President Obama offers Federal Pay Freeze

Not surprisingly John Gage, the head of the American Federation of Government Employees (the Union for Federal workers) came out against this move making the following statement:

Two unfunded wars, stock market collapse and trying to solve this deficit by going after working people's salary — I just expected more from the Obama administration.

This is where unions really bother me. As a small business owner we put a pay freeze in place for lower level employees and then we cut the salary of all the managers and owners. We did this to stay in business not because we liked it. We didn't hide behind all of our past failures that could have saved us money as rationale for maintaining unsustainable raises. The fact was that the economy was down and we needed to adjust to the new situation we found ourselves in.

I would respect the union if instead of complaining about a freeze they accepted it and spent their time finding other areas of the budget that could be cut. They should offer solutions instead of whining. They are acting like they are the only ones who are being asked to sacrifice. The economy is bad and it doesn't matter who is to blame. I didn't see the federal employees union lobbying against the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. They weren't spending union dues to put stiffer regulations on Wall Street that would have prevented the gambling that led to the economic collapse. They didn't offer solutions to the budget deficit when times were good. If you just sit on the sidelines and watch you can't affect the outcome of the game. Unfortunately that is what the Federal Employees Union is doing now, acting like the problems of the past were obvious and they warned of the impending doom. They didn't want to be part of the solution then and they certainly aren't offering to help now and that is the lack of responsibility that really bugs me about unions.

Tim Walberg has no balls

I have sent the following email three times since the election to Representative Elect Tim Walberg who represent my district in Michigan and as of yet have not received a response. Because of this I have decided that Tim Walberg doesn't have the balls to support his own ideas. If he ever sends a response I will happily print a retraction.


Dear Representative elect Walberg;

I did not vote for you and as a Democrat and small business owner I find your policies troublesome. While viewing your web site recently I noticed in your section on Jobs and Economic Growth under the On the issues heading you would like to eliminate capital gains tax. I fail to understand how this promotes Jobs or Economic Growth. The current recession is hitting middle and lower class Americans hardest yet only 2% of stocks are owned by Americans making under $100,000 per year. Conversely 66% of the wealth earned by people making over $1 million per year already comes from the stock market. By advocating for an elimination of capital gains tax you are suggesting that either you have not done your research on this particular topic or you are for a redistribution of wealth to the richest Americans from the middle class. I hope for your sake it is the former rather than the latter.

The standard claims seem to be that either the rich create jobs or that taxes on capital gains stifles investment. If the first claim was true then the unemployment rate would be dropping like a rock right now since the rich have never been richer, taxes have never been lower, and business has never had more cash lying around. If the rich truly created jobs these three factors would be the legs which this claim stands on and yet unemployment remains at 9.6%. Unfortunately the trickledown theory which I assume you subscribe to only works when consumer confidence his high and unemployment is low. On the second point, history suggests otherwise. The government subsidies any loss I might incur as a stockholder and the rate of return in the stock market is higher on average than you can get from a bank so unless the taxable rate on capital gains surpasses that of the standard income tax the rich will continue to invest. The current capital gains tax rate of 15% is one of the biggest reason that the top 400 wage earners in American pay an average tax rate of 16.6% as reported by the IRS in a 2007 report. This is also why when Bill Ford Jr. recently started taking a salary again from Ford he only took a $4 million salary and $12 million in stock options. For every $100,000 he takes in stocks he cuts his taxable income by $20,000. If you got your way he would get 75% of his earnings tax free.

I would be very interested in understanding why you think eliminating capital gains tax fits with job creation or economic growth. My guess is you will produce nothing more than the standard Republican talking points and spin doctored slogans which are meant to rally the simple minded to fight against their own interests and support those of the big un-named donors that helped you win election this November. Perhaps I’m wrong and you actually have some substance behind your policy but I’m guessing you won’t even respond to this email because it would expose the lack of knowledge you and your staff posses on your own agenda.

Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn want you to pay more at the pump

Jim Demint and Tom Coburn would like to end the subsidies for Ethanol and would consider cutting the subsidies to gas and oil companies as well. In the end cutting these subsidies will lead to higher gas prices since the big companies that are part of these subsidies have no interest in lower profits. That means the American taxpayer will be on the hook for any short fall left by the ending of these subsidies.

Truth be told I'm perfectly fine with this plan as I have mentioned before on this blog I loathe ethanol and the company that has forced it on the American public - ADM. In addition I don't understand why we would subsidies a product that we would really like to get away from using. We should subsidies the American made energy that has a high output to input ratio not the worst form of renewable energy in ethanol and the oil and gas from Arab nations. This is the part of big government that I don't like - the part that is bought and paid for by big business. So Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, I support your efforts. Maybe this will be the time that a Republican actually has the balls to support the good of the general public over big business. Probably not, but this is some of the best rhetoric I have heard from a Republican in years.

Christians Riot in Egypt over religious oppression

One of my over riding believes about Republicans is that they have trouble putting themselves in other peoples shoes. Today in the news there is a story from Egypt where Christians rioted at the Giza government headquarters in a dispute over a church construction project. The claim by the Christians is that they are not being allowed the same rights as their Muslim counterparts when it comes to building houses of worship. Sound familiar? Yes, this is exactly what is happening in America with Christians attempting to stop Muslims from building mosques. Even going as far as committing arson to prevent construction.

The problem is that American Christan's will not see the similarities between the two situations even though they are exactly the same. They will have some justification for their irrational fear of Muslims and their overt discrimination here in America and then act like the situation in Egypt is somehow different. They will be surprised when a Muslim in America gets pushed too far and reacts with violence then support the riots in Egypt as justified. In their mind all Muslims are Terrorists and all Christians are good people. Unfortunately for Christians neither of these beliefs are true and their existence is a self fulfilling prophecy that creates the very terrorist they fear.

Both sides are wrong here and their intolerance only makes the situations worse. Their unwillingness to understand the other side causes the very hatred that they claim to be against. Being Christian or Muslim doesn't define you as good or evil, but failing to recognize your differences and acting out of fear instead of understand, puts you on the wrong side of the debate every time.

Ireland to get bailout and make John McCain look silly

One talking point that really stuck out at me during the 2008 presidential debate was the claim by John McCain that the US could benefit from an Ireland style business tax system. His quote was as follows:

Right now, the United States of American business (OOTC:ARBU) pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent. Now, if you’re a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it’s *11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you’re going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera. I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in — in the United States of America and create jobs. *(the actual rate is 12.5%)

Now that Ireland has come begging for help, Ireland's business tax system has come under fire. It turns out that there are loopholes created by this system that allow companies like Google to funnel money through their system and pay a rate of 2.4% after all is said and done. While companies have located their businesses in Ireland it has not led to a boom in tax revenue. The problem is with a rate so low they are not drawing enough businesses to cover the lost revenue of the tax cut. The other part of this equation is the income tax. Typically with more business you should have more people employed and paying income tax which will make up for some of the short fall. Unfortunately these companies are setting up shell companies to use the Irish tax rate but bringing very few employees to do so. What Ireland has done is allow companies essentially a tax free zone and cost other countries tax revenue. In the battle of the tax payer vs Big Business, Big Business wins again.

Luckily for the American tax payer John McCain has not gotten his way. 2/3 of American business already don't pay taxes leaving the American public to pick up the tab. The Ireland plan that Republicans seem to covet would only make that disparity worse.

TSA scanner gives terrorist a win.

While I'm not really all that concerned about my junk being viewed by a couple of TSA employees, after hearing all of the news being produced around the new scanners it made me wonder why air travel has become the sacred cow of travel. If terrorist can't gain access to the cockpit then the best they can do is blow up a plane and kill everyone on board and if they are really "lucky" the plane will crash killing more people. The problem is they could kill just as many people at any crowded event yet we don't have security scanners at every football game or music concert.

