Hullabaloo

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

 
Whistling Past Dixie

by David Atkins

Dave Weigel gives an important reminder about the "white working class voter."

National polls don't tell us the whole story about white voters. Outside the South, since 2008, the white working class has edged away from the Democratic Party. But it remains open to the Democrats. That's why the rest of the country's so competitive! Take the example of Minnesota, where 90 percent of the 2008 electorate was white. Barack Obama split that vote, 49-49, with John McCain. He narrowly lost whites between the ages of 30 and 44, but won all other ages, and won elderly whites by a 17-point landslide.

Compare that to Georgia, where Obama did better than any Democrat since 1996. He won a measly 23 percent of the white vote. He lost elderly whites, aged 65 and over, by 56 points.

This might be obvious, but I think it gets lost in our daily culture war dialogues. To win the election in a squeaker, Barack Obama needs to win around 39 percent of the white vote. But outside the South, if he's winning, he'll be basically tying Romney with whites or losing them by 2-5 points. He's the first Democrat to win national elections in the post-Dixiecrat era. For generations, the Democratic attitudes of the South made it easier for the party to hold Congress, even as ticket-splitters were voting Republican for president -- Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes. Now it's reversed. A Democrat can lose the deep South in a landslide, but win the presidency, as southern conservatives send a massive crop of Republicans back to the Capitol.

Modern Republicanism is a largely older, Southern white phenomenon. Nationalized politics is allowing that culture to creep somewhat into the midwest (Missouri being a prime example), while states in the Mormon triangle and the plains are also deeply conservative for similar reasons, but lack the population prevents them from doing much damage outside of the undemocratic Senate.

By and large, though, the cultural divide that has plagued this nation since its founding remains with us today. We fought a war over it that cost many lives, but should have been decisive. In the end, it will be demographic changes that draw the 250-year-old simmering battle to a close not with a bang but with a whimper. And I hope to be there when Texas votes Democratic for President in 2024, playing the world's smallest violin for a peculiar culture that at last can do little further damage to America and the world.

.
thereisnospoon 9/25/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Monday, September 24, 2012

 
QOTD: Tory whip Andrew Mitchell

by digby

It's from a couple of days ago, actually:

British Prime Minister David Cameron's new chief whip, Andrew Mitchell, yelled at police because they wouldn't let him pedal his bike out of Downing Street, The Sun reports.

Said Mitchell: "Best you learn your fucking place. You don't run this fucking government. You're fucking plebs."

An eyewitness said Mitchell also branded them "morons".

The elites' inner Marie Antoinette is just bursting out all over, isn't it? He denies using the word "pleb" but there were a bunch of witnesses. Apparently the "best you learn your fucking place" is undeniable.

In case you were wondering:

Right-winger and keen cyclist Mr Mitchell is a former shadow police minister and was until recently International Development Secretary.

A former investment banker, he is worth at least £2.2million and owns a number of swanky homes.

He lives in one of the most fashionable squares in Islington, North London, with his GP wife Sharon and their two daughters.

He also has a house in his Sutton Coldfield constituency in Birmingham and a property in the French ski resort of Val d’Isere.

.




digby 9/24/2012 06:30:00 PM |

 
Remember the ladies

by digby

Also known as the moochers, looters and parasites:

National polling averages, like Huffington Post's own model, show a 3-point race. Other polls show a wider race, and in some, like Gallup's tracking in swing states, the race is tighter. Individual swing states, like Virginia and Ohio, also show a clear Obama lead.

Most of this movement has come from women voters. The chart below shows Obama's margin over Romney broken out by gender in public polls from August 20 through today (all telephone or IVR public polls I could easily find are included; none were left out). Not only do women consistently give Obama the edge, the gender gap in Obama's performance seems to be widening.

According to the article it's possible that this may end up being the biggest gender gap in history.

I suppose you can swagger around talking about people being victims and refusing to take personal responsibility, but to a whole lot of women that's a myopic view of how daily life is actually lived in this country. Many of them are caring for kids and ageing parents while working at shit jobs and trying to make ends meet in this dead economy and the idea that they are parasites is ridiculously insulting. They tend to be much more involved in the day to day struggles of the vulnerable people in our society and know intimately what the stakes are. (And a whole lot of them would dearly love to take personal responsibility for their reproduction, but these people won't let them!)

I'm sure many women have all the same qualms about the Democrats as the men do and wish they had more choices. But on virtually every level, there is simply no doubt that given free rein, the Republicans will make their lives demonstrably worse than they already are.

It's just a practical choice. When you see a presidential ticket bragging that they want to cut off every level of support that many of these women, regardless of their economic status, understand is necessary to keep the young, the old and the disabled from total penury, it's not surprising. Most of them don't have time to listen to Rush and watch Fox News to learn how this offends their sense of personal freedom. They're too busy working, cleaning, caregiving and otherwise exhausting themselves.

.
digby 9/24/2012 05:30:00 PM |

 
No, underpaying progressive campaign workers isn't a good thing

by David Atkins

A bunch of people in left-leaning circles are passing this around, as if it were good news:

One of the big challenges Mitt Romney faced after effectively clinching the GOP presidential nomination in late April was ramping up his campaign to match the behemoth operation President Obama already had in place across the country.

The Republican challenger finally caught up last month – at least when measured by money.

The Romney campaign spent $4.04 million on payroll in August -- nearly twice as much as it spent in July -- while the Obama campaign spent $4.37 million, according to campaign finance disclosures filed last week with the Federal Election Commission.

But the president appears to be getting a much bigger bang for his buck.

So the Obama campaign is getting the same level of commitment from staff while saving $330,000 dollars money. So celebrate, right? Well, maybe not.

According to an analysis by the Times Data Desk, part of the Los Angeles Times, the Obama campaign had 901 people on its payroll last month, and paid them a median salary of $3,074 a month, or $36,886 a year.

The Romney campaign, in contrast, had 403 people on its payroll, and paid them a median salary of $6,437 in August, which would mean $77,250 a year.

This isn't a good thing. First, Democrats are supposed to be about helping regular workers and the middle class. But more importantly, one of the key challenges that progressives face is a high level of burnout from our core volunteers and activists. People have to be able to make a living, and passion for the issues only goes so far. Republicans and conservatives are able to train and keep their best and brightest because they pay them enough to stay in the fold. Democrats and progressive organizations expect talent to work for peanuts.

Eventually, what happens is that good people burn out and quit when it comes time to build for retirement and raise a family.

Is it really worth it for the Obama campaign to underpay its staff to save $330,000 a few million in election expenses, just to buy a few more TV ads and be lauded as a better businessperson than Mitt Romney? No, it isn't. Not even for the campaign itself, and certainly not for the future of the progressive movement. Of course, left-leaning organizations aren't as well funded as right-leaning ones. But there's more than enough money there to pay good workers a decent wage.

But don't just jump on Barack Obama. This is a chronic culture problem within the entire Democratic infrastructure. Young people lean progressive, and the politically interested are often desperate to work in Democratic campaigns. Limousine liberals are able to send their kids to work for free on "internships." And then there is a huge swath of Democrats and progressives who believe that payment for political services is somehow unclean, and that if any payment is granted for working on progressive politics, it should be at a minimum subsistence level.

This foolishness has to be fixed for the sake of the future of the movement. And it certainly shouldn't be celebrated.

Update: Obviously, I got my math wrong through a clumsy reading of the details. The President's campaign is saving millions of dollars in staff expenses, not $330,000. But the general point remains the same.

