The Moderate Crazies

Moderate strategies in the past had moderate results ~ Marc Johnson, state appeals court judge, Kenner LA.

They turn Liberals into the "far left" and label them "the crazies". They turn themselves into "Liberals", even though they supported the illegal war with Afghanistan, eliminating the corporate income tax*, and call themselves "free traders".

When I first starting blogging five (and change) years ago, I firmly considered myself a Liberal. I was an anti-war, for the middle class, in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy, opposed to unfettered free trade, anti-Fox Nooz Liberal. Now, though, I'd probably have to say that I'm more Liberal.

But I've not really changed all that much. Just shifted a little further to the Left. I think the real question here is, seeing as a certain Independent Moderate Blue Dog Democrat Libertarian (and others) consider me to be on the "far left", instead of simply a normal Progressive, how is is that the Moderate crazies think they can hijack the term "Progressive", move the goalposts, and get away with it? I'm positive it's because that's the MO of the Right and their accomplices in the so-called Middle.

The Right has been so successful at moving the goalposts that they shifted a large portion of the Democratic Party to the Right. That's how we got Bill Clinton and the Third Way Democrats! I actually argued with a Conservative/Libertarian on a blog recently about whether or not Bill Clinton was a Liberal. This Con/Libertarian insisted that Clinton was Leftist/Liberal and that "a large number of Liberals embraced the Third Way"! Un-freaking believable, huh?

Note: This post is a rebuttal to a commentary on the Contra O'Reilly blog. Above I state that the proprietor of this other blog is in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax. This is true, but he also wants to increase the top personal income tax rate to be set at 40 percent 39.6 percent 37-38 percent 25 percent and tax capital gains at the same rate as regular income. According to him this will result in more taxes being collected.

I bring this up because I was accused of being a partisan liar for "leaving out" this information. But this post wasn't meant to be a rebuttal of Willis Hart's position on the elimination of the corporate income tax, and I included a link that anyone could read themselves. Perhaps I'm just not that good of a deceiver? Anyway, I've added this note to eliminate any confusion. No "deception" was intended with this post.

SWTD #98, wDel #9.

Republican Hacks Responsible for Manufactured Solyndra Scandal

I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks ~ Darrell Issa (dob 11/1/1953) Representative from California's 49th congressional district and head of the House Oversight Committee, announcing his plans to go on a witch hunt against the Obama Administration ("Darrell Issa plans hundreds of hearings", Politico 11/8/2010).

The following report is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 9/19/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. This report from the "news" segment of the program concerns Republican attempts to use the Solyndra scandal to paint the Obama Administration as incompetent.

Thom Hartmann: Last week the media jumped on the Obama Administration over a loan to solar company Solyndra that went bust, in what was dubbed Solyndra-gate. It was suggested that the loan was granted for political reasons and that the whole deal reeked of crony capitalism. But, as we are getting used to these days, the media dropped the ball.

Not only does Solyndra represent just 1.3 percent of the department of energy's entire loan portfolio and is the only company receiving loans to fail, but former president George W bush has more prints on the Solyndra loan then does President Obama. It was bush who created the program and spent two years urging the department of energy to approve the Solyndra loan, which it finally did only two months into President Obama's term.

Not only that, but regarding the accusation that the Obama Administration granted the loan in return for campaign contributions... one of Solyndra's top investors gets their money from the Walton family, a notorious contributor to the Republican Party... not exactly fans of the Obama presidency.

So here we have another scandal manufactured by Republican hacks for the media, when the media should be looking into the greatest crime of all, which is the destruction of the American Middle Class at the hands of the Republicans and the oligarchs who own them.

My Commentary: A 9/23/2011 New York Times article, titled "The Phony Solyndra Scandal" says, "The company's recent bankruptcy... was largely brought on by a stunning collapse in the price of solar panels over the past year or so". I was actually duped into believing there might be something to this scandal by an Obama-hating Conservative commenter on the blog of Willis Hart. According to the doofus Rusty Shackelford, the Solyndra "scandal" is going to cause BIG problems for Barack Obama, because it's going to prove to people just how incompetent and in over his head "Obie" the community organizer is.

For the record, I thought that the owners of the company may have done something untoward, not the President or his administration. But it turns out I was way wrong. The reason for Solyndra's failure is due to the fact that "the Chinese government is investing in solar production [and that] has led to a burst in production that has boosted supplies and forced down product prices worldwide". Turns out there is absolutely no scandal here what-so-ever, just a failure to accurately predict future market conditions.

