Jim Jones 2012 / 8-14-11

I used to shake my fits at their antics, roll my eyes at their lies.

Now I just feel pity for them.

The Republican candidates for president, that's who.

Last week at the Iowa debate, they were offered a hypothetical situation in which they could defeat the deficit by passing ten times as many spending cuts as tax raises. (Ten times!) They were asked to raise their hand if they would oppose such a deal.

Hey, guess what? They all raised their hands, like the dutiful little unthinking boys and girls they've become.

Because they've been brainwashed, you see.

(I know the real answer is somewhat different. It's political suicide to declare any kind of support for any kind of tax increase with primary season just around the corner. The R's had no choice, from a strategic standpoint. Adorably, Tim Pawlenty -- who has since dropped out, to which I must add a punctuationally illegal exclamation point! -- hesitated. He recovered and shot his arm up too. But what an cute little almost-thinker he was, if only for a moment. Seriously. He quit the race three days later.)

Anyway, the brainwashed thing makes so much sense. Because here's what the Republicans said no to Thursday night: eliminating the national debt.

They didn't just say no to balancing the budget and living with the $14.6 trillion or so we now owe, paying our minimum balance of $500 billion (!!!!) every year, never getting anywhere in the long term. They said no to turning that entire balance, the one we've spent our history accumulating, into zero.

All $14.6 trillion, gone. They declined that offer.

Analogy time. They said no to this domestic situation:

I make $60,000 a year. Pleasant salary for a single guy.

Well... I pay $20,000 for housing, $10,000 in taxes, $30,000 to survive, and I'm also on the hook for $5,000 annually in the form of minimum payments on my credit cards. How long will I last at this rate? Hm.

But look! I am offered another part-time job that will cause me to make a little less at my old job, and will cut into my leisure time because I'll be working more hours, but my income will increase overall to $75,000. I'll be able to pay off my cards AND save a little each month AND treat myself to something nice again. A vacation? A new home theater? A motorcycle.

Do I say no to the second job? Not only would I be able to pay off my credit cards, but I would be able to start setting myself up for life.

And I could always quit after my financial house is back in order. The second job, the extra revenue -- I won't always need it. I just am in kind of a bind right now, and it would come in awfully handy.

Analogy over. Reality now: Instituting a new tax bracket on ultra-wealthy Americans would raise about $800 billion over the next decade. (Got some numbers from here, so I'm not totally guessing.)

Couple that with the $8 trillion in cuts that come bundled with the extra revenue, and that pesky debt plus its annoying interest is halfway gone within ten years. Not only that, but you're running a surplus now. Within another decade, the entire debt has disappeared, and you could choose to lower tax rates or expand your safety net. Both, even.

Oh, but it gets better.

You don't need a 10-to-1 cuts-to-taxes ratio to get there. 4-1 is enough. And you can cross off the debt in less than one decade. Just let the Bush tax cuts expire next year, as they are scheduled to. The federal coffers will ka-ching to the tune of $3.6 trillion more in the next ten years. And $14.4 trillion in cuts come packaged with that, remember. That's a total of $18 trillion.

Debt gone.

To recap: the Republican candidates are so committed to lower taxes that they wouldn't even raise taxes if it were only on the richest one percent of taxpayers, only by a handful of percentage points, and even if it led to reducing the national debt to zero.

Like the headline says: Jim Jones 2012, everyone!

What This Nation Needs Right Now / 8-13-11

Yes sir, what this nation needs right now is more Rick Perry.

Katy's dad formally announced he's running for President this morning, joining a crowded field of one principled libertarian, one billionaire who's never held office, one serial marriagist, two Mormons (ed. note: unlike most right-wing evangelicals, I have no personal issues with the LDS faith), one wild-eyed homophobe, and lastly, whatever Tim Pawlenty's handlers want him to be this week. Plus maybe Sarah "There Is No I In Quit" Palin. If we're lucky.

Perry's announcement comes with a negative amount of surprise. His entrance was long rumored, and he did so officially Saturday morning. Welcome to the party, Governor.

(Rejected material, on account of it being too easy:

Yes sir, what this nation needs right now is another Texas governor who wears his supposed religion on his sleeve.)

