As if on queue - Eric Cantor please.

In my country...

  When is a jobs plan, not a jobs plan?  Just listen to the House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor.   Calling his proposed bill a jobs bill is like calling vanillia ice cream chocolate.  Just becasue you put that name on it doesn't mean that's what it is.

  As I had stated in my immediate previous post, the answer to jobs is not more tax and regulation cuts.  If this was the answer then why didn't it work between 2000 and 2008.  Over that eight year period, we had large tax cuts and industry people in charge of federal government departments that suggested and wrote regulations.  If tax and regulation cuts are the answer why didn't they work in the Bush years?

And now jobs.

America businesses need to create more jobs.  That is plain and simple.  In the always present equation of supply and demand, we have tried to do things on the supply side of the equation.  We have tried tax cuts and deregulation to stimulate business hiring.  We have allowed accelerated depreciation tax rules to get businesses to buy more things now in hopes of stimulating more demand next.  The chosen direction of our governament, Congress and the Executive alike, is to focus on the supply side and also on deficit reduction.  These have not worked to create more jobs.  Who else remembers back to the summer of 2010 and the lead up to the November elections?  The mantra of the challengers was jobs, jobs, jobs.   No actions have been initiated by any elected politician to actually do something to create the environment for new jobs to be created.  Instead, the actions have simply lowered the tax revenue our government can then use to institute policies that could have an effect on demand, or at the very least provide needed services until demand comes back on its own.  It is time the governament really does something to stimulate demand by focusing on where demand actually come from - the people.  When people are in a position to buy goods and services, the companies that create them will hire people to build and provide them.  It is time to focus on the demand side of the equation instaed of the supply side. 

Call you elected representative today and tell them you want real action to create jobs, not more of the failed policy of tax cuts and deregulation. 

Obligations when taking tax dollars

In my country (and state)...

...In Florida, Governor Rick Scott signed a law requiring state citizens to submit to drug testing before they can receive any cash aid from the state.  Now, an Ohio Republican state senator has drafted a bill that would require unemployed workers to pass a drug screening before they could receive unemployment insurance from the state.  If he thinks this is a good idea, then I wonder if he would hold all elected state politicians to the same requirement?  Now, that I’m thinking about it, not only does Ohio State tax dollars pay his salary, they also greatly subsidize his health insurance premiums.  I think he, and other elected state politicians should submit to health screening and if his body mass index is too high (follow the link to see the size of this guy's double chin), or his cholesterol is off the charts, or he smokes, he pays 100% of his health insurance premiums.  Why should state tax dollars be wasted on his health care if he can't be bothered to keep himself in general good health.  Seem fair doesn't it?  No, double standard here.

   By the way, what Florida has seen so far is that 2% of people applying for state aid tested positive for drugs.  The typical population tests positive about 7% of the time.  The amount of money Florida is paying for drug screening surpasses the amount they saved by denying aid. 

I do not support this idea for Ohio's unemployed.

They’re all the same, right?

In my country...

   ...For those of you that believe it doesn’t matter which political party controls the Executive Branch of government because both parties are the same, I’m here to tell you that it does matter in ways big, and small.  For the big ways, all you have to do is look at what is happening to public employees in states like Ohio, Wisconsin, and New Jersey that are now under GOP Governors.  For the small ways look no further than a recent ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  Here, you see how a federal agency works when it is under the control of a President who is from the Democratic Party rather than the GOP.  Informing workers of their labor rights is a far from extreme as you can get, but just makes good sense.  This would never happen if the GOP controlled the White House. It's time for Americans to wake up and realize the Democrats are on the side of middle-class working Americans while the GOP is on the side of Corporations, millionaires and billionaires.

I love Digby!

In my country...

...Where is her thinking wrong?  This is a beautiful post that lays out exactly what is wrong with the thinking of the political right.   The good old days can be talked about as being so perfect, but only while wearing rose colored glasses.  Fully 1/3 of seniors lived in poverty before Medicare - this has gone down the memory hole with some many other things.  Is this what we as a country want to go back to?

Medicare is needed and must be kept as an important program in our country.  Does it have financial issues? Yes, it does.  The answer to these issues do not lay in how to reduce the coverage of the Medicare program, but rather in the health care delivery system it seeks to insure against.  We first need a single payer system like Canada, and then move to total national health care like the UK.  This will be the only way to adequately attempt to control the cost of healthcare.

Perry and Kerry - they rhyme but are completely different

First there was John Kerry, the Democrat's 2004 Presidential candidate, a bunch of false things were said about him by others (Swiftboat Veterarns for Truth) in a successful plan to discredit him.  Here none of what was said by others was truthful.

Now, we have Rick Perry, who 9 months ago wrote a book laying out exactly what he believes (Fed Up).  This is a book written by Perry defining his beliefs in his own words.  Here all of what Perry said you are now told not to believe.

