Wouldn't it be nice if politicians and their talking-heads could just admit when they're wrong, when they've misunderstood something or misspoke? Sadly it seems that will never be the case in our "with us or against us" political system.
Patrick McIlheran at the Journal Sentinel aims to deduce the seedy, underlying "meaning" in the Democrats' health care proposals. He parrots the Republican qualifier that "death panel" may not be in any proposal, but the implication is there.
Pat quips, regarding death panels, “They’re not in the bill but the logic is most certainly contained in what the bill empowers government to do.”
The proposals simply state that if a person or their family chooses to have an end of life consultation it is reimbursable. Basically, you're now covered to enact a living will. But the masters of political treachery - the Republicans - have turned this into the death sport of Democrats versus grandmothers.
But I guess this is typical Republican tactics: focus on that which cannot be proven or disproven. [Since they choose to ignore actually reading the proposals; it's so much easier to just make stuff up.] Obama was born in Kenya. Even when they're shown his birth certificate, that still doesn't disprove their crazy lie. Next, they fabricate "death panels". When it's shown that no such thing is in any bill, they simply say, "But that's obviously the intent."
Is there really any point trying to have a debate/discussion with these people? As Barney Frank said to an agitator at a town hall meeting the other day, "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with the dining room table."
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Public Realm
Jon Stewart answers, as Barack Obama should have, to the questions of a conservative college student [Zack Lane, (public) University of Colorado, at roughly 3:17], as well as other health care considerations.
Bill Maher finishes the thought as to why public options, in general, can be preferential to the privatization of everything.
Bill Maher finishes the thought as to why public options, in general, can be preferential to the privatization of everything.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Shooting For Safety
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Contemptible Congressman
It's great to see, now that he finally has gotten a platform to speak from, that Paul Ryan is fighting for our health care. Oh, wait. Ryan has held public office since January 1999, and this is the first time he's even bothered to mention health care. I guess when the cronies that fund your campaign are threatened with smaller profits, one is suddenly moved to fight for the private insurers. Ooops, I mean, fight for the people.
Ryan feels we should, "...provide all Americans with the resources they need to purchase quality, affordable health insurance." What does this mean? Is he proposing the government just subsidize all costs? We're going to cover everyone and the government will pay? There's an innovative plan.
Then, as if amnesia occurred, in the next paragraph, Paul claims, "It takes an uncomfortable faith in Washington to believe that spending can be restrained and bureaucratic waste can be contained if only we gave government more control." So, the government should subsidize the costs, but have no say in the management? And somehow costs will also be constrained?
Next, he proclaims, "Despite skyrocketing costs remaining our top concern, the majority has concluded that we are not spending enough on health care in America." What majority? Who is he talking about? Most comments I've seen seem to feel we are misallocating our health care dollars, not that we have to spend more.
Of course, he had to mention "rationing". As I stated in the previous post, "One of a few boogeymen (rationing, death panels) the right has erected in the health care debate. Health care is already rationed. Private insurers decide who is covered and who is not. They decide what procedures will be paid be for, or whether one can even have a procedure. We have an ineffective bureaucrat between the doctor and the patient already - it's the private insurers."
He then tries scare tactics and myth-making with talk of citizens losing their current coverage. Although he quotes the Presidents statement, "If you like what you got, you can keep it." But Ryan doesn't believe this. So Paul then beats the rationing drum, again, as the sinister way in which the President will try to achieve cost control.
It's striking, sad, and funny that Paul closes with, "Health care reform is one of the most crucial domestic issues this Congress will act on and requires the input of all Americans." Again, this has been a crucial issue for decades. What the hell have you been doing, Paul? Your party killed President Clinton's attempt at health care reform in the 1990s. You, along with your Republican do-nothings, have sat on your hands for the last eight years. What were your priorities then? Needless wars (costing trillions), trying to kill Social Security, and tax cuts and more tax cuts.
Step aside and let the people who want to govern do their job.
Ryan feels we should, "...provide all Americans with the resources they need to purchase quality, affordable health insurance." What does this mean? Is he proposing the government just subsidize all costs? We're going to cover everyone and the government will pay? There's an innovative plan.
Then, as if amnesia occurred, in the next paragraph, Paul claims, "It takes an uncomfortable faith in Washington to believe that spending can be restrained and bureaucratic waste can be contained if only we gave government more control." So, the government should subsidize the costs, but have no say in the management? And somehow costs will also be constrained?
Next, he proclaims, "Despite skyrocketing costs remaining our top concern, the majority has concluded that we are not spending enough on health care in America." What majority? Who is he talking about? Most comments I've seen seem to feel we are misallocating our health care dollars, not that we have to spend more.
Of course, he had to mention "rationing". As I stated in the previous post, "One of a few boogeymen (rationing, death panels) the right has erected in the health care debate. Health care is already rationed. Private insurers decide who is covered and who is not. They decide what procedures will be paid be for, or whether one can even have a procedure. We have an ineffective bureaucrat between the doctor and the patient already - it's the private insurers."
He then tries scare tactics and myth-making with talk of citizens losing their current coverage. Although he quotes the Presidents statement, "If you like what you got, you can keep it." But Ryan doesn't believe this. So Paul then beats the rationing drum, again, as the sinister way in which the President will try to achieve cost control.
It's striking, sad, and funny that Paul closes with, "Health care reform is one of the most crucial domestic issues this Congress will act on and requires the input of all Americans." Again, this has been a crucial issue for decades. What the hell have you been doing, Paul? Your party killed President Clinton's attempt at health care reform in the 1990s. You, along with your Republican do-nothings, have sat on your hands for the last eight years. What were your priorities then? Needless wars (costing trillions), trying to kill Social Security, and tax cuts and more tax cuts.
Step aside and let the people who want to govern do their job.
The Right-Wing Health Care Harangue
"Well-intentioned bureaucrats" are trying to reform health care, a central component of which is a "public option". "That's worrisome," according to self-avowed health care guru, Patrick McIlheran at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
The veiled logic begins with the statement, "many more people will have their health coverage funded, subsidized or legally specified by the federal government. This means their health is no longer their concern but ours. When anything is paid for publicly, it is decided politically. Health care will be no different."
Shouldn't the health of our fellow citizens already be a concern? Shouldn't the government play a major role in the health of the nation? Just as it does with housing, transportation, finance, and well, everything! Why should health care be untouchable? We have a private-run system now. It costs twice as much as any other country and we have 50 million without coverage. So, obviously the private sector does not know how to run health care.
And, public action being decided politically - that's called democracy. Obama won. His side (the majority of America ) wants health care reform. Those already served under a government-run public option - Medicare - are very happy with their health care.
Patrick has a rant in the article on abortion. All I'll remind Pat here is this - abortion is a legal medical procedure. Stop trotting out the wedge issue(s) that divide everyone and speak to the issues where we can reach compromise.
He claims the President is dodging certain specifics, mockingly saying, "This man ran on change." Just as McIlheran is speculating about the health care proposals he obviously has not viewed, yet he still feels qualified/obliged to fantasize about what they mean and what the results will be.
Being the good right-wing soldier he is, Pat had to mention "rationing." One of a few boogeymen (rationing, death panels) the right has erected in the health care debate. Health care is already rationed. Private insurers decide who is covered and who is not. They decide what procedures will be paid be for, or whether one can even have a procedure. We have an ineffective bureaucrat between the doctor and the patient already - it's the private insurers.
Does any thinking individual feel that using science to determine what procedures are the most cost-effective for health outcomes is a bad thing? Government curbing overly expensive yet no more effective procedures is good management. Are Republicans saying we should spend just for the sake of spending? Aren't they the ones always preaching about not throwing money at things?
There also seems to be a bit of the, "We're Americans, we're the best, there can be no restrictions on anything we do." It's a very infantile urge to be tapping into. But the right loves latching onto the lowest-common-denominator and playing on peoples' emotions.
Pat then brings up the Congressional Budget Office review (which some have found problematic) that finds the proposals will not slow health care cost increases. As long as we don't control pharmaceutical costs and re-imagine our health care system more holistically with more preventative care, active lifestyles and in accordance with healthier, locally grown foods, I agree, costs will continue to rise.
This is also a standard-of-living issue. Health care is a right in a civilized society. The American standard-of-living has been falling. Yet, I haven't heard the Republicans outraged by this. Income inequality has been skyrocketing over the last 30 years. Where are the Republican voices on this issue? Suddenly they're concerned with our rights, our health, how we live, our choices? Yet they've been silent as jobs have been outsourced, more and more went without insurance, more and more were thrown into crippling debt over medical bills, wages have stagnated, and citizens have found it harder and harder to make ends meet. But now we should trust them? They've got our best interests at heart.
To allow the system to continue to be run by private entities, whose interest is profit and not health, can only lead to worse and worse outcomes. As Albert Einstein said, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity."
The veiled logic begins with the statement, "many more people will have their health coverage funded, subsidized or legally specified by the federal government. This means their health is no longer their concern but ours. When anything is paid for publicly, it is decided politically. Health care will be no different."
Shouldn't the health of our fellow citizens already be a concern? Shouldn't the government play a major role in the health of the nation? Just as it does with housing, transportation, finance, and well, everything! Why should health care be untouchable? We have a private-run system now. It costs twice as much as any other country and we have 50 million without coverage. So, obviously the private sector does not know how to run health care.
And, public action being decided politically - that's called democracy. Obama won. His side (the majority of America ) wants health care reform. Those already served under a government-run public option - Medicare - are very happy with their health care.
Patrick has a rant in the article on abortion. All I'll remind Pat here is this - abortion is a legal medical procedure. Stop trotting out the wedge issue(s) that divide everyone and speak to the issues where we can reach compromise.
He claims the President is dodging certain specifics, mockingly saying, "This man ran on change." Just as McIlheran is speculating about the health care proposals he obviously has not viewed, yet he still feels qualified/obliged to fantasize about what they mean and what the results will be.
Being the good right-wing soldier he is, Pat had to mention "rationing." One of a few boogeymen (rationing, death panels) the right has erected in the health care debate. Health care is already rationed. Private insurers decide who is covered and who is not. They decide what procedures will be paid be for, or whether one can even have a procedure. We have an ineffective bureaucrat between the doctor and the patient already - it's the private insurers.
Does any thinking individual feel that using science to determine what procedures are the most cost-effective for health outcomes is a bad thing? Government curbing overly expensive yet no more effective procedures is good management. Are Republicans saying we should spend just for the sake of spending? Aren't they the ones always preaching about not throwing money at things?
There also seems to be a bit of the, "We're Americans, we're the best, there can be no restrictions on anything we do." It's a very infantile urge to be tapping into. But the right loves latching onto the lowest-common-denominator and playing on peoples' emotions.
Pat then brings up the Congressional Budget Office review (which some have found problematic) that finds the proposals will not slow health care cost increases. As long as we don't control pharmaceutical costs and re-imagine our health care system more holistically with more preventative care, active lifestyles and in accordance with healthier, locally grown foods, I agree, costs will continue to rise.
This is also a standard-of-living issue. Health care is a right in a civilized society. The American standard-of-living has been falling. Yet, I haven't heard the Republicans outraged by this. Income inequality has been skyrocketing over the last 30 years. Where are the Republican voices on this issue? Suddenly they're concerned with our rights, our health, how we live, our choices? Yet they've been silent as jobs have been outsourced, more and more went without insurance, more and more were thrown into crippling debt over medical bills, wages have stagnated, and citizens have found it harder and harder to make ends meet. But now we should trust them? They've got our best interests at heart.
To allow the system to continue to be run by private entities, whose interest is profit and not health, can only lead to worse and worse outcomes. As Albert Einstein said, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity."
