I'd almost forgotten Ann Coulter existed -- lucky me

By Richard K. Barry

I stumbled upon an interview on television the other night with conservative author, commentator, loudmouth, and all-around vile creature Ann Coulter.

I had not seen her around in a while and surely would not have gone looking for her unless compelled by some reason I could not imagine. But there she was being interviewed, and I had to stop and watch, if only for a moment.

I have no interest in dredging up the compendium of obnoxious things she has said over the years, though it would be easy to do. Do it yourself, if you have the stomach for it. And I am not the least bit interested in having a discussion about the value of her arguments, because they have none.

I only know that Ann Coulter and a handful of other right-wingers who crop up now and again to spew undisguised hatred depress the hell out of me. And, make no mistake, this mode of presentation is a speciality of the right.

There is nothing clever in what she has to say. There is no nuance or argument worth parsing. It's bile plain and simple, it is hate speech, and she exists simply because a certain subset of the population will always be receptive to arguments based on hatred. She has figured that out and is, apparently, making a good living from it.

I don't know if it's an act or if she really is, deep down, this horrid. Either way, she deserves no attention and I would suggest that any media outlet, any organization, that continues to provide a way for her to be heard ought to be ashamed.

Coulter should remind us that there are limits to the opinions that deserve to be entertained.

Lines of that sort can and should be drawn.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Bush tax cuts cost $329,220 for each job created

Guest post by Publius

The Bush tax cuts cost $329,220 for each job it created. That, according to the math recently employed by The Weekly Standard in its analysis of the cost per job from Obama’s stimulus package.

The Weekly Standard argued that because the overall cost of the stimulus to date is $666 billion, and the number of jobs created since the stimulus was passed (according to the low estimate by the Council of Economic Advisors) is 2.4 million jobs, the cost per job from the stimulus equals $278,000 per job. The Weekly Standard went on to note that we could have simply written a check for $100,000 to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the stimulus and come out $427 billion ahead.

Sounds pretty bad, right?

Well, using the exact same formula, the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 were estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost about $864.2 billion from 2001-2008 (the first year of the Bush tax cuts through the last year of his presidency). During that period, according to The Wall Street Journal, 2,625,000 jobs were created. That comes out to a total cost of $329,220 per job under the Bush tax cuts. And that’s if we assume that every single job which was created during Bush’s presidency was attributable to the Bush tax cuts (pretty unlikely) AND if we exclude the costs of the 2003 tax cut (estimated to cost another $350 billion over 10 years). We could have written a check for $100,000 to each person who “allegedly” had their job created by the Bush tax cuts and saved $600 billion, but they wouldn’t have received it because the check was instead delivered to really wealthy people.

My point isn’t that the Obama stimulus was good because the Bush tax cuts were bad. Instead, my point is that the math employed by The Weekly Standard is absurd. This example highlights the absurdity.

It’s wrong to suggest that the sole purpose of the stimulus was to “buy jobs.” If that was the sole purpose, then yes- the cost would arguably have been $278,000 per job. As White House spokesperson Liz Oxhorn noted the other day, however:

[The Weekly Standard] study is based on partial information and false analysis. The Recovery Act was more than a measure to create and save jobs; it was also an investment in American infrastructure, education and industries that are critical to America’s long-term success and an investment in the economic future of America’s working families. Thanks to the Recovery Act, 110 million working families received a tax cut through the Making Work Pay tax credit, over 110,000 small businesses received critical access to capital through $27 billion in small business loans and more than 75,000 projects were started nationwide to improve our infrastructure, jump-start emerging industries and spur local economic development.

The concept of the stimulus was grounded in Keynesian economic theory- government countercyclical spending is critical to countermand the effects of a recession. Increased government spending increases GDP, frees up capital and, consequently, creates jobs. Jobs are part of the benefits of stimulus. They aren’t the direct purchase.

By most metrics, the stimulus was a success. According to the CBO, the stimulus increased GDP by 3.1%. It added as many as 3.6 million jobs to boot. It gave us new factories, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure which we benefit from each day. Boiling all of this down to a cost per job is just silly.

The Weekly Standard would also be wise to note that about $288 billion of the projected $747 billion stimulus came in the form of tax cuts (about 38.5% of total spending), despite the fact that according to many prominent economists (such as Mark Zandi), tax cuts are far less stimulative than other types of spending, such as food stamps, unemployment benefits and infrastructure spending (all of which Republicans opposed).

If The Weekly Standard wants to argue the stimulus could have been more effective, it won’t find many on the left who disagree. If it wants good ideas on how to make it more effective, step one is to stop believing tax cuts are the best solution to all economic ills.

(Cross-posted at The Fourth Branch.)

