Hello! The answer is Bush.

In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center the following question was asked:

(Was) TARP enacted under Bush or Obama?

The disturbing part is how few people knew the correct answer - Bush. Below is the percentage of people (by political affiliation) who answered correctly:

Republicans - 36%
Democrats - 34%
Independents - 35%

I think this lack of understanding has a direct impact on President Obama and his agenda. Polls suggest that Americans are unhappy with TARP and if they believe President Obama is at fault for this thing they don't like then using the transitive property they will think other legislation that the President backs will be similarly flawed.

The Heritage Foundation Wants To Prosecute Bush Administration Officials!

I know, I know. I did not see this coming either. But I was watching Hardball on Monday night (only because Chris Matthews was sick or on vacation or something - it's not a show I typically watch), and Chuck Todd was interviewing Ernest Istook, who was noted to be a former Republican U.S. congressman from the state of Oklahoma and has now joined The Heritage Foundation; the conversation was about the recent chattering in conservative circles about the modification or even the repeal of the 14th Amendment. Chuck Todd asks:

CT: My question is why go to the 14th Amendment? Why not just enforce the border (and) get tougher immigration law because - if you do that - this issue of birthright citizenship isn't going to play as big of a role? It just feels like you're politically poking hispanics in the eye and saying "we're picking on you!"

To which Mr. Istook replies:

EI: Chuck, why be selective in the laws that you enforce? Why say "let's enforce some laws but let's give a pass to people on other laws"?

I guess that means that everybody who broke the law during the detaining and interrogation of terror suspects during the Bush Administration must be prosecuted! Can we take Dick Cheney right from the hospital to a prison cell?

Maybe We Can Use Guns?

No, no, it's not what you think! I'm not going all Sharron Angle on you.

I am referring to a recent segment on The Daily Show where the failure in the House of Representatives of a bill to provide health care to 9/11 first responders was discussed. In the segment, Mr. Stewart lamented that the bill failed because it could not get the 2/3 majority it needed to pass whereas a bill to exempt guns from bankruptcy claims easily cleared that threshold.

So, remember how the credit card reform bill passed in May 2009 with an amendment that allowed guns into National Parks? If you have any sense at all, you thought "WTF? That is stupid!" It turns out, you were wrong! That is the future. So, for example, the Climate Change Bill that cannot pass even in it's watered down state in the Senate? I say we amend it with NRA supported legislation and then all the assholes and pussies in congress will vote for it!

The problem, one would think, is that we could only use to this strategy for so long until we run out of pro-gun legislation that we use to get actual meaningful progress done for our country. I have two thoughts on that:

1) Remember, we're talking the NRA! They will always think of more instances where guns are the answer.
2) Who am I to say the everyone having a gun is a bad thing? It's good enough for Basil Marceaux.Com and he makes more sense than most elected Republicans.



By the way, this brings to mind another quote from Paul O'Neill on Sunday's Fareed Zakaria GPS. O'Neill was addressing the partisan gridlock in Washington when he said this:

You know, in a perverse way, it may be a blessing because if they could agree on something, it would probably be negative to the people.

Dare I say, when it comes to guns, Paul O'Neill is on target.

Sorry...I shouldn't have said that.

Why do the rich get richer...Stocks

Bill Ford Jr. admirably took a pay freeze 5 years ago stating he would not take a salary until Ford was profitable. Well Ford is profitable and Bill Ford Jr. $4 million in salary and an additional $12 million in stock options. He is also donating a million dollars of this compensation.

While I have no problem with the top guys making money, especially when the company's profits were $2.7 billion, the issue I have is with the people who suggest that the top 1% pays too much in taxes. Thanks to the stock options Bill Ford Jr. will have decreased his tax bill by almost $2.5 million. Yes, by simply taking stocks instead of a salary he will only pay a 15% tax on his gains instead of the 35% he should pay. This 15% tax rate is equal to the tax rate on individuals making between $8,375 and $34,000. Keep in mind the poverty line in the US stands at $11,161. This means Bill Ford Jr. is going to take the bulk of his earnings and only pay the rate of someone who is below the poverty line.