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Falsehood Fabrication
John Torinus, tax-avoiding-CEO of Serigraph Inc. and writer for the Journal-Sentinel, asks, What will it take to lure back manufacturing?
Torinus states that, "political and business leaders have watched this trend [the loss of manufacturing] with something approaching shock." Really? We enter into trade agreements like NAFTA, which many warned would lead to outsourcing, we abandon any type of industrial policy, we bash unions - which is a large number in manufacturing, and we haven't generally discussed manufacturing since since automakers were making tanks for WWII, and they're "shocked"?
Their shock is manufactured. Otherwise, the politicians and business leaders would have to take responsibility for the exodus of these well-paying jobs. Torinus mentions the economy gravitating toward a service economy [away from actually producing things]. This is a natural progression according to business leaders and their paid think-tank and media mouthpieces. So they all run with this excuse as to be absolved from any blame for manufacturing's decline.
[This type of deflection occurs in the poverty debate also. This isn't the fault of misguided or missing public policy, it's the fault of the individual. Never mind the fact that there is not a job available for everyone whom would like one, it's still their fault. It's not political and business leaders faults that they've allowed policies that ship jobs overseas, it's just a natural economic movement. There is nothing than can do.]
This is a result of the sordid relationship between politicians and businesses. Businesses pay for politicians campaigns; businesses want their production and labor costs cheap; therefore, politicians allow businesses to deter unionization and outsource production. All alongside the lie that it's natural and they're not doing anything to foster it.
Torinus uses the example of a $35,000-a-year manufacturing job to analyze what type of taxes would be returned from an investment in a manufacturing job. But where does this $35,000 number come from? According to BLS, private non-unionized manufacturing workers earn over $18 and hour, which is roughly $38,000 per year. Unionized manufacturing workers earn $70, or so, more per week, approximately $41,000 per year. If we're going to use earnings numbers to make an example, let's use the correct numbers.
In his cursory remarks regarding development incentives, Torinus says, "...there is little gain when one state lures a plant from another. It's zero-sum game." Which it is, but he doesn't take this point any further, other than saying it's the union opinion, and therefore, in his mind I guess, not worthy of discussing.
Torinus finishes up with a classic talking-point of his own, and of business in general. He thinks maybe we should eliminate the 7.9 percent income tax on manufacturers. (It's always about not paying any taxes.) His logic: the state corporate income tax is no longer a huge revenue producer for the state, so we might as well just get rid of it. He doesn't address how this has changed over the years, how it has decreased favorably for corporations, increasingly burdening homeowners. He also fails to mention the tax breaks already provided to manufacturing.
He spouts a common falsity, that taxes are a primary factor affecting locational decisions. Business basics - inputs, suppliers, customers, labor, transportation - are much more important for a business in their site location decision.
Is there a sector (like manufacturing) or a topic (like health care) that Torinus won't exploit in an attempt to have businesses pay even less in taxes?
For Further Reading:
Corporate Tax Breaks
Failure of Economic Development Incentives
Grading Places
Industrial Incentives
Rethinking Growth Strategies
Tax and Spending Incentives and Enterprise Zones
The Great American Jobs Scam
Torinus states that, "political and business leaders have watched this trend [the loss of manufacturing] with something approaching shock." Really? We enter into trade agreements like NAFTA, which many warned would lead to outsourcing, we abandon any type of industrial policy, we bash unions - which is a large number in manufacturing, and we haven't generally discussed manufacturing since since automakers were making tanks for WWII, and they're "shocked"?
Their shock is manufactured. Otherwise, the politicians and business leaders would have to take responsibility for the exodus of these well-paying jobs. Torinus mentions the economy gravitating toward a service economy [away from actually producing things]. This is a natural progression according to business leaders and their paid think-tank and media mouthpieces. So they all run with this excuse as to be absolved from any blame for manufacturing's decline.
[This type of deflection occurs in the poverty debate also. This isn't the fault of misguided or missing public policy, it's the fault of the individual. Never mind the fact that there is not a job available for everyone whom would like one, it's still their fault. It's not political and business leaders faults that they've allowed policies that ship jobs overseas, it's just a natural economic movement. There is nothing than can do.]
This is a result of the sordid relationship between politicians and businesses. Businesses pay for politicians campaigns; businesses want their production and labor costs cheap; therefore, politicians allow businesses to deter unionization and outsource production. All alongside the lie that it's natural and they're not doing anything to foster it.
Torinus uses the example of a $35,000-a-year manufacturing job to analyze what type of taxes would be returned from an investment in a manufacturing job. But where does this $35,000 number come from? According to BLS, private non-unionized manufacturing workers earn over $18 and hour, which is roughly $38,000 per year. Unionized manufacturing workers earn $70, or so, more per week, approximately $41,000 per year. If we're going to use earnings numbers to make an example, let's use the correct numbers.
In his cursory remarks regarding development incentives, Torinus says, "...there is little gain when one state lures a plant from another. It's zero-sum game." Which it is, but he doesn't take this point any further, other than saying it's the union opinion, and therefore, in his mind I guess, not worthy of discussing.
Torinus finishes up with a classic talking-point of his own, and of business in general. He thinks maybe we should eliminate the 7.9 percent income tax on manufacturers. (It's always about not paying any taxes.) His logic: the state corporate income tax is no longer a huge revenue producer for the state, so we might as well just get rid of it. He doesn't address how this has changed over the years, how it has decreased favorably for corporations, increasingly burdening homeowners. He also fails to mention the tax breaks already provided to manufacturing.
He spouts a common falsity, that taxes are a primary factor affecting locational decisions. Business basics - inputs, suppliers, customers, labor, transportation - are much more important for a business in their site location decision.
Is there a sector (like manufacturing) or a topic (like health care) that Torinus won't exploit in an attempt to have businesses pay even less in taxes?
For Further Reading:
Corporate Tax Breaks
Failure of Economic Development Incentives
Grading Places
Industrial Incentives
Rethinking Growth Strategies
Tax and Spending Incentives and Enterprise Zones
The Great American Jobs Scam
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Water for Work
James Rowen, at the Political Environment, raises an excellent point regarding Waukesha's discriminatory hiring practices and its want for Milwaukee water. It's one thing for Milwaukee to allow continued suburban growth through water sales, but Waukesha should at least try including the highly-concentrated jobless of Milwaukee in that growth.
Liberal Legacy
Thom Hartmann reciting John Gray's Day in the Life of Joe Middle-class Republican. [hat tip to Crooks and Liars.] This is basically a litany of all the things the government has done and does for us (primarily thanks to liberals) which we often take for granted.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Same Old Song
Chris Hedges exposes the fading expectations concerning all the change Obama was supposed to usher into Washington.
Death Panel Deception
When it comes to the health care debate and the proposals on the table, the right-wing is basically lying. They simply want to stall health care reform because they feel that might allow them to win back some seats in 2010. Hence - we get the death panel.
There is nothing in the health care proposals about a death panel or putting anyone to death. This is just a flat-out lie being parroted by conservatives.
So why are we listening to and giving airtime to right-wingers who continually just lie to the American people? George Stephanapoulos questioned Newt Gingrich on his dishonesty and pointed out there was nothing about a death panel or "communal standards" in any health care proposal. George should have thrown Newt out of the studio and barred him from ever coming back.
If you can't form a logical argument, grounded in reality, and based on facts, shut the f#*@ up! You're adding nothing to the discussion and you're diminishing our democracy. And the media should stop allowing these cranks on as if there were two sides to every issue.
Stephen Colbert offers his thoughts.
There is nothing in the health care proposals about a death panel or putting anyone to death. This is just a flat-out lie being parroted by conservatives.
So why are we listening to and giving airtime to right-wingers who continually just lie to the American people? George Stephanapoulos questioned Newt Gingrich on his dishonesty and pointed out there was nothing about a death panel or "communal standards" in any health care proposal. George should have thrown Newt out of the studio and barred him from ever coming back.
If you can't form a logical argument, grounded in reality, and based on facts, shut the f#*@ up! You're adding nothing to the discussion and you're diminishing our democracy. And the media should stop allowing these cranks on as if there were two sides to every issue.
Stephen Colbert offers his thoughts.
Cronies of Rich Guys (CRG)
Mike Johnson wrote an article on August 7, 2009 in the Milwaukee Journal Senintel, Property Tax Levies up 5.1% in region. In all of the talk about property values and taxation, one of the persons quoted in the article caught my attention.
Chris Kliesmet is the executive administrator of CRG Network. He found the Public Policy Forum report (the data discussed in the article) showed "another sign of how onerous property taxes in Wisconsin have become." He feels, "local officials should be holding the line on spending and cutting taxes."
Does any of this sound familiar? Is this unbiased analysis? Or just conjecture? Is this opinion even necessary for the article? Does this simply interject conservative talking points for no apparent reason?
I guess the irony of a "watchdog" group complaining about taxes even though [because of the status of his group, "CRG Network Foundation, Inc. was formed as a 501(c)(3), non-profit, tax-exempt corporation"] their organization doesn't pay any taxes went over their heads.
Here are some excerpts taken directly from their website regarding their mission:
CRG was one of the initial agitators calling for the recall of Tom Ament. Scott Walker has only worsened the County budget. How about recalling him? Come on, CRG, where's your consistency? Walker has only dug a deeper budget hole. According to your logic, he must go. I'll gladly sign that recall petition.
CRG is nothing more than one of "starve the beast" organizations of the right. It's not about what's best for citizens. It's about their ideology being in control of government to steer largesse to their cronies rather than to workers and infrastructure. Seems more like a "watchdog" group for the rich.
In a recent post, I had shown government wasn't all that bad. And, as Paul Krugman wrote in a recent column, if it wasn't for government intervention in the economic catastrophe we're in, we'd be in a Depression. (And if conservative ideology hadn't invaded government policy and torn down the regulatory structures enacted after the Great Depression, we wouldn't be facing such an excruciating financial collapse, either.)
But, alas, the liberal and government bashing will continue. Why? Because it's easy, and because the right-wing conservatives have nothing concrete, substantive, or worthwhile to offer. Although, they'll form a PAC, call themselves "watchdogs", and get quoted in the local paper as credible public policy analysts.
Chris Kliesmet is the executive administrator of CRG Network. He found the Public Policy Forum report (the data discussed in the article) showed "another sign of how onerous property taxes in Wisconsin have become." He feels, "local officials should be holding the line on spending and cutting taxes."
Does any of this sound familiar? Is this unbiased analysis? Or just conjecture? Is this opinion even necessary for the article? Does this simply interject conservative talking points for no apparent reason?
I guess the irony of a "watchdog" group complaining about taxes even though [because of the status of his group, "CRG Network Foundation, Inc. was formed as a 501(c)(3), non-profit, tax-exempt corporation"] their organization doesn't pay any taxes went over their heads.
Here are some excerpts taken directly from their website regarding their mission:
- It's mission is to help citizens elect fiscally conservative candidates, assert property rights, and remove corrupt and/or fiscally irresponsible politicians from office
- To lobby and advocate for fiscally conservative and property rights legislation on a local and statewide basis
- Motivate fiscal conservatives to vote in increasingly larger numbers
- Organize fiscal conservatives into the most influential political force in Wisconsin
- Encourage fiscal conservatives to contribute the human and financial resources needed to grow and be successful
- ...unions and other special interest groups
- ...tax-spending special interests and regulatory bureaucrats
CRG was one of the initial agitators calling for the recall of Tom Ament. Scott Walker has only worsened the County budget. How about recalling him? Come on, CRG, where's your consistency? Walker has only dug a deeper budget hole. According to your logic, he must go. I'll gladly sign that recall petition.
