Hey Big Spender! (psst, that's you, Mr. Bush)

This chart, from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com,  shows very clearly that President Bush was responsible for the huge rise in spending and subsequent deficits. Following the Clinton surplus years Mr. Bush raised spending by around 400 billion (at the same time lowering taxes!), and again in 2009 under Bush spending jumped from 500 billion to almost 1500! (Yes, the 2009 budget belongs to Mr.Bush, it was put into place four months before Obama took office).

These are facts. They clearly show who was responsible for the huge rise in spending, and totally eliminates the 'big spender' argument against Obama.





Considering these facts, will any of you who might have supported Romney because you thought Obama was the big spender now change your position? 

Spending claims aren't the only phony charges the GOP has invented to attack Obama with. They also add job losses from January 2009 into Obama's jobs record, even though he wasn't sworn in until January 20th. That's over 800,000 jobs lost, in one month!

Here are a few other facts as collected by factcheckorg, along with a chart that mkaes it esy to see what the spending facts really look like.

• Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
• President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008.

• On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”

• CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac –  plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
• 
  
• Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

see how spending went up every year under Bush? See how it went down in 2010, Obama's first budget?



Is it too much to ask that rational people who might otherwise have blamed Obama for outrageous spending will now revise their position to include the facts, rather than the 'spin' by the GOP? 

Sadly, they probably won't. When people say they hate politics, this is why.

When you judge the 'Fake Obama' that the GOP made up, he does look bad.

But that isn't a real person.

The real President Obama has done a reasonably good job in trying to repair the damage caused by the previous administration. The country would be in a lot better shape if the GOP in the Senate hadn't filibustered everything Obama tried to do, such as the 2009 jobs bill, which passed the House and had 55 votes lined up in the Senate. The GOP prevented it from even getting a vote, putting partisan politics ahead of the welfare of the nation.

I venture to say none of you would like to be judged by a pack of lies, nor would you stand for your children or your employees lying about everything as Mitt Romney does.

Why do you put up with it?

Oh, How We Owe!

Conventional wisdom these days says that our debt is too large. 

And indeed it is. But the real question is, "compared to what?"

The following chart shows that as a portion of GDP, our debt is actually lower than it was after World War II.

Note that in the above chart, the drop that comes after WWII was due to a giant government spending program called the "New Deal".

Yes, we actually spent public sector funds in the face of a huge Debt-to-GDP ratio, and the result was to spur such economic growth that we grew a strong middle class, and our economy grew at such a rate that we lowered our Debt-to-GDP ratio and became the world's strongest economy.


In order to lower the deficit, we can either choose to cut spending or increase revenues.  Only one of these will work, however, because we are in a depression. Cutting spending will give the middle class and poorer people even less money to spend, further reducing Demand's ability to keep up with Supply.

So, we need to invest public funds to spur economic growth, so that the majority of people in the USA will have enough money to buy things, which in turn will be an incentive for investment on the supply side.

Our debt ratio is far less than many other countries, and less than the hole we dug in WWII. We have seen what happens when countries cut spending too rapidly, the austerity programs in Italy, Greece and Ireland have drastically hurt those countries, while our government spending programs pulled us out of the debt following WWII so that we grew a strong middle class and became the strongest economy in the world.

We should learn a lesson from history and invest public sector money in order to spur demand.

Economic growth and controlled spending will lower our debt.

Obama Cares! Tax Cut 4 MIddle Class!

This infographic from Talking Points Memo gives important information about the Affordable Care Act.

Get the facts, here...

Tax, or Penalty? Doesn't Much Matter

IN an ongoing effort to inject some rational, evidence-based thinking into the Healthcare debate, here are a couple of facts about how the tax/penalty could affect you

First, it must be mentioned that the penalty only applies to people who can afford to have insurance, but choose not to, so they can continue to 'free-ride' on the backs of American taxpayers.


Taxpayers who are required to purchase health insurance and do not will receive a notice from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with the amount of the penalty they owe. Individuals who fail to pay the penalty are not subject to criminal prosecutions and the government cannot file notice of lein or levy any property for a taxpayer who doesn’t pay the penalty. 

The obligation for individuals to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014 was included as part of the Affordable Care Act.  The provision requires individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage for themselves and their dependents or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014. ($95!) Families would pay half the amount for children, and the requirement includes a cap on the total allowable fine per family. If affordable health insurance coverage is not available to an individual, then the penalty would be waived.  Along with the individual responsibility requirement, the Affordable Care Act also provides subsidies to some individuals beginning in 2014 to help pay for their health insurance premiums and other costs associated with their health insurance.

