Downton Abbey spoof, Episode 1

Everyone's raving about the Jimmy Fallon spoof of the TV show Downton Abbey. I didn't find it funny at all, but here's a link if you're a Downton or Fallon fan. Now, a spoof I did find funny (with a number of great actors) is this one below, from the BBC.

Read the rest of this post...

Trump again says Obama born in Kenya, Romney refuses to repudiate, will appear with Trump

Not very Christian of you, Mitt. Read the rest of this post...

Why both parties are wrong about expats

As an actual expat, I continue to be impressed with the amount of diversion and distortion from both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the "scandal" of Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin. As I mentioned before, I agree with Senators Schumer and Casey that Saverin should show more appreciation for the country that helped enable him to make his millions or billions. It's lame for him to walk out now that Facebook has propelled him to be among the global financial elite.

That said, both Democrats and Republicans continue to create a ridiculous side show over this issue and it is dishonest for both sides. If they were at least consistent and demanded the same blood from corporations, I might be somewhat more accepting of their arguments but they don't. It's the typical two weights, two measures that both parties in Washington love.

For years, any expat that is paying attention would know that Iowa's Senator Chuck Grassley has consistently blocked all attempts to modernize US tax law when it comes to expats. For Grassley, expats are receiving a "free ride" though it's not quite clear what that ride is.

Unlike any other First World country, US expats are required to report global income in the US as well as report income in their country of residence. If they're above a certain figure, they also have to pay US taxes as well as taxes where they live. Expats sort of get to vote, but those votes are only counted if an election is close. Otherwise, they're ignored.

After the Republicans last lost the Senate, some expats believed that the tax system may change though it remains the same. Democrats have done as little as Republicans to change an outdated system. The burden on middle class or even poor expats is the same as the 1%-ers. The 1%-ers at least have the luxury of armies of lawyers and tax accountants who know how to fleece the system.

Where the GOP is wrong is that Saverin is no hero, as the right says. If the GOP felt so strongly about the US tax code, they would have changed it when they controlled Washington. They didn't though, because they were too busy with wars, tax cuts for the richest of the rich and divisive politics.

It was the GOP controlled Congress that pushed for Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) reporting starting for the 2008 tax year. The highly detailed report (that could easily be abused by a rogue employee it's so extensive) is all part of the Washington anti-terrorism initiative that sweeps up everyone, guilty and innocent.

Instead of showboating, maybe both parties can spend a few minutes addressing the issue for the millions of American expats. Since their votes count for next to nothing, nothing is likely to change anytime soon. It's much easier for both parties to bend to the desires of deep pocketed corporations who come and go freely than to listen to or lift a finger to help regular expats.

In the end, expats are even less important than other 99%-ers and as always, the corporations get their way and screw everyone else. Ignore the partisan bickering though because both Republicans and Democrats both own this sloppy mess of a system. Read the rest of this post...

Paul Krugman confirms the Cory Booker "friend of Wall Street" framing

A Cory Booker follow-on. We wrote earlier ("Cory Booker wants back on the bus") that the Booker dust-up had many layers. (Click to get the gist; among other errors, he defended Bain Capital in a surrogate-appearance on Meet The Press and got a few people mad at him; one of them, his boss, Mr. Obama.)

Our take was that this isn't just a "surrogate goes rogue" story, but a "why did Booker defend Wall Street?" story as well.

Our conclusion — "Booker is Wall Street's man in Newark" and what he wants back is not just his seat at the trough (Obama understudy; man on the rise), but his framing as a "true progressive, friend of the poor" as well.

Looks like he's going to get neither.

About that framing, here's what Paul Krugman wrote about Booker. Buried in a great column about the Masters of the Universe and their delicate feelings ("Egos and Immorality") is this nugget (my emphasis):

So, no, financial wheeling and dealing did not do wonders for the American economy, and there are real questions about why, exactly, the wheeler-dealers have made so much money while generating such dubious results.

Those are, however, questions that the wheeler-dealers don’t want asked — and not, I think, just because they want to defend their tax breaks and other privileges. It’s also an ego thing. Vast wealth isn’t enough; they want deference, too, and they’re doing their best to buy it. It has been amazing to read about erstwhile Democrats on Wall Street going all in for Mitt Romney, not because they believe that he has good policy ideas, but because they’re taking President Obama’s very mild criticism of financial excesses as a personal insult.