The goal of terrorist is to make us fearful and affect our lives. Well, by using a method of stopping terrorist that some people label as sexual assault aren't we still being terrorised? The only difference is the terror is being induced by our government this time.

Clarence Thomas Is Not For Sale

I don't really get this.

Rachel Maddow did a segment on Ginni Thomas this week. The theme of the segment was basically that there could be (well, is) a conflict of interest with Ginni Thomas being a conservative activist while her husband is a sitting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

While I understand (and agree with) the principle, my issue is that Clarence Thomas is already comically conservative. I do not have concerns with him being swayed to move to the right because he might feel an inkling to look kindly on the concerns of donors to his wife's organization.

So I titled this post Clarence Thomas is Not for Sale after almost titling it Clarence Thomas is Bought and Paid For. However, I felt that was too perjorative because it obviously would (if only cheekily) imply that Clarence Thomas was corrupt and I truly do not believe that is the case. He seems completely genuine in his very narrow and strict interpretation of the Constitution. So, while he may be nuts*, I have no reason to believe he is not an honest kook.



* Jeffrey Toobin quoting Antonin Scalia on the difference between himself and Clarence Thomas:

I'm a conservative, I'm a textualist, I'm an originalist, but I'm not a nut.

See What You Want To See

Lots of game analysts say stupid things. This blog would lose half it's contents if that were not the case. (And if Republicans weren't out there being total hypocrites and advocating terrible policy - the other half would be gone).

This weekend, I was watching the Michigan-Purdue game on the Big10 Network when their analyst (some guy I was not at all familiar with - Charles Martin maybe?) said this about Roy Roundtree:

Just watching Roundtree move around - lookin' at his measurables and giving him a quick eyeball test - he kind of reminds me of Braylon Edwards.

If I may:

Braylon Edwards lists at 6'3", 214 lbs.
Roy Roundtree lists at 6'0", 176 lbs.

How the heck does anyone who has checked the measurables think they are at all alike? That is stupefying.

Roundtree does not remind me of any of Michigan's elite receivers - who historically have almost always been on the larger side (I am not counting Steve Breaston as elite). I guess the more relevant comparisons would be Mario Manningham (who was just better than Roundtree) or, perhaps even better, would be Mercury Hayes or Chris Calloway.

Patterson to NBDL

I hate to say I called it except that I'm totally lying about that.

I CALLED IT!

From Rotoworld:

The Rockets have assigned Patrick Patterson to Rio Grande Valley of the D-League.

Read this for a competing view from a delusional Rockets fan. Funny stuff. He reminds me of my brother who is still convinced that William Campbell (U of M DT) could be good. (However, I will acknowledge that being sent to the NBDL is not the end of the story - but the dude still needs a ticket to visit reality.)

We still await the debut of Epke Udoh (out with a broken wrist).

Republicans either aren't as free market as they claim or they don't understand business

As a small business owner if I had an opportunity to spend $1.00 and get a return on that dollar of $1.61 I would jump at that opportunity. It wouldn't really matter if the idea made sense, as long as it proved it made money, the free market would love it. Republican claim to love free market ideology so logic would conclude that Republicans would love making $1.61 for investing $1.00. The problem is they love moral righteousness more.

Mark Zandi of Moody's fame put together a report showing that for every dollar spent on unemployment there was a return of $1.61 to the economy yet Republicans have vowed to end this social safety net. Their main reason is they believe that everyone that receives unemployment just isn't trying hard enough. The problem is that the vast majority of people who are on unemployment want to work. The only way they can collect unemployment was to have a job and to have lost that job. Additionally you don't get much in unemployment if you only worked for a short time period. So the people who are collecting large amounts of unemployment, previously made large amounts of money. These are by and large not lazy people.

This is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Republicans would rather see slow economic growth, which hurts them, than give unemployment benefits to the very small percentage of people that take advantage of the system.