There is a claim that anyone can participate in the stock market and everyone benefits from this tax loophole but the fact is the majority of stocks are owned by the top wage earners (the top 5% holds nearly 90% of all stocks) and the little guys have very little access to this. Because of this loophole the middle class is forced to make up the difference in lost tax revenue.

Back in the Clinton era the government would have received an additional $1.56 million from the sale of Bill Ford Jr's stock options. The Bush era tax cuts brought about huge tax savings for the rich that the middle class can not access. These tax cuts are a huge contributor to the Federal Deficit and our National Debt.

If you look at the Clinton years you will see that even with the increased tax rates and higher capital gains tax rates people still spent their money and invested in the stock market. The actual taxes are not the deterrent to spending as much as the perception of uncertainty. The rich will spend if they are confident in what is coming. If they are concerned that the economy will take a down turn they hold on to their money. This is the problem with Trickle down economics. It relies on consumer confidence. The poor will spend all of their money regardless of the economy but the rich like being rich and they didn't get that way by spending all of their money.

The Capital gains tax rate is one of the many tax loopholes the rich use to continue to expand the wealth gap. Until the middle class realizes that the deck is stacked for the rich they will continue to pay a much greater percentage of their income in taxes and watch the rich get richer.

State Aid and the Recovery

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a report out discussing the economy. Below I have listed an important paragraph from the report:

Cuts to state services not only harm vulnerable residents but also worsen the recession — and dampen the recovery — by reducing overall economic activity. When states cut spending, they lay off employees, cancel contracts with vendors, reduce payments to businesses and nonprofits that provide services, and cut benefit payments to individuals. All of these steps remove demand from the economy. For instance, at least 43 states and the District of Columbia have reduced overall wages paid to state workers by laying off workers, requiring them to take unpaid leave (furloughs), freezing new hires, or similar actions. State and local governments have eliminated 242,000 jobs since August 2008, federal data show. Such measures are reducing not only the level and quality of services available to state residents but also the purchasing power of workers’ families, which in turn affects local businesses and slows recovery.

I find this to be an important paprgraph becuase I agree with it.

Hockey and politics

This might be a bit of a stretch as far as analogies go but I have decided election year legislative activities are very similar to the refs in the 3rd period of the NHL playoffs.

As our highly educated and worldly reader knows the refs basically swallow their whistle in the 3rd period of any NHL playoff game for fear of changing the outcome.

Similarly, it seems to be an accepted axiom that legislatively nothing important happens in the months leading up to an election because of the fear of changing the outcome.

Our elected officials have become so concerned about being elected that it has almost become a greater part of their occupation than actually legislating.

This leads to spineless legislation and obstructionist tactics that keeps desperately needed action from happening. Score one for Democracy?

He's Sitting Right There, Paul!

Over the past few weeks, I've posted a few times about how the economy is lagging largely due to a lack of demand rather than for reasons that the Republicans and some pundits want you to believe (tax policy, regulatory uncertainty, etc). Moreover, I linked to a post by Barry Ritholtz where he sort of debunked a Washington Post column written by Fareed Zakaria where Mr. Zakaria espoused the idea that corporations are hoarding cash because of concerns over Obama's policies.

Well, some follow up to report from Fareed's own show. Yesterday, Fareed hosted a conversation with Robert Rubin (Secretary of Treasury, 1995-99) and Paul O'Neill (Secretary of Treasury, 2001-02).

It seems to me that Mr. Rubin's reputation is in the tank. Other than Alan Greenspan, I'm not sure any individual has suffered such a calamitous hit to their reputation as a result of the economic collapse of 2008 (Phil Gramm & John Thain may be other candidates - but I didn't think much of Gramm to begin with and I think John Thain is still largely anonymous to the public). Anyway, Mr. Rubin didn't have all that much interesting to say. However...

...Paul O'Neill proved to be VERY quotable!

Recall as I just stated, Fareed himself had written an article titled "Obama's CEO Problem --- And Ours" and yet Mr. O'Neill let rip with these comments:

PO: I must say I'm kind of amused by some of the conversation about companies hoarding $1.5 trillion in cash or something because I had a rule when I was in the private sector for 25 years including 13 running ALCOA and that is:

DON'T HIRE PEOPLE UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMEBODY DEMANDING GOODS THAT YOU CAN'T PRODUCE WITH THE PEOPLE YOU ALREADY HAVE

so it seems pretty unrealistic to me to urge people to spend money unless there's a demand that they're not able to satisfy with their existing resouces.

FZ: And capacity utilization... the plants and factories are not at full capacity.

PO: Exactly. Until there's a reabsorption of that latent capacity, people are not going to build new capacity... why would you? It's crazy. It's not a charitable function... if you're running a business to say "oh my goodness, we have so many millions of people unemployed, I should rush out and spend my cash and hire more people".

Later in the conversation, O'Neill, once again just nailing Fareed (probably oblivious to it):

PO: So I think an awful lot of this conversation about (how) Wall St's upset with Obama... it's because people don't have something sensible to talk about I suppose. I don't think there's much merit to that conversation.

Then, O'Neill basically rips Robert Rubin right to his face (once again perhaps oblivious to it - but maybe not because he looked at him when he said it):

PO: And the financial community compounded the problem by securitizing this stuff (sub-prime loans and loans with little or no equity (down payment)), calling it 'AAA', putting it into cyberspace... it's no wonder that we cratered the world financial system. What we were doing was stupid!

(Note: Robert Rubin joined Citigroup after leaving the public sector and was reported to have pushed for the massive conglomerate to take on much more leverage and risk... i.e. they got deep into MBSs & CDOs with his encouragement).

So, there you have it. A former Republican appointed Sec. of Treasury keeping it real. Now, I will add that he stated that he was basically fired by George W. Bush for two reasons:

1) He didn't support the 2003 Tax Cuts.
2) He indicated he didn't believe there was any evidence that Iraq had WMD.

I don't know if he actually wants to be admired by liberals but - fuck it - I'll say it: I can't see any reason I'd rather have Timothy Geithner than Paul O'Neill.

Unions and the Republican evolution...ironic, I know.

I am not a big supporter of unions because it seems to me that today's union is more concerned about self preservation than making sure it's members and the benefits they receive are an asset to their corporation.

This leads me to today's example of Repubocrisy. Republicans have never been big supporters of Unions because Republicans tend to represent (see; are bought and paid for by) business and Unions are by in large a detriment to business (if you ask business folk). Similarly the current tactics of the Republican party are akin to that of a big union. Republicans are doing everything in their power to make sure nothing happens and that the business of the Federal government is to do no business. They have an litany of tactics aimed at making the President and by extension Democrats look bad. The goal is to regain power in November. They don't care that their actions are directly leading to increased job losses and a stagnant economy because their aim is not to make sure the business of the Federal government is successful but that the Democrats take the blame for our current woes. This is the only way they can regain power. They have offered little to no ideas on improving the economy, health care, air quality, or immigration because every time they open their mouths we are reminded of how we arrived at this point in the first place.

One example is a quote from John Boehner recently where he stated "I think having a moratorium on new Federal regulations is a great idea,". Yes, it must have been too much regulation that lead to the BP oil spill and the collapse of the housing market.

Or how about Mitch McConnell who said "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue,". Apparently actually having diminished revenue is not evidence to Senator McConnell.

Republicans have become so entrenched in spin and double talk that they have actually evolved (or created by god since Barack Obama was elected) into a clone of one of the very entities they despise most.

BP gas stations see drop in sales

The Liberal media has made a concerted effort to point out how BP does not own the local BP gas stations and that the recent drop in sales at these stations doesn't really affect BP.

While I understand this, the reason I have skipped stopping at BP stations is because it is the only recourse I have for voicing my displeasure with BP. My hope is that these individual stations put pressure back on BP for their lack of sales. I want to send a message to the oil industry that those companies who take unnecessary risks will face some consequences when those gambles go bad.

I apologize to the local owners who bare the burden of BP's mistakes but I believe that making a point to the oil industry outweighs the 8%-12% drop in sales many BP stations are seeing.

Republicans double dipping on concers over the Bush tax cuts.

I have heard recently that people aren't spending money because they are concerned about the possibility of taxes going up. I have also heard that we can't let the Bush tax cuts expire because it would lead to people not spending money and saving it instead.

