Jon Anon for Senate

Why the GOP must come to terms with George W. Bush's disastrous presidency

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:23:52 -0800

Why the GOP must come to terms with George W. Bush's disastrous presidency:

Start with foreign policy. From the 1960s until the 21st century, Republicans reliably enjoyed the trust of the public to manage America’s foreign affairs and protect its national security. The attacks of September 11 gave George W. Bush the opportunity to build on that reputation. Instead, he squandered it by mismanaging the war in Afghanistan and plunging the nation into a disaster in Iraq.

Not every setback was Bush’s fault. Nevertheless, the president bears more personal responsibility for foreign policy than any other issue. In most Americans’ minds, then, Afghanistan and Iraq were Bush’s wars. By the conventional logic of politics, that means that they are Republican wars, too.

Yet Republican reformers are reluctant to admit the obstacle that Bush’s legacy poses to public confidence on foreign affairs. Although they acknowledge that the wars have been unpopular and expensive, they present these facts in the passive voice, as if the deaths of nearly 7,000 Americans were the result of weather or other uncontrollable forces. Here is how Gerson and Wehner describe the loss of the GOP’s foreign policy advantage: “Nor has the decidedly mixed legacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade worked to bolster the Republicans’ electoral advantage in the conduct of foreign policy; if anything, the opposite is the case.” Who do they think they’re fooling?

Then there’s the economy. The reformers write eloquently, and correctly, of the need for Republican responses to long-term problems of unemployment, wage stagnation, and rising health-care and education costs. As with foreign policy, however, they are reluctant to acknowledge that the Bush administration did little to reverse these trends, and in some ways exacerbated them. In an otherwise compelling critique of Republicans’ fixation on marginal income tax rates, Ponnuru manages not to mention that the Bush administration regarded tax cuts as a signature achievement. Ordinary citizens have longer memories.

azspot: Both Sides Are NOT To Blame For Sequester!

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 07:51:21 -0800

azspot:

Both Sides Are NOT To Blame For Sequester!

"A coherent long-term progressive strategic direction would build upon the remaining energies of..."

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:39:35 -0700

“A coherent long-term progressive strategic direction would build upon the remaining energies of traditional liberal reform, animated over time by new populist anger and movements aimed at confronting corporate power, the extreme concentration of income, failing public services, the ecological crisis, and military adventurism.”

- Preventing the Fall of Rome (via azspot)

The invisible welfare state of the top one percent

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 14:14:53 -0800

The invisible welfare state of the top one percent:

Other programs, like Medicare, are provided by the government, but eligibility is mostly automatic, and recipients have paid into them. Beneficiaries of such programs are somewhat less likely to realize they’re on a government dole than beneficiaries of means-tested programs.

Then there’s what Mettler calls “the submerged state.” These policies are mostly, though not exclusively, tax breaks. They include the much-beloved home-mortgage interest deduction and the tax exclusion for employer-provided health care. Recipients of these policies — and there are tens of millions of them — are rarely cognizant that they’re benefiting from a government program.

But they are. “Indirect social policies offer benefits that are comparable to direct social benefits both in their purposes and in their costs,” Mettler and Koch write. “Both are targeted to specific groups of people, aimed to reward some kind of activity or some class of persons whom policymakers deem worthy of public support. From an accounting perspective, as well, both types have the same effect: They impose costs on the federal budget, whether incurred through fiscal obligations or lost revenues.”

The costs are significant. Huge, in fact. Tax expenditures now cost the federal government $1 trillion annually — more than Medicare and Medicaid combined. And they’re regressive.

There is also a pattern to these programs: The more a government social program benefits wealthier Americans, the less obtrusive it is. We design policies for the poor in ways that make it hard to escape the knowledge that the government is providing help. But richer Americans rely on programs that are “submerged.”

By the Numbers: The Myth of the Overtaxed Corporation

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:12:47 -0800

By the Numbers: The Myth of the Overtaxed Corporation

"Well, this is probably mind-blowing to some, but I argue that President Obama is more conservative..."

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:48:11 -0800

“Well, this is probably mind-blowing to some, but I argue that President Obama is more conservative (in the sense I’ve just described) than any of the Republican candidates. There are lots of reasons for that, and I’d be happy to go into it in more detail with anyone who would like to spar over it a bit. But for now I’ll just note the most important: I believe President Obama has demonstrated a pragmatic approach to governing that seeks incremental change. Meanwhile, it is the leading voices of the right who are increasingly ideological in their politics. It is the right which demands a utopia. To be sure, this utopianism is cloaked in conservative language, but pining for a return to a mythically pure and prosperous past that never was is no less a pipe dream than seeking a perfect future.”

- Jesse Curtis (via azspot)

The Problem with Right To Work

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:21:32 -0800

The Problem with Right To Work:

One of the things to pay attention to in Mitt Romney’s latest South Carolina ad is his implicit defense of the state’s “right-to-work” law, which makes it more difficult for unions to organize. “The National Labor Relations Board, now stacked with union stooges selected by the president, says to a free enterprise like Boeing, ‘You can’t build a factory in South Carolina because South Carolina is a Right to Work state,’” Romney says in the ad. “That is simply un-American. It is political payback of the worst kind.” Combine this with his attack on President Obama as a “crony capitalist,” and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Romney tout right-to-work laws as part of his strategy for reviving the economy.

The problem, of course, is that said laws do nothing of the sort. The Economic Policy Institute has a great primer on the actual effect of right-to-work laws on workers, wages, and employment. On the whole, RTW laws “reduce wages by $1,500 a year, for both union and nonunion workers”, “lower the likelihood that employees get healthcare or pensions through their jobs…for both union and nonunion employees”, and “have no impact whatsoever on job growth.” Moreover, the job growth attributed to right-to-work laws has more to do with warm weather and population growth than it does with a particular legal regime.

"Local and state police forces have been militarized not only in their equipment and armament but..."

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:19:45 -0800

“Local and state police forces have been militarized not only in their equipment and armament but also in their attitude toward the public. Despite the absence of domestic terror attacks, Homeland Security conducts warrantless searches of cars and trucks on highways and of passengers using public transportation. A uniformed federal service is being trained to systematically violate the constitutional rights of citizens, and citizens are being trained to accept these violations as normal. The young have no memory of being able to board public transportation or use public roadways without intrusive searches or to gather in protest without being brutalized by the police. Liberty is being moved into the realm of myth and legend. In such a system as is being constructed in public in front of our eyes, there is no freedom, no democracy, and no liberty. What stands before us is naked tyranny. While America degenerates into a total police state, politicians constantly invoke “our values.” What are these values? Indefinite imprisonment without conviction in a court. Torture. Warrantless searches and home invasions. An epidemic of police brutality. Curtailment of free speech and peaceful assembly rights. Unprovoked aggression called “preemptive war.” Interference in the elections and internal affairs of other countries. Economic sanctions imposed on foreign populations whose leaders are not in Washington’s pocket.”

- Paul Craig Roberts (via azspot)

2 Bold Ideas Obama Should Embrace to Stand Apart from Mitt Romney

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:11:14 -0800

2 Bold Ideas Obama Should Embrace to Stand Apart from Mitt Romney:

It is time to transition from repairing the enormous structural damage done by the cataclysm the president inherited to establishing policies to restore the American middle class, reduce inequality, and improve America’s competitiveness. Here are two ideas for him to consider.

First, an idea that will not only generate greater equity and simplicity in the tax code but also create a powerful ideological divide between the president and Romney. The president should propose treating capital gains as ordinary income. The preference given to capital gains—now taxed at a mere 15 percent even for those in the top income brackets—serves no economic purpose, and magnifies the inequity in the tax code. Why give any preference to income that results from the sale of an appreciated asset as opposed to income that is the product of work? There is no compelling answer to this question, and absolutely no credible evidence that investment will be hindered if the capital-gains preference is eliminated.

Indeed, the Bowles-Simpson report suggested the elimination of the capital-gains preference, and the Bipartisan Policy Center, which is chock-full of prominent government officials of both parties and private-sector executives, has also endorsed the idea. Bizarrely, the Republicans are going in just the opposite direction: They want to eliminate all taxation of dividends and capital gains, thus increasing inequity.

Second, the moment is ripe for investment in education. We all know that the era of competition based on intellectual capital is upon us, and the United States is at great risk of falling behind China, India, and Europe. One problem magnifying this is the burden of student debt, which is surging as entry-level jobs are either unavailable or exist only at wage levels insufficient to cover debt payoffs. The president should embrace an idea originally proposed by Milton Friedman and James Tobin, recently pushed by Robert Reich in his wonderful book Aftershock, as well as by me here in Slate two years ago. It’s simple: Have the government pay for college education for students in return for an agreed-upon repayment of a fixed percentage of post-graduate income. The beauty of this is that all barriers to education are eliminated. Everybody can go: No cash is needed up front. And the magnitude of your repayment is calibrated to what you earn, permitting freedom of choice with respect to jobs. Does this require those who earn more to pay more? Yes, but that is a fair transaction. Repayment is calibrated to the payback you get from the education. The numbers can be arranged such that the government is made entirely whole and educational opportunities are increased exponentially. And we would eliminate the problem of student debt that now crushes opportunity.

Republicans Try to Impose Selfishness on American People

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:57:15 -0800

Republicans Try to Impose Selfishness on American People:

All year, Republicans have demanded an end to programs the middle class created to aid the majority, the 99 percent. The GOP wants to reverse the new banking regulations that were passed in an attempt to prevent another economic collapse caused by risky Wall Street practices. The GOP tried to to rescind the healthcare reform law that prevents insurance companies from terminating coverage when beneficiaries get sick and prohibits the practice of refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Influential Republicans this year have called for repealing laws forbidding child labor, laws guaranteeing minimum wage and laws protecting the environment. They’ve demanded elimination of federal funding for organizations like the Public Broadcasting System that educates preschoolers, Head Start, which provides opportunity to poor children, and Planned Parenthood, which uses 97 percent of its funds to provide general, obstetrical and gynecological medical care to women, many of whom are rural and poor.

Republicans have decided to be the party of Henry Potter, the “meanest man in the county,” a man about whom George Bailey’s father said: “he’s a sick man, frustrated. Sick in his mind, sick in his soul, if he has one.”

Like Potter, Republicans deride compassion and community as character defects.

edkohler: soupsoup: Why people hate Congress, in one...

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:46:17 -0800

edkohler:

soupsoup:

Why people hate Congress, in one chart

based on data from Wealth, Income, and Power

This doesn’t make me hate congress. But it does help explain why they seem so detached from the problems facing most Americans.

The Wealth Gap Between Congress and Voters Is Growing

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:40:20 -0800

The Wealth Gap Between Congress and Voters Is Growing:

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post have separate reports today about the widening wealth gap between members of Congress and the people they represent. Almost half of all Congresspeople are millionaires and their median net worth has climbed to $913,000, compared to $100,000 for the rest of America households. According to the Post, that number drops to $725,000 when excluding home equity (and adjusting for inflation), but the same median figure for American families is just $20,500. And that gap has only grown wider in recent years. Read more.

The energy driving OWS movement comes from deep within the collective soul of a new generation of young Americans who have been disenfranchised by clueless politicians who are trapped deep inside a corrupt two-party political system no longer capable of changing. And our youth are enraged.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:05:59 -0800

The energy driving OWS movement comes from deep within the collective soul of a new generation of young Americans who have been disenfranchised by clueless politicians who are trapped deep inside a corrupt two-party political system no longer capable of changing. And our youth are enraged. :

wilwheaton:

“This primal cry for democracy sprang from young people who could no longer ignore the angst in their gut — the premonition that their future does not compute, that their entire lives will be lived in the apocalyptic shadow of climate-change tipping points, species die-offs, a deadening commercialized culture, a political system perverted by money, precarious employment, a struggle to pay off crippling student loans, and no chance of ever owning a home or living in comfort like their parents. Glimpsing this black hole of ecological, political, financial and spiritual crisis, the youth and the millions of Americans who joined them instinctively knew that unless they stood up and fought nonviolently for a different kind of future, they would have no future at all.”

Yes, America’s youth are the voice of the 99%, Americans inspired by the Arab Spring revolutions. American youth are fueling “the greatest social-justice movement to emerge in the United States since the civil rights era.”

“This kind of military mindset and violent response to nonviolent protesters makes no sense. It did not work in the Middle East, and it’s not going to work in America either. This is the bottom line … you cannot attack your young and get away with it.”

Repeat that “bottom line … you cannot attack your young and get away with it.” And yet, that’s exactly what Wall Street, America’s superrich, their lobbyists and all their bought politicians are doing: “attacking our young.” Attacking our next generation. Attacking America’s future.

"Here’s an area for both some disruption and some lobbying. Let’s build tools that allow members of..."

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:01:56 -0800

“Here’s an area for both some disruption and some lobbying. Let’s build tools that allow members of Congress to aggregate messages being sent to them, and to associate those messages with congressional districts. Let’s come up with a way for a member to see what their constituency is saying about any particular issue they’d like, and let’s provide that as an open service so that anybody can see what a particular constituency is saying. That way, when a member has a track record of voting against the desires of a substantial portion of his or her district, we’ve got a record of it, and it can get brought up in the next election.At the same time, it’s also an area for some great lobbying. Hardware and software platforms are no more or less secure inside or outside the walls of Congress. Let’s lobby for a rules change that allows our members to use the software they want to use. It’s a non-political no-brainer that could allow members to work with businesses in their own districts rather than in Washington, and could help government attach itself to Moore’s law like the rest of us.”

- Clay Johnson (via azspot)

"So, no, we don’t hate the rich. What we hate are the predators. What we hate are the people who we..."

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:08:39 -0800

“So, no, we don’t hate the rich. What we hate are the predators. What we hate are the people who we view as having found their success as a consequence of the damage their activities have done to our country. What we hate are those who take and give nothing back in the form of innovation, convenience, entertainment or scientific progress. We hate those who’ve exploited political relationships and stupidity to rake in even more of the nation’s wealth while simultaneously driving the potential for success further away from the grasp of everyone else.”

- Dear Jamie Dimon, | The Reformed Broker

Plus One Billion.
(via tbridge)

azspot: Occupy and History: Are We Near the End and What Will it Mean?>How then might Occupy...

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:03:26 -0800

azspot:

Occupy and History: Are We Near the End and What Will it Mean?
>How then might Occupy have changed the discourse? What fundamental ideas and approaches has it promoted? It would seem to me that the major ideas (and one could add or subtract a few no doubt) would include: >-*Direct Democracy:* A commitment to not only increased transparency in government, but also a stronger voice for citizens in it. Our republic was founded on the principle of indirect democracy, wherein the citizenry makes no political decisions other than to elect some of their rulers, and in fact most rulers are appointed by other rulers (judges, the president by the electoral college, originally U.S. Senators by state legislatures, etc.). Over the last two centuries, Americans have been able to choose more of their leaders directly (eg. U.S. Senators, some judges), and even make the occasional local or state-wide policy decision through popular referendum. Occupy, with its anarcho-collective roots and organization, is clearly dedicated to more direct democracy in American politics. >-*Diminishing Corporate Influence:* In particular Occupy has harnessed widespread anger at the financial corporations that drove this economy into the ground and then received public money by the trillions. But more generally, the movement has fundamentally rejected the strong political power of corporations, both through the legal fiction of corporate personhood and through the almost incomprehensibly strong influence corporations exercise on our governments. Diminishing corporate influence in American politics has been a basic tenet of this movement. >-*Distribution of Wealth:* A top heavy distribution of wealth during the Roaring `20s was one of many contributing factors to the Great Depression. As the economy heated up and American businesses eventually overproduced, consumers were incapable of absorbing those excess goods and services because there were simply too many poor and working class people without expendable income. What about the rich? Well, no matter how much money you have, you only need so many refrigerators. For Occupy, however, a top-heavy distribution of wealth, framed in its hallmark 99% slogan, isn’t simply a matter of sound economic policy. It’s a matter of economic and social justice.

"It is my profound conviction that the world requires – today more than ever – enlightened,..."

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 23:36:19 -0800

“It is my profound conviction that the world requires – today more than ever – enlightened, thoughtful politicians who are bold and broad-minded enough to consider things that lie beyond the scope of their immediate influence in both space and time. We need politicians willing and able to rise above their own power interests, or the particular interests of their parties or states, and act in accordance with the fundamental interests of humanity today – that is, to behave the way everyone should behave, even though most may fail to do so.”

- Vaclav Havel (via azspot)

Louis CK's Shameful Dirty Comedy

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:02:14 -0800

viafrank:

I’ve been thinking about Louis CK lately. I’m a fan of his show on FX, and I’m so happy his recent adventure in distributing his newest comedy special himself has been a rousing success. But my thoughts are going elsewhere to wonder why he has blown up in popularity in the past couple years, and why his comedy seems to resonate with these times. It always feels like there’s a comedian willing to address contemporary concerns with insight and honesty for each moment in time. All the greats had their focus: Richard Pryor and Chris Rock had race, George Carlin had absurdity, and I think Louis has hit on some sort of subterranean undercurrent of emotion that I didn’t realize might be swelling until I listened more closely: shame.

Read More

wilwheaton: (via)

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:36:41 -0800

wilwheaton:

(via)

The Defining Issue: Not Government's Size, but Who It's For

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:27:09 -0800

robertreich:

The defining political issue of 2012 won’t be the government’s size. It will be who government is for.

Americans have never much liked government. After all, the nation was conceived in a revolution against government.

But the surge of cynicism now engulfing America isn’t about government’s size. It’s the growing perception that government isn’t working for average people. It’s for big business, Wall Street, and the very rich instead.

In a recent Pew Foundation poll, 77 percent of respondents said too much power is in the hands of a few rich people and corporations.

That’s understandable. To take a few examples:

— Wall Street got bailed out but homeowners caught in the fierce downdraft caused by the Street’s excesses have got almost nothing.

— Big agribusiness continues to rake in hundreds of billions in price supports and ethanol subsidies. Big pharma gets extended patent protection that drives up everyone’s drug prices. Big oil gets its own federal subsidy. But small businesses on the Main Streets of America are barely making it.

— American Airlines uses bankruptcy to ward off debtors and renegotiate labor contracts. Donald Trump’s businesses go bankrupt without impinging on Trump’s own personal fortune. But the law won’t allow you to use personal bankruptcy to renegotiate your home mortgage.

— If you run a giant bank that defrauds millions of small investors of their life savings, the bank might pay a small fine but you won’t go to prison. Not a single top Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for Wall Street’s mega-fraud. But if you sell an ounce of marijuana you could be put away for a long time.

Not a day goes by without Republicans decrying the budget deficit. But the biggest single reason for the yawning deficit is big money’s corruption of Washington. And it’s not just corporate welfare.

One of the deficit’s biggest drivers — Medicare – would be lower if Medicare could use its bargaining leverage to get drug companies to reduce their prices. Why hasn’t it happened? Big Pharma won’t allow it.

Medicare’s administrative costs are only 3 percent, far below the 10 percent average administrative costs of private insurers. So why not tame rising healthcare costs for all Americans by allowing any family to opt in? That was the idea behind the “public option.” Health insurers stopped it in its tracks.

The other big budgetary expense is national defense. America spends more on our military than do China, Russia, Britain, France, Japan, and Germany combined. The basic defense budget (the portion unrelated to the costs of fighting wars) keeps growing, now about 25 percent higher than it was a decade ago, adjusted for inflation.

That’s because defense contractors have cultivated sponsors on Capitol Hill and located their plants and facilities in politically important congressional districts.

So we keep spending billions on Cold War weapons systems like nuclear attack submarines, aircraft carriers, and manned combat fighters that pump up the bottom lines of Bechtel, Martin-Marietta, and their ilk, but have nothing to do with 21st-century combat.

Declining tax receipts are also driving the deficit. That’s partly because most Americans have less income to tax these days.

Yet the richest Americans are taking home a bigger share of total income than at any time since the 1920s. Their tax payments are down because the Bush tax cuts reduced their top rates to the lowest level in more than half a century, and cut capital gains taxes to 15 percent.

Congress hasn’t even closed a loophole that allows mutual-fund and private-equity managers to treat their incomes as capital gains.

So the four hundred richest Americans, whose total wealth exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 150 Americans put together, pay an average of 17 percent of their income in taxes. That’s lower than the tax rates of most day laborers and child-care workers.

Meanwhile, Social Security payroll taxes continue to climb as a share of total tax revenues. Yet the payroll tax is regressive, applying only to yearly income under $106,800.

And the share of revenues coming from corporations has been dropping. The biggest, like GE, find ways to pay no federal taxes at all. Many shelter their income abroad, and every few years Congress grants them a tax amnesty to bring the money home.

**

Get it? “Big government” isn’t the problem. The problem is big money is taking over government.

Government is doing less of the things most of us want it to do — providing good public schools and affordable access to college, improving our roads and bridges and water systems, and maintaining safety nets to catch average people who fall — and more of the things big corporations, Wall Street, and the wealthy want it to do.

Some conservatives argue we wouldn’t have to worry about big money taking over government if we had a smaller government to begin with.

Here’s what Congressman Paul Ryan told me Sunday morning when we were debating all this on ABC’s “This Week”:

If the power and money are going to be here in Washington, that’s where the influence is going to go … that’s where the powerful are going to go to influence it.

Ryan has it upside down. A smaller government that’s still dominated by money would continue to do the bidding of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, oil companies, big agribusiness, big insurance, military contractors, and rich individuals.

It just wouldn’t do anything else.

If we want to get our democracy back we’ve got to get big money out of politics.

We need real campaign finance reform.

And a constitutional amendment reversing the Supreme Court’s bizarre rulings that under the First Amendment money is speech and corporations are people.

　