This is not an isolated case. Republicans are going to push hard to repeal parts of the health care reform bill. One of their big beefs is that insuring 30 million people who are with out insurance will mean higher rates for them. This is not true. Some people will see higher costs but the majority of these people will also be getting better coverage. Regardless, they feel that the 30 million uninsured are getting a free ride and that this smacks of socialism. The problem is that the uninsured don't go with out care. They just go to the emergency room and get significantly more expensive care. In addition to the extra cost, typically these people have made there illness worse by waiting to see a doctor which again increases costs. If you look at Hawaii, they have lower costs and better care thanks in large part to covering all working people. So again even though the economics show value Republicans are against it on moral grounds.

The really odd thing is that if you ask a Republican who is unemployed or uninsured about these systems they will claim that they need the assistance and that they work hard for everything they get. They somehow think that they are not like the rest of the people in the system. In reality they are exactly like the other people in the system and their moral stand against these programs is in complete contrast to their beliefs in the free market. Unfortunately that is not what Fox News tells them because these programs aren't meant to help the filthy rich whose narrative is Fox News "reporting"

Justice Not Served

I am a lazy blogger. I know it. You know it. The American people know it.

That is why it is good that I have a co-blogger who has three things. One being many opinions with a common theme: Republicans Suck. Two being the desire to share those opinions with a mass (or non-existent) audience. (Third thing? Non-transferable membership in the Justin Bieber Fan Club which doesn't actually help this blog).

Anyway, a couple days ago it was announced that Derek Jeter won a Gold Glove. This rather perturbed me as someone who follows baseball and knows what a travesty this is.

So I made a mental note that I needed to do a blog post about this injustice. I trust it would have been clever. Derek Anderson would have been mentioned. A good time would be had by all those who read it. There would have been a public outcry and Derek Jeter would have been forced to return the award because of the shame.

Alas, I do not have to write about this because Jim Rome did a "burn" on this topic that trumped me. So allow me to turn over the floor to Mr. Rome - while perhaps violating copyright law in the process? If I do so, I promise we will temporarily turn over the Furriners revenue stream to Disney (parent company of ESPN).

Take it away, Mr. Rome:

You know I'm sure Derek Jeter isn't about to give back that Gold Glove that he just won. He should. He doesn't deserve it - even he has to know that. How does one of the worst defensive shortstops in the league win an award that is supposed to go to the best defensive player at his position?

I mean what is that? Does baseball have a meaningful award with less discernible voting criteria than the Gold Glove? Exactly how did he win that thing? Based on what? That he committed just six errors? Let's not confuse a lack of range with excellent defensive play. The only reason he doesn't get more errors is that he doesn't get to more balls.

And guys who often win the Gold Glove do so based on the way they swing the bat - but that's not the case either as Jeter just had the worst year of his career at the plate. There has to be a better reason to give this guy the award than "he's the guy we usually give it to, he plays the game the right way, and he's a class act." It's like the managers and coaches who vote for it are saying you have to beat the defending champ convincingly to rip his belt. Yeah, well, the champ is lying on his back after a first round knockout and if that guy is going to get that award this year, it is time to re-think the voting criteria. Or better yet, actually create some. Or rip the vote and give it to people who actually do give it some thought and have an open mind because Jeter was not only NOT the best shortstop in the league, he wasn't even in the top 10.

UPDATE (11/12): I checked out Buster Olney's column today (was checking to see his thoughts on the possibility of the Tigers going after Carl Crawford). In it, he said this:

I thought (Gold Glove voters) were reasonable in their choices -- other than the fact that Derek Jeter was given the Gold Glove for shortstops.

Big Business gets it. Why don't Americans?

Stimulus has become a dirty word in America but I can't for the life of me figure out why. The CBO has reported the Stimulus to have worked to the tune 3 million jobs saved or created. It seems like this has more to do with Republican spin and high unemployment than any actual facts.