.
thereisnospoon 9/24/2012 04:12:00 PM |

 
Chained CPI of fools

by digby

A good friend questioned my cynicism the other day about Obama's newly aggressive defense of Social Security at the AARP meeting and I thought hard about that. I've been extremely hard on the administration for their stated desire for a Grand Bargain long before the fiscal cliff was even hatched -- in fact, since the beginning of the first term. And I guess I just tend to be suspicious any time a President suggests early on that he has a grandiose plan for his legacy and then uses "problems" that come along later to justify it. If Obama hadn't said straight out that he wanted to solve all the problems of the world with his Grand Bargain I might not be so cynical.

Well it turns out that I'm not the only one. This guy is cynical too:

One of the most progressive voices in the caucus, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), said he was heartened to hear Obama tell the AARP last week that he'd be open to raising the cap on income that's taxed for purposes of paying into the Social Security trust fund. Sanders also applauded the president for taking off of the table any reform language that resulted in the "slashing" of benefits (several Social Security advocates, disagreeing with Sanders, said they were worried such language was counterproductive, as it opens the door for cuts that could be deemed minor).

But the Vermont Independent worried that all of this could be posturing for the lame-duck session immediately after the election, when lawmakers are expected to rush to find another "grand bargain" on tax and entitlement reform to stave off the so-called fiscal cliff.

"That's exactly what's going to happen," Sanders said of Social Security being on the proverbial table, "Unless someone of us stops it -- and a number of us are working very hard on this -- that's exactly what will happen. Everything being equal, unless we stop it, what will happen is there will be a quote-unquote grand bargain after the election in which the White House, some Democrats will sit down with Republicans, they will move to a chained CPI."

If he's worried, I'm worried. The Chained CPI is a benefits cut. And it's one that will hurt those who remain on Social Security the longest, usually elderly women in their 80s and 90s. I suppose they can try to go out and get a job to augment their inadequate incomes, but I can't think of who will hire them. This is a prescription for catfood for these very old people.

Sanders asked Huffington Post to get the president on the record saying that he would not do this. And this, predictably, was the result:

By Monday morning, the Obama campaign had moved slightly in the opposite direction, with top adviser David Axelrod refusing to unveil any specifics about what the president had planned for Social Security reform.

"[T]he approach has to be a balanced one," Axelrod told MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "We've had discussions in the past. And the question is, can you raise the cap some? Right now Social Security cuts off at a lower point. Can you raise the cap so people in the upper incomes are paying a little more into the program? And do you adjust the growth of the program? That's a discussion worth having. But again, we have to approach it in a balanced way. We're not going to cut our way to prosperity. We're not going to cut our way to more secure entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare. We have to have a balance."

So what is the president's proposal, asked Time magazine's Mark Halperin.

"Mark, I'll tell you what: When you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table -- this is not the time," replied Axelrod.

I love how it's always this "pay a little bit more" like we couldn't possibly ask these job creating Galtish heroes to kick in more than a pittance lest something really terrible happen.

Feeling optimistic? I didn't think so. After all, it's not as if the Republicans aren't going to demand their pound of elderly flesh so they can run against the Democrats for cutting Social Security. (Their adoption of Mediscare should finally relieve the Democrats of any assurance they won't.)

No, the best case scenario for a "balanced approach" on Social Security is a tiny raise in the cap for the tiny percentage of zillionaires who own this country in exchange for catfood eating old women. That's the "balanced approach"." they're seeking.

The only thing we can hope for is that either the left or the right wings of the congress --- perhaps both --- say no. It will be a lot more likely if they have a chance to organize in the new congress than if this is all done at lightening speed to avoid going over the fictional fiscal cliff in the lame duck.

Lame duck gridlock is in out best interest in so many ways. This is definitely one of them.


.
digby 9/24/2012 02:30:00 PM |

 
Depends on what the meaning of "hide" is

by digby

It looks like Paul Ryan let the cat out of the bag:



As we all know, Romney has parked a boatload of money in the Cayman's although they claim it's not personal, it's strictly business. Not that it matters. Either way, it saves the Romney fortune a fortune.

But yeah, one way or the other, he's hiding money from the IRS. And there was a time when Paul Ryan pretended to be against it.

But I'd be willing to bet one of Mitt's millions that he doesn't actually give a damn.

.
digby 9/24/2012 01:35:00 PM |

 
Emergency medicine

by digby


So Mitt Romney now believes that everyone should use the emergency room for their health care needs if they don't have insurance. Or, at least, it sounded that way. (Bold Progressives caught him saying something quite different back in 2007, before health care became a dirty word to conservatives.)

Remember when Alan Grayson was vilified for saying that the Republican plan was "Don't get sick and if you do get sick, die quickly"? Well, that sounds an awful lot like Mitt's new program to me.

Allow me to share a personal story that shed some light on emergency care --- for the insured. We have a high deductible plan, because it's all we can afford. And since we're decrepit baby boomers, it's ridiculously expensive even so. It's our second highest monthly bill after housing. Luckily, we're both in surprisingly good health and we're just hoping against hope that it stays that way until we can reach Medicare age.

However, my husband was traveling recently and had to go to the emergency room with a kidney stone. The "out of network" hospital billed us nearly $5,000. Since we have insurance, they were kind enough to bill them directly instead of requiring the payment up front, but since our deductible is so high, we will end up paying the whole bill anyway.

Here's the rub. We would have been better off saying we were uninsured and negotiating with the hospital directly for a lower rate. Our insurance company has no interest in negotiating a lower rate because we have a high deductible. So, they just paid the bill and are now passing the whole ridiculously high charges on to us. It's almost at the end of our policy year and unless we both have heart attacks in the next month, it's unlikely that we'll be able to "take advantage" of the fact that our deductible is met. So we're stuck.

Insurance companies only help themselves. They do nothing that doesn't benefit their bottom line unless they are required to do so. And even under Obama care, (which will be an improvement for us in the preventive care realm) we'll be paying about the same, with the same deductible and the same profit motive for the insurance company. In fact, I'm guessing they'll be even greedier wherever they can get away with it. Greed is like water --- it always finds a way.

Medicare for all would solve this problem since it would cover you no matter where you get sick. But we don't have that. And if the political establishment in both parties has their way, we won't have Medicare much longer either at least in any recognizable form. Sure, their fabulous, Rube Goldberg "market solution" will probably be fixed up in the long run, piece by agonizing piece. Unfortunately, in the long run, a whole lot of American guinea pigs will be dead before their time while they work out the kinks.


.


digby 9/24/2012 11:00:00 AM |

 
The Confidence Fairy is a vengeful harridan

by digby

Krugman points out in his column today that Mitt Romney declared himself to be the confidence fairy in his Boca remarks, saying that he really didn't need to have an economic program, his election would be enough to lift all those boats without breaking a sweat. The declaration is as daft as it sounds, and Krugman dispatches it with his usual alacrity.

But within the column is this, which seems particularly relevant this morning:

It’s true that some studies suggest a secondary role for uncertainty in depressing the economy — and conservatives have seized on these studies, claiming vindication. But if you actually look at the measures of uncertainty involved, they’ve been driven not by fear of Mr. Obama but by events like the euro crisis and the standoff over the debt ceiling. (O.K., I guess you could argue that electing Mr. Romney might encourage businesses by promising an end to Republican economic sabotage.)

You should also know that efforts to base policy on speculations about business psychology have a track record — and it’s not a good one.

Back in 2010, as European nations began implementing savage austerity programs to placate bond markets, it was common for policy makers to deny that these programs would have a depressing effect. “The idea that austerity measures could trigger stagnation is incorrect,” insisted Jean-Claude Trichet, then the president of the European Central Bank. Why? Because these measures would “increase the confidence of households, firms and investors.”

At the time I ridiculed such claims as belief in the “confidence fairy.” And sure enough, austerity programs actually led to Depression-level economic downturns across much of Europe.

None of that has changed the ongoing belief in austerity among our ruling class, however. They are, apparently, completely faith based at this point, unshakable in their belief in their Fairy Goddess. Here's Atrios:

If I actually believed that this was simply a story about evil plutocrats stealing from the rest of us I'd at least have a bit of respect. Oddly I don't actually believe that. Sure there are evil plutocrats stealing from the rest of us, ones who know what they're doing, but I also think that a lot of the people who rule us are just idiots.

Recession-hit Spaniards will this week be told to swallow yet more austerity as the government prepares a fresh round of reforms and another budget filled with spending cuts and tax increases that will allow it to seek a bailout from eurozone partners.

Pension freezes are also expected to form part of a raft measures to prepare the way for the European Central Bank (ECB) to give Spain support to control borrowing costs that will eat up a large chunk of next year's budget.

Apparently the Confidence Fairy has a huge appetite for human sacrifice.

Mort Zuckerman read from the Austerian Book of Common Prayer on The McLaughlin Group this past week-end:

According to Austerian dogma, the US is exactly like Europe we just haven't gotten there yet. So we must follow the European example and create as much suffering as possible as far as the eye can see to right the ship. (It's the same illogic as the one that says in order to fix a projected shortfall in Social Security a couple of decades from now we need to lock in that shortfall today.)

Zuckerman isn't even saying that the Confidence Fairy needs to be shown that we are serious about our debt so she will unleash her market power for the good of everyone. He's pretty much admitting that she's a vengeful Goddess who is punishing the lazy parasites for their piggish ways. She promises a dystopian hellscape in the future even for the deserving few unless we ensure that these parasites will continue to suffer now and in the future.

The confidence fairy is a monster.

.
digby 9/24/2012 09:30:00 AM |

 
Foxconn riots pointing a way forward

by David Atkins

Workers at the now infamous Foxconn manufacturing plant in China, its reputation sullied for abuse and mistreatment of the workers who make overpriced electronic devices for export, are rioting:

Foxconn Technology, a major supplier to some of the world’s electronics giants, including Apple, said that it had closed one of its large Chinese plants early Monday after police were called in to break up a fight among factory employees.

The company said several people were hospitalized and detained by the police after the disturbance, which occurred late Sunday, escalated into a riot...

Disturbances at factories have become increasingly common in China, rights groups say, as laborers have begun to demand higher pay and better conditions.

Geoffrey Crothall, spokesman for the China Labor Bulletin, a nonprofit advocacy group in Hong Kong seeking collective bargaining and other protections for workers in mainland China, said workers in China had become increasingly emboldened.

“They’re more willing to stand up for their rights, to stand up to injustice,” he said.

The same Taiyuan factory was the site of a brief strike during a pay dispute last March, Hong Kong media reported then.

These sorts of events will hopefully become more common across the globe in protest against the ongoing predation of capital against increasingly defenseless labor.

American labor should stand alongside their brothers and sisters in China, in part by demanding that companies that manufacture goods in China adhere to minimum protections for workers' rights wherever their goods are manufactured. Rather than fear the Chinese worker, American labor should embrace her.

Better wages and labor conditions for Chinese workers may mean higher prices for the latest unnecessary iPhone "upgrade" as Apple protects its unholy profit margins rather than charge a fair price for its legally unique rounded corners. But they also mean more and better jobs domestically for American workers, a better rounded Chinese economy, a reduction in the U.S. trade deficit with China, and a greater respect globally for the contribution of labor in an arbitraged world economy.

The future of labor doesn't lie in shrinking back toward protectionism within nation-states. It lies in globalizing the labor movement. It's not a new idea, after all: some famous German said that same thing in a pithy way a long time ago. The new model, however, has to learn from the failures of the old models on both sides of the Cold War, and embrace a real respect for democracy, human rights, freedom of speech, environmental protection, innovation, and a newfound respect for wages over assets.
thereisnospoon 9/24/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Sunday, September 23, 2012

 
What's he hiding down below?

by digby


Obama may had Obama Girl but Romney has the Romney Boys:

I'm going to go smoke a cigarette now. And I haven't done that in a couple of decades...



From Full Frontal Freedom

digby 9/23/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
Is voting a civil right?

by digby

The respected political analyst Ann Coulter said on ABC's This Week that civil rights are only for blacks:

“I think what — the way liberals have treated blacks like children and many of their policies have been harmful to blacks, at least they got the beneficiary group right... There is the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws. We don’t owe the homeless. We don’t owe feminists. We don’t owe women who are desirous of having abortions, but that’s — or — or gays who want to get married to one another. That’s what civil rights has become for much of the left... I think civil rights are for blacks… What have we done to the immigrants? We owe black people something. We have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven’t even been in this country."

I must say that I'm fairly shocked she believes that we owe black people something. I'm can't imagine what she thinks that is considering her views on "welfare queens" and "quotas", but it's interesting that she says it anyway.

But I wonder if she thinks blacks and Hispanics have a right to vote? I'm guessing no.

Anyway, here's the latest news on that, which makes me think that this highly respected Sunday Morning political analyst might have an ax to grind:

The combined effects of voter roll purges, demands for proof of citizenship and photo identification requirements in several states may hinder at least 10 million Hispanic citizens who seek to vote this fall, civil rights advocates warn in a new report.

Hispanic voters are considered pivotal to the presidential election this November, and are being heavily courted by both Democratic incumbent Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. If they turn out in large numbers, Hispanics could sway the outcome in several swing states.

In an analysis based on government data, civil rights group The Advancement Project identified legal barriers that could deter voter registration and participation among eligible Hispanics. In some of those states, the group's researchers said, the number of voter-eligible Latino citizens potentially blocked by those barriers exceeds the margin of victory in the 2008 election.

"Like African Americans, Latinos have experienced decreased access and correspondingly lower levels of voter registration and participation than non-Hispanic whites," said the report, which was being released Monday.

Not that there's anything new about this, mind you:

In the 1964 presidential elections, a young political operative named Bill guarded a largely African-American polling place in South Phoenix, Arizona like a bull mastiff. Bill was a legal whiz who knew the ins and outs of voting law and insisted that every obscure provision be applied, no matter what. He even made those who spoke accented English interpret parts of the constitution to prove that they understood it. The lines were long, people fought, got tired or had to go to work, and many of them left without voting. It was a notorious episode long remembered in Phoenix political circles.

It turned out that it was part of a Republican Party strategy known as "Operation Eagle Eye", and "Bill" was future Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. He was confronted with his intimidation tactics in his confirmation hearings years later, and characterised his behaviour as simple arbitration of polling place disputes. In doing so, he set a standard for GOP dishonesty and obfuscation surrounding voting rights that continues to this day.

They just cheat. Always have.


.

digby 9/23/2012 05:30:00 PM |

 
Elizabeth Warren's balanced approach

by digby

If this is what Democrats define as a "balanced approach" I'm all for it:

Nice catch from the PCCC!

I'm pretty sure that definition is not the working definition in Washington at the moment, but a few progressive wins in November could change that up, Warren being among the most important.

If you like to reward her with a couple of bucks for defining this "balanced approach" in an progressive way, you can do that here.


.


digby 9/23/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
Things I did not know (Part 5,985,876)

by digby

Now we know why the skinflint rich hate Obamacare:

Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes – which finance Social Security and Medicare – than they do in income taxes. The rich are different.

Mitt and Ann Romney paid virtually no payroll taxes in 2011, because nearly all their income came from investments on which payroll tax was not owed.

For most taxpayers, the 2.9 percent Medicare tax levied on wage income will be the same next year as it was in 2011. But starting in 2013, high-income taxpayers will pay more – and in the Romneys’ case – much more.

Married taxpayers with income over $250,000 will pay a 3.8 percent Medicare tax rate on income over that amount, and all income will be covered, including the capital gains that make up most of the Romneys’ income.

If their 2013 income were unchanged from this year, their Medicare tax bill would exceed $500,000.

That tax was passed as part of the health care bill enacted by Congress and signed by President Obama in 2010 – a law known as “Obamacare.” Mr. Romney has pledged to seek repeal of that law.

Let's lift the cap on social security too,while we're at it. After all, if a man is so rich that he he can earn many millions while running for president --- so many millions that he was able to "over-contribute" as a PR stunt, then he can easily afford to put more money into the safety net. In fact, he won't even feel it.

Oh, and also. This seems to be a good time to clear up the confusion about Rafalca the dressage horse. Like may others, I erroneously said the other day that the Romney's got a $77,000 deduction for the horse. That's wrong. As this thorough Forbes piece spells out, they haven't actually gotten it yet. It's a deferred deduction. This deferral is very complicated. I don't think it will be something you'll find on Turbo Tax as an option to pay for your quilting hobby, but wealthy people like the Romney's have high paid tax lawyers to do that for them.


.

digby 9/23/2012 02:30:00 PM |

 
The charter con and who it's hurting

by digby

A frightening new report on school segregation was released this week:

This report shows that segregation has increased seriously across the country for Latino students, who are attending more intensely segregated and impoverished schools than they have for generations. The segregation increases have been the most dramatic in the West. The typical Latino student in the region attends a school where less than a quarter of their classmates are white; nearly two-thirds are other Latinos; and two-thirds are poor. California, New York and Texas, all states that have been profoundly altered by immigration trends over the last half-century, are among the most segregated states for Latino students along multiple dimensions.

In spite of declining residential segregation for black families and large-scale movement to the suburbs in most parts of the country, school segregation remains very high for black students. It is also double segregation by both race and poverty. Nationwide, the typical black student is now in a school where almost two out of every three classmates (64%) are low-income, nearly double the level in schools of the typical white or Asian student (37% and 39%, respectively). New York, Illinois, and Michigan consistently top the list of the most segregated states for black students. Among the states with significant black enrollments, blacks are least likely to attend intensely segregated schools in Washington, Nebraska, and Kansas.

This finding is significant, I think, considering the recent issues in Wisconsin and Chicago:

The Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration, has taken no significant action to increase school integration or to help stabilize diverse schools as racial change occurs in urban and suburban housing markets and schools. Small positive steps in civil rights enforcement have been undermined by the Obama Administration’s strong pressure on states to expand charter schools - the most segregated sector of schools for black students. Though segregation is powerfully related to many dimensions of unequal education, neither candidate has discussed it in the current presidential race.

And people wondered why all those parents in Chicago supported the union. If anyone knows that separate but equal is bad for kids it's them.

Meanwhile, Rahm is busily hitting up his hedge fund and school voucher advocate pals to help him spin his humiliation. From Chicago education blogger Mike Klonsky:

I turned on the TV this morning to see the new ad with Rahm doing damage control. He's claiming he won the contract battle that led to the 7-day teachers strike by getting his longer school day in place along with evaluating teachers based on student standardized test scores. The ads are being paid for by DFER hedge-funders and school voucher advocates, Whitney Tilson and Ravenel Boykin Curry IV...

Newstips Curtis Black has a great column, "Strike Notes", in which he quotes veteran Chicago political analyst Don Rose:

“The bottom line,” he argues at the Chicago Daily Observer, “is that Emanuel is out of the running as a presidential or vice-presidential candidate in 2016.” Maybe you can run without labor support, but running against active labor opposition is something else.

Black writes:

Mayor Emanuel has his own public relations conundrum at this point, and it’s not just a matter of rhetoric: he (and the business leaders and newspapers) are claiming that in order to pay for the new contract, they’re going to have to close down schools. In the meantime they’re planning to open up 60 new charter schools. In fact, this year’s budget has an additional $76 million for charters, which cost the district well over $500 million a year.

“We’re kind of confused about that,” said Wendy Katten of the Raise Your Hand Coalition. “If they’re claiming they have 130,000 unfilled seats in the district, why are they opening 60 new schools? That’s crazy. That’s just absurd.”

How to make the case? Always ready to help, the Tribune offers this line of argument:: charter schools are the best tool for busting the teachers union. Bruce Rauner, private equity mogul and major charter sponsor, chimes in that the goal is “separating teachers from the union.”

When it looks like a union busting duck and talks like a union busting duck ... well, you know.

I bring you alleged Democrat Ed Rendell:

"It's an important issue because Rahm Emanuel is showing again, that Democrats can stand up to unions when their demands are unreasonable."

With friends like Ed, it's possible that Rahm may have reached the end of his political career. We live in hope.


.
digby 9/23/2012 12:30:00 PM |

 
Helping Americans In Need Is The American Way

by tristero

I am very proud that my hard-earned tax dollars helped pay for this woman's welfare and to help other Americans who have fallen on hard times. They are my friends, my neighbors, and my fellow citizens.


.
tristero 9/23/2012 10:30:00 AM |

 
Romney's economic advisor "triples down" on elitist whining

by digby


Check out this interview on Up with Chris with Romney's economic advisor Emil Henry. With friends like these ...

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ann Coulter was less thin skinned on This Week this morning. So, Romney's economic advisors are elitist pricks too. Surprise! Pity the billionaires, indeed. Nobody understands the poor babies... I can't help but wonder if these people really believe this tripe they are selling. If they do, their wealth is pure luck because their reasoning and analytical skills are virtually nil. Here's your antidote: Chris Hayes

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update: Now if Ann Romney were more like this, I think Mitt might have a chance:

.
digby 9/23/2012 09:07:00 AM |

 
Far to the right of Reagan

by David Atkins

As harmful as Ronald Reagan was to this country, not even he wanted to let millionaires pay a lower share of taxes than everyone else:



Mitt Romney, supposed "moderate", is far to right of Ronald Reagan on this and many other things.

By the way, it would be totally fine for journalists to point that out, too, rather than just partisans. That's supposed to be their job.


.
thereisnospoon 9/23/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Saturday, September 22, 2012

 

Saturday Night at the Movies

Le grand chill

By Dennis Hartley

Marion Cotillard in Little White Lies

In 1976, a Swiss ensemble piece called Jonah Who Will Be 25 in the Year 2000 unwittingly kick-started a Boomer-centric “midlife crisis” movie subgenre that I call The Group Therapy Weekend (similar to, but not to be conflated with, the venerable Dinner Party Gone Awry). The story usually centers on a coterie of long-time friends (some married with kids, others perennially single) who converge for a (reunion, wedding, funeral) at someone’s (beach house, villa, country spread) to catch up, reminisce, wine and dine, revel…and of course, re-open old wounds (always the most entertaining part). It’s usually accompanied by a nostalgic soundtrack spotlighting all your favorite hits from the (60s, 70s or 80s). Like any film genre, the entries range from memorable (Return of the Secaucus 7, The Big Chill) to so-so yet watchable ( The Decline of the American Empire to the downright execrable (last year’s I Melt With You, which I traumatically re-experienced in this review). The latest, Guillaume Canet’s Little White Lies (released in France as Les petits mouchoirs in 2010) falls somewhere in the middle.

Which is a shame, because writer-director Canet has assembled a fabulous cast; the problem is that somewhere around the 90-minute mark of this epic-length (2 ½ hour) comedy-drama, he seems to run out of new and/or interesting things for his actors to do or say. The film begins intriguingly enough; a happy-go-lucky fellow named Ludo (Jean Dujardin, bearing an uncanny resemblance here to the young James Caan) hops on his motorcycle after a night of doing blow at an after-hours Parisian club, and promptly gets T-boned at an intersection by a truck when he runs a red light. As his friends gather at the ICU, we are introduced to our principal players: Max (Francois Cluzet, star of the director’s terrific 2006 mystery-thriller, Tell No One) and his wife Veronique (Valerie Bonneton), Antoine (Laurent Lafitte), Marie (Marion Cotillard), Vincent (Benoit Magimel) and his wife Isabelle (Pascale Arbillot) and Eric (Gilles Lellouche). This unfortunate event has occurred on the eve of an annual vacation getaway for the gang, hosted by well-to-do restaurateur Max and Veronique at their beach house, which is a 3-hour drive from Paris. After a powwow, they decide that while it’s a bummer that Ludo can’t join them this time out, they should nonetheless plow ahead (all feeling a bit guilty).

As events unfold at the beach (and in keeping with the rules of the genre) each player shows their colors as an archetype (the free-spirit with commitment issues, the aging Lothario, the recently dumped single carrying the torch, the harried husband, the sexually frustrated wife, the substance abuser, the sexually conflicted character, etc). However, despite a script overstuffed with clichés and stereotypes, the talented and well-directed ensemble shines with genuine chemistry and warm, authentic performances. Where the director drops the ball is in the relatively tepid third act, deflating most of the dramatic tension with one too many self-pity parties and a subplot that has two characters running around in a sputtering state of gay panic. Still, there are enough compelling reasons to recommend the film; besides the appealing cast, DP Christophe Offenstein nicely captures the sun-dappled beauty of Gironde’s Atlantic coast, and there’s a well-selected soundtrack ranging from contemporary (The Jets, Damien Rice, Ben Harper) to nostalgic (David Bowie, Janis Joplin, CCR). Singer-songwriter Maxim Nucci (in a small role as Cotillard’s latest boy toy) performs a poignant original called “Talk to Me”. While Canet may not necessarily have anything new to say, he at least talks to us like we’re grownups.

  

Saturday Night at the Movies review archives

.
Dennis Hartley 9/22/2012 05:30:00 PM |

 
They just cheat

by digby


It's reflexive:

Mitt Romney's campaign took a hard line with the Spanish-language network Univision, making last-minute demands in the run-up to last week's town hall that helped insure his success in the forum, sources familiar with the broadcast told BuzzFeed.

When the Republican took his place Wednesday night in the first of two back-to-back candidate forums televised on the mega-network, he was greeted by an adoring, raucous crowd that cheered his every word, and booed many of the moderators' questions. The next night, President Obama was treated to stone cold silence from the audience as he was aggressively grilled on his lackluster immigration record.

The contrast was widely noted by observers who watched both forums — and it was glaring enough to evoke some boasting from the Romney campaign in the immediate aftermath.

"These forums are going to be watched by more Hispanics than watched the conventions," said Alberto Martinez, a Florida-based Romney adviser. "I think [Romney] did an amazing job, and I think it was pretty clear there wasn't the same excitement for President Obama."

But the enthusiasm gap may have been an optical illusion formed by a series of last-minute demands by the Romney campaign, according to Maria Elena Salinas, one of the Univision anchors who moderated the forums.

Salinas told BuzzFeed that tickets for each forum were divided between the network, the respective campaigns, and the University of Miami (which hosted the events) — and she said both campaigns initially agreed to keep the audience comprised mostly of students, in keeping with the events' education theme.

But after exhausting the few conservative groups on campus, the Romney camp realized there weren't enough sympathetic students to fill the stands on their night — so they told the network and university that if they weren't given an exemption to the students-only rule, they might have to "reschedule."

The organizers relented. One Democrat with ties to the Obama campaign noted that Rudy Fernandez, the university official charged with coordinating the forums, is a member of Romney's Hispanic steering committee. Fernandez did not respond to BuzzFeed's questions about whether he gave preferential treatment to Romney's campaign.
In any case, Romney's team was allowed to bus in rowdy activists from around southern Florida in order to fill the extra seats at their town hall.

Obama's campaign, meanwhile, stuck to the original parameters and allowed a large chunk of the tickets to be distributed to interested students on campus. The result was a quiet, well-behaved crowd — and a lot of no-shows. Minutes before Obama's forum was to begin, producers began frantically directing university staff and volunteers to sit in the empty seats.

And Mitt's crowd of rowdies refused to obey the rules and Mitt had a little tantrum and forced them start the show over or he wouldn't go on. For real:

"We were a little bit thrown because it was supposed to be a TV show, it wasn't a rally," Salinas said of the outspoken Romney supporters. "It was a little bit of disrespect for us."

That wouldn't be the last demand from the campaign: Romney himself almost pulled the plug on the whole thing minutes before the broadcast, Salinas said.

While introducing Romney at the top of the broadcast, Salinas's co-anchor, Jorge Ramos, noted that the Republican candidate had agreed to give the network 35 minutes, and that Obama had agreed to a full hour the next night. Ramos then invited the audience to welcome Romney to the stage — but the candidate didn't materialize.
"It was a very awkward moment, believe me," Salinas said.

Apparently, Romney took issue with the anchors beginning the broadcast that way, said Salinas, and he refused to go on stage until they re-taped the introduction. (One Republican present at the taping said Romney "threw a tantrum.")

You would think they are more to be pitied than censured at this point --- it all looks so desperate. But I think they would have done this even if Mitt had a 10 point lead in the polls. It's just how they do things.

.

digby 9/22/2012 04:02:00 PM |

 
Watch The Shifting Rightwing Goalposts

by tristero

A rightwing high school "friend" of mine on Facebook posted a disgusting graphic:

I strongly objected to this as utterly untrue, both historically and culturally, to the point of anti-semitism (that's for starters). Immediately, one of his pals posted:

my feelings are that this country was founded on judeo-christian principles... they go hand in hand...

Catch that? Once the obvious offensiveness of the image was made explicit. at least four goal posts were moved:

1. It's just a feeling, not a fact. Opinions differ!
2. We're not talking about the present, but the founding of the country.
3. I'll throw some Jews into that Christian Nation idea, but only since you insist.
3. These are religious principles, not religious practices.

Truly remarkable. Now, to state the very, very obvious:

The question posed in the picture isn't about feelings but about a fact. And it is a fact that this country's Constitution quite deliberately puts the kibosh on the notion that this is a Christian Nation or any other kind of religious nation. (Christians obviously live here but that is not the issue.) And the picture doesn't pose an historical question about our founding, but one concerned with the here and now. Nor do I see a Star of David in that picture and no Jew I know accepts the symbol of the cross as synonymous with judeo-christian anything, including mere principles. And finally, "principles" are what is being asserted  - the question clearly implies religious practice and expression: Christian religious practice and expression, not Jewish, not Muslim, not Buddhist, not Jainist, not atheist, not even Deist.

This is oh so typical of much rightwing discourse - to make a bumper sticker assertion that is both patently untrue and obnoxious, if not bigoted, and then pretend the bumper sticker stands for something very different than what it says - and which also happens to be patently untrue and thoroughly obnoxious, if not bigoted.

This can go on for quite a while. And that is its point - to waste everyone's time so that real issues are never reached or grappled with. Nobody serious really believes the notion that America is a Christian Nation. The phrase is virtually meaningless and the extent it means anything it is deeply wrong and offensive.

Enough. It is pointless to argue with the modern rightwing. They need to be mocked and jeered at, driven back to the periphery of the mainstream discourse, where they so clearly belong.



tristero 9/22/2012 02:30:00 PM |

 
The lady of the manor is very annoyed

by digby

I thought Mitt was just being a creep when he said that he was keeping Ann off the trail so people didn't get sick of her. But I'm beginning to see that it was actually another example of him telling an uncomfortable truth. It's bad enough that Mitt insults half the electorate as a bunch of loser parasites behind closed doors, but even he didn't doesn't do it in front of the press.

Kaili Joy Gray at Daily Kos, put the list together:

Fellow Republicans:
“Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring,”

Women:
"Women, you need to wake up"

Latinos:
"You [Latinos had] better really look at your future and figure out who’s going to be the guy that’s going to make it better for you and your children, and there is only one answer."

Democrats:
"My horse has more style and more class in its hoof than the [Democrats] do in their whole deal."

All voters:
"We’ve given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and how we live our life."

This is a person people could get tired of, for sure.

I tend not to be too critical of the first ladies because this is one of those throwback female "jobs" that doesn't really have a good job description. And the sexism that usually goes with the criticism on all sides is usually too much for me to take.

But this is Ann Romney behaving very imperiously on the campaign trail and betraying a sense of superiority that's very hard to deny. I don't think I've ever seen a political spouse be quite this condescending. Even Barbara Bush, who was not exactly a shrinking violet in this way, always had a certain down to earth humor that cut the upper class bias a bit. Ann Romney just seems pissed that the little people are failing to grasp just how superior her husband is and fall in line with the program --- as if she can't believe they have to get their permission in the first place.

.


digby 9/22/2012 12:36:00 PM |

 
Yes, Banning 32 Oz Liquid Sugar Bombs Can Help

by tristero

Whenever I blog about food, food industry apologists insist that there are no health problems associated with obesity. So let's get this straight: That is just so fucking not true. If you really think these people are all wrong, I suggest you write them and explain to them the error of their ways. When they admit they are wrong, be sure write me and I will offer an apology to you.

And that is why this study is so important, and why banning supersized portions of soda - note: NOT banning sodas, just insanely large sizes - is a pretty good idea. It's not as good as taxing soda, but that is all but impossible politically.

(slightly edited after original posting)


tristero 9/22/2012 11:00:00 AM |

 
Gitcher lurid rightwing character smears right here

by digby

During the 90s there were endless lurid Clinton pseudo-scandals created by the nutballs and scam artists that dwell in the most fetid regions of the right wing fever swamps. One of the more famous was a video called The Clinton Chronicles which was flogged heavily by Christian Right icon Jerry Falwell in his church and on TV. It purported to proved that Clinton was a murderer and a drug runner among other things. Who knows how many people saw it?

Lest anyone think this con game has gone away, think again:

An anti-Obama movie claiming — without evidence — that President Barack Obama's real father is an obscure African-American communist has been mailed to 1.5 million voters across the country, its creator told BuzzFeed Friday.

A reader in Ohio emailed this photo of his free copy of the film Dreams From My Real Father, which claims that the Chicago activist Frank Marshall Davis is actually President Obama's father. He received it in the mail this week.

The film's director and producer, Joel Gilbert, said that the film was sent out to more one million voters in Ohio; 200,000 after a mid-summer conference, and a million after that. He said that 50,000 copies had been sent to voters in Nevada and 100,000 to voters in New Hampshire.

And then there's this monstrous, obviously photo-shopped smear of Obama's mother:

And, of course, there's the phony "expose" of Hillary Clinton by long time huckster David Bossie of Citizens United, which was the subject of the Supreme Court case that bears its name.

I guess the right sees Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 411 in the same light, which it isn't, of course, since it's not a character smear or filled with lies. But even if it were, I can't think of leftwing equivalents to this sort of thing. I suppose there could be some, but I'm unaware of anyone sending out DVDs "exposing" some nefarious deeds by Mitt Romney or John McCain or George W. Bush or flogging them at union meetings (or whatever.) Yet this has been a factor in American far right conservatism forever. The John Birch society published books and pamphlets back in the day and there's always been this underground network of character assassination, usually featuring some lurid sexual/racial angle that appeals to certain lizard brains.

I don't know if this still exists in other cultures (it certainly did in Europe in the 20s) but it's still a prominent feature of the dark underbelly of American conservatism.

Update: Also too, this.

Update II: And this from Susie.

.
digby 9/22/2012 09:11:00 AM |

 
Music and beauty for a Saturday morning

by David Atkins

Take a break from the hair-raising Randism of the rightwing this morning and enjoy the most famous Czech composition and one the greatest pieces of music of all time, Smetana's Moldau from Ma Vlast, performed by the City of Prague Philharmonic. It's a Romantic-era symphonic poem evoking the Moldava river, and an intentional act of Czech musical patriotism during the wonderful period of nationalistic character breaking free from the unifying conventions of the Classical era.



I've never been to Prague, and my heart aches to see the pictures. I have a strong aversion to being the "ugly American" when traveling overseas, and usually refrain from visiting countries whose language I can't do at least a mediocre job of getting by in. But one day soon I'll either have to learn some Czech or bite the bullet and be the ugly American in Prague. Life's too short not to visit a city so beautiful, assuming I can afford to go.

When one concentrates too much on the ugliness of the world, it's important to be reminded of the extraordinary beauty that lies within it as well.

.
thereisnospoon 9/22/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Friday, September 21, 2012

 
Your moment of zen

by digby

That's the space shuttle on its last flight:

Courtesy Bradblog


.
digby 9/21/2012 07:00:00 PM |

 
Once a jerk always a jerk

by digby

Johnny McNasty talking out of both sides of his mouth -- nearly simultaneously:

Mother Jones has obtained exclusive audio of an interview McCain conducted with military vet and citizen journalist Meg Lanker-Simons at the Republican National Convention in Tampa last month. In the exchange, McCain said getting vets back to work was job No. 1. (The jobless rate for former service members is up to 31 percent higher than for civilians.) "The fact is, it's a national disgrace that veterans' unemployment is 14 percent," McCain said. "That's a national disgrace. And we've got to try to find more ways and better ways to hire veterans. And that has got to be our highest priority."

But last week, in floor remarks criticizing the now-dead Veterans Job Corps bill, McCain took a dramatically different stance. He declared that fiscal austerity trumped joblessness among former soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. "We already have six veterans job-training programs, but what the heck? Let's, ah, let's have another one," he said in a sarcastic tone.

Besides the entire Democratic caucus, the bill got votes from five Republican senators: Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Dean Heller (Nev.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Olympia Snowe (Maine). But 58 senators out of 100 were not enough to overcome McCain and his colleagues, who filibustered and argued that the bill was election season politicking that still didn't meet their budget standards.

McCain is just a jerk. Always has been. Despite his history as a POW and son of a famous Admiral, I'm fairly sure he could not care less about Veterans. The next war, any war, is what gets his juices flowing.

I think Jon Stewart dispatched this GOP hypocrisy on Veterans quite handily:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

digby 9/21/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
Romney's culture of lying for the lord

by David Atkins

One of Mitt Romney's problems is the fact that he believes in a pre-Youtube ethic of being able to say things to one audience that he wouldn't say to another. Now, one could argue that that's because he's an old-school politician. Or one could say that he's steeped in a culture of lying endemic to the leadership of the Church of Latter-Day Saints.

Consider the story of Ken Clark, former Latter Day Saints bishop and coordinator for the Church Education System:

I began this list when I was a full time employee of the LDS Church Education System (CES). I worked as a Seminary Principal/teacher, Institute teacher/Director, and Stake CES Coordinator from 1975 - 2002. My last assignment was brief. I signed a Letter of Agreement with CES to serve as the Director of the Pullman, Washington LDS Institute of Religion adjacent to Washington State University in July 2002. I resigned from CES a month later. I carry fond memories of the students, ward leaders and others I grew to respect in the LDS Church. I started this list in an effort to defend the church from its detractors. I was insulted that critics accused LDS church leaders of dishonesty. I "knew" the criticisms could not be true...

Evidence presented in this essay establishes that when the church image or its leaders needed protection it was and is, okay to fib, deceive, distort, inflate, minimize, exaggerate, prevaricate or lie. You will read quotations by church leaders who admitted that deception is a useful tool to protect the church and its leaders "when they are in a tight spot," or "to beat the devil at his own game." They admit engaging in moral gymnastics; that God approves of deception - if it's done to protect the "Lord's Church" or "the brethren" as the leaders are called...

