Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanza, Happy Holidays and Merry/Happy/Safe/Fun holiday season to all.

Also, happy almost 2012.

North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran, oh my!

The death of the illustrious leader, or whatever title he was going by, highlights the uncertainty and fragility of North Korea, creating a potentially turbulent political situation in a rogue country that has spent years developing crude nuclear weapons at the expense of food for the population.

North Korea is one of three (semi) nuclear countries in which the political situation is fragile and the potential for nuclear proliferation is rife, the others being Pakistan and (almost) Iran.  Of there three countries, one is nominally our ally, and the other two we (rightfully) shun diplomatically. Though Pakistan doesn't really deserve much of the aid we give them, the country is - and I can't believe I'm quoting Michelle Bachmann (perhaps the only smart things she's ever said) - too nuclear to fail.

Nuclear weapons are a reality of the world we live in; they aren't going away.  During the Cold War the idea of mutually assured destruction ensured that no one was going to push the button and end life on the planet.  Nuclear war is not something that I fear no matter how many test missiles North Korea launches as a perverse 21-gun salute to Kim Jong-il.

What I do fear and what is much more likely is that someway, somehow, some terrorist organization gets their hands on a nuclear device whether from North Korea, Iran, or Pakistan, none of which are stable or trustworthy.  Though there are still traditional security concerns that still require traditional military measures and planning (Iran being one of them), America's approach to security must be centered around the threat posed to American cities by rogue groups with access to nuclear material.  Obviously this isn't news to anyone, but I fear a rogue group or a rogue nation (I'm looking at your Iran) with nukes way more than I fear a traditional war with whomever.

Nuclear weapons aren't going anywhere, which makes it especially important that our leaders are attuned to this threat that unsecured nuclear material poses.  Unfortunately, unsecured nuclear material is often out of our grasp and sometimes - in the case of North Korea's program - even out of our vision.  I hope that our leaders are making the appropriate plans for dealing with the threat of nuclear proliferation because recent turmoil in Pakistan, Iran, and most recently North Korea make it rogue nukes more of a concern than ever.

Americans Elect

Much as I lambast the Republican party, I am neither numb to what is, perhaps, the biggest problem in American politics: big money and special interests; nor am I naive enough to think that only one party is culpable.  Democrats and Republicans are both more beholden to special interests and the money they flaunt, than to the American people.  While I am not yet jaded enough to think that this tacit corruption has destroyed our political system, I certainly believe that the whole country would benefit if we could rid ourselves of the money running the show.

A group with this goal already exists - Americans Elect.  I signed up for Americans Elect a few months back after reading about the group in a Thomas Friedman article.  As my involvement has deepened, I have become more of a believer in the group's goal - taking power away from the moneyed establishment and returning it to "we the people."

To be fair, there are legitimate criticisms of the group, primarily that it receives serious financial backing from unidentified sources, hardly the kind of transparency that American democracy needs.  Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the open nominating process Americans Elect is trying to create will ultimately be a boon to American politics.  The recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals was an embarrassment and a political travesty as it only makes corruption legal.  Americans Elect is trying to reverse the trend, and in that endeavor, we should all support them.  The American people deserve a political system that - even with divided over how to best serve us - is beholden to us.

Right now, government either cannot or will not serve us, and it isn't difficult to determine that many of the policy failures are the product of special interests lobbying.  Take for example, the financial lobby's crusade against regulation of banking, regulation that - had it been in place - may have saved us from the current economic crisis. On the other side of the aisle, the health care law would have been stronger if it had included provisions making it more difficult to sue for malpractice - provisions opposed by trial lawyers.

I encourage readers to visit the Americans Elect website and get behind the movement to remove money and special interests from our political system.  I won't pretend that this is a perfect method.  Even as an active member, I am still trying to learn more about the group, but it is an enticing alternative to a political system in which candidates regularly host fundraising dinners at which many Americans could never afford to sit down for dinner even if we had been invited.

Goodbye Iraq

America's near decade long war in Iraq formally, if not actually, came to a close today.  There are a variety of subjects worth debating when discussing the Iraq War: WMD; terrorism; nation-building; the ongoing mission even after our departure; etc.

I have before and will again share my thoughts on some of those issues as they pertain to what I see as America's duty to our citizens, our troops, our allies, and our responsibility to the global community.

But today's post is not about any of those topics.  Today, I want to acknowledge America's men and women in uniform and the hard work they have done over the past eight to ten years, both in Iraq and - currently - in Afghanistan, where one of my best friends is still serving.

Americans have different feelings about our foreign involvements, but regardless of those views, we should always support our brave countrymen who put their lives on the line.  America would not be the great country it is without your willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice.  Thank you.

Amnesty or Arizona?

These, if you keep up with the politics of immigration, are the only roads before us.  We must either pardon all illegal immigrants for their transgressions (real or imagined) and put them all on the path to citizenship, or we have to round up all 12 million or so of them and send them back to where they came from (which, if you believe conservative rhetoric, is Mexico).

Which would you choose: amnesty or Arizona? Surely there must be a middle ground lost somewhere in the debate over the economy and the fact that bipartisanship is a word of the past.

The Obama administration has been good about policing the border and challenging Arizona's draconian and bigoted excuse for a law, but immigration as a political issue has taken a back seat to the economy.  Given the intrinsic link between the two, this failure to address immigration in more than a token "beef up the border, but don't give in to the bigots," manner is shortsighted.

Ironically it is a Republican candidate who is leading the way on actual immigration reform.  Just as George W. Bush offered tough but moral policies to deal with immigration - only to be rebuffed by the baser elements of his party - Newt Gingrich is now doing the same (probably only to suffer Bush's fate).

America's approach to immigration should be tough but moral and practical.  The ole "America is a nation of immigrants" line is tried and true, but it's not going to win any converts from the ranks of those who think we should slash government spending except to pay astronomical sums to round up and deport all 11-12 million people living in America illegally.  The immigration approach that we should be playing up is about how immigrants bring new ideas to America and help increase innovation and competition, reinvigorating the economy rather than dragging it down.  Are there people here mooching off the system? Sure there are.  Are there illegal immigrants committing felonies? Absolutely.  Is it practical to amnesty to everyone living here illegally and put them on the path to citizenship?  Probably not. But the best approach is open avenues for legal immigration going forward while addressing the people already living here illegally in small subgroups.  This is where Newt has some good ideas.

Sure, there is some bunk in there, but Newt makes a lot of good points; he recognizes that the majority of illegal immigrants are gang members pushing drugs on America's susceptible youth and committing wanton drive-by shootings, but he also emphasizes that there is a need to identify and rid America of illegal criminals.  The plan is practical, based on sound economic principals and history, and even - surprise! - tilts in the right direction morally.  Without thinking this is a perfect plan, I am impressed.

America should not be neglecting the immigration issue.  It is important for economic recovery and growth, and quite frankly, it is deeply interwoven with our national identity.  Many presidents have tried and failed to address immigration sensibly, and many others have ignored the issue.  I support the measures taken by the Obama administration, but the President and Mr. Gingrich both need to be more vocal about the need for immigration reform.  The entire country would benefit from some of the ideas they espouse.  

Now What?

Every four years America elects a president, and while voting only happens on one day, the campaign begins in earnest the day the president-elect becomes the president.  Then, a year a half before the election, things get really intense. 

We're now only about a month away from the New Hampshire primary, schedule for January 10th, which is of course only 10 months before the general election...because, you know, the politicians don't have anything more important to do than campaign.  On January 10th, the good voters on New Hampshire will give one of the goons vying to displace President Obama a boost by selecting him or her as the candidate who has said the most nonsensical things during the campaign.  It will undoubtedly be a tough choice, even without Herman Cain. 

This is politics in America, two years of governance - though I hesitate to use that term - and two years of politicking...is it any wonder that the government does nothing? What if I only showed up to work three days a week...sounds nice actually.

But if our politicians are going to spend the next 11 months trying to get elected or reelected then we should at least ask them why?  What are we going to have to show for it if we pick candidate X in November?  What's next? 

Sadly, there doesn't seem to be an answer to this question from either side.  Democrats want to keep us on the same unsustainable path we are on, and Republican are - almost literally, almost - living on another planet or in some kind of pseudo-dream world.  America's officials are long-winded and obstinate, but they're short on ideas, and it's a scary prospect for our nation's future.

As I ponder the direction of our country, and think about what might be done to fix it, I am struck by how much work there is to do and how little of it is being done by those in office.  I'm terrified by one group of people who don't have the foresight to make necessary changes now and another group who desperately wants America to be perpetually stuck in the 1980's. 

America needs leaders who are willing to lead, who can confront reality, and who can make informed decisions about what needs to be done to make our nation better.  We need individual with ideas other than the maintenance of a shaky status quo or the reversion to policies that have proven themselves wanting.  I don't know where those people will come from - certainly the President has moments where he is among them - but we need to find them fast because America cannot afford to wait much longer. 

