Bill Cinton proposes tax cuts to address "recession"

As always, the 1%-er Bill Clinton is fully supportive of policies that we know are destructive to America. Clinton helped ushered in the destructive economic policies that directly led to the economic meltdown that still plagues the US and now he's proposing more bad policies.

Clinton may have understood the 99% at one time but those days are long gone. Whether it's defending Wall Street, working for Wall Street or other radical plans of the 1%, Bill Clinton is no friend of the American middle class or poor. He represents everything that's wrong and destructive about the modern Democratic party.

More on Clinton's irresponsible tax cut proposal via CNBC:

"They will probably have to put everything off until early next year," he added. "That's probably the best thing to do right now. But the Republicans don't want to do that unless he agrees to extend the tax cuts permanently, including for upper income people, and I don't think the president should do that."

However, Clinton did say that Congress would be best off agreeing, at least for the time being, to extend all the tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year, including the so-called Bush tax cuts named after Clinton's successor, George W. Bush.

Those across-the-board cuts have been criticized by Democrats who say they were skewed toward upper-income earners.

Read the rest of this post...

Heading to Netroots Nation via Amtrak

Although I have to fly often enough, I really prefer taking the train whenever I can. I'm spoiled with the fantastic train system in France but even when I'm in the US - the northeast, at least - I prefer taking the train over flying. When I lived in Baltimore I used the Amtrak service often enough and enjoyed it even before the TSA made flying a miserable experience.

Last night I flew into Philly where I spent the night with family before jumping on Amtrak (in Trenton, NJ) for the journey up to Providence for Netroots Nation. Flying was pretty much the same price but I wasn't keen to be stressed out with the normal airport routine that makes flying so miserable.

The new station in Trenton was modernized in the last few years and it's so much faster and easier than flying. Instead of being cramped into a small seat that has no leg room, I'm sitting comfortably in a seat that has a nice view, including the phone photo above of Manhattan. Free wifi to boot makes it a no-brainer.

Travel time is still on the slow side (4:30 hours) but when you add in the trip to the airport and the circus that a traveler has to experience there it's not that much different. On top of that the station in Providence is a 10 minute walk to the event.

Despite all of the Republican bashing of Amtrak, it's a nice service in the northeast. I'm not willing to pay the premium for the Acela train, but I'm more than happy to ride Amtrak. Sure it could stand more modernization and faster speeds but it would be silly to trash this system and privatize it the way the UK did. Keep on developing it and making it better. Read the rest of this post...

Sargent: Scott Walker victory in WI is wake-up call to Dems

Greg Sargent at the Washington Post on the failed recall of Wisconsin GOP Governor Scott Walker:

Unions and Dems had hoped that grassroots organizing would be enough to offset that spending advantage, and they did in fact mount a huge effort along those lines. The labor-backed We Are Wisconsin signed up 50,000 volunteers in the last 96 hours, a volunteer army that knocked on 1.5 million doors throughout the state. It wasn’t nearly enough.

“It’s pretty clear that the voices of ordinary citizens are at permanent risk of being drowned out by uninhibited corporate spending,” said Michelle Ringuette, an official with the American Federation of Teachers.

Conservatives will respond to this by insisting that this battle proves that they’re winning the war of ideas, and indeed, national Republicans were quick to claim that tonight’s results bode well for November. Recalls are quirky; exit polls showed a big Obama lead; and polls have not shown national support for Walker’s agenda. So it seems unlikely that tonight’s outcome says anything too predictive about this fall.

But the outcome does say something important about the developing post-Citizens United landscape, and should prompt a major reckoning over how Dems, the labor and the left should deal with this new reality going forward.

Our take on the loss here. Read the rest of this post...

BCBS insurance has cut off my prescription drug coverage for the year

I'm just on the verge of reaching my annual max.

$1500 for the year.

That's the same maximum prescription drug benefit I had back in 1999 when my health insurance plan with CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield first began.  $1500.

Of course, I was only paying $150 or so for my coverage back then, and now I'm paying three times as much - because, silly, you have to take inflation into account!

Except that CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield doesn't take inflation into account when determining my annual prescription drug coverage - it was and always will be $1500.

So how is it that CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield can justify increasing my premium every year if my benefits stay the same?

It's a sleazy move by CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield.

If I keep this plan until the day I die - let's say, hopefully, when I'm 95 or so - my prescription drug benefit will still be only $1500, which won't be squat at that point (it's not quite squat at this point, since my asthma drugs cost $200 to $300 a month per drug, and my eye drops for my cataract surgery are $130 or so a pop (and that was for the generic), for just 14 droplets that last me only two weeks).

The answer?  In principle, ObamaCare, which I'm told will wipe out annual limits.

But there's a catch.  Some annual limits will be grandfathered, so they're permitted to remain.  Which?  I have no idea.

The second catch is the Supreme Court.  We they strike down health care reform as unconstitutional, and if so, will any provisions survive?

Health care is a mess in this country.  Most people don't realize it because they have insurance through their employer, and haven't gotten sick enough to realize that they won't be able to afford a serious illness even with insurance, either because they'll reach their annual or lifetime limit (that they didn't even know they had), or they won't be able to afford the co-pay or the deductible.

Remember kids, a simple appendectomy is $25,000 in America.  Even with "good" insurance, you might pay 20% of that as a co-pay, or $5,000. Or take my cataract surgery - one eye cost nearly $15,000 - 20% copay would be $3,000 (and that's for just one eye).  Anybody got that cash on hand?  And without insurance or who loses their job, God help you. Read the rest of this post...

Artur Davis is becoming a Republican because of the GOP's embrace of "diversity." Seriously.

Artur Davis is becoming a
Republican because of the
GOP's embrace of "diversity."
Stop laughing. 

I always get a kick when far right Republicans cry that they just aren't welcome in the Democratic party.

No sh*t, Sherlock.

Former US House member Artur Davis, from Alabama (go figure), has left the Democratic party because he says the party has moved too far to the left.  His "proof" of this move to the left is simply priceless.

Here are examples of the "diversity" that Davis thinks the Dems lack, but the GOP has:

Imagine if a Democratic candidate, senator or congressman were to say this week, "The Supreme Court is going to issue a ruling soon on the Affordable Care Act, and I sure hope the court overturns it." Can you imagine what the reaction would be? And this is, mind you, two years after 36 Democrats voted against the Affordable Care Act in the House. I can't imagine a Democrat saying that.

Imagine.

You mean, Democrats aren't willing to welcome fellow Democrats who try to undermine the President's number one campaign promise and the singular achievement of his entire first term? The horror!

That's not a sign of Democratic intolerance. It's a sign of politics. Neither Democrats nor Republicans tolerate party members who try to undercut their most important policy goal of the coming four years. Since Davis wants to talk health care reform as a litmus test of party intolerance, let's talk health care reform.

How many Democrats voted against their party and against health care reform? 36

How many Republicans voted against their party and for health care reform? 0

Now tell me again which party is more intolerant of a diversity of viewpoints on health care reform.

But oh, it gets better. More examples of Democratic intolerance from Davis:

Take same-sex marriage. Can you imagine if a prominent Democratic elected official were to say this week, "I think the 1st Circuit got it wrong on the Defense of Marriage Act, and I think the president's got it wrong on same-sex marriage"? I don't mean Sanford Bishop in Georgia, or an African-American politician perhaps in the South. I mean if a major Democratic figure were to say that, that person would be denounced instantly.

Can you imagine if a prominent Democratic elected official were to say that the Supreme Court got it wrong on Brown v Board of Education or Loving v Virginia?  Would Davis be cheering their "diversity" then?  Doubtful.  But don't try too hard to find consistency among southern bigots.  (Oh, and before Davis trots out the old "it's not the same thing" line, Coretta Scott King says it is.)

Davis is upset because the Democrats won't tolerate his intolerance.

Then there's Davis' third example:

Look at what happened to Cory Booker on Bain Capital. Mind you, that wasn't a philosophical disagreement; that was a tactical statement that the Obama campaign was unwise to attack Mitt Romney's history running Bain Capital. Cory Booker was savaged, particularly in the blogosphere, for just tactically questioning an element of the campaign.

Yes, how dare anyone criticize Cory Booker for undercutting his own party's primary argument against electing Mitt Romney as president.  Shouldn't the Democrats openly welcome people who give aid and comfort to the Republican nominee?  I mean, the Republicans would be just as welcoming of their own party members who supported Democratic policies and principles - just look at how many Republicans voted for the President's stimulus package: 3.

Lots of diversity in Artur Davis' GOP.

And finally, Artur Davis, a black man from Alabama, thinks the notion of "inequality" being a problem in America is overblown.

Last fall when Occupy Wall Street was in vogue, there were a few major Democrats who said, "Well, they need to get their act together and develop a sense of priority." But I don't remember a single major Democratic elected official who said that their focus on inequality is an overstatement, is an exaggeration, is wrong, and that the dominant focus of the administration ought to be finding ways to strengthen the entrepreneurial class.

Yes, because there's certainly no inequality in Artur Davis' own Alabama:

Source: Kids Count

Not that Artur Davis ever cared.

Oh, and here are a few other fun facts that demonstrate Artur Davis' commitment to diversity by moving over to the GOP:

Percentage of African-Americans in the US population at large: 12.6%
Percentage of African-American Republicans in the US House: 0.8% (2/242)
Percentage of African-American Democrats in the US House: 22% (42/190)

So Artur Davis thinks there's more diversity in a party that has 0.8% people like himself than a party that has 22% of the same.

Artur Davis isn't leaving the Democratic party because the Democrats have gone too far to the left.  Artur Davis is leaving the Democratic party because he cares more about Wall Street than racial inequality, civil rights, or affordable health care - which is pretty much the textbook definition of a conservative Republican.  I'm sure he'll be quite happy in his new home. Read the rest of this post...

Romney GM proposal would cost taxpayers $16bn

You know who else was
in favor of the GM bailout?

In the Romney family budget, $16bn is a rounding error, for the rest of America, including the federal budget, that's a huge amount of money.  What can Romney possibly be thinking? From Jia Lynn Yang at the Washington Post:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said the government should shed its stake in General Motors as soon as possible, even though selling the shares now would lock in billions of dollars in taxpayer losses.

If the government were to follow Romney’s prescription, it would mean at least $16 billion in losses. The Treasury Department and some auto analysts argue that GM’s shares are priced too low now and that waiting longer could help recoup more taxpayer money.

It's incredibly flippant of Romney to suggest that $16bn lost in taxpayer money is no big deal. But that's exactly what he's implicitly suggesting by endorsing the notion that we just up and sell our stake in GM, when many feel we can avoid those losses by simply waiting a bit longer.

But Mitt is afraid that if the US government continues to own 32% of GM, Boris and Natasha win.

Not to mention, as the Washington Post smartly points out, the auto bailout - which has been wildly successful - is a sore point for the Romney campaign. Romney was a lead voice opposing the bailout, while he now touts its success. You'd think Romney would want to avoid talking about the bailout so as not to remind voters that he doesn't really believe in anything.

Romney has run into some political trouble for his stance on the auto bailout. In November 2008, he wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times with the headline “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” in which he argued that a bailout of the auto industry would virtually guarantee its demise.

Now, Obama has been touting the success of the auto bailouts in ads.

Read the rest of this post...

"The politics of envy won in Wisconsin and will now accelerate nationwide"

I'm at Netroots Nation today, so blogging will be light. But like many I had eyes for Wisconsin last night and this morning, and thoughts as well.

I spoke with a union advocate (another early arrival) who didn't want any potential loss to be ultimately tagged "anti-union." I think on reflection she will get her wish. Some will call it that, but I think the winning analysis goes to Sean-Paul Kelley, who tweeted this morning:

Make no mistake about it: the politics of envy won in Wisconsin and will now accelerate nationwide.

The argument goes like this —

"Those (union) guys have pensions paid for by your tax dollars. Do you have a pension? Hell, no. And now, in a time of "austerity for all" they won't give it back, or pay for it themselves. Da bastahds. Let's get 'em."

In other words, taking down the unions is the sweet side-effect for Our Betters, who really do want to destroy the last vestiges of trade unionism in the U.S. (For an excellent read on how the unions are not helping, see the electoral-minded Howie Klein. Brilliant take on this.)