Taxpayers who are required to pay a fine but fail to do so will receive a notice from Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If an individual still neglects to pay the fine, the IRS can attempt to collect the funds by reducing the amount of their tax refund in the future.  Individuals who fail to pay the penalty, however, will not be subject to criminal prosecution. The government cannot file notice of lien or levy on any property for a taxpayer who does not pay the penalty.

I urge everyone to learn the facts before they adopt a position on the ACA. It is already working in massachusetts, and people ther are overwhelmingly in favor of it.

Don't believe the malarkey of the Tea Partisan Obama-haters.

BEST Reason to Re-Eleft Obama

Here is the critical reason to re-elect President Obama.

As my previous posts have shown, the country is A LOT BETTER OFF since Obama was elected, despite ludicrous claims by ignorant Republican Tea-Party partisans.

Just as Bush was able to move the Supreme Court to the Right with his appointments, there will be opportunity for the next President to appoint up to 3 new Justices.

With Justice Roberts proving to be a more reasonable person than most people thought, the Court could get back to a more centrist position where they make judgements according to the Constitution, rather than the hyper-partisan rulings by 4 or 5 of the current justices.

One Simple Chart

What's Wrong With The Economy, In One Simple Chart

Here it is, the most important chart of the year

This chart shows the history of income inequality in America.

Highlights include the peak in 1928 and subsequent fall, otherwise known as The Great Depression.

The share of income going to the top 1% fell to around 10% in 1953.

In the period from WWII to 1970,  the middle class grew & the American economy was the best in the world, as was American achievement.

Economic success came to every income bracket, as the government safety net, including social Security, pulled millions out of poverty.

Unfortunately, beginning in 1976, the share of income going to the top 1% rose again, and once again led directly to a crash of the economy, aka The Great Recession.

While the top 1% chowed-down a bit less in 2008, they still ate 21 of 100 pieces of the American Pie, and got fatter than at any time in U.S. History.

So here we are. The chart disproves many ill-thought-out ideas, including the concept that giving more money to the top income brackets is somehow good for the American economy.

Look at it again.

Twice now the share of income going to the top 1% of the people has risen to almost 25%!

 That's ONE-QUARTER of ALL the money, folks!

It's like taking 100 people, combining all the money they have into one big pile, then giving 1/4th of it to a single person!

After we did exactly that with the US economy,  the US economy has been wiped out.

TWICE.



SUPPLY AND DEMAND ("Demand and Supply" would be more precise).

We can understand why we produce the negative effects of having a large inequality in income by looking at the free-market process of Supply and Demand.  For that system to work, the Demand-side needs to push the Supply-side to manufacture services and products at their most efficient level, to fill the needs of the Demand-side.

As Demand pushes, Supply reacts, and the economy grows.

However, when Demand falls, Supply ends up with a surplus of goods and services. Too much inventory. More stuff than is needed to meet the Demand.  Then the economy slows down and stalls, because Supply doesn't need to make more stuff, and they need fewer people to make or sell the stuff they already have on hand.

When the top 1% takes too great a share of the national income, the rest of the people don't have enough money to buy all the stuff that the businesses owned by the high earners can produce.

So the people with money to invest hold onto their money, because even a tiny % in interest is better than a losing investment in a business because the customers don't have the money to buy the products.

That is what is happening now. There is a lot of money available, but it's not being invested in American commerce, because of the lack of Demand.

With this understanding comes another. It simply makes no sense to give the investor class even more money, if the money they already have is sitting on the sideline, not helping the economy.

Money needs to go to the Demand side, to the middle class and poorer who will use all of the money.

Whether in terms of actual cash, or benefits that free-up cash, when the great majority of Americans can afford to go ahead and buy the products and services the investors make, from hi-tech  to solar panels, kids birthday parties to after-school sports and art programs, the economy grows and Supply reacts and grows to meet the Demand.

The chart also illustrates another important idea.  In order to get the investor class to put the money they already have into action, something needs to 'jump-start' the economy.

It's no coincidence that the small rapid drops in the 80s, 90s and 2000s to the share of income to the 1% are there, that is when government investment went into the general economy to stop previous recessions, providing the middle class with a temporary but slightly larger share of the overall money. 

Economists from both political parties have understood this for years, which is why we have recovered  from every previous recession by investing government money into the economy, putting people to work either directly for the government, or through investment in private industry backed up by government funds.

Once the middle class is employed and investors are making money by investing, the economy rolls right along, and everyone benefits. We then have the money to fund the social safety net, to provide for defense and education, and other things a good government provides for the populace. The middle class thrives, and the top income brackets continue to make a healthy profit.