What Can't We Do?

It's bad news when a prestigious member of your own party and a former Secretary of Defense calls you out on your intransigence and stupidity.  Yet that is what happened on Monday when it became clear that talks by the - and here's a funny term - "supercommittee"(as though there is anything super about Congress) fell apart.

The talks were never going anywhere in the first place.  It isn't a secret that Republicans think they can use stubbornness and stupidity to win next year's elections.  It's bad politics and it's bad for America, but it's the Republican plan.  But now their intransigence isn't only preventing an economic recovery, it could very well be endangering America, and on Monday, as talks collapsed, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen called Republicans on their dangerous game.

Due to the failure of the supercommittee to reach a compromise - a failure that, like most recent failures, can be blamed on Republican refusal to give an inch to gain a mile - an automatic $1.2 trillion in cuts is set to take place.  Of course, Congress is full of people - in both parties - who are wholly incapable of holding themselves accountable, so those cuts are not scheduled to take place until 2013.  Nonetheless, as of today, the cuts will go into effect since no deal was reached, $600 billion of that $1.2 trillion is to come from the Pentagon's budget.

Put simply, because Republicans refused to compromise, they are now responsible for budget cuts that would "truly devastate our national defense" according to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.  Cuts that would devastate our national defense over higher taxes for millionaires, many of whom are strong proponents of higher taxes on millionaires...disgraceful and embarrassing, a display of cowardice and incompetence by a group of people who are truly unfit to lead.

The issue of closing the budget isn't going away despite the fact that it should have been the secondary issue from the get go, but each successive failure to reach a deal on the deficit cements its position as the leading issue of the day.  The most recent failure obviously does nothing to alleviate the problem - Congress will probably find a way to avoid enacting the cuts - but it does highlight the incompetence of our legislators (one group of them in particular), and it is ominous that even when our national defense is on the line, we still cannot reach simple compromises.

Polls show that most Americans believe the nation is on the wrong path, and until recently I did not count myself among them, but now my faith is wavering - there is a way forward but it seems as though our government is not interested in traveling that road.  I never thought that Republicans would go so far as to gut national security to protect millionaires, but I was wrong.  It is time for a serious national gut check because it is now not only our fiscal house that is in trouble, it's our security system as well.

The Race to Cut

Rick Perry's stumble at the GOP debate last week was a lot of fun wasn't it?  It's always bad news when Ron Paul makes you look bad.  As bad as Perry's gaffe was for him, it is a much worse harbinger for what could happen if a Republican candidate is elected next November.

Perry says he wants to cut three government agencies if elected, a number that seems small in comparison to the five Ron Paul would put on the chopping block.  That's all well and good, but is it true?  Have these people put a moment of thought into what they would be cutting or is the race to be the guy who can cut the most simply the litmus test all Republican candidates must take to pass muster with the Republican base?

Take for example the Department of Energy, the federal agency that, among other things, oversees the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons.  Remember how opposed Republicans were to passing the New START treaty last year because they were worried that dismantling part of our nuclear stockpile would threaten national security?  Well now they want to dismantle the entire agency that is responsible for for that nuclear stockpile.  I would attribute that to hypocrisy, but I don't think that's fair; I think Republicans haven't actually put much, if any, thought into their positions.  The overwhelming desire to pass the ideological purity test has led to wanton statements about cutting without any forethought, plan or strategy.  The reason Rick Perry can't remember which agencies he would cut is because he's probably never really thought about it.  He's not being a hypocrite, he's in a race to prove that he can cut the most mindlessly, and last week he got a bit ahead of himself.

Is there waste and inefficiency in the federal government that could use trimming?  Absolutely there is.  But Rick Perry and the rest of the lot - Ron Paul exempted, but he's just crazy - haven't studied the system enough to know where that waste is and what we can do to eliminate it.  What they do know is that the more they offer to cut, the louder the cheers get and the higher the poll numbers go, so Rick Perry is going to eliminate three federal agencies not because he knows what they do or whether they are necessary but because that makes him look good in the eyes of the conservative base.

This reckless desire to cut is poorly thought out and could have potentially disastrous consequences for the economy and the nation, but more importantly - and this message is for the conservative base - it's just not realistic.  Maybe people get fired up when Perry talks about cutting three federal agencies, or when Ron Paul waxes poetic about the joys of anarchy, but it's not going to happen.  President Perry (god forbid) would never be able to fully eliminate federal agencies the way he talks about.  Many of those agencies provide important services and even Republican Senators and Congressmen would fight to save agencies that provide those services or create jobs in their home states.

The current Republican positions, therefore, aren't only silly, dangerous and not at all thought out, they're empty promises. And the really scary part about this is that if Perry were to become president and subsequently fail to eliminate those agencies - which is what would happen - the rabid far right would simply find someone else who promised to cut four agencies or seven agencies, or just eliminate the government altogether...Ron Paul!! It's a vicious, self-feeding cycle and it's driving the country in the wrong direction.

Election Day 2011

In a story receiving little coverage due to more important issues like the Republican presidential circus, Americans headed to the polls yesterday for "off-year" elections.  Yawn.  Some governors were elected I think, maybe a few judges, perhaps even a couple Congressional seats were filled through special elections.  Whatever...

This year's election day cannot be dismissed as easily as I just tried to make it seem.  In two states, including my home state of Mississippi, important referenda were on the ballots and - cheers America - I'm happy to say that in both Mississippi and Ohio, American voters showed up, cast their votes, and made the right choices.

Let's being in Ohio, one of those swing states that is always so important and prominent during presidential elections.  Last year, Ohio, along with Wisconsin, passed draconian anti-union laws designed to "cut costs." In reality, cutting costs was nothing more than a facade for dismantling unions.  In fairness, public sector unions do need to undertake serious reform, but the laws passed in Ohio and Wisconsin were designed to eliminate unions, not reform them.  In a referendum on Tuesday, Ohio voters overwhelmingly overturned the law, rejecting Republican attempts to make life even harder for working class people.  Perhaps next time Republicans want to enact meaningful policy - and I say again, there is much room for reforming public sector unions - they will focus solely on the meaningful policy rather than pursuing an anti-working class agenda under the guise of "cost control."

Meanwhile, in my home state of Mississippi, arguably one of the most conservative states in the nation, voters rejected the "personhood" amendment, an abomination of a bill that would have made abortion illegal and effectively turned birth control bills into murder weapons.  Unlike the anti-union laws, there is nothing positive to be said about Mississippi's initiative 26.  Although it would have surely been overturned in federal court since it is a direct violation of federal law, the bill was nothing short of an embarrassment that would have stripped Mississippi's women of their rights - the law went so far as to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

So sprinkled in with those judiciary elections there were important takeaways and important decisions made yesterday.  Regardless of what, if anything, these results portend for the 2012 elections, we should be happy that our countrymen made the right decisions on some key issues.  Good Day, USA.

Our Do Nothing Government

Congress has reached a new level of dysfunctionality.  After almost forcing America into default over the summer, Congress imposed on itself a deadline by which to reduce the deficit by November 23rd, a date that is fast approaching.  Needing to trim the deficit $1.2 trillion in order to avoid $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts, the bipartisan committee charged with agreeing on the cuts has so agreed upon $0 worth of deficit reduction...imagine that.

I'm going to take my usual dig at Republicans here since, indeed, they deserve much of the blame.  Democrats on the committee offered a deal that would have cut the deficit by $2.5-3 trillion with cuts to entitlement programs and new tax revenues.  Republican, predictably, placed rigid and outdated ideology over the good of the country. 

But the purpose of this article isn't to slam Republican intransigence.  Because right now Congress - both parties - is making a complete mockery of itself which is saying quite a bit given how worthless Congress has been for the last two year.  As I mentioned before, if Congress fails to reach an agreement on how to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion, then previously agreed upon automatic cuts will go into effect.  While none of this automatic deficit reduction will come through higher taxes, around $500 billion will come from the Pentagon's budget.  This provision was included to counter cuts to domestic spending, the idea being that Democrats would be willing to negotiate to avoid cuts to domestic programs and that Republicans would loathe the idea of cuts to the military so much that they would compromise.

The assumption about domestic cuts was clearly correct as evidenced by the Democratic offer.  But problematically the assumption about military cuts was a poor one.  Not only are Republicans refusing to budge on taxes, but Republicans and Democrats both are now trying to pass new legislation that would prevent cuts to the military from taking place.  Congress can't get anything done.  Congress can't even hold itself accountable.  This is a true embarrassment. 

No one in Congress, Democrat or Republican, wants to make America less safe.  Testimony from the Pentagon brass claims that $500 billion in cuts would hollow out the military.  It's probably true, and no one wants that.  Could the military allocate money more efficiently and spend less?  Absolutley, but no one wants the country to be any less safe.  And that is exactly the reason it would be a real travesty for Congress to undermine whatever shred of credibility they have left and negate the provisions of the law that would cut military spending.  There is another, better way to avoid military cuts - make a deal!

What message does it send about the American government that our politicians can't take the steps to improve our America and then can't even hold themselves to a self-imposed ultimatum?  Is this really the best we can do for our country?

Speaker Boehner, a political rollercoaster, came out against changing the law.  Like everyone, he wants to avoid cuts to the military.  Like me, he thinks the best way to do that is through a deal on the deficit rather than by giving America yet another glaring example of how ludicrous our politicians (and his party in particular) have been for the last few years. 

America deserves better than the circus happening in Washington, DC.  While one party is more to blame than the other, the current debacle is being driven by by Democrats and Republicans.  The only display of bipartisanship in months is the attempt to wiggle out of the minimal commitments that Congress wasn't able to reach. 

If this is the best we can do then perhaps we don't deserve solutions.  I wonder if the Kardashians are annoyed that Congress is stealing their dramatic thunder.  If anything can surpass the vapidness of E TV it is surely the national embarrassment occuring in our nation's capitol. 

To Job or Not to Job

That's not actually the question, or at least it shouldn't be.  At the very least, if it is the question, the answer is obvious right?  Not so fast.

Which would you rather have?
A) Bridges, roads, school buildings, airports and other infrastructure at the cost of a 0.7% tax increase on those making over a million annually (this comes to an average of $13,457 per millionaire)

B) No bridges, roads, school buildings, airports or other infrastructure...period

Though this seems subjective, there is a right answer: choice A. Despite how obvious this is, you won't be surprised to know that some people are picking choice B...you also won't be surprised by who those people are.

The purported party of the economy seems to be doing everything in its power NOT to help the economy.  Though some Republicans championed a bipartisan infrastructure bill in March, not a single one was willing to vote to put Americans back to work while simultaneously creating and repairing infrastructure that would have encouraged even more job creation.  It was a slam dunk and not a single Republican was willing to vote for it.  Not one.  Instead, Senate Minority Doofus Mitch McConnell went so far as to accuse Democrats of creating a bill they knew would fail.  In fairness to Mitch he's right.  It doesn't matter what Democrats put on the table - they've already basically offered the farm - all they get is NO from the opposition.  Democrats should know by now that any attempt to create meaningful, bipartisan policy is a futile endeavor.  Mitch McConnell has acknowledged this before when he pledged to make the healthcare debate "Obama's Waterloo" and when he stated that his only major goal was to make sure Obama was a one-term president.  The plight of millions of Americans and the state of our economy is, quite literally, not on the man's radar.  He just does not care.

Many objective observers have been saying it for a while, but the Republican party isn't interested in governing, isn't interested in legislating, has never heard of the word compromise, and quite frankly, does not care about improving America.  They care about winning back control of Congress and the White House and if millions of Americans must remain jobless for them to achieve that goal then so be it.

In a fair and just world this strategy will backfire.  Independent voters will see Republican intransigence for what it is; they will watch as their countrymen suffer so that a handful of no-tax extremists can get their way - it should be pointed out that the policies these people espouse created the mess we are in - and they will reward Republicans by voting for Obama and Democrats next year.

But this is not a fair and just world so I don't know what will happen.  I can only hope that objective people will realize that the only major Republican policy proposal of the last three years was the one to eliminate Medicare and replace it with Paul Ryan No-Care.  The situation has gotten so bad that Republicans have even been abandoning their good ideas when and if those ideas get support from Democrats.

The current state of American politics is an embarrassment and though there is plenty of blame to go around, there is only one party that is actively trying to improve our country.  The other party is lining up to audition for the remake of Grumpy Old Men; they have selected choice B on the quiz above and they don't care about what that means for their countrymen.

Buying Bombs or Building Bridges?

Last week I read an interesting piece by historian James Livingston about the misconception that private investment has anything to do with economic growth.  Professor Livingston's argument - consumer and government spending are the drivers of economic growth - didn't surprise me.  I'm no economist but I could have told you that spending creates demand and demand creates growth, and I've argued in past posts that by rebuilding America's middle class we could rebuild our economy.  However I was surprised that Professor Livingston argued that private investment has nothing to do with driving growth.  I'd even go so far as to disagree, but I'm not a professor with 35 years worth of experience studying capitalism.

Whether I disagree with Professor Livingston on the issue of private investment or not, he is certainly right about consumer and government spending, as most Americans and one of our two political parties seem to realize.  But this brings me to another - you guessed it - point of Republican hypocrisy when it comes to the role of government.

Ask a conservative about government spending and you're likely to be told that if we spend another dime the world will end.  That's only slightly hyperbolic.  But if there is one kind of spending Republicans are okay with, it's defense spending.  Medicare? Psshhh, F-22s?  Yeah!  Now, though this is another manifestation of Republican hypocrisy, it is a useful one.  Military spending would probably help create jobs; WWII pulled America out of the Great Depression after all.  Even Paul Krugman, while also lamenting Republican hypocrisy, acknowledges that government spending on the military will spur job creation.

This leads me to two points:
1) If government spending on the military is good, shouldn't we also encourage government spending on infrastructure?  Sure, building F-22s creates jobs and I'm not adverse to F-22s, but I'd rather have roads, bridges and digital infrastructure, not to mention schools and better public transportation.

2) If Republicans really believe military spending creates jobs then it would be advisable for them to work with Democrats to find an agreement on a deficit reduction deal before the November 23rd deadline to cut $1.2 trillion from the deficit.  If no deal is reached by then, automatic cuts totaling $1.2 trillion kick in, and about a third of those cuts would be military spending.

Rumor has it that Democrats recently proposed a longterm deal that would trim the deficit by $3.2 trillion, $3,200,000,000,000!!!! Look at all those zeroes! When Democrats proposed the deal they included nearly a billion dollars worth of cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and discretionary spending, most of which is spent on programs championed by Democrats.  Also included were $1.3 trillion in new tax revenues.  Republicans, predictably, balked.  Democrats were willing to make sacrifices, Republicans were not.  Same ole song and dance.

But this circus is ultimately going to be the downfall of the ringmasters.  Republican intransigence is going to lead to automatic spending cuts that will cause job losses in the private sector, and while Democrats were willing to make substantial cuts to important programs, Republicans turned up their noses at the very mention of the word tax.

All of this could be avoided if Republicans would acknowledge some basic economic facts, among them those pointed out by James Livingston.  If we could only get half of our politicians to realize that building bridges, just like buying bombs, was good for job growth then maybe we could make some progress.  As things stand now, we're more likely to see more damaging cuts in a few weeks when the deadline for cuts passes without a budget deal.  Then we'll be without bombs or bridges or jobs.  And once again, all Americans will be on the losing end of Republican obstruction.

Eat the Poor

The Republican party has found a new manifestation for its hypocrisy: taxes! Yes, the anathema of everything conservative is now a rallying call; we should tax the poor.  

There is something morally unjust about asking the people who make the least to pay more when the people who make the most are already not paying their fair share.  It's especially troubling that the same people who insist on taxing the poor are sheltering the rich - it's ironic that calls for equality are met with cries of class warfare, but decisions that are immoral can be somehow spun as "fair."

Moral qualms aside, this policy only serves to exacerbate the gross economic disparities that exist in America.  First of all, though many Americans don't pay income tax, those who don't are paying other taxes, including higher rates on payroll taxes.  More importantly however, the global economy is buoyed by the American consumer.  As the American consumer goes, so too goes global demand and production.  A flat tax sounds nice and all, but when take more money from the poor to line the pockets of the rich, all we have done is put the American consumer in peril.  

It's easy to criticize the Republican party on issues of morals and ethics, the party's stance on social issues is an embarrassment to a country that prides itself on freedom and equality.  But conservatives have always made the economy their bread and butter issue.  Conservative economic principle, we are told, create jobs and lead to wealth and prosperity.  In truth, the Republican economic gospel has led to a nation-threatening disparity between the haves and the have-nots.  The "Occupy Wall Street" protestors may be leaderless and silly, but they're right that the system is benefiting the few at the expense of the many.  Ultimately of course, that is oxymoronic since, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out, no one in America got rich on their own.  The few can only benefit for so long before inequalities in the system bring the whole thing crashing down.  Good policy would help create truly robust economy would empower the working and middle class Americans and provide them with jobs that allow their consumption to sustain our system.  Eating the poor does not achieve this end; in no way is it good policy.  America needs rich people; greed is good insofar as it drives the system, but when the system is perverted, serving only a small handful of people, it will ultimately fail.  Republican policies have led us to this point and the continuation of those policies will only make the problems worse.  