And still more on the special election in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District

By Richard K. Barry

Just because I have been following this story for so long, I thought I might as well close the loop. This is the one about the Sept. 13th special election in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District, which, you may recall, is necessary because former Rep. Dean Heller was appointed to the Senate to replace John Ensign, who resigned amidst a sex scandal having to do with the wife of a staffer.

In Nevada, for reasons unclear to me, a primary cannot be used to determine party candidates for special elections. The Secretary of State of Nevada, Ross Miller (D), initially ruled that multiple Republicans and Democrats could run to fill the vacant seat, which meant that a Democrat might be able to sneak through with many candidates running in what is traditionally a Republican seat. This was what they were calling the Battle Royale scenario.

If this is starting to get confusing, just consider that if many Democratic and Republican candidates ran, it could allow an unexpected result, which might have been the only way a Democrat could win.

Anyway, the court ruled on July 5th that parties could in fact choose a singular candidate to run under their party banner, which is what will happen.

It seems as well that both parties have already determined their nominees. Republican Mark Amodei, of the really weird "China will take over America if we raise the debt ceiling" political ad, will take on Nevada State Treasurer Kate Marshall.

Not that it matters anymore, but nut job Tea Party darling Sharron Angle had been in the running earlier but dropped out for reasons only known to herself.

I don't know that the Democrats can't win the seat, but having a crazy person like Angle in the mix or a quirky Battle Royale scenario might have been their best hope. A Democrats has never won a general election for the 2nd District since the district was created after the 1980 census.

Not to go on about this, though I see that I already have, but the most interesting part of this whole story may be the extent to which local courts can have an impact on electoral outcomes. I'm no expert on election law, but it does vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and, as we know, especially in general elections, both sides have teams of lawyers ready to swoop in at the slightest hint of impropriety or, shall we say, at the opportunity to create impropriety.

What was it that Shakespeare said about lawyers in Henry VI?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Here We Go Again!

By Carl

 

Another spring, another oil spill. This one, however, is not anywhere near a coastline. It's worse. Much worse.

BILLINGS — Exxon Mobil Co. had reassured federal regulators and officials from a Montana town since December that an oil pipeline beneath the Yellowstone River was safe, buried deep enough to avoid any accidental ruptures.

Then, on Friday night, the pipe failed, spilling an estimated 42,000 gallons into the flooded river.

The cause of the accident remains under investigation, but the prevailing theory among officials and the company is that the raging Yellowstone eroded the riverbed and exposed the line to damaging rocks or debris.

There is still no definitive word on how far downriver the spill could spread.

Here's a few simple background facts to keep in mind as you read the story at that link:

1) The infrastructure of America, from roads and bridges to rail lines and water mains, is in shambles. It could conceivably cost the equivalent of a year's GDP just to bring the entire infrastructure of the nation up to code.

2) There are only 110 inspectors in the US government for over 400,000 miles of pipeline for oil and natural gas. Current requirements are for inspections to be done on a rotating basis every five years, but those don't take into account follow ups to ensure compliance with any repairs.

3) Exxon claims "only" 42,000 gallons of oil spilled. By comparison, BP's first claims last year was zero oil was released. The US Coast Guard had an initial estimate of a 1,000 barrels a day. 42,000 gallons translates to....1,000 barrels. The final official estimates for the BP spill were 62,000 barrels (about 2.6 million gallons) a day. Worst case estimates were nearly triple that.

4) The Gulf oil spill affected a wide swath of open water. The Yellowstone spill is concentrated and on a moving body of water. Oil has been unofficially reported as far away as 240 miles.

5) Wildlife in the Gulf can swim away from the oil. Wildlife in Montana relies on the oil for drinking, and eventually the river creatures bump into barriers to further movement, effectively trapping themselves in the spill.

6) Overlaying all this, of course, is the fact that Republicans control the purse strings to assist in all this.  Montana has a Democratic governor who is, in fact, a soil scientist, so Exxon will be hard pressed to buffalo him.

 

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Is this now, finally, the end of DADT?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

A federal appeals court ordered a halt [yesterday] to the armed forces' discharge of openly gay service members, citing the Obama administration's disavowal of laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had intervened in November to allow the government to continue enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" law, despite a federal judge's decision that the law was unconstitutional.

[Yesterday], however, a three-judge panel of the court lifted the stay, saying, "The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed."

The court noted that Congress has voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" as soon as President Obama and the Pentagon certify that the change will not interfere with military readiness or recruiting. The administration has said most troops should be trained for the new policy change by mid-summer, although it had told the court the law should probably stay in effect for the rest of the year.

Enough already. The military will be fine. The troops specifically will be fine. It's long past time for this awful, bigoted policy to be tossed for good into the dustbin of history.

Bring back the Pet Rock

By J. Thomas Duffy 

When they get around to making the Idiocracy sequel, this has got to find its way into the script.

On July 4th, while many where camped out on blankets, or stuck in traffic, awaiting the evening's display of incendiary pop, I was doing some work, and had the radio on, only stopping, mouth agape, to shake my head in disbelief, when this report came on.





It was from PRI's "The World": 

Digital Pop Star Hatsune Miku’s First Live Concert 

This weekend, one of the hottest tickets in Los Angeles was to a concert by Japanese pop culture icon Hatsune Miku. She’s a big persona but not a flesh-and-blood person. And her sold-out show, “Mikunopolis,” marked her debut in the US.

[snip]

But Miku is neither animal nor human. She’s a virtual “singer” whose only appearance on stage is as a life-like 3D hologram. She’s what you’d call a Vocaloid — basically the consumer-friendly interface for sophisticated voice-synthesizing software.

[snip]

Vocaloid was spawned far from the shores of LA. Hideki Kenmochi developed Vocaloid at Yamaha Corp. in Japan; then a host of other companies created characters and voices — like Miku, whose parent is Crypton Future Media — that give Vocaloid technology a more human range.

[snip]

The Vocaloid process does for singing what a keyboard synthesizer does for pianos. In the Vocaloid scene, this means a gifted songwriter may not have to rely as much on their own pipes or looks. But despite the sold-out concert in LA, the Vocaloid style is still an acquired taste, most popular among early cultural adopters in Japan

“According to our research,” Kenmochi says, “eight percent of female teenagers listen to only Vocaloid music. That’s amazing statistics.” 

(Go here to listen to the podcast.) 

Sold-out show? Shrieking fans?

Over a synthesized 3-D hologram?

Even Woody Allen, in his 1973 futuristic Sleeper, didn't dream of such dreck.

Give me a F'ing break?

With all the music, hundreds-upon-hundreds-of-thousands, made by real, live human beings, available (an entire second argument on if it's good or bad), across a multitude of genres, and people are actually going gaga over, as the article ends, "partying in a concert-sized video game"?

Didn't Denzel Washington and Russel Crowe do this before? 

Help Me Mister Wizard! 

Methinks this audience would be prime to bring back the Pet Rock as well. 

Wait ... wait ... 

Even better... a synthesized 3-D hologram Pet Rock!


 


Bonus Riffs 

Adam Frank:  Rise Of The Machines: Japanese Popstar A Computer Construct

Pop Star Turns Out To Be Computer Generated 

Jena Isle:  Aimi Eguchi and Hatsune Miku: Japan’s Computer-Generated Pop Stars Gain Millions of Fans; Miku has Upcoming Debut in Los Angeles

Idiocracy - trailer 

Idiocracy Brawndo's Got Electrolytes

Idiocracy, the Sequel 

(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

This day in history - July 6, 1957: John Lennon and Paul McCartney first meet

By Richard K. Barry

John Lennon and Paul McCartney of The Beatles (as if you didn't know) were introduced on this day in 1957 when Lennon's band, The Quarrymen, performed at the St. Peter's Church Hall fete in Woolten.

Some might argue that this hardly qualifies as a momentous historical occasion. I would argue that they are wrong. I prefer to live in a world where The Beatles once existed and their music is still frequently heard. Yes, I feel pretty strongly about that.

And I will also admit that I posted this for the immensely cool picture.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

The thing is

By Capt. Fogg 

It's not any one thing. It's never one thing. All the things that have led up to my crisis of caring are old things; have been around a long time and I've been aware of all of them all along. Whether things have become so crazy that some trigger point was passed or whether being chronically weak because of a strict diet or a passing virus or whether somehow, the realization that all suffering comes from believing, from having faith that things can ever be all right in the long run, finally seeped through from that repository of things I always say to whatever core of self awareness exists deep down somewhere. 

The thing is -- I just don't care. Neither more or less than the last time I said it, but I don't care. Someone apparently got away with murder? What's it to me? My country is making strides toward being neo-feudal, toward a police state, a corporate oligarchy with no collective concern for anything but maximum profit and maximum exploitation by those who can make the most of it? So what? The great accomplishments of science? That's over, unless it's the science of sales and manipulation and the technology that exists only to make people buy it. I don't give a damn. I don't even give a damn that I don't give a damn and I've forgotten why I ever believed in the progress of man and the slow climb up from the insanity of animals toward enlightenment and civilization -- or even decency. 

But it's always something. 

I got a phone call the other day. It was a recorded voice asking to contribute to the fight against the persecution of Christian parents' rights to raise their families as they saw fit. I have no idea what they meant but I can have some confidence in the assumption that it has to do with interfering with some other group's right to do the same. I pushed the "never call me again" button. I don't care, it's someone else's fight after all, and if they do win, it will take so long they might as well just wait for the next asteroid or gamma ray burst or solar catastrophe. 

I got a flier in the mail, too. Cover photos of grey haired people smiling like they were drugged under a headline of "happy Seniors." Now I hate like hell to be called a "senior," and it damned well is a gratuitous pejorative. I'm still a man and no less entitled to be one than when I was an idiot teenager, fulfilling my duty of buying things to be hip. But no, these happy folks were just in ecstasy because Representative Tom Rooney and his friends Mr. Ryan and Governor "Medicare Fraud" Scott were going to keep Medicare and Social security from being taken over by "unelected bureaucrats" and presumably given over to those entitled by party affiliation to a big Goddamn profit from it. You know, the Republican peerage, the elect. Happy, happy days, but I'm not going to be able to do a damn thing so why worry? 

I bought one of these little flat screen portable HDTV's recently. Figured it would be a good thing for hurricane season, but trying it out today, I was was disappointed to find nothing on the air but Jesus and informercials, but I shouldn't be, of course. That's all there really is in this episode of the Truman Show and all there will be allowed to be because all this amazing technology has no other purpose than to sell to those at the bottom of the pond. The people already borrowing at 400% from Wells Fargo payday loan stores to meet the mortgage payment to Wells Fargo Bank and the credit cards they maxed out at Wal-Mart and who just found out they have to die because they have no insurance and can't even get welfare because they can't pass a drug test because they had to take something for the pain and they can't afford a prescription or prescription drugs. Yes, it's gonna be all right after we 'save' Medicare. 

Some "Practicing physician" as he continually reminded me had the ultimate cure and preventative for heart disease which "we now know" is only caused by "Toxins" that need to be chelated out of our blood stream with his snake oil pills. "I don't wancha getting a bypass. I don't wancha getting a stent." He just wants to sell pills that will stop the "epidemic of sickness overwhelming all of us." It would take more than a pill to stop the irony, but nothing will stop the two born every minute. 

Another channel appeared to be a cooking channel, showing children how to cover apple slices with sugar sprinkles because, as the nice Church lady tells us, "God wants children to eat healthy food" unless of course the fruit contains knowledge of morality. Perhaps that's why so many children are hungry - not enough red and green sprinkles -- or maybe, like me, God doesn't give a shit -- at least not as long as he sells enough air time. And he does sell it. Four stations available on the indoor antenna and three of them have Jesus, or at least so they say. They don't show him, but perhaps he's tied up in the back room while those polyester puffballs strut and parade and chant and solicit money. JEE- Suss! wants you to be rich so buy my prayer towel and my blessing -- call now. 

So why feel sorry for myself. I don't need to if I don't care. I don't feel sorry for America either, they're fed all the crap they can chew on and they will die, or at least make sure you do, rather than make anything better. If I feel sorry for anyone it's people like poor old Jesus who not only thought they could, but tried -- only to be defeated, have their history stolen and used to sell product, to support tyranny and exploitation and persecution, the fleecing of the poor, the fearful, the desperate and to stifle knowledge, damn decency and prostitute hope. 

But who cares? 

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Right-wing evangelical theocrats love them some Rick Perry

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Republican presidential field is still embarrassingly weak (and even more embarrassing because the best Republican candidate by far, Jon Huntsman, isn't really catching on at all), and there is still a good deal of talk about some savior coming to the rescue.

With Huckabee not running this time, social/religious conservatives perhaps more than any other core Republican constituency seem to be driving that talk. Much of the rest of the party is already represented, after all, particularly the moneyed establishment (Romney) and the Tea Party (Bachmann, Paul). The theocrats only have Santorum, a distant also-ran with zero electability, and Gingrich, a joke of a candidate who's in it to glorify his ego and fill his coffers, and also Bachmann, though she doesn't seem to be what they're looking for.

The so-called "social conservatives" (actually moralizing right-wing evangelical theocrats) used to be a powerful force in the party, if not the dominant one, but they've been reduced to a bit of an afterthought, even though they still wield enormous influence at the grassroots level. And so it would be foolish to ignore them.

And who are they now looking to as their savior? Why, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, of course, who has done a great deal to appeal to them, presenting himself as their kind of theocrat. They're pushing him to run and no doubt he'd be a formidable candidate if only for their support. Could he actually win the nomination? Maybe. Or maybe he'd be the #2. (How does Romney-Perry sound?) Either way, social conservatives aren't about to let this election cycle pass without trying to wield their influence, and they may just be able to do that through Perry.

For more on this, see Amy Goodman's piece at Time: "Christian Right leaders have sought to find a new – preferably electable – candidate to carry the social conservative banner." They've picked Rick Perry.

Is Paul Ryan drinking his own bath water on Medicare reform?

By Richard K. Barry

I used to work with a very experienced campaign manager, who had a colorful term to describe the phenomenon of politicians or their surrogates actually believing the spin they put on things. This isn't about making a case for something you truly think would be good policy, despite the fact that most don't agree with you. It's about taking a position that has limited support and believing that the majority must be with you simply because you've fallen in love with your own reasoning or, perhaps, because those in closest proximity are always telling you how right you are.

