From Common Dreams -- June 25, 2012:
Supreme Court Upholds Citizens United; Tightens Corporate Stranglehold on Campaign Finance
In 5-4 decision, court strikes down Montana ban on corporate donation law, strengthening Citizens United
In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court has struck down (pdf) Montana's 100 year old law that banned direct corporate political campaign spending in state and local elections. The court reversed a lower court ruling, but did so without allowing full briefing or argument in the case.
Previously, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the law due to the state’s dramatic history of corruption, but the Supreme Court's ruling today rejected that decision, arguing that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Critics, however, say all available evidence -- especially in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens United decision -- suggests such arguments are absurd and say today's decision only strengthens the role of corporate money and independent wealth while weakening the ability of lawmakers and citizens who might try to temper the amount of corporate money that is now flooding into state-level campaigns.
In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer -- who was joined by Justice Ruth Ginsburg in a desire that the high court hear the case -- wrote that "Montana's experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubts on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so."
“The Court’s arrogant move – refusing to even grant a hearing on a Montana law that has served the state well for a century – underscores the need for quick action on a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and allow sensible restrictions on political spending,” said Common Cause President Bob Edgar.
“Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.” -- Justice Steven Breyer
“The Court’s majority has once again chosen ideology over common sense and left American voters defenseless against the forced sale of our elections to big corporations and billionaires,” Edgar added.
US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), also weighed in, arguing the ruling offered further evidence that the US has become a 'plutocracy'; blasting the court's announcement today and their original ruling in 2010.
"The U.S. Supreme Court's absurd 5-4 ruling two years ago in Citizens United was a major blow to American democratic traditions," said Sanders. "Sadly, despite all of the evidence that Americans see every day, the court continues to believe that its decision makes sense"
"I intend to work as hard as I can for a constitutional amendment to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision," he added. To see Sanders' proposed constitutional amendment, click here.
“The 2012 elections make one thing clear: unlimited spending by super PACs and secretive nonprofits is corrupting our political process and threatens to swamp our democracy,” said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel in the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program. “Increasing numbers of Americans believe our government is bought and paid for by special interests and that their votes don’t matter. By not taking this case, the Court missed a critical opportunity to rein in some of the worst excesses of Citizens United, and other rulings, that created this super PAC mess.”
"Citizens and the nation are not going to accept the Supreme Court-imposed campaign finance system that allows our government to be auctioned off to billionaires, millionaires, corporate funders and other special interests using political money to buy influence and results," Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, told the Los Angeles Times. "A major national campaign finance reform movement will begin immediately after the 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
The Supreme Court's "Gang of Five" Class Warfare Against Americans
From The Washington Post -- June 26, 2012:
Class war at the Supreme Court
By Harold Meyerson
On the eve of the Supreme Court’s much anticipated ruling on Obamacare, here is a simple test for detecting the politics behind a decision: When reading the rulings, look for the double standards and answers to questions not posed by the cases themselves. By those measures, the Supreme Court’s record in the past week fairly reeks of the justices’ politics.
Exhibit A is Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, in which nonunion California state employees whose wages and benefits were nonetheless set through the collective bargaining process of SEIU — the state’s largest union — sued the local to get back a special dues assessment it levied in 2005 to fight two ballot measures. The union’s normal practice was to allow nonmembers to opt out of paying the roughly 44 percent of dues that went to matters not directly related to collective bargaining, such as election campaigns. In this instance, however, no such opt-out was allowed.
The issue before the court was whether mandating the collection of the special assessment from nonmembers violated their constitutional rights to free speech. Alito and the four other conservative justices ruled that it did, and liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed in a concurring opinion. But Alito’s opinion didn’t stop there. It also changed the long-standing practice of allowing nonmembers to opt out of paying dues toward union functions outside collective bargaining, mandating instead that the unions “may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.” In other words, unions would have to ask for nonmembers’ permission to collect political assessments and, possibly, any dues at all. “Individuals should not be compelled to subsidize private groups or private speech,” Alito wrote.
Alito’s ruling struck at the heart of American unionism. By laying the groundwork for creating a right for nonmembers to avoid dues payments, he came close to nationalizing the right-to-work laws that 23 states have adopted (though 27 have not). As Sotomayor noted in a somewhat astonished dissent (Ginsburg and Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan dissented on this point as well), this wasn’t the question before the court. Neither side had argued that issue in their briefs or oral presentations. “The majority announces its novel rule,” Sotomayor wrote, “without any analysis of potential countervailing arguments.” And it did so in defiance of the court’s own Rule 14, which states that “only the questions set out in the petition or fairly included therein will be considered by the Court.”
Taken in context with the conservative majority’s other recent rulings, Alito’s opinion also revealed the most class-based double standard the court has exhibited since before the New Deal. In the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission — rendered by the same five justices who signed onto Alito’s ruling in Knox — the court ruled that corporations could directly spend their resources on political campaigns. These two decisions mean that a person who goes to work for the unionized Acme Widget Company can refuse to pay for the union’s intervention in political campaigns but has no recourse to reclaim the value of his labor that Acme reaps and opts to spend on political campaigns. Citizens United created a legal parity between companies and unions — both are free to dip into their treasuries for political activities — but Knox creates a legal disparity between them: a worker’s free-speech right entitles him to withhold funds from union campaign and lobbying activities, but not the value of his work from the company’s similar endeavors.
If you seek a precedent for this anomaly, might I suggest the following sentiment on unions written (not in a court ruling, mind you) by former president William Howard Taft in 1922, when he was chief justice: “That faction we have to hit every little while.” That’s the “legal” tradition to which Alito adhered: fear and loathing of workers’ organizations.
The club champion for double standards, however, is not Alito but Antonin Scalia. Dissenting from this week’s decision striking down major provisions in Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, he argued that Arizona has the sovereign rights of a nation in protecting its borders — a right he gleans through such a bizarre reading of the Constitution that not one of his fellow conservatives signed on to his dissent. Yet the same day, Scalia signed on to a Gang of Five decision declining to hear Montana’s case that its century-old law banning corporate contributions to political campaigns should take precedence over Citizens United. In the world according to Nino, Arizona has the rights of a nation-state, but Montana must submit to the Gang of Five. You’re sovereign when Scalia agrees with you; you’re nothing when he doesn’t.
Politics? Heaven forfend!
Class war at the Supreme Court
By Harold Meyerson
On the eve of the Supreme Court’s much anticipated ruling on Obamacare, here is a simple test for detecting the politics behind a decision: When reading the rulings, look for the double standards and answers to questions not posed by the cases themselves. By those measures, the Supreme Court’s record in the past week fairly reeks of the justices’ politics.
Exhibit A is Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, in which nonunion California state employees whose wages and benefits were nonetheless set through the collective bargaining process of SEIU — the state’s largest union — sued the local to get back a special dues assessment it levied in 2005 to fight two ballot measures. The union’s normal practice was to allow nonmembers to opt out of paying the roughly 44 percent of dues that went to matters not directly related to collective bargaining, such as election campaigns. In this instance, however, no such opt-out was allowed.
The issue before the court was whether mandating the collection of the special assessment from nonmembers violated their constitutional rights to free speech. Alito and the four other conservative justices ruled that it did, and liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed in a concurring opinion. But Alito’s opinion didn’t stop there. It also changed the long-standing practice of allowing nonmembers to opt out of paying dues toward union functions outside collective bargaining, mandating instead that the unions “may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.” In other words, unions would have to ask for nonmembers’ permission to collect political assessments and, possibly, any dues at all. “Individuals should not be compelled to subsidize private groups or private speech,” Alito wrote.
Alito’s ruling struck at the heart of American unionism. By laying the groundwork for creating a right for nonmembers to avoid dues payments, he came close to nationalizing the right-to-work laws that 23 states have adopted (though 27 have not). As Sotomayor noted in a somewhat astonished dissent (Ginsburg and Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan dissented on this point as well), this wasn’t the question before the court. Neither side had argued that issue in their briefs or oral presentations. “The majority announces its novel rule,” Sotomayor wrote, “without any analysis of potential countervailing arguments.” And it did so in defiance of the court’s own Rule 14, which states that “only the questions set out in the petition or fairly included therein will be considered by the Court.”
Taken in context with the conservative majority’s other recent rulings, Alito’s opinion also revealed the most class-based double standard the court has exhibited since before the New Deal. In the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission — rendered by the same five justices who signed onto Alito’s ruling in Knox — the court ruled that corporations could directly spend their resources on political campaigns. These two decisions mean that a person who goes to work for the unionized Acme Widget Company can refuse to pay for the union’s intervention in political campaigns but has no recourse to reclaim the value of his labor that Acme reaps and opts to spend on political campaigns. Citizens United created a legal parity between companies and unions — both are free to dip into their treasuries for political activities — but Knox creates a legal disparity between them: a worker’s free-speech right entitles him to withhold funds from union campaign and lobbying activities, but not the value of his work from the company’s similar endeavors.
If you seek a precedent for this anomaly, might I suggest the following sentiment on unions written (not in a court ruling, mind you) by former president William Howard Taft in 1922, when he was chief justice: “That faction we have to hit every little while.” That’s the “legal” tradition to which Alito adhered: fear and loathing of workers’ organizations.
The club champion for double standards, however, is not Alito but Antonin Scalia. Dissenting from this week’s decision striking down major provisions in Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, he argued that Arizona has the sovereign rights of a nation in protecting its borders — a right he gleans through such a bizarre reading of the Constitution that not one of his fellow conservatives signed on to his dissent. Yet the same day, Scalia signed on to a Gang of Five decision declining to hear Montana’s case that its century-old law banning corporate contributions to political campaigns should take precedence over Citizens United. In the world according to Nino, Arizona has the rights of a nation-state, but Montana must submit to the Gang of Five. You’re sovereign when Scalia agrees with you; you’re nothing when he doesn’t.
Politics? Heaven forfend!
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Are Americans Better Off Today Than 4 Years Ago, Before President Obama Took Office? Hell, Yeah!!
From The Rational Majority:
Are We Better Off Today Than 4 Years Ago, Before President Obama Took Office?
The simple answer is Yes, we are better off, much better off.
Officially the Great Recession started in December 2007, long before most Americans on Main Street realized what was about to happen. After all, our portfolios were solid, our homes were worth a lot more than we owed, credit was easy, the deficits were low ($400B - $500B per year) and we were even being encouraged by Dick Cheney to go shopping! How could we know that there was a large bubble growing?
Three months before the recession was officially declared, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke embarked on the largest bailout program ever conceived with the blessing of a lame-duck president and a complicit Congress - a program which so far will cost taxpayers $8.5 trillion. This staggering sum encompasses: loans backed by worthless assets ($2.3 trillion), equity investments in bankrupt companies with negative net worth ($3.0 trillion), and guarantees on crumbling derivatives and other hollow collateral ($3.2 trillion).