As I like to point out, there are people who make 50x what I do, but none of those people have 50x as many cars, none of them eat 50x as much food, and - while their clothes may be more expensive, they don't have 50x more clothing than I do or 50x as many baseball gloves or X-Boxes.  Everyone needs to be able to consume for the good of our nation.  We would be wise to implement policies that benefit everyone, by doing so, we will benefit the rich.  

Mitch Daniels and the Sane Remnants of the Republican Party

Have you heard of Jon Huntsman?  He is the only Republican presidential candidate with both integrity and sense.  That's probably the reason he's not on many people's radar screens.  Being sensible doesn't get you very far in the world of Republican primaries, just ask Mitt Romney, a modern day Talleyrand who has made a career out of abandoning his principles and his good ideas when it suits him best.  

Apparently, Huntsman has some company.  Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana, has been speaking recently as though he has some sense.  Said Daniels, "Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers.  I for one have no interest in standing in the wreckage of our republic saying, 'I told you so' or 'You should have done it my way.'  We should distinguish carefully skepticism about big government from contempt for all government."

Wow. That's the most impressive thing I've heard from a Republican in quite a while.  Sounds to me like the kind of guy who could sit down with members of the opposing party and make some magic happen, which, in Washington, simply means doing your job.  If Mitch Daniels were the Speaker of the House we may have actually enacted necessary policy in the last nine eleven months.  

Of course, Mitch Daniels is not running for president, leaving me to hope that the Republican who emerges to challenge President Obama is either Jon Huntsman or someone who is so extreme that he or she is unelectable - in other words, anyone but Mitt Romney.  

Nevertheless, the reality of today's Republican party not only reflects the sad state of the nation and that political party in particular, but is a harbinger for our country's future.  I spend a lot of time knocking the Republican party and rightfully so, but it's not because all of their ideas are bad, it's because the party has been hijacked by a group of extremists and because they refuse to work with Democrats to enact meaningful policy.  That extremism is so deeply rooted in the modern Republican movement that the party is willing to lead the nation to the brink of default to score an ideological victory.  In fact, in the last three years Republicans have run away from what should be one of their greatest achievements.  Obamneycare, as Tim Pawlenty termed it, is a Republican idea.  Want to score a political victory? Work with the president to perfect the healthcare law and then trumpet how it was built on Republican proposals and ideas.  What did Republicans do instead? Created some bunk about death panels.  This is the direction the Republican party has gone; this is the reason that America is a nation with a broken political system and a slow-moving economy (and I won't even get into how and why Republicans are responsible for that).  

Nevertheless, the party is not devoid of good ideas.  Sadly, they are devoid of leadership and too many of them are living in a dream world.  It seems like the Mitch Daniels and the Jon Huntmans of the world may be able to get the party back on track, but sadly, they are drowned out by the circus that is today's Republican party.  Dear Mitch Daniels, please do America a favor and take control of your party.  The nation needs it. 

Really Iran?

The only thing more outrageous than the assertion that the Iranian government tried to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US and bomb embassies in Washington is the fact that it's all probably true.

Setting aside my usual forays into the chaos of American politics, today's post is a call to action against the Iranian regime by the international community. 

Since the overthrow of the shah in 1979, Iran has provided the world with a shining example of why politics and religion should not be mixed.  Theocracy in Iran has led to a bloody war with Iraq, the suppression of the Iranian people and the export of terrorism.  The country's leadership lives in a state of historical denial, openly hates Israel, and has nuclear ambitions.  From Khoemeini to Khamenei, the leadership of the ayatollahs and their selected presidential puppets has been a blight on Iran, the Middle East and the entire global community.

The United States has been vocal and proactive in our attempts to sanction Iran, halt the expansion of their nuclear program and help lend a voice to the oppressed Iranian people.  It is time for other nations to join us.  China and Russia have never been warm to the idea of sanctioning Iran and their refusal to participate in strong sanctions have empowered a regime that supports oppression at home and terror abroad. 

It is time for the entire global community to stand up to the Iranian regime.  The planned attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington would have amounted to a declaration of war on those countries.  The subversive and violent policies of Iran have caused death in the past and will cause death again in the future.  It's time for them to go. 

The United States needs to lay out the bare facts for the entire world to see and the international community needs to stand united and punish the Iranian regime in a manner that will help bring about it's downfall.  The Iranian people deserve better, the peace-loving people of the Middle East deserve better and those who want to feel safe regardless of where they live deserve better. 

The Great Interstate System

Ever cruised down I-55 from Chicago to Memphis?  It's a nice drive through America's heartland, perhaps a bit flat, but pleasant nonetheless.  It's also a good reminder of one of the things that made America great, innovative and extensive infrastructure.  The kind you can drive a semi-truck on for nearly six decades and it's still functional.

It is still functional albeit in need of repairs and crumbling in places.  It was world class a few decades back, now, unfortunately, bridges may fall.  One would think the greatest nation in the world would have good highways.

Of course, the problem isn't just the poor state of the highways, it's the poor state of a lot of things: bridges; trains; roads; and digital infrastructure.  America is in need of a makeover.

What better time than now?  After all, with so many Americans out of work, labor and other costs would be remarkably cheap.  Furthermore, a 21st century infrastructure will encourage 21st century innovation, investment and job creation.  Business is going digital, America needs to follow suit.  Additionally, and I know bullet trains get laughed out of the room in this country, but what's wrong with speeding up how we travel?  Think of the improvements in communication technology since the 1970s.  We've gone from payphones to iPhones.  Now think of the improvements in travel.  We've gone from jumbo jets to jumbo jets.  Why don't we want faster, more efficient travel in America?  Time is money, Republicans, and I know how much you love money and are entirely beholden to it.  Maybe the uber-rich want to travel more efficiently too.

The country needs investment right now.  Infrastructure investment is not a new idea nor is it my idea although I've been preaching it for quite some time now.  No one likes falling bridges, no one likes potholes and no one likes slow internet that always cuts out when they need it most.  America needs investment and an infrastructure upgrade.  Let's make them both happen at once.

The Myth of Austerity

"You can't spend your way out of debt," a moderately intelligent person once told me.  It's true; you cannot spend your way out of debt.  Just as true and more important, you can't cut your way out of a recession.  The bitter pill of austerity has turned an artificial debt crisis into a very real economic problem.

The factually mythical, yet widely accepted story of the financial crisis involves too much government spending starting with Obama's election and his subsequent $83,798,496 inaugural ball.  I'm not even going there right now.

Naturally, according to this fictitious narrative, the solution to the problem is to stop spending money.  Enter thousands of clowns in tri-corner hats, a group, despite their small size and complete lack of intelligence and cohesion was able to monopolize the national political conversation and the attention of policy makers.

Thankfully the Tea Party was not able to implement policy goals because they only controlled one branch of Congress, and let's not sugarcoat this, the Tea Party controls the House of Representatives.  I don't care that there are only 70 or so of them, they have completely taken control of that chamber using the time-honored Republican tactic of yelling louder than the guy who is smarter than you.  Unfortunately, the Tea Party has been able to impede progress and growth by making sure that any sensible policy actions do not get taken.

The problem with austerity is that it is a solution for cutting a deficit, but despite what you may have heard, the deficit isn't America's problem right now.  It would be nice to have less of a deficit, but the current deficit isn't strangling our economy.  High deficits lead to high interest rates for government borrowing because investors fear that a government may default.  Despite the fact that the Tea Party actually tried to get us to default, interest rates on American bonds remain insanely low.  Investors are not shying away from American government debt.  The deficit is not our problem, unemployment and the recession are our problem.  If we can put people back to work, we will automatically cut into that scary deficit by curtailing unemployment spending and taking in more in tax receipts. 

So why, you may ask, why would we spit in the face of accepted economic theory and cut spending at a time when spending could do the most good?  Here is what we know about austerity as a remedy for a broken economy - it doesn't work.  Lucky for us, Eurozone countries were willing to act as our guinea pig.  After watching Europe suffer through self-inflicted economic pain, low growth and riots, American politicians learned their lessons, recanted on the saving power of austerity and then...wait, that happened in the land of sense.  In Washington, the Tea Party kept pushing for damaging cuts.  And so while we haven't gotten complete austerity, we haven't gotten any kind of good investment in infrastructure or education.  We haven't gotten higher tax rates on the wealthy or even the closing of tax loopholes.  And because Republicans were unwilling to compromise when Obama infuriated Democrats by putting entitlement reform on the table, we haven't even gotten necessary entitlement reform.  Instead, we hear the broken record of austerity warbling in the background.  It's the itch we can't scratch, the fly we can't shoo away.  No matter how bad an idea it is to be cutting at a time when we should be doing the exact opposite, there is going to be some elected fool out there telling us that if we could just NOT SPEND money to help hurricane victims then we'd be alright. 

And now America stands on the brink of a double-dip recession.  We may very well turn it around and come out of this - perhaps some investment in infrastructure...? However, we may very well slip back into the economic abyss from which we just started to emerge and we have only ourselves (read: the Tea Party) to blame.  When you go to the polls next year, remember that when you elect the masochists, they have the opportunity to inflict pain on you as well.

In diaster, opportunity

Opportunity that is, to take advantage of the disaster to pursue a political agenda.  As though the Republican party has not pursued enough shameful policies and tactics in the last two years, they are now delving into a deeper part of the abyss. 

Today, the House of Representatives rejected a spending measure that would have provided disaster relief for the victims of recent natural disasters - notably Hurricane Irene.  In fairness, many of those who voted against the measure were Democrats who protested that not enough funding was available to the victims.  However for the House to pass anything Republicans must carry most of the vote and enough Republicans joined Democrats for this bill to fail.  Unfortunately the motivation of the Republican bloc was somewhat different than their Democratic counterparts.  Whereas Democrats did not vote for the bill because it didn't provide for the victims, Republicans rejected it because it didn't offset that limited funding with cuts elsewhere.  That's right America, Republicans will only help those in need if they can find a way to take money away from others in need.

As disgraceful as this is, the hypocrisy of it is just as appalling.  Certainly even those who believe in small and limited government should recognize that if government has any responsibility at all it is to help those who have been struck by calamity, but now we have abandoned even that principle.  Now all we care about is cutting funding.  Somehow it seems a little late for that. As Nancy Pelosi pointed out, "We never paid for tax cuts for the rich.  We never paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." 

Ms. Pelosi has a point, the only time that we need to offset spending with cuts is when the spending benefits Americans in need.  When spending is for outrageously expensive foreign wars or to pad the wallets of the wealthiest Americans we can do it at will.  In other words, spending only needs to be offset with cuts when the spending is being done by a Democrat.  And when that Democrat wants to spend money to help those in need then it is acceptable to use those people as hostages to extract concessions. 

The Republican party has swung so far to the right that those running the show represent a fringe minority with no ideas for how to govern, no vision for America's future and no empathy for their countrymen.  Despite being a small minority of the party's elected members, these radicals have monopolized the national conversation and forced party leadership into uncomfortable positions with their ferocious stupidity and tenacious refusal to compromise.  They have exacerbated America's suffering since their election and now, when some in our nation need help recovering from a hurricane they are willing to use those people as hostages to get even more of what they want.  Unfortunately, more of what they want is more of what is bad for our nation. 

Next year Americans will be faced with two fundamentally different versions of how to run our country.  Neither group has all the answers and our country would be well served if both groups would be more willing to compromise and answer tough questions about the future of our nation.  But one party - even if their ideas are not perfect - shows empathy and vision.  The other party offers us the failed policies of the past and refuses to help their countrymen. 

If the world's greatest country cannot find the money to assist those in need that is indeed a problem.  But this is not an issue of can or cannot.  It is an issue of will or will not.  And those pulling the strings in the Republican party will not vote to aid Americans in need. 

Obama's line in the sand

It's hard for me to really imagine that Obama has drawn a line in the sand in his negotiations with Republicans.  The man is a moderate Republican as far as I can tell and he's already shown his willingness to concede too much in negotiations, delivering poorly-timed short-term spending cuts at a time when the economy needs money.

Nevertheless, apparently the president took a stand today, telling reporters that he will veto any debt deal that does not include raising taxes on the rich.  I hope Obama means it.  America hopes Obama means it.  Deficit reduction should still be a secondary priority but since our priorities are misplaced and we seem unconcerned with putting Americans back to work, we might as well try to fix the problem we have chosen to address.  Deficit reduction is going to take serious entitlement reform - something the president offered today - but it is also going to take higher taxes on the wealthy.  Why Republicans are intent on protecting people whose low tax rates do little or nothing to contribute to job growth is beyond me.  Warren Buffett is pleading with the government to raise taxes on the wealthy.  Would Berkshire Hathaway really have to lay people off if his tax rate were higher?  It seems unlikely since he is doing everything in his power to get Congress to tax him more.

Somehow - despite all the polls showing Americans believe the rich should pay more, despite all the evidence that low tax rates for the super rich is doing nothing to create jobs - Republicans are intent on protecting the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.  It's somewhat mind-boggling.

Obama's initiative is a good first step.  The president needs to force Republicans to back down from positions that will undermine exactly what they want to do - cut the deficit.  However, Obama needs to show further leadership on entitlement reform.  Social Security and Medicare both need revamping.  It would be nice if Obama were willing to put in place a long-term plan to raise the eligibility age.

Still, I applaud Obama's efforts.  Despite the fact the deficit reduction is a misplaced priority, it is still the priority and if we are actually going to cut the deficit, we will need both more revenue and less spending.  Today the president showed a willingness to address both of those things while simultaneously forcing Republicans to defend positions that are not only politically unpopular, but bad for our country.  Let's hope that the president's stand today forces some serious reevaluation by Republicans.  It would be a good day for America if that were to be the case.

HPV and Politics

Here's a secret - I think Rick Perry is a doofus.  He doesn't believe in evolution or global warming which means that he is either a fool or completely beholden to fools.  But Mr. Perry's record on science is not 100% flawed.  It seems, however, that his opponents are wrong on every issue.

Recently, Mr. Perry has come under attack for - among other things - his decision to require teenage Texas girls to be vaccinated against HPV. 

You may read that and think - as I did - wow Rick Perry, you've really surprised me.  It is a good idea to use a safe drug to vaccinate middle school girls against an STD that causes cervical cancer.

Conservative critics of the idea say that it is just another example of government overstepping its bounds. Maybe they have a point.  It's not like the government requires students be vaccinated against other illnesses before starting school, and even if they did, parents should be able to choose whether or not they want their children to have viruses that cause cancer.

Sure, maybe vaccinating children against STDs, like giving them condoms, leads to sexual promiscuity, but the alternative, abstinence training, doesn't prevent promiscuity, pregnancy or STDs.  So even if you are against anti-sex, you should still be pro-good decisions...like preventing HPV.

To me this is actually a silly issue.  Parents should be able to choose if they want their children to be vaccinated against HPV.  Unlike say, the flu, you can't contract HPV simply by sitting next to someone in class.  Why any parent with a daughter would want their child not to be vaccinated is baffling to me, but I'm not a parent.  People should have that choice. 

To me, this simply illustrates, once again, that the Republican party doesn't really care all that much about people.  HPV causes cervical cancer.  Inoculating against it simply prevents the problems associated with the virus.  Should it be mandatory? Maybe, maybe not.  But the fact that many Republican candidates are on a crusade against it is problematic.  Michelle Bachmann has already praised Phyllis Schlafly as the most important woman of the century.  It is thus no surprise that she also is against women's health. 

Vote Republican in 2012, vote for cervical cancer. 

A Day Never to Forget

I had Ms. Barksdale first period for economics and I was in her class when we heard the news.  A plane had hit one of the World Trade Center towers.  To a high school freshman in Mississippi this news was stunning and overwhelming, but I was completely unable to comprehend what it meant.  In a state of confusion rather than one of anger or fear, I went with my class to Ms. Lacey's biology classroom.  Ms. Lacey had a television and we watched live as the second plane crashed into the second tower.  The image will be seared into my memory for the rest of my life.

Ten years later I still feel stunned and overwhelmed.  I now feel anger and fear and a host of other emotions as well.  The attacks of September 11 represent the lowest of what humanity is capable of and the heroic events following those attacks represent the best.  The world changed forever that day and the new reality is one that I still grapple with daily.

I need not implore you never to forget 9/11, you could not if you tried.  But on the 10th anniversary remember to say a prayer for all of the victims, all of the heroes and all of us in our great nation.  God Bless America.

The Myth of Science

The western tradition of science, like many of the other great things about western culture can be traced back to ancient Greece.  Thanks to the Greeks we have been blessed with, among other things, democracy, an abundance of cool words, nude statues, the movie "300" and of course, science.  Much of what the Greeks passed down to us is awesome, but science, like the Iliad, is nothing but a myth.  Let's take a (very) brief look at the history.

Though the Greeks were very smart, they really didn't get science too well.  For starters, they thought there were only four elements: Earth, Wind, Fire and Water.  Of course, today we well know that there is a fifth element; scientists are still unsure what that element is although there is a general consensus. 

Speaking of general consensuses, there also exists among those silly scientists a consensus that the Earth is getting warmer and that human activity is playing a large part in that warming.  Initially, I thought this was great as I am all for tropical weather.  But now I'm hearing about all these possible consequences and I find myself getting nervous.  Rising sea levels, unpredictable and calamitous weather and the extinction of wildlife. Oh my!

So I have been relieved recently to see that the entire field of Republican candidates - with the notable exception of Jon Huntsman who is doing everything humanly possible to challenge the stereotype of Republican insanity - says that climate change is a hoax or a fraud or perhaps just that the science isn't sound.  Phew...I can breathe easier now that I know the scientists of today, just like the ancient Greeks, don't know everything.

Unfortunately, the words of Republican candidates, while they reverberate powerfully with the nation's fringe, cannot actually disprove scientific research.  The world is getting warmer and human activity is absolutely playing a role in that warming.  The dire forecasts and predictions may not be forgone conclusions and they may even be more severe than the reality that awaits us, but there is no doubt that we are harming mother nature.

The Republican opposition to knowledge extends beyond the damage we are doing to the planet and into other realms of sciences as well - do I LOOK like a monkey - but the denial of scientific evidence that our planet is getting hotter due to our misdeeds is going to haunt our country if we let this silliness continue.  America should be taking steps to reduce emissions and invest in clean energy now.  Oil gazillionaire T. Boone Pickens understands this, why doesn't Rick Perry?

Were I to go around spreading the myth that the sun revolved around the Earth I would be considered a fool and rightfully so.  Why then is it not only acceptable, but encouraged (by some) to spread a similarly stupid myth about the condition of our planet.  After all, that myth has much more far-reaching consequences for our economy, our country and our species than any ludicrous story about the sun revolving around the Earth. 

Sensible people are concerned.  Half of the American government refuses to enact policies that will spur future economic growth and help save the planet because they refuse to accept basic facts.  Why that is the case is a question I cannot answer, but it scares the living daylights out of me to imagine a president incapable of understanding basic facts.

Muslims in the Heartland!

It's a scary prospect.  If they hadn't found bin Laden in Pakistan I'd have bet he was in Oklahoma or some place.  If not bin Laden then at least his al-Qaeda followers, slowly undermining America with Sharia Law.

That is both the silliest and saddest thing I've seen in quite some time.  The idea that the Great Plains is under attack by some unseen Muslim threat is all kinds of amusing, and yet the fact that there are some in this country who believe that America is under assault by Islamic law is a sad commentary of the fear mongering that has undermined true American values.

Congress shall make no respecting an establishment of religion (unless that religion is Protestant Christianity), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (unless that religion is Islam, or Judaism or Catholicism...you get it).

For whatever reason, the more diverse America becomes, the more determined some people become to make it Christian.  I'm not here to bash Christianity, nor am I here to defend Islam.  Some horrible things have been done in the name of both religions and yet billions of people all over the world live peaceful, productive and altruistic lives under the creed of each.

Just as the first amendment protects the freedom of religion, so too does it protect the freedom of speech. And so bigots nationwide are allowed to slander Muslims and lump them all together into convenient and scary terrorist cells.  However, they are not legally allowed to bar Muslims from being Muslims - whether that means disallowing a mosque near Ground Zero or banning Sharia law in Oklahoma.

America is a nation of tolerance.  It has made us great and it will continue to make us great.  Throughout our history we have had spasms of racial and other paranoia and fear against Jews, Catholics, Communists and many other groups.  These unfortunate reactions have impeded the growth of our great country and dimmed the light of democracy and freedom that shines from our beacon.  However they have never taken America off the right path in the path and nor will they now.

The fear of Muslim extremism is as real as the threat of Muslim extremism.  We would be ill-served by ignoring or denying that threat.  We are just as ill-served by eschewing our values and denying Muslim Americans the same rights that we ourselves enjoy.  That kind of anti-Muslim extremism simply encourages more Muslim extremism - at the same time we commit a moral injustice, we also foster the conditions for further atrocities.

All Americans regardless of race, religious creed, social status, sexuality, gender or whatever other category we can use to differentiate ourselves from others - deserve the same basic rights as the white Christians in Oklahoma.  When we deny people those rights we undermine everything we have built in America for the past 200 years.  We owe ourselves more than that.

Pick your favorite loonytoon

Mine is either Marvin the Martian, the Tasmanian Devil or Ron Raul.  Each has his own unique appeal.  Unfortunately none of them are leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination - though I submit that Taz would be a sure thing to unseat Obama.

Let's review the three loonytoons that are gathering the most attention:

1) Mitt Romney is a man of principles.  Seriously, he believe in any and everything whenever it suits him best.  The man passed a successful (and right-leaning) healthcare law in Massachusetts and then ran away from it when Obama passed a similar law for the nation.  Mitt Romney couldn't distinguish himself from Teddy Kennedy in the early 90s, now he is comparing himself to Sarah Palin and Rick Perry.  My gut tells me that Mitt may be a smart guy, but experience shows me that Mitt believes whatever he thinks is en vogue.  Right now, it's en vogue to flaunt your stupidity, so Mitt - like his compatriots - looks pretty dumb.

2) Making Mitt look reasonable by comparison is Texas governor Rick Perry, a man who - somewhat like Romney - was a Democrat two decades ago. Unlike Romney, Perry only flip-flopped once.  Now his "conservative credentials" are rock solid - the man does not believe in global warming and called Ben Bernake treacherous for trying to spur economic growth.  I don't know about you but I don't want my president to accuse those who are trying to stimulate the economy of treason.  I also just can't get on board with people who are either too stupid to understand science or willfully choose to ignore it because they're catering to people who are too stupid to understand science.  I'm talking to you too Mitt Romney.

3) The Tasmanian Devil is a dark horse but the latest Fox News poll shows him creeping up on third place.  As endearing as I find Taz, I feel like the language barrier would be a real problem when trying to address the nation or meet with other heads of states.  George W. was enough of a babbler for me; I don't know if I can handle Taz.  Also, think about how much it would cost taxpayers to clean and repair the White House after Taz lived there.

4) Michelle Bachmann is perhaps the ultimate Loony Toon.  Mitt Romney believes whatever you want him to, Rick Perry actually believes a lot of stupid things, but Michelle Bachmann not only believes the garbage, she practices it.  Michelle's family accepts Medicaid money to run a clinic that "heals" gay people through faith.  It says a lot about our nation when this qualifies as medicine, but that's a whole other issue.  The real problem is that Michelle Bachmann espouses these views.  Bachmann is also referred to as the Tea Party's darling which tells you all you need to know about her ability to help the economy.  For more on that, check here.

The Republican party has been short on sanity for quite a while, but the field of goons running for president would probably be better of if the Tasmanian Devil was a real candidate.  He may not improve the field but he certainly wouldn't dilute it either.

If there is going to be a Republican president, we all better hope it is John Huntsman, or maybe Barack Obama since he's a pretty right of center guy himself.

Skin in the game and the American dream

Senator Dan Coats (R-Indiana) wants everyone to "have some skin in the game."

What am I talking about?  Not gambling but paying taxes.  See, something like 50% of Americans don't pay income tax because, well because they don't make enough money.  While I could get off on a rant here about the American middle class it seems silly to rant about something that doesn't seem to exist.  That's another story.

Right now we're talking about what is wrong with America, and clearly, what is wrong is that only half of us "have some skin in the game."  The other 50%, well they simply are not on board since they are not paying income tax.  Nevermind that these people: A) don't make very much money, and B) pay a plethora of other taxes just like the rest of us, if I were a gambling man and put some skin in the game, I'd bet we could make our budget deficit disappear if we could just get the poor on board. 

I'll let John Stewart debunk the math behind this plan for you; he is funnier, more famous and smarter than I am anyhow.  Rather than trifling with numbers - which Republicans are incapable of anyhow - I would like to engage them on their playing field.  I'd like to talk to Republicans about the American dream. 

Republicans know all about the American dream; speaker Boehner used to mop the floor of his parents bar and now he cries on national television more than any single member of the Jersey Shore cast.  In fact, Republicans don't simply know about the American dream, they have a monopoly on it (including our slightly right of center President).  There is nothing better than the American dream.  Boy from Mississippi starts blog, slowly accumulates followers and becomes the next John Stewart.  That's just my story, what's yours?  It's a beautiful thing. 

Sadly, the American dream, like the American middle class is an endangered species.  It's nice to know that John Boehner used to sweep the floor.  What we also know is that 50% of Americans are too poor to pay income tax. They drive on my interstate and are protected by my FBI but they pay NO INCOME TAX! GASP!

Suffice it to say, anyone who can't afford to pay income tax is probably not living the dream and nearly 50% of the country cannot afford to pay income tax so where does that leave us?  It certainly doesn't bode well for the future of our country if the dream has failed half of us.  It certainly doesn't enhance our future prospects if we are counting on those too poor to pay income tax to lift us out of recession.