And it has been especially sad to see some Democratic politicians with ties to Wall Street, like Newark’s mayor, Cory Booker, dutifully rise to the defense of their friends’ surprisingly fragile egos.

When Krugman ID's you as a man with "ties to Wall Street" in a New York Times column that excoriates Wall Street — in the print edition no less — your faux-progressive cred is at serious risk.

Booker is not just Wall Street's man in Newark; he's "education privatizer's man" as well; and one of his financiers is ... Bain Capital itself. No wonder he couldn't bite them; too busy feeding.

This is the Cory Booker story. Take it home and read it to your children. It would be the truth.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

More newspapers moving away from dead-tree editions

While I'm sure that's nice and eco-friendly, it also means they're losing a ton of ad revenue. Most publications get most of their ad monies from their print editions, not the online editions.

I admit to having a nostalgia for the print paper, though I haven't read a print paper on a regular basis in years, but I do worry about the sustainability of the American media. We need them. A functioning democracy needs them. A lot of the activism we do is based on stories in the traditional media. When they function well, they serve an important purpose as a counter-balance to politicians, and to other corrupting forces in our system of governance (lobbyists, Fox News, etc).

We're all facing this challenge now, traditional media and blogs alike. Revenues are down. Audiences are moving to new media such as Twitter and Facebook (and how do you make money when your audience moves to those other media?) They're questions bedeviling us all.

From the Washington Post:

Many daily newspapers have been moving away from paper for years, emphasizing digital news. Lately, some print dailies have been moving away from publishing daily, too.

To try to combat the industry’s decline — in readership, advertising and profits — a handful of newspapers are now cutting back their publishing schedules from seven days a week in print to just three.

The latest to go to three days a week: The storied New Orleans Times-Picayune, one of America’s oldest papers, which announced Thursday that it plans to limit its print schedule — beginning this fall — to Wednesday, Friday and Sunday editions. It will maintain 24/7 online reporting via its site, Nola.com.

Read the rest of this post...

Video: One seriously lazy polar bear

Read the rest of this post...

AP: Romney still fibbing about the "cost" of federal regulations

Romney is counting on American voters to be too uneducated, or lazy, to know that he's lying. And judging by recent history - Americans' "opposition" to health care reform, but support for most of its provisions, comes to mind - Romney's is a winning strategy.

AP:

Romney's vow to repeal "job-killing regulations" that are costing the economy billions of dollars may not be as easy as he makes it sound. He and many fellow Republicans complain that government regulations are a leading drag on jobs, but Labor Department data show that few companies where large layoffs occur say government regulation was the reason.

There's little evidence that the regulatory burden is any worse now than in the past or that it is costing significant numbers of jobs. Most economists believe there is a simpler explanation: Companies aren't hiring because there isn't enough consumer demand. Economists believe high levels of economic uncertainty are a leading complication for business, arising more from struggles over taxes and spending in Washington than from regulations.

Read the rest of this post...

So cataract surgery in one eye cost $14,000

Wow.

I had to call the hospital to confirm the charge was for real.  Mom said it had to be a mistake.  I called the hospital.  It's not a mistake.

$13,185.00 alone just for the "hospital" charge for my non-eventful, routine cataract surgery in one eye.  I didn't even get a multifocal lens.  Add in the other charges, and the total comes to around $14,000.00.

Again, for one eye.

That means that once both eyes are done, the total will be $28,000.00.  For routine cataract surgery.

Our medical system is so screwed up.  I can't wait to go to France and tell my doctors there how much the surgery cost.

Thank God my insurance is picking up most of this.  Though, I'm still paying out of pocket nearly $600 for that eye alone.  Which kind of ticks me off.  I "thought" it was paying 10% of the total bill, and that the total bill would be around $2k to $3k for one eye.  I figured $300 an eye, out of pocket. I didn't figure $600 an eye, so I'm paying $1200 for this surgery out of pocket instead of the $600 I was expecting.  Though it could have been worse - they could have tried to charge me 10% of the hospital bill, which would have been $1400 an eye.

What a mess of a system we have in this country.  What if you have no insurance?