Unfortunately you can not have it both ways. If people are already saving like the tax cuts will expire then we should just let them expire and start knocking down the national deficit. If people aren't already holding back then maybe people really aren't that concerned about the change in taxes.

This is dooms day thinking where we are damned if we do and damned if you don't. The only reason for all this rhetoric is to get the simple minded people out to the polls. Don't be fooled into believing this double talk.

Extremism is the wrong way to go if you really want change.

For some reason it seems that Republican politicians are going out of their way to show just how conservative they are. They do this by pandering to extremes of the Republican party. The problem is if you actually want things to change putting in extremist doesn't get the job done.

I would argue that currently the Republicans that are in office are already pushing way right of center and all they have done is water down a couple bills and paint themselves as obstructionist. They wouldn't have even been able to water down any bills if it weren't Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. The Michele Bachmann's of the world have done little to nothing to actually generate policy so by putting one of these extremists in power all you have really done is limited the effectiveness of your own voice.

Additionally, while the fringes of the party my like these candidates and get them through the primaries, in general there are more independents than Democrats or Republicans. They are independents because they fall somewhere in between not because the fall to far left or right. This means that your extremist will have a difficult time when it comes to the general election and by pushing too far to your wing, you will have made the path easier for the other party to win the seat you are hoping to occupy.

In the end legislation happens in the middle not the edge, so if you actually want change look to the moderates who build coalitions not to the extremist who divide.

Myq Kaplan on Last Comic standing

I appreciated these jokes from Myq Kaplan on the most recent Last Comic Standing as they really illustrate the Glen Beck like thinking and justifications of some conservatives. The political jokes begin at :48 and end at 1:50 of the video.

Republicans long for the good old days...

Or at least they long for their own distorted view of the good old days. I often hear Republicans wax poetically about the good old days. "It was a simpler time" they will say. They seem to dislike change which is fine. The problem is their rhetoric often doesn't fit their actions.

Below is a graph showing the historical use of the filibuster.

As you can see the good old days are in complete contrast with the current Republican tactics.

Similarly the talk currently in how President Obama and his Liberal (Socialist) agenda are to blame for the partisan politics of today. Yet, somehow in the past, for programs that were easily more socialist than any legislation of the past two years FDR and LBJ were able to garner infinitely more Republican support than today's Senate.


So then I guess the last excuse for the unprecedented obstructionism from the Republicans is because this is how business is done and or course the divisiveness of today is only a reaction to the partisan ways of the Democrats in the past. Except:


Republicans always have some rationale for their irrational actions and if you believe them it's only because you haven't researched the facts.

The fact is Republicans only long for the good old days when it is convenient for them and these graphs show the clear Repubocrisy of that reality.

The politics of politics

There is one area where I'm really glad Democrats are not like Republicans and that is their New York Mob mentality.

It was reported recently that Susan Collins was interested in voting for the state aid bill but she was leery of being the only Republican to do so. She is leery because of a long standing tradition in the Republican party of steadfast agreement even when there is disagreement. As President Bush famously said "You're either with us or against us". Make no mistake, this was not political rhetoric. This was a Republican Mantra to keep everyone in line and a waring to those who dare step out of line.

When Joe Lieberman broke ranks with the Democrats (and with the previous version of Joe Lieberman) how did the Democrats respond? They did nothing. They even left his committee chairs alone. While part of me wishes the Democrats had done otherwise I appreciate that they don't resort to thuggery to quell the voice of dissenters. This is after all, one of the foundations of our democracy and any attempts to limit this form of freedom of speech are deplorable.

Republicans, Capitalism, Politicians, and War

I have a friend who works at the corporate headquarters of Dominos and when he was first hired he had to do many of the lower level jobs like making pizzas and delivering them. The idea was that you need to understand your product and your customers as well as have an understanding of how the business is run form top to bottom before you could sell the companies product.I believe this is not unique to Dominos and that many corporations do something similar.

I thought of this while listening to "On Point" on NPR last night with host Jane Clayson talking with guests author David Finkel and Army Captain Matt Gallagher. What struck me is the disconnect between the civilian leadership and the men and women in the service. I had this realization after a caller talked about his time in Iraq and how after a time he was just fighting to make it home. He was fighting to make sure his friends survived. He was still doing what he was told but the mission given to him seemed to become secondary to making sure he and his comrades lived another day. The guests talked at length about how disheartening the whole process was and how beaten down our soldiers were by the end of their tour.