What I really don't get is how Republicans can back the free market and then completely ignore how big business got themselves back to profitability. Right now the only measures Republicans are willing to consider are cuts in spending. Well, big business did cut spending and get leaner but the also spend a significant amount of money planning for the future. This spending may be detrimental to their current bottom line but they know it will pay dividends in the long run with higher profitability and more jobs. This is the way of the free market. Below are a few examples.

Ford invested $450 million in electric vehicles in January
Ford invested $155 million in more fuel efficient engines in February
Chrysler invested $600 million in a new plant in IL in October
GM invested $100 million in a new battery facility in September
GM invested $190 million in a new MI facility in October
Boeing invested $7.5 million in a new research center in October
Exxon invested $600 million in bio fuels in July of 2009

This is a giant example of Repubocrisy. This type of contradiction of ideology and refusal to except the reality of our economic situation suggests Republicans just plan on kicking the can on down the road over the next two years.

Cut Foreign Aid! Foreign Military aid that is.

As has been widely reported, Republicans have no interest in making up for budget short falls by increasing taxes. They would instead like to cut spending, but when asked what to cut they produce the most minuscule programs possible. The biggest cut they mention is to the Foreign Aid budget which is roughly $40 billion or around 1% of the total budget. Not a big number. It becomes even less impressive when you consider that at our current foreign aid spending rates we only spend about half of what European nations spend on foreign aid (based on per person spending). We are already the cheap uncle for the world and we want to cut back even further. That should be great for foreign relations.

Having said that we could cut another form of foreign aid and have twice the impact of cutting all of our Foreign Aid budget - Military spending abroad. In a recent report from the Sustainable Defense Task Force they suggest cutting around 50,000 troops from non combat areas where they are basically in a support or show of force type role. This would include places like Europe and Asia where the local military is strong enough on its own and the country is an ally. They estimate a savings of around $80 billion per year for this plan. They offer a litany of other possible cuts to unnecessary programs or projects which would cut over $1 trillion in military spending over the next decade, but since Republicans are so excited to cut Foreign Aid I thought this would act as a good primer for compromise. Just don't tell Mitch McConnell.

Republicans block subpoena power, back business interests over all else

The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling
has asked for the power to subpoena to help investigate the causes of the Gulf oil spill. Senate Republicans have blocked this request laying the blame at the feet of partisan politics. Unfortunately that is a cover to hide their true concerns - big business may be to blame for this accident and that revelation would take away from the Republican narrative that President Obama should take a political hit for this man made, corporate disaster. The commission consists of two Democrats, one Republicans and four individuals who are experts in the area of science, oceanography, engineering and oil spill clean up.

Bob Graham – Democratic Governor
William K. Reilly – Republican, Head of EPA under George W. Bush
Frances G. Beinecke – President National Resources Defense Council
Donald Boesch – Oceanographer, President Maryland University Center for Environmental Sciences
Terry D. Garcia - Led the implementation of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan
Cherry A. Murray – Dean of Havard school of Engineering and Applied Sciences
Frances Ulmer – Democrat, Lieutenant governor Alaska

While the non party affiliated members may lean Democrat it is safe to say that the people who tend to care about the environment tend to be Democrats. This happens to be a disaster whose affects are mainly environmental so while the Republicans cry foul based on partisanship the commission is made up of people who can offer serious insight on this particular problem and that expertise clearly trumps the need for an equal balance of self proclaimed Democrats to self proclaimed Republicans. After all facts of an accident have no political leanings. They're just facts.

This Republican block party is just a further example of how little regard Republicans have for American citizens when corporate interests are involved. This accident did after all kill 11 Americans. Should we limit the rights of these Americans just because it may be bad for big business?

Focusing on a simple minded and fairly unprovable idea like partisanship just allows politicians to ignore real issues. If you become convinced that the system is fine but the people are the problem you accept inactivity and the failure of progress. Politicians are the problem but only to the extend that Americans don't hold them responsible for their actions but rather hold them accountable to an arbitrary set of ideals that all but eliminate the need to actually legislate.