Real material:

Yes sir, what this nation needs right now is a guy who can create jobs. Texas' unemployment rate was a shiny 4.2 percent when Perry took office in 2000. It was still 4.4 in early 2008. Now it's 8.4, and it's been hangin' in the 8's since. Sure sounds like a guy who can transcend macroeconomic trends and can put people to work regardless.

Yes sir, what this nation needs right now is a guy who can lead us out of perilous debt. Like in Texas. With GOP control of every branch of government and the courts, he implemented the kind of fiscally sound ideas that... oh... they're going to fall short by $27 billion in the next two years. Proportionally, that's a larger deficit than California.

Yes sir, what this nation needs right now is a guy who can fix health care. His solution in Texas has been clean and cheap: stop letting people get coverage at all. One in four Texans goes without health insurance, compared to one in six nationally. That's because 550,000 jobs in Texas are minimum wage and come without pesky "benefits" like insurance. In fact, Texas leads the nation, tied with Mississippi, in jobs that pay the minimum or lower, and those kinds of jobs have doubled since 2008.

Yes sir, what this nation needs right now is a guy who can pray.

Well, that can't work any worse that what he's tried so far.

Patriot Facts / 6-23-11

My cat is fluffy.

(They teach you how to write compelling lead sentences, called "ledes," at journalism school. I think I slept in that day.)

So fluffy, sometimes we call him "Floofy." And by we, I mean someone in our household made it up as a clever nickname, and it caught on, because cute, and now the cat gets called that nickname more often than his totally awesome given name, a name which someone brilliant in our household pulled out of thin air, but we'll get to that part in due time, within some other hideously constructed run-on sentence.

Fear not. This is not a post about my cat.

So my five-year-old and I walk out the front door the other day, and there's the cat, rolling around in the front yard. The boy walks over to pet the cat on the belly. Those two get along great. It's sweet.

Fear not. This is not a post about my five-year-old.

But the five-year-old DOES say, mid-stroke, "He's so floofy."

Me: "He is. Imagine this, though, Alex -- the other day, I petted a cat that was EVEN softer than Sherlock."

(Which is, again, such a boss name for a cat. Seriously. Props to whoever came up with that. Kudos.)

Alex: *jaw drops open*

Me: "S'true."

Alex: *exaggeratedly pained expression*

Alex: "Dad, why are you being mean to Floofy?"

Suspend all remaining fear. This is a post about patriotism. Because having a discussion about what's wrong with America is too often like trying to explain to a small child that his pet can be outdone in some facet by another pet.

Me: "Well, in Sweden, their infant mortality rate --"

Patriot blinded by jingosim: "Socialists."

Me: "The thing is, our education administrators could take a cue from --"

PBJ: "We're the best."

Me: "Mounting deficits in Greece could wreck that nation's economy --"

PBJ: "Can't happen here."

Me: "Health insurance is guaranteed by the Canadian governm --"

PBJ: "Pussies."

Me: "Heart disease is lower in countries that outlaw chemicals in food and --"

PBJ: "McNuggets kick ass. 20 for $4.99, dude."

Facts. I got 'em. (Pardon the lack of links. Mostly trusting wikipedia here anyway.)

The U.N. lists 33 countries ahead of the U.S. in infant mortality rate. Singapore, Slovenia, Israel, New Caledonia all come out with better results.

Results of worldwide testing in math, reading and science in 2010 reveal U.S. students to be "average" among the 70 nations who participated.

The CIA's factbook for 2011 estimates that 49 countries have a higher life expectancy at birth than the United States. Jordan is one of those 49. Bosnia too.

We spend between 5 and 10 percent each year, as a government, on interest stemming from our national debt. (Just the interest, mind you.) This is in part because our national debt represents about 60 percent of our GDP. You know how much Russia's national debt is, relative to their GDP? Less than 10 percent. Huh. Wonder if that'll ever matter.

I love my country. But can we just admit already that as Americans, we could learn A LOT from how the rest of the world conducts its business? Can we just get over ourselves, face our deficiencies, and actually begin to address them?

Or will countless reports that highlight our warts continue to get swept under the suicidal banner of "No need to worry about that, we're the best"? I faintly hope not.