It made me think of a quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower where he said "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

I think the solution to keeping America from getting involved in more win less wars like Iraq is to have anyone who votes on or is involved in the decision to go to war, be forced to be embedded with combat troops for a year. This would combine some ideas from capitalism with politics for a more informed government. I think this would lead to an renewed commitment to exhausting all possible political solutions before putting more good young men and women in harms way.

Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) vs Republican Obstructionism

In response to the START Treaty agreed to by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Senate republicans have started their own treaty known as STOP or Stopping Obama with Propaganda.

The START treaty is an agreement between the US and Russia to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles by 30%. This is the conclusion of a goal set forth by Ronald Reagan, however, since it was actually completed by President Obama is has now become objectionable to Republicans.

Their stated opposition suggests that they don't understand the treaty since their concerns over future technologies are explicitly exempt from the treaty. This implies that these Republican Senators are either uninterested in actually understanding the treaty or ,more likely, they are just going to arbitrarily block anything the President supports. Proof of this is the litany of former Republican officials have testified for ratification of the treaty including former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger, James Baker and George Shultz, as well as many senior retired military officers who were responsible for U.S. strategic nuclear forces in the past.

For people who claim to care about the opinions of our Military, they have shown a propensity for ignoring them when the Military recommendation does not match the Republican talking points.

I find the Republicans unyielding petulance in the ratification this treaty to be one of the most reprehensible acts they have committed since it not only weakens our foreign relations but also makes America and it's allies less safe, all in the name of scoring political points.

Sarah Palin wants you to celebrate the 20th anniversery of ADA

This post illustrates one of my favorite truisms about Republicans which is that they can't put themselves in someone elses shoes.

The only reason Sarah Palin cares at all about the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) is because she has a son with Down Syndrome. While it is human nature to have a higher interest in something when you have a personal experience with it Republicans are the only ones that completely modify their political beliefs because of this association.

The ADA was a Democrat led effort and had 100% Yea votes by Senate Democrats while only 87% of Senate Republicans voted for it. Put that into today's toxic obstructionist Senate and this bill would have needed a sweetheart deal to Ben Nelson and a back rub for Olympia Snowe to get passed.

Even some of the Yea votes from republicans were only done after they tried to water down the bill to exclude certain businesses because they felt this was unfair and damaging to business. While there seems to be no lasting affects to business from this legislation, that doesn't stop current Republicans from using this same argument to shoot down funding and legislation for the less fortunate.

So while I'm not surprised that Sarah Palin would support the ADA any more than I am that Dick Cheney is OK with gay marriage I certainly wish they had compassion for these minority groups without needing the personal example to understand their plight.

"I'm Pro Life and an NRA member!"

These are two things that I don't want to hear from my gubernatorial candidates. Not because I'm against this stance (which I am) but because it really has no bearing on their job. Bill Clinton didn't get elected because he could play a mean saxophone, he was elected because he had good ideas on the issues of the time.Similarly a Governor will have little to no affect on the second amendment to the constitution or the supreme courts decision on abortion.

For some reason we have become so polarized in this nation that all we need a persons thoughts on one volatile topic to decide who the best candidate is. It is a sad commentary on this country that in these difficult economic times of near 9% unemployment we are so easily divided by an issue that the politicians we are voting for have no influence on.

United Arab Emirates to block Blackberry

U.A.E. is concerned about the excessive privacy that Blackberry affords its users and is asking to have access to communications made on Blackberry units in an effort to root out terrorists.

This is awfully similar to some of the provisions of the Patriot Act which I personally have had serious reservations (to put it mildly) about since it's inception.

The funny thing is that the main proponents of the Patriot Act were Republicans and the main proponents of the current U.A.E. ban are Arabs.

I'm glad to see we have finally found something that Republicans can agree with Arabs on.

I Have Nothing To Add To This

Let's not forget this douchebag, Tim Tebow...

...whose habit of wearing bible verses on his face sends a powerful message...

...and that message: I'm home-schooled.

--- Bill Maher