Looking back to 2008, the world and U.S. economies were tanking. Wall Street firms Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers would collapse, as the subprime mortgage crisis was raging. The private-sector economy would plunge, losing 700,000 jobs per month. The Dow was in a downward spiral that would see it fall to below 7,000 and with it, our hard-earned wealth. Record foreclosures and massive losses in home equity would be felt throughout the country. Car companies would threaten to go belly-up. Banks, financial institutions and insurance companies considered "too big to fail" would face catastrophic losses threatening to undermine the entire economy, wiping out credit, savings and retirement plans. We were at the precipice of the second Great Depression.
Since then, much has been done. President Obama continued the TARP program begun by President Bush, designed to stabilize the lending industry. The actions taken by the president cannot be overstated, as the bailout of the financial industry prevented a run on the banks, avoided a severe depression and restored stability to the financial markets. The car companies were given a controversial bailout that saved the shrinking base of American auto manufacturers, their supply chain and the tens of thousands of jobs that support them.
The much-maligned stimulus package prevented a contraction in the overall economy, enough to avoid a second Great Depression. The Dow improved, almost doubling in two years; the hemorrhaging of private-sector jobs began to ease, as private-sector hiring improved. Taxes were cut for working Americans. While facing intense opposition, the dirty little secret is that states used stimulus money to pay their teachers, police officers and firefighters — the act of taking with one hand while slapping with the other.
Along the way, our old nemesis, Osama bin Laden, was eliminated, making the world a safer place. As a measure of prevention that did not go far enough, big banks were reregulated under the Dodd-Frank Act, and consumers were given an independent watchdog. Upwards of 30 million more Americans will now be eligible to enter the health-care system under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Are we better off? Of course! Do we still have a long way to go to get to where we want to be? Certainly!
The question we must ask ourselves is can we afford to bring back the same policies of the brain trust that dug America into a hole so deep that that we almost drowned; or should we bring back the man whose strong hand and careful planning turned the situation around?
Are We Better Off Today Than 4 Years Ago, Before President Obama Took Office?
The simple answer is Yes, we are better off, much better off.
Officially the Great Recession started in December 2007, long before most Americans on Main Street realized what was about to happen. After all, our portfolios were solid, our homes were worth a lot more than we owed, credit was easy, the deficits were low ($400B - $500B per year) and we were even being encouraged by Dick Cheney to go shopping! How could we know that there was a large bubble growing?
Three months before the recession was officially declared, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke embarked on the largest bailout program ever conceived with the blessing of a lame-duck president and a complicit Congress - a program which so far will cost taxpayers $8.5 trillion. This staggering sum encompasses: loans backed by worthless assets ($2.3 trillion), equity investments in bankrupt companies with negative net worth ($3.0 trillion), and guarantees on crumbling derivatives and other hollow collateral ($3.2 trillion).
Looking back to 2008, the world and U.S. economies were tanking. Wall Street firms Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers would collapse, as the subprime mortgage crisis was raging. The private-sector economy would plunge, losing 700,000 jobs per month. The Dow was in a downward spiral that would see it fall to below 7,000 and with it, our hard-earned wealth. Record foreclosures and massive losses in home equity would be felt throughout the country. Car companies would threaten to go belly-up. Banks, financial institutions and insurance companies considered "too big to fail" would face catastrophic losses threatening to undermine the entire economy, wiping out credit, savings and retirement plans. We were at the precipice of the second Great Depression.
Since then, much has been done. President Obama continued the TARP program begun by President Bush, designed to stabilize the lending industry. The actions taken by the president cannot be overstated, as the bailout of the financial industry prevented a run on the banks, avoided a severe depression and restored stability to the financial markets. The car companies were given a controversial bailout that saved the shrinking base of American auto manufacturers, their supply chain and the tens of thousands of jobs that support them.
The much-maligned stimulus package prevented a contraction in the overall economy, enough to avoid a second Great Depression. The Dow improved, almost doubling in two years; the hemorrhaging of private-sector jobs began to ease, as private-sector hiring improved. Taxes were cut for working Americans. While facing intense opposition, the dirty little secret is that states used stimulus money to pay their teachers, police officers and firefighters — the act of taking with one hand while slapping with the other.
Along the way, our old nemesis, Osama bin Laden, was eliminated, making the world a safer place. As a measure of prevention that did not go far enough, big banks were reregulated under the Dodd-Frank Act, and consumers were given an independent watchdog. Upwards of 30 million more Americans will now be eligible to enter the health-care system under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Are we better off? Of course! Do we still have a long way to go to get to where we want to be? Certainly!
The question we must ask ourselves is can we afford to bring back the same policies of the brain trust that dug America into a hole so deep that that we almost drowned; or should we bring back the man whose strong hand and careful planning turned the situation around?
Saturday, June 23, 2012
The Greatest Generation Has Now Become The Dumbest Generation
From Common Dreams -- June 18, 2012:
Dark Ages Redux: American Politics and the End of the Enlightenment
By John Atcheson
We are witnessing an epochal shift in our socio-political world. We are de-evolving, hurtling headlong into a past that was defined by serfs and lords; by necromancy and superstition; by policies based on fiat, not facts.
Much of what has made the modern world in general, and the United States in particular, a free and prosperous society comes directly from insights that arose during the Enlightenment.
Too bad we’re chucking it all out and returning to the Dark Ages.
Literally.
Two main things distinguished the post Enlightenment world from the pre Enlightenment Dark Ages.
First, Francis Bacon’s Novo Organum Scientiarum (The New Instrument of Science) introduced a new way of understanding the world, in which empiricism, facts and … well … reality … defined what was real. It essentially outlined the scientific method: observation and data collection, formulation of hypotheses, experiments designed to test hypotheses and elevation of these hypotheses to theories when data consistently supported them. It was and is a system based on skepticism, and a relentless and methodical search for truth.
It brought us advances and untold wealth and health. From one-horse carts to automobiles to airplanes. From leaches and phrenology to penicillin and monoclonal antibodies.
Until recently.
Now, we seek to operate by revealed truths, not reality. Decrees from on high – often issued by an unholy alliance of religious fundamentalists, self-interested corporations, and greedy fat cats – are offered up as reality by rightwing politicians.
For example, North Carolina law-makers recently passed legislation against sea level rise. A day later, the Virginia legislature required that references to global warming, climate change and sea level rise be excised from a proposed study on sea level rise. Last year, the Texas Department of Environmental Quality, which had commissioned a study on Galveston Bay, cut all references to sea level rise – the main point of the study.
We are, indeed, at an epochal threshold.
As Stephen Colbert so aptly put it: if your science gives you results you don't like, pass a law saying that the result is illegal. Problem solved.
Except it isn’t. Wishing reality away, doesn’t make it go away. Pretending that the unreal is real doesn’t make it real.
And the descent into the Dark Ages is marked by more than global warming. Take austerity budgets. There is an extensive historical record showing that implementing austerity measures in an economic slowdown is counter productive. And this data is backed up by current experience in Europe, where austerity measures have been disastrous.
So the data is telling us austerity during a jobs crisis hasn’t worked in the past and isn’t working now. What to do?
Pass an austerity budget, of course.
Welcome to the Dark Ages.
The litany of ignorance goes on and on. Teach Creationism. Teach the “controversy” on climate science and intelligent design. Declare deregulation – which was a primary cause of the 2008 economic collapse – to be the solution to it. Preach trickle down economics, even after it has failed every time it’s been adopted; even as we watch wealth rocket up the income brackets.
What’s next? Give the flat-earthers a say. Oh hell, why stop there. Let’s put Earth back in the center of the solar system where it belongs.
We don’t need no stinkin’ science. We don’t need no pesky reality. We just gotta pass a few laws and declare things to be the way we want them to be, facts be damned. You know, keep your government hands off my Medicare.
Second, the Enlightenment laid the groundwork for our form of government. The Social Contract is the intellectual basis of all modern democratic republics, including ours. John Locke and others argued that governments derived their authority from the governed, not from divine right. Governments could be legitimate, then, only with the consent of the governed.
Jefferson acknowledged Locke’s influence on the Declaration of Independence and his ideas are evident in the Constitution.
Here again, our founders used reason, empiricism and academic scholarship to cobble together one of the most enduring and influential documents in human history. For all its flaws, it has steered us steadily toward a more perfect union.
Until recently.
Now, reason, empiricism and scholarship are the punch line to right wing jokes and jihads. Santorum captured the Tea Party’s hostility to these Enlightenment virtues when he likened a college education to an indoctrination. Thankfully, Santorum is gone, but the embrace of ignorance he advocated lives on.
And so corporations are now accorded the rights of citizenship. Power, once again, is meted out by birthright, not inalienable right. By possession of wealth, not by justice or equity or merit.
So what?
Well, the US now has the same income inequality as Cameroon, Uganda and Rwanda, and we’re trapped in this pathetic state – income mobility in the US lags behind most other developed nations.
In short, Horatio Alger is dead, long live Exxon.
We are, indeed, at an epochal threshold. We can continue to discard the Enlightenment values which enabled both an untold increase in material wealth and a system of government which turned serfs into citizens. A system which – for all its flaws – often managed to protect the rights of the many, against the predatory power of the few.
Or we can continue our abject surrender to myths, magical thinking, and self-delusion and the Medieval nation-state those forces are resurrecting.
Republicans and Tea Partiers may be leading this retreat from reason, but they are unopposed by Democrats or the Press.
And in the end, there is a special place in Hell for those who allow evil to prosper by doing nothing.
Dark Ages Redux: American Politics and the End of the Enlightenment
By John Atcheson
We are witnessing an epochal shift in our socio-political world. We are de-evolving, hurtling headlong into a past that was defined by serfs and lords; by necromancy and superstition; by policies based on fiat, not facts.
Much of what has made the modern world in general, and the United States in particular, a free and prosperous society comes directly from insights that arose during the Enlightenment.
Too bad we’re chucking it all out and returning to the Dark Ages.
Literally.
Two main things distinguished the post Enlightenment world from the pre Enlightenment Dark Ages.
First, Francis Bacon’s Novo Organum Scientiarum (The New Instrument of Science) introduced a new way of understanding the world, in which empiricism, facts and … well … reality … defined what was real. It essentially outlined the scientific method: observation and data collection, formulation of hypotheses, experiments designed to test hypotheses and elevation of these hypotheses to theories when data consistently supported them. It was and is a system based on skepticism, and a relentless and methodical search for truth.
It brought us advances and untold wealth and health. From one-horse carts to automobiles to airplanes. From leaches and phrenology to penicillin and monoclonal antibodies.
Until recently.
Now, we seek to operate by revealed truths, not reality. Decrees from on high – often issued by an unholy alliance of religious fundamentalists, self-interested corporations, and greedy fat cats – are offered up as reality by rightwing politicians.
For example, North Carolina law-makers recently passed legislation against sea level rise. A day later, the Virginia legislature required that references to global warming, climate change and sea level rise be excised from a proposed study on sea level rise. Last year, the Texas Department of Environmental Quality, which had commissioned a study on Galveston Bay, cut all references to sea level rise – the main point of the study.
We are, indeed, at an epochal threshold.
As Stephen Colbert so aptly put it: if your science gives you results you don't like, pass a law saying that the result is illegal. Problem solved.
Except it isn’t. Wishing reality away, doesn’t make it go away. Pretending that the unreal is real doesn’t make it real.
And the descent into the Dark Ages is marked by more than global warming. Take austerity budgets. There is an extensive historical record showing that implementing austerity measures in an economic slowdown is counter productive. And this data is backed up by current experience in Europe, where austerity measures have been disastrous.
So the data is telling us austerity during a jobs crisis hasn’t worked in the past and isn’t working now. What to do?
Pass an austerity budget, of course.
Welcome to the Dark Ages.
The litany of ignorance goes on and on. Teach Creationism. Teach the “controversy” on climate science and intelligent design. Declare deregulation – which was a primary cause of the 2008 economic collapse – to be the solution to it. Preach trickle down economics, even after it has failed every time it’s been adopted; even as we watch wealth rocket up the income brackets.
What’s next? Give the flat-earthers a say. Oh hell, why stop there. Let’s put Earth back in the center of the solar system where it belongs.
We don’t need no stinkin’ science. We don’t need no pesky reality. We just gotta pass a few laws and declare things to be the way we want them to be, facts be damned. You know, keep your government hands off my Medicare.
Second, the Enlightenment laid the groundwork for our form of government. The Social Contract is the intellectual basis of all modern democratic republics, including ours. John Locke and others argued that governments derived their authority from the governed, not from divine right. Governments could be legitimate, then, only with the consent of the governed.
Jefferson acknowledged Locke’s influence on the Declaration of Independence and his ideas are evident in the Constitution.
Here again, our founders used reason, empiricism and academic scholarship to cobble together one of the most enduring and influential documents in human history. For all its flaws, it has steered us steadily toward a more perfect union.
Until recently.
Now, reason, empiricism and scholarship are the punch line to right wing jokes and jihads. Santorum captured the Tea Party’s hostility to these Enlightenment virtues when he likened a college education to an indoctrination. Thankfully, Santorum is gone, but the embrace of ignorance he advocated lives on.
And so corporations are now accorded the rights of citizenship. Power, once again, is meted out by birthright, not inalienable right. By possession of wealth, not by justice or equity or merit.
So what?
Well, the US now has the same income inequality as Cameroon, Uganda and Rwanda, and we’re trapped in this pathetic state – income mobility in the US lags behind most other developed nations.
In short, Horatio Alger is dead, long live Exxon.
We are, indeed, at an epochal threshold. We can continue to discard the Enlightenment values which enabled both an untold increase in material wealth and a system of government which turned serfs into citizens. A system which – for all its flaws – often managed to protect the rights of the many, against the predatory power of the few.
Or we can continue our abject surrender to myths, magical thinking, and self-delusion and the Medieval nation-state those forces are resurrecting.
Republicans and Tea Partiers may be leading this retreat from reason, but they are unopposed by Democrats or the Press.
And in the end, there is a special place in Hell for those who allow evil to prosper by doing nothing.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Vote for the Great Mitt Romney Depression -- Let Mitt Totally Finish the Destruction of America that Dubya Began
From Common Dreams -- June 14, 2012:
Romney’s Campaign of Inanity
By Ralph Nader
Mitt Romney’s daily dittohead assertions make one wonder what he got out of the law and business degrees he received from Harvard University. One of his regular blasts blames Barack Obama for the daily reports of bad economic indicators. Unemployment increases – blame Obama. Retail sales decline – blame Obama. Profits not rising – blame Obama. Housing crisis continues– blame Obama.
Mr. Romney will be the first to tell you that government doesn’t create jobs. In the same breath he’ll brag about creating thousands of jobs as a one-term governor of Massachusetts. And that's just the beginning of his inanity.
At the same time, Mr. Romney will be the first to tell you that government doesn’t create jobs. In the same breath he’ll brag about creating thousands of jobs as a one-term governor of Massachusetts.
Are there contradictions here?
Welcome to the land of “Republican-speak” and the media dutifully headlining every absurd charge or claim made by the foregone Republican nominee for president in 2012.
First, government can both create jobs and cost jobs. Public works programs by state and federal government have created jobs in America for over 200 years. So do long-overdue safety and health regulations such as those requiring seat belts and air bags and smoke stack scrubbers, which can all be manufactured by American workers.
On the other hand, the “government – global corporate alliance” that created one-sided tax and trade policies like those advanced under NAFTA and through the World Trade Organization have cost millions of net American jobs. After all, the massive annual trade deficits recorded by the United States over the last thirty years have meant a net export of both blue and white collar jobs.
Mr. Romney correctly scoffed at then rival candidate Newt Gingrich last January when the latter claimed that he (as Speaker of the House of Representatives) and Bill Clinton created 11 million jobs. Mr. Gingrich and, in his day, Mr. Clinton took credit for this job surge which really was the result of the tech boom out of Silicon Valley and Seattle which lunched off past government research and development programs.
In the 24-hour news cycle, Mr. Romney is everywhere and nowhere. Even his argument that government can only create jobs by getting out of the way of the business world rings false. He wants more tax reductions for the rich and their companies. But business is already taxed far less as a percentage of profits than was the case in the more prosperous 1960s. Not since the 1950s have taxes overall been lower as a percentage of the GDP than they are today. This is a major reason for the growing federal deficits.
Next Mr. Romney trumpets fewer regulations as having a freeing effect on companies allowing them to create jobs. As always he is very vague about specifics. Since 2000, diminished or no bank regulations have been a major cause for the spiral of reckless speculation and the growth of the complex, abstract derivatives monster which brought down large companies and cost so many millions of people their jobs.
The truth is that most federal regulations on the books are weak and obsolete. Many safety rules and standards are in that category.
Our country is dominated by large corporations. Their lobbyists and their PAC contributions shape how Congress spends large chunks of the federal operating budget to enrich the giant military-industrial complex and expand corporate welfare programs. These same corporate pleaders oppose an inflation-adjusted minimum wage. In fact, corporate lobbies have tied the hands of presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Barack Obama.
To blame Mr. Obama so completely for the state of the economy is more than Mr. Romney trying to drape amnesia on the public about the role of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It is to assume Mr. Obama has the power to control the Federal Reserve and the stubborn, corporate indentured members of Congress who constitute most members of Mr. Romney’s party.
Blocking the repairing of America’s public works has been the priority of John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell – the Republican leaders. Mr. Obama’s failure is not to take them head on for these community upgrades all over the country.
Mr. Romney wants Mr. Obama to cut spending. Yet he accuses Mr. Obama of under-funding the bloated, massive military budget. Mr. Romney, moreover, never spotlights the hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate subsidies, handouts, giveaways and outrageous tax loopholes to Mr. Romney’s campaign paymasters.
The former “private equity” capitalist touts his experience in creating jobs as the reason for voters to choose him. Read “The Buyout of America” by Josh Kosman to really understand how these corporate strip miners arrange leveraged buyouts, load their acquisitions with large debt, drain off their borrowed dividends, lay off workers and often bury firms in bankruptcies after they have been sucked dry.
Stage Stores, Damon Corporation, Ampad, GS Technologies, Dade Behring, DDi and KB Toys all filed for bankruptcy after being acquired by Mr. Romney’s Bain Capital.
Too bad there are not dozens of presidential debates this fall where people in every region of the country could host the nominees for really substantive exchanges. Inane soundbytes may be good for Madison Avenue, but they are bad for our election campaigns.
Romney’s Campaign of Inanity
By Ralph Nader
Mitt Romney’s daily dittohead assertions make one wonder what he got out of the law and business degrees he received from Harvard University. One of his regular blasts blames Barack Obama for the daily reports of bad economic indicators. Unemployment increases – blame Obama. Retail sales decline – blame Obama. Profits not rising – blame Obama. Housing crisis continues– blame Obama.
Mr. Romney will be the first to tell you that government doesn’t create jobs. In the same breath he’ll brag about creating thousands of jobs as a one-term governor of Massachusetts. And that's just the beginning of his inanity.
At the same time, Mr. Romney will be the first to tell you that government doesn’t create jobs. In the same breath he’ll brag about creating thousands of jobs as a one-term governor of Massachusetts.
Are there contradictions here?
Welcome to the land of “Republican-speak” and the media dutifully headlining every absurd charge or claim made by the foregone Republican nominee for president in 2012.
First, government can both create jobs and cost jobs. Public works programs by state and federal government have created jobs in America for over 200 years. So do long-overdue safety and health regulations such as those requiring seat belts and air bags and smoke stack scrubbers, which can all be manufactured by American workers.
On the other hand, the “government – global corporate alliance” that created one-sided tax and trade policies like those advanced under NAFTA and through the World Trade Organization have cost millions of net American jobs. After all, the massive annual trade deficits recorded by the United States over the last thirty years have meant a net export of both blue and white collar jobs.
Mr. Romney correctly scoffed at then rival candidate Newt Gingrich last January when the latter claimed that he (as Speaker of the House of Representatives) and Bill Clinton created 11 million jobs. Mr. Gingrich and, in his day, Mr. Clinton took credit for this job surge which really was the result of the tech boom out of Silicon Valley and Seattle which lunched off past government research and development programs.
In the 24-hour news cycle, Mr. Romney is everywhere and nowhere. Even his argument that government can only create jobs by getting out of the way of the business world rings false. He wants more tax reductions for the rich and their companies. But business is already taxed far less as a percentage of profits than was the case in the more prosperous 1960s. Not since the 1950s have taxes overall been lower as a percentage of the GDP than they are today. This is a major reason for the growing federal deficits.
Next Mr. Romney trumpets fewer regulations as having a freeing effect on companies allowing them to create jobs. As always he is very vague about specifics. Since 2000, diminished or no bank regulations have been a major cause for the spiral of reckless speculation and the growth of the complex, abstract derivatives monster which brought down large companies and cost so many millions of people their jobs.
The truth is that most federal regulations on the books are weak and obsolete. Many safety rules and standards are in that category.
Our country is dominated by large corporations. Their lobbyists and their PAC contributions shape how Congress spends large chunks of the federal operating budget to enrich the giant military-industrial complex and expand corporate welfare programs. These same corporate pleaders oppose an inflation-adjusted minimum wage. In fact, corporate lobbies have tied the hands of presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Barack Obama.
To blame Mr. Obama so completely for the state of the economy is more than Mr. Romney trying to drape amnesia on the public about the role of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It is to assume Mr. Obama has the power to control the Federal Reserve and the stubborn, corporate indentured members of Congress who constitute most members of Mr. Romney’s party.
Blocking the repairing of America’s public works has been the priority of John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell – the Republican leaders. Mr. Obama’s failure is not to take them head on for these community upgrades all over the country.
Mr. Romney wants Mr. Obama to cut spending. Yet he accuses Mr. Obama of under-funding the bloated, massive military budget. Mr. Romney, moreover, never spotlights the hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate subsidies, handouts, giveaways and outrageous tax loopholes to Mr. Romney’s campaign paymasters.
The former “private equity” capitalist touts his experience in creating jobs as the reason for voters to choose him. Read “The Buyout of America” by Josh Kosman to really understand how these corporate strip miners arrange leveraged buyouts, load their acquisitions with large debt, drain off their borrowed dividends, lay off workers and often bury firms in bankruptcies after they have been sucked dry.