He used to say, "let's be careful not to drink our own bath water."

I thought of this when I read Greg Sargent's post recently about Paul Ryan being in total denial about how unpopular his Medicare plan is. As Ryan said:

Those polls don't describe it well. When the plan is described accurately, it actually polls very well.

Uh, no. That's just not true.

Sargent runs through polls by Bloomberg, CBS, Pew, and The Washington Post, all showing strong opposition to the plan when described as replacing traditional Medicare so that individuals buy their own private insurance with the help of government subsidies. In other words, when the plan was described as exactly what it is, those polled rejected it. To be sure, the language of the question asked varied from poll to poll, but the description of the program was clear and consistent in each.

Only when the question was unclear, as was the case in a New York Times poll, did a plurality support the Ryan plan. Here, when people were asked if they would support a proposal to create "a program in which the government helps seniors purchase private health insurance," they were marginally okay with that idea. But if we aren't talking about replacing the current system, we are not being accurate, which makes the Times response more or less meaningless.

Despite polling that finds privatizing Medicare consistently unpopular, Ryan thinks that Americans would support the idea. Despite proof that when people understand the Republican plan accurately, they reject it, Ryan's thinks the opposite is true.

Honestly, I don't know how to categorize his attitude. Does he truly believe that there is another level of understanding that Americans have not yet realized that will make them supportive of his plan? That something will kick in?

Or does he really know that most don't support his plan but hope that over time he can sway them?

Or does he have such confidence in the fact that he's right about Medicare reform that he has convinced himself that the majority of Americans are already with him? Is he drinking his own bath water?

I actually think Ryan is a true believer, who is only confused by the facts. How else do we explain his comments? Let's just hope he continues to deny reality and that he keeps chugging from the tub he's sitting in and, more importantly, that he has lots of company from fellow Republicans. Now, there's a picture you won't be able to get out of your head for a while.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Gilding The Lily

By Carl

 

As bizarre as this sounds, Mitt Romney is out on the hustings, drumming up campaign funds-- in London(?)

GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is raising money today from Americans in London, hoping to add to his already fat campaign account.

Romney is reporting today that he raised $18.25 million in the second fundraising quarter and has $12.6 million in the bank.

The former Massachusetts governor, who is ahead in Gallup and other national polls, is far outpacing all of his GOP rivals in the race for campaign cash. Much of his haul came from a one-day "call-a-thon."

This on top of his sizable personal resources make Mitt the nominee-apparent in my book. There's really almost no point to holding the primaries, except for two things: one, to watch Michele Bachmann self-destruct and two, to keep an eye out to see how enthusiastic Teabaggers are to vote for Romney.

My guess is the turnout after Iowa, should Mitt win handily, will wither away. If Bachmann can somehow cobble together an insurgent campaign, while she will still lose, at least it will make for a fun Spring 2012.

If you haven't guessed by now, this is the week campaigns must report their second quarter numbers. There are no real surprises on the Republican side of the race: Romney is running up his totals, Newt Gingrich is finding out just how unliked he really is, Ron Paul is finding out that cheap-ass...I mean, no-tax...Teabaggers are cheap, and the rest are, well, putting lipstick on a pig.

To coin a phrase.

Bachmann does not have to report since she entered the race so late in the quarter, and President Obama has not released his final tally yet, but my recollection from the solicitations I received indicate that he was running ahead of his stated goals, and I suspect he will return a surprising total, on a par with Romney and perhaps well in excess of his.

In truth, a popinjay politician who surrounds himself with yes-men and toadies, like Newt and Bachmann, learns a harsh truth each quarter: he (or she) is not universally loved by so many people who throw money at candidates like Elvis got panties.

This is one of the joys of American politics. A person can be so removed from reality and yet suffer such indignities as, first, having to beg for money and then, having to take "no" for an answer without recourse.

This dynamic goes a long way to understanding why we're so fucked up. It certainly does not help that the SCOTUS saw fit to scrape away any pretense of fairness in campaign financing by allowing corporations to dump unlimited amounts of the trillions they have in bank accounts in favor of or against any candidate they see fit to pick on.

Perhaps one day, the concretization of idiocy that this nation has undergone under Republicanism will crack, shatter, and the tree of liberty will finally grown once more. They've paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Republicans aren't normal, says David Brooks, who can't see just how deranged and dangerous they really are

By Michael J.W. Stickings

David Brooks is getting some credit for writing, in his July 4 column in the Times, that the GOP "may no longer be a normal party":

Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation's honor.

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation.

In other words, the GOP has been taken over by Grover Norquist and his anti-tax and essentially anti-government agenda. Rather than seek compromise, working with President Obama and the Democrats to achieve some sort of bipartisan deal on the debt ceiling and more generally on the budget, even a deal that actually gives them a lot of what they want (what with Obama playing the old-fashioned moderate Republican and Democrats unwilling (or unable) to stand firm, they dig themselves ever deeper into their extremist right-wing ideology.