Looking at these simple facts, it is readily apparent that reducing taxes on the wealthiest Americans will not fix any of the problems we face. The problem is not too little money available to invest, it's too little incentive to entice investment, which comes from people having too little money to provide that incentive.

So we have not only a well-understood Theory of Supply and Demand arguing strongly in favor of government investment in jobs and industry, we have a clear history of the negative effects on the economy when we have such massive income inequality.

All of this makes it pretty obvious that to make American strong again we need to return money to the middle class by a combination of slightly higher taxes on the top income bracket, strong investment in American small business, education and new industries, and increased social benefits to the poor and middle class.

The National Lying Program

There is a new Ad out from a Romney Super-pac, once again with a perfect example of why we need full disclosure in our political system, so we know who to hold responsible for outright lies and other misconduct.

A recent ad takes President Obama to task for a failed energy project referred to as "Solyndra", the name of a solar energy startup.

Solyndra was given federal loan guarantees in an attempt to boost the nations' output in solar energy. The company failed, costing the US taxpayer millions of dollars.

These are the broad-strokes. The GOP is now trying to blame the Solyndra project on President Obama, and to spin the story as if the company's private investors were somehow an 'Obama favorite' and so got a 'handout'.

Yet in truth, the Solyndra project was started by President Bush, and handed over to President Obama to either kill or move forward. Far from being "rushed through" to benefit "Obama's favorites", the GOP lawmakers were pushing for the deal, along with many others, to move forward more quickly to get stimulus money into the economy.

It's important to note that it wasn't a bad decision by President Bush, although the company did eventually fail due to the 'Great Recession' and subsequent drop in the price of solar photovoltaic cells (PVs) . Bush certainly had the right idea to subsidize US green and alternate energy technologies, this type of investment often returns far more than their cost in direct dollars to the US economy, not to mention as a way to create jobs in a burgeoning indutry and keep the USA conpetitive n the world energy market.

Here are some excerpts from Think Progress' article of September, 2011.

" Bush Administration Advanced Solyndra Loan Guarantee for Two Years, Media Blow the Story"

by Stephen Lacey and Richard Caperton
It’s often claimed that the Solyndra loan guarantee was “rushed through” by the Obama Administration for political reasons. In fact, the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007.
You’d never know from the media coverage that:

1. The Bush team tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office.
2. The company’s backers included private investors who had diverse political interests.
3. The loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.

Because one of the Solyndra investors, Argonaut Venture Capital, is funded by George Kaiser — a man who donated money to the Obama campaign — the loan guarantee has been attacked as being political in nature. What critics don’t mention is that one of the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded by the family that started Wal-Mart, the Waltons, who have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years.


To set the record straight, Climate Progress is publishing this timeline — verified by Department of Energy officials — that shows how the loan guarantee came together under both administrations. In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama Administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers’ investment:

May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.
July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.
...
December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.
Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.
October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the “company’s second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location.”
...
January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated...

         March 2009: The credit committee approves the strengthened
          loan application...(with more consumer protections)

June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop.Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%...

...

November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month — on time and on budget — employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.
...
March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI): “despite the Administration’s urgency and haste to pass the bill [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] … billions of dollars have yet to be spent.”
And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL): “The whole point of the Democrat’s stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars … most of the money still hasn’t been spent.”

June 2011: ...Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50%, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV.
August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.

September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE’s loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.
Meanwhile, after complaining about stimulus funds moving too slowly, Congressmen Fred Upton and Cliff Stearns are now claiming that the Administration was pushing funds out the door too quickly: “In the rush to get stimulus cash out the door, despite repeated claims by the Administration to the contrary, some bets were bad from the beginning.”

What critics fail to mention is that the Solyndra deal is more than tfour years old, started under the Bush Administration, which tried to conditionally approve the loan right before Obama took office. Rather than “pushing funds out the door too quickly,” the Obama Administration restructured the original loan when it came into office to further protect the taxpayers’ investment.
Stephen Lacey is a reporter/blogger with Climate Progress and Richard Caperton is a senior policy analyst with the energy team at the Center for American Progress.
 cent ad takes President Ob


Along with 'Obama is a socialist', "Obama raised taxes", "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama's failed economy" and  "Obama is hindering eneergy production", the Solyndra story is a complete fabrication, which, just like those other claims, runs contrary to the actual facts.

It is a highly partisan, unabashed, unbridled batch of GOP Poppycock.

It is also another fine example of how Super-pacs can spread misinformation to our society to prevent people from knowing all the facts prior to voting, without having to tell us who is responsible for spreading this horse manure all over our country.

Super-Pacs might as well be labeled a well-funded "National Lying Program", it would be much more accurate title.

Stop the NLP!!  Speak Truth to Power every chance you get.

Why we need to re-elect Barak Obama Part 2.

In Part One of "Why we need to re-elect Barak Obama"  I discussed legislation such as Voter I.D. Laws. Gerrymandering of Congressional Districts, "Personhood" Amendments, and Anti-Union Laws, all of which are issues that the Tea Party/GOP has been putting into place since they came to power in 2010.  I noted that these issues have nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, a smaller government or making America a better country, and how they support the claim that we should re-elect President Obama.

My last post also argued for re-electing our President, as it showed how historically the Democrats have performed better than the GOP in fiscal responsibility when they have been in the Oval Office.

This column will look at President Obama's performance in managing the economic recovery since he took office.

Among other claims, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been accusing the President of "failing", and of "making the economy worse".

Is he telling the truth?

How HAS President Obama done?

Has the economy improved since he took over from President Bush, or is it worse?

First, let's start by looking at the change in GDP from the last year of Bush's second term, compared to Obama's first three years

OK, so GDP is back on a positive track. That's growth. Perhaps it's not as high as we might like it, but as we will see in the next chart, the reason is that we have also been cutting government spending instead of investing in growth. This has been true for every recession in the past half-century, and is the proven response to recovery from a recession.  Here is a chart which illustrates the point, comparing spending during the 'Reagan Recovery' with government spending under Obama.

 

The blue line shows how spending went up right as President Obama took office, (a legacy of the Bush Administration's last budget)  and before Obama's budget went into effect. Once it did, spending started coming down.

 

From these two charts we can see that the economy IS improving,  and that the reason the improvement is slower than we might like is that the government is not investing money to stimulate the economy.

But what about the stimulus money we already spent? Did it work?  Here are three different analysts' opinions:

 So the answer appears to be yes, the stimulus worked as intended. Although it stopped us from falling into a full depression,  it was simply too small for the size of the problem to spur economic growth. 

But what about jobs? It seems like the unemployment rate is still too high. Are we creating any jobs?

So far as job creation goes, it appears that after a few months of 'reduced job losses' immediately after Obama took office, we moved into positive job creation in 2009 and we have since had 27 months of positive job growth.

The economic indicators presented here show that Mitt Romney is making false claims, that in fact President Obama is doing a good job bringing the U.S. economy back after the worst recession we have had since the Great Depression.

Along with the issues that the Tea Party Republicans have shown to be their top priorities, and the half-century of superior economic performance by Democratic Administrations in the White House,  the economic facts presented here clearly show that President Obama deserves a second term.

Fiscal Conservatives. Who Knew?

I came across an article at slate.com, with some surprising statistics, showing how well the country has done under Democratic vs Republican administrations in eight economic categories. These cover the period from 1960-2006 (and so don't include the economic collapse of  2008).

These facts will probably surprise many people, because they run  counter to most people’s opinions about the two parties regarding fiscal competence and managing the economy.

From writer Michael Kinsley:

"The figures below are all from the Annual Economic Report of the President (2008), and the analysis is primitive. Nevertheless, what these numbers show, almost beyond doubt, is that Democrats are better at virtually every economic task that is important to Republicans."

"On average, in years when the president is a Democrat, the economy grows faster; inflation is lower; fewer people can't find a job; the federal government spends a smaller share of GDP, whether or not you include defense spending; and the deficit is lower (or—sweet Clinton-years memory—the surplus is higher). The one category that Republicans win is, unsurprisingly, federal taxes as a share of GDP. But it is no trick to lower taxes if you don't lower spending".

1.  GDP  % change (growth)                             Democrats are over 1% better for growth

      Democrats              4.09

      Republicans            2.94

     

2.  Inflation                                                       Inflation is less under Democrats

      Democrats             3.81

      Republicans           4.50

3.  Unemployment                                           Unemployment is lower under Democrats

      Democrats             5.33

      Republicans           6.21

     

4.  Federal Taxes                                             Republicans have less than .5% lower taxes

      Democrats              18.40

      Republicans            17.97

     

5.  Federal Spending                                     Democrats spend over 1% less!  "Tax and Spend Liberals?"   No.

      Democrats              19.60

      Republicans            20.67

     

6.  Deficit                                                       The deficit is over 1.5% less under Democrats!

      Democrats              -1.21

      Republicans            -2.70

     

7.  Defense Spending                                    This one is close, but Democrats spend more on defense, not less.

      Democrats               5.83

      Republicans             5.71

     

8.  Non-Defense Spending                            But for overall spending, Democrats spend less!

      Democrats               13.77

      Republicans            14.96

    
(end of article)

Wow.

It should be noted that there are many factors involved in these results, not the least of which is the makeup of the House and Senate in any particular term.

However, when considering only whether the country has done better with a Republican or a Democrat in office, the results have been totally one-sided in favor of the Democrats, who have proved much better at managing the economy, as well as following the 'conservative principles' of reduced spending and smaller government.

Of course, people don't always vote in concordance with their stated beliefs, and so these results probably won't sway many people who believe the GOP is the party of 'fiscal responsibility' regardless of what the economic statistics show. The term "Cognitive Dissonance" is used to describe the situation when a person holds two or more views that are inconsistent with each other, and we clearly see a good deal of cognitive dissonance in politics, and there's no reason to think this issue will prove any different.

While there may be other legitimate reasons for supporting the GOP, clearly lowering spending, reducing the deficit and increasing growth cannot be among them, as the Democrats have been a full percentage point better at all three.

Although we should remember that correlation does not prove causation, these statistics include a long enough time span and are so solidly in favor of the Democrats, it isn't a fluke or a 'cherry-picked' analysis.  I did not include Mr. Kinsley's chart showing the results if you add a one-year 'buffer' assuming it takes a President a year to put his policies in place, but they show the same results.

These satistics add weight to Rick Santorum's argument that social policy should be the focus of the Republican platform, in that historically the Democrats have now been shown to be better at the managing the economy.  Including the two most recent terms isn't going to alter these figures, President Obama has done a far better job in his three years than President Bush did in his second term (I will be presenting the evidence for this claim in future columns, but considering Bush's second term included the worst recession since the Great Depression, it's not really a difficult claim to prove).

So next time you're sitting around the dinner table, or hanging out at the proverbial water cooler at work, when your favorite Republican brings up the issue of outrageous spending by the Democrats, bust out your iphone and dial up some facts. At least the discussion can then revolve around some evidence rather than the very pervasive myth of Republican superiority in this department.


reference:  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2008/09/politicians_lie_numbers_dont.html

The Dignity of Work

Hilary Rosen caused a huge stir recently when  she said that it was wrong for Mitt Romney to be using his wife Ann as his guide to women's economic struggles, because she "had never worked a day in her life."

Mitt Romney and the Republicans were quick to jump on that remark as a way to attack President Obama, despite the fact that Hilary Rosen isn't affiliated with either the President, his campaign nor the Democratic National Party.

It was an unfortunately myopic comment by Ms. Rosen, in that pretty much everyone agrees raising children is indeed hard work, and as a Democratic supporter she should have known it was also the type of comment which can ignite a firestorm of negative publicity, which it did.

So Romney scored some points in trying to close the 'gender gap', as polls were showing President Obama with around an 18% point lead amongst women voters.

The disparity in support by women was largely due to Romney's backing of the GOP's so-called 'war on women', so named because the policies pushed by the GOP strip women of basic rights over their own bodies, including not only abortion, but also contraception, various types of pre-natal treatment and a host of other rights, such as equal pay for women than for men doing the exact same jobs..  The GOP also has been working to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, Head Start and a variety of other programs that millions of women and their families rely upon for basic heath care needs.

So chalk up a small win for Romney in the publicity battle, though a comment by a random Democrat not connected to the President over whether 'stay at home' Moms are "working" doesn't really compare to the GOP's sustained support of policies that increase economic hardships for millions of less fortunate women.

Recently, Mitt Romney illustrated how phony his 'indignation' over Hilary Rosen's comment really is.  In talking about his plans for welfare reform, Romney said "even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work".   He followed that up by saying “I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.”

This begs the question, 'if a poor mother who receives benefits in order to take care of her children needs to go outside the home to "have the dignity of work”, why doesn't Ann Romney also need to go get a job in order to enjoy that same "dignity"?

If raising children is "work", then poor women receiving welfare and raising their children are already "working". If Ann Romney is a "hero to Moms" for staying home and taking care of her kids, why isn't the same true for poor mothers?

Hypocrisy, writ large. 


It should be noted that Hilary Rosen made her comment in the context of saying that Ann Romney isn't the best person to consult on the economic situation of working mothers, as she has enough money to make the choice to stay at home with her children, and hasn't been a member of the 'outside work force'.

So in context, Hilary Rosen was correct. Ann Romney doesn't have to go outside the home and get a job for pay, and has no economic need whatsoever, so she isn't the best person to give advice on the struggles of women who do.


While it's certainly true that Ann Romney has had to put in a great deal of effort to raise five children, pointing out that she hasn't had to get a job outside the home shouldn't be controversial in any way.