D. Michael Quinn called the use of deception by LDS church leaders, "theocratic ethics." (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, page 112) Smith lied to protect himself or the church; which was an extension of himself. Dan Vogel in his excellent work, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, described Smith's viewpoint; he was a pious deceiver. Smith used deception if in his mind; it resulted in a good outcome. Smith had Moroni, an ancient American prophet and custodian of the gold plates declare, "And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. ( Moroni 4:11-12). Translation: if deception was necessary to do good, or bring a soul to Christ, then it was worth it, as long as God approves. Smith believed he knew when God approved of lying.

Clark lists over a hundred examples of baldfaced lies knowingly told by the church hierarchy, justified because they believe it serves the greater good. It is a cultural ethic deeply embedded in the LDS system. Consider the way Latter Day Saints missionaries are trained:



As John Aravosis points out regarding these lies and the common (and secretive) LDS practice of posthumous baptisms for countless individuals, including Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler:

It's ghoulish to be sure, but it's neither rare nor a mistake. It's what the Mormons do. And when they get caught, they lie about it, just as they're lying to our President today, and just as they've been lying to the Jews for over a decade.

Why does this matter? Because the Mormons are "the" bankers of the religious right. Last fall, the Mormons dropped $20 million into California and singlehandedly turned a losing battle into the successful repeal of marriage rights for gay couples in that state. The Mormons have bankrolled hate initiatives in Alaska and Hawaii and across the northwest and midwest for the past decade. They are not some fringe "religion" to be shrugged off. The new anti-gay marriage coalition, National Organization for Marriage, keeps finding, seemingly out of nowhere, $1.5m for this ad campaign, then another $1.5m for that ad campaign. Where are they finding this sudden infusion of cash? Inquiring minds want to know.

This isn't just a broadside on Mitt Romney's religion. It's important to remember that Mitt Romney has a very important and prominent position in the LDS hierarchy as a stake president:

In ticking off his credentials on the campaign trail — management consultant, businessman, governor — Mitt Romney omits what may have been his most distinctive post: Mormon lay leader, offering pastoral guidance on all manner of human affairs from marriage to divorce, abortion, adoption, addiction, unemployment and even business disputes...

From 1981 through 1994, he was a powerful figure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is run almost entirely by volunteers beyond its headquarters in Salt Lake City.

First as bishop of his own congregation, and later as Boston “stake president,” overseeing a region akin to a Roman Catholic diocese, he operated as clergyman, organization man and defender of the faith, guiding the church through a tumultuous period of rapid growth.

He confronted anti-Mormon sentiment and management challenges, supervising youth programs, the church’s social welfare system, missionary training and outreach to Hispanic, Portuguese and Southeast Asian converts, including Cambodian and Laotian refugees whose teenagers were joining the church in droves.

Later, when his official duties were complete, he contributed handsomely to the construction of the grand — and controversial — Boston Temple, high on a hilltop in Belmont, its steeple topped by a golden angel, just minutes from the Romney home. “Mitt’s Temple,” some local residents called it derisively.

It's critically important to remember that Romney's lies aren't just a feature of his personality. They're a feature of his cultural and religious training.

The only difference is that he's switched from serving a religious Lord to serving Mammon and our modern-day plutocratic House of Lords.

But the same ethic rules regardless.

.
thereisnospoon 9/21/2012 04:00:00 PM |

 
Let's take a look at what Mitt's charitable giving goes to, shall we?

by digby

Reuters looked into it a while back:

If the Mormon church were a business, wealthy adherents like Mitt Romney would count as its dominant revenue stream.

Its investment strategy would be viewed as risk-averse.

It would also likely attract corporate gadflies protesting a lack of transparency. They would call for less spending on real estate and more on charitable causes to improve membership growth - the Mormons' return on investment.

Those are a few of the conclusions that can be drawn from an analysis of the church's finances by Reuters and University of Tampa sociologist Ryan Cragun.

Relying heavily on church records in countries that require far more disclosure than the United States, Cragun and Reuters estimate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints brings in some $7 billion annually in tithes and other donations.

It owns about $35 billion worth of temples and meeting houses around the world, and controls farms, ranches, shopping malls and other commercial ventures worth many billions more.

So Romney is giving huge sums of money to a church which runs commercial ventures and has no obligatin to pay taxes on them. Sounds perfect.

"Most of the revenue of the religion is from the U.S., and a large percentage comes from an elite cadre of wealthy donors, like Mitt Romney," said Cragun. " is a religion that appeals to economically successful men by rewarding their financial acuity with respect and positions of prestige within the religion."

The church is full of successful businessmen, including chemical billionaire Jon Huntsman Sr., the father of the former presidential candidate, J.W. "Bill" Marriott Jr. and his hotel-owning family, and even entertainer Donny Osmond.
[...]
The Mormon church has no hospitals and only a handful of primary schools. Its university system is limited to widely respected Brigham Young, which has campuses in Utah, Idaho and Hawaii, and LDS Business College. Seminaries and institutes for high school students and single adults offer religious studies for hundreds of thousands.

It counts more than 55,000 in its missionary forces, primarily youths focused on converting new members but also seniors who volunteer for its non-profits, such as the Polynesian Cultural Center, which bills itself as Hawaii's No. 1 tourist attraction, and for-profit businesses owned by the church.

The church has plowed resources into a multi-billion-dollar global network of for-profit enterprises: it is the largest rancher in the United States, a church official told Nebraska's Lincoln Journal Star in 2004, with other ranches and farms in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Australia and Great Britain, according to financial documents reviewed by Reuters.

Ranching and farm industry sources say they are well-run operations.

It also has a small media empire, an investment fund, and is developing a mall across from its Salt Lake City headquarters, which it calls an attempt to help revitalize the city rather than to make money. These enterprises are also part of a vast nest egg for tough times. The church expects wars and natural disasters before Christ returns to earth in the Second Coming, and members are encouraged to prepare by laying in stores of food. Farms and ranches are part of the church's own preparation.

"The church teaches its members to live within their means and put a little money aside for life's unexpected events. As a church, we live by the same principle," Purdy said. The rainy-day fund and operating budget rarely mix, officials say.

And what does Mitt think about this form of "charity"?

Romney himself focuses on the act of giving, not the result. As he told Fox News Sunday, "Hopefully, as people look at various individuals running for president, they'd be pleased with someone who made a promise to God and kept that promise."

Right. That's all that matters.

If I didn't know better I'd have to assume that this charitable giving to a church that primarily operates highly successful commercial businesses is just another tax dodge.

.
digby 9/21/2012 01:30:00 PM |

 
Paul Ryan's Eddie Haskell impression bombs at the AARP

by digby

It looks as if not all the seniors are enamored of that nice young man Paul Ryan. (And yes, you probably have to be eligible for the AARP to know who Eddie Haskell is ...):

Here's the thing. The younger seniors (and keep in mind AARP says it starts at 50) are the most engaged in politics and are particularly interested in their own ability to keep bread on the table and stay in reasonably decent health in their elder years. They follow these issues intently.

Now, some of them watch Fox News all day and think the system is about the implode and so the system must be destroyed in order to save it. But even on its best day, Fox News only reaches a couple million people and at last census count there were 40.3 million people age 65, and it's growing every day with baby boomers, not all of whom are wingnuts. I don't know that Ryan can count on all of them being as gullible as the 2010 mid-term electorate was.


Update: On the other hand, President Ward Cleaver comes through with some common sense:

President Barack Obama revived a 2008 campaign promise on Friday, telling the crowd at an AARP forum that he would be open to raising the level of income on which Americans pay Social Security taxes.