Olberman suspension to end Tuesday

While we here at Furriners have limited feelings about the suspension of Keith Olbermann one thing that I think is being missed in all of the debate is the role of business. The reason I point this out is that for some reason Republicans tend to think business can do no wrong and government can do no right. The truth is they both make good and bad choices. My colleague pointed out some of the good things government has accomplished in this eloquent thrashing of Republican talking points earlier this week.

It should also be noted that both of these entities need your money to operate. For your money they both provide services or products. Why government is held to a higher standard when it comes to wasted money is beyond me.

At the end of the day things like the suspension of Keith Olbermann are good because they point out the failings of business that people often ignore. We can really start to make a difference once people realize that you only spend around 30% of your money on government run services and that the other 70% goes to greedy businesses that in no way shape or form have your best interests in mind. When you consider that the company that practically laughed in the face of regulations that would have prevented the gulf oil spill (BP) has an approval rating of 33% while congress has an approval rating of only 26% you being to understand how completely backwards the American electorate is and that should concern you.

Pick Your Battle

I got an e-mail this afternoon from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee regarding NBC's decision to suspend Keith Olbermann because of a couple campaign contributions.

The PCCC wants me to sign a petition to:

Tell them to put Keith Olbermann back on the air NOW!

No offense, guys... but please relax.

Just as I was fine with NPR firing Juan Williams, I am fine with NBC suspending Keith Olbermann. They can make their own personnel decisions as far as I'm concerned.

True, it doesn't hurt to voice one's opinion because it really can change things (Don Imus only got fired when the public outcry swelled and, quite frankly, it made the sponsors nervous about being associated with him) - so, in that sense, I understand the PCCC wanting to mobilize their e-mail list; however, let's not lose perspective. Our country has a lot of problems and we are getting ready for two years of gridlock (at least?) as Mitch McConnell says his number one goal is defeating President Obama in 2012. Does that sound like we should expect any progress/reforms from the 112th congress?

It surely does not to me, so getting all worked up about Keith Olbermann getting indefinitely suspended for an actual internal corporate policy violation (however suspect it might be... honestly, I don't know how to feel about the rule itself) seems kind of silly.

I think we know one for thing with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY:

Mr. Olbermann himself knows this is NOT a First Amendment issue.

Sarah Palin might think so. Dr. Laura Schleshinger might think so. Carrie Prejean might think so. It is not.

For an example of the better uses of their energy by the PCCC, check this out.

UPDATE: I will say that I am doing my part in at least one way to hopefully bring back Olbermann sooner rather than later and that is, of course, not watching his show while he is gone. I am a regular viewer but turned it off last night. I had read a report that Chris Hayes was going to be filling in and was willing to watch it with Mr. Hayes - but he was not there; I had never seen that guy before who was filling in. Did Chris Hayes take a stand in support of Mr. Olbermann and refuse to fill in?

Conservatives Trust CEOs...

As we all know, conservatives trust businessmen. Presumably, the more successful, the better.

Well, I was watching the special Fareed Zakaria GPS this weekend where Fareed talked to four successful CEOs (three current, one former) to solicit their opinions on the economy and their ideas on how to fix it.

Eric Schmidt, whom you may know runs a mildly successful enterprise called Google (If you don't know what that is, I would suggest you google it), said this (while arguing for more government involvement):

People assume that somehow America's government was not involved in the world fifty years ago; almost all of the science and technology research that we take for granted now* came out of the Defense Department spending post World War II.

At that point, Fareed pointed out of some examples:

1. semi-conductor industry (D.O.D. project)
2. internet (DARPA project)
3. computer industry (NASA was main client during it's formative years)
4. GPS (D.O.D. project)


As I listened to their conversation, I couldn't help but think of a friend who - while not necessarily self-identifying as a teabagger - opined that "government screws up everything it tries to do".

