Retiree Benefits

I guess the radar picked up this one. Now if only the Justice Department would look into everything else illegal that the administration is getting away with.

Fin

I can only hope.

Link.

Tommy Boy

Doesn't play by the rules.

Link.

OMG

That stands for oh my god. This is the funniest thing I have seen in a long long time. It might make me evil, evil for thinking so, but it's still hilarious. Be sure to read the comments.

I Lose

There's nothing going on today so I'm going to post on Schiavo. The reason that I'm so against this is because it's a non-issue that the GOP is trying to make more use of in their culture war, and it's totally irrelevant to anything important. Nevermind that 70% of the population (me included) think the government should stay out of this altogether. However, if the GOP wants to shoot itself in the foot I'll be cheering them on the entire way.

First is a diary from Kos, which details the Schindler's principled stand... on money.

Next is the WaPo's Howard Kurtz, who I think has things a little backward, accusing the Democrats of being divided while the Republicans are united. Sorry Howie, apparently you didn't check all the facts. Which is kind of annoying, because big media consistently gives the GOP byes again and again. Let me get this straight Kurtz, you trust Powerline?

The Asset Economy

Read it and weep. Link.

Summary-even though the fed has hiked rates we're still so far behind the curve that we'd need to boost rates to 6%, pretty high. The large problem is that America's high consumption economy is financed out of overvalued asset markets that are funded largely by Asian central banks. The Fed is also liable not to boost rates because its monetary policy is reckless, and therefore the decline will come in the form of a falling dollar. As Roach says, the real monster is

the asset dependent American consumer and a co-dependent global economy that can't live without excess US consumption

That's it. I'm saving at least 10% of my income.

Ownership Society

When Bush says ownership society he means "society in which big business owns you." Check this out this WaPo article for kicks. The most disturbing part:

In the end, the companies prevailed because the larger GOP majorities were joined by several pro-business Democrats, who were comfortable with the compromises they negotiated that limited the effects of the bill. Many of these Democrats also received substantial campaign contributions from companies concerned about class-action cases, the Center for Responsive Politics found. The story is the same for the bankruptcy bill, which recently passed the Senate and appears headed to easy passage in the House and to Bush's desk this spring.

This is exactly why we need campaign finance reform. Some politicians are too stupid to remember that they are civil servants and as such serve the public, not themselves.

Allies

Who needs them?

Wait, we need the ones who sell and distribute nuclear technology. Yay.

Link.

Language Check - Wallet

In election years we always hear that a sizeable proportion of the populace will inevitably vote its wallet. The explanation for this is that people only care about the amount of money they have in their bank account at the end of the day. This goes hand in hand with cutting taxes. If your top concern is about your disposable income then you will probably vote for the candidate who promises to give you the most tax cuts, who will usually be a Republican.

But let's think this through for a minute. Even though people have been receiving tax cuts and have more money in their wallets, they are becoming worse and worse off every year. Medical, education, and housing costs are rising and people are sliding more and more into debt. If they vote their wallets but their utility is not maximized at the end of the day then there must be a logical flaw in voting one's wallet.

I propose that what really maximizes people's utility is not necessarily their wallet (disposable income after taxes), but their household's utility. Sure, you might take a tax hike or two, but now you've got medical coverage for your family. That probably exceeds the cost of your tax hikes. Your local colleges can now offer more generous scholarships and you have more investment in your community.

So when someone (a Republican) says that the amount of money in your wallet is your measure of economic well being at the end of the day and that is why taxes should be cut, he is completely wrong. When Bush gets up and says that by cutting taxes you are better off, he is lying to you. The counter to these people who vote on narrow minded self interest is to remind them that instead of voting their wallet they should be voting their household, or their family, because that is really what they are trying to benefit by voting their wallet, but by voting their wallet they are clearly not maximizing their utility. If they try to argue with you, simply pose the question "What's more important to you, your money or your family's well being?" I think the answer is pretty obvious.

You Lose

Ha.

Academic Freedom

How is something that regulates teaching behavior called academic freedom? Here's the bill that passed the House Committee. Here's the story.