"You know, I do think that looking at changing the cap is an important aspect of putting Social Security on a more stable footing," Obama said, via satellite feed. "And what I've said is, is that I'm willing to work with Republicans and examine all their ideas, but what I'm not going to do, as a matter of principle, is to slash benefits or privatize Social Security and suddenly turn it over to Wall Street -- because we saw what could happen back in 2008 and 2009 when the stock market crashed, and we are still recovering from that."

.

digby 9/21/2012 12:00:00 PM |

 
Paul Krugman's Greatest Column (And That's Saying A Lot)

by tristero

Yes, there are many great Krugman's columns, but this one gets my nomination for the best ever. He's nailed down, with damning examples, the sheer depth of the contempt modern Republicans have for everyone who has to work for a living.

Forget the 47% stat - way too generous. It's the 99% these people despise and dismiss - and are not afraid to say so - over and over and over again. Here's a little taste, but it will take only a few minutes to read the entire thing:

Consider the Twitter message sent out by Eric Cantor, the Republican House majority leader, on Labor Day — a holiday that specifically celebrates America’s workers. Here’s what it said, in its entirety: “Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.” Yes, on a day set aside to honor workers, all Mr. Cantor could bring himself to do was praise their bosses.

Wow. And then Krugman demonstrates this is not just one tone-deaf ghost-writer working for a hack. This rhetorical garbage goes right up to the top of the ticket:

Lest you think that this was just a personal slip, consider Mr. Romney’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. What did he have to say about American workers? Actually, nothing: the words “worker” or “workers” never passed his lips.  

Wow. And there's more, much more because Krugman, unlike Mr. Kristof, has no compunction about connecting the dots. I don't want to spoil it for you!

Democrats would be crazy not to run with this (I know, I know...)

In any event, you can bet your sweet bippy that some Republican stratergy-ist has also read What Krugman Says and has sounded the alarum. And so, from now until November, we will be treated to the very amusing spectacle of two uber-elitists -  Romney and Ryan - struggling against all their upper-class twit prejudices to utter that word that screams dirty fingernails and grimy overalls -"worker" - and like it.

(Edited to fix a scrambled cut-and-paste in the last paragraph.)






tristero 9/21/2012 10:30:00 AM |

 
Dispatch from the Grand Bargain trenches

by digby

There's lots of talk about the Grand Bargain these days in the press, what with impending Armageddon, (which the congress may or may not kick down the road six months.)Here's a story from yesterday:

A group of U.S. senators is quietly attempting to do something almost unthinkable in Washington: craft a bipartisan solution to the nation’s growing deficit in an election year.

They are looking at reviving a proposal by the leaders of President Barack Obama’s failed 2010 deficit-cutting commission to require Congress to act on a long-term plan, said Senator Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat. The lawmakers want to offer a plan during the lame-duck session of Congress after the Nov. 6 election.

“The thing that has the greatest potential to succeed is, in the lame duck, a framework agreement is reached on a grand bargain to reduce deficits and debt by at least $4 trillion over 10 years,” said Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman and a member of the new group of eight senators.

Today, Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, also embraced the debt commission leaders’ proposal. “Everybody knows what the solution is, and that’s Simpson-Bowles,” he said in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s Peter Cook, on the new program “Capitol Gains,” airing Sept. 23.

What comes next may be the reporter misunderstanding the real outlines of the negotiations, although I would not be surprised if that's being discussed:

The U.S. faces a so-called fiscal cliff in January, when $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts over 10 years will start and the George W. Bush-era tax cuts will expire, unless Congress breaks its deadlock on a plan to replace it. Democrats propose letting tax cuts expire for top earners, while Republicans want spending reductions instead of more tax revenue.

Basically, that would be Democrats getting what going to happen if nobody does anything in exchange for Republicans getting cuts in vital government programs. What a deal.

Now, to be fair, I haven't heard that before, so I'm guessing the reporter may have constructed that scenario since it's not attributed to anyone. The Democrats haven't been openly saying they'd be willing to exchange the expiration of the tax cuts for the rich for spending cuts. And frankly, I think that's probably a non-starter for the Republicans. I suspect that any deal that includes tax hikes must be tax hikes that are largely illusory. (And keep in mind that no matter what, the tax hikes will be temporary while the cuts will be permanent --- it's always a good time to cut taxes, after all. It's yer muneeee...)

The latest can kick is another "trigger", (a trigger to replace a trigger...)

Under one alternative being considered by the group of senators, Congress would be given six months to overhaul U.S. tax law and entitlement programs such as Social Security. If lawmakers can’t agree, the deficit panel leaders’ plan would be triggered, Conrad confirmed in an interview yesterday.

It's possible this will go nowhere. But the Pete Peterson circus is coming to town and they've got a great big pile of money:

An organization founded by Erskine Bowles and Al Simpson announced Tuesday that it has raised more than $25 million to launch a national campaign to encourage policy makers to pass debt legislation in the coming months.

The Campaign to Fix the Debt has collected contributions from corporate CEOs and others for a national media campaign and advertising campaign to urge lawmakers reach a solution to the debt crisis.

The organization was founded by Bowles, a Charlotte investment banker and former president of the University of North Carolina and Simpson, the former Wyoming senator, who headed a deficit commission appointed by President Barack Obama.
The Campaign to Fix the Debt is being chaired by former Sen. Judd Gregg and former Gov. Edward Rendell, a Republican and a Democrat.

And they're getting their powerful, wealthy unlucky duckies in a row:

House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer sought out Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan on the House floor for a talk about fiscal issues late Thursday.

The two men huddled in plain view among the back benches of the Republican side of the chamber and were later joined by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican who ranks fourth in House leadership.

Hoyer “congratulated Chairman Ryan on his selection as the Republicans’ Vice Presidential candidate, and told him that after the election, both parties will need to work together on a big, balanced plan to address the fiscal cliff,” Hoyer spokeswoman Katie Grant said.

No matter what happens in the November presidential and congressional elections, Ryan, Hoyer and Hensarling figure to play prominent roles in any major deal on spending and taxes.

Ryan left the campaign trail to vote on a measure designed to prevent the administration from granting states waivers from work requirements in the nation’s main welfare law.

It was Hoyer who crossed the floor from the Democratic side of the aisle to find Ryan among a throng of adoring GOP colleagues. Hoyer demonstratively shook Ryan’s hand, and a few minutes later the two found some empty space to have what appeared to be a serious discussion about the fiscal cliff.

Ryan told a well-wishing fellow Republican to hold on a minute so he could first talk to Hoyer.

“I’ve got to talk to this man first,” Ryan called out in a voice loud enough to be heard through the open doors of the chamber.

It's impossible to know what's going to happen. But it's pretty clear what the political establishment wants to happen. And it's bad news for the people.


.





digby 9/21/2012 08:57:00 AM |

 
I guess this is why they use her sparingly

by David Atkins

Ann Romney, showing her usual poise and grace:



And here's some more Mitt.



These are imperious people with ugly souls.

.
thereisnospoon 9/21/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Thursday, September 20, 2012

 
Sadly, it isn't just the rich people

by digby

Mitt Romney:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them"

His base:

digby 9/20/2012 07:30:00 PM |

 
Perishing as they should

by digby

Mike Konczal has published a fun and informative history of the 47% meme, starting with the Lucky Duckies back in the beginning of the last decade. I've been following this pretty closely and I had no idea that it was both so coordinated and so pervasive.

But the basic concept itself goes waaaay back. You can read various iterations of tales of the "idle poor" throughout Victorian literature. (The picture in this post shows our own All American history with the theme.) But I think my favorite example has to be this one from 1957:

Just so.  "Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason, perish as they should." That's called "unrelenting justice."

Nobody should think a thing about the fact that the same man went on to become the most powerful Central Banker in world history for nearly two decades.  The same decades that saw the system changed dramatically to favor the 1%.  There's nothing to see there at all. Move along citizen.

.
digby 9/20/2012 06:00:00 PM |