Stage Stores, Damon Corporation, Ampad, GS Technologies, Dade Behring, DDi and KB Toys all filed for bankruptcy after being acquired by Mr. Romney’s Bain Capital.
Too bad there are not dozens of presidential debates this fall where people in every region of the country could host the nominees for really substantive exchanges. Inane soundbytes may be good for Madison Avenue, but they are bad for our election campaigns.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
A Complete Guide to How Republicans are Destroying America
From Common Dreams -- May 29, 2012:
How the "Job Creators" REALLY Spend Their Money
by Paul Buchheit
In his "Gospel of Wealth," Andrew Carnegie argued that average Americans should welcome the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, because the "superior wisdom, experience, and ability" of the rich would ensure benefits for all of us. More recently, Edward Conard, the author of "Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You've Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong, said: "As a society, we're not offering our talented few large enough rewards. We're underpaying our 'risk takers.'"
Does wealthy America have a point, that giving them all the money will ensure it's disbursed properly, and that it will create jobs and stimulate small business investment while ultimately benefiting society? Big business CEOs certainly think so, claiming in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that an increase in the capital gains tax would reduce investment "when we need capital formation here in America to create jobs and expand our economy."
They don't cite evidence for their claims, because the evidence proves them wrong. Here are the facts:
The Very Rich Don't Like Making Risky Investments
Marketwatch estimates that over 90% of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), the stock market, and real estate. According to economist Richard Wolff, about half of the assets of the richest 1% are held in unincorporated business equity (personal business accounts). The Wall Street Journal notes that over three-quarters of individuals worth over $20 million are invested in hedge funds.
Angel investing (capital provided by affluent individuals for business start-ups) accounted for less than 1% of the investable assets of high net worth individuals in North America in 2011.
The Mendelsohn Affluent Survey confirmed that the very rich spend less than two percent of their money on new business startups. The last thing most of them want, apparently, is the risky business of hiring people for new innovation.
The Very Rich Don't Like Taking On Risky Jobs
CEOs, upper management, and financial professionals made up about 60 percent of the richest 1% of Americans in 2005. Only 3 percent were entrepreneurs. A recent study found that less than 1 percent of all entrepreneurs came from very rich or very poor backgrounds.The biggest investment by corporations is overseas, where they keep 57 percent of their cash and fill their factories with low-wage workers. Commerce Department figures show that U.S. companies cut their work forces by 2.9 million from 2000 to 2009 while increasing overseas employment by 2.4 million.
In fact, the very rich may not care about U.S. jobs in any form. Surveys reveal that 60 percent of investors worth $25 million or more are investing up to a third of their total assets overseas. Back home, the extra wealth created by the Bush tax cuts led to "worst track record" for jobs in recorded history. The true American job creator, as venture capitalist Nick Hanauer would agree, is the middle-class consumer.
The Very Rich Corporations Don't Like Spending On America
How do corporations spend their money? To a good extent, they don't. According to Moody's, cash holdings for U.S. non-financial firms rose 3 percent to $1.24 trillion in 2011. The corporate cash-to-assets ratio nearly tripled between 1980 and 2010. It has been estimated that the corporate stash of cash reserves held in America could employ 3.5 million more people for five years at an annual salary of $40,000.
The top holders of cash, including Apple and Google and Intel and Coca Cola and Chevron, are spending their money on stock buybacks (which increase stock option prices), dividends to investors, and subsidiary acquisitions. According to Bloomberg, share repurchasing is at one of its highest levels in 25 years.
Apple claims to have added 500,000 jobs to the economy, but that includes app-building tech enthusiasts and Fedex drivers delivering iPhones. The company actually has 47,000 U.S. employees, about one-tenth of General Motors' workforce in the 1990s.
The biggest investment by corporations is overseas, where they keep 57 percent of their cash and fill their factories with low-wage workers. Commerce Department figures show that U.S. companies cut their work forces by 2.9 million from 2000 to 2009 while increasing overseas employment by 2.4 million. They also tap into a "brain drain" of foreign entrepreneurs, scientists, and medical professionals rather than supporting education in America.
One last way corporations see fit to spend their money: executive bonuses. Especially at the banks, where the extra stipends are often paid for with zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve.
The richest individuals and corporations are really good at building up fortunes. They're even better at building up their "job creator" myth.
How the "Job Creators" REALLY Spend Their Money
by Paul Buchheit
In his "Gospel of Wealth," Andrew Carnegie argued that average Americans should welcome the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, because the "superior wisdom, experience, and ability" of the rich would ensure benefits for all of us. More recently, Edward Conard, the author of "Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You've Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong, said: "As a society, we're not offering our talented few large enough rewards. We're underpaying our 'risk takers.'"
Does wealthy America have a point, that giving them all the money will ensure it's disbursed properly, and that it will create jobs and stimulate small business investment while ultimately benefiting society? Big business CEOs certainly think so, claiming in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that an increase in the capital gains tax would reduce investment "when we need capital formation here in America to create jobs and expand our economy."
They don't cite evidence for their claims, because the evidence proves them wrong. Here are the facts:
The Very Rich Don't Like Making Risky Investments
Marketwatch estimates that over 90% of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), the stock market, and real estate. According to economist Richard Wolff, about half of the assets of the richest 1% are held in unincorporated business equity (personal business accounts). The Wall Street Journal notes that over three-quarters of individuals worth over $20 million are invested in hedge funds.
Angel investing (capital provided by affluent individuals for business start-ups) accounted for less than 1% of the investable assets of high net worth individuals in North America in 2011.
The Mendelsohn Affluent Survey confirmed that the very rich spend less than two percent of their money on new business startups. The last thing most of them want, apparently, is the risky business of hiring people for new innovation.
The Very Rich Don't Like Taking On Risky Jobs
CEOs, upper management, and financial professionals made up about 60 percent of the richest 1% of Americans in 2005. Only 3 percent were entrepreneurs. A recent study found that less than 1 percent of all entrepreneurs came from very rich or very poor backgrounds.The biggest investment by corporations is overseas, where they keep 57 percent of their cash and fill their factories with low-wage workers. Commerce Department figures show that U.S. companies cut their work forces by 2.9 million from 2000 to 2009 while increasing overseas employment by 2.4 million.
In fact, the very rich may not care about U.S. jobs in any form. Surveys reveal that 60 percent of investors worth $25 million or more are investing up to a third of their total assets overseas. Back home, the extra wealth created by the Bush tax cuts led to "worst track record" for jobs in recorded history. The true American job creator, as venture capitalist Nick Hanauer would agree, is the middle-class consumer.
The Very Rich Corporations Don't Like Spending On America
How do corporations spend their money? To a good extent, they don't. According to Moody's, cash holdings for U.S. non-financial firms rose 3 percent to $1.24 trillion in 2011. The corporate cash-to-assets ratio nearly tripled between 1980 and 2010. It has been estimated that the corporate stash of cash reserves held in America could employ 3.5 million more people for five years at an annual salary of $40,000.
The top holders of cash, including Apple and Google and Intel and Coca Cola and Chevron, are spending their money on stock buybacks (which increase stock option prices), dividends to investors, and subsidiary acquisitions. According to Bloomberg, share repurchasing is at one of its highest levels in 25 years.
Apple claims to have added 500,000 jobs to the economy, but that includes app-building tech enthusiasts and Fedex drivers delivering iPhones. The company actually has 47,000 U.S. employees, about one-tenth of General Motors' workforce in the 1990s.
The biggest investment by corporations is overseas, where they keep 57 percent of their cash and fill their factories with low-wage workers. Commerce Department figures show that U.S. companies cut their work forces by 2.9 million from 2000 to 2009 while increasing overseas employment by 2.4 million. They also tap into a "brain drain" of foreign entrepreneurs, scientists, and medical professionals rather than supporting education in America.
One last way corporations see fit to spend their money: executive bonuses. Especially at the banks, where the extra stipends are often paid for with zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve.
The richest individuals and corporations are really good at building up fortunes. They're even better at building up their "job creator" myth.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Chapter and Verse on How Republican Policies are Destroying the US Economy and are Speeding the USA Towards A New Depression
From Media Matters for America -- June 1, 2012:
Though Experts Agree Spending Cuts Hurt The Economy, Media Amplify GOP Attacks On Obama's Policies
Economic experts agree that spending cuts in a weak economy hurt the creation of jobs and economic growth. Though Republicans in Congress spent much of 2011 demanding spending cuts, the media are amplifying their attacks on President Obama's economic record.
Experts: Spending Cuts In A Weak Economy Damage Growth ...
IMF: "Fiscal Consolidation Typically Reduces Output And Raises Unemployment In The Short Term." From the IMF's 2010 World Economic Outlook:
Based on a historical analysis of fiscal consolidation in advanced economies, and on simulations of the IMF's Global Integrated Monetary and Fiscal Model (GIMF), it finds that fiscal consolidation typically reduces output and raises unemployment in the short term. [IMF, World Economic Outlook, 10/10]
Economist Menzie Chinn: "A Front Loaded Fiscal Contraction, Heavy On Spending Cuts" Would Make The "Current US Recovery Worse Than That Of The Great Depression." Comparing the U.S. economy to that of the United Kingdom, University of Wisconsin economist Menzie Chinn writes on the blog Econbrowser:
[W]e too can make the current US recovery worse than that of the Great Depression; just implement a front loaded fiscal contraction, heavy on spending cuts. Furthermore, in order to maximize the contractionary impact, harass the monetary authorities to tighten policy by inciting fears of high inflation (Ã la Rep. Paul Ryan), when year-on-year inflation as measured by the personal consumption expenditure deflator is 2.1%. [Econbrowser, 5/3/12]
Wash. Post: IMF Paper Shows "Austerity Does Ugly, Ugly Things To A Country's Economy In The Short Term." From Brad Plumer writing at The Washington Post's Wonkblog:
In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years -- with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity "lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment."
Now, this doesn't mean fiscal consolidation is never worth pursuing. Some countries do run up against unmanageable debt levels. And the IMF cites a number of ancillary benefits that come from reducing deficits, such as lightening the burden from interest payments. But the historical record is clear: Austerity does ugly, ugly things to a country's economy in the short term, which is why the IMF now recommends passing deficit-reduction plans that kick in only "when the recovery is more robust."
Reich: "America's Jobs Deficit Continues To Be A Much Larger Problem Than The Budget Deficit." In a February 3 blog post, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote:
When they're not blaming Obama for a bad economy, Republicans are decrying the federal budget deficit and demanding more cuts. But America's jobs deficit continues to be a much larger problem than the budget deficit.
In fact, we can't possibly achieve the growth needed to reduce the budget deficit as a proportion of the total economy unless far more people are employed. Workers are consumers, and consumer spending is 70 percent of economic activity. And cutting the budget means fewer workers, directly (as government continues to shed workers) and indirectly (as government contractors have to lay off workers) and therefore fewer consumers.