CRG is nothing more than one of "starve the beast" organizations of the right. It's not about what's best for citizens. It's about their ideology being in control of government to steer largesse to their cronies rather than to workers and infrastructure. Seems more like a "watchdog" group for the rich.
In a recent post, I had shown government wasn't all that bad. And, as Paul Krugman wrote in a recent column, if it wasn't for government intervention in the economic catastrophe we're in, we'd be in a Depression. (And if conservative ideology hadn't invaded government policy and torn down the regulatory structures enacted after the Great Depression, we wouldn't be facing such an excruciating financial collapse, either.)
But, alas, the liberal and government bashing will continue. Why? Because it's easy, and because the right-wing conservatives have nothing concrete, substantive, or worthwhile to offer. Although, they'll form a PAC, call themselves "watchdogs", and get quoted in the local paper as credible public policy analysts.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Economic Reform
Robert Skidelsky has an interesting article in the Financial Times concerning a reform of the economics profession.
The Government, The Government...
Why is it that when conservatives simply repeat the same line over an over, somehow it sticks? Newt Gingrich rambles on, as usual, about health care reform using the same worn right-wing talking-points: rationing, bureaucrats, and the government.
He repeatedly begins his disparaging remarks with, "The government...". In Gingrich's worldview the government can't do anything right.
Yet, government seems to perform well regarding the military, Medicare, Social Security, our legal system, police and fire protection, the postal service, highways, water systems, electrical grids, among a host of other activities.
Jeff Faux's chapter What Kind of America Do We Want? came to mind while thinking about all this government bashing. In which he highlights the many accomplishments of government, the many failures of the private sector, and the obstructionist tactics of the Republican party.
America seems to be under the illusion that the private sector is an altruistic, benevolent entity steering everyone and everything towards perfection. Although, empirical data seem to indicate just the opposite. [See The Raw Deal, Tax Cut Snake Oil, The Squandering of America, The U.S. Since 1980, and Unequal Democracy]
Yet, all the institutions, infrastructure, and backbone that allow our modern existence are directly because of government involvement.
For Further Reading:
Corralling the Corporate Kleptocracy
Deficit Financed Delirium
NAFTA & The Myth of Free Trade
Outsourcing Boondoggle
Taxation Perspective
He repeatedly begins his disparaging remarks with, "The government...". In Gingrich's worldview the government can't do anything right.
Yet, government seems to perform well regarding the military, Medicare, Social Security, our legal system, police and fire protection, the postal service, highways, water systems, electrical grids, among a host of other activities.
Jeff Faux's chapter What Kind of America Do We Want? came to mind while thinking about all this government bashing. In which he highlights the many accomplishments of government, the many failures of the private sector, and the obstructionist tactics of the Republican party.
America seems to be under the illusion that the private sector is an altruistic, benevolent entity steering everyone and everything towards perfection. Although, empirical data seem to indicate just the opposite. [See The Raw Deal, Tax Cut Snake Oil, The Squandering of America, The U.S. Since 1980, and Unequal Democracy]
Yet, all the institutions, infrastructure, and backbone that allow our modern existence are directly because of government involvement.
For Further Reading:
Corralling the Corporate Kleptocracy
Deficit Financed Delirium
NAFTA & The Myth of Free Trade
Outsourcing Boondoggle
Taxation Perspective
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Production Possibilities
The Price Isn't Right
Excluding price negotiation from any deal reached with pharmaceutical companies would be a huge mistake. Especially since the majority of research is funded through the government - the National Institutes of Health and public university research.
Although this is typical of the U.S.: we allow private companies to control and litter our public airwaves, we give away public lands for private mineral and resource extraction, and we create medicines and health care research which we then hand over to private entities for patent and profit.
For Further Reading:
Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
Medical Research Bought Off By Big Pharma
National Health Insurance Bill
The Truth About Drug Companies
Although this is typical of the U.S.: we allow private companies to control and litter our public airwaves, we give away public lands for private mineral and resource extraction, and we create medicines and health care research which we then hand over to private entities for patent and profit.
For Further Reading:
Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
Medical Research Bought Off By Big Pharma
National Health Insurance Bill
The Truth About Drug Companies
Divine Evasion
It has been estimated that religious organizations own up to 25 percent of the land in the U.S. Which means 25 percent is exempt from taxation.
An 8-part New York Times series by Diana Henriques dissects the church exemption issue.
Getting rid of these unnecessary subsidies would be one of the quickest and easiest ways to clean up tax law, and get revenue into the public coffers. Allowances are understandable when services are being provided for the sick, poor, or elderly - those who can not afford it or are physically unable to provide for themselves. But the massive conglomerates and operations some religious organizations run and/or are involved with, which get tax exemptions, are market distortions favoring one group (churches) against others involved in provision of the same service.
For Further Reading:
Milwaukee County Tax Exempt Organizations
Sales Tax Exemptions For Non-Profit Organizations
Tax Burden Shifting: Exemptions
Tax Exempt
Why Do We Give Churches Tax Exemptions?
An 8-part New York Times series by Diana Henriques dissects the church exemption issue.
Getting rid of these unnecessary subsidies would be one of the quickest and easiest ways to clean up tax law, and get revenue into the public coffers. Allowances are understandable when services are being provided for the sick, poor, or elderly - those who can not afford it or are physically unable to provide for themselves. But the massive conglomerates and operations some religious organizations run and/or are involved with, which get tax exemptions, are market distortions favoring one group (churches) against others involved in provision of the same service.
For Further Reading:
Milwaukee County Tax Exempt Organizations
Sales Tax Exemptions For Non-Profit Organizations
Tax Burden Shifting: Exemptions
Tax Exempt
Why Do We Give Churches Tax Exemptions?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
More Media Fabrication
FreedomWorks and their tea-bagging know-nothings are at it again. Freedom Works has initiated this "grass roots" anti-reform uprising through a recently released memo. And, the media is enthralled with the uprising, acting as if these few nut-jobs represent the majority of Americans. Even though roughly 70 percent of U.S. citizens want health care reform, according to the latest polls.
The majority of Americans have wanted our soldiers out of Iraq for years now. The media paid no attention to those protests or marches.
But every time some low-rent, ignorant puppets can be trotted out to do the corporations' bidding, that deserves serious 24/7 coverage?
Their childlike behavior and complete lack of knowledge has only lowered the level of debate. And their behavior at town hall events is appalling and disturbing. For the media to be giving these charlatans a stage is equally atrocious.
The majority of Americans have wanted our soldiers out of Iraq for years now. The media paid no attention to those protests or marches.
But every time some low-rent, ignorant puppets can be trotted out to do the corporations' bidding, that deserves serious 24/7 coverage?
Their childlike behavior and complete lack of knowledge has only lowered the level of debate. And their behavior at town hall events is appalling and disturbing. For the media to be giving these charlatans a stage is equally atrocious.
McArdle's Mendacity
A great smackdown of Megan McArdle and her hypocrisy. A revealing example of how many on the right bash government, yet wouldn't be where they are in life without it.
Reminiscent of the message in Ha Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder - in which he tells the story of economic development through the ages. All the paths taken by today's developed countries are no longer the paths recommended by those countries to the presently developing countries.
Even though a government job was good enough for McArdle's father, opened doors for lucrative work, paid for her private schooling, and appears to have allowed quite a nice standard of living for her and her family, government is bad and the market is our true savior.
For Further Reading:
Media Are People Too
Pushing On A String
Reminiscent of the message in Ha Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder - in which he tells the story of economic development through the ages. All the paths taken by today's developed countries are no longer the paths recommended by those countries to the presently developing countries.
Even though a government job was good enough for McArdle's father, opened doors for lucrative work, paid for her private schooling, and appears to have allowed quite a nice standard of living for her and her family, government is bad and the market is our true savior.
For Further Reading:
Media Are People Too
Pushing On A String
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Traders
There is a revolving door between Wall Street and high-level government positions; plus the millions Wall Street spends lobbying Washington. But when the Wall Streeters come to Washington they don't use their insider knowledge to regulate (I know, what a dirty word) and therefore make the financial system more sound. No. They use their experience to enable more loopholes and then look the other way. It's good to see the SEC cracking down on the latest Wall Street corruption (high-speed trading). Though one must wonder, what took so long? Flash trading, among many other schemes, is not all that new. Hopefully the SEC will overturn the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, alongside other much needed reforms.
For Further Reading:
Free Traders Become Protectionists
Great American Bubble Machine
How the Wall Street Bankers Bought Congress
Long Demise of Glass-Steagall
Nation of Village Idiots
Summers, Geithner, and Wall Street Ownership of Government
The End of the Financial World As We Know It
For Further Reading:
Free Traders Become Protectionists
Great American Bubble Machine
How the Wall Street Bankers Bought Congress
Long Demise of Glass-Steagall
Nation of Village Idiots
Summers, Geithner, and Wall Street Ownership of Government
The End of the Financial World As We Know It
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
"Hooliganism"
Rachel Maddow nails the orchestrated, anti-reform townhall uprisings for what they are.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Marginal Media
There should be laws hindering (even some type of penalty) outright lies in our media - be it books, radio, internet, or television. The networks and publishers should be ashamed. The press, or Fourth Estate, is supposed to be a watchdog, a guardian of democracy and truth. It's not that all the networks push these crazy theories and deceptions; it's that they give platforms to the nut-jobs that do.
Two of the latest examples indicating our media is failing mightily: World Net Daily's falsified birth certificate and Michelle Malkin's latest birdcage-liner. Kudos to those groups [hat tip to Media Matters] that stomp out this deceitfulness as soon as they see it.
Two of the latest examples indicating our media is failing mightily: World Net Daily's falsified birth certificate and Michelle Malkin's latest birdcage-liner. Kudos to those groups [hat tip to Media Matters] that stomp out this deceitfulness as soon as they see it.
Sewer Socialism
Yet another infrastructure project that could be part of a stimulus and employment plan.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Slippery Slope
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Richard Meeusen, of Badger Meter Inc., have some intriguing ideas for luring business to Milwaukee using our comparative water advantage. But Michael Rosen also raises some good points and offers some causes for concern regarding lakefront development and public subsidization of private enterprise.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Put Up or Shut Up
New York Rep. Anthony Weiner lets the Republicans, "Put up or shut up." So...how many Republicans voted for abolishing government-run health care (Medicare)? Zero.
Watch What You Say
I was just recalling another meme of the Bush era that the Republicans seem to have forgotten: During time of war and crisis, it is unpatriotic and unproductive to criticize the president. [Obviously this is hog-wash, but, for once, I'd like to see the Republicans actually stand by what they say.]
Just a few years ago when Ari Fleisher was warning Americans to, "Watch what they do and what they say."
Those good ole days when there was a terrorist and another war just around every corner.
Of course this was just the Republican technique to manipulate the media and divert criticism during the disaster that was the Bush presidency. But luckily for all of us there is a "paper" trail and some of us remember. So, I guess if the Republicans (yet again) do not want to appear to be hypocritical flip-floppers, they should be supporting President Obama during our current time of war and economic crisis.
For Further Reading:
Criticism of American Policy is Unpatriotic
Criticism of Bush Policy is Unpatriotic
Does This Make George H.W. Bush Unpatriotic?
Hannity Denies Calling Bush Critics Unpatriotic
Just a few years ago when Ari Fleisher was warning Americans to, "Watch what they do and what they say."
Those good ole days when there was a terrorist and another war just around every corner.
Of course this was just the Republican technique to manipulate the media and divert criticism during the disaster that was the Bush presidency. But luckily for all of us there is a "paper" trail and some of us remember. So, I guess if the Republicans (yet again) do not want to appear to be hypocritical flip-floppers, they should be supporting President Obama during our current time of war and economic crisis.
