisions in private, where he has the undiluted authority of the commander in chief. He likes information, as raw and pertinent as possible, and he gets impatient listening to windy political debates. He likes action, especially when he doesn’t leave fingerprints.

I'm fairly sure that David Ignatius, who wrote that for the Washington Post, really admires that about him.

I care little about the president's image as a superspy man-of-action. All that stuff kind of makes me sick if you want to know the truth. But there is a foreign policy implication in all this that should be discussed before the United States government just starts patrolling the entire world, including our own cities, with militarized sky robots. Hastings writes:

"Drones have really become the counterterrorism weapon of choice for the Obama administration," says Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown law professor who helped establish a new Pentagon office devoted to legal and humanitarian policy. "What I don't think has happened enough is taking a big step back and asking, 'Are we creating more terrorists than we're killing? Are we fostering militarism and extremism in the very places we're trying to attack it?' A great deal about the drone strikes is still shrouded in secrecy. It's very difficult to evaluate from the outside how serious of a threat the targeted people pose."

That would be the point, I'm afraid. I think Barbara Tuchman's observation in The Guns of August about how untried technology leads to hubris is probably worth contemplating here. This new weapon makes it very easier to start wars but there's nothing in the technology that will make it easier to end them.

Update: In case anyone thinks that this is only a Commander in Chief problem, think again.  The congress has a whole bipartisan caucus formed around this topic called the Unmanned Systems Caucus, chaired by crooked Republican "Buck" Mckeon. We have a chance to replace him with a progressive congressman named Lee Rogers this time out. (You can contribute to his campaign here.) He will not be joining the Unmanned Systems Caucus. Baby steps.
digby 4/19/2012 01:00:00 PM |

 
Building a nest for the lame duck


by digby

Earlier this week we had this:

All the Senate Republicans — and even some Democrats — who’ve attacked President Obama for refusing to embrace the storied Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction plan in 2010 may end up with a chance to replace their preening with recorded votes.

Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) announced Tuesday that he will introduce the framework as a blueprint for the upper-chamber’s official budget resolution — a response to Republicans who for years have hectored him and his party for failing to advance a plan with a vision for the country’s future.

At a Capitol press briefing, Conrad downplayed expectations of the plan passing anytime soon, pointing out that it will take time for the fiscal commission report, issued in late 2010, to be adjusted for economic and policy developments that have occurred in the intervening months. He also expressed doubt that any long-term budget can be agreed to in the polarized 112th Congress.

“It’s going to require a lot of negotiation, and the negotiation is going to take time,” Conrad told reporters, adding that it “could be” months before the committee votes on a final product. “If one is interested in really getting a result, the time is not yet right. Nothing could be more clear. I don’t rule out being able to act more quickly.

Today we have this:

Senate Democrats are prepared to back House Republicans into a corner if they refuse to relent and fund the government next year at the level the parties agreed to during last summer’s fight over raising the debt limit. And two recent developments — a pre-emptive White House veto threat and an olive branch from Senate Republicans — make them think they have the upper hand. “I hope that [Senate Republicans] can persuade their House members and their colleagues over there to come to their senses and come back to the deal that we made last August instead of threatening us with another government shutdown,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) — a Democratic Senate leader and appropriator — at a Capitol briefing Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he’s “glad” the White House stepped in and drew a bright line, and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters that Democrats will have the upper hand if House Republicans don’t back off voluntarily. For now, House Republicans aren’t addressing whether they’ll bend on funding levels for the federal government. But Jennifer Hing, a spokeswoman for top GOP House appropriator Hal Rogers, lambasted the Obama administration for inserting itself into the process, and said the GOP and Senate Dems will reach an agreement on funding the government on their own.

It's hard to know what the real strategy is, but I'm guessing they would prefer to stage a kabuki dance, extend the funding and deal with all this in the lame duck session. If Conrad can have the "new" Simpson-Bowles ready and waiting, it could be the template for one of those wonderful lame duck deals. On the other hand, the Republicans are insane and might just think shutting down the government in the month before the election works in their favor. They do keep you guessing. .
digby 4/19/2012 11:30:00 AM |

 
Nuge's moment

by digby

I think it's fairly hilarious that everyone's up in arms about Ted Nugent now, when he's been saying this crap for years. This post is from December of 2009 -- not even a year after Obama was sworn in:

Toxoplasmosis 

 Gosh, it seems like only yesterday that American singers could get themselves in big trouble by going to a foreign country and criticizing the President of the United States. They had their records burned, were subjected to death threats and were blackballed from radio stations. That was then and this is now. Here's Ted Nugent in England this week:

  "I think that Barack Hussein Obama should be put in jail. It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a communist. Mao Tse Tung lives and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. This country should be ashamed. I wanna throw up." 

 It's a good thing he didn't say that he was ashamed of him. Them's fighting words. I would suggest a boycott of his CDs but I don't think he's come out with anything new since about 1975, so we'd have to go down to the basement and dig out the old moldy vinyl. And I'm pretty sure the only radio stations that play "Cat Scratch Fever" these days do it as a retro joke, sort of like "Muskrat Love" by The Captain and Tenille. It's just not worth the trouble.

digby 4/19/2012 09:55:00 AM |

 
Thomas Friedman's Constituency

by David Atkins

 Does wanker Thomas Friedman ever tire of being wrong? Is there really anyone left in America besides maybe Linda Parks) who can read this without laughing?

And that is why I still hope Michael Bloomberg will reconsider running for president as an independent candidate, if only to participate in the presidential debates and give our two-party system the shock it needs. President Obama has significant achievements to his record. He has done a solid job stemming the economic crisis he inherited and a good job managing national security and initiating important reforms — from health care to auto mileage standards... This election has to be about those hard choices, smart investments and shared sacrifices — how we set our economy on a clear-cut path of near-term, job-growing improvements in infrastructure and education and on a long-term pathway to serious fiscal, tax and entitlement reform. The next president has to have a mandate to do all of this. But, today, neither party is generating that mandate — talking seriously enough about the taxes that will have to be raised or the entitlement spending that will have to be cut to put us on sustainable footing, let alone offering an inspired vision of American renewal that might motivate such sacrifice. That’s why I still believe that the national debate would benefit from the entrance of a substantial independent candidate — like the straight-talking, socially moderate and fiscally conservative Bloomberg — who could challenge, and maybe even improve, both major-party presidential candidates by speaking honestly about what is needed to restore the foundations of America’s global leadership before we implode.

Jonathan Chait served up the best response to this stupidity a few months ago:

What, by contrast, are we to make of third-party activists like Thomas L. Friedman or Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz? They have a president who supports virtually everything they want—short-term stimulus, long-term deficit reduction through a mix of taxes and entitlement cuts, clean energy, education reform, and social liberalism. Yet they are agitating for a third party in order to carry out an agenda that is virtually identical to Obama’s. In a column touting the third-party Americans Elect, the closest Friedman comes to explaining why we should have a third party, rather than reelect the politician who already represents their values, is to say that such a party “would have offered a grand bargain on the deficit two years ago, not on the eve of a Treasury default.” He agrees with Obama’s plan, in other words, but proposes to form a new party because he disagrees with his legislative sequencing. As political analysis, this is pure derangement. It’s the Judean People’s Front for the Aspen Institute crowd. But these sorts of anti-political fantasies arise whenever liberals are forced to confront the crushing ordinariness of governing. (Matthew Miller, a fervent promoter of Americans Elect, likewise pined for a third party in 1996, on the curious grounds that President Clinton wasn’t doing enough to balance the budget.)