The End Is in Sight

First SS, then Medicare, now Schiavo. The GOP has blown this one badly, but now's the time to see the Democrats take advantage of the situation, not sit back like Lieberman and give them a by. I think it's especially funny since Schiavo is another one of these bullshit issues used by the GOP to drive media focus away from what's really important.

The Limit of Discipline

For those of you who are familiar with conservative ideology, you know that one of its tenets is self-discipline and responsibility. Therefore if people are well off in life it is because they are hard working and responsible, while those who are not well off have only themselves to blame for their situations. This then translates into a desire to abolish all social programs, because according to conservatives these programs create dependency and erode people's discipline.

The recent passage of the bankruptcy bill got me thinking about this, as I was arguing with my friend about it, and he fired back that people get into bankruptcy because they are careless and not responsible enough. I certainly agree with him that people need to assume more responsibility for the consequences of their actions, in any respect in life, and for a minute I also thought, "wait a second, this bill will cause people to mind their money more carefully and be more solvent." Then I realized where the flaw in that argument was.

That argument works only if we assume that people are (relatively) equal from the get go. This is a conservative myth that sprung from the unholy alliance that exists within the Republican party: big business and populism. Big business has managed to trick people (through that free/responsibility bit) that they are better off trusting big business and the markets. For more on this read One Market Under God by Thomas Frank. Regardless, the idea that all Americans, rich or poor, should be subject to the same bankruptcy bill is ridiculous when you stop to think about the circumstances.

People in this country are not born at the same starting point. They are not even near each other. The gap is wide and disparate at birth, and that is what renders the argument ineffective. How can you ask the poor in this country to be responsible when they do not have enough money to pay their medical bills? How can you ask them to have discipline when they need to take out mortgages to have a place to live? How can you ask them to eke out a living in this country without going into debt while big business gouges them for all they are worth and more?

If we did not live in a country with such a high gini coefficient (disparity in wealth concentration), in the only industrialized country where children do not automatically have access to healthcare, in a country where a significant portion of the population lives in poverty, in a country where social mobility was actually viable (those 1 in 50,000,000 stories should not fool any one), then yes, maybe the conservative argument would hold water. However, until that comes to pass, by arguing their line of reasoning they are doing nothing more than creating a double standard, which is nothing short of hypocrisy. They could use a little more discipline in their thought processes.

If there were a law that made it harder for public officials to weasel out of lying we would all be better off, and I know the party that would tank hardest from it. We could call it the moral bankruptcy bill. It would make people take on responsibility, and everyone is equal from the get go when it comes to honesty. Why are the conservatives in congress not calling for this? I guess that is the limit of their discipline.

Some People...

just never get it. I can't believe this is an issue. Even if something should be done (and I don't think anything should), why aren't these guys going after the MSM first?

Schiavo Flip-flop

Via Atrios.

Axises of Evil

Yeah, I 'Bushed' Axis. If you're still willing to believe anything that man says, read this. If you're still willing to believe anything that man says, put on your rapture hat and speedo.

The Draft

"There will be no draft"-Bush

Heh.

Ah, Life

If this is what qualifies as life I'd rather be sealed in a pit of my own filth. Still wouldn't vote Republican. Jeez some peope have an overinflated opinion of themselves.

7 Billion for Missiles That Don't Work, None For You

When was the last time I heard a Republican complain about how the government needs to curb in wasteful spending and give the American people the money they need in tax cuts? That would be today on C-Span, where a Republican majority in the house defeated Mel Watt's CBC Budget amendment that out of the 8.8 billion allocated for homeland security and national guard defense would have taken 7 billion and put it to good use in port security and border controls, instead of spending it on a missile system that won't even launch.

You want to talk about reckless spending? Look no further than your GOP. And one of the GOP reps on the floor had the balls to get up and say that Bush's tax cuts needed to be kept in the budgets because they give people more freedom and are helping the transition to an ownership society. Am I the only one who reads the word slave into that? Let's stop and think for a second. People have more money in their pockets, but the rich people have more so prices move up accordingly and your average American gets screwed. On the flip side by cutting taxes he increases the deficit which raises interest rates and slows down job growth and creation. Ownership society? In a sense more Americans own houses and the like, but that's nothing more than an illusion considering that more Americans are in neck-high debt (which they will find impossible to get out of thanks to the new bankruptcy bill) so they don't really own their houses, the banks do.