In short, we find ourselves in the awkward position of facing a frail and fragile American dream; one that is sick but that can be saved.  However saving the dream - and the nation's economy - is going to take a herculean effort; an effort that can only be delivered by our entire country, not just the bottom 50% financially and certainly not without the assistance of those fortunate enough to have found the American dream. 

Republicans want you to think that if we simply get out of the way then the American dream will spring back to life.  But if their plan asks for more from those who have less to give and ask for none from those who have the most to give, we must ask ourselves if they are protecting the American dream or if they are protecting the handful of individuals fortunate enough to have attained it. 

All American do need to have some skin in the game.  We need national unity and a common desire to make our nation better.  We should encourage everyone to be active participants in our society in whichever manner they choose to utilize their talents.  What we should not do is kick the American dream while it's down.  And right now, Republican policies would destroy whatever shred of that dream is left for half of America.  Rebuilding our social fabric and getting everyone to put some skin in the game has everything to do with giving people hope and investing them in their own future and nothing to do with taking money from those who don't have money to give. 

News in August

Qaddafi's goose seems to be cooked, that's good news.  Congress is vacationing after a grueling, taxing fight over the debt limit that shouldn't have happened.  The truth is it wasn't even very taxing; in fact it wasn't taxing at all, quite the contrary.  The president is busing around the country talking about why his plans for America are good; I can't see that he has a real plan unless one counts folding to the Tea Party.  Meanwhile the men and women vying to replace him are having a contest to determine who is the looniest; as I calculate it Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul are the front-runners with poor old John Huntsman bringing up the rear with the unfortunate title of: the only real candidate. 

So August is perhaps a bit slow, but maybe that's good.  Maybe we can enjoy the next week of downtime to reflect on the plans that neither Obama nor the Republicans seem to be offering. 

Of course, any ideas that I present here are only mine in that I endorse them and embrace them.  Many of them come from far wiser people; for example, raising Warren Buffett's taxes is an idea put forth by Warren Buffett while credit for transitioning away from oil and towards wind power and natural gas goes to oil gazillionaire T. Boone Pickens.  Republicans are right: the rich do know the most about economic growth...Republicans are wrong: none of their ideas align with what the billionaires are saying...

Tangent, my apologies.  In all seriousness, now that we have put this whole debt limit fiasco behind us and my portfolio has disappeared, what can we do that will ACTUALLY stimulate economic growth.  How can we get Americans working again.  We should certainly hope that there is no WWIII on the horizon to act as the stimulus our economy needs, but in the fortunate absence of that type of calamity, what can we hope for, better yet, what can we do?

The answer, gulp, is to spend money.  For example, in America we have this great thing called the Interstate Highway System.  It's going on seven decades...we love our cars right? How about investing in our infrastructure?  What about technological infrastructure, how about a wireless America?  Making business more efficient and bringing everyone into the fold?  How about education, why don't we make Americans smarter so they're capable of working?

Interestingly, the NYSE was up roughly 3% yesterday on the assumption that the Fed would do...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...would do MORE to stimulate the economy.  Yes America, we regained our confidence not when our leaders retreated from responsibility but on the hope that they would in fact do MORE to help us.  We want all these cuts, but we haven't thought through what we want cut and more importantly we have chosen quite possibly the WORST time to get sucked into spending cuts.  So after all the posturing of the last few months over fake crises, we now see that when the government does what they should have done all along, the private sector will follow...interesting.

So the news in August is slow, but the revelation is real; there is a time for spending and a time for cutting; a time for balanced budgets and a time for stimulus.  Now is the time for stimulus.  The economy needs it; America needs it.  We deserve better than what our leaders have given us and we certainly deserve better than what they are trying to take away.  Public investment does not mean the end of private sector growth; rather the former serves as a catalyst for the latter.  You don't need an economics textbook to know this, you can just study history, but alas, we're not interested in history, we're interested in cutting and apparently social studies is one of the subjects taking a hit. 

Tax Warren Buffett

That's not me being a jerk, that is actually what Warren Buffett wants the government to do. Weird right? I thought high taxes were anathema to economic growth and surely one of the world's wealthiest, self-made men knows something about economic growth.

Maybe Buffett was drunk or the piece was a forgery.  I just don't know.  Certainly it was enough of an insult to failed Republican policies that it drew the ire of the omnipotent Michelle Bachmann who challenged Buffett to make a charitable donation to the government.

Bachmann's suggestion was, of course, first reported by Faux News, the outlet for insanity these days.  But interestingly, even in their report there was criticism of failed conservative economic policy.  Reaganomics, the sacred theory of the trickle down, is clearly a joke.  This is no indictment of the free market, it is an indictment of policies that protect the rich at the expense of the middle class.  In America, we don't have to worry about that much anymore since the middle class is disappearing.

Leo Hindrey, "a member of Buffett's group" (presumably that means Berkshire Hathaway but with the "reporting" done by Fox it is pretty ambiguous) slams trickle down economics in the article, "How is it that 50 percent of the income is now earned by 3 percent of the taxpayers?"

That's a great question, Leo.  It's also a pretty staggering figure.  Half of the wealth in the country is controlled by a mere three percent of the population?  How is that good for anyone?  Have we forgotten that one of the main causes of the Great Depression was the fact that low wages created low demand.  Have we forgotten that American consumption still buoys the world economy?  Are we counting on three percent of Americans to buy enough stuff to keep the wheels of the world economy turning? I sure hope not because that would be very, very dumb.

Of course Michelle Bachmann is very, very dumb.  So maybe that is the assumption she and her ilk are making.  Maybe Warren Buffett, on the other hand, is not so dumb and realizes that an economic resurgence will be built on the back of a large and healthy middle class.  Furthermore, maybe Buffett - like myself and most Americans - wants that to be a large and healthy AMERICAN middle class rather than say a large and healthy Chinese middle class (not that I am opposed to that, I simply want what is best for America first and foremost).

So maybe Buffett's "socialist" idea is about redistributing wealth a bit.  That way we don't have to rely on a handful of rich people to buy thousands of yachts, cars, X-boxes and loaves of bread apiece in order to keep the economy afloat.  Though there are millionaires who make 100x what I do, I am certain they do not eat 100x as much as I do or own 100x as many X-boxes.  They certainly don't have 100x as many yachts, since anything times 0=0.  You get the point.

Think about this the next time you hear some conservative economic guru talk about the miracle of trickle down economics.  Think about it next time you hear a Tea Party clown talk about not raising taxes no matter what.

America needs me and you and hundreds of millions of others to be able to buy.  It's that simple.  So when Warren Buffett calls for higher taxes on the rich, he's not being generous and altruistic; he's being selfish.  He gets it.  He knows that his wealth is built on the diminishing purchasing power of a disappearing middle class.  He knows that, in order to maintain his wealth, he needs to do what is best for you and me and America, not just for him.  Warren Buffett is smart.  Tax Warren Buffett.

What we did and what we didn't

What we did: Cut spending during a recession - let's face it, we weren't recovering from the crash of 2008.  This defies every bit of economic logic, but we did it anyhow.  A fringe group took an important long-term issue and monopolized the national conversation with it.

What we did: Perhaps ignited a double-dip recession by cutting spending at the worst possible time.  I say perhaps because it's certainly possible that markets acted rationally to our irrational policy decisions.  Maybe we just threw things for a loop, maybe we actually made the hole a little bit deeper.

What we did: Allowed a small group of radicals to hijack the national conversation and orient our focus on a secondary issue (the deficit) while we did nothing to fix the real problem (unemployment).


What we didn't: Come up with a plan or long-term solution.  All the short-term spending cuts, if they achieve anything, will only hurt the economy.  We have done nothing to address long-term, structural issues such as entitlement or tax reform.  We have done nothing to fix the economy in the short-term.  In short, we have really done next to nothing.  Perhaps we've done even worse, perhaps we've taken a step backwards.

The results of the Tea Party's crusade have been disastrous.  With no understanding of economics, these people were allowed to hold the economy hostage.  Even Republican economists are denouncing their strident belief in cutting wantonly with no regard for programs, people or the greater good.  

Where this leaves us: Certainly no better off than we were before and perhaps in worse shape.  It is certainly good that we didn't default, but the damage was done as America's credibility suffered and our debt rating was downgraded by S&P.  There are many reasons to find fault with S&P, but those reasons did not assuage the panic that ensued immediately after the Tea Party led us to the brink of default.

Now that we have finally put this silly debt-limit debate behind us, it is time to focus on job creation.  It was actually time to focus on job creation two years ago, but some people didn't get that memo, so we find ourselves here today hoping that we can finally pay attention to the real problems.  More importantly, we need to remember going forward what issues are really the root of our problems and we need to elect people with an understanding of those issues and real ideas for how to fix them.  In short, we need to dump the tea.

Double Dipping

The market tanked Thursday on fears of a double dip recession.  S&P downgraded our credit rating from AAA to AA+ on Friday.  Should we be worried? 