This is the GOP up-is-down world.

Fighter or Lover?

In my country...

When a unilateral decision to continue to push for compromise and bipartisanship causes your base to view you as weak, and the independents to view you as ineffective, it is time to give it up and be a fighter, not a lover.  It is time for Obama to move from his current position, left to where the majority of the American voters are.

Our loss of Freedom and Liberty?

In my country…

   I am starting to hear, once again, the GOP (especially its Presidential candidates) talk about restoring freedom and liberty – usually in the context of “taking back our country”.  I’d like to know the freedoms and liberties they think were lost in the last 2 years and 8 months since Barrack Obama became President.  Perhaps, it’s the Affordable Care Act, or the law to regulate the reckless practices of Wall Street and the banks.  Beyond these two laws that have been sorely needed – 55 million Americans without health insurance and the financial meltdown, I’m not sure what their talking about, do you?  If so, help me out by telling me the freedoms and liberties you have lost over the last two years.

  I also hear them talk a lot about changing the direction we are headed to restore jobs.  They say we need lower taxes and less regulation.  Well as best as I can remember, we have had massive tax cuts, and less regulation since 2000 and we have not seen more jobs created.  At what point, do they believe that lower taxes will actually result in job creation?  From the beginning to the end of President George W. Bush’s 8 years in office taxes were reduced by a huge amount, but it didn’t result in a huge increase in jobs.  Surely he, and his administration, worked to reduce the amount of regulation, but again it didn’t seem to have an effect on job creation.  So why does the GOP believe that this is the answer to creating more jobs.  It wasn’t the spark for our economy from 2000 to 2008, and it won’t be the spark for 2012 and beyond.  On the other hand, it will allow the rich to get richer while the poor gets poorer.  This is not the direction I want our country to head in beyond 2012.

Saving this from the memory hole

In my country...

   I don't like to just post other material very much, but want to save this from the memory hole it is already trying to be pushed down into.  Whether or not you believe it was in fact a trigger, remember that these folks did say these things when they try to say the didn't.


From Talking Points Memo


After Triggering Downgrade, Debt Default Skeptics Try To Run From Their Records — But They Can’t


Standard & Poors has a specific justification for downgrading the U.S. bond rating, and it's deadly for Republicans. It wasn't just that Congress showed itself to be reckless and dysfunctional, or that the GOP shows no sign of ever ending their anti-tax jihad. It's that for a period of weeks, some lawmakers (read: Republicans) were quite literally shrugging off the risks of blowing past the August 2 deadline, running out of borrowing authority, and missing payment obligations.

"[P]eople in the political arena were even talking about a potential default," said Joydeep Mukherji, senior directior at S&P. "That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable," he added. "This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns."

This is unambiguous, and leaves little room for obfuscation. S&P's original, lengthy statement explaining the downgrade cited political dysfunction in Congress quite broadly, but did not mention this specific element of the debate. For weeks, high-profile conservative lawmakers practically welcomed the notion of exhausting the country's borrowing authority, or even technically defaulting. Others brazenly dismissed the risks of doing so. And for a period of days, in an earlier stage of the debate, Republican leaders said technical default would be an acceptable consequence, if it meant the GOP walked away with massive entitlement cuts in the end.

Of course, that doesn't mean the GOP won't try to sweep the mess they've made down the memory hole. Here's Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), who sponsored legislation that would've forced the Treasury to prioritize interest payments on U.S. debt in the event of a lapse in borrowing authority. "No one said that would be acceptable," he said of a default. "What we said was in the event of a deadlock it was imperative that bondholders retain their confidence that loans made to the United States be repaid on schedule."

That may be true for McClintock. Others were much more relaxed about the consequences of ignoring the August 2 deadline.

House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan said if "a bondholder misses a payment for a day or two or three or four," it's preferable so long as "you're putting the government in a materially better position to be able to pay their bonds later on." (Video below)

Ryan and others, including Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), were echoing hedge-fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller, who was quoted in a widely cited Wall Street Journal article. Here's Toomey: "The most high-profile advocate for this was Stanley Druckenmiller ... one of the world's most successful hedge-fund managers, extraordinarily wealthy from his knowledge of the markets, a big money manager now, and a big holder of Treasury securities -- and he has said that he would actually accept even a delay in interest payments on the Treasuries that he holds. And he would prefer that if it meant that the Congress would right this ship."

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) warned against default, but for a time was willing to go past August 2.

"The markets are not fooled by some date imposed to say that that is the trigger for the collapse," he said at a Virginia jobs forum in May. "I think the markets are looking to see that there is real reform."

Others, on the conservative wing of the GOP claimed loudly that President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner were being dishonest about the consequences of blowing past August 2, and refused to vote to raise the debt limit unless Democrats agreed to truly radical conditions.