For Further Reading:
Criticism of American Policy is Unpatriotic
Criticism of Bush Policy is Unpatriotic
Does This Make George H.W. Bush Unpatriotic?
Hannity Denies Calling Bush Critics Unpatriotic
Friday, July 31, 2009
The (Ex)Governor's Goonsquad
Bill O'Reilly uses a comment from Bill Maher to smear lefties and to claim Sarah Palin did a good job for Alaska.
O'Reilly claimed Sarah Palin had a "solid performance" and ran Alaska fine. As far as Alaska is concerned, O'Reilly feels because Sarah left with a 54 percent approval rating [a year ago it was 86 percent approved, it is actually down to 47 percent now] she indisputably did a great job. This selectively ignores the facts - she has numerous legal clouds hanging over Alaska, the state is a huge welfare recipient, and Palin quit 15 months before the end of her first term. Is this what she was elected to do? Quit before her term was over?
Based on the precipitous decline in her approval rating, it appears the majority of Alaskans do not feel she has done a good job for Alaska.
And, O'Reilly asserts her intellectual credentials are just as impressive as all those elitist Ivy League liberals because she went to the University of Idaho (one of four colleges she attended). No one is claiming she is stupid because she went to Idaho. People claim she is stupid because they have heard her speak. As Mark Twain said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
There really is nothing to this. It's just another one of those oft-used, right-wing ramblings linking unrelated subjects, then springboarding that into one of their familiar rant themes: Liberals (the supposed slur for Democrats) are mean, smarty-pants, out of touch, tax-and-spenders.
This is just inciting anger into listeners that do not know any better. He is playing up the caricatures the right-wing has created. [You know] those elitist, latte-drinking, Volvo-driving liberals. There really is no point to this type of reporting other than riling up the base.
I can't believe some of the things these talking-heads say, do they seriously believe the vitriol they speak? The more I listen to O'Reilly and his cronies, I'm starting to think they don't believe it either. They are just salesmen. (Snakeoil salesmen, but salesmen nonetheless.) They're just doing their job: inciting fear and anger to attract viewers moved by the lowest-common-denomiator emotional pleas and invective, and trying to sell books. Spewing anger and hatred is quicker and cheaper than doing actual research, trying to add something constructive to the discussion, or trying reach a compromise and find solutions to issues facing us.
O'Reilly claimed Sarah Palin had a "solid performance" and ran Alaska fine. As far as Alaska is concerned, O'Reilly feels because Sarah left with a 54 percent approval rating [a year ago it was 86 percent approved, it is actually down to 47 percent now] she indisputably did a great job. This selectively ignores the facts - she has numerous legal clouds hanging over Alaska, the state is a huge welfare recipient, and Palin quit 15 months before the end of her first term. Is this what she was elected to do? Quit before her term was over?
Based on the precipitous decline in her approval rating, it appears the majority of Alaskans do not feel she has done a good job for Alaska.
And, O'Reilly asserts her intellectual credentials are just as impressive as all those elitist Ivy League liberals because she went to the University of Idaho (one of four colleges she attended). No one is claiming she is stupid because she went to Idaho. People claim she is stupid because they have heard her speak. As Mark Twain said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
There really is nothing to this. It's just another one of those oft-used, right-wing ramblings linking unrelated subjects, then springboarding that into one of their familiar rant themes: Liberals (the supposed slur for Democrats) are mean, smarty-pants, out of touch, tax-and-spenders.
This is just inciting anger into listeners that do not know any better. He is playing up the caricatures the right-wing has created. [You know] those elitist, latte-drinking, Volvo-driving liberals. There really is no point to this type of reporting other than riling up the base.
I can't believe some of the things these talking-heads say, do they seriously believe the vitriol they speak? The more I listen to O'Reilly and his cronies, I'm starting to think they don't believe it either. They are just salesmen. (Snakeoil salesmen, but salesmen nonetheless.) They're just doing their job: inciting fear and anger to attract viewers moved by the lowest-common-denomiator emotional pleas and invective, and trying to sell books. Spewing anger and hatred is quicker and cheaper than doing actual research, trying to add something constructive to the discussion, or trying reach a compromise and find solutions to issues facing us.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Rate of Change in Total Hours Worked
Job Creation
Pandering to small business (along with every other interest group) seems the politicos present modus operandi. They promote small business as a massive engine of job creation.
But, as Dean Baker notes, "There had been some debate in the 90s about whether small businesses were responsible for a disproportionate share of job creation. While this is true, small businesses are also responsible for a disproportionate share of job loss. Most small businesses only survive a few years. As a result, small businesses on net, create new jobs at roughly the same rate as larger businesses."
For Further Reading:
Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation
Small Biz No Job Machine
Small Business Are Big Job Losers
But, as Dean Baker notes, "There had been some debate in the 90s about whether small businesses were responsible for a disproportionate share of job creation. While this is true, small businesses are also responsible for a disproportionate share of job loss. Most small businesses only survive a few years. As a result, small businesses on net, create new jobs at roughly the same rate as larger businesses."
For Further Reading:
Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation
Small Biz No Job Machine
Small Business Are Big Job Losers
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Pathetic Palin
Since Sarah Palin has such disdain for the Media (FOX, you don't count), maybe the Media should stop covering any/every thing she does.
Palin is one of the most incoherent speakers ever given such a national platform and megaphone. Somehow she is also mentioned as a front-runner for 2012. This is all very scary and sad, and should be especially embarassing to Republicans.
Her hyprocrisy, half-truths, delusions, broken English and utter nonsense are dumbfounding, to say the least.
She hates government, yet Alaska is the biggest welfare state in the United States. She hates the media, yet never passes up a chance to give a speech or do an interview.
She cares so much about Alaska and the U.S., she's quitting the governorship with 15 months left in her term, because of the [...wait for it...] mean, bitter partisan attacks she and Alaska would have to endure over that "lame duck" time-period.
So anyone whom is unpopular, facing tough choices and criticism at your job, should just quit. What a leader!
For Further Reading:
Palin's Welfare State
Welfare State
Palin is one of the most incoherent speakers ever given such a national platform and megaphone. Somehow she is also mentioned as a front-runner for 2012. This is all very scary and sad, and should be especially embarassing to Republicans.
Her hyprocrisy, half-truths, delusions, broken English and utter nonsense are dumbfounding, to say the least.
She hates government, yet Alaska is the biggest welfare state in the United States. She hates the media, yet never passes up a chance to give a speech or do an interview.
She cares so much about Alaska and the U.S., she's quitting the governorship with 15 months left in her term, because of the [...wait for it...] mean, bitter partisan attacks she and Alaska would have to endure over that "lame duck" time-period.
So anyone whom is unpopular, facing tough choices and criticism at your job, should just quit. What a leader!
For Further Reading:
Palin's Welfare State
Welfare State
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Super Steel
Milwaukee has a company - Super Steel - that actually produces train cars. We are one of a handful of cities that do not have, nor are we planning, a rail system. We are in tough economic times with a need for jobs and catalytic economic projects. Why are we not fostering and promoting this local comparative advantage (Super Steel)? Super Steel should be building train cars for a regional light-rail network as we speak. This would lead to clustering and agglomeration economies (peripheral activities/businesses connected to this project). It would lead to increased employment and establish Milwaukee's future viability for business and residents. This is a perfect stimulus project with job, infrastructure, and long-term transit, business, and regional implications. What have we been waiting for?
For Further Reading:
The Magnitude and Causes of Agglomeration Economies
State to Purchase Two Trains From Spanish Company Locating Here
State Touts No-bid Deal With Spanish Firm
Transport Investment, Agglomeration and Urban Productivity
Update:
Super Steel Could Build Trains Without Jeopardizing Contracts
For Further Reading:
The Magnitude and Causes of Agglomeration Economies
State to Purchase Two Trains From Spanish Company Locating Here
State Touts No-bid Deal With Spanish Firm
Transport Investment, Agglomeration and Urban Productivity
Update:
Super Steel Could Build Trains Without Jeopardizing Contracts
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Right-Wing Health Care Plan: No Reform Needed
Could Paul Ryan's opinion-piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel be any more disingenuous regarding health care reform? He suggestively questions, "As we move forward with reform, should we shift the decision-making power to the federal government, or should we look to empower the patient and the doctor?"
The patient and the doctor did have power until HMOs were allowed to dominate the system. The right-wing cabal was more than happy then to allow these private insurers to get between the doctor and the patient. And this has been largely responsible for the skyrocketing costs, less-than-stellar outcomes, and the large number of uninsured.
Now we're supposed to believe they are genuinely interested in reversing this?
Costs were not a problem for the Republicans when they pushed through Bush's Medicare Prescription Plan.
Also, their "rationing" talking-point doesn't hold water either.
The most important thing to remember in this debate is that as long as private insurers are involved, our health care will be compromised.
For Further Reading:
A Short History of Health Care
Bad Policy, Bad Medicine
Health Care Crisis and What To Do About It
Health Care Rationing Rhetoric
Private Health Insurance Is Not The Answer
Revised Estimated Cost of Drug Plan
The Reality of Rationing
The U.S Has Been Rationing Care For Years
Why Markets Can't Cure Health Care
The patient and the doctor did have power until HMOs were allowed to dominate the system. The right-wing cabal was more than happy then to allow these private insurers to get between the doctor and the patient. And this has been largely responsible for the skyrocketing costs, less-than-stellar outcomes, and the large number of uninsured.
Now we're supposed to believe they are genuinely interested in reversing this?
Costs were not a problem for the Republicans when they pushed through Bush's Medicare Prescription Plan.
Also, their "rationing" talking-point doesn't hold water either.
The most important thing to remember in this debate is that as long as private insurers are involved, our health care will be compromised.
For Further Reading:
A Short History of Health Care
Bad Policy, Bad Medicine
Health Care Crisis and What To Do About It
Health Care Rationing Rhetoric
Private Health Insurance Is Not The Answer
Revised Estimated Cost of Drug Plan
The Reality of Rationing
The U.S Has Been Rationing Care For Years
Why Markets Can't Cure Health Care
How Quickly They Forget
It was only five years ago the Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to possibly become president. Where were the Birthers then?
Friday, July 24, 2009
Unemployment Rate
Using BLS seasonally adjusted unemployment figures, here’s a look back at the performance of the last 4 administrations:
Reagan – From January 1981 to December 1982 the unemployment rate increased 44 percent. Over Reagan’s entirety the unemployment rate decreased 28 percent.
Bush 1 – From January 1989 to January 1993 the unemployment rate increased 35 percent.
Clinton – From January 1993 to January 2001 the unemployment rate decreased 43 percent.
Bush 2 – From January 2001 to January 2009 the unemployment rate increased 81 percent.
For those keeping score (from best performance to worst):
1. Clinton
2. Reagan
3. Bush 1
4. Bush 2
President Obama has seen a 25 percent increase in the unemployment rate over his first six months in office.
Reagan – From January 1981 to December 1982 the unemployment rate increased 44 percent. Over Reagan’s entirety the unemployment rate decreased 28 percent.
Bush 1 – From January 1989 to January 1993 the unemployment rate increased 35 percent.
Clinton – From January 1993 to January 2001 the unemployment rate decreased 43 percent.
Bush 2 – From January 2001 to January 2009 the unemployment rate increased 81 percent.
For those keeping score (from best performance to worst):
1. Clinton
2. Reagan
3. Bush 1
4. Bush 2
President Obama has seen a 25 percent increase in the unemployment rate over his first six months in office.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Obama's Birth Certificate
The "Birthers" must not have home computers, or they are just too ignorant to do a web search. Luckily, I can. Here's the certificate and further proof. Now, please, Birthers, shut the f*#@ up!