Don't tell the Republicans this, however. Expect them to make as much hay as possible over this non-scandal. The corrupt Representative from California, sleazeball Darrell Issa, announced that he's launching an investigation. Regarding the function of the Oversight Committee under Issa, a 11/8/2010 Politico article says Issa enlisted "Patrick McHenry of North Carolina and Jim Jordan of Ohio... to chair some of his subcommittees". Politico refers to these two representatives as "aggressive partisans". I think it's clear what Issa's agenda is.

I'm with Thom Hartmann on this one, the Republican Party is totally owned by the wealthy elites and this bogus scandal is nothing more than a distraction while they continue their destruction of the middle class. And they're also miffed because George bush was SO incredibly incompetent and corrupt... and now they're desperate to get the same labels attached to Obama... but nothing is sticking. Hint: It's because Obama is an extremely intelligent, competent and honest man, not to mention an substantially superior POTUS when compared to the previous doofus who held the office.

SWTD #97, wDel #8.

They Made an Exceedingly Bad Decision, As I'm Sure Everyone Who Isn't an Idiot Agrees

The very first law in advertising is to avoid the concrete promise and cultivate the delightfully vague ~ Stuart Chase (3/8/1888 to 11/16/1985) an American economist (MIT), social theorist and writer.

They made an exceedingly bad decision, as I'm sure anyone with an ounce of common sense will agree. Clearly these chaps didn't take the long-range ramifications into account, because, if they had, they would have made a decision that was the exact opposite of the decision they made. Now I ask you, is it any surprise that a recent Gallup poll showed that a majority of the American people are outraged?

For the record, I'm in agreement with the vast majority of Americans who believe repealing the law was a bad idea. Obviously the solution (and I'm positive you'll agree with me) is to change the law back to what it was. Perhaps we should even make the law stricter. One thing is crystal clear though, and that is that this never should have been permitted in the first place!

So, the question I'm posing to you is, are you one of the majority of Americans who think this was not a good idea, or an idiot in the minority who thinks it was just what we needed? Even after the fallout of that bad decision and the subsequent attempt to make things right with new legislation, some people seem to still not get it. They think the new legislation should be repealed! They think it's bad for the economy! They think the reason for the bad things that happened was that the original law went too far!

I say these people are blaming the wrong parties; they blame one group when they should actually be blaming another. Can you believe it? I certainly cannot. Obviously these people have only the interests of the other group in mind when making their absurd accusations. Obviously the citizens should align ourselves with first group. Why? Because this group is us; that is, we are all part of this group. Our objectives are, or should at least, be harmonious. But that has not been the case as of late. Actually, it hasn't been the case for quite some time, but the disharmony became a LOT more pronounced following the last election.

What do we do about it? I don't know. The subgroup of the group of people that should be on our side has been aligning itself with the second group to an increasing extent over the years. Personally, I think only a sub-sub group of the first group is our only hope. If only an individual of this group could get him or herself elected to a particular office. You know which one I mean. Personally I think they all suck, but, more on that in a later post. Stay tuned. In the meantime, why not let me know what you think?

Note: Do you have any idea what the hell I'm talking about? This post was purposefully written using a style (that is decidedly NOT "delighful") employed by a certain Moderate-Libertarian blogger I've mentioned here before. When this guy writes something incredibly vague and you say you don't know what he's talking about... he'll blame YOU for not knowing what the hell he's talking about! The latest charge was that I didn't know what he was referring to because I watch too much of a certain Left-leaning news channel. No, I don't think that was what was at issue. The issue was that his post included too few fricking details!

SWTD #96, wDel #7.

President Obama's Jobs Bill Failure Would be a Success For Republicans

This plan is the plan that dare not speak it's name. It's real name is stimulus, but that word has been banned from politics in Washington ~ Lawrence O'Donnell (b. 11/7/1951) on the 9/8/2011 broadcast of his MSNBC program "The Last Word".

Note: The following discussion is an excerpt from the The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 9/8/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Lawrence asks Representative Barney Frank of MA if the President's proposed American Jobs Act has a chance of passing the House.

Lawrence O'Donnell: What are the prospects in the House of Representatives for this bill?