Yet deficit hawks continue to circle. [RobertReich.org, 2/3/12]
Bernanke: Congress Must "Take Care Not To Unnecessarily Impede The Current Economic Recovery." In a February 2 article, The Washington Post reported:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke on Thursday cautioned lawmakers against taking any steps that would hurt economic growth as they work to cut the nation's debt, and he defended the central bank's recent actions to support the economy.
In testimony before the House Budget Committee, Bernanke urged Congress to put a priority on finding a sustainable level of federal spending over coming decades.
But, he said, they also must "take care not to unnecessarily impede the current economic recovery." Supporting growth now, he said, "will lead to lower deficits and debt in coming years." [The Washington Post, 2/2/12]
... And Government Cutbacks Are Hurting Job Growth Today
NY Times' Norris: Jobs Report "Cries Out For Action From Washington," But "There Are Powerful Forces Screaming To Cut Government Spending." From Floyd Norris, writing on The New York Times' Economix blog:
The jobs report for May was worse than almost anyone expected. It cries out for action from Washington, but the political pressures point the other way. Just as Europe needs to do something to push growth, so does the United States. But there are powerful forces screaming to cut government spending on both continents.
It may be worth noting that -- in the private sector -- this recovery is going a little faster than did the one following the early 1990s downturn, and is only a little slower than the most recent ones. The big difference is in government jobs. [The New York Times, 6/1/12]
Krugman: If Not For "This Destructive Fiscal Austerity, Our Unemployment Rate Would Almost Certainly Be Lower Now" Than It Was During '80s Recovery. From New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman:
The economic news is looking better lately. But after previous false starts -- remember "green shoots"? -- it would be foolish to assume that all is well. And in any case, it's still a very slow economic recovery by historical standards.
There are several reasons for this slowness, with the most important being the overhang of household debt that is a legacy of the housing bubble. But one significant factor in our continuing economic weakness is the fact that government in America is doing exactly what both theory and history say it shouldn't: slashing spending in the face of a depressed economy.
In fact, if it weren't for this destructive fiscal austerity, our unemployment rate would almost certainly be lower now than it was at a comparable stage of the "Morning in America" recovery during the Reagan era.
Notice that I said "government in America," not "the federal government." The federal government has been pursuing what amount to contractionary policies as the last vestiges of the Obama stimulus fade out, but the big cuts have come at the state and local level. These state and local cuts have led to a sharp fall in both government employment and government spending on goods and services, exerting a powerful drag on the economy as a whole. [The New York Times, 3/4/12]
Meanwhile, GOP Pushed For Spending Cuts In 2011 ...
Time: "Boehner's Goal Is To Extract The Highest Amount Of Cuts." From a story Time's Swampland blog describing the GOP's approach to the 2011 debt limit fight:
Sure, there are a hard-core group of 25-plus members who will never vote to raise the debt ceiling, but don't be fooled. Most Republicans are keenly aware of the damage a debt-ceiling lapse would do to the economy -- and to their electoral chances. This will be a tough vote they won't want to take more than once. And they aren't going to vote for it without major concessions from Democrats in the form of trillions of dollars' worth of spending cuts. House Speaker John Boehner has said he wants whatever they raise the ceiling by -- it'll take an estimated $2.5 trillion to make the hike last until after the 2012 elections -- offset by cuts. Vice President Joe Biden and his working group agreed to more than $1 trillion in cuts, but that only gets them halfway there. Boehner wants the rest of the cuts to come out of entitlements, particularly Medicare. Democrats have been bashing Republicans for their votes on Paul Ryan's budget, accusing them of wanting to turn Medicare into a voucher system. Enacting bipartisan cuts to Medicare helps inoculate the GOP against such criticisms ahead of the 2012 elections. And though they haven't ruled out revenue raisers, House Republicans are suspicious of Democratic tax proposals, particularly ones that would cap tax deductions for such things as charitable giving and mortgage payments. The last time deductions were capped was under George H.W. Bush, a move that led to accusations that he broke his pledge of "no new taxes." Boehner's goal is to extract the highest amount of cuts, including Medicare cuts, for the least amount of revenue raisers. [Time, 6/30/11]
Business Insider: "20 Huge Spending Cuts Republicans Want To Make Right Now." From a Business Insider post headlined "20 Huge Spending Cuts Republicans Want To Make Right Now:
Conservative House Republicans unveiled a proposal to slash federal spending by $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years, taking aim at rail transit, goat farmers and a lot of programs in between.
The keystone of the plan is the reduction of non-security, non-veteran spending to 2008 FY levels when the continuing resolution expires in March. Spending would then drop to 2006 FY levels until 2021.
To further cut spending, the Republican Study Committee targeted more than 50 programs that would get the ax. [Business Insider, 1/21/11]
National Journal: House GOP Appropriations Chair "Will Seek To Cut $100 Billion From What President Obama Had Requested For This Fiscal Year." From National Journal:
In another victory for tea party rebels in Congress today, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., scrapped his original plan for spending cuts and announced that he will seek to cut $100 billion from what President Obama had requested for this fiscal year.
"My committee has been working diligently to go line-by-line in every agency budget to find and cut unnecessary spending to reduce our deficit and help our economy thrive," Rogers said in a statement. "We have determined that the [continuing resolution] can and will reach a total of $100 billion in cuts compared to the president's request immediately -- fully meeting the goal outlined in the Republican 'Pledge to America' in one fell swoop."
Rogers didn't say what those cuts might be, a clear sign that House GOP leaders had been caught by surprise, which left appropriators scrambling to figure out how they would assuage their tea party critics on the right. [National Journal, 2/12/11]
... And Blocked Obama's Jobs Bill
Obama's Jobs Bill Introduced In The Senate. In a September 14 article in The Hill, Pete Kasperowicz outlined Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's introduction of Obama's American Jobs Act. From The Hill:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday introduced President Obama's American Jobs Act in the Senate.
Reid's bill, S. 1549, is the text of the proposal that Obama has implored Congress to pass, but which Republicans say has no chance in the House because Obama has proposed to pay for the $447 billion jobs plan with new taxes.
[...]
Reid did not make any written statement upon introduction of Obama's bill, but the legislation is likely to be taken up in the Senate in order to pressure House Republicans to act. The bill is described as a measure to "provide tax relief for American workers and businesses, to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing America and to provide pathways back to work for Americans looking for jobs." [The Hill, 9/14/11]
CBS News: Senate Republicans Filibuster Jobs Bill In Vote Of 50 To 48. In an October 11 CBS News article titled, "Senate Republicans block Obama's jobs package," Stephanie Condon wrote:
Senate Republicans blocked President Obama's $447 billion jobs package on Tuesday, putting the brakes on a bill Mr. Obama has been vigorously promoting over the past month.
By around 7 p.m., the vote tally was 50 to 48, giving Republicans more than the 40 votes needed to filibuster the bill. Voting was kept open for another few hours to allow one more senator -- Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire -- to get back to Washington to cast a vote in favor of the legislation. With Shaheen's vote, Mr. Obama can at least claim a symbolic victory with a simple majority voting in favor of his legislation.
The final vote tally was 50 to 49, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid switched his vote to "no" for technical reasons -- under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority allows Reid to revive the bill at a later date if he wants. [CBS News, 11/11/11]
UPI: "GOP Blocks Jobs Bill In The Senate." A November 3 UPI article titled, "GOP blocks jobs bill in Senate," detailed Republican efforts in the Senate to block the president's American Jobs Act. From the article:
U.S. Senate Republicans, joined by one Democrat and one Independent, Thursday blocked a proposal President Barack Obama said would "put Americans back to work."
The Senate voted 51-49 in favor of a procedural motion on the bill, which would spend $60 billion on transportation and infrastructure. However, 60 votes were required to break a GOP filibuster on the bill.
It was the third time in recent weeks Republicans were able to block measures that had been components of the American Jobs Act, initially proposed by the administration as a comprehensive, $447 billion package intended to boost hiring and give money to states to hire teachers and public safety workers. [UPI, 11/3/11]
Though Experts Agree Spending Cuts Hurt The Economy, Media Amplify GOP Attacks On Obama's Policies
Economic experts agree that spending cuts in a weak economy hurt the creation of jobs and economic growth. Though Republicans in Congress spent much of 2011 demanding spending cuts, the media are amplifying their attacks on President Obama's economic record.
Experts: Spending Cuts In A Weak Economy Damage Growth ...
IMF: "Fiscal Consolidation Typically Reduces Output And Raises Unemployment In The Short Term." From the IMF's 2010 World Economic Outlook:
Based on a historical analysis of fiscal consolidation in advanced economies, and on simulations of the IMF's Global Integrated Monetary and Fiscal Model (GIMF), it finds that fiscal consolidation typically reduces output and raises unemployment in the short term. [IMF, World Economic Outlook, 10/10]
Economist Menzie Chinn: "A Front Loaded Fiscal Contraction, Heavy On Spending Cuts" Would Make The "Current US Recovery Worse Than That Of The Great Depression." Comparing the U.S. economy to that of the United Kingdom, University of Wisconsin economist Menzie Chinn writes on the blog Econbrowser:
[W]e too can make the current US recovery worse than that of the Great Depression; just implement a front loaded fiscal contraction, heavy on spending cuts. Furthermore, in order to maximize the contractionary impact, harass the monetary authorities to tighten policy by inciting fears of high inflation (Ã la Rep. Paul Ryan), when year-on-year inflation as measured by the personal consumption expenditure deflator is 2.1%. [Econbrowser, 5/3/12]
Wash. Post: IMF Paper Shows "Austerity Does Ugly, Ugly Things To A Country's Economy In The Short Term." From Brad Plumer writing at The Washington Post's Wonkblog:
In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years -- with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity "lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment."
Now, this doesn't mean fiscal consolidation is never worth pursuing. Some countries do run up against unmanageable debt levels. And the IMF cites a number of ancillary benefits that come from reducing deficits, such as lightening the burden from interest payments. But the historical record is clear: Austerity does ugly, ugly things to a country's economy in the short term, which is why the IMF now recommends passing deficit-reduction plans that kick in only "when the recovery is more robust."
Reich: "America's Jobs Deficit Continues To Be A Much Larger Problem Than The Budget Deficit." In a February 3 blog post, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote:
When they're not blaming Obama for a bad economy, Republicans are decrying the federal budget deficit and demanding more cuts. But America's jobs deficit continues to be a much larger problem than the budget deficit.
In fact, we can't possibly achieve the growth needed to reduce the budget deficit as a proportion of the total economy unless far more people are employed. Workers are consumers, and consumer spending is 70 percent of economic activity. And cutting the budget means fewer workers, directly (as government continues to shed workers) and indirectly (as government contractors have to lay off workers) and therefore fewer consumers.
Yet deficit hawks continue to circle. [RobertReich.org, 2/3/12]
Bernanke: Congress Must "Take Care Not To Unnecessarily Impede The Current Economic Recovery." In a February 2 article, The Washington Post reported:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke on Thursday cautioned lawmakers against taking any steps that would hurt economic growth as they work to cut the nation's debt, and he defended the central bank's recent actions to support the economy.
In testimony before the House Budget Committee, Bernanke urged Congress to put a priority on finding a sustainable level of federal spending over coming decades.