Update:
Lou Dobbs and his ilk feel Obama must produce the authentic certificate (whatever that is) - the certificate of live birth just won't do - to get this "noise" out of the way. The certificate Obama has produced is no good. The fact that the governor of Hawaii, the administrator of the hospital, the Hawaii health director, and others (whom else do they need to hear from?) have vouched for the fact Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, all of this is irrelevant to the Birthers.
And, the gaul Dobbs and these morons have - to feel that whatever dumbass idea or conspiracy theory they're obsessing on, the President must address it to their satisfaction. Yes, right now the country needs nothing more than Obama proving he's not a socialist, nor a muslim, was born in the U.S., loves babies, and thinks the flag is pretty.
Could the anti-Obama crowd be any more ludicrous? Oh, all of you "professionals" in the Mainstream Media, keep up the shitty work by continually putting these nuts and this waste of time on the public airwaves.
As usual, Jon Stewart covers this ridiculousness beautifully.
Update:
Lou Dobbs and his ilk feel Obama must produce the authentic certificate (whatever that is) - the certificate of live birth just won't do - to get this "noise" out of the way. The certificate Obama has produced is no good. The fact that the governor of Hawaii, the administrator of the hospital, the Hawaii health director, and others (whom else do they need to hear from?) have vouched for the fact Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, all of this is irrelevant to the Birthers.
And, the gaul Dobbs and these morons have - to feel that whatever dumbass idea or conspiracy theory they're obsessing on, the President must address it to their satisfaction. Yes, right now the country needs nothing more than Obama proving he's not a socialist, nor a muslim, was born in the U.S., loves babies, and thinks the flag is pretty.
Could the anti-Obama crowd be any more ludicrous? Oh, all of you "professionals" in the Mainstream Media, keep up the shitty work by continually putting these nuts and this waste of time on the public airwaves.
As usual, Jon Stewart covers this ridiculousness beautifully.
Thom Hartmann on Taxes
Thom Hartmann has an excellent article delving into the history of U.S. taxes, who pays and who benefits, and the economic volatility associated with different periods. A great read.
Media-created Misinformation
Why do networks present Liz Cheney's opinion? Because she's the daughter of Dick Cheney? It seems the more illogical, nasty, and delusional the Republicans get, the more the media presents their opinions as viable.
The Republican party should be the laughingstock of anyone whom overhears their irrational suggestions. They call Obama a communist, they feel Sarah Palin is on par with FDR, the want to do nothing to fix health care, they would like to see more programs cut (especially Medicare and Social Security), they are against increasing the minimum wage, the stimulus (only months in) is already a failure, and they are against anything that helps everyday workers at the expense of the uber wealthy. They are the antithesis of public servants.
Hopefully this country will get its collective head out of its ass and stop listening to and giving credibility to these cranks on the right.
The Republican party should be the laughingstock of anyone whom overhears their irrational suggestions. They call Obama a communist, they feel Sarah Palin is on par with FDR, the want to do nothing to fix health care, they would like to see more programs cut (especially Medicare and Social Security), they are against increasing the minimum wage, the stimulus (only months in) is already a failure, and they are against anything that helps everyday workers at the expense of the uber wealthy. They are the antithesis of public servants.
Hopefully this country will get its collective head out of its ass and stop listening to and giving credibility to these cranks on the right.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Road Warriors
WOW! I almost need a staff just to stay on top of and respond to all the misinformation and unenlightened opinions of Pat McIlheran at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. (And, it should be noted, John Torinus' falsehood-spewing isn't far behind.)
Pat follwed up his last bit of nonsense with more of the same, Radical old idea: Let us move around.
In the latest expounding of obliviousness, Pat pushes for extending the Lake Parkway all the way to southern Oak Creek. Is there any problem more highways will not solve for these guys?
McIlheran then runs through the typical gamut of right-wing, development, talking-points: the automobile represents freedom, no one wants to ride the train/light-rail, and building on green space is cheap and therefore preferable.
His description of Pat Jursik's, Milwaukee County Board member, idea for this highway expansion is "revolutionary". In today's environment - sprawl, pollution, water shortages, crumbling roads and infrastructure, stressed budgets - to suggest we build more is absurd. To suggest we build mass transit options that alleviate our dependence on automobiles and highways is, as Pat would say, "Right on!"
McIlheran thinks that if we don't expand highways and if we do expand rail options, we are "cutting off people's options." Someone check into Pat's relationship with the highway lobby. Is there a status quo entity for which he is not a shill? Again, Pat goes back to the oldie but goodie, implying that because we are Americans we can do whatever we want...the planet be damned! Not building highways, continuing to allow us to spew pollutants, nor paving over green space somehow equates to American freedom and would be "cutting off our options".
He then goes on to show more ignornace regarding the latest research, and a complete blindness to a Milwaukee case study. He, agreeing with Jursik, pontificates that tearing down the highway and replacing it with a surface street or lift bridge would be foolish. Maybe they both should read, 4 Cases of How Tearing Down a Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams.
They mention how surface streets isolate one area of the region from the other. But on the contrary, what they actually do is encourage high-density development and community along those surface streets. Just the opposite of what McIlheran and Jursik are proposing. They want to relieve surface streets of traffic - which would relieve the businesses along these streets of customers. This of course would lead to more exit-ramp, big-box retailers sprouting up along the highways so drivers can jump on and off to get items they might need on any given day. We'd hate to see people shopping in their own neighborhoods supporting local retailers and entrepreneurs. It's much better that we spend money at absentee-owned stores that pay a lower wage and subsequently siphon much of that spending outside our border. Basically, McIlheran and Jursik just want more of the same. More highways for more driving, just not on surface streets, so all of our driving can be at higher speeds, alongside more of the same, haphazard development we've seen over the last 50 years.
The boogeyman here is congestion. We need more highways to relieve all our congestion? What congestion? Milwaukee has one of the shorter commute times of any larger city. Milwaukee was recently ranked the third best city in the country for commuters by Forbes magazine.
We need an investment in rail. Being one of only two or three areas in the country without, or not planning, light-rail is bad for business, the environment, and our quality of life. And, this would only make our commute time even better.
Glaringly absent from the article is a discussion of induced demand. The phenomenon whereby building highways, adding lanes, actually increases congestion on those highways. But economic development, urban planning, and quality of life are obviously not Pat's forte. He's only worried about convenience.
Is McIlheran unaware of the environmental issues breathing down our necks? Or just unwilling to make lifestyle changes to avoid catastrophe? He even makes a crack about, "the silliness of opposing all new pavement." Seemingly, somehow, glorifying and proclaiming the righteousness of paving over open space. Again, showing his complete ignornace regarding the environmental issues with sprawling development.
Pat follwed up his last bit of nonsense with more of the same, Radical old idea: Let us move around.
In the latest expounding of obliviousness, Pat pushes for extending the Lake Parkway all the way to southern Oak Creek. Is there any problem more highways will not solve for these guys?
McIlheran then runs through the typical gamut of right-wing, development, talking-points: the automobile represents freedom, no one wants to ride the train/light-rail, and building on green space is cheap and therefore preferable.
His description of Pat Jursik's, Milwaukee County Board member, idea for this highway expansion is "revolutionary". In today's environment - sprawl, pollution, water shortages, crumbling roads and infrastructure, stressed budgets - to suggest we build more is absurd. To suggest we build mass transit options that alleviate our dependence on automobiles and highways is, as Pat would say, "Right on!"
McIlheran thinks that if we don't expand highways and if we do expand rail options, we are "cutting off people's options." Someone check into Pat's relationship with the highway lobby. Is there a status quo entity for which he is not a shill? Again, Pat goes back to the oldie but goodie, implying that because we are Americans we can do whatever we want...the planet be damned! Not building highways, continuing to allow us to spew pollutants, nor paving over green space somehow equates to American freedom and would be "cutting off our options".
He then goes on to show more ignornace regarding the latest research, and a complete blindness to a Milwaukee case study. He, agreeing with Jursik, pontificates that tearing down the highway and replacing it with a surface street or lift bridge would be foolish. Maybe they both should read, 4 Cases of How Tearing Down a Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams.
They mention how surface streets isolate one area of the region from the other. But on the contrary, what they actually do is encourage high-density development and community along those surface streets. Just the opposite of what McIlheran and Jursik are proposing. They want to relieve surface streets of traffic - which would relieve the businesses along these streets of customers. This of course would lead to more exit-ramp, big-box retailers sprouting up along the highways so drivers can jump on and off to get items they might need on any given day. We'd hate to see people shopping in their own neighborhoods supporting local retailers and entrepreneurs. It's much better that we spend money at absentee-owned stores that pay a lower wage and subsequently siphon much of that spending outside our border. Basically, McIlheran and Jursik just want more of the same. More highways for more driving, just not on surface streets, so all of our driving can be at higher speeds, alongside more of the same, haphazard development we've seen over the last 50 years.
The boogeyman here is congestion. We need more highways to relieve all our congestion? What congestion? Milwaukee has one of the shorter commute times of any larger city. Milwaukee was recently ranked the third best city in the country for commuters by Forbes magazine.
We need an investment in rail. Being one of only two or three areas in the country without, or not planning, light-rail is bad for business, the environment, and our quality of life. And, this would only make our commute time even better.
Glaringly absent from the article is a discussion of induced demand. The phenomenon whereby building highways, adding lanes, actually increases congestion on those highways. But economic development, urban planning, and quality of life are obviously not Pat's forte. He's only worried about convenience.
Is McIlheran unaware of the environmental issues breathing down our necks? Or just unwilling to make lifestyle changes to avoid catastrophe? He even makes a crack about, "the silliness of opposing all new pavement." Seemingly, somehow, glorifying and proclaiming the righteousness of paving over open space. Again, showing his complete ignornace regarding the environmental issues with sprawling development.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Wisconsin: Open For Business
Contrary to the nay-sayers, Wisconsin is an excellent place for business. It's great to see business leaders, like Tom Cardella, MillerCoors eastern division president, acknowledging this fact. Maybe if more executives were touting the strengths of Wisconsin we'd be even better.
Instead we have John Torinus, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, and others continually using "business climate" rhetoric to knock the state. The reason for their attack is purely self-serving: they don't want businesses to pay taxes. They are selfish, corporate shills.
Instead we have John Torinus, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, and others continually using "business climate" rhetoric to knock the state. The reason for their attack is purely self-serving: they don't want businesses to pay taxes. They are selfish, corporate shills.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Parasitic Pat
Patrick McIlheran's stubborness, obtuseness, and ignorance are on full display in his screed on Milwaukee's water wars, Dollars and sense stall water war.
Pat feels the Water Works, or whomever does what they do, purifies water and pipes it to your home...and they only real issue here is whether this is done effectively and cheaply. Since Milwaukee has some of the lowest water rates in the land, is internationally recognized for our water system, and the Water Works is a handsomely profitable entity - according to McIlheran's own standards, the Water Works is the epitome of efficiency.
As usual, rather than adding anything to this debate other than the typical conservative talking points, McIlheran seems to use the water issue, as he does with many other issues, to simply take shots and make wise-cracks about environmentalists, Democrats, and citizens concerned with their water supply.
Pat is still oblivious to sprawl, how water diversions are connected with development patterns, and the ill effects all of this has on our environment. But, in Pat's eyes, we have dominion over the earth, we must continually build new highways, develop open space into parking lots and strip malls, drive our SUVs, and pretty much do whatever the hell we want. We're Americans, damn it! If we do it, it can't be wrong.