Rep Barney Frank: I'm afraid they're not very good. As I'm standing here I'm hearing one of the younger Republicans proclaim loudly that government can't do anything. These are people who believe we have no capacity to come together to do anything. I am afraid that the [radical] Right-wing that has the Republican Party by the throat is going to block anything. I think the president did a very good job of making it clear that he was compromising. This isn't everything I would like him to do. It isn't everything he would like to do.

But I think he correctly said, look, I want to get results. And the only chance of getting results is to say to Republicans, I'm giving you some of the things you want. I am afraid that it is not going to be helpful. I credit the president for trying. I don't know what more he could have done. You are dealing with people who... let's be very clear about the Tea Party and their patron Grover Norquist who's made them all sign these pledges... these are people who do not understand that government has an important role. That there are things that we can only do if we come together to do them. To build bridges... to provide for the elderly in their retirement if they aren't otherwise wealthy.

These are people who don't believe in that. Frankly, sadly I have to say, and I've had to conclude this... they don't want the economy to get better. Because if the economy gets better, Barack Obama's chances to win get better. These are people for whom the major goal is to defeat Barack Obama. Secondarily to discredit government. They don't want people to think there are things we can do. They are ideologically committed to the idea that there shouldn't be any government, so they are not trying for success. They don't want Obama to succeed and they don't want us to show that government can work in the public interest.

My Commentary: The Republicans won't agree to another 447 billion dollar stimulus bill regardless of whether or not it is "paid for". President Obama proposes paying for this bill by increasing the cuts the so-called "Super Congress" will be making. Does this mean that if no agreement can be reached and the automatic cuts are triggered... the jobs bill is dead? I agree with Barney Frank, I do not see this legislation going anywhere.

Further Reading
01. Obama Jobs Plan: $447 Billion, More Than Half In Tax Cuts, To Be Paid For By Super Committee by Sam Stein, The Huffington Post 9/8/2011.
02. Text: Obama's Jobs Speech: There are Steps We Can Take Right Now by National Journal staff, The National Journal 9/8/2011.

Video: Obama's 9/8/2011 Jobs Speech To Congress, Full Video (32:58).



 swtd-95 

The News Wasn't Always Reported for Profit

With all the mass media concentrated in a few hands, the ancient faith in the competition of ideas in the free market seems like a hollow echo of a much simpler day ~ Kingman Brewster, Jr. (6/17/1919 to 11/8/1988) an educator, president of Yale University, and American diplomat.

The following monologue is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 8/11/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom's rant concerns reporting the news for profit, the Fairness Doctrine and Republican attempts to distort what the consequences of it were...

Thom Hartmann: The fact of the matter is, in 1987 when Reagan stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine. The core of the Fairness Doctrine was not, if you put an hour of Rush Limbaugh on you've got to put an hour of Thom Hartmann on. It had nothing to do with that. There were talk shows, in fact Alan Berg's talk show was on the air back in the 70s out of Denver, and he was blowing a signal into 20-some-odd states. He was the most popular talk show host in America. He was a Liberal. He was gunned down by a couple of neo-Nazis. The next big talk radio guy to come along was Rush Limbaugh in 1987.

When Reagan stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine, the core piece of it was that, in order to own a broadcast license... in order to have the right to broadcast over the air (radio or television), you had to be broadcasting in the public interest. That was interpreted by the FCC as meaning you had to actually present news. The news had to be unbiased, and it had to be disconnected from any commercial interests of the station or the advertisers of the station.

Back in the 70s I worked in news for 7 years... and I could have gotten fired for hanging out with the sales people. You just didn't do it. The news divisions were separate. The news divisions of all the networks lost money. The fairness doctrine ceasing to be enforced in 1987 was the first chink in the armor, then in 1997, after Bill Clinton signed the telecommunications act... this really put the nail in the coffin.

I was driving down the street and I heard a news report that said that CBS news, the storied home of Walter Cronkite, had just put their news division under the control of the Vice President of Entertainment at CBS... which meant that the news division was now a profit center... which meant that instead of getting news, you were now going to be getting infotainment.

You were now going to get the stuff that was profitable to the network and the stuff that flattered the advertisers. You wouldn't get the stuff that was hurtful to the advertisers. If they had part ownership in a movie studio, suddenly we're going to see those movie stars on their news programs. If they have part ownership in a publishing company you're going to see those authors being profiled, you know, whatever. And I remember thinking; this is really a sad day for America. Not just for journalism but for America.