In good news, I got my check up a few days ago and my left eye, post surgery, has 20/20 vision.  For distance.  My near and intermediate vision (meaning, reading and computer and then some) is now skatá as we say in Greek.  But it is pretty cool to wake up and be able to see.  To shower and be able to see.  Even though I now see the world in "cool white" in the operated eye, and "soft white" in the other, due to the old lens having yellowed (it happens to all of us, but we don't notice until we get a new lens and the entire world is far less yellow and far more blue).

Oh, and remember kids, we're number 1. Read the rest of this post...

Nancy Pelosi pre-emptively caves on Bush–Obama tax cuts

Nancy Pelosi is making quite a name for herself. Unfortunately, the name is "ex-progressive" and "former San Francisco–liberal."

The bottom line up top, then the details.

We know that Pelosi wants her gavel back. We know that Obama wants his Grand Bargain; he's been saying so since 2006. This has all the earmarks of a trade.

If so, the Pelosi–Obama bargain goes like this — "I get my gavel, and you get to kill the safety net (sorry, 'reform' Social Security)." My Inner Occam explanation (see link) still makes sense to me.

To execute, she would first have to cave on Simpson-Bowles (Obama says "the deal is still on the table"). That happened late last month.

Now we see her caving on the $250,000 breakpoint in the looming lame duck battle over the "Bush" tax cuts. She's suddenly offering to move the breakpoint to $1,000,000 — up from Obama's stated $250,000 — without being asked (publicly).

Is that also part of the Pelosi–Obama deal? Is she front-running for Obama's "regretful" later concession? Only the fly on the Oval Office wall knows for sure. She's certainly not playing super-chess, because moving the price of collapse doesn't change the game. Hmm.

Next the details. Here's her announcement (my emphasis throughout):

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today called on Speaker Boehner to bring a permanent extension of the middle income tax cuts to the House floor immediately and use the revenues resulting from the expiring tax breaks for those earning more than a million dollars to pay down the deficit.

And by "pay down the deficit" she means "pay down a lot less of the deficit than Obama claims to want". ThinkProgress:

[H]er proposal differs from others offered by Democrats, including President Obama, that call for an extension of the rates for incomes below $250,000. ... Pelosi wants a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $1 million, the statement said. ...

Her plan, however, would cost the government billions in revenue compared to Obama’s plan, and though she has billed it as a tax cut for the middle class, half of its benefits would go to millionaires, according to analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice[.]

According to the Tax Justice link above, there's a 43% loss in revenue between Obama's last-stated proposal and Pelosi's current one. Sounds like money to me.

But maybe you're not supposed to notice that part, just the part where Pelosi forcefully "calls on Speaker Boehner to ... middle-class tax cuts ... immediately."

Shorter Pelosi:

"Here's a plan that looks really good till you look at it. You on the bus, don't look at it. (And before you ask, I'm speaking just for me.)"

Recommendations for Progressives

1. The Bush tax cuts are killing us, killing the nation. We're beyond politics and super-chess. Bush did a dandy on us, and it has to stop. Here's the damage, one more time:

That fat brown stain is the Bush (and now Obama) tax cuts.

2. From this flows the only good progressive position, in my opinion:

• In practice, these tax cuts will either all be extended or all be expired. We seen this dance before.
  
  
• If a progressive has to choose between those two, she must choose the latter — let them all expire. Period.

Nothing else is responsible; nothing else puts nation above party when the two interests collide. "Party First" is the other guys, right?

3. This position takes advantage of the only real leverage in the game. For once, not acting is a win. All Dems would have to do to win is — nothing. The Bush–Obama tax cuts expire by default.

It's telling, isn't it, that Obama and the Dems don't use that built-in super-advantage? Makes you consider what they might really be doing.

4. This position is practical for progressives, no matter what Dems do.

We got played last time (lame duck 2010) and we're probably getting played again. It will take an act of god for the billionaires who run both parties not to get their way.

Let's not compromise ourselves by buying into a "sorta OK" deal, then watch it get switched for a deal we mostly hate. Once we're on board, we're on board for the whole ride. This compromises us.

If Dems want to sell themselves and the safety net, let them do it alone, over our explicit and united objections. Strategically, this is our best shot — make them pay for the cave, make them think twice about us for a change.