In a sane country, Thomas Friedman would be laughed off the cocktail circuit. But this is not a sane country. There is admittedly a small section of the comfortable educated population that shares the Thomas Friedman view about the prime desirability of social progressivism mixed with fiscal conservatism. They tend to be a small subset of creative class pseudo-liberals who either labor comfortably for the government or depend heavily on the stock market to provide them an income stream. So cutting wages and safety net provisions while juicing the stock market all while keeping abortion safe, legal and rare as long as we don't talk about it too much seems fine and dandy for them. But it's a pretty vanishingly small crowd, one that fools itself into believing that it has more support than it actually does. What actually drives so-called "fiscal conservatism" in this country, beyond the propaganda of the very rich, is a sense of aggrievement that decent standards of living are provided to "those people." Remember: almost everyone wants to tax the rich. The main reason the rich don't get taxed is because a bunch of people are conned into worrying the money might go to people who don't look like them, act like them, or live where they live. The "deeply conservative" Deep South loved them some FDR and some socialism until the mid-1960s or so, for reasons that can only be credibly explained by those who want to be banned from the Very Serious circuit. In short, there's very little in the way authentic, enlightened support for "fiscal conservatism," otherwise known as austerity. Policy that is as wrong in Spain today as it was in America in 1937. But that doesn't stop the Thomas Friedmans of the world from thinking they have a big constituency out there that agrees with them, or the New York Times from publishing it while more honest and knowledgeable writers heave exasperated sighs in futility on blogs and the pages of Rolling Stone.

.
thereisnospoon 4/19/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

 
Border Taseriffic

by digby


TPM reports:

A video uncovered by PBS’s Need To Know and set to air this week appears to show US border agents from California using a stun gun on a Mexican man before his death.

Anastacio Hernandez-Rojas died in 2010 following an altercation with agents from the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection near San Diego.

The full segment is set to air Friday, but Need To Know has posted a preview online. In the video, Hernandez-Rojas can be seen on the ground, surrounded by about a dozen agents. He did not appear to be resisting arrest when an agent deployed a stun gun.

Apparently a succession of undocumented workers expired from Taser International's mysterious "diagnosis" for an illness that only affects people who've been tasered in police custody. What're the odds?

.
digby 4/18/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
Reactionary Mitt

by digby

It's very hard to understand what makes the Romneybot run, but it occurred to me this morning that he's given us some clues.

#1:

Mitt Romney said during the interview that the attacks surrounding his dog were the most "wounding" so far on the campaign trial.

Asked if he'd do it again, he replied, "Certainly not with the attention it's received."

#2:

"We went to the company and we said, look, you can't have any illegals working on our property. I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals."

#3:

"The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I'm not going to get rid of it entirely," Romney said, explaining that part of his reasoning behind preserving the agency was to maintain a federal role in pushing back against teachers' unions. Romney added that he learned in his 1994 campaign for Senate that proposing to eliminate the agency was politically volatile.

He's a shape shifter, which we already knew. But he's extremely reactive. Which means that the main question about how he'll govern is who can bring the most pressure to bear on him. Anybody want to guess who that might be?


.
digby 4/18/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
Gulf of deformities

by David Atkins

This is horrifying (h/t Siri at DailyKos):

New Orleans, LA - "The fishermen have never seen anything like this," Dr Jim Cowan told Al Jazeera. "And in my 20 years working on red snapper, looking at somewhere between 20 and 30,000 fish, I've never seen anything like this either."

Dr Cowan, with Louisiana State University's Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences started hearing about fish with sores and lesions from fishermen in November 2010.

Cowan's findings replicate those of others living along vast areas of the Gulf Coast that have been impacted by BP's oil and dispersants.

Gulf of Mexico fishermen, scientists and seafood processors have told Al Jazeera they are finding disturbing numbers of mutated shrimp, crab and fish that they believe are deformed by chemicals released during BP's 2010 oil disaster.

Along with collapsing fisheries, signs of malignant impact on the regional ecosystem are ominous: horribly mutated shrimp, fish with oozing sores, underdeveloped blue crabs lacking claws, eyeless crabs and shrimp - and interviewees' fingers point towards BP's oil pollution disaster as being the cause.

Eyeless shrimp

Tracy Kuhns and her husband Mike Roberts, commercial fishers from Barataria, Louisiana, are finding eyeless shrimp.

"At the height of the last white shrimp season, in September, one of our friends caught 400 pounds of these," Kuhns told Al Jazeera while showing a sample of the eyeless shrimp.

According to Kuhns, at least 50 per cent of the shrimp caught in that period in Barataria Bay, a popular shrimping area that was heavily impacted by BP's oil and dispersants, were eyeless. Kuhns added: "Disturbingly, not only do the shrimp lack eyes, they even lack eye sockets."

"Some shrimpers are catching these out in the open Gulf [of Mexico]," she added, "They are also catching them in Alabama and Mississippi. We are also finding eyeless crabs, crabs with their shells soft instead of hard, full grown crabs that are one-fifth their normal size, clawless crabs, and crabs with shells that don't have their usual spikes … they look like they've been burned off by chemicals..."

"I've seen the brown shrimp catch drop by two-thirds, and so far the white shrimp have been wiped out," Ladner told Al Jazeera. "The shrimp are immune compromised. We are finding shrimp with tumors on their heads, and are seeing this everyday."

While on a shrimp boat in Mobile Bay with Sidney Schwartz, the fourth-generation fisherman said that he had seen shrimp with defects on their gills, and "their shells missing around their gills and head".

"We've fished here all our lives and have never seen anything like this," he added.

Ladner has also seen crates of blue crabs, all of which were lacking at least one of their claws.

Darla Rooks, a lifelong fisherperson from Port Sulfur, Louisiana, told Al Jazeera she is finding crabs "with holes in their shells, shells with all the points burned off so all the spikes on their shells and claws are gone, misshapen shells, and crabs that are dying from within … they are still alive, but you open them up and they smell like they've been dead for a week".

The dispersants used in the Gulf of Mexico are widely known to have caustic properties. The people in the area have also been subject to burns and health problems. No one knows the long-term effects these chemicals will have on sea life in the Gulf, either.

And all of it done not for any particularly good reason except to make the biggest oil spill in history seem like less of a problem.

And yes, the Obama Administration aided and abetted this. Dear gods.


.
thereisnospoon 4/18/2012 03:00:00 PM |

 
Study hard for your M.R.S., girls

by digby


SE Cupp modern woman:

[W]hile liberal women may praise Ann for (at least) getting herself an education, where is the praise for Ann’s best decision of all — to marry well?

Progressives like Hilary Rosen, who lambasted Ann Romney on economic issues for being a stay-at-home mom, would presumably prefer women to be dependent on the state for health care and housing .

But by marrying wealthy, Ann made a truly empowering decision that allowed her the freedom to do whatever she wanted. And she did it, by all accounts, without sacrificing the really important stuff, marrying someone she loved.

And what a catch she found in Mitt Romney, a good, churchgoing guy who worked hard to achieve huge success.

But don’t hold your breath for the choruses of “You go, girl!” from the feminists. Apparently, picking a good provider is only okay in political mates, not domestic ones.