My Commentary: On 8/18/2011 a commenter on a Conservative blog I frequent said, "Even news has to be a profit center in today's world". The comment was in response to the Conservative blogger's post about women he finds attractive hosting news programs. Obviously the goal of these news programs is to draw men in to oggle the beauties. It obviously works for the Conservative blogger Willis Hart who watches Fox Nooz programs for this reason. This is an individual I've discussed before. He calls himself a moderate but is really a moderate to liberal Republican.

But the Conservative/Moderate blogger isn't the reason for this post. The reason for this post is because I wanted to respond to what a Conservative commenter said about the news being a profit center in today's world. In response to that comment an individual who calls himself dmarks said, "It's always been that way. Go back to the days of Uncle Walter, and beyond to Benjamin Franklin's original Saturday Evening Post".

I'm not positive what "Uncle Walter" dmarks is referring to, but Wikipedia says Uncle Walter is "a nickname for broadcast journalist Walter Cronkite". During Walter Cronkite's time the news was not reported for profit. The news wasn't reported for profit from 1949 when the Fairness doctrine was introduced until August of 1987, when the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote (38 years).

The above comments by Thom Hartmann reflect the world as it actually was, a reality I thought even a conservative would acknowledge, simply because nobody would believe a rewriting of history so severe. But clearly Conservatives left the reality based community long ago and have never looked back.

Note: If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of the quoted segment of audio can be found at 31:10 to 33:58 of Hour 3 on Thursday 8/11/2011.

Further Reading
[1] Fairness Doctrine: Secret Republican Agenda Exposed! by Craig Aaron, The Huffington Post 1/8/2009.
[2] The Fairness Doctrine How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back by Steve Rendall, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) 2/12/2005.

Video: Thom Hartmann asks "should the Fairness Doctrine death be taken off the books?"

SWTD #94

Means Testing Is An Insidious Plan to Destroy Social Security & Medicare

The notion that the benefits are an earned right separates Social Security from means-tested income-support programs. ... Means testing is a feature of taxpayer-funded welfare programs designed to help the poor. A means test would inevitably erode the universal and contributory nature of Social Security and some of the popular support that has sustained it for nearly 75 years ~ John Rother; an excerpt from his 1/29/2010 article "Don't Means Test Social Security" from the "political opinion" section of US News & World Report.

The following discussion/rant is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 8/11/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom answers a caller's question regarding means testing programs like Social Security and Medicare...

Caller: Wouldn't it make sense to put the people in the program that actually need the assistance, and leave the people who don't need to be in the program out of it? Putting everyone under one umbrella is going to be a lot more inefficient and a lot more expensive? Take care of the people who need taking care of and leave the rest of the people out.

Thom Hartmann: You just brought up my favorite Republican talking point. This is probably one of the most sick and twisted Republican talking points that's out there. This is the Republican plan to destroy Social Security and Medicare... through something called means testing. There are 132 thousand people in the United States who make over a million dollars a year. And so they're saying why are those people getting a social security check? Why does Warren Buffett who's 80 years old... why is he eligible for Medicare?

Well, here's why... it's very simple. When you start means testing a program, when you say that anyone who has "means", anyone who is rich shouldn't get that program, only the people who need the program, who don't have means should be in the program... then that programs becomes what's called Welfare. Now, when Bill Clinton came into office... of the people who lived below the poverty line - 57 percent were eligible for Welfare.

After Clinton's Welfare reform, which sold well to the American people, because we were in the middle of the dot-com bubble... everybody, Democrats and Republicans looked and said there aren't that many poor people anymore... so let's cut the Welfare programs. Let's make it harder for people to stay on Welfare for extended periods of time. Now it's down to 27 percent. Only 27 percent of people who are actually in poverty can get Welfare.

Because, in large part, because of the changes that were made during the Clinton administration. Although there were changes made before and after... this isn't a bash Bill Clinton screed. The point here is that when something is only available to poor people... poor people don't make campaign contributions. Poor people do not have lobbyists in Washington DC. And so the first thing that goes on the chopping block are programs only for poor people. If you want to destroy Social Security and Medicare, the first thing you do is get all the rich people out of it by means testing.