It definitely seems as though there is a chance that the economy is going to start going backwards again.  Not that it was really ever charging ahead at full steam at any point during the last two years. 

Certainly the economy needs fixing, our politicians have spent the last six months trying to fix a problem they created and one that was certainly less important than trying to foster economic growth.  In some sense they "fixed" that problem when they got a debt deal done last Tuesday, but it was a fake problem and the "fix" just made people more uncomfortable.

As much as the economy needs fixing and as real as our economic woes are, the bad news from the end of last week is a reflection on the sorry state of American politics, not the sorry state of the American economy.

The market took a nosedive last Thursday on fears of a double dip recession, fears that could have been alleviated if we had actually bothered trying to fix the economy.  American politicians (I'm looking at you Tea Party) are to blame for this.  The fact that S&P downgraded our credit rating doesn't have as much to do with our spending - remember just a decade ago we had a surplus each year and were paying off our debt - it has to do with the fact that our political system has hardened into two rigid camps of people more bent on demonizing each other than working together.  One group is more guilty than the other, but both are to blame. 

Our economy is broken, but our political system may be in even worse shape.  America's broken politics are hampering our economic recovery. 

If we are going to put America back on the path to prosperity and avoid a double dip recession we will need our politicians to acknowledge what the real problems are, set aside their differences and make tough and necessary compromises.  America is going to pay our debts, but as long as politicians continue to ignore the real problems and refuse to work together then our economic recovery will continue to be as flat and stagnant as it has been for the last two years.

Tragicomedy

Faux News headline: "Bad Signal, Markets Selloff Sends Message That Economic Woes Deeper Than Debt Debate."

Newsflash Fox, everyone but the Tea Party has known that for a while.  If we'd worried about fixing the economy instead of turning the secondary issue into the only issue maybe this wouldn't have happened.  If your "news" organization was a real media outlet instead of a political organization posing as reporters then perhaps you could have been objective and seen this coming.  Instead, you plugged the Tea Party and now you're stumbling onto the realization that the debt wasn't the issue.

Tragicomic.

Thank your local Tea Party...

For today's miserable stock performance.  As of 2:15, the S&P was down 3.25% and the Dow was down 3.00%.  Why you may ask?  Due to fears of a double-dip recession. 

Why are investors worried about a double-dip recession in the days after we raised the debt ceiling?  There's a simple answer for that too: by cutting drastically while growth slow we spat on history and ignored every economics textbook in the country.  We did perhaps the dumbest possible thing to spur economic growth.  Demand is low and so we cut spending, lessening demand.  The facts, the obvious and the lessons of history were discarded on the trash heap on lunacy by a movement of people who held our economy hostage, got sensible people to cave into their demands and then set us on a path backwards.  I'm talking to you Tea Party.

And that's why today, I'm looking at all the gains my meager investments have made over the course of the last seven months totally disappear.  In one fell swoop of stupidity, the Tea Party caused panic that erased seven months of (tepid) growth. 

Perhaps this is a one day hiccup.  Who knows, maybe investors will seize on low prices tomorrow and go on a stock bargain-buying binge.  I certainly hope so since my small portfolio took one on the chin today. 

But I don't have a reason to be optimistic, after all, the underlying fears of a double-dip recession today won't have evaporated by tomorrow.  Remarkably ill-timed spending cuts have been enacted and investors have a reason to worry.  Actually, all Americans as well as citizens of every country plugged into the global economy have a reason to worry.  The Tea Party is poison to America, but the world economy is still linked to the United States, so the Tea Party has the power to harm billions of people worldwide. 

Let this be a lesson America.  Federal spending and the deficit are issues that must be addressed in a wise manner, not the wanton approach of 70 idiots with no political or economic experience.  Furthermore, the federal deficit is still secondary to our economic recovery.  Putting people back to work will increase tax revenues without raising taxes and will go a long way towards putting our country back on sound fiscal footing.  Only after we have fixed the economy should we reexamine and revamp federal spending. 

But we've already made that mistake so now the important issue is making sure we don't make it again.  No amount of Tea Party fanaticism and fantasy math, no heavy doses of fool's demagoguery and economic planning by people with no experience is going to fix our economy.  So the next time we have an opportunity to vote, let us make sure we vote for the people who know what is best for America and have some vision of our country that doesn't involve another recession and the decline of America, because that is where the Tea Party is leading us. 

The Joke's on America

Hooray! No default! Great news! Victory lap! They agreed!

It is encouraging that America will not default on our loans, although by encouraging I mean it's an embarrassment that we ever go to this point to begin with.  Still the deal is bad and reflects the foolishness of the Tea Party as well as their power. 

The lessons of history as well as every economic textbook tell us that when the economy is depressed we should spend to put people back to work.  Certainly Republicans are right when they say we can raise revenue without raising taxes by putting people back to work.  But we need to create jobs and cutting spending right now does not create jobs.  In fact, it will probably be a detriment to economic growth.

So yeah, we got a deal, a raw deal.  The joke is on America.  The Tea Party took a non-issue and made it an issue.  Had we focused on economic recovery and created jobs, the deficit issue would have partially mitigated itself and would have become much easier to solve.  Instead we are cutting spending at the wrong time because a group of 70 idiots held the government hostage.  Of course, everyone else in said government deserves blame as well.  The let the Tea Party hijack the debate.  They played along with the shenanigans and bad ideas and now we are worse off for it.

We negotiated with the hostage-takers and so we empowered them.  It's appalling but we did it.  We can hope that at least a few months of certainty will lead to some growth, but in all likelihood the cuts will be more damaging that the sense of relief that America will not default. 

Now we can only hope that we have done enough to relieve the threat of a credit downgrade although the gridlock in Washington means that we are probably facing another such warning in a few months.  The Tea Party has not only damaged our economy but made us a laughingstock in the eyes of the world.  In Athens people are rioting over forced austerity and default but we brought ourselves to the brink willingly.  Next time China proposes the creation of a new reserve currency to replace the dollar, how much weight will American protests carry?  Will we still set the international agenda?  Will all of our talk of austerity and belt-tightening at home lead other nations to eschew their international responsibilities as our rhetoric leads me to believe we will? 

Yes, we got a debt-ceiling deal but it cost us the chance to fix our economy and it undermined our position as the world's leader.  The joke is on us, America, and we can thank the idiots who parade around dressed like they belong in Colonial Williamsburg for the predicament we find ourselves in.

A missed opportunity in a self-created crisis

Raising the debt limit should not be an issue.  In fact, raising the debt limit is one of the the most mundane and routine things the government does. Until now.

Now we are facing a self-made crisis.  Whether that crisis is a result of a decade of unchecked spending and ill-advised tax cuts as some claim or a product of government gridlock as other say, it is a problem we created.  And now we are only a week away from running out of money.

Despite the fact that this is a self-made crisis, it is still an opportunity.  For all my roasting of the Tea Party, they are right that we do need substantial, long-term budget cuts.  This is an opportunity to enact some of those cuts.

We are on the verge of missing the opportunity.  Tea Party intransigence is really the only obstacle.  Democrats have reluctantly agreed to cuts in entitlement programs and normal Republicans had agreed to revenue increase through rewriting the tax code.  In fact, the deal was more than Republicans should have hoped for, prompting a former Republican House leader so say, "My God, declare victory."

But that didn't happen and we are inching closer to August 2nd, the date when the government will have to decide which bills it will pay and which it won't.  There is no good scenario; even if we raise the debt ceiling, the current political situation does not lend itself to a deal that would put us on the right track.  We need substantial cuts and substantial new revenue and neither seems likely.

Democrats for their part hate to see entitlement cuts even a little bit even though, as John Boehner put it last night, those programs won't exist for his children if we don't make changes to them.

However Boehner and his Republican counterparts are propagating a myth that has been worn out for decades - that low taxes lead to economic growth.  This manipulation of Reaganomics ignores the facts of Reagan's presidency as well as Clinton's presidency.  Bruce Bartlett, a former advisor to President Reagan blames the Bush tax cuts for the current recession.  Yes, low taxes stimulate growth but they are not the be-all-end-all to the economy.  Somehow this has become Republican doctrine even though the man given credit for it didn't believe it.  President Obama invoked Reagan in his speech to America last night, pointing out the President Reagan did raise taxes and called on wealthy Americans to pay their fair share.

It is not too late to escape this self-made predicament, but more importantly it is not too late to take advantage of this situation.  President Obama and John Boehner made their cases last night in the latest round of sparring, but both men know the reality of the situation and both are willing to make the necessary compromises.  The problem is the Tea Party whose members have taken a good idea and completely lost sight of what needs to be done.  If those members of the House can be convinced that their position is disastrous for America - which it is - then perhaps we will take advantage of our self-made crisis.