When Speaker John Boehner acknowledged that missing the August 2 deadline would put the country in "an awful lot of jeopardy, Rep. Louie Gohmert reacted by saying, "[t]he problem with the Speaker, and him saying that, is he believes the President. And I would encourage the Speaker not to believe the President anymore when the President says things like that."

This was a fairly common view among conservative Republicans, particularly in the House.

A number of other them tried to defuse the political time bomb they'd set under themselves by demanding that the White House prioritize not just creditors, but entitlement beneficiaries and the military as well, which would have left no money for just about any government services.

This extended beyond the halls of Congress, too. Taking their cues from the right, GOP Presidential candidates stood opposed to raising the debt limit. In response to a question from TPM, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty said he wasn't sure a temporary U.S. default would have calamitous consequences. "Maybe not. We don't know," he said.

Nebraska GOP Senate candidate Jon Bruning, who, if he wins, will be faced with a debt limit vote in early 2013 said, "[Default] may be something that has to happen to make the fundamental changes that are necessary in the American governmental system. We have to shrink it. And, if the Democratic Party that controls the White House and the Senate doesn't understand it, default may be necessary."

It's worth noting as well that a protracted lapse in borrowing authority would have massive economic consequences even if the Treasury department prioritized U.S. debt, which would reduce incoming revenue, and likely lead to a debt default anyhow. So the notion that the U.S. could meet all of its obligations to bondholders indefinitely doesn't hold water either.

Republicans will try to sidestep Mukherji's claim that they were welcoming, or at least toying with the idea of, in his words, "potential default." But they most certainly were.

Saving this from the memory hole

I do not like to just post other material very much, but want to save this from the memory hole it is already trying to be pushed down into.  Whether or not you believe it was in fact a trigger, remember that these folks did say these things when they try to say the didn't.


From Talking Points Memo


After Triggering Downgrade, Debt Default Skeptics Try To Run From Their Records — But They Can’t



Standard & Poors has a specific justification for downgrading the U.S. bond rating, and it's deadly for Republicans. It wasn't just that Congress showed itself to be reckless and dysfunctional, or that the GOP shows no sign of ever ending their anti-tax jihad. It's that for a period of weeks, some lawmakers (read: Republicans) were quite literally shrugging off the risks of blowing past the August 2 deadline, running out of borrowing authority, and missing payment obligations.

"[P]eople in the political arena were even talking about a potential default," said Joydeep Mukherji, senior directior at S&P. "That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable," he added. "This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns."

This is unambiguous, and leaves little room for obfuscation. S&P's original, lengthy statement explaining the downgrade cited political dysfunction in Congress quite broadly, but did not mention this specific element of the debate. For weeks, high-profile conservative lawmakers practically welcomed the notion of exhausting the country's borrowing authority, or even technically defaulting. Others brazenly dismissed the risks of doing so. And for a period of days, in an earlier stage of the debate, Republican leaders said technical default would be an acceptable consequence, if it meant the GOP walked away with massive entitlement cuts in the end.

Of course, that doesn't mean the GOP won't try to sweep the mess they've made down the memory hole. Here's Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), who sponsored legislation that would've forced the Treasury to prioritize interest payments on U.S. debt in the event of a lapse in borrowing authority. "No one said that would be acceptable," he said of a default. "What we said was in the event of a deadlock it was imperative that bondholders retain their confidence that loans made to the United States be repaid on schedule."

That may be true for McClintock. Others were much more relaxed about the consequences of ignoring the August 2 deadline.

House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan said if "a bondholder misses a payment for a day or two or three or four," it's preferable so long as "you're putting the government in a materially better position to be able to pay their bonds later on." (Video below)

Ryan and others, including Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), were echoing hedge-fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller, who was quoted in a widely cited Wall Street Journal article. Here's Toomey: "The most high-profile advocate for this was Stanley Druckenmiller ... one of the world's most successful hedge-fund managers, extraordinarily wealthy from his knowledge of the markets, a big money manager now, and a big holder of Treasury securities -- and he has said that he would actually accept even a delay in interest payments on the Treasuries that he holds. And he would prefer that if it meant that the Congress would right this ship."

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) warned against default, but for a time was willing to go past August 2.

"The markets are not fooled by some date imposed to say that that is the trigger for the collapse," he said at a Virginia jobs forum in May. "I think the markets are looking to see that there is real reform."

Others, on the conservative wing of the GOP claimed loudly that President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner were being dishonest about the consequences of blowing past August 2, and refused to vote to raise the debt limit unless Democrats agreed to truly radical conditions.

When Speaker John Boehner acknowledged that missing the August 2 deadline would put the country in "an awful lot of jeopardy, Rep. Louie Gohmert reacted by saying, "[t]he problem with the Speaker, and him saying that, is he believes the President. And I would encourage the Speaker not to believe the President anymore when the President says things like that."