That way it's no longer an insurance program that covers everybody. Then, once you get them out of it in terms of it in terms of benefits. Then you can say why are they paying into it, because they're getting nothing out of it? Then you can cut even more money out of it, and now you've got a program that's really in a crisis.

This is the Republican strategy... to sound very reasonable... whether it's in an editorial that they're writing for the newspaper, or it's in a phone call to a radio show... This is one of the slickest, sneakiest, most slimy and disgusting strategy going. Saying we need to means test Social Security and Medicare and turn them into Welfare programs.

Note: If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of this segment of audio can be found at 13:02 to 16:54 of Hour 3 on Wednesday August 24 of 2011.

See Also: [Contra O'Reilly, 4/24/2015] On the Fact that Means-Testing Social Security and Medicare Used to Be a Liberal Position (Jimmy Carter, to His Credit, Has Advocated it) but Because that Idiot, Thom Hartmann, Came Up with Some Paranoiac Theory that this Would Lead to the Program's Total Demise, it Isn't Any Longer.

SWTD #93

Reading Sleeping with The Devil Leads To Great Bliss & Complete Knowledge

Pain and foolishness lead to great bliss and complete knowledge, for Eternal Wisdom created nothing under the sun in vain -- Kahlil Gibran (1/6/1883 to 4/10/1931) a Lebanese American artist, poet, and writer chiefly known in the English speaking world for his 1923 book "The Prophet", an early example of inspirational fiction including a series of philosophical essays written in poetic English prose.

The head of the Progressive Ideology Foundation Laura Fawkes smiled and embraced me. "Welcome back Dervish", she said warmly. "We were genuinely worried about you when you disappeared and it appeared to be foul play".

"Actually", I said, "I've been back at work for more than four months now. Although, according to what I've heard, nobody really cared that I'd disappeared or that foul play may have been involved. My research assistant Janeane told me that the tip line our security man Rusty Farber set up received zero calls. And I heard that you alerted the news media, but they declined to cover the story".

"We suspected the two officers from Tannis Protection who have been hanging around here were responsible, but when we called their office they denied it", Laura responded.

"It was Smurf Jones and Tony Hawkins, acting under the direction of Emergency Financial Manager Reginald Kingston who kidnapped me, held me for several days, and then released me".

"Thank goodness they released you", Laura Fawkes interjected.

"Actually, I don't feel that lucky", I replied. "They beat me savagely... and caused me to miss my appointment with the representative of George Soros. An appointment I had hoped would allow me to obtain additional funding for my blog. I tried to set up another appointment, but the representative said all the money that Mr. Soros had set aside to support Liberal bloggers had been allocated for the year".

I saw a look of genuine concern cross Laura's face when I mentioned my failure to secure the funding from George Soros. That had, in fact, been the reason why the Tannis goons had nabbed me. They wanted me to miss the meeting and lose the Soros funding. Also, after I returned from my three days of imprisonment and torture I found that the entirety of my investigative staff - almost a dozen people, had been reassigned to other, more successful bloggers.

Budget cuts at the Foundation were why I sought the funding from Soros to begin with. Laura told me awhile ago that the Liberal think tank (also known as PIF or informally as Liberal Headquarters) could no longer pay for my investigative staff. My Senior Fellow position with PIF was safe, as was Janeane's (since she had been assigned to be my research assistant in my pre-blogging days), but the Foundation would no longer subsidize work on my blog.

As a Senior Fellow I was a success, but as a blogger I was a failure. I considered shuttering the blog, but decided to keep it open and update it only occasionally, on my own time. So, Sleeping with the Devil was not going to become successful like The Daily Kos or The Huffington Post.

My plans were initially that it would, but clearly that was now out of the question. Unless I could obtain funding from another source. But perhaps it was for the best. I probably wouldn't have been approved for the Soros funding even if I had kept that meeting... which made me wonder, why were Jones and Hawkins so keen to keep me from it?

"In any case, I'm glad to hear you've decided to refocus your energies on your research here at the Foundation", Laura Fawkes said, interrupting my train of thought.

"Yes, I won't be wasting any more of my time here at work with that foolishness" I fibbed.

What I did on my own time didn't concern the division chief. Clearly she didn't read my blog anyway, or pay attention to the expense reports I submitted. Janeane wasn't supposed to attend the conference in DC with me back in May, but when I submitted my request for reimbursement for two plane tickets and two rooms at the Capitol Hill Suites, her office approved it.