The supposed 'controversy' arises over the meaning of the word 'work'. Hilary Rosen used it to mean "work outside the home at a job", while the Republicans so 'outraged' over her comment are using it to mean "put in a great deal of effort".

No matter your beliefs about our society helping those least fortunate, such as children born into poverty, if a wealthy woman is 'working' when she stays at home to raise her children, so is a poor woman.

And the same level of 'dignity' should accrue to a poor mother staying home to raise her children as it does to a wealthy mother doing the same.

In the end, "dignity" isn't the benefit most women, or men for that matter, are looking for when they go to work.

It's the money.

"Hey buddy, loan me a job?'

I take great issue with the term 'job creators' being used for wealthy people.

'Job Creators' may be wealthy, or they may not be wealthy. On the other hand, wealthy people may create jobs, or they may not create jobs.

The claim that "we can't tax the job creators" was first enunciated by President Bush II when discussing "The Bush Tax Cuts".  Mr. Bush recently weighed is on that moniker, memorably saying “I wish they weren't called the Bush tax cuts, if they were called some other body's tax cuts, they're probably less likely to be raised.”  Precisely.

Regardless of whether we're disussing the Ryan budget or the 'G-W' tax cuts,  the idea that 'sending money' to wealthy people via lower tax rates or deductions will spur job growth or stimulate the economy is highly suspect.

First, the evidence clearly suggests otherwise. We cut taxes dramatically during the Bush years, yet even before the recession started we had very anemic job growth. The ongoing lower tax rates didn't manifest themselves in either higher job growth, nor increased government revenue from the supposed 'stimulus' to the economy.

Simply put, we tried it and it didn't work.

Second, logic should indicate the folly of this line of reasoning. Wealthy people already have money. If they want to 'create jobs' (which essentially means investing in companies via the stock market or venture capitalism), they can do so at any time.

Making the claim that they will do so only if they get lower tax rates is to assume that they use the tax rate as a primary indicator of whether or not to invest. While a favorable tax situation is certainly one of the factors, the primary incentive to invest is whether or not they will make a profit.

No level of taxation will spur someone to invest if they don't make a profit (leaving aside exotic investment tricks, or buying a company in order to destroy it, neither of which 'create jobs').

But the easy way to see the fault in this line of reasoning is to imagine giving that same money to people one level lower on the income scale. To believe that the wealthiest are the only  'job creators' is to assume that the 'almost-wealthy' won't invest the money should it be directed to them.

Continuing along this path of reason should show you that until you reach the level of income where people simply don't have enough money to live (god forbid we direct any money to them!), any segment of society that has money to invest will do so, thereby 'creating jobs'. In fact, if creating jobs is the goal of tax policy, directing that money to people who would be opening a business except that they don't have the money is a far better way to achieve that result.

We can pause in the middle of our musings to give a nod to the recently departed middle class. For those who remain at this income level, that same money would go towards things like home ownership, college costs, and a host of other stability-enhancing family expenditures that solidify the center,  which brings confidence to the markets, which, come to think of it, actually IS one of the factors that people use in making investment decisions. Trickling-up, if you will.

At the far end of this mental journey is the 50% of the population who are either poor or on the edge of being poor. With those same funds directed to them, they most certainly would not make stock market investments nor open a small business. What they would do is pay bills, buy food, or take care of health care issues that they have been ignoring for months or years. Regardless of how they spend the money, they would spend it, stimulating the economy the old-fashioned way, by buying things. Even if, as is far more likely, the money came their way via benefits such as job training, pre-natal  counseling, or preventive health care, the money goes directly into the economy  juicing the GDP  and spurring job growth from the bottom up.

Finally, making the claim that 'if only they had this additional money' the wealthy people would be creating jobs is a slight on those very people. Under this scenario, these people who are already wealthy beyond most people's wildest dreams are sitting back, petulantly crossing their arms in defiance, refusing to invest money to 'create jobs' until they get even more of the nation's wealth in their pockets. I don't think this is a realistic assessment of the top 1%, despite how well it might play at Occupy sleep-overs.

The most direct way to use tax policy to create jobs is to put the money in question into subsidies and loan programs designed specifically to put people to work. Investing into construction projects to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure will do more to stimulate the economy and put people to work than will giving people already sitting on piles of money, waiting to invest that money until the economy picks up and they can make a profit in said investment.

So a few moments reflection on the best way to direct government spending shows us that directing it to the very wealthy is the least effective way to jump-start the economy or create more jobs.
Keeping in mind that we aren't talking about a return to the outrageous tax rates of the 70s, but rather a re-thinking of the now-discredited idea that more tax cuts are the solution for all of our economic ills.