What really annoyed me about the vote was that about 1/3rd of the voting Democratic reps voted against the amendment. Why do they hate their party? Even if you know it's going to fail that doesn't mean you should not stand by your party and what it stands for as opposed to scoring brownie points with the GOP. Which, by the by, they will punish you for moving to the right and swallowing their ideas about 'tough on defense' by running a real Republican against you (for reference see Max Cleland). The GOP votes in lockstep. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, but if you're the opposition party you need to oppose, not run around like chickens with your heads cut off.

Freedom of the Airwaves

As long as it's owned by large corporations that have ties to the White House (Clear Channel Entertainment) it's free to our new FCC chairman. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse than Michael Powell, it turns out that Kevin Martin

was the strongest proponent of lifting the "cross-ownership" ban, which was part of the proposed media ownership rules passed by the FCC in 2003 and later thrown out by a federal court

This guy is going to serve your individual interests... right...

For more on the evil beast that Clear Channel Entertainment is, look at the directory of articles by Salon. This isn't an isolated incident. If you've been wondering why the quality of radio has been so awful lately, and so right wing, look no further.

Courtesy of the WaPo.

They Still Don't Get It

Morons.

Cough, Hack, Greenspan

Irrespective of whether good, old, doddering Uncle Alan thinks making Bush's tax cuts permanent will have a good effect on the economy, how can he talk about social security and

[warn] that doing nothing would lead to massive budget deficits and cause the ``economy to stagnate or worse.''

The man in charge of U.S. monetary policy apparently hasn't consulted any of the data that show that following through with Bush's policies will cause the economy to stagnate or worse, or add trillions more in debt to an already horrendous current account deficit. I really can't come up with any good reasons why anyone listened to this man 10 years ago.

From the NYT.

True Blue Democrat

From Montana, I kid you not.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer has touched off a political fight with Montana Republicans after calling for the return of National Guard troops serving in Iraq to help out in what many fear will be a record-setting wildfire season.

The reasons for those wildfires? I'd say it's a healthy combination of global warming and Bush's Healthy (cut down trees to give money to the logging industry and make it easier for wildfires to occur by doing so) Forests Act. This is both a good slap in Bush's foreign and environmental policies, and a good way to establish a frame by linking two seemingly disparate issues together.

The full NYT article.

Propaganda By Any Other Name Would Still Be Propaganda

The NYT reports. What I'm curious about though is if it's really the liberal media, why did it take them 4 years to figure this out?

Delay, Deceive, and Defenestrate

Ok, I made that last one up but it's a great word.

The 'Hammer' is at it again:

An Indian tribe and a gambling services company made donations to a Washington public policy group that covered most of the cost of a $70,000 trip to Britain by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), his wife, two aides and two lobbyists in mid-2000, two months before DeLay helped kill legislation opposed by the tribe and the company.

More at the NYT.

Not an Isolated Incident

Too bad there aren't pictures this time but maybe people won't forget as easily as before.

Bittersweet Victory

The EPA passed its Clear Air Interstate Rule which limits SO2 and NOs. Details from the WaPo.

The upside is that these chemicals are bad, are leading causes of asthma, haze, acid rain, and other pollution and diseases.

The downside is that these chemicals serve as reflectants in the atmosphere, therefore providing a cooling effect. Once these are gone, and they have a much shorter than CO2, the leading emission and cause of global warming, which the EPA still does not classify as an emission, the pace of global warming will pick up even quicker.

I'm buying land in Vermont or Minnesota the first chance I get.

Bankruptcy Bill Revisited

Passed the Senate. Details.

Take That, Bigots

Serves you right.

Environmental Status Quo

At least Bush's environmental plans aren't going anywhere, and while the status quo isn't great, it's better than what he's offering.