"Great! That's all I wanted to talk to you about... I just wanted to be sure the blogging issue was settled", Laura said, dismissing me.

I left, shutting the door to her office behind me. Out in the hall I spotted Barry. He was standing there, apparently waiting for me. In his hands he held a small wrapped package topped with a bow.

When he saw me Barry smiled and said, "So, Dervish, I'm guessing Laura lowered the hammer?"

"Barry, I have no idea what you're talking about", I answered. Then I started down the hall at a brisk pace, not wanting to know what Barry was talking about.

"Wait up", Barry said, trotting after me. "This is for you", he said, handing me the package. "It's a parting gift; something to say, sorry to see you go, if you will".

"Barry, I'm not going anywhere, except away from you", I said, swatting the package away.

"What the hell?", Barry exclaimed. "I know you've never liked me Dervish, but I like you. And I'm genuinely sad you got canned".

But Barry didn't look sad; in fact he was still grinning. What Barry didn't know was, being a Senior Fellow, I couldn't be fired except by the board of directors. Laura Fawkes wasn't on the board, and thus had no power to terminate my employment. But I didn't tell Barry that. I grabbed his present and walked away.

Finally I lost Barry when I sprinted up a flight of stairs on my way to my office on the second floor. But shortly after I closed and locked my door I heard Barry knocking. I ignored the thumping and tossed Barry's unopened gift in the trash.

 swtd-92. polfi-10.  Previous. Next.

Figures Don't Lie, But Rick Perry Figures

Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures ~ Evan Esar (1899 to 1995) an American humorist who wrote Esar's Comic Dictionary 1943, "Humorous English" in 1961, and 20,000 Quips and Quotes in 1968.

The following monologue is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 8/17/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom's rant concerns Texas Governor (and 2012 presidential candidate) Rick Perry's claims of job creation in his state...

Thom Hartmann: Rick Perry is running around saying, quote, "Since June of 2009, Texas is responsible for more than 40 percent of all of the new jobs created in America. Now think about that. We’re home to less than 10 percent of the population in America, but 40 percent of all the new jobs were created in that state". End of quote.

Now, notice that he says since the end of June 2009. If you go back to 2008, jobs actually grew faster in Massachusetts (a classic example of "figures don't lie, but liars can figure"). And secondly, Texas has actually done worse than the rest of the country in increasing rates of unemployment. In fact they are the worst in the country, in terms of how rapidly unemployment has increased in the state.

Why? For the exact same reason why they have created more jobs than any other state - because over 437 thousand people of working age people (it's probably over a million when you consider their spouses and children) have moved into Texas. Many of them from Mexico. Many of them from surrounding states. But because Texas by-and-large doesn't enforce anti-immigration laws like Arizona, a lot of illegal immigrants are moving out of Arizona into Texas, and because Texas hasn't a higher minimum wage than any other state, you've got a lot of cheap labor in that state. A lot of cheap labor.

So, 437 thousand people moved into the state, and the state only created 126 thousand jobs. So, Texas has seen an explosion in unemployment. Over 300 thousand people - the most rapid explosion of unemployment in the entire United States. At the same time they created more jobs.

I would submit, that probably the major factor, is that because of Senate bill 1070 in Arizona, people who are in Arizona illegally... or simply people who are in Arizona and committing the crime of walking down the street while being Hispanic, even if they're American citizens... those people are saying screw this hostile atmosphere, I'll go to Texas, where people are actually, in many parts of Texas, proud of the fact that they're bilingual, and a lot of people have Mexican heritage. People who are 5th generation American Texans, are proud of their Mexican heritage.

So you've got a lot of people moving out of Arizona and into Texas. But while 126 thousand of them found a job, 300 thousand of them didn't. It turns out Rick Perry is really wrong. But expect him to repeat it... it's his lie.

Note: If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of this segment of audio can be found at 13:30 to 17:03 of Hour 2 on Wednesday August 17 of 2011.

SWTD #91

The Hard Left Progressive Who Lost Faith in President Obama's Vision

I'm going to vote NO. I think this proposal is extraordinarily unfair. It's going to make devastating cuts to programs that working families and low-income people desperately need. At the same time it is not going to ask the wealthiest people in this country or the largest corporations to contribute one nickel to deficit reduction. It is not only grotesquely immoral; it is very bad economic policy that will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs ~ Bernie Sanders (dob 9/8/1941) responding to a question asked by guest host Al Sharpton on MSBC's 8/1/2011 airing of the Ed Show. Bernie Sanders is the junior United States Senator from Vermont.