Madison, Egypt / 2-21-11

Tunisia and Egypt threw off their Dictator-Presidents earlier this month. Hundreds of protesters perished last weekend in Libya; the carnage there continues today.

Why?

It's simple. They've been oppressed for decades. Centuries.

All they want is some freedom. Self-governance. Civil liberties. Economic freedoms. More guaranteed rights. Just like the ones a lot of other humans enjoy. Freedom engenders a righteous envy.

Most basically, they want more flavors of liberty.

It makes perfect sense: Freedom is delicious. Far from blaming Tunisians, Egyptians and now Libyans for causing trouble, we admire their efforts and wish them success.

Meanwhile, nobody has died in Wisconsin (U.S.A.) during the week of protests against Governor Scott Walker's plan to remove certain collective bargaining rights from nurses, firefighters, teachers and cops.

And Mr. Walker has only been in office eight weeks. He's not yet eligible for dictator status anyway.

Plus, he's not proposing to suspend religious freedom. Or curtail free speech. Or revoke the Second Amendment. He's just trying to break unions.

But this is where comfort might come from tonight: Human beings a continent and a half away are selflessly shedding their own blood, in pursuit of more rights. And thankfully, respecting their sacrifice, enough of us in this freest of nations continue to resist those who would nudge us (even if only a little) back toward the ugly place from which so many North Africans are trying to flee.

Carry on, Wisconsin protesters. And any lovers of liberty worldwide, you too.

Give Me Taxes Or Give Me Death, Part II / 9-14-10

Well well, look who's not really serious about the deficit after all.

Republicans screaming "Save the tax cuts for the rich," that's who.

Summary: Bush tax cuts for everyone are set to expire at the end of the year. President Obama wants them to expire - for those individuals or families making more than $250k, but not for the middle class. He's fine with extending that portion of the tax cut. Republicans say they'll fight that course of action if congressional Democrats try it. The tax cuts will expire for everyone and tax rates will return to 1999 levels if no agreement is reached.

It is that simple. All other commentary is helpful, but not crucial. It comes down to, whose side are you on? And most the D's are, yet again, as almost always, on the side of 98 percent of the population, and all the R's are, yet again, as almost always, on the side of 2 percent of the population. (Follow the link. Do it.)

Looking at pure numbers, the President shouldn't have a terrible time selling his preference to Americans, except that his White House couldn't make itself look good if it invented cold fusion and brokered permanent peace in the Middle East while solving world hunger on the side.

All BHO has to say is something like this, right?

"We were a more prosperous, more responsible nation while President Clinton was in office. I believe the tax rates that were reasonable in the nineties remain reasonable now for our wealthiest citizens. George Bush's tax cuts were reckless and unnecessary, and should they survive, they would grow the deficit to an even more dangerous level. You can't have it both ways, my conservative friends. You can't spend the last two years harping on the deficit your party's presidents created, then decline to raise revenue when the opportunity presents itself in the natural way it has. Either you're for deficit reduction or against it. Time to choose. I've chosen my route, and I am proud of it, and I trust the American people to support a more responsible course of action than the one they've grown accustomed to seeing from their leaders.

"Therefore, you will join me in letting the tax cuts expire for only the wealthiest Americans. Or you will show yourselves to be the deficit enablers you have been for the past 30 years."

Instead, we got:

"But we’re still in this wrestling match with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell about the last 2 to 3 percent, where, on average, we’d be giving them $100,000 for people making a million dollars or more — which in and of itself would be OK, except to do it, we’d have to borrow $700 billion over the course of 10 years. And we just can’t afford it."

It's a start. But we're not in a wrestling match, Mr. President. A power struggle you should be winning, but aren't. Yet. Partly because there are five numbers in that sentence. And while I followed what you were saying, most people tuned you out after $100,000, before you got to the important part: the "we just can't afford it" part. That's the lead. People understand "we can't afford it." Nowadays, it rings true and urgent. Start there, mix in a jab about how Republicans only care about the deficit when it gives them an excuse to block legislation aimed to help the middle class, then give numbers for support.

(I sound arrogant, but mostly I'm just annoyed with how the facts and public opinion are on the D's side and yet the fight goes on.)

Here are some more encouraