Why Will the Government Shut Down?

Culture Wars. Here is a partial list of the riders attached to the funding extension:

• Prohibits the Federal Reserve from transferring more than $80 million to the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Basically killing the program
• Prohibits funding for the EPA to change a rule regulating water. Can you say arsenic in the water?
• Prohibits the District of Columbia from using its own, non-federal funds to pay for abortions beyond the very limited circumstances in which federal funds are currently available (in circumstances of rape or incest and to save the life of a pregnant woman). Really?
• Prohibits funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any of its affiliates.
• Prohibits funding for needle-exchange programs.
• Prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from collecting information on multiple sales of rifles or shotguns to the same person. Preparing for the revolution are we?
• Prohibits funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative. Who cares about sustainability? Fuck it.
• Blocks funds for the Federal Communications Commission to institute Net Neutrality rules. Because Comcast has your best interests at heart...
• Prohibits Recovery Act funds for signage. Now that's just douchey

Sex Scandals and Hypocrisy

This comes from The Daily Beast and it's an analysis on which party has the most sex scandals. Since 1990 the Republicans slightly edge out the Democrats 34 to 27. What's interesting is the type of sex scandal. Democrats tend to have more problems with harassment, staffers and underage girls; Republicans tend to have more problems with prostitutes, hypocrisy and underage boys.

On the hypocrisy front Republicans edge out Democrats 17–9. Almost half the sex scandals we turned up involved someone saying one thing while doing another. The earliest example was womens’ rights champion Robert Packwood, who in 1992 was infamously slapped with several sexual-harassment and abuse charges from former female staffers.

While the Republicans tend to hire more prostitutes and try to cover-up the incidents with hush money or behind the scenes wrangling... The Democrats are just as likely to have sexual relations with a minor.

The interesting thing to me is the party of "family values" tends to be the most hypocritical... I guess that's not really a surprise after all.

Who's the Real Debtor?

With all the talk about the national debt and the new Republican controlled house; budgets are getting a lot of attention. Yesterday I saw a bumper sticker claiming Obama was ruining the US and taking our country to the poor house. During my life, there have been four Democratic and five Republican presidents and the national debt has risen from 312 billion to 13.5 trillion, a 330% increase; most of it under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Below are 2 charts, one from lafn.org and the other from my own research. Both are based on numbers from the Treasury Department. I like the simplicity of my chart. I tried to make it look as non-partisan as possible and let the numbers speak for themselves... One thing is clear, labeling Democrats as the tax and spend party is a myth.

5 Reagan Myths

I haven't posted in a long time because doing the research was causing a flare up in my acid reflux... BUT this is too good to pass up.

From the Washington Post
I'm copying most of the article but adding my own editorial take.


1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.

It's true that Reagan is popular more than two decades after leaving office. A CNN/Opinion Research poll last month gave him the third-highest approval rating among presidents of the past 50 years, behind John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. But Reagan's average approval rating during the eight years that he was in office was nothing spectacular - 52.8 percent, according to Gallup. Read that! Third behind Bill Clinton

In 1982, as the national unemployment rate spiked above 10 percent, Reagan's approval rating fell to 35 percent. At the height of the Iran-Contra scandal, nearly one-third of Americans wanted him to resign.

In the early 1990s, shortly after Reagan left office, several polls found even the much-maligned Jimmy Carter to be more popular. Only since... lobbying efforts by conservatives... has his popularity steadily climbed.

2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.

Certainly, Reagan's boldest move as president was his 1981 tax cut, a sweeping measure that slashed the marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans from 70 percent to 50 percent. The legislation also included smaller cuts in lower tax brackets, as well as big breaks for corporations and the oil industry. But the following year, as the economy was mired in recession and the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, even groups such as the Business Roundtable lobbied Reagan to raise taxes. And he did: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was, at the time, the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history.

Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last.

3. Reagan was a hawk.

Long before he was elected president, Reagan predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse because of communism's inherent corruption and inefficiency. His forecast proved accurate, but it is not clear that his military buildup moved the process forward. Though Reagan expanded the U.S. military and launched new weapons programs, his real contributions to the end of the Cold War were his willingness to negotiate arms reductions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his encouragement of Gorbachev as a domestic reformer. Indeed, a USA Today poll taken four days after the fall of the Berlin Wall found that 43 percent of Americans credited Gorbachev, while only 14 percent cited Reagan.

4. Reagan shrank the federal government.

Reagan famously declared at his 1981 inauguration that "in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This rhetorical flourish didn't stop the 40th president from increasing the federal government's size by every possible measure during his eight years in office.

Federal spending grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, while Reagan was president. The national debt exploded, increasing from about $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion. Many experts believe that Reagan's massive deficits not only worsened the recession of the early 1990s but doomed his successor, George H.W. Bush, to a one-term presidency by forcing him to abandon his "no new taxes" pledge.

The number of federal employees grew from 2.8 million to 3 million under Reagan, in large part because of his buildup at the Pentagon. (It took the Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton to trim the employee rolls back to 2.7 million.) Reagan also abandoned a campaign pledge to get rid of two Cabinet agencies - Energy and Education - and added a new one, Veterans Affairs.

5. Reagan was a conservative culture warrior.

Reagan's contributions to the culture wars of the 1980s were largely rhetorical and symbolic. Although he published a book in 1983 about his staunch opposition to abortion (overlooking the fact that he had legalized abortion in California as governor in the late 1960s), he never sought a constitutional ban on abortion. In fact, Reagan began the odd practice of speaking to anti-abortion rallies by phone instead of in person - a custom continued by subsequent Republican presidents. He also advocated prayer in public schools in speeches, but never in legislation.

In 1981, Reagan unintentionally did more than any other president to prevent the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling from being overturned when he appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court. O'Connor mostly upheld abortion rights during her 25 years as a justice...

From the time I was 16 to 24 I lived under the Reagan regime and I can't say I thought much of him then or now. I am truly baffled as to why he has become the hero of the right. Especially when you closely look at his record. But, when looking at the mythology taught in schools about the Founding Fathers; the Reagan Myth seems to be more firming grounded in idealism than realism.

Tao and Social Justice

The following is a translation of the Tao Te Ching, Chapter 77.

The way of heaven is like the bending of a bow.
The high end is pulled down and the low end is raised up.
The excessive is diminished
and the deficient is supplemented.

It is the way of heaven to take where there is too much
in order to give where there is not enough.
The way of people is otherwise.
They take where there is not enough
in order to increase where there is already too much.
Who will take from their own excesses
and give to all under heaven?
Only those who hold to the Tao.

Therefore, the True Person benefits yet expects no reward,
does the work and moves on.
There is no desire to be considered better than others.

Yesterday at work I was arguing with fellow instructor about Heath Care Reform. She stated "as a producer how can you support giving to people who do nothing?" I told her that it's my MORAL responsibility to do so. She retorted that what I was saying was nonsense and socialist. We have argued before about liberalism, in general, and health care, in particular, and agree to disagree. The thing that bugs me about her arguments is that she is very religious. She claims to go to church and she claims to be devote. I thought I was totally in bounds when I asked: What would Jesus do? She walked away in a huff. What is it about most Christianistas? They don't want to admit that Jesus was a socialist?
"Blessed are the poor,"
"do Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth," and "go, sell what you have, and give to the poor."
Again I tell you, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
I'm not a christian, quite the opposite, I'm a devote atheist. I've read the bible though, several times, and I always come away with the idea that Jesus promoted Social Justice I guess the Republicans are RINOs Religious In Name Only.

Palin Gets Her Wish

Yesterday, in a story about Obama allowing offshore drilling Phil Flynn (Energy Analyst, PFGBEST Research) was interviewed by Scott Horsley from NPR. Mr. Flynn opened with this statement:

We've come a long way from the days when President Obama was talking about filling our tires with air, you know, could produce more energy savings than drilling in the ocean. I, for one, think it's a courageous move by the Obama administration, because we know many of the supporters are vehemently against this.

Inflating your tires to the right pressure is a good way to improve fuel mileage, by about 3% according to some studies. Why malign suggestions that actually work?
Anyway, how much oil is actually off our coasts? This is up for debate but the small amount that IS there might not be worth the expense.

Later in the story, Horsley said that Top Republicans grudgingly applauded the president's move. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called it a step in the right direction, but a small step. McConnell also questioned whether the administration would really follow through and issue the permits for offshore drilling. But Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who met with the president earlier this month, says he came away impressed by Mr. Obama's openness to traditionally Republican thinking.

Is it Republican thinking to take the short sided approach? Is it Republican thinking to focus on older technologies that will run dry? And, more importantly why does Obama want to throw them a bone (pun intended)? Does he think he's going to find consensus with the Republicans on a climate bill? Really?

Bullies

As much as I want to continue to rail against the dark presence of Goldman Sachs and their evil emperor Lloyd Blankfein, my attention has be drawn to another phantom menace: Bullies and Stupidity.
I was watching the Daily Show last night when the portly Newt Gingrich rolled out on stage. He was wearing smug suspenders of confidence to hold up his 60" pants. As he an Jon Stewart tussled over various issues they came to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the trial that was to take place in New York. Stewart correctly stated that Richard Reid the shoe bomber was tried in US court under the Bush administration and Gingrich falsely stated that Reid was a US citizen. Where were the right-wingers when 289 terrorist were tried in US courts under Bush?
The discussion went on to talk about Miranda rights and why Obama doesn't "get" how to try terrorist. Never mind the disaster Bush created. Never mind the black eye and loss or moral standing the Bush brought about. Never mind the recruitment tool Gitmo is. Gingrich spoke and his followers listened. Republicans have taken to the position that military tribunals are the best way to go and treating the terrorist thugs as criminals is wrong. The sad thing is that too many people below 35˚ north agree with Gingrich. The very people who are chanting for Obama to read the constitution are the same people who would throw it away and forsake our court system, arguably the best in the world.

Stupid People

This image from the BBC article Why Do People Often Vote Against Their Own Interests

Here's a few key paragraphs from the article:

But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.

It is a befuddling phenomenon to me. The basic thesis is that the politician with the best story wins. Check out this anecdote:

He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:

Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modeled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."

Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers."I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."

Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.

For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: "One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious.

No matter how you slice it; facts come up short and stories, no matter how flawed, are king.

Obama's Waterloo

Over the Summer, when Jim DeMint claimed that by blocking health care reform it would be Obama's Waterloo he was really saying that the Republicans would not support it only because it was Obama's agenda. Even if there were ideas the Republicans liked they would unite against it, use their media machine to squash it, and stomp all over the bloody remains of it.
Yesterday I heard two stories on NPR, the last Bastien of true journalism. One highlighted the fact that the current Health Care bill passed in both houses is not that dissimilar than the health bill the Republicans crafted to counter the Clinton bill in the '90s. And, I heard Lamar Alexander (R-TN) state to Robert Siegel that the Republicans favor a step by step approach and not the comprehensive approach favored by the Democrats

SIEGEL: But realistically, are we at a moment when if Republicans could see three of their six steps combined with three things that Democrats like and that you might not like that much, are we at a time when that actually can make sausage in the legislature? Or is this a time when nothing is going to happen?

Sen. ALEXANDER: Well, we could, but wouldn't it be better to say can't we find three things we all agree on? I would think allowing insurance to be sold across state lines to increase competition, reduce prices might be one of them. Usually, we agree on...

SIEGEL: But some people would say in that case, the risk you run is that the least regulatory state, the elusive state might put out insurance policies, might regulate them and there would be a race to the bottom and everybody would buy policies from state X where they don't do much in the way of regulating insurance.

Sen. ALEXANDER: Well, that's true, but that's a problem you would have to address in the legislation, but permitting more competition across state lines might be the better result. I think on any of these proposals, the difference between Democrats and Republicans isn't just left versus right. It's step-by-step versus comprehensive in our goals.

Siegel didn't let him off the hook he said the Republican energy plan calling for 100 nuclear plants, offshore drilling, and making half of the cars electric sounds like a huge program. Alexander said "Well, it's four steps, though. Each of those four steps is not a big surprise. It's these 2,700 page bills that are big surprise."

So a bill, just because it's 2700 pages, is a big surprise and the status quo is better? Sounds to me like they want to humble Obama even if it hurts Americans. They only want bills in simple 4 step process and will ignore the very ideas they promoted 17 years ago just because they are coming from the other side of the aisle.

Interesting

This story is from NPR morning edition.
I like the part about how

"House- and Senate-passed bills have far more in common with the bill put forward by Republicans in 1993 than with the competing plan pressed by then-President Clinton and congressional Democrats."

and

"...to claim that this bill is somehow a left-wing government takeover is rhetoric of a rather extreme sort, no question about it."

Very interesting...

Obama Polarizing

Over the past year Obama has averaged 88% approval among Democrats and 23% approval among Republicans. That's a 65 point gap and the largest in modern history according to Gallup. I wonder where some of this gap comes from. I mean I'm fairly disappointed that Obama is not more progressive and in some ways he's more like Bush than Clinton. I think I found some answers; at least answers that uneducated ideologues would believe. Here are a few from us4palin.com

1. Obama has wasted an entire year pushing an unconstitutional government take over of health care, and globe trotting… chasing Olympic glory, Nobel Peace Prizes, all the while bowing to the world’s leaders and apologizing for America’s very existence, he is neglecting his job..[sic] note that they use only two periods for an ellipsis a big typographic no no...
2. the most corrupt President in our nation’s history was trying to enrich his cronies, he was totally and completely ignoring his real job.
3. The biggest neglect though has been energy. Obama and his band of communists have no coherent energy policy whatsoever. Oh, they talk about mythical green jobs, but that’s all they are a myth. Pie in the sky.

Some people actually believe this crap. The one I find particularly amusing is the claim that Obama is the most corrupt President in our nation's history. It reminds me of kids on a play grounds calling each other names and the only comeback they can think of is "I know you are but what am I." I think between the private contractors, Blackwater, Cheney, tapped phone lines, closed door energy meetings and 600,000 Iraqi dead that there have been other, more corrupt, administrations.