In the end the President blinked ~ Lawrence O'Donnell (b. 11/7/1951) on the 8/1/2011 broadcast of his MSNBC program "The Last Word".

I've lost faith in President Obama's vision, or, more accurately, I've lost faith that his vision is what I used to believe (or hoped) it was. Also, when I suggested (in my previous post) that Social Security Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that benefit the poor are back on the chopping block I was wrong. Not only was I wrong, but I was implying that the President is a liar. This is what a self-described "good 'ole hippie liberal" who is now disappointed with the "hard left" progressives says.

I'm sorry to disappoint a fellow Liberal, but I believe Glenn Greenwald who says Obama wants to "cut entitlement programs long cherished by liberals [because it] will increase his appeal to independents and restore his image of trans-partisan conciliator that he so covets". I also believe Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks who says Obama is "eager" to cut entitlements (see the video at the bottom of this post).

For the record I do NOT believe the President is a liar. He just didn't say any of these programs are protected from cuts. The super committee CAN cut anything. Everything IS on the table. I'm going by what it says in the "Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline" fact sheet on the White House website.

Specifically the fact sheet says, "The President did not agree to any entitlement reforms OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT of a bipartisan committee process where tax reform WILL be on the table and the President will insist on shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks".

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that benefit low income folks are safe from any cuts ONLY if the super committee can't reach an agreement, or the recommendations of the super committee are voted down by either house of Congress, or if they are vetoed by the president.

In regards to that possibility Robert Greenstein, founder of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (and a guest on the 8/1/2011 airing of MSNBC's "The Last Word") said, "the super committee could raise revenue but it will not [because] Boehner will not appoint a single Republican who will approve any tax increases". And he concluded that "it is a FOREGONE CONCLUSION that the super committee will fail".

But I'm not so sure the super committee will fail. The members of the super committee will consist of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans (who haven't been selected yet), and if this committee is anything like the Simpson-Bowles committee, they WILL recommend cutting entitlements. For all we know the 3 Democrats appointed could be Blue Dogs and EAGER to cut entitlements.

If a second deficit reduction package that includes entitlement reforms is agreed to by the super committee and passes Congress - I think Obama will sign it.

Also, contrary to what the hippie Liberal believes, the president didn't promise to let the bush tax cuts expire. What he promised is that he wouldn't extend them for the wealthy a second time. HOWEVER, this is the same promise he broke when he said he was initially going to let them expire. I see another excuse similar to the first one coming.

Remember the first time he extended them he said he didn't have a choice because the Republicans were holding tax cuts for the middle class hostage? The same thing is going to happen again... and Lawrence O'Donnell (a progressive pundit both I and the hippie Liberal watch) agrees... or, it is my impression he does.

Last night (8/1/2011) Lawrence O'Donnell said (not an exact quote), "The Republicans will always win in the fight to extend the bush tax cuts UNLESS the President is willing to let all the tax cuts expire, including tax cuts for the middle class and working poor - and extending these cuts was something Obama campaigned on".

I think the super committee will recommend cutting entitlements. I think the Super Committee will NOT recommend, "shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks". I think Congress will pass the super committee's debt reduction package, and I think Obama will sign it. Or, this is what I FEAR will happen.

The only way I see this not happening is if either - Robert Greenstein is right and, "it is a foregone conclusion that the super committee will fail", or if Progressive Democrats block the package - and every time in the past when they said they might block something... they did not. They said they'd block the Affordable Care Act if it didn't include a public option. They said they'd block the deal that extended the bush tax cuts. They said they'd block the deficit reduction deal that included the raising of the debt ceiling if it didn't involve "shared sacrifice".

The President, I'm afraid, WILL sign a deficit reduction package that cuts entitlements and contains ZERO "shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks". I hope I'm wrong and the hippie Liberal is right, but being part of the "hard left" I'm inclined to believe (even though I can think for myself) other "hard lefties" like Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Robert Greenwald, Cenk Uygur and Bernie Sanders.

Hopefully we're all wrong and what the president negotiated is "a win for the economy and budget discipline". Or perhaps, as Lawrence O'Donnell said on his program, the largest deficit reduction package in history is actually the "the most ill-conceived deficit reduction package in history" and "the stupidest deficit reduction package in history".