But, he said, they also must "take care not to unnecessarily impede the current economic recovery." Supporting growth now, he said, "will lead to lower deficits and debt in coming years." [The Washington Post, 2/2/12]
... And Government Cutbacks Are Hurting Job Growth Today
NY Times' Norris: Jobs Report "Cries Out For Action From Washington," But "There Are Powerful Forces Screaming To Cut Government Spending." From Floyd Norris, writing on The New York Times' Economix blog:
The jobs report for May was worse than almost anyone expected. It cries out for action from Washington, but the political pressures point the other way. Just as Europe needs to do something to push growth, so does the United States. But there are powerful forces screaming to cut government spending on both continents.
It may be worth noting that -- in the private sector -- this recovery is going a little faster than did the one following the early 1990s downturn, and is only a little slower than the most recent ones. The big difference is in government jobs. [The New York Times, 6/1/12]
Krugman: If Not For "This Destructive Fiscal Austerity, Our Unemployment Rate Would Almost Certainly Be Lower Now" Than It Was During '80s Recovery. From New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman:
The economic news is looking better lately. But after previous false starts -- remember "green shoots"? -- it would be foolish to assume that all is well. And in any case, it's still a very slow economic recovery by historical standards.
There are several reasons for this slowness, with the most important being the overhang of household debt that is a legacy of the housing bubble. But one significant factor in our continuing economic weakness is the fact that government in America is doing exactly what both theory and history say it shouldn't: slashing spending in the face of a depressed economy.
In fact, if it weren't for this destructive fiscal austerity, our unemployment rate would almost certainly be lower now than it was at a comparable stage of the "Morning in America" recovery during the Reagan era.
Notice that I said "government in America," not "the federal government." The federal government has been pursuing what amount to contractionary policies as the last vestiges of the Obama stimulus fade out, but the big cuts have come at the state and local level. These state and local cuts have led to a sharp fall in both government employment and government spending on goods and services, exerting a powerful drag on the economy as a whole. [The New York Times, 3/4/12]
Meanwhile, GOP Pushed For Spending Cuts In 2011 ...
Time: "Boehner's Goal Is To Extract The Highest Amount Of Cuts." From a story Time's Swampland blog describing the GOP's approach to the 2011 debt limit fight:
Sure, there are a hard-core group of 25-plus members who will never vote to raise the debt ceiling, but don't be fooled. Most Republicans are keenly aware of the damage a debt-ceiling lapse would do to the economy -- and to their electoral chances. This will be a tough vote they won't want to take more than once. And they aren't going to vote for it without major concessions from Democrats in the form of trillions of dollars' worth of spending cuts. House Speaker John Boehner has said he wants whatever they raise the ceiling by -- it'll take an estimated $2.5 trillion to make the hike last until after the 2012 elections -- offset by cuts. Vice President Joe Biden and his working group agreed to more than $1 trillion in cuts, but that only gets them halfway there. Boehner wants the rest of the cuts to come out of entitlements, particularly Medicare. Democrats have been bashing Republicans for their votes on Paul Ryan's budget, accusing them of wanting to turn Medicare into a voucher system. Enacting bipartisan cuts to Medicare helps inoculate the GOP against such criticisms ahead of the 2012 elections. And though they haven't ruled out revenue raisers, House Republicans are suspicious of Democratic tax proposals, particularly ones that would cap tax deductions for such things as charitable giving and mortgage payments. The last time deductions were capped was under George H.W. Bush, a move that led to accusations that he broke his pledge of "no new taxes." Boehner's goal is to extract the highest amount of cuts, including Medicare cuts, for the least amount of revenue raisers. [Time, 6/30/11]
Business Insider: "20 Huge Spending Cuts Republicans Want To Make Right Now." From a Business Insider post headlined "20 Huge Spending Cuts Republicans Want To Make Right Now:
Conservative House Republicans unveiled a proposal to slash federal spending by $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years, taking aim at rail transit, goat farmers and a lot of programs in between.
The keystone of the plan is the reduction of non-security, non-veteran spending to 2008 FY levels when the continuing resolution expires in March. Spending would then drop to 2006 FY levels until 2021.
To further cut spending, the Republican Study Committee targeted more than 50 programs that would get the ax. [Business Insider, 1/21/11]
National Journal: House GOP Appropriations Chair "Will Seek To Cut $100 Billion From What President Obama Had Requested For This Fiscal Year." From National Journal:
In another victory for tea party rebels in Congress today, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., scrapped his original plan for spending cuts and announced that he will seek to cut $100 billion from what President Obama had requested for this fiscal year.
"My committee has been working diligently to go line-by-line in every agency budget to find and cut unnecessary spending to reduce our deficit and help our economy thrive," Rogers said in a statement. "We have determined that the [continuing resolution] can and will reach a total of $100 billion in cuts compared to the president's request immediately -- fully meeting the goal outlined in the Republican 'Pledge to America' in one fell swoop."
Rogers didn't say what those cuts might be, a clear sign that House GOP leaders had been caught by surprise, which left appropriators scrambling to figure out how they would assuage their tea party critics on the right. [National Journal, 2/12/11]
... And Blocked Obama's Jobs Bill
Obama's Jobs Bill Introduced In The Senate. In a September 14 article in The Hill, Pete Kasperowicz outlined Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's introduction of Obama's American Jobs Act. From The Hill:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday introduced President Obama's American Jobs Act in the Senate.
Reid's bill, S. 1549, is the text of the proposal that Obama has implored Congress to pass, but which Republicans say has no chance in the House because Obama has proposed to pay for the $447 billion jobs plan with new taxes.
[...]
Reid did not make any written statement upon introduction of Obama's bill, but the legislation is likely to be taken up in the Senate in order to pressure House Republicans to act. The bill is described as a measure to "provide tax relief for American workers and businesses, to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing America and to provide pathways back to work for Americans looking for jobs." [The Hill, 9/14/11]
CBS News: Senate Republicans Filibuster Jobs Bill In Vote Of 50 To 48. In an October 11 CBS News article titled, "Senate Republicans block Obama's jobs package," Stephanie Condon wrote:
Senate Republicans blocked President Obama's $447 billion jobs package on Tuesday, putting the brakes on a bill Mr. Obama has been vigorously promoting over the past month.
By around 7 p.m., the vote tally was 50 to 48, giving Republicans more than the 40 votes needed to filibuster the bill. Voting was kept open for another few hours to allow one more senator -- Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire -- to get back to Washington to cast a vote in favor of the legislation. With Shaheen's vote, Mr. Obama can at least claim a symbolic victory with a simple majority voting in favor of his legislation.
The final vote tally was 50 to 49, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid switched his vote to "no" for technical reasons -- under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority allows Reid to revive the bill at a later date if he wants. [CBS News, 11/11/11]
UPI: "GOP Blocks Jobs Bill In The Senate." A November 3 UPI article titled, "GOP blocks jobs bill in Senate," detailed Republican efforts in the Senate to block the president's American Jobs Act. From the article:
U.S. Senate Republicans, joined by one Democrat and one Independent, Thursday blocked a proposal President Barack Obama said would "put Americans back to work."
The Senate voted 51-49 in favor of a procedural motion on the bill, which would spend $60 billion on transportation and infrastructure. However, 60 votes were required to break a GOP filibuster on the bill.
It was the third time in recent weeks Republicans were able to block measures that had been components of the American Jobs Act, initially proposed by the administration as a comprehensive, $447 billion package intended to boost hiring and give money to states to hire teachers and public safety workers. [UPI, 11/3/11]
Republicans' "Starving the Government" Is Destroying the American Economy
From Common Dreams -- June 1, 2002:
Dismal Jobs Reports Driven by Continued Cuts to Public Sector, say Analysts
More public spending -- not austerity -- needed to lift economy, economists argue
The May jobs report released today by US Department of Labor was called 'disappointing' and 'dismal' by economists and analysts as the economy added just 69,000 jobs during the month and the official unemployment rate rose from 8.1 to 8.2 percent.
A sign directs job seekers during Los Angeles Mission's 11th annual Skid Row Career Fair on May 31, in Los Angeles. The May jobs report released today by US Department of Labor was called 'disappointing' and 'dismal' by economists and analysts as the economy added just 69,000 jobs during the month and the official unemployment rate rose from 8.1 to 8.2 percent.
"Today’s disappointing employment report shows that the labor market remains far below full strength," Chad Stone, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement.
Stone said the report should be a caution to elected officials who have pressed for tightening unemployment insurance benefits for those out of work. "Since policymakers created the first such program in 1958, they have never allowed it to end when unemployment topped 7.2 percent — and they certainly should not start this year," he said.
Robert L. Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, responded to the report by saying it “confirms what we already know: mass unemployment and its harsh human misery remain the fundamental challenge facing America." Borosage pointed to continued public sector cuts as the biggest reason for the stagnant economy.
"Layoffs of public employees at the state, local, and now the national level are a continuing drag on the economy. If the public sector employed as many workers today as it did on the eve of the financial collapse, 2 million more people would be employed, and our unemployment rate would be about a percentage point lower." --Robert Borosage, Campaign for America's Future
"Layoffs of public employees at the state, local, and now the national level are a continuing drag on the economy. If the public sector employed as many workers today as it did on the eve of the financial collapse, 2 million more people would be employed, and our unemployment rate would be about a percentage point lower," he argued.
Robert Reich, Former US secretary of labor, said it's necessary to look at events both inside and outside of the United States for a full picture of the dismal economic picture.
"Part of the problem is the rest of the world," he said. "Europe is in the throes of a debt crisis and spiraling toward recession. China and India are slowing. Developing nations such as Brazil, dependent on exports to China, are feeling the effects and they’re slowing as well. All this takes a toll on U.S. exports."
But a bigger part of the problem, Reich continued, is on the domestic demand side. "Big companies are still sitting on a huge pile of cash," he said, but they "won’t invest it in new jobs because American consumers aren’t buying enough to justify the risk and expense of doing so."
No president since Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression has won re-election with an unemployment rate as high as it is today, noted many political observers and the numbers and history suggest that Obama's road to re-election becomes much more arduous with each month bringing the same poor news for the nation's unemployed.
"Republicans will have a field day with today’s jobs report," predicted Reich. The GOP, he argued, would take it "as a sign that Obama’s economic policies have failed and we need instead their brand of fiscal austerity combined with more tax cuts for the wealthy."
"That," however, said Reich, "is precisely the reverse of what’s needed."
And Pat Garofalo, the economic policy editor at Think Progress, laments the drive by "cut-happy Republicans," whose austerity drive in Congress has led to "hundreds of thousands of public sector job losses." Writing:
Last month alone, 7,000 state and local level education jobs disappeared.
It makes no sense to sustain these sort of economic body blows when the government can borrow on the cheap and use it to put people back to work. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), though, responded to the jobs report by criticizing the supposed “‘stimulus’ spending binge” (the existence of which is a myth), and Republicans have made no indication that serious job creation efforts are on their agenda.