Pat's argument that Lake Michigan water really belongs to all of us, therefore there should be not contention about this issue, is also logically adrift. We all live in the U.S., Alaska is part of the U.S., so, by Pat's logic, all of us here in Wisconsin (along with all the other states) should be getting an annual check from Alaska's oil profits. It's funny to see conservatives like McIlheran become socialists when their worldview and the existence of the suburbs would disappear without such an intellectual manipulation.
Sorry, if suburbs want to keep sprawling and building in places where they shouldn't, they are going to have to pay a steep price. Pat should do some reading on externalities.
Pat is one of a number voices unable to come to terms with the FACT that low-density development must die. Either than or the planet will die. Not a very tough choice.
McIlheran believes, as all right-wingers do, that privatization will solve everything. Privatization would "depoliticize water". But maybe they should be careful what they wish for regarding their privatized paradise. I guarantee a private company would charge the suburbs much, much more for their water diversions and usage. The suburbs and McIlheran think Milwaukee is playing hardball, just wait until an absentee-owner, accountable to no one, controls the water.
Plus, do Pat and his ilk not realize that continued growth of places like Waukesha and other exurbs is the reason for water shortages and the sudden interest of private companies to control major water ways and water systems?
Maybe they need to talk with Australians, Californians, and Kansans about the outcomes of their water diversions and over usage.
There is no assurance any of this - water, oil, the planet - will continue in perpetuity. Acting as if we can do whatever we like and ignoring the consequences ensures disaster. It's time we begin acting like stewards rather than continuing to act like parasites.
For Further Reading:
A Win in the Water Wars
Alternatives to Water Privatization
California Water Wars
California's Real Water Wars
Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water
Is Water Becoming the New Oil?
Localize Water
The Real Cost of Water
Thirsty Suburbs
Water
Water Barons
Water & Sprawl
Water: Public Good
Who Owns Our Water?
Pat feels the Water Works, or whomever does what they do, purifies water and pipes it to your home...and they only real issue here is whether this is done effectively and cheaply. Since Milwaukee has some of the lowest water rates in the land, is internationally recognized for our water system, and the Water Works is a handsomely profitable entity - according to McIlheran's own standards, the Water Works is the epitome of efficiency.
As usual, rather than adding anything to this debate other than the typical conservative talking points, McIlheran seems to use the water issue, as he does with many other issues, to simply take shots and make wise-cracks about environmentalists, Democrats, and citizens concerned with their water supply.
Pat is still oblivious to sprawl, how water diversions are connected with development patterns, and the ill effects all of this has on our environment. But, in Pat's eyes, we have dominion over the earth, we must continually build new highways, develop open space into parking lots and strip malls, drive our SUVs, and pretty much do whatever the hell we want. We're Americans, damn it! If we do it, it can't be wrong.
Pat's argument that Lake Michigan water really belongs to all of us, therefore there should be not contention about this issue, is also logically adrift. We all live in the U.S., Alaska is part of the U.S., so, by Pat's logic, all of us here in Wisconsin (along with all the other states) should be getting an annual check from Alaska's oil profits. It's funny to see conservatives like McIlheran become socialists when their worldview and the existence of the suburbs would disappear without such an intellectual manipulation.
Sorry, if suburbs want to keep sprawling and building in places where they shouldn't, they are going to have to pay a steep price. Pat should do some reading on externalities.
Pat is one of a number voices unable to come to terms with the FACT that low-density development must die. Either than or the planet will die. Not a very tough choice.
McIlheran believes, as all right-wingers do, that privatization will solve everything. Privatization would "depoliticize water". But maybe they should be careful what they wish for regarding their privatized paradise. I guarantee a private company would charge the suburbs much, much more for their water diversions and usage. The suburbs and McIlheran think Milwaukee is playing hardball, just wait until an absentee-owner, accountable to no one, controls the water.
Plus, do Pat and his ilk not realize that continued growth of places like Waukesha and other exurbs is the reason for water shortages and the sudden interest of private companies to control major water ways and water systems?
Maybe they need to talk with Australians, Californians, and Kansans about the outcomes of their water diversions and over usage.
There is no assurance any of this - water, oil, the planet - will continue in perpetuity. Acting as if we can do whatever we like and ignoring the consequences ensures disaster. It's time we begin acting like stewards rather than continuing to act like parasites.
For Further Reading:
A Win in the Water Wars
Alternatives to Water Privatization
California Water Wars
California's Real Water Wars
Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water
Is Water Becoming the New Oil?
Localize Water
The Real Cost of Water
Thirsty Suburbs
Water
Water Barons
Water & Sprawl
Water: Public Good
Who Owns Our Water?
Heath Care Perspective
Just a few recent articles offering some insight and perspective into the health care reform debate:
At What Cost?
Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths
Four Health Care Myths
It's Not Rationing, Stupid!
Stop Health Care Fraud
Traveling For Care -- Outside the U.S.
U.S. Spends Heavily, Study Faults the Quality
At What Cost?
Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths
Four Health Care Myths
It's Not Rationing, Stupid!
Stop Health Care Fraud
Traveling For Care -- Outside the U.S.
U.S. Spends Heavily, Study Faults the Quality
Development Desperados
Just a few thoughts on Mike Johnson's article, in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Democrats zoom in on property tax loophole.
Johnson opens with the crux of the issue, "Senate Democrats are moving to close a loophole that has given developers huge property tax breaks by planting crops on land that is zoned for residential and business purposes."
Developers whine that not allowing them this ability to cheat on their taxes, and essentially be subsidized by the rest of us, will impede their development plans. In reality, closing such a loophole will encourage more efficient development - promoting higher density and agglomeration economies. Which would lead to more optimal outcomes, rather than allowing developers to sit on land, pay artificially low property taxes, and lobby local and state government to subsidize development on and around their land.
This sentence from the article sums up the inequity of the situation, "...the loophole shifts property taxes that should be paid by developers to other taxpayers, mostly homeowners."
Johnson opens with the crux of the issue, "Senate Democrats are moving to close a loophole that has given developers huge property tax breaks by planting crops on land that is zoned for residential and business purposes."
Developers whine that not allowing them this ability to cheat on their taxes, and essentially be subsidized by the rest of us, will impede their development plans. In reality, closing such a loophole will encourage more efficient development - promoting higher density and agglomeration economies. Which would lead to more optimal outcomes, rather than allowing developers to sit on land, pay artificially low property taxes, and lobby local and state government to subsidize development on and around their land.
This sentence from the article sums up the inequity of the situation, "...the loophole shifts property taxes that should be paid by developers to other taxpayers, mostly homeowners."
Saturday, July 18, 2009
You're Fired! (Hopefully)
Media "personalities" that should be fired:
Pat Buchanan
Laura Ingraham
Lou Dobbs
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Glenn Beck
Pat Buchanan
Laura Ingraham
Lou Dobbs
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Glenn Beck
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Bill Moyers: Journalistic Gold
Bill Moyers elucidates the nefarious backroom dealings of Washington, the insiders, the media, how "policy" gets done, and how it's destroying our democracy.
[Video, and excerpt below, courtesy of Crooks and Liars]
"Bill Moyers on what's wrong with our government, citing the Washington Post's recent embarrassment, asking for lobbyists and CEO's to fork out a load of cash for a cozy dinner at their publisher, Katharine Weymouth's house, until they decided to cancel it after one of the lobbyists leaked the story to The Politico."
[Video, and excerpt below, courtesy of Crooks and Liars]
"Bill Moyers on what's wrong with our government, citing the Washington Post's recent embarrassment, asking for lobbyists and CEO's to fork out a load of cash for a cozy dinner at their publisher, Katharine Weymouth's house, until they decided to cancel it after one of the lobbyists leaked the story to The Politico."
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Time Is On Our Side
Just clearing up a couple of memes circulating through the politicos and the media:
1) the economy is generally President Obama's fault
2) the stimulus is not working because unemployment is still increasing
Ipso facto, President Obama's economic policies are hurting, rather than helping.
This is a dubiously far-fetched connection being purported by the talking-heads whom would like to see President Obama fail. Which, of course, is the main reason they are pushing such an unfounded storyline.
For starters, let's all remember Obama has been in office 6 months. Upon entering office he was handed the largest deficit in U.S. history, two wars, a collapsing financial system, rising unemployment, and a host of other White House scandals to clean up.
When George Bush took office the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent, when he left it was 7.2 percent. This is a 42 percent increase. I note this because David Gregory, on Meet the Press, was implying to Charles Schumer than the stimulus was a failure because of an increase of 32 percent in the unemployment rate since Obama took office. The difference - Bush was handed a surplus and a economy that was very manageable. Obama walked into the Titanic. [Although, according to BLS data, January unemployment was 7.6 percent, June finshed at 9.5, which is a 25 percent change. The 32 percent number seems pulled from thin air.]
National debt under George W. Bush increased from $5.7 to $10.6 trillion, a 46 percent increase. The average premium for family medical coverage increased from $6,230 to $12,680, a 51 percent increase. Americans in poverty under the Bush administration increased from 31.6 million to 37.3 million, a 15 percent increase. The U.S trade deficit, under George's guidance, increased from $362 billion to $688 billion, a 47 percent increase.
A Center for Economic and Policy Research report, Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?, dissects the many failures of the Bush administration in-depth.
Andrea Mitchell also pointed out, on Meet the Press, that Ronald Reagan's approval rating in 1981 was the same as Obama's is now, and the unemployment rate in 1981 was 11 percent. But the country realized change takes time, so they gave ole' Ronnie a chance, and he was allowed to steer policy over a period of time [it should be noted Reagan's supply-side and tax-cutting policies are different than the Obama policies and approach to economics]. The fact that Reagan's policies were such failures - increasing debt, deregulation, privitization, more power to the financial sector, lower corporate taxes, etc. - should reinforce Obama's vision to restructure our society more equitably, be given our full support, and have the time-allowance to undo 30 years of supply-side, deregulatory debacles.
Also, the "bailout" process began under George W. Bush. After years of allowing their cronies to misappropriate gains from the economy, and in the process of destroying it, even the Bush administration knew action was necessary to try and correct things, or at the very least, stop the bleeding.
This wasn't muslim/socialist Obama entering office with dreams of nationalization. [Aside - could the Republicans be any more demeaning, racist, childish, and offensive in their behavior and their tone in these policy debates?]
Economic instability and volatile employment will prevail until the output gap is corrected. Stabilizing the enormous financial mess we find ourselves in will take some time. To imply otherwise, one is either a Pollyanna or deliberately disingenuous. Basically the government needs to step in to fill the decline in demand from the private sector and from consumers. Paul Krugman warned, in the planning stages during Obama's initial round of stimulus, that the stimulus was insufficient. Therefore, the stimulus has only established a floor - we're not falling as fast as we were - but we've not significantly closed the gap.
The only reasons Republican don't like this publicly visible payment from the government to private business is because there are strings attached (although not enough in my opinion). The government can dictate Boards, compensation, and actually have a say in how these companies operate. [They've actually had this power all along - especially with the ability to charter corporations - they've just chosen not to exercise it and have allowed the corporate community to regulate itself.] If you want your risk-taking, mismanaging ass to be bailed out, you've got follow our rules. Republicans prefer to be able to pay-off their cronies through tax breaks and other non-transparent activities. They like pilfering money from the government, they don't like the government "regulating" acceptable uses for the spending.
So, to recapitulate, this economic disaster of epic proportions was a legacy, first and foremost, of Ronald Reagan, supported by Bill Clinton, and put on steroids by George W. Bush. And, it's going to take time to return to normalcy. Recession and near-Depression conditions do not turn around in a year. To suggest otherwise reveals a complete ignorance of economic history.
For Further Reading:
Debunking The Reagan Myth
Finance and Stability
Financial Crises
Financial Crisis
Manias, Panics, and Rationality
Noam Chomsky on Reagan's Legacy
Reagan's Legacy
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan's Legacy
Ronald Reagan's Legacy
The Minsky Moment
1) the economy is generally President Obama's fault
2) the stimulus is not working because unemployment is still increasing
Ipso facto, President Obama's economic policies are hurting, rather than helping.
This is a dubiously far-fetched connection being purported by the talking-heads whom would like to see President Obama fail. Which, of course, is the main reason they are pushing such an unfounded storyline.
For starters, let's all remember Obama has been in office 6 months. Upon entering office he was handed the largest deficit in U.S. history, two wars, a collapsing financial system, rising unemployment, and a host of other White House scandals to clean up.
When George Bush took office the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent, when he left it was 7.2 percent. This is a 42 percent increase. I note this because David Gregory, on Meet the Press, was implying to Charles Schumer than the stimulus was a failure because of an increase of 32 percent in the unemployment rate since Obama took office. The difference - Bush was handed a surplus and a economy that was very manageable. Obama walked into the Titanic. [Although, according to BLS data, January unemployment was 7.6 percent, June finshed at 9.5, which is a 25 percent change. The 32 percent number seems pulled from thin air.]
National debt under George W. Bush increased from $5.7 to $10.6 trillion, a 46 percent increase. The average premium for family medical coverage increased from $6,230 to $12,680, a 51 percent increase. Americans in poverty under the Bush administration increased from 31.6 million to 37.3 million, a 15 percent increase. The U.S trade deficit, under George's guidance, increased from $362 billion to $688 billion, a 47 percent increase.
A Center for Economic and Policy Research report, Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?, dissects the many failures of the Bush administration in-depth.
Andrea Mitchell also pointed out, on Meet the Press, that Ronald Reagan's approval rating in 1981 was the same as Obama's is now, and the unemployment rate in 1981 was 11 percent. But the country realized change takes time, so they gave ole' Ronnie a chance, and he was allowed to steer policy over a period of time [it should be noted Reagan's supply-side and tax-cutting policies are different than the Obama policies and approach to economics]. The fact that Reagan's policies were such failures - increasing debt, deregulation, privitization, more power to the financial sector, lower corporate taxes, etc. - should reinforce Obama's vision to restructure our society more equitably, be given our full support, and have the time-allowance to undo 30 years of supply-side, deregulatory debacles.
Also, the "bailout" process began under George W. Bush. After years of allowing their cronies to misappropriate gains from the economy, and in the process of destroying it, even the Bush administration knew action was necessary to try and correct things, or at the very least, stop the bleeding.
This wasn't muslim/socialist Obama entering office with dreams of nationalization. [Aside - could the Republicans be any more demeaning, racist, childish, and offensive in their behavior and their tone in these policy debates?]
Economic instability and volatile employment will prevail until the output gap is corrected. Stabilizing the enormous financial mess we find ourselves in will take some time. To imply otherwise, one is either a Pollyanna or deliberately disingenuous. Basically the government needs to step in to fill the decline in demand from the private sector and from consumers. Paul Krugman warned, in the planning stages during Obama's initial round of stimulus, that the stimulus was insufficient. Therefore, the stimulus has only established a floor - we're not falling as fast as we were - but we've not significantly closed the gap.
The only reasons Republican don't like this publicly visible payment from the government to private business is because there are strings attached (although not enough in my opinion). The government can dictate Boards, compensation, and actually have a say in how these companies operate. [They've actually had this power all along - especially with the ability to charter corporations - they've just chosen not to exercise it and have allowed the corporate community to regulate itself.] If you want your risk-taking, mismanaging ass to be bailed out, you've got follow our rules. Republicans prefer to be able to pay-off their cronies through tax breaks and other non-transparent activities. They like pilfering money from the government, they don't like the government "regulating" acceptable uses for the spending.
So, to recapitulate, this economic disaster of epic proportions was a legacy, first and foremost, of Ronald Reagan, supported by Bill Clinton, and put on steroids by George W. Bush. And, it's going to take time to return to normalcy. Recession and near-Depression conditions do not turn around in a year. To suggest otherwise reveals a complete ignorance of economic history.
For Further Reading:
Debunking The Reagan Myth
Finance and Stability
Financial Crises
Financial Crisis
Manias, Panics, and Rationality
Noam Chomsky on Reagan's Legacy
Reagan's Legacy
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan's Legacy
Ronald Reagan's Legacy
The Minsky Moment
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Kucinich For President!
Great video here [hat tip to Crooks and Liars]. Too bad all our politicians aren't as concerned with actually being good public servants - getting things done which the citizens want and/or need, and having the guts and commitment to ask the tough questions and see things through.
Sincerity Deficit
Nevermind the other lies and falsehoods spewed during this interview between Sean Hannity and Michelle Bachmann, if they (and Republicans in general) are so concerned about debt and the deficit, where were they when George W. Bush was running up record debt and deficits? Where was their concern for future generations ("the children" as they repeatedly cry) when George W. Bush was cutting taxes while at the same time spending like a drunken sailor on wars and fattening his chums' wallets?
The Departed
Disgraceful. Shameful. Corrupt. The list could go on and on describing the scandalous and dishonorable actions of AIG, which is presently considering $250 million more in bonuses.
All sense of merit, honor, and integrity has officially departed from the business community. These people were partially responsible for the implosion of the world economy. They are partly responsible for home foreclosures, rising unemployment, business closures, and various other ill effects spiraling throughout society. Yet they feel they should still get bonuses? [Or have their salaries increased to offset smaller/nonexistent bonuses?] For these scoundrels to even be broaching the subject of bonuses if preposterous.
For Further Reading:
Matt Taibbi has an interesting article in the latest Rolling Stone, The Great American Bubble Machine, discussing Goldman Sachs (and AIG's association to Goldman Sachs) and their nefarious connections.
All sense of merit, honor, and integrity has officially departed from the business community. These people were partially responsible for the implosion of the world economy. They are partly responsible for home foreclosures, rising unemployment, business closures, and various other ill effects spiraling throughout society. Yet they feel they should still get bonuses? [Or have their salaries increased to offset smaller/nonexistent bonuses?] For these scoundrels to even be broaching the subject of bonuses if preposterous.
For Further Reading:
Matt Taibbi has an interesting article in the latest Rolling Stone, The Great American Bubble Machine, discussing Goldman Sachs (and AIG's association to Goldman Sachs) and their nefarious connections.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Water v. Roads
Milwaukee is supposed to be conciliatory with regards to giving water to every deprived suburb, yet those same suburbs still basically have the "screw Milwaukee" attitude concerning every social, political, and/or regional issue that arises. [Hat tip to James Rowen at The Political Environment.]
I hope Milwaukee's water gets really, really expensive for the suburbs. Sorry, but I've said it before, this is our only trump card. If the City has to provide for the majority of the State's poor, pay for mass transit options for the region, and shoulder the majority of costs for similar issues, why not charge the real cost of water, and use the revenue to fund such programs?
Waukesha (as stated in a Waukesha Freeman editorial) doesn't feel the need to cooperate regionally. They have no interest in light rail. And no general interest in a regional transportation network. Although they say they are for regional cooperation...but somehow they are against regional transportation cooperation. They feel such a transportation system would only benefit Milwaukee. [Maybe the editorial board needs to realize Waukesha wouldn't exist in the first place without Milwaukee.]
All Waukesha needs are cars and buses, or so they think. They see a future of hybrid double-decker buses (no, I'm not making this up). They find light rail impractical. The Milwaukee metro area is one of only two or three in the country that does not have, or are not planning, some form of light rail. Continuing to argue against light rail is illogical...but it seems that may be what the Waukesha Freeman editorial board was aiming for in their article.
Then the editorial has the nerve to state, "Transportation experts said Wisconsin needs to implement toll roads because the state doesn’t have enough money for road repair and construction in the region. Just think, all those taxes you pay and there still isn’t enough to fix our roads." Funny, they don't mention that their sprawling development patterns, full of new road building, is why we can't afford the maintenance. We keep building more and more roads, and as more and more money goes into new construction, less is available to maintain the roads we have already.
Another uprorious editorial statement, "The reason there is negativity toward a regional transit authority is because it is a bad idea that would cost taxpayers a lot of money." As opposed to the cheap cost of gas, car insurance, road and highway building and maintenance? And, lets not forget the environmental costs involved with road building and an automobile-dependent lifestyle.
I hope Milwaukee's water gets really, really expensive for the suburbs. Sorry, but I've said it before, this is our only trump card. If the City has to provide for the majority of the State's poor, pay for mass transit options for the region, and shoulder the majority of costs for similar issues, why not charge the real cost of water, and use the revenue to fund such programs?
Waukesha (as stated in a Waukesha Freeman editorial) doesn't feel the need to cooperate regionally. They have no interest in light rail. And no general interest in a regional transportation network. Although they say they are for regional cooperation...but somehow they are against regional transportation cooperation. They feel such a transportation system would only benefit Milwaukee. [Maybe the editorial board needs to realize Waukesha wouldn't exist in the first place without Milwaukee.]
All Waukesha needs are cars and buses, or so they think. They see a future of hybrid double-decker buses (no, I'm not making this up). They find light rail impractical. The Milwaukee metro area is one of only two or three in the country that does not have, or are not planning, some form of light rail. Continuing to argue against light rail is illogical...but it seems that may be what the Waukesha Freeman editorial board was aiming for in their article.
Then the editorial has the nerve to state, "Transportation experts said Wisconsin needs to implement toll roads because the state doesn’t have enough money for road repair and construction in the region. Just think, all those taxes you pay and there still isn’t enough to fix our roads." Funny, they don't mention that their sprawling development patterns, full of new road building, is why we can't afford the maintenance. We keep building more and more roads, and as more and more money goes into new construction, less is available to maintain the roads we have already.
Another uprorious editorial statement, "The reason there is negativity toward a regional transit authority is because it is a bad idea that would cost taxpayers a lot of money." As opposed to the cheap cost of gas, car insurance, road and highway building and maintenance? And, lets not forget the environmental costs involved with road building and an automobile-dependent lifestyle.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Wolves at the Door
There's somewhere between 626 and 662 gray wolves in Wisconsin, and because some calves and pets have been killed by these wolves, we need a controlled yearly wolf hunt?
We build up to and over the living area of wildlife and then we are surprised and angered when they eat our livestock or rummage on our property in search of food?
How about we control our sprawling development patterns, attempt to maintain more green space, and maybe we can cohabitate peacefully.
We build up to and over the living area of wildlife and then we are surprised and angered when they eat our livestock or rummage on our property in search of food?
How about we control our sprawling development patterns, attempt to maintain more green space, and maybe we can cohabitate peacefully.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Torinus' Taxed Reality
John Torinus, Journal-Sentinel writer and CEO of Serigraph Inc., is at it again. He's complaining because his company can't completely avoid all forms of taxation in the State of Wisconsin. This is a well-worn theme of his.
It's really strange how business has morphed into entities that feel they have no social responsibility other than fattening their own pockets and rewarding their shareholders. One would think they might realize their long-term solvency and viability is tied to the health and performance of the country, and therefore, they might want to do all they can - pay taxes, plan long-term rather than short, minimize risky behavior - to support and strengthen such nationwide goals.
Torinus' undies are all in a bunch over an exemption from the state capital gains tax. Torinus claims this is, "one of the few tax advantages of doing business in Wisconsin." Governor Doyle took the exemption down to 40% in his budget. The Senate wanted to eliminate it altogether.