While it would be truly naive to argue that government gets everything right, it is nevertheless a startlingly uninformed opinion to somehow suggest that an unregulated private sector is inherently "better" than the alternative. I pointed out to my friend that the V.A. scores better than the private sector in patient satisfaction. His response was (more or less) "uhhhh... I don't believe that"... like it was just a matter of my opinion rather than the result of polling data.

And then there are Teabagger politicians (specifically Sharron Angle and Ken Buck - both losers in their elections of course) who voiced an interest in privatizing the V.A. until veterans groups howled - then lied about their previous position. If teabaggers are so confident in the sanctity of their free-market ideology... why do they back down?


* NOTE: I couldn't decipher exactly what phrase he used here.

Why are Republicans so obsessed with calling the US a "center-right" country?

I'm hoping someone can help me out with this. I have no idea why Republicans are so fascinated with such an arbitrary claim. What defines being center-right?

Even if the US happens to be a center-right country who cares. Thanks to the Tea Party, Republicans are being pushed further right so are they moving away from what they claim the country wants? If so why push this idea?

I suppose if I had to engage in a debate over this term I would say that the Republican zeal here is a misunderstanding of elections. Polls don't show the US as a center-right country if that definition is based on political affiliation. Voting tends to be center-right but not the people.

Regardless, I just don't get it. It reminds me of the guy who is so infatuated with his own football fantasy team that he thinks other people care. I don't care about how Republicans see the country. I do care how the govern it. But Republicans always need a simple minded slogan to rally around regardless of if that slogan is rooted in reality and I guess center-right is the new thing for the simpletons.

Fox News to blame for severity of recession

I've come to the realization that one of the bigger reasons that our unemployment rate remains so high is a severe lack of consumer confidence. Taxes are as low as they have ever been so average citizens are taking home more of their pay than ever. Additionally the rich have more money than ever and businesses have more money then ever which they would happily spend to hire people and manufacture more products but people aren't buying because they lack confidence.

Over the first eight years of this century I was inundated with emails from Republicans on how the news never reports the good things. Oddly enough these emails have all but disappeared since Obama was elected President. Well now Fox News does nothing but report how awful things are. They bag on the President. They Bag on congress. They bag on the economy. They bag on almost everything.

Fox news and some of its pundits seem to like nothing more than to brag about the size of their audience. Well, with a large voice comes a large responsibility and Fox News needs to realize that they, though their doomsday reporting, are part of the problem not part of the solution. They are need to realize that they are making a choice to report in the way they do. They will hide behind their first amendment rights but that doesn't change the fact that they have an agenda and that continuing to push their agenda using the lowest form of reporting, is detrimental to their viewers and the American public in general.

During WWII the government (which would clearly be Socialist today) ran adds before movies talking about how well the war effort was going and trying to uplift the American spirit and Patriotism. If Fox News were in charge of that coverage, given that the President was a Democrat, you can bet that all of the talk would be about how bad things looked and how true Patriots are against this war.

Fox News is certainly not the only news outlet to paint an increasingly grim picture of America but it is the only one that does it for political gain. And for that they should be embarrassed.

Thank You!

We tend to be a sarcastic group around here but if our readers(?) do not mind I'd like to have a moment of sincerity.

Thank you, Nancy Pelosi!

I, for one, truly appreciate your efforts during your tenure as Speaker Of The House. I am glad you have "no regrets" because I do not believe you should. You are a true progressive voice who successfully herded cats (i.e. the Blue Dog Pussies) to have what some historians are calling one of the most legislatively productive sessions of Congress in the past century.

I'll be honest. I was pretty down on Tuesday night and yesterday and, well, I still am to some extent but I feel better thinking that eventually there will be some payoff to the efforts of the health care bill. I think it will have a positive impact and hopefully the Democrats will earn some political capital from it.

Depressed Democrats/Liberals/Progressives might be slightly uplifted from watching this clip from The Rachel Maddow Show on Election Eve:

POLITICAL CAPITAL