In the end, the true 'job creators' are the American people themselves, whether through directly opening small businesses or simply by being an active participant in a thriving economy.

So go spend some money! It's the American thing to do.

Why we need to re-elect Barak Obama

I am a patriot, in the best sense of the word. I believe in America, and the rule of law.

That is why I stand so staunchly against the current Tea Party Republicans. This is not your daddy's GOP!  By their actions in dozens of state legislatures, and the House of Representatives, they have demonstrated that they are not truly believers in following the U.S. Constitution. The crop of candidates for the Republican nomination are no better, they prove my thesis here every single day on the campaign trail:

-- We have a democracy, and every person has a right to vote. Such things as Poll Taxes and unreasonable barriers to exercising that right are an egregious assault on this most precious of civil rights.  Thirty states currently have laws in place that require all voters to show specific types of I.D. at the polls, there could be another five states with these anti-democracy laws by the election this November.  These 'voter I.D.' measures, passed and signed into law by Tea Party Republicans, are a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, in that they attempt to selectively restrict the vote and prevent certain people from voting in order to stop non-existent fraud, for the purpose of swaying elections and gaining power. The states all have slightly different laws, in all cases the type of I.D. required is one that groups that typically vote Democratic are less likely to have.  For example, in Texas, an I.D. .from a state college is no good, but a gun-license I.D. is acceptable. Despite how it may seem to most middle class citizens, not everyone has a drier's license or passport, and to obtain one requires one or more trips to a DMV and a birth certificate,  which can cost up to $40 to get. Many counties don't even have a DMV, so people living there have to tarvel a distance if they want to vote.  the Republicans are counting on the fact that if they make it hard enough to procure an acceptable I.D., a substantial number of people will give up, or won't be able to afford to get an I.D. in the first place. As many studies have shown, there are virtually no instances of documented 'voter Impersonation' fraud. This is a 'solution' without a problem, created solely for political purposes. These laws are, in a word, reprehensible.

-- The "personhood" amendments being put before House legislators are an attempt to give religious belief primacy over the laws of the United States, as are the attacks on contraception, abortion and personal drug use. Talk about "Big Government Intrusion"!

The Tea Party Republicans campaigned on the issues of government spending and the economy, yet the vast majority of legislation they have proposed since taking office are aimed at blocking abortion rights or other social issues. These are not honest people.

-- The 'anti-union' laws are another tactic being pushed in GOP-controlled state governments. They are in direct opposition to our basic right to assemble and our governments' role in protecting the weak from the powerful. When a single person has a grievance against unfair working conditions or pay, that person is powerless against the immediate employer or corporate owners. It is only when many workers all agree to stand together that power is balanced. It is because of these 'unions of workers' that we have the workplace rights that have done so well by our country and built a strong middle class: limited work weeks; equal pay without discrimination; child labor laws; and the minimum wage are all due to workers being able to stand as one and negotiate a fair working arrangement. Without that balance, employers will run roughshod over the workers, and the result will be more people thrust into poverty and the dissolution of the middle class.

-- While both sides of the aisle are guilty of 'gerrrymandering' congressional districts to thwart the will of the people (drawing district boundaries to make sure the incumbent gets elected by putting a majority of Republicans in each district, where this is impossible, all the Democrats are pushed into the same district, so that only a single person is elected where there were several majority Democratic districts prior to the redrawing. The winding, bulging contorted districts resemble a curvy salamander, hence the name). The current Tea Party/GOP has taken it to the extreme, as they have with parliamentary maneuvers, such as the record number of filibusters. Combined with the voter I.D. laws, they are attempting to take ahold of our government and prevent us from being able to change leaders if we so desire.

These are but a few of the more obvious assaults on our Constitution, our liberty, and the rule of law. Regardless of your position on various issues of governance, we all should agree that everyone should get a vote, and the voting must be fair.

What are the differences between the parties? Aren't they 'all the same?"

No.

The Left wants to restrict and regulate the power of industry to do as they may, protecting our environment and the people of our great nation while retaining our rights to be secure in person, property and the freedom to pursue happiness.

The Right wants to restrict these most basic freedoms and control our personal behavior, based not on the Constitution, but on religious beliefs, while at the same time allowing corporations to do whatever they like in pursuit of profit, regardless of the effect on the country.

Which of these two is the greater threat to our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, the very tyranny we speak of when we claim our right to bear arms?

For the sake of this discussion, I will grant the argument that both sides are equally bad when it comes to 'dirty tricks', back-room deals and the like.  However, the actions and results of these behaviors are clearly not equal.  