Brooks is right about this.

But he is wrong -- and he writes this in the very first paragraph -- that "Republicans have changed American politics since they took control of the House of Representatives," "[putting] spending restraint and debt reduction at the top of the national agenda, "[sparking] a discussion on entitlement reform," and "[turning] a bill to raise the debt limit into an opportunity to put the U.S. on a stable fiscal course."

He's wrong on all three counts.

First, Republicans are only pretending to talk about fiscal restraint and debt reduction. They aren't serious about either, which is why they reject compromise. What they really want is to lower taxes, and specifically taxes on the wealthy, both individual and corporate. Wunderkind Paul Ryan, who has become, with the media's enabling/blessing, the voice of this supposed sanity, is actually little more than a a plutocratic libertarian, an Ayn Rand devotee who is all about tax cuts, and hence all about continued, and worsened, fiscal insanity.

Second, Republicans aren't serious about entitlement reform unless what that means is chopping entitlement programs into oblivion. Ryan isn't proposing Medicare reform, he's proposing the end of Medicare as we know it, the end of Medicare as the American people want it to be. Americans clearly reject Social Security privatization, another key item on the Republican agenda, and they reject Ryan's Medicare plan as well.

Third, Republicans aren't using the debt ceiling debate, such as there is one, to put the country on the path to fiscal stability, they're essentially holding the American economy hostage in order to get what they want. There is no debate about the debt ceiling. It must be raised. If not, we might just as well sit back and watch the apocalypse unfold. Much of the economy would collapse, as the country would no longer be able to pay off its debts. It would be incredibly irresponsible, but Republicans prefer to play political chicken. And they're not serious about fiscal stability, which requires bipartisan effort. We know this because they don't even want to be at the bargaining table.

So, yes, fine, Republicans aren't normal anymore. Most of us knew that a long, long time ago -- Brooks is hardly saying anything new. But Brooks himself refuses to see or just can't see Republicans for what they really are. They're not just abnormal, they're deranged and dangerous, descending deeper and deeper into madness. And they're trying to take America down with them.

(photo)

Romney the Pathetic blasts Obama over recession

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mitt Romney really is pathetic.

And what's really utterly pathetic is not so much how desperately hard he's trying to be a strident movement conservative, because while he's certainly doing that to some degree he's also playing simultaneously to the somewhat more moderate GOP establishment by presenting himself as what seems to be the lone sober voice in a sea of utter insanity, but how he's trying desperately to join the Republican anti-Obama chorus by lashing out at a president with whom in reality he has often been in agreement.

For example, he said yesterday, clarifying previously ambiguous comments, that Obama has made the economy worse, that "the recession is deeper because of our president." Even then, though, he wasn't clear. Obama has apparently both "made the recession worse" and made the recovery, such as there has been one, "slower and more painful."

In other words, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Or, rather, he presumably does but has gotten himself trapped in his own bullshit spin, not clear about what exactly his talking points are. Are things worse or is the recovery too slow? They can't be both. But Romney, poor pathetic Romney, can't seem to pick his preferred line.

Of course, the recovery has been slow, but how has that been Obama's fault? Obama inherited a terrible economic situation. The recession ended several months after he took office, but he did what he could, early in his presidency, to get the economy moving again. And if there is blame to hand out for the slowness of the recovery, it must be handed to the Republicans who objected to Obama's (and the Democrats') stimulus, or at least to the size of it, and prevented the government from injecting enough money into the economy to get it going again quickly enough. Romney for his part, and to his credit, supported the stimulus, but Republicans generally were the obstacle.

Obama then pushed for the bank and auto bailouts, which, however unpopular (and imperfect in application), certainly pulled the economy back from the brink. If anything, Obama prevented the situation from getting even worse. There was objection on both sides to the bailouts, but, again, the Republicans were the obstacle to recovery, not the Democrats and certainly not Obama, who worked (and led) within the limits he faced to get something done at a time when something was desperately needed. Who knows what the situation would now be like if Republicans had gotten their way.

Does Romney know this? Probably. He's an economic conservative who generally prefers trickle-down economics, but, if I may be generous, he's not a complete idiot. But that also means he knows he has to play the anti-Obama game to have a chance at the nomination. Sure, he's the frontrunner, but he's hardly a secure one. He still needs to play to the extremist GOP base, to the primary voters and their puppetmasters who want Obama's head on a pike.

That's what he's trying to do, but you can see just how bad he is at it, which suggests both that he's a bad attack dog, or at least that he's bad at faking it, and that he doesn't really believe what he's saying.

Like Jon Huntsman, a far less pathetic figure (actually an admirable conservative, if I may say so), Romney would probably prefer to remain civil. But he knows he can't, not if he wants to win, and so what we're getting from Romney the Pathetic is an act that rings anything but true and sincere.