But why is that? Women want safety and dependability, especially today, with such a volatile economy. And President Obama knows this, which is why his appeals to women include paternalistic language and fear-mongering about the Republicans.

If Democrats insist that women need Obama to take care of them, then why shouldn’t women also feel compelled to consider how their future husbands will take care of them? What’s the difference between the feminists’ political marriage to Obama and Ann’s marriage to Mitt? Both choices are predicated on who will be the better provider.

Because of whom she married, Ann was able to stay at home and raise her family the way she wanted. She was able to support her husband’s ambitions. She was able to afford lifesaving care when she was diagnosed with both multiple sclerosis and breast cancer. And she was able to devote her time to charity.

In fact, her excellent choice of a mate makes her uniquely qualified to talk about the most important economic issue that real women confront: How am I going to support myself and my future family?

The feminists may wish otherwise, but little girls want stability and security, not state-sponsored welfare. For choosing a life partner who could give her that, Ann Romney is a great role model.

Somebody's been watching too much Mad Men, I'm afraid.

Seriously, it's been a while since I read such retrograde drivel even from a right winger. She's literally saying that if women want stability and security they should marry rich. Which is, I think we can all agree, nice work if you can get it. But the 1% is only 1% and unless we are going to require wealthy men to marry
more than one wife (which I'm sure ole Mitt wouldn't be averse to either --- his grandfather wasn't anyway) we have a little math problem here.

But I have to say that I'm depressed by the notion that the only valid choices for a woman to gain security and stability is to be dependent on welfare or marriage is still in circulation anywhere. Presumably, Cupp is aware that the vast majority of women don't depend on anyone for those things. Not even the conservative married ones. They work at jobs, just like she does. Are they irresponsible gadabouts for failing to properly secure a millionaire?

Evidently Cupp is looking for a wealthy, patriarchal throwback to take her away from all this and there are probably a few available. Sadly, being in her 30s she's pretty much out of the running for anyone younger than 60 or so. (Rich male "providers" of all ages tend to prefer the younger ones.) She missed her "Romney window" a long time ago.

I will say this: Romney was lucky to have undertaken a long term strategic projection back when she was 18 and decided to marry a future president of America. It's far less likely that a man on that path will trade you in for a newer model once you get to be SE Cupp's age. It's bad for business. That Ann Romney really did have it all figured out didn't she?


Update: In case you missed it, there's this too:

According to Schlafly, the word "liberal is a perjorative now since Michael Dukakis...no politician wants to be called a liberal anymore" and because it's a perjorative, Schlafly thinks "that's the way we should treat feminism." She goes on to say women don't want to be called feminists because it's a bad word, and that "everything they stand for is bad and destructive."

She's right about the word liberal. And considering how easily the left abandoned it, we might as well start thinking of another word for feminism and get the jump on them. It'll only take about 25 years for it to catch on.

.
digby 4/18/2012 01:28:00 PM |

 
Working for moms

by digby

Via @ddayen, I see that progressive Democrats have done something clever:

Today, Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) introduced the Women's Option to Raise Kids Act (WORK Act), which would recognize that all parents who stay home to raise young children are, in fact, doing important and legitimate work. Original cosponsors of the WORK Act include Reps. John Lewis (D-GA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), Rosa DeLauro (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), and Laura Richardson (D-CA).

Rep. Stark: "Mitt Romney was for ObamaCare before he was against it. Then, he was for forcing low-income mothers into the workforce before he decided 'all moms are working moms'."

"I think we should take Mr. Romney at his most recent word and change our federal laws to recognize the importance and legitimacy of raising young children. That's why I've introduced the WORK Act to provide low-income parents the option of staying home to raise young children without being pushed into poverty."

Why we need the WORK Act:

Current law does not count low-income stay-at-home parents who are raising young children as meeting the necessary Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) work requirement. Current law also bans states from counting these individuals toward that state's work participation rate, which can result in financial penalties if not met. This effectively bars low-income parents who choose to stay home to raise their young children from access to the financial support of TANF.


As reported by the New York Times and others, the TANF program has been particularly unresponsive during the economic downturn (see this chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). Today, TANF is only serving 27% of families living in poverty, compared to 68% when the program was enacted to great acclaim in 1996. The result is that more children are being pushed deeper into poverty and destitution. Congress needs to start fixing this problem to ensure that low-income families have access to needed assistance. The WORK Act is an important step in that direction.

What the WORK Act does:

The WORK Act would amend TANF law to recognize the critical job of raising children age three or younger as work. Under the legislation, low-income parents could work, receive job training, search for work, or raise their children until they are school-aged without fear of losing TANF support and being pushed deeper into poverty. This is the same option that wealthy families, such as the Romneys, enjoy.

Now, if only the Democratic Party would blitz this, it would be an effective political push back and expose conservative hypocrisy on this issue. Unfortunately, we likely won't hear much about it because the Democratic Party is petrified at the prospect of being labeled the party of "welfare" again so even though they have a chance to turn the tables on the plutocratic Romneys, advocate for children and draw a contrast with the cruel Republican budget, they won't do it.

And I wouldn't even put it past some of the Republican down-ticket challengers to use Democrats' failure to vote for the bill as evidence that they hate stay at home moms.


.
digby 4/18/2012 12:00:00 PM |

 
Your day in religion

by digby

When all else fails:

Authorities in Rowan County say a man held a double-barreled shotgun to a woman's head and made her read her favorite scripture.

The Salisbury Post reports (http://bit.ly/HNmook ) that the Rowan County Sheriff's Office said 20-year-old Jonathan Alan Morton was taken into custody when deputies arrived at his home shortly after midnight Sunday.

Investigators said Morton held 19-year-old Elizabeth Nichols against her will inside his bedroom, pressing a shotgun to her head and, at one point, a screwdriver against her throat. A report said Morton stood behind Nichols and held the gun to her head as she read.

Meanwhile, in Catholic Church news we have this:

Why a known-mobster like De Pedis is buried on the grounds of a Vatican church has been the object of much speculation since 1997, when a church maid revealed the tomb’s existence to an inquisitive journalist. The Vatican was always cagey about why the mobster was buried in one of its churches, and ultimately, the church’s silence spurred countless conspiracy theories. Now, thanks to shocking Vatican letters leaked in the Vatileaks scandal that is rocking the Holy See, the Italian police are less interested in why he’s buried there. Instead, they want to open the tomb to see if the remains of 15-year-old Emanuela Orlandi are interred with those of the mobster.

And this:

On the April 16 episode of “The Daily Show,” they showed a picture of a naked woman with her legs spread and a nativity scene ornament placed in between. Stewart said, “Maybe women could protect their reproductive organs from unwanted medical intrusions with vagina mangers.” The segment was done to mock Fox News for allegedly not covering stories on the so-called war on women.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue speaks to the media cover-up:
Reuters did a story on Monday’s edition of “The Daily Show” but never mentioned the vagina manger scene segment; it was picked up by the chicagotribune.com, msnbc.com, and Yahoo! Movies. Also reporting on this episode, but never citing the obscene segment were the following: the blog site of the latimes.com; gawker.com; huffingtonpost.com; theatlanticwire.com; talkingpointsmemo.com; thewrap.com; NBC-TV New York; and NBC-TV Chicago. Only mediaite.com and dailykos.com mentioned the offensive part.