Speaking of "united" ...

5. Can progressives stand together in this? I sure hope so; it would be a great sign for the future.

What do I mean by "progressives"? Here's my own idea of "entitlement reform" — You're not entitled to the name "progressive" unless you act like one.

By which I mean, when it comes to choosing between principles and party, progressives choose principles. Not a bad definition, don't you think?

Progressively yours,

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Romney to woo black voters simply to convince white women that he likes blacks

Wow, that's terribly cold and calculating.

And it's consistent with what a Republican friend told me years ago.

I remember being worried about former RNC chair Ken Mehlman's outreach to blacks, a good eight years ago. And a Republican friend corrected me, telling me not to worry about black voters defecting - the Republicans didn't want or expect their votes. What they were actually doing was trying to convince white suburban middle-of-the-road soccer moms that Republicans weren't a hateful, intolerant, racist party because - see! - we're wooing blacks!

Washington Post:

Mitt Romney’s campaign team has been quietly laying plans for an outreach effort to President Obama’s most loyal supporters — black voters — not just to chip away at the huge Democratic margins but also as a way to reassure independent swing voters that Romney can be inclusive and tolerant in his thinking and approach.

Despite the obvious difficulties, Romney’s outreach to black voters could reap dividends even if he is unable to significantly chip into Obama’s support. “Suburban voters will be a real battleground, and upscale white voters like to think of themselves as tolerant and they won’t vote for a candidate that is seen as exclusionary, and the Romney folks must be aware of that,” said Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “He has to persuade suburban voters that he isn’t Rick Santorum. He could break the mold a little bit and do some campaigning in African American communities. It would get people talking, and it would be all gain and very little pain.”

Read the rest of this post...

Muslim Brotherhood claim lead in Egyptian elections

Although they weren't leading the protests that pushed out the last corrupt government, they've been around for a long time and have a solid ground game. Mubarak's government gave its best effort to shut down the Muslim Brotherhood but it was a losing battle for Mubarak.

Whoever wins in Egypt is likely to be less friendly with the US though the last regime was less friendly with the population of Egypt. Will the Muslim Brotherhood change once they come to power and the billions of US dollars is waved in front of them? That has been known to have its impact on governments, just as it does at home. Al Jazeera:

Early on Friday morning, the Brotherhood, the country's most powerful political force, announced that its candidate was in the lead, followed by a divisive former civil aviation minister more closely tied to Mubarak than anyone else in the race.

However, the overall picture will not be clear for some time. The presidential election commission did not plan to release official results until Tuesday.

If no one wins more than half the votes needed for outright victory in the first round, the top two candidates will contest a June 16 and 17 run-off.

The Brotherhood's estimate was based on results from 236 of roughly 13,000 polling stations. Campaigns were allowed to station observers in the polls throughout the voting and counting process, and the Brotherhood had placed staff in nearly each one.

Read the rest of this post...

Spanish banks likely to need another cash injection

The banks in Spain should consider themselves lucky if their losses are "only" 260 billion euros. It's hard not to walk down a street without seeing empty houses and condo buildings and the longer that stays on the market, the longer it will take to clear out. It's not a problem that can be solved in a few years. Even a decade is probably too fast to sell off the excess.

The question now is how will Spain address its banks? Will they force reforms within the system or tell the banks to sell off their foreign holdings and re-focus on Spain? In the last decade, many of the big Spanish banks had expanded their presence around the globe by buying up local banks and setting up camp.

While foreign expansion may boost egos and help (at times) counter-balance financial problems at home, it also becomes a very different animal to manage. As we've seen ourselves within the US banking system, bigger is not better. CNBC:

Spanish banks are likely to need more money from the government to make sure they are well capitalized, Moritz Kraemer, head of European Sovereign ratings at S&P;, told CNBC on Wednesday.

Late on Monday, the Institute of International Finance (IIF) warned that under a worst-case scenario, Spain's bank losses could hit 260 billion euros ($331.7 billion), with the majority of the losses stemming from commercial real estate loans.

"Clearly what some of the Spanish banks have on their balance sheets are assets which are losing in value pretty much every month which is the huge housing stock that has been built over the last decade," Kraemer said.

Read the rest of this post...