This was a fairly common view among conservative Republicans, particularly in the House.

A number of other them tried to defuse the political time bomb they'd set under themselves by demanding that the White House prioritize not just creditors, but entitlement beneficiaries and the military as well, which would have left no money for just about any government services.

This extended beyond the halls of Congress, too. Taking their cues from the right, GOP Presidential candidates stood opposed to raising the debt limit. In response to a question from TPM, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty said he wasn't sure a temporary U.S. default would have calamitous consequences. "Maybe not. We don't know," he said.

Nebraska GOP Senate candidate Jon Bruning, who, if he wins, will be faced with a debt limit vote in early 2013 said, "[Default] may be something that has to happen to make the fundamental changes that are necessary in the American governmental system. We have to shrink it. And, if the Democratic Party that controls the White House and the Senate doesn't understand it, default may be necessary."

It's worth noting as well that a protracted lapse in borrowing authority would have massive economic consequences even if the Treasury department prioritized U.S. debt, which would reduce incoming revenue, and likely lead to a debt default anyhow. So the notion that the U.S. could meet all of its obligations to bondholders indefinitely doesn't hold water either.

Republicans will try to sidestep Mukherji's claim that they were welcoming, or at least toying with the idea of, in his words, "potential default." But they most certainly were.

Today, not tomorrow!

In my life...

   For a work colleague and a friend, a pain in the stomach turned into a trip to the hospital that revealed an obstructed bowel that then required an operation that discovered a tumor that turned out to be cancerous.  Over 4 years ago my friend went through multiple courses of chemotherapy and two stem cell transplants before he finally beat his disease into remission.  He has now relapsed and my heart is heavy.

   The email and subsequent phone calls over the past two weeks have been hard on my emotions.  I can’t even begin to fathom what my friend and his family is feeling – surely something beyond devastation.  Life is delicate indeed.  No matter how much we feel we are in control, and have any situation in hand, our world can be turned on its head in an instant.  He told me he gave himself 24 hours to feel sorry, and that now he is just pissed and determined.  Knowing that he beat cancer before, I believe he will beat it again.

   When things like this can happen to any of us, and in an instant change our lives forever, we realize that we must live in the present.  And by this I mean that time and emotions spent in anger, envy, jealousy, or the host of other negative states of mind, is that much less time spent on what is really important.  Hug your family, call your mom and dad, smile at someone, hold the door, forgive someone who hurt you.  Live today as if there is no tomorrow.

A crisis of confidence, a lack of leadership.

In my country...

    This is the current meme going round the Serious People of the village.  Barak Obama’s lack of leadership is leading to a crisis of confidence in our country.  I don’t buy it.  The fact of the matter is, we now have open warfare in the US Congress.  The GOP has been very forthright about it’s No. 1 goal – making President Obama a 1 term president.  This truly is the GOP’s number 1 goal – more so than working to move our country out of the deepest recession that it was in when he took office.  To make laws to move our country forward, we have to have some level of agreement between the House and the Senate which are controlled by different political parties.  The GOP has shown it is not going to do anything, anything at all, to give the President what could be seen as a “win”.  The game of “no” the GOP is playing is beyond anything we have seen in politics in the modern history.  The GOP wants lower taxes on businesses and individuals, but when the President proposes moves to allow small businesses to purchase and depreciate equipment on more favorable tax terms, the GOP says no way.  When the President proposes changes to Medicare and Social Security (which I disagree with) in a $4 trillion “grand bargain”, the GOP says no.  The truth is the GOP’s strategy, its political strategy, is to have the country stay mired in the aftermath of recession through the 2012 elections.  They have no plan to create jobs, get our country back to work, increase tax revenues (even through increased economic activity).   Remember, the GOP’s stated number one goal is to do anything, and everything, possible to ensure President Obama is not reelected – even if that means stopping things that would move our country forward.

A Pulitzer Prize winning writer agrees with me!

In my country...

Check out Eugene Robinson's column today in the Washington Post.  He pretty much agrees with my take yesterday that the GOP's brinkmanship with the debt ceiling and threatening to cause default is the cause of the market free fall.

Sometimes I get it right!

Thanks GOP and Tea Party

As a direct result of the actions of the GOP and Tea Party in the recent debt ceiling fight, the DOW has lost over 10% of its value over the last two days.

Thanks Tea Party!

A mosaic of opinions

In my country...

This is a cool feature in the NYT that was open for a few days (it’s now closed to comments).   You can see where most of the nearly 17,000 opinions landed – a balanced approach of reducing spending and raising more tax revenue.  If you follow the link, you can hover over 1 of the squares to see the specific comments a person left.

Here are a sample of the comments from each of the 4 corners starting in the top left then moving clockwise.