But hey, at least we're not talking about Romneycare. Right?

In Colorado, two gay soldiers brutally beaten by anti-gay bigots

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, hate remains rampant despite the great strides American has made. And the victims can even be those in uniform courageously serving America:

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Police are investigating a suspected hate crime after a group of men beat two gay Fort Carson soldiers and others while shouting anti-homosexual and racial slurs.

The victims told KRDO-TV they believe they were targeted at a fast food restaurant early Saturday because they're gay.

The victims have asked to remain anonymous. (Despite the repeal of DADT, homosexuality "is definitely frowned upon," said one of them.)

And they weren't just pushed around:

"I ended up getting kicked in the head and in the ribs several times," John said. "I have six bruised ribs. And my right eye was completely swollen shut for about nine or 10 hours."

According to police, another victim was treated for a facial fracture. His jaw had to be wired shut. 

Yes, it certainly appears to be a hate crime. Hopefully the bigots will be found and confronted with the full force of the law.

But I Thought Lower Taxes Brought Investments Home?

By Carl

 

The Wall Street Journal whistles past the graveyard:

It is true that foreign direct investment rose to $236 billion in 2010 from $159 billion in 2009. But that was still well below the $310 billion invested in 2008. The White House also neglected to disclose that in the first quarter of 2011 foreign investment fell by 51% from the first quarter of last year, according to data released last month from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis. Foreigners of late have not found the U.S. to be a receptive, high-return home for investment.

Much more worrisome is that Americans are taking their investment dollars abroad at a faster pace than foreigners are bringing capital to these shores. In 2010, for example, U.S. investment abroad was $351 billion—$115 billion higher than foreign investment here. Economic recoveries are periods when investment capital usually surges into a country, but since this weakling rebound began in the middle of 2009 the U.S. has lost more than $200 billion in investment capital. That is the equivalent of about two million jobs that don't exist on these shores and are now located in places like China, Germany and India.

[...] So why did the investors put their money in the U.S. in those years? We'd say it was a combination of low tax rates, a strong dollar, low inflation and other free-market reforms. Capital flows to where it is most highly rewarded, and low marginal tax rates on the returns to capital and business income create a gravitational pull on global funds. A strong and stable currency allows businesses to invest in innovation, employees and productivity rather than inflation hedges. It also encourages investors to wait longer to cash in their profits without worrying about the losses of a depreciating dollar. In the high-tax, high-inflation 1970s, the U.S. was a net exporter of risk-taking capital. As we are now.

Tax rates in Germany on businesses (foreign investments are taxed locally if invested in German companies or enterprises): 30%

Tax rates in China: 25%

Tax rates in India: 33%

Tax rates in the US: 0-35%. It was 45% and more in the "risky Seventies" the WSJ refers to. Clearly, they missed the point.

"American" companies are investing roughly one-third the current annual budget deficit abroad for...at most a ten percent reduction in taxes (nevermind the intricacies of repatriating those monies, something the Republicans have tried to make, um, easier (read: greedier).

The lion's share of this problem comes down to this: American companies are no longer American. As such, the government should treat them as illegal immigrants: decertify their recourse to the American legal system, force them to work the fields (so to speak) and suspend their "civil rights". They simply refuse to act like patriotic Americans, and I'm surprised...ok, not really, but still...surprised the Teabaggers haven't turned their attentions to these asshats.

No one blames foreigners for keeping their monies in China, Germany, and India, where growth is evident and the economy is stronger. One could make the case, however, the American investor should be encouraged to keep his money here at home, investing in businesses and enterprises that will return long-term capital gains (15%) and create jobs for Americans.

Apparently, greed runs rampant.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Happy Fourth of July!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Slow posting today -- actually, nothing up before this. What can I say, it was a long holiday weekend (Canada on Friday, the U.S. today), summer is in full swing, at least up in my part of the world, and it's been a busy time for me on a number of fronts.

But allow me, late this evening, to wish all of you Americans out there (and I'm part-American myself) a belated Happy Fourth of July.

I hope you've had a wonderful day filled with family and friends, baseball and BBQ.

Now let the blogging resume...

But not before posting this clip from one of the best worst movies of all time, a movie so terrible it's not just good but actually rewatchable (as I often do when I come across it on the teevee), a movie with one of the most laughable inspirational/patriotic/jingoistic speeches ever.

Yes, on this Fourth of July, let's watch some Independence Day!

If Republicans are looking for another Ronald Reagan, perhaps they should look no further than Barack Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Steve Benen, as many others have, makes the connection. Basically, Obama is very much in the mold of Reagan, policy-wise, particularly with respect to taxes and the economy (though also, I would add, with respect to foreign policy):

Mike Huckabee recently said, "Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible, time being nominated in this atmosphere of the Republican Party." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had a nearly identical take last year, arguing Reagan "would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today."