For those of you who didn't know, Bush's Clear Skies Act calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas density in proportion to GDP. That means that we can still absolutely produce more emissions. Furthermore, even though Bush's latest plan calls for reductions in sulfur and mercury, the administration still does not consider CO2, the largest source of emissions and greenhouse gases, to be an emission, and it's mentioned nowhere in his bill. According to 'the man,'

"To protect the environment, to protect jobs here in Ohio and around our country, Congress needs to get a good Clear Skies bill to my desk now."

Doesn't Chimpy usually say that any sort of environmental regulation would hurt the economy? Remember Inhofe? The Republican senator from OK who sterilized women and said that black people should oppose social security because they won't live long enough to have the benefits? If only we never had to hear from him ever again:

Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who is chairman of the environment committee, said the bill was "killed by the environmental extremists who care more about continuing the litigation-friendly status quo and making a political statement on CO2 than they do about reducing air pollution."

Mr. Inhofe, who considers global warming "a hoax," predicted that the full Senate would not support caps on carbon dioxide, asserting that Democrats were determined not to allow a Republican president a major environmental victory.

Democrats, he said, were "putting a far-left political fund-raising effort over the health and well-being of America's children and our nation's environment."

It's a hoax. Because Michael Crichton said so. The man wrote scientifically about bringing dinosaurs back to life, so he's a knowledgeable scientist. Who knows everything. Therefore this is bunk. So is this. And this.

For all you conservatives out there, take responsibility, because everyone's going to hurt from this, including you and your own. No compromise, no surrender, not on this issue.

Bush to World: Fuck You (again)

To hell with joining the ICC, we won't even listen to recommendations by foreign judges on domestic trials of foreigners. Instead of allowing new hearings by foreign bodies for 51 Mexicans on death row we're going to handle it ourselves, and since some of these inmates are in Texas we're just going to kill them.

Culture of life my left toe.

Link.

Bankruptcy Bill

Schumer's amendment, which would have made it harder for anti-abortion protesters to file for bankruptcy to avoid paying fines, failed yesterday. According to the WaPo,

Opponents of the Schumer amendment such as Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) described it as a "poison pill" intended to kill the bill by invoking the divisive issue of abortion about a problem that doesn't exist.

Gee, I've never seen Republicans invoke (gay marriage) a divisive issue (abortion) about a problem (civil liberties) that doesn't exist (social security). I'm afraid Sen. Orrin Hack (R-Utah) is calling the kettle black. The only way the GOP has been able to win any support is by diverting the focus from class warfare and things that are actually occuring and hurting people to cultural warfare, which is a GOP construct that empowers bigots.

Nevermind that this bill is just another step for big finance and credit card companies to hurt any old Joe who falls into bankruptcy by one means or another. That's your GOP.

Tsunami Swami

I think Bush's remarks about tsunami aid helping U.S. image need to be taken into context.

John Bolton, UN Ambassador

This guy admits he's an outspoken critic of the UN. In the WaPo:

He said he has consistently stressed in his writings that "American leadership is critical to the success of the U.N., an effective U.N., one that is true to the original intent of its charter's framers."

Wait, wait, these quotes are even better.

Walmart's Hype

This is really interesting, and reminds me why I would never work in advertising.

Link courtesy of MyDD.

He's at it Again

Doesn't he ever learn?

For more check out There Is No Crisis.

A Joke? Really?

Rep Sam Johnson (R-Tex) made the following comment a couple weeks ago:

"Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on 'em and I'll make one pass. We won't have to worry about Syria anymore."

According to him it was a joke (told to the president). Roll Call didn't seem to think so (otherwise Johnson would not have responded to criticism), but even if it was, why?

In the WaPo.

No More 9-5

According to Rick Santorum, 40 hours a week is not enough work (how many hours a week does he clock in?) so he wants to switch it to an 80 hour, two week system. That means 100 million people will lose overtime pay.

Even better, if you've ever been or are considering waiting or bartending, if your tips equal or exceed minimum wage your employer will no longer have to pay you anything.

His amendment to the minimum wage bill will be proposed on Monday. Details here.