--- The possible 'dirty tricks' of the Left may result in less profit for the very wealthy, and less power for the very powerful, yet they defend our freedoms at the most basic level. They harm very few people, and those that are impacted are the most able to sacrifice without affecting their life negatively. These are the same people who have done very well in the past two decades, their income has risen dramatically and their share of the overall wealth has skyrocketed, especially in the past ten years.

---- The possible 'dirty tricks' of the Right attack personal freedoms directly, and they fail at one of the most important roles of government, protecting the weak from the excesses of the powerful, while they attempt to circumvent our ability to exercise our right to vote and elect our leaders. The people they will impact negatively are the least able to withstand further hardships, and there are millions of us. For this vast majority of Americans, things have not gone well the past two decades, the average wage hasn't improved at all, and their share of the nations' overall wealth has plummeted.

In other words, If the Left succeeds, even using 'dirty tricks', favoritism, etc, the nation will still be better off as a whole, and we will move forward, towards restoring a strong middle class and an opportunity for upward mobility. We will retain our right to elect our leaders, our rights to marry whom we choose, to control our own health and bodies, and our right to be secure in our person, property and pursuit of happiness.

If, however, the Right succeeds, even using 'dirty tricks', favoritism, etc, we will have fewer freedoms, the wealthy and powerful will become more so, and millions more people will fall into poverty and a subservient lifestyle. Gone will be such freedoms as the right to do what you want with whom you want in your own home, the right to pursue happiness how you choose, the right to be safe from discrimination and the right to a fair wage for a days work. Not to mention the harm to our environment that is unrestricted-industry's legacy.

So while I am of the opinion that we need to fix the system, in order to do so we need to put people in office who will work for the betterment of the nation, following the rule of law, and who will set aside partisan politics and do such things as fair redistricting to restore competition to elections, and put in place a multi-party power sharing system so that people can express support for third parties on either side without hurting their 'second choice' (one of the two current parties). Proportional Representation is the term commonly used. Without that, a vote for a 'third party' takes away a vote for the party one would normally support in a two-party system. in the 2000 election, Ralph Nader took enough liberal votes to enable George Bush to stay close to Al Gore, and eventually the Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush.

We are more likely to achieve election reform by electing center-left moderates, and reasonable people in general, which is clearly not the Tea Party/GOP.  Clinton was a moderate, and he showed a willingness to work with the GOP rather than taking a hard line.  Obama is also a centrist, and again, he has shown a willingness to anger many on the left in order to try to work together. But the Tea Party Republicans won't have anything to do with Obama, from day one of his administration they have talked of no other goal that 'making sure Obama is a one-term President.  It certainly isn't difficult to prove that the current Tea Party/GOP is the most partisan, uncooperative and 'my way or the highway' political party we have seen in a long long time, willing to sacrifice millions of people's quality of life, without asking the wealthy to sacrifice at all.

Whether we judge by the statistical results of previous governing, or by the basic goals and objectives of the parties, the Left is clearly the better choice.  Obama has done a good job in guiding our recovery despite historic level of obstruction from a congress that won't spend a dime to try to stimulate the economy, and that oppose everything he does . Obama has demonstrated that he is willing to re-think his positions, to negotiate in good faith, and to cooperate in order to get things done, even if it goes against the wishes of his political base. Two examples that illustrate this clearly are the Affordable Care Act (or "Obama-Cares") and the "Cap pand Trade" method of lowering carbon emmisions. Both of these were free-market approaches that were strongly supported by Republicans until Obama dropped his opposition to them and put them in place. Now the Tea Party/GOP acts like they are full-blown socialist schemes aimed at a complete government takeover of private industry. The level of deceit and dishonesty from these Republicans, especially from Mitt Romney, is like nothing we have seen in the modern political era.

This is an important election, perhaps the most important one in my lifetime. The nation stands in a precarious position, with mounting debt and rising inequality following the Bush Administration's destruction of the successful Clinton surpluses.. The choice is between the very reasonable Obama, who has demonstrated that he is good at foreign policy, the recovering economy, and has compassion for the poor and middle class, or a Republican who wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood, get rid of the Affordable Healthcare Act, hand the social safety net over to for-profit corporations, and institute religious doctrine over the rule of law.

We saw what happened when the GOP took over the Presidency after Clinton and Gore had led us to the best economy in over 60 years, and again what happened in 2010 when the Tea Party took over Congress and pushed the country to the brink of default, bringing the recovery started in Obama's  first two years to a screeching halt.

despite all that, we have had 25 months of private sector job growth, a solid rise in the GDP and stock market, and passage of health car reform that is already bringing benefits to millions of Americans.