Boehner, of course, neglected to mention that the spending cuts the GOP demanded in return for raising the debt ceiling will stifle job creation, and that the GOP refused to pass the Obama administration’s American Jobs Act, which economists said would create millions of jobs. In fact, Boehner has already indicated that he and the GOp will demand more spending cuts as the nation approaches its borrowing limit again later this year.
Dismal Jobs Reports Driven by Continued Cuts to Public Sector, say Analysts
More public spending -- not austerity -- needed to lift economy, economists argue
The May jobs report released today by US Department of Labor was called 'disappointing' and 'dismal' by economists and analysts as the economy added just 69,000 jobs during the month and the official unemployment rate rose from 8.1 to 8.2 percent.
A sign directs job seekers during Los Angeles Mission's 11th annual Skid Row Career Fair on May 31, in Los Angeles. The May jobs report released today by US Department of Labor was called 'disappointing' and 'dismal' by economists and analysts as the economy added just 69,000 jobs during the month and the official unemployment rate rose from 8.1 to 8.2 percent.
"Today’s disappointing employment report shows that the labor market remains far below full strength," Chad Stone, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement.
Stone said the report should be a caution to elected officials who have pressed for tightening unemployment insurance benefits for those out of work. "Since policymakers created the first such program in 1958, they have never allowed it to end when unemployment topped 7.2 percent — and they certainly should not start this year," he said.
Robert L. Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, responded to the report by saying it “confirms what we already know: mass unemployment and its harsh human misery remain the fundamental challenge facing America." Borosage pointed to continued public sector cuts as the biggest reason for the stagnant economy.
"Layoffs of public employees at the state, local, and now the national level are a continuing drag on the economy. If the public sector employed as many workers today as it did on the eve of the financial collapse, 2 million more people would be employed, and our unemployment rate would be about a percentage point lower." --Robert Borosage, Campaign for America's Future
"Layoffs of public employees at the state, local, and now the national level are a continuing drag on the economy. If the public sector employed as many workers today as it did on the eve of the financial collapse, 2 million more people would be employed, and our unemployment rate would be about a percentage point lower," he argued.
Robert Reich, Former US secretary of labor, said it's necessary to look at events both inside and outside of the United States for a full picture of the dismal economic picture.
"Part of the problem is the rest of the world," he said. "Europe is in the throes of a debt crisis and spiraling toward recession. China and India are slowing. Developing nations such as Brazil, dependent on exports to China, are feeling the effects and they’re slowing as well. All this takes a toll on U.S. exports."
But a bigger part of the problem, Reich continued, is on the domestic demand side. "Big companies are still sitting on a huge pile of cash," he said, but they "won’t invest it in new jobs because American consumers aren’t buying enough to justify the risk and expense of doing so."
No president since Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression has won re-election with an unemployment rate as high as it is today, noted many political observers and the numbers and history suggest that Obama's road to re-election becomes much more arduous with each month bringing the same poor news for the nation's unemployed.
"Republicans will have a field day with today’s jobs report," predicted Reich. The GOP, he argued, would take it "as a sign that Obama’s economic policies have failed and we need instead their brand of fiscal austerity combined with more tax cuts for the wealthy."
"That," however, said Reich, "is precisely the reverse of what’s needed."
And Pat Garofalo, the economic policy editor at Think Progress, laments the drive by "cut-happy Republicans," whose austerity drive in Congress has led to "hundreds of thousands of public sector job losses." Writing:
Last month alone, 7,000 state and local level education jobs disappeared.
It makes no sense to sustain these sort of economic body blows when the government can borrow on the cheap and use it to put people back to work. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), though, responded to the jobs report by criticizing the supposed “‘stimulus’ spending binge” (the existence of which is a myth), and Republicans have made no indication that serious job creation efforts are on their agenda.
Boehner, of course, neglected to mention that the spending cuts the GOP demanded in return for raising the debt ceiling will stifle job creation, and that the GOP refused to pass the Obama administration’s American Jobs Act, which economists said would create millions of jobs. In fact, Boehner has already indicated that he and the GOp will demand more spending cuts as the nation approaches its borrowing limit again later this year.
Republicans are Deliberately Sabotaging the American Economy In Order to Defeat President Obama
From The Progress Report -- June 1, 2002:
GOP’s Austerity Chickens Come Home to Roost
Is This What Sabotage Looks Like?
Today’s dismal jobs report — just 69,000 net jobs created last month and the unemployment rate ticking up slightly to 8.2 percent — shows that the GOP’s success at manufacturing crises, blocking new job creation measures, and forcing deep spending cuts is taking a severe toll on our economy and the lives of millions of unemployed Americans.
Why would Republicans want a weaker economy? Republicans have made clear that defeating the president, which would be made much easier by a weak economy, is their number one priority. For example, here’s Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY):
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
Here’s the rundown on how the GOP has helped sabotage the economic recovery.
State and Local Government Budget Cuts Led to Massive Layoffs
By refusing to extend sufficient aid to state and local governments, Republicans all but ensured that there would be massive layoffs at the state and local level. And indeed there have been, with over 600,000 public sectors working losing their jobs since the president came into office, including another 13,000 just this month.
As the above chart shows, all of the private sector jobs lost since President Obama came into office have now been replaced. The president has now created 4.3 million private sector jobs — and at a much faster pace than did President Bush. Under President Bush, however, the public sector expanded at a robust rate, while under President Obama it has contracted considerably.
As President Obama said this afternoon in Minnesota, “layoffs at the state and local level have been a chronic problem in our recovery.”
For his part, Mitt Romney has repeatedly said in recent weeks that not enough government workers lost their jobs during the recession.
Manufactured Crises and Austerity Spending Cuts
Last year, Republicans threw the economy into disarray with their manufactured crisis over the debt ceiling. In return for not crashing the entire economy, Republicans insisted on and won deep spending cuts — cuts which will only further reduce demand in an already weak economy. In addition to leading to a first-ever downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, the manufactured crisis also shook consumer confidence and led to weaker job growth.
As the Republicans are signaling their intent to demand yet more draconian spending cuts and manufacture yet another debt ceiling crisis at the end of the year, two leading economists put out a piece this week proclaiming that “debt ceiling deja vu could sink the economy.”
Jobs Bills Blocked
Last year, the president proposed the American Jobs Act, a bill that would’ve staunched the flow of layoffs of teachers, firefighters, cops, and others, while putting hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work rebuilding our roads, bridges, schools, airports, and other critical pieces of infrastructure. Independent economists found that it would’ve created 1.3 million jobs by the end of next year.
Senate Republicans, however, objected and voted the bill down on multiple occasions simply because it was paid for with a small surtax on millionaires. House Republicans refused to even take it up. This just underscores that Republicans will do nearly anything, apparently including harming the economy, if that’s what it takes to protect millionaires and billionaires from paying another dime in taxes.
Republicans have also blocked or delayed several other bills vital to the economy, including an extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits, the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, the surface transportation bill, and the reauthorization of the Export-Import bank.
IN ONE SENTENCE: It’s time for Republicans to stop sabotaging the recovery and start working with the president to put Americans back to work.
GOP’s Austerity Chickens Come Home to Roost
Is This What Sabotage Looks Like?
Today’s dismal jobs report — just 69,000 net jobs created last month and the unemployment rate ticking up slightly to 8.2 percent — shows that the GOP’s success at manufacturing crises, blocking new job creation measures, and forcing deep spending cuts is taking a severe toll on our economy and the lives of millions of unemployed Americans.
Why would Republicans want a weaker economy? Republicans have made clear that defeating the president, which would be made much easier by a weak economy, is their number one priority. For example, here’s Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY):
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
Here’s the rundown on how the GOP has helped sabotage the economic recovery.
State and Local Government Budget Cuts Led to Massive Layoffs
By refusing to extend sufficient aid to state and local governments, Republicans all but ensured that there would be massive layoffs at the state and local level. And indeed there have been, with over 600,000 public sectors working losing their jobs since the president came into office, including another 13,000 just this month.
As the above chart shows, all of the private sector jobs lost since President Obama came into office have now been replaced. The president has now created 4.3 million private sector jobs — and at a much faster pace than did President Bush. Under President Bush, however, the public sector expanded at a robust rate, while under President Obama it has contracted considerably.
As President Obama said this afternoon in Minnesota, “layoffs at the state and local level have been a chronic problem in our recovery.”
For his part, Mitt Romney has repeatedly said in recent weeks that not enough government workers lost their jobs during the recession.
Manufactured Crises and Austerity Spending Cuts
Last year, Republicans threw the economy into disarray with their manufactured crisis over the debt ceiling. In return for not crashing the entire economy, Republicans insisted on and won deep spending cuts — cuts which will only further reduce demand in an already weak economy. In addition to leading to a first-ever downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, the manufactured crisis also shook consumer confidence and led to weaker job growth.
As the Republicans are signaling their intent to demand yet more draconian spending cuts and manufacture yet another debt ceiling crisis at the end of the year, two leading economists put out a piece this week proclaiming that “debt ceiling deja vu could sink the economy.”
Jobs Bills Blocked
Last year, the president proposed the American Jobs Act, a bill that would’ve staunched the flow of layoffs of teachers, firefighters, cops, and others, while putting hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work rebuilding our roads, bridges, schools, airports, and other critical pieces of infrastructure. Independent economists found that it would’ve created 1.3 million jobs by the end of next year.
Senate Republicans, however, objected and voted the bill down on multiple occasions simply because it was paid for with a small surtax on millionaires. House Republicans refused to even take it up. This just underscores that Republicans will do nearly anything, apparently including harming the economy, if that’s what it takes to protect millionaires and billionaires from paying another dime in taxes.
Republicans have also blocked or delayed several other bills vital to the economy, including an extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits, the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, the surface transportation bill, and the reauthorization of the Export-Import bank.
IN ONE SENTENCE: It’s time for Republicans to stop sabotaging the recovery and start working with the president to put Americans back to work.
Republican Strategy -- Destroy the American Economy with Misguided "Austerity" Measures and Blame President Obama
From The New York Times -- June 1, 2012:
'The Boom, Not The Slump, Is The Right Time For Austerity'
By Paul Krugman
“The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity.” So declared John Maynard Keynes 75 years ago, and he was right. Even if you have a long-run deficit problem — and who doesn’t? — slashing spending while the economy is deeply depressed is a self-defeating strategy, because it just deepens the depression.
'The Boom, Not The Slump, Is The Right Time For Austerity'
By Paul Krugman
“The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity.” So declared John Maynard Keynes 75 years ago, and he was right. Even if you have a long-run deficit problem — and who doesn’t? — slashing spending while the economy is deeply depressed is a self-defeating strategy, because it just deepens the depression.
Republicans Put American Troops In Harm's Way to Protect Big Oil
From CREDO -- May 31, 2012:
Tell Republicans: Stop blocking the military on biofuels
Here's the most direct proof yet that Republicans care more about protecting Big Oil than anything else -- even our national security and our troops:
Republicans in Congress are working to block the military from developing biofuels that will save lives and save money by reducing the military's dependence on oil.1
This is brazen -- even for the GOP. As Congress works to finalize the defense budget, we need to call out Republicans' attempts to keep the military locked into dirty, dangerous energy.