Face it, if you're not in the top two tax brackets you have no business ever voting Republican. If you are in the top two tax brackets and you vote Republican on your wallet you deserve to be eaten by wolves.

Denial, Another Word Bush Doesn't Understand

From the NYT,

President Bush dismissed the notion Thursday that his campaign to create private accounts in Social Security was in serious trouble, asserting he was still "at the early stages of the process."

Not just a river in Egypt.

Uncle Alan

For those of you who still have faith in Greenspan, or even care about him any more since the 90s tech bubble burst, Paul Krugman has a thing or two to say.

On a sort of tangent on bashing Greenspan, I don't think that monetary policy is totally useless, but it depends on the kind of economy you're planning to use it in. We've had interests rates as low as Tom Delay for the past couple years and the economy hasn't recovered. As for the jobs figure this month, that's only new hires, not net gains/losses (it's a net loss if you were wondering), and this is either Chimpy's best number or close to his best. Maybe someone should start thinking about raising taxes.

Freedom of Blogging

This makes me want to have my own Boston tea party, except replace Boston with DC and tea with K-street lobbyists.

This sort of thing could affect even this poor, little blog. As Armando over at Kos comments, "yes, this is definitely a first amendment issue."

Groan

Just in from the House vote on c-span, the Scott (D-Va) amendment to the job training bill going through the house, which would have struck down the language making it legal for faith based organizations receiving federal funds to hire based on whatever qualities they deem appropriate, including religious beliefs, was not passed. The vote was pretty much along party lines.

We live in a theocracy.

Then an amendment proposed by Rep. Kildee (D-Mich) to give more job training to veterans of the current war and people who have lost their jobs to outsourcing was shot down by a Republican as "a cruel hoax" because the program would probably take a couple years to set up and not offer immediate benefits.

Remember, Republicans hate our troops, Democrats support them.

Crap

Isn't this kind of talk what got us into trouble in the first place?

Alternative Energy Done Right

By China, at Daily Kos.

Not to be a pessimist or a cynic or anything, and I'm not, what's wrong with alternative energy attempts in the US today boils down to something very simple. The incentives are not there.

Why is the US the world's largest (both absolute and per capita) emissions producer? Prices. Costs. Gas and energy (oil and coal) are cheap over here, so no one bats an eye at alternative energy. Is there a gigantic added cost to the environment that we're beginning to see already? Yes. Do people care? No. Why? Because that cost does not figure into their costs at the end of the day. For a way to rectify this, see my earlier posts on the Kyoto Protocol.

I'm not saying that everyone is like this and only cares about his bottom line. I know that there are intelligent, well-meaning people with progressive values out there who want to fix these problems. The problem is these people aren't the ones in charge of oil and coal companies. I'll give you one guess as to who those CEOs voted for, and it wasn't Nader.

Here's the problem with Republicans: they're too willing to put everyone else's interests (including their own children and long-term interests) on the line for short-term personal gain. That's not being a rational actor and looking out for yourself, that's stupid. As much as I'd love to reeducate these people with the idea that while equality does not increase efficiency it does boost the overall product, that isn't going to happen. Therefore, the answer is to discipline them into line by giving them incentives to work towards alternative energy. If you taxed gas instead of subsidizing it, it would no longer be as profitable and people would switch. If you subsidized alternative energy (because its total costs, unseen ones included, are lower than fossil fuels) and its R&D, people would switch. However, this government and the people who lobby it are short-sighted people who are only looking out for themselves.

Lakoff cites that according to the conservative model it is moral to pursue your self interest, and if you're disciplined, your self interest should enable you to prosper. This obviously ties in with Adam Smith and free market capitalism. Everyone pursuing their self interest should maximize everyone's welfare. Those who screw up this system are do gooders, because they're not looking out for their own self interest. Well here's a clear, healthy and obvious alternative to the conservative system: the progressive one. Everyone working not only for himself but also for others is going to maximize everyone's welfare. Who screws up this system? Those who only look out for themselves. They maximize their short term self interest at the expense of everyone else. These people need to be stopped for all our sakes.