I agree, but what does that tell contemporary GOP officials? What should Republicans take away from the fact that, by 2011 standards, their party would dismiss their demigod as a tax-raising, amnesty-loving, pro-bailout, cut-and-run, big-government Democrat?

Or more to the point, doesn't it bother Republicans, just a little, that Barack Obama is more in line with the Reagan legacy than they are?

Given their utter lack of self-awareness, I doubt it does. Besides, their hagiography of Reagan is based largely on myth, on what they think Reagan was all about. Which is to say, they generally project themselves and their agenda onto Reagan and then revere him. It's not clear if they would revere the real Reagan, but probably not. After all, with their increasingly extremist ideology, they make him look like something of a moderate. 

So, yes, Obama is a lot like Reagan. But let's not overstate it. In terms of policy, Obama is very much a centrist who would have sought compromise with Reagan, just as he continues to seek compromise with Republicans (even if they clearly have no interest in compromise). And there would undoubtedly have been room for agreement between the two. (Who knows, Reagan may have supported Obama's health-care reform, not to mention the stimulus and bailouts, and may also have supported Obama's diplomatic-hawkish foreign/military policy. Surely Reagan would have agreed with Obama's conduct of the "war on terror," not to mention the Afghan War.)

But of course Obama is progressive in ways that Reagan never was. They may be somewhat similar in policy terms, but they are vastly different in style, image, and temperament, not to mention in broader historical terms. Both men can inspire, but Obama is more of a technocrat than Reagan ever was. And even if we grant that Obama is generally progressive, his policies are centrist and generally dismissive of progressivism, while Reagan was a movement conservative who played to the right and united the Republican Party as a party of ideological conservatism (even as his own policies often reflected a more conciliatory approach to politics, much like Obama's do).

Anyway, the point, I suppose, is that the Republican Party is really no longer the party of Reagan. As with so much else, Republicans can't grasp that basic reality.

Is Mark Halperin a dick?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may have heard, Mark Halperin, of Time and MSNBC fame, a bona fide Beltway insider (for better but usually for worse), said this about President Obama on Thursday (on Morning Joe):

I thought he was a dick yesterday.

Okay. Whatever. Big deal.

He apparently didn't think his words would hit the airwaves (given the seven-second delay).

Everyone's entitled to an opinion and this was hardly an egregious overstep. Everyone can be a "dick" now and then. Including the president. (Though I watched Obama's news conference and found him to be anything but.)

Halperin apologized, as he ought to have done -- as he had to: "Joking aside, this is an absolute apology. I shouldn't have said it. I apologize to the president and the viewers who heard me say that."

And yet was suspended by MSNBC. Perhaps understandably so.

The thing is, it's not what he said that's the problem, it's who he is, or, rather, what he represents, what sort of a "journalist" he is.

The Daily Caller's Michelle Goldberg hit the nail squarely on the head:

Here’s why Mark Halperin is a disgrace. It’s not because he used a mild obscenity to describe our president on Morning Joe, disrespectful as that was. Rather, it was the circumstances of the slur. Right now, the Republican Party is threatening to blow up the world economy unless Democrats agree to savage cuts in spending while refusing any of the revenue increases that all serious economists say are necessary to actually address the national debt. Obama, whose greatest fault in office has been a misplaced faith in the GOP’s capacity for reasonableness, went on television and chided the party for this stance. Apparently, this struck Halperin as unreasonable. His response embodies all that’s rotten and shallow about D.C.’s pundit class, which fetishizes bipartisanship even as it only demands it of one political party.

*****

Halperin should be forgiven for insulting the president. He shouldn’t be forgiven, though, for his role in perpetuating the idiotic assumptions of the establishment clique that lefty bloggers sometimes call The Village.

*****

He’s part of a political class that has become so cowed by conservative attacks that it makes anti-liberalism its lodestar, constantly imputing strength to the right and weakness to the left.

*****

Because Halperin is so determined to bend over backward for the right, he can’t come to grips with the central fact of modern politics—the death of Republican moderation. Today’s GOP is a congeries of Birchers, fundamentalists, nativists, and gold bugs that considers longtime conservatives like Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch unacceptably left-wing. Right now, it is playing a game of chicken with all of our financial futures, counting on the widespread fear that it really is crazy enough to unleash financial Armageddon, and the knowledge that the Democrats are not. The president tried, in a very mild way, to address his opponents’ dangerous intransigence. What kind of political journalist regards that as wildly inappropriate? Halperin has given us the answer.

I could not agree more. Shame on Mark Halperin. Shame on all those like him. Which is almost the entirety of the Beltway media establishment.

America suffers as a result of its distorted priorities, its willingness to play along with Republican bullshit, its inability to do its job properly.

Halperin is just part of the problem, one among many. But with his "dick" remark he encapsulated all that is wrong with this oh-so-influential corner of the media.