The cover-up is revealing. This episode of “The Daily Show” was done to protest Fox’s alleged indifference to the “war on women,” and in doing so Stewart not only made a vulgar attack on Christians, he objectified women.

Yes, he really said "the cover-up is revealing."

But lest you think it's all bad (or weird), here's a very heartening story:

At least six Catholic parishes in Washington state have ignored the Seattle Archbishop’s call to gather signatures for a referendum repealing the state’s recently-enacted marriage equality law, calling the effort “hurtful and seriously divisive in our community.” “Seattle’s Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church gave the Rev. Tim Clark a standing ovation Sunday” when he announced that the parish would not be participating in the anti-equality effort:

“I am happy to report that Our Lady of the Lake parish-oners have been overwhelmingly and, thus far, unanimously supportive of the decision I made NOT to gather signatures in support of this Referendum,” Clark wrote in response to an e-mail.

“The standing ovation experienced during one of the Masses says less about me and much more about the health of this parish. I only wished the archbishop could have experienced the sustained applause — the ‘sensus fidelium’ — of the people. He needs to listen to this ‘voice.’ That is my prayer.”

I'm thinking that some people believe they answer to a higher power than the Catholic Bishops --- or Bill Donohue.


h/t to attaturk
digby 4/18/2012 10:27:00 AM |

 
The best investment any corporation will ever make

by digby

This is why I'm skeptical of the "lower the rates, flatten the base" comprehensive tax reform of which all the Village and the White House is so enamored. They always say that the key is to lower taxes at the same as we eliminate loopholes and get rid of all the "tax expenditures" and presto change-o we'll end up with even more money. Isn't that great? Like magic!

Well, that might work in theory, I suppose, but unless they institute the kind of lobbying reform that's probably impossible in our cash soaked system, this is how it will work in the real world:

The top eight companies that spent the most on federal lobbying from 2007 to 2009 all saw their reported tax rates decrease from 2007 to 2010, according to a new analysis released Monday by the Sunlight Foundation.

The report notes that these top eight firms spent $540 million on lobbying from 2007 to 2009. They filed 332 lobbying reports that mentioned taxes and named 491 different tax bills in those reports.

The top eight companies that spent the most on lobbying were Exxon Mobil, Verizon Communications, General Electric, AT&T;, Altria, Amgen, Northrop Grumman and Boeing. Exxon Mobil spent the most, some $81.92 million from 2007 to 2009.

AT&T; recorded the largest tax reduction, with its tax rate falling from 34.0 percent to negative 6.4 percent from 2007 to 2010, or an estimated reduction of more than $7.3 billion. Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, had the smallest decline from 2007 to 2010, with its rate declining from 28.9 percent to 27.4 percent. Six of the top eight companies saw declines of at least 7 percentage points.

The report comes as both President Barack Obama and Republican Party's presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, have proposed lowering corporate tax rates. Obama has proposed lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent but eliminating loopholes and deductions. American manufacturers would get a bigger tax cut, having an effective rate of no more than 25 percent.

Romney has proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 25 percent and repealing the corporate alternative minimum tax.

Comprehensive tax reform as currently constructed means lowering the rates. That's all. The money these companies spend on lobbying is the cheapest investment they make. The returns are astronomical. They'll keep spending it. Politicians will keep doing their bidding. And the deficit scolds will stay in business, ripping away at any program that benefits average citizens year after year.

Beware "comprehensive tax reform" in the era of Citizens United. It's a scam.

Update: More detail on why this is a bad idea, here.
.
digby 4/18/2012 09:00:00 AM |

 
Some simple solutions

by David Atkins

In case you missed it, a reminder from CNN:

I’d like to know whether the following statement describes or does not describe the way you feel: “The present tax system benefits the rich and is unfair to the ordinary working man or woman.”

Describes: 68
Does not describe: 29

Do you consider the amount of federal income tax you have to pay as too high, about right, or too low?

Too high: 45
About right: 50
Too low: 3

Let's be clear: there are only four things that keep Republicans alive, electorally speaking. They are:

1) A perception on the part of a lot of white people who believe that the tax system is unfair, that tax dollars are being spent on people who don't look like them;

2) An unfair legislative system that gives undue weight to less populated, overwhelmingly conservative areas to block key reformist legislation;

3) Gobs of corporate money;

4) A pliant media that fails to call a spade a spade.

All of these issues can be solved with bolder progressivism. The first issue can be tackled by reaching out more credibly to younger, less racist demographics, and by having a broad, credible middle-class agenda that actually rescinds tax cuts for the wealthy while creating demonstrable results even for comfortable middle-class whites (such as with universal healthcare and education improvement.)

The second can be tackled by weakening the filibuster, instituting the National Popular Vote, and following through on a variety of reforms that crank back some of the conservative ratchet effect.

The third can be addressed via a coherent push for real campaign finance reform and a constitutional amendment against money as speech.

The fourth can be dealt with by being as forceful about unfair treatment in the press as conservatives have been for decades.

Funny how none of the answers for what ails us and enables conservatives, lie in moving more to the "center."


.
thereisnospoon 4/18/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

 
Kerning revisited

by digby

Those of you who've been around the blogosphere for a while will greatly enjoy this new investigation of the Bush National Guard story.

[T]he CBS documents that seem destined to haunt Rather are, and have always been, a red herring. The real story, assembled here for the first time in a single narrative, featuring new witnesses and never-reported details, is far more complex than what Rather and Mapes rushed onto the air in 2004. At the time, so much rancorous political gamesmanship surrounded Bush’s military history that it was impossible to report clearly (and Rather’s flawed report effectively ended further investigations). But with Bush out of office, this is no longer a problem. I’ve been reporting this story since it first broke, and today there is more cooperation and willingness to speak on the record than ever before. The picture that emerges is remarkable. Beyond the haze of elaborately revised fictions from both the political left and the political right is a bizarre account that has remained, until now, the great untold story of modern Texas politics. For 36 years, it made its way through the swamps of state government as it led up to the collision between two powerful Texans on the national stage.

While it doesn't solve the mystery, there are tons of new details. As a blogger who was writing about this stuff in real time, I especially enjoyed this:

The first person to publicly question the memos was an Air Force officer in Montgomery named Paul Boley, who posted on the conservative online forum Free Republic under the handle TankerKC. Boley’s comment popped up while the program was still going on.

But the man officially credited with inspiring a fusillade of blog attacks was Harry MacDougald, known on message boards as Buckhead, a GOP lawyer in Atlanta who missed the segment but downloaded the Killian documents from the CBS website later that night. He specifically claimed that the memos used proportional spacing and superscripts that didn’t exist on typewriters of the early seventies.
A conspiracy theory has since arisen that Bartlett, knowing in advance that the documents were forgeries—and, in some fevered imaginations, knowing his boss Karl Rove was the source of them—tipped off right-wing surrogates to attack the documents.

When I asked Lloyd why Bartlett ignored his assessment, he said, “I guess he was trying to set Rather up for getting mauled.”

Bartlett told me that the online attacks began “before I started any outreach” to the press. He added that Bush himself didn’t learn of the Killian memos until after the segment had already aired, because Bartlett felt the documents didn’t show anything revelatory. He initially dismissed them as “old news.”