SWTD #90

An Age of Austerity & Plutocracy

Historians will look back on tonight and this week as the beginning of the age of austerity in America ~ Jonathan Alter (b. 10/6/1957) speaking in his role as an MSNBC contributor on 7/31/2011 and referring to the debt-ceiling deal. Alter is a journalist and author who has written books on Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama. Alter was the senior editor for Newsweek magazine from 1983 until 2011, and is currently a lead columnist for Bloomberg Review.

One of the final nails is close to be hammered into the coffin. Yesterday (7/31/2011) the President and Republican leadership reached an agreement to withdraw life support from a dying economy. There may be something to Lawrence O'Donnell's claim that President Obama won the debate by appearing to be the only reasonable party amongst the negotiators, and that could very well help him win Independent and Moderate votes in 2012, but at what cost?

The economy will not recover nor will jobless numbers drop by any significant amount. Unemployment figures are likely to start rising again once the cutting begins and we'll head into a double-dip (or a prolonged period of stagnation). Will Independent voters still go for Obama in November of 2012 because 16 month previously he capitulated to Republican demands for zero tax increases (or even elimination of loopholes) for the wealthy? Or will they cast their votes for Willard Romney?

The title of economist Paul Krugman's 7/31/2011 New York Times article is The President surrenders. Krugman says that when the deal goes though, "many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they will be wrong". The entire package may turn out to be a wash anyway, since slashing spending will further depress the economy and thus tax receipts. Krugman compares spending cuts to "medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker".

This is the lesson the Republicans learned when they forced the president to agree to the very bad deal back in December of 2010 when the bush tax cuts were extended. Paul Krugmann says that this is when the President should have "demanded an increase in the debt ceiling".

Krugman calls the deal a "catastrophe", pointing out that "just a few weeks ago [Democrats] seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare [but] now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away". Because this deal creates (another) comission that will recommend (by November) an additional 1.5 trillion in cuts (in addition to the 1 trillion in cuts already agreed to). The big three, says the president, will again be "on the table".

According to Robert Reich's article, "Ransom Paid", "Anyone who characterizes the deal... as a victory for the American people over partisanship understands neither economics nor politics". In his absolutely correct assessment of the situation, Reich says, "biggest economic challenge we face is restoring jobs and wages and economic growth". Mr. Reich also makes the point that cutting spending will cause the economy to contract (therefore if you think this is a good deal you do not understand economics). Also, the deal was arrived at not through negotiations but through brinkmanship and hostage taking, which isn't how the political process is supposed to work.

This is a very bad deal for the Democrats and for the country - and the Republicans know it. In fact, I say they are banking on it. When the cuts are enacted and the economy predictably contracts - the Republicans will be quick to blame the president. The worsening economy will help the presidential campaigns of Willard Romney and (for certain) Michele Bachmann (who didn't want to raise the debt ceiling at all). I've heard it suggested that we could see a Romney-Palin ticket in 2012. With Michele as VP the problem some Republicans who may have a problem voting for a Mormon will be overcome.

First on the agenda for President Romney will be the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, followed by passage of Cut, Cap, and Balance. Although, even if all three branches of government were controlled by the Republicans, I doubt 3/4ths of state legislatures would pass a balanced budget Constitutional amendment. But even without a Constitutional amendment, a Republican-controlled government could institute a lot of harsh austerity measures, even over the objections of the people (austerity measures have been passed in Greece, despite the fact that Greek citizens are demonstrating against them).

Is this the beginning of an age of austerity and plutocracy to coincide with depression and decline? Contrary to the hypothesis put forward by Lawrence O'Donnell who believes the President prevailed in the debt ceiling negotiations, I think Barack Obama may have set himself up for defeat in 2012. I'm worried that the bush recession will lead to the Romney depression.

This is the second half of the very bad deal and, in my opinion, should be rejected by Democrats (or all non-Blue Dog Democrats, at least). I've included a list of petitions below. It is my strong belief that Barack Obama should reject any deal that does not include tax increases and invoke the 14th amendment if necessary.

Petitions to Reject President Obama's Capitulation
->Tell Congress: Kill The Bill a petition from Democrats.com.
->Dennis Kuchinich's petition to tell President Obama that Social Security is not a Pawn.

SWTD #89