But the real winning argument for the voters, as Kelley correctly says, is "the politics of envy." Watch for it, even in the CNN-type coverage.

But it's not envy of the rich — that's not what "good peasants" do (to borrow from Matt Taibbi).

It's envy of the poor slob next to you, the one you closely resemble, who has the extra nickel you don't. His pension (on your dime, mind you) is that extra nickel.

This will swirl in lefty brains for a while, and I'm sure smarter people than me will beg to differ (heck, even I — who can often be smarter than me — may soon disagree). But as a first take, I give the nod to Sean-Paul, who nails it.

See you amongst the 'Roots,

GP

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

Netroots Nation 2012 starts today

This is an announcement and a scheduling note.

Netroots Nation 2012 kicks off today with arrivals and schmoozing, and runs through Saturday (with some side events spilling over into Sunday). I'll be in attendance. If you want to say Hi, please do. I'll be glad to visit with you.

Scheduling note: Because of the above, posting from this quarter may be light-to-non-existent, at least until I get back. We'll see.

I'll be sure to write a trip report on my return. If you're interested, this is last year's trip report.

See you in Providence,

GP

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

The consequences of cyber-warfare in Iran: US and StuxNet, Part 2

In yesterday's post I described the key facts that we now know about the Stuxnet cyber attack. We now know that Stuxnet was developed by the US and Israeli governments to attack the Iranian uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. What we do not yet know is what the consequences were and will be.

Available evidence strongly suggests that the Stuxnet attack delayed the Iranian nuclear program by many weeks if not months. The Iranian government has confirmed that the plant was affected by a cyber attack and the IAEA has reported a sudden increase in the rate at which replacement of certain centrifuge parts. But it is also clear that the attack did not permanently incapacitate the plant.

Even if the reports of damage are true, these do not mean that there actually is an Iran nuclear bomb making program as alleged or that it was damaged. The Natanz plant is a civilian plant monitored by the IAEA whose purported purpose is to enrich uranium for use in Iran's nuclear power program. According to the reports produced by the monitors, the enriched uranium produced at Natanz to date is only suitable for power generation and not for bomb making.

If Iran is in fact diverting material from Natanz to a weapons program they must have at least one other enrichment facility that is not publicly known, or be planning to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaties and use their civilian facilities to produce weapons grade uranium.

If the purpose of the attack was to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb it has to be considered a predictable failure. It is hard to see how causing premature failure of a few centrifuges would stop anyone. Short of an actual invasion there is nothing the US can to to prevent Iran getting the bomb if they make it a national priority. Iran has far more wealth, expertise and technology available to it in 2012 than the US had when it built the first bomb in 1945.

The best that can be said for Stuxnet is that it has caused much less damage than a 'kinetic' attack. 'kinetic' being the euphemism that the military people engaged in this field have decided on for the old fashioned approach of bombs and bullets. They also refer to the field as 'cyber-engagement' rather than cyber-warfare and there is a good reason for that which I will get to in the next part. The response from Iran has been minimal and as far as we know, Stuxnet has not killed anyone.

Admitting responsibility for Stuxnet certainly does Obama no harm as far as domestic politics are concerned. The Stuxnet news gives the lie to Romney's debate claim: "Look, one thing you can know and that is if we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon."

The difference between the Republican party approach to national security and the Obama administration policy is clear: Bush started two wars and failed to win either. Obama has ended the Iraq war and eliminated Bin Laden and Iran still does not have a nuclear weapon.

Equally clear is that what Obama is really offering is a competently executed version of the policy Bush attempted incompetently. Being better than the alternative does not mean a policy is good. While some of the comments on my first post claimed Stuxnet was 'terrorism' what the attack really amounts to is some petty vandalism and comes with some very significant costs.

Some of those costs are short term: Iran now has a pretty good excuse to leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the US admission that it was behind Stuxnet is going to give Russia and China a lot of leverage in their attempt to change Internet standards to make it easier for governments to control. I will deal with both of those issues in future posts. First however I want to focus on the longer term problem: Stuxnet has opened up a Pandora's box.

I will deal with that issue in part 3. Read the rest of this post...

Video: Bananarama in honor of Venus eclipsing the sun

Read the rest of this post...

Video: More crazy Russian cats

Read the rest of this post...