In any case, MacDougald’s arguments about the documents turned out to be inaccurate. He acknowledged as much in an interview with me in 2008. And in a speech given that same year, Mike Missal, a lawyer for the firm that CBS hired to investigate its own report, said, “It’s ironic that the blogs were actually wrong. . . . We actually did find typewriters that did have the superscript, did have proportional spacing. And on the fonts, given that these are copies, it’s really hard to say, but there were some typewriters that looked like they could have some similar fonts there. So the initial concerns didn’t seem as though they would hold up.”

You don't say ...

It more or less comes back to the same conclusion: for some reason Bush became afraid to land his plane and so he quit flying and, like other privileged princes at the time, found a way to check out of his obligation early. And he seems to have been in some kind of other "trouble" at the time but nobody knows exactly what it was. What's new is the dirty cover up in Texas political circles going back years. There are obviously people who know the truth. Certainly George W Bush does. But they're not telling. Yet.

.
digby 4/17/2012 06:15:00 PM |

 
A nice distillation to send to your "bipartisan" friend

by David Atkins

Regular readers of progressive blogs won't find anything in it that Digby, I and others haven't been saying for years now, but this piece in The Prospect provides a nice, concise distillation of the argument that both sides aren't in fact to blame for government gridlock, and that the Democratic Party has gone way out of its way to enact "centrist" policy. Also, the article is from a "respectable" source, so if you have a a bipartisan fetishist friend, it might have more credibility for them than some link from Hullabaloo, Greenwald or DailyKos. Here's a taste:

For two years, President Barack Obama struggled to build a biparisan consensus around deficit reduction. The Affordable Care Act was built on conservative ideas, and pitched as a move toward fiscal sustainability. Independent projections bear that out—over the next decade, it’s projected to reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion, making it the largest deficit-reduction package since 1993, when Democrats under Bill Clinton passed a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts that began to bring the budget into balance.

In 2010, Republican opposition to tax hikes led Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts over liberals' objections, and last year, Obama—with the support of top Democrats—tried desperately to reach a “grand bargain” over deficit reduction with House Maority Leader John Boehner and the rest of the Republican leadership. But GOP opposition to tax increases—Boehner refused to trade Medicare cuts for tax increases on the wealthy—meant that these talks were bound to fail.

The Democratic Party isn’t perfect—or even particularly good—but it’s unfair to say that the United States has “irresponsible” political leadership, or that the political class is lacking as a whole. Over the last three years, Democrats have passed bills to achieve universal health coverage, reform the financial sector, bring carbon emissions under control, and save the economy from a second Great Depression. Deficits have receded to the background, but it remains true that only Democrats have been behind partisan deficit reduction—in 1993 and 2010.

If there’s a problem in American politics, it’s the Republican Party, whose theological devotion to to tax cuts and “small government” has destroyed our finances—both Reagan and George W. Bush were responsible for huge explosions of debt—and made bipartisan cooperation impossible. Our government is dysfunctional, but the pox isn’t on both houses, and the media’s quest to ignore that fact has only exacerbated the problem.

I would argue that more and more of the political class is starting to wake up to this. The Murdoch media empire is reeling from its own lawbreaking with increasing numbers willing to call it out as severely problematic. NPR's new ethics guidelines to pay more attention to truth than balance are a culmination of years of bitter progressive complaints.

But it's still a long, slow road toward making opinion drivers see the obvious reality of the situation. One might argue that they do see it, and they're all corrupt because their financial interests depend on it. Maybe, but that's not the case with most of the bipartisan fetishists in politics that I know. The local media and political people I fight and struggle with routinely on this issue seem to believe that partisanship is evil and both sides are to blame almost as a religious principle, with no corruption at all (careerist Linda Parks excepted.) There are a lot of people out there who just don't want to believe that one side is to blame, because then they would be awful tribal partisans. There is a holier-than-thou superiority complex that comes from taking a "principled" stand against partisanship.

So if you know people like that, send them the Prospect article. Post it up on your preferred social media. Keep chipping away at this meme until it finally sinks in.


.
thereisnospoon 4/17/2012 04:20:00 PM |

 
Even crazier than you are

by digby

I think anyone who has read Atrios over the years pretty much knew that Little Tommy Friedman, 6 years old ™ would be the number one Wanker of the Decade. I'll let you read Atrios' post to see the full reason, but I thought I'd just add my own personal favorite Friedman wanks to the celebration.

First there was this:

No, the axis-of-evil idea isn't thought through -- but that's what I like about it. It says to these countries and their terrorist pals: ''We know what you're cooking in your bathtubs. We don't know exactly what we're going to do about it, but if you think we are going to just sit back and take another dose from you, you're wrong. Meet Don Rumsfeld -- he's even crazier than you are.''

There is a lot about the Bush team's foreign policy I don't like, but their willingness to restore our deterrence, and to be as crazy as some of our enemies, is one thing they have right.

and this:

"Do you think the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?"

If you answered "Yes," you would not be allowed to work in Iraq. You could go to Korea, Japan or Germany - but not Iraq. Only those who understand that in the Middle East the shortest distance between two points is never a straight line should be allowed to carry out U.S. policy there. . . .

Ok.

And this:

So here's how I feel: I feel as if the president is presenting us with a beautiful carved mahogany table — a big, bold, gutsy vision. But if you look underneath, you discover that this table has only one leg. His bold vision on Iraq is not supported by boldness in other areas. And so I am terribly worried that Mr. Bush has told us the right thing to do, but won't be able to do it right

Friedman is one of those Very Serious People who completely lost their shit after 9/11. That was when we found out that our country was run by panic artists, psychopaths and sophomoric starry-eyed dreamers. And Friedman stands somewhere in the middle of all of them. I think this Friedman column illustrates it nicely:

I have a confession to make. Right after 9/11, I was given a CD by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, which included its rendition of ''The Battle Hymn of the Republic.'' I put it in my car's CD player and played that song over and over, often singing along as I drove. It wasn't only the patriotism it evoked that stirred me, but the sense of national unity. That song was what the choir sang at the close of the memorial service at the National Cathedral right after 9/11. Even though that was such a wrenching moment for our nation, I look back on it now with a certain longing and nostalgia. For it was such a moment of American solidarity, with people rallying to people and everyone rallying to the president.

Yeah. That's healthy. Except for the smoking rubble and the ten years of war that followed, those were good times.

.

digby 4/17/2012 03:30:00 PM |

 

Covering up for a broken system

by digby

I got a fair amount of blowback on twitter the other night for retweeting Ta-Nehisi Coates' observation that it was good to see skepticism of prosecutors in the wake of the Zimmerman arrest, but that he wished it would happen all the time. Twitter is a very imperfect medium, so people may have misunderstood the point, which is that skepticism of prosecutors is always a good idea. It doesn't mean they are all corrupt or inept (or that George Zimmerman shouldn't be punished) it's simply that they have great power over individual's lives and the law requires them to prove their case. Unfortunately, they sometimes takes shortcuts. And when they do it, lives are ruined and sometimes lost because of it:

Justice Department officials have known for years that flawed forensic work might have led to the convictions of potentially innocent people, but prosecutors failed to notify defendants or their attorneys even in many cases they knew were troubled.

Officials started reviewing the cases in the 1990s after reports that sloppy work by examiners at the FBI lab was producing unreliable forensic evidence in court trials. Instead of releasing those findings, they made them available only to the prosecutors in the affected cases, according to documents and interviews with dozens of officials.