Tell Republicans: Stop forcing the military to use dirty energy.
We know that as a whole, our dependence on oil is a threat to our national security and well-being, both in terms of our dependence on hostile regimes and the rapid escalation of climate change.
But for the military, the costs of oil dependence are far more acute. One in eight troop casualties in Iraq came as a result of protecting fuel convoys, according to a 2009 study by the military.2 And the rising costs of oil will put the military more than $3 billion over-budget this year, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said earlier this month.3
So it only makes sense that the military, as our nation's largest and most demanding energy user, would seek alternatives to ever more costly fossil-fuel, whose transportation and defense represents a clear point of vulnerability for our soldiers. Everyone from the President, to military leadership,4 to the airline industry5 agrees.
But not the oil-soaked Republican party. Earlier this month, the House passed a 2013 defense budget which included provisions that would block the military from purchasing, developing and even testing biofuels. And last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee -- with the help of Dirty Democrats Sens. Jim Webb and Joe Manchin - followed suit.6 But if we raise enough pressure, there's still time to strike these provisions from the final bill on the Senate floor.
Tell Republicans: Stop forcing the military to use dirty energy.
Republicans claim these provisions are about the costs of alternative fuels, but undermined that hollow claim by passing a resolution to promote the use of expensive and filthy coal-to-liquid fuel.
It is literally sick that oil industry campaign contributions to Republicans could so successfully maintain the vicious cycle of our continued dependence on oil, which creates the need to engage with hostile nations, which endangers our troops in military operations, which require even more fossil fuel transported at higher costs and greater risk to military personnel, (all while speeding catastrophic climate change.)
Republicans love to talk about "supporting the troops." We need to remind them that that should mean our soldiers in harm's way, not oil industry lobbyists.
Tell Republicans: Stop blocking the military on biofuels
Here's the most direct proof yet that Republicans care more about protecting Big Oil than anything else -- even our national security and our troops:
Republicans in Congress are working to block the military from developing biofuels that will save lives and save money by reducing the military's dependence on oil.1
This is brazen -- even for the GOP. As Congress works to finalize the defense budget, we need to call out Republicans' attempts to keep the military locked into dirty, dangerous energy.
Tell Republicans: Stop forcing the military to use dirty energy.
We know that as a whole, our dependence on oil is a threat to our national security and well-being, both in terms of our dependence on hostile regimes and the rapid escalation of climate change.
But for the military, the costs of oil dependence are far more acute. One in eight troop casualties in Iraq came as a result of protecting fuel convoys, according to a 2009 study by the military.2 And the rising costs of oil will put the military more than $3 billion over-budget this year, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said earlier this month.3
So it only makes sense that the military, as our nation's largest and most demanding energy user, would seek alternatives to ever more costly fossil-fuel, whose transportation and defense represents a clear point of vulnerability for our soldiers. Everyone from the President, to military leadership,4 to the airline industry5 agrees.
But not the oil-soaked Republican party. Earlier this month, the House passed a 2013 defense budget which included provisions that would block the military from purchasing, developing and even testing biofuels. And last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee -- with the help of Dirty Democrats Sens. Jim Webb and Joe Manchin - followed suit.6 But if we raise enough pressure, there's still time to strike these provisions from the final bill on the Senate floor.
Tell Republicans: Stop forcing the military to use dirty energy.
Republicans claim these provisions are about the costs of alternative fuels, but undermined that hollow claim by passing a resolution to promote the use of expensive and filthy coal-to-liquid fuel.
It is literally sick that oil industry campaign contributions to Republicans could so successfully maintain the vicious cycle of our continued dependence on oil, which creates the need to engage with hostile nations, which endangers our troops in military operations, which require even more fossil fuel transported at higher costs and greater risk to military personnel, (all while speeding catastrophic climate change.)
Republicans love to talk about "supporting the troops." We need to remind them that that should mean our soldiers in harm's way, not oil industry lobbyists.
Mitt Romney -- "Mister Etch-A-Sketch" -- A Man Without Courage or Principles
From The Washington Post -- May 31, 2012:
Romney plays his Trump card
By Eugene Robinson
Donald Trump has said that he would be “open” to accepting a Cabinet post if Mitt Romney becomes president. Trump would prefer “a position where I negotiate against some of these countries, because they are really taking our lunch.” So is he on the short list, perhaps, for secretary of state?
Don’t laugh. Okay, go ahead and laugh. Point out that Trump is barely qualified to be secretary of salami.
But then ask Romney why he chooses to embrace and encourage a puffed-up buffoon whose antic self-promotion, once mildly amusing, has become rabid and toxic. Ask Romney whether giving Trump a platform doesn’t cheapen what should be a serious debate about the future of the country. Ask Romney why he decided to join a huckster’s silly sideshow.
In a week when Romney clinched the Republican nomination, his appearance at a Las Vegas fundraiser with Trump — and Trump’s doubled-down insistence that the thoroughly discredited, insane “birther” theories about President Obama have merit — dominated the political news.
When pressed by reporters on Monday why he continues to associate with Trump, Romney gave an answer that was unintentionally revealing. “You know, I don’t agree with all the people who support me, and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” he said. “But I need to get 50.1 percent or more, and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”
This raises two issues, the lesser of which is the suggestion that Romney will accept endorsements and donations from anyone who chooses to give them.
One hopes that when he was running Bain Capital, he took his obligation to perform due diligence more seriously.
The greater issue is this: Romney thinks that Trump actually has the Romney campaign’s best interests in mind? Really? If so, one has to wonder whether Romney is too gullible to be president.
The idea that Trump cares about anything bigger than Trump is absurd. In his mind, from all evidence, there is nothing bigger than Trump.
If Trump really wanted Romney to win, he wouldn’t have done an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that deserves a prominent place in the annals of lunacy. Trump begins by slamming a taped introduction as “totally inappropriate” and “actually very dishonest” because it focused on the birther nonsense. He goes on to tell Blitzer that Obama “uses reverse psychology” and pretends nonchalance about discussions of his origins when actually “it’s not an issue that he likes talking about.”
I should interject that, back here on Planet Earth, the Obama campaign did all it could this week to focus attention on Trump and birtherism. The mood of top advisers seemed to approach unrestrained glee.
Poor Blitzer notes that Hawaii has formally certified Obama’s birth certificate. Trump contends that “many people” do not believe the document is authentic.
“Like who?” Blitzer asks.
“There are many people,” says Trump.
“Give me a name of somebody,” demands Blitzer.
“There are many people,” says Trump. “I don’t give names.”
Indeed, Trump refuses to violate the Super-Secret Birther Code of Silence by naming a single person who doubts the facts of Obama’s birth. He does pin himself down, however, when Blitzer asks whether “the conspiracy” is supposed to have begun in 1961, when announcements of Obama’s birth were published in two Honolulu newspapers.
“That’s right,” Trump says. “And many people put those announcements in because they wanted to get the benefit of being so-called born in this country. Many people did it. It was something that was done by many people, even if they weren’t born in the country. You know it, and so do I, and so do a lot of your viewers.”
This is transparently crazy — and also stupid. It is a bald-faced lie that “many people” — or any people, far as I can tell — ever published fake birth announcements in hopes of establishing citizenship.
Moreover, Obama has to be a U.S. citizen, even if he were born on the moon, because of his mother’s citizenship. Trump needs to hire some writers to come up with better material.
As for Romney, he needs to decide whether Trump is the sort of person on whom he wants to rely for support and advice — if he’s one of the “good people” Romney would be proud to have at his side if he becomes president.
Oh, sorry. Looks as if that choice has already been made
Romney plays his Trump card
By Eugene Robinson
Donald Trump has said that he would be “open” to accepting a Cabinet post if Mitt Romney becomes president. Trump would prefer “a position where I negotiate against some of these countries, because they are really taking our lunch.” So is he on the short list, perhaps, for secretary of state?
Don’t laugh. Okay, go ahead and laugh. Point out that Trump is barely qualified to be secretary of salami.
But then ask Romney why he chooses to embrace and encourage a puffed-up buffoon whose antic self-promotion, once mildly amusing, has become rabid and toxic. Ask Romney whether giving Trump a platform doesn’t cheapen what should be a serious debate about the future of the country. Ask Romney why he decided to join a huckster’s silly sideshow.
In a week when Romney clinched the Republican nomination, his appearance at a Las Vegas fundraiser with Trump — and Trump’s doubled-down insistence that the thoroughly discredited, insane “birther” theories about President Obama have merit — dominated the political news.
When pressed by reporters on Monday why he continues to associate with Trump, Romney gave an answer that was unintentionally revealing. “You know, I don’t agree with all the people who support me, and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” he said. “But I need to get 50.1 percent or more, and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”
This raises two issues, the lesser of which is the suggestion that Romney will accept endorsements and donations from anyone who chooses to give them.
One hopes that when he was running Bain Capital, he took his obligation to perform due diligence more seriously.
The greater issue is this: Romney thinks that Trump actually has the Romney campaign’s best interests in mind? Really? If so, one has to wonder whether Romney is too gullible to be president.
The idea that Trump cares about anything bigger than Trump is absurd. In his mind, from all evidence, there is nothing bigger than Trump.
If Trump really wanted Romney to win, he wouldn’t have done an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that deserves a prominent place in the annals of lunacy. Trump begins by slamming a taped introduction as “totally inappropriate” and “actually very dishonest” because it focused on the birther nonsense. He goes on to tell Blitzer that Obama “uses reverse psychology” and pretends nonchalance about discussions of his origins when actually “it’s not an issue that he likes talking about.”
I should interject that, back here on Planet Earth, the Obama campaign did all it could this week to focus attention on Trump and birtherism. The mood of top advisers seemed to approach unrestrained glee.
Poor Blitzer notes that Hawaii has formally certified Obama’s birth certificate. Trump contends that “many people” do not believe the document is authentic.
“Like who?” Blitzer asks.
“There are many people,” says Trump.
“Give me a name of somebody,” demands Blitzer.
“There are many people,” says Trump. “I don’t give names.”
Indeed, Trump refuses to violate the Super-Secret Birther Code of Silence by naming a single person who doubts the facts of Obama’s birth. He does pin himself down, however, when Blitzer asks whether “the conspiracy” is supposed to have begun in 1961, when announcements of Obama’s birth were published in two Honolulu newspapers.
“That’s right,” Trump says. “And many people put those announcements in because they wanted to get the benefit of being so-called born in this country. Many people did it. It was something that was done by many people, even if they weren’t born in the country. You know it, and so do I, and so do a lot of your viewers.”
This is transparently crazy — and also stupid. It is a bald-faced lie that “many people” — or any people, far as I can tell — ever published fake birth announcements in hopes of establishing citizenship.
Moreover, Obama has to be a U.S. citizen, even if he were born on the moon, because of his mother’s citizenship. Trump needs to hire some writers to come up with better material.
As for Romney, he needs to decide whether Trump is the sort of person on whom he wants to rely for support and advice — if he’s one of the “good people” Romney would be proud to have at his side if he becomes president.
Oh, sorry. Looks as if that choice has already been made
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