He always forgets to mention that his company, Serigraph Inc., paid no corporate income taxes in 2003 and 2004. And, I'm only speculating, has probably paid next to nothing since then. This is an onerous business tax burden? This would be laughable if the Journal-Sentinel didn't give this guy a platform to spew such nonsense.
The Tax Foundation found:
Wisconsin's 2009 Business Tax Climate Ranks 38th in the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index. The Index compares the states in five areas of taxation that impact business: corporate taxes; individual income taxes; sales taxes; unemployment insurance taxes; and taxes on property, including residential and commercial property.
The Institute for Wisconsin's Future released a report Exposing The Tax Hell Hoax, which attempted to put an end to this misinformation the business community continually puts forth in an attempt to pay nothing in taxes.
Torinus also smears state legislator Russ Decker, declaring him anti-business, because he doesn't feel the corporate community should be absolved of paying any taxes. Implying that, somehow, making businesses pay their fair share as proposed in the latest budget, is responsible for the 133,000 job losses over the last year. That's quite a jump in logic and honesty.
A larger counter-point can be extracted from his closing corporate talking points - we need nationalized standards of regulation and combined reporting. We need to put an end to the blackmailing site selection and the inefficiency of our zero-sum, beggar-thy-neighbor business and development policies.
Torinus complains about combined reporting, without offering the reader the details of what it actually is. Presenting it simply as an additional cost to business, rather than what it really does -remove a tax loophole inserted into state tax law by business lobbyists which shifted the tax burden onto homeowners and workers.
Torinus states, "The Democrats obviously have decided to play to union leaders and to the average voter and have turned a deaf ear to business." The reality is, the Democrats are trying to enact fairness and uniformity into our tax system, helping out average workers, and trying to make businesses pay their fair share.
He then [and you can almost feel the tears in his eyes] says,"Overall, the Democratic posture toward private employers is pretty punitive." Corporate taxation has declined 47 percent over the last thirty years. Homeowners have made up this shortfall. How much more disingenuous could a corporatist be in claiming this is punitive treatment? I'm sure Torinus is shedding just as many tears for the workers in the State whom have made up for all the taxes he is allowed to avoid.
For Further Reading:
Ralph Nader wrote an interesting article regarding the legally privileged status our corporations are allowed to operate under and the trajectory of such - Avoiding Corporate Liability.
It's really strange how business has morphed into entities that feel they have no social responsibility other than fattening their own pockets and rewarding their shareholders. One would think they might realize their long-term solvency and viability is tied to the health and performance of the country, and therefore, they might want to do all they can - pay taxes, plan long-term rather than short, minimize risky behavior - to support and strengthen such nationwide goals.
Torinus' undies are all in a bunch over an exemption from the state capital gains tax. Torinus claims this is, "one of the few tax advantages of doing business in Wisconsin." Governor Doyle took the exemption down to 40% in his budget. The Senate wanted to eliminate it altogether.
He always forgets to mention that his company, Serigraph Inc., paid no corporate income taxes in 2003 and 2004. And, I'm only speculating, has probably paid next to nothing since then. This is an onerous business tax burden? This would be laughable if the Journal-Sentinel didn't give this guy a platform to spew such nonsense.
The Tax Foundation found:
Wisconsin's 2009 Business Tax Climate Ranks 38th in the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index. The Index compares the states in five areas of taxation that impact business: corporate taxes; individual income taxes; sales taxes; unemployment insurance taxes; and taxes on property, including residential and commercial property.
The Institute for Wisconsin's Future released a report Exposing The Tax Hell Hoax, which attempted to put an end to this misinformation the business community continually puts forth in an attempt to pay nothing in taxes.
Torinus also smears state legislator Russ Decker, declaring him anti-business, because he doesn't feel the corporate community should be absolved of paying any taxes. Implying that, somehow, making businesses pay their fair share as proposed in the latest budget, is responsible for the 133,000 job losses over the last year. That's quite a jump in logic and honesty.
A larger counter-point can be extracted from his closing corporate talking points - we need nationalized standards of regulation and combined reporting. We need to put an end to the blackmailing site selection and the inefficiency of our zero-sum, beggar-thy-neighbor business and development policies.
Torinus complains about combined reporting, without offering the reader the details of what it actually is. Presenting it simply as an additional cost to business, rather than what it really does -remove a tax loophole inserted into state tax law by business lobbyists which shifted the tax burden onto homeowners and workers.
Torinus states, "The Democrats obviously have decided to play to union leaders and to the average voter and have turned a deaf ear to business." The reality is, the Democrats are trying to enact fairness and uniformity into our tax system, helping out average workers, and trying to make businesses pay their fair share.
He then [and you can almost feel the tears in his eyes] says,"Overall, the Democratic posture toward private employers is pretty punitive." Corporate taxation has declined 47 percent over the last thirty years. Homeowners have made up this shortfall. How much more disingenuous could a corporatist be in claiming this is punitive treatment? I'm sure Torinus is shedding just as many tears for the workers in the State whom have made up for all the taxes he is allowed to avoid.
For Further Reading:
Ralph Nader wrote an interesting article regarding the legally privileged status our corporations are allowed to operate under and the trajectory of such - Avoiding Corporate Liability.
The Love Affair
Some, on the right, are trying to solidify the idea that the media has a "love affair" with President Obama. Because this President actually talks to the press, gives speeches, addresses the public...and the media cover it...this is what qualifies as a "love affair." Although, I agree with Bill Maher, Obama is permitting himself to be overexposed, and thus, allowing these silly distractions - the media having a love affair with him - to take hold.
But what about all the misinformation the media allows out there, such as - he's a muslim, he wasn't born in America, he's a socialist, he's a communist, and on and on - how does this fit into the "love affair" meme?
Even Sam Donaldson said "there are a lot of things he should be commended for," on This Week With George Stephanopoulos.
I guess as far as the right is concerned, creating false stories to fill the 24-hour news cycle is better than actually having to develop public policy, like formulating environmental policy, health care reform, constructing new financial regulations, or helping people get back to work.
It's so much easier to just criticize President Obama, and blame the media for reporting on him.
But what about all the misinformation the media allows out there, such as - he's a muslim, he wasn't born in America, he's a socialist, he's a communist, and on and on - how does this fit into the "love affair" meme?
Even Sam Donaldson said "there are a lot of things he should be commended for," on This Week With George Stephanopoulos.
I guess as far as the right is concerned, creating false stories to fill the 24-hour news cycle is better than actually having to develop public policy, like formulating environmental policy, health care reform, constructing new financial regulations, or helping people get back to work.
It's so much easier to just criticize President Obama, and blame the media for reporting on him.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Alternative Reality
"Alternative" schools are a joke. They do not achieve better results. The best way to save taxpayers' money is to scrap this failed educational experiment. Why, years after we have empirical data disproving any effectiveness, do we continue to pretend there is something admirable/efficacious about this endeavor? This reminds me of right-wingers continual trumpeting of tax-cuts and supply-side economics as if either were competent or legitimate policy options.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Concrete Jungle
James Rowen does yet more wonderful reporting and analysis regarding the highway lobby - and their effect on state and local budgetary issues, and sprawl.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Private Sector Shenanigans
Uncovering any type of fraud is a good thing, especially if it leads to a more efficient society using resources in a most optimum mannner. But why are there never any front page "breaking" news stories about the tax havens, exemptions, loopholes, fraud, and accounting gimmickry corporations use on a daily basis?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Executive Pay Caps
When the auto industry hemorrhages money and finds itself asking the government for a loan, much of the blame is placed on the union. Therefore, the union workers must suffer, make concessions, and take pay cuts.
When the financial industry executives hemorrhage money and destroy the world economy and find themselves asking the government for a loan there are no consequences, no new regulations, and no concessions. And, executives specifically do not have to worry about pay caps.
What a ridiculous and shameful double-standard.
Update:
Treasury to set executives' pay at 7 ailing firms.
When the financial industry executives hemorrhage money and destroy the world economy and find themselves asking the government for a loan there are no consequences, no new regulations, and no concessions. And, executives specifically do not have to worry about pay caps.
What a ridiculous and shameful double-standard.
Update:
Treasury to set executives' pay at 7 ailing firms.
Right-Wing Terrorists
The terrorists won this round. Eric Boehlert has more on the right-wing's terrorism-instigating noise machine. Paul Krugman adds his thoughts here. Yet Republicans have the nerve to deny that right-wing extremists exist.
Update:
An excellent, informed piece from Sara Robinson, 9 Conservative Myths Abouth Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism.
Update:
An excellent, informed piece from Sara Robinson, 9 Conservative Myths Abouth Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Energy Opportunity
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Universal Health
The New York Times presents a false choice in their Sunday editorial, Paying For Universal Health. They imply the only choice for such a universal health program is spending more money. Astonishingly, the Times completely disregards all the waste and fraud in the private system.
First, correctly envisioned and enacted universal coverage would control costs. Administrative fees - which account for roughly thirty percent of present costs - would be lowered to levels like those of Medicare - around two to four percent. Second, pharmaceuticals, which are heavily funded and researched by the public sector already, would also be much more affordable by allowing volume discounts. And, by allowing the public entity control of patents on publicly-produced medications, the private sector would no longer be allowed to charge (gouge) outrageous sums for necessary medications. Health care again would be what it should be - a public good. Finally, if the IRS, the SEC, and other oversight/taxing organizations actually collected all taxes due (auditing corporations, removing tax havens, ending exemptions, etc.) a large amount of revenue would be gained.
For Further Reading:
Progressive Revenue Options For Health Care
First, correctly envisioned and enacted universal coverage would control costs. Administrative fees - which account for roughly thirty percent of present costs - would be lowered to levels like those of Medicare - around two to four percent. Second, pharmaceuticals, which are heavily funded and researched by the public sector already, would also be much more affordable by allowing volume discounts. And, by allowing the public entity control of patents on publicly-produced medications, the private sector would no longer be allowed to charge (gouge) outrageous sums for necessary medications. Health care again would be what it should be - a public good. Finally, if the IRS, the SEC, and other oversight/taxing organizations actually collected all taxes due (auditing corporations, removing tax havens, ending exemptions, etc.) a large amount of revenue would be gained.
For Further Reading:
Progressive Revenue Options For Health Care
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Tax Abatement Beguilement
Indiana University professors John L. Mikesell and C. Kurt Zorn and Esteban G. Dalehite, of Florida International University, found, "The majority of tax abatement programs offered by local and state governments to stimulate economic growth are overly generous...This inclination towards generosity often leads to costs outweighing benefits to communities."
Yanking Away Taxpayers' Dollars
David Sirota has a good article explaining the schemes used by New York and the New York Yankees in subsidizing their new stadium.
Unemployment and Jobs
Heidi Shierholz finds that there are five unemployed workers for every available job. More evidence supporting the idea that (un)employment problems are not the fault of a lack of skills or a need for job-training, but rather due to a lack of jobs.
Foreign Car Manufacturer Subsidies
Foreign car manufacturer subsidies from various U.S. states:
Honda $470 million
Nissan $728 million
Toyota $625 million
Subaru $94 million
BMW $150 million
Mercedes-Benz $258 million
Hyundai $252
Kia $400 million
Volkswagen $577 million
Total $3.554 billion
Honda $470 million
Nissan $728 million
Toyota $625 million
Subaru $94 million
BMW $150 million
Mercedes-Benz $258 million
Hyundai $252
Kia $400 million
Volkswagen $577 million
Total $3.554 billion
The Real Cost Of Walmart
Good Jobs First (as reported at Walmart Subsidy Watch - WSW) has found five subsidy deals for Walmart worth $21,750,000 in Wisconsin. WSW also states that Walmart workers and their dependents, participating in Wisconsin's Badger Care, cost Wisconsin $3.7 million per year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)