In addition, the Justice Department reviewed only a limited number of cases and focused on the work of one scientist at the FBI lab, despite warnings that problems were far more widespread and could affect potentially thousands of cases in federal, state and local courts.

As a result, hundreds of defendants nationwide remain in prison or on parole for crimes that might merit exoneration, a retrial or a retesting of evidence using DNA because FBI hair and fiber experts may have misidentified them as suspects.

In one Texas case, Benjamin Herbert Boyle was executed in 1997, more than a year after the Justice Department began its review. Boyle would not have been eligible for the death penalty without the FBI’s flawed work, according to a prosecutor’s memo.

Read the whole thing. It's an absolute horror story. And the problem isn't isolated to a few errant DA offices. It's systemic. As is the cover-up.

Even if you don't agree with me that capital punishment is immoral, I can't understand how anyone could think a system with these flaws can be entrusted with it. Aside from the obvious possibility of human error you have a system in which it's imperative that prosecutors, unlike defense attorneys, serve two clients --- the people and justice. Far too often they forget the second one.

.

digby 4/17/2012 02:00:00 PM |

 

Equal Pay Day tips

by digby

I didn't realize we'd passed equal pay day on April 12th. That's the day when women officially caught up to what men earned in 2010. Huzzah.

My corporate ladder climbing days are behind me (thank goodness) and I've resigned myself to being poor --- and free. But there was a time when I fought this good fight every day. And it was intensely frustrating. I had hoped it would be over by the time I reached this point in life --- it seemed as though we should only have to turn over the old grand patriarchs to do it. But it hasn't been that easy.

However, there are some good tips out there for younger women from those who've been around the corporate block. Here's a great list from Ann Friedman. I'll just give you a taste of a couple of them that really hit home for me:

Be sure to negotiate. How will you earn more money if you don’t ask for it?

But don’t negotiate too hard, lest you be seen as a total harpy. "People found that to be way too aggressive," economist Linda Babcock told NPR in February. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."

Be more cutthroat. The working world rewards go-getters and alphas, and nice gals finish last. Toughen up and maybe you’ll get that corner office!

But don’t, like, be a ball-busting bitch once you get there. Studies have shown that employees, both male and female, are wary of working for high-achieving women. And since only 20 percent of professional leaders are women, you’ve got to represent your whole gender. Do us all a favor and don’t make all of your employees hate you.

Get comfortable on the golf course. Know your way around a humidor. Suggest a post-work happy hour at the local strip club. The real deals all happen outside the workplace, you know.

But don’t be too uptight about it when those outside-the-workplace meetings happen in places that still explicitly ban you.

Also be sure to work harder than any man, but be careful that nobody sees you as toiling too much lest you be categorized as a "worker bee" and consigned to middle management.

And never, ever, complain about how few women are in executive positions or in any other way indicate that you see the inequities to which you are subjected. That means you aren't one of the boys. But then, of course, you're not.

.

digby 4/17/2012 12:00:00 PM |

 
Blue America chat -- Trevor Thomas (MI-3)

by digby

This is a big one, folks. You might want to pop over to C&L at 11 pst to see the fireworks. We've got a true blue progressive up against a conservative, anti-choice Democrat and it's a pitched battle. Here's Howie:

Trevor Thomas is running for Congress in west Michigan's 3rd CD, which is mostly based in Grand Rapids and Battle Creek and has traditionally been a mainstream type of district. Before the House seat was captured last year by radical right teabagger Justin Amash it had been moderate Republican Vern Ehler's district. Long before that it has been represented by Arthur Vandenberg and, later, Jerry Ford. Amash is a bad fit for the district. But before Trevor can face him, he has to win the Democratic primary against a virulently anti-Choice, self-funding multimillionaire, Steve Pestka. Pestka will be just another hackish social conservative helping the GOP in their wars against everyone. While in the state legislature, for example, Pestka voted with the GOP to defund Planned Parenthood-- same stand as Amash. Trevor, of course, is a 100% pro-Choice candidate, like every Blue America-backed candidate. Today at 11am (PT)--2pm ET-- Blue America will be spending some time online with Trevor at Crooks and Liars. If you can, please join us for a question and answer session.

“I’m the only candidate in this race who is pro-woman and pro-choice," he told us last week. "Just look at the record. My opponents have both voted to undermine a woman's right to choose and eliminate critical health services. I would expect that from a tea-party favorite like Rep. Amash, but a Democrat? Clearly there are folks supporting him who aren’t comfortable with me raising this as a major issue, but we’re not going to back down. There’s too much at stake in this election for women, and I am the only one who will fight for the issues that matter most to them and their families.”

Trevor learned something important-- probably many things-- when he was working for Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. She was running against billionaire Grand Rapids powerhouse Dick DeVos but even being outspent by $27 million, she beat him decisively. "Michigan voters, Trevor told me, "cannot be bought." Good to know-- but he also learned how to make dollars stretch a long way and how to leverage grassroots support against a campaign bloated with money from corporations and the one-percent. And he'll need to use those lessons in his own race-- in both the primary and general as he faces off against two consecutive wealthy self-funders.

Gov. Granholm and Lt. Governor John Cherry are both campaigning for Trevor. They know him-- and they know Pestka.

"From day one Trevor has been a fighter for fairness and opportunity," said former Governor Jennifer M. Granholm. "From the newsroom to the halls of Congress, Trevor has the experience and passion to get results on the issues critical to Michigan families. This is a campaign of inclusion that will stand up and represent all the voices of West Michigan and I am proud to support and be a part of it."

Gaius Publius over at Americablog has the bad news:

[A] serious question: Who does the DCCC back in the Michigan 3rd CD race?

Steve Pestka, who voted to defund Planned Parenthood when he was in the Michigan House, or Trevor Thomas, an actual pro-woman Democrat

Context — Obama's White House is in the process of trying (and failing) to damp down the firestorm from the gay community about Obama's pointed refusal to grant the same protection against same-sex–preference bias as it routinely grants to other biases.

Simultaneously, national Democrats are taking the "Republican War against Women" meme and, at least until Rosen-gate, wrapping themselves tight in it — making it their unique selling point (product identifier) in the 2012 election.

Something doesn't add up.

Is the national Democratic "we support women" message sincere? If so, they should disavow anti-woman Steve Pestka now and actively work to make Trevor Thomas the nominee.

Or is the "we support women" just a convenient ... untruth, told to sell an appearance only?

If Pestka is the nominee, the DCCC will be using "War on Women" money to finance Planned Parenthood–defunder Steve Pestka's House race.

That's a problem, if you gave to the DCCC to fund its defense of women. Only the DCCC can clear this air.

This isn't the only race this is happening. If anti-choice Blue Dog Tim Holden --- to whom Debbie Wasserman Shultz donated $2,000 by the way --- wins his primary, the DCCC will be spending the money you donated to fight the War on Women to help a man who is virulently anti-choice.

Trevor is fighting the good fight and he has the backing o9f the most popular Democrat in the state, former Governor Jennifer Granholm. She didn't have to endorse --- it's a primary and even friends get a pass if they want to take. I think she means it.

Blue America means it too. We're proud to endorse Trevor for congress and we hope that you'll contribute a buck or two to help him win his primary.

And please stop by Crooks and Liars for the chat at 11am.

.

digby 4/17/2012 10:30:00 AM |

 
ALEC cries Uncle (sort of)

By digby

Lookee, lookee here:

David Frizzell, Indiana State Representative and 2012 National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), issued the following statement today on behalf of ALEC’s Legislative Board of Directors:

“Today we are redoubling our efforts on the economic front, a priority that has been the hallmark of our organization for decades. Fostering the exchange of pro-growth, solutions-oriented ideas is precisely why ALEC exists.

“To that end, our legislative board last week unanimously agreed to further our work on policies that will help spur innovation and competitiveness across the country.

“We are refocusing our commitment to free-market, limited government and pro-growth principles, and have made changes internally to reflect this renewed focus.

“We are eliminating the ALEC Public Safety and Elections task force that dealt with non-economic issues, and reinvesting these resources in the task forces that focus on the economy. The remaining budgetary and economic issues will be reassigned.

“While we recognize there are other critical, non-economic issues that are vitally important to millions of Americans, we believe we must concentrate on initiatives that spur competitiveness and innovation and put more Americans back to work.

“Our free-market, limited government, pro-growth policies are the reason ALEC enjoys the support of legislators on both sides of the aisle and in all 50 states. ALEC members are interested in solutions that put the American economy back on track. This is our mission, and it is what distinguishes us.”

It would appear that unmasking ALEC as a one stop shop for wingnut extremism wasn't all that popular. Losing major institutions every single day due to customer complaints and boycotts was taking its toll.

It's a big deal since ALEC was founded not for the purpose of economic issues at all, but rather to advance an ideological agenda:

ALEC was co-founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich who also helped found other conservative organizations in the 1970s and 1980s including the Heritage Foundation, the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, the Moral Majority and the Council for National Policy. Henry Hyde, who later became a U.S. Congressman, and Lou Barnett, who later became National Political Director of Ronald Reagan’s Political Action Committee, also helped to found ALEC. Early members included a number of state and local politicians who went on to statewide or national office such as Bob Kasten and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin; John Engler of Michigan; Terry Branstad of Iowa, and John Kasich of Ohio.Several members of the U.S. Congress were also involved in the organization during its early years, including Sen. John Buckley and Rep. Jack Kemp of New York, Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, and Rep. Phil Crane of Illinois

If anyone trusts a group that's founded by those guys, I have some fabulous Riverside condos to sell them.

Clearly, all the people who have been pressuring ALEC over the past couple of years should stay on the case. Even if they do confine themselves to "economic" issues, the right wingers have an interesting way of making everything an economic issue (freedom!) --- its economic philosophy makes Ayn Rand look like Angela Davis.

Obviously, being caught with their little white slip showing was a problem. But that won't stop them from their nefarious mission. How else are all these social conservative robots who populate the state houses all over the country going to know what they're supposed to vote for?

Still, a good day and a big victory for those who've been putting the pressure on. Not that it's any consolation for such a hideous loss, but Travon Martin's tragic, unnecessary death may have saved lives in the long run.


.
digby 4/17/2012 09:00:00 AM |

 
Stupidity is a human right, too

by David Atkins

Newt Gingrich wants a worldwide treaty declaring gun ownership to be a universal human right. No, really:

The right to bear arms comes from our creator, not our government,” Gingrich said. The NRA “has been too timid” in promoting its agenda beyond American borders. The Bill of Rights was not written only for Americans, he said. “It is a universal document.”

“A Gingrich presidency will submit to the UN a treaty that extends the right to bear arms as a human right to every person on the planet.” Every world citizen, he said, “deserves the right to defend themselves from those who exploit, imprison, or kill them.” For his latest big idea, Gingrich earned a standing ovation from the crowd of roughly 5,000.

“We don’t need to go across the planet trying to impose American values, but we do need to go across the planet spreading human values,” Gingrich said. “The Second Amendment is a right for all mankind.”

One could point out to Mr. Gingrich that many nations whose people are exquisitely well armed are still ruled by dictators (they tend to have tanks, airplanes, and training that regular old people don't have), or that said countries often have coups and factional citizen militias leading to civil wars. Or one could point out it's bizarre to suggest that gun ownership be a universal right at the expense of, say, healthcare. Or to suggest that implementing such an idea would require subsidies far in excess of the foreign food aid so despised by the Republican base.

But that would be too easy, and lead to ideological warfare. No, let's roll with Mr. Gingrich on this, and simply extend his logic.

You see, for Mr. Gingrich and his approving NRA audience, the Declaration of Independence declares that God, not government, grants human rights, including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So far so good. Mr. Gingrich and the NRA take the logical leap from there to argue that the Bill of Rights, written largely by the same group as wrote the Declaration, also constitute a list of God-given rights, among which is the right to bear arms. OK.

So using that logic, what other rights might we say are universal, God-given human rights, not just those granted to American citizens via the government of the United States of America? Well, there's this one:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In which case, Newt Gingrich would presumably arm the citizens of Rome to free themselves from the imposed religious tyranny of the Vatican. Or maybe this one:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If Newt Gingrich and the NRA firmly believe that the Fifth Amendment is a God-given right to all mankind, then the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are also guaranteed the same due process and immediate trial. And since they haven't been charged with any crime as of yet, they should also presumably be given guns per their God-given 2nd Amendment rights. Or maybe this one:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Was a warrant issued for Saddam Hussein's arrest? Fidel Castro's? Salvador Allende's? Mossadegh's? What was the probable cause? Because if the Fourth Amendment is a God-given universal human right rather than a government-granted freedom, the right wing and its supporters obviously have some explaining to do. Or this:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Again, clearly the universal rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees are being abused, since these rights don't just apply to citizens of the United States. They're universal. Also, the juries should be made up of fellow Aghans since these universal human laws demand that a jury be selected from among the people in the districts in which the crimes shall have been committed. Newt Gingrich, I expect swift action on this. Or maybe this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now this is interesting. Since the Bill of Rights is a universal, God-given document that applies the world over, clearly it doesn't infringe on other rights already in existence. In many countries, that includes the right to universal healthcare. Which means that the French have more God-given rights than Americans do? I'm confused. But I'm sure Professor Newt and the geniuses at the NRA can clear that up quickly.

Also, if 2/3 of the states vote to alter any provision of the Bill of Rights, would that be akin to rewriting the Bible itself?

Perhaps Newt Gingrich and the NRA might want to walk this one back and concede that maybe, just maybe, the American Bill of Rights is a construct of the American government, driven by the laws of an imperfect society that strives imperfectly to be as decent to one another as human beings can be.

Nah. Blanket hypocrisy and nonsensical stupidity are much easier.


.
thereisnospoon 4/17/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Monday, April 16, 2012

 
Dancing with the diplomatic stars

by digby

Predictably, the foreign wingnuts are atwitter about Hillary's dancing picture. If all goes according to the usual plan, the domestic wingnuts will soon be on the case:

Is Hillary Clinton becoming an embarrassment as Secretary of State?

The overwhelmingly liberal US media is treating the story as a bit of fun, with the usually austere Mrs Clinton seen as letting her hair down. But I suspect that a lot of US taxpayers will see it differently – as a senior government official having a jolly time on an official overseas junket at taxpayers’ expense. And this was hardly a display of good judgment at a time when nearly 13 million Americans are unemployed, and US soldiers are laying their lives on the line every day in Afghanistan. In an effortless display of leading from behind, Hillary was partying in Colombia while the Taliban were about to launch a wave of terror attacks in Kabul.

It is hard to imagine Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright or Henry Kissinger “livin' la vida loca” on the world stage. This was less an example of “smart power” than a boozy nightclub audition for the sixth season of Jersey Shore. Hillary Clinton’s Colombian antics are an embarrassment for a high-level cabinet member on official duty, and have lowered the office of Secretary of State. Not exactly the sort of image the federal government should be projecting at a time of widespread public disillusionment with Washington excesses.

Yes, you may have been under the impression that right wingers consider Hillary to be a frigid, unfeeling schoolmarm but that was then and this is now. It's only a matter of time before they have her jumping out of the cake at the secret service sex parties.

And by the way, it's not at all hard to imagine other world leaders "livin' la vida loca" on the world stage. How about this:

or this:

US Secretary of State Colin Powell performs a version of the Village People disco hit song 'YMCA' at the conclusion of Asia's largest security meeting in Jakarta, Indonesia, on Friday July 2, 2004. Powell took to the stage, dressed as a construction worker Friday, with other unidentified US diplomats to deliver their rendition of the 1970's hit song to an audience of Asia Security meeting delegates.

And here's the triple threat --- Laura, Condi and Junior in Brazil:

Bonus clips:

Colin Powell dancing the Macarena. Albright too.

Let's just say that dancing in public is an occupational hazard for diplomats and politicians. And I guess we all have a different embarrassment threshold. I'm a little bit more troubled by saber rattling and lying about WMD, but YMMV.

You have to admit that Powell has some good moves.

.
digby 4/16/2012 06:30:00 PM |

 
"This is, not to mince words, insane"

by digby

Following up on my post below about the danger of a lame duck deficit deal, here's Krugman from this morning:

Just a few months ago I was feeling some hope about Europe. You may recall that late last fall Europe appeared to be on the verge of financial meltdown; but the European Central Bank, Europe’s counterpart to the Fed, came to the Continent’s rescue. It offered Europe’s banks open-ended credit lines as long as they put up the bonds of European governments as collateral; this directly supported the banks and indirectly supported the governments, and put an end to the panic.

The question then was whether this brave and effective action would be the start of a broader rethink, whether European leaders would use the breathing space the bank had created to reconsider the policies that brought matters to a head in the first place.

But they didn’t. Instead, they doubled down on their failed policies and ideas. And it’s getting harder and harder to believe that anything will get them to change course.

Consider the state of affairs in Spain, which is now the epicenter of the crisis. Never mind talk of recession; Spain is in full-on depression, with the overall unemployment rate at 23.6 percent, comparable to America at the depths of the Great Depression, and the youth unemployment rate over 50 percent. This can’t go on — and the realization that it can’t go on is what is sending Spanish borrowing costs ever higher.

In a way, it doesn’t really matter how Spain got to this point — but for what it’s worth, the Spanish story bears no resemblance to the morality tales so popular among European officials, especially in Germany. Spain wasn’t fiscally profligate — on the eve of the crisis it had low debt and a budget surplus. Unfortunately, it also had an enormous housing bubble, a bubble made possible in large part by huge loans from German banks to their Spanish counterparts. When the bubble burst, the Spanish economy was left high and dry; Spain’s fiscal problems are a consequence of its depression, not its cause.

Nonetheless, the prescription coming from Berlin and Frankfurt is, you guessed it, even more fiscal austerity.

This is, not to mince words, just insane.

Well, it's only insane if you don't know that you'll survive with your millions intact no matter what happens. Like Krugman, I just keep going back to this guy:

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate .… It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people."

Obviously a fair number of elites believe this is true today. On both sides of the Atlantic. Here, we call it "shared sacrifice." There, they call it austerity. It all amounts to the same thing: a prescription for average citizens to accept a lower standard of living and a less secure life in order that the "producers" continue to reap huge profits.

Lloyd Blankfein wasn't joking when he said he was doing God's Work. What they fail to make clear is that they are calling for human sacrifices.

.
digby 4/16/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
What's their big problem?

by David Atkins

It's common knowledge that the Obama Administration has sent the right wing into an apoplectic tizzy. Many people have written why that might be the case; I've written a few pieces myself attributing it to a vision of demographic decline.

But it's still bizarre to read about freak outs like this:

Nugent called President Obama a criminal and denounced his “vile, evil America-hating administration” which is “wiping its ass with the Constitution.” Taking it a step further, he said that “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” “If you can’t galvanize and promote and recruit people to vote for Mitt Romney, we’re done,” he continued.

Supreme Court justices also came under assault by Nugent, who claims that the court’s more liberal members have signed a declaration against Americans’ right to self-defense...

Nugent concluded with a call to cut off the heads of Democrats in November: “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November. Any questions?”

A lot of people will read this and clutch their pearls at Nugent's apocalyptic and violent rhetoric. But that's not what bothers me. One didn't see nearly as much of it on the left as one sees on the right today, nor from remotely as mainstream a source of Republican support as Nugent. But during the Bush Administration I heard some pretty heated and forceful rhetoric from a lot of people on the left. Nor am I one to fault anyone of any political persuasion for making a passionate appeal.

But what I don't understand is what has Nugent and his pals so riled up. The Obama Administration's great liberal achievement was implementing the Heritage Foundation's anti-Hillarycare healthcare plan. The Administration hasn't proposed or implemented any serious gun control laws, and has in fact been extremely measured even in the face of the obvious problems caused by "stand your ground" laws. The Administration has been famously and erroneously attentive to deficit concerns. It has been fairly aggressive in its foreign policy, enough to cause some major rifts on the left and libertarian fronts. There have been no major scandals to latch onto. It hasn't exactly been hostile to the interests of Wall Street or energy developers. It hasn't pushed an immigration reform package. There's just no reason for the wingers to be this freaked out.

During the Bush Administration, the Left had plenty of cause for alarm for myriad reasons. The Bush Administration engaged in two wars, one of which had no justification or rationale whatsoever not based in lies. It illegally outed CIA agents who conflicted with its deliberate lies to go to war. It passed huge, crippling tax cuts for the rich. It gutted environmental protections. It tried to privatize social security. It massively curtailed civil liberties, and corrupted and politicized every agency it dealt with, from the Justice Department to the EPA. And, of course, it crashed the economy while bailing out the richest Americans with few strings attached. The Left had every reason to be sounding an apocalyptic alarm, and rightly so. Insofar as President Obama has not addressed or tried to fix any of the problems the Bush Administration created, various sections of the left have remained legitimately upset (though I would argue that some issues are more the fault of Congress than of the President.)

But what is Nugent's problem, exactly? What are the issues, beyond a generic sense of loss of identity and aggrievement, are driving a guy like him to feel this strongly? It's clearly not anything substantive, but something deeper seated, something cultural, and something profoundly personal that doesn't express itself in terms of actual legislative issues. As I mentioned before, I have my theories, but even they're unsatisfactory. One of the reason that the Right gets tagged so often as racists, in addition to all the more obvious evidence, is that their overreaction to the Obama presidency doesn't seem to have much in the way of more credible explanations.

Whatever is wrong with Nugent and his friends, though, one thing is clear: there is nothing President Obama or national Democrats can do to appease them. So they might as well stop trying.


.
thereisnospoon 4/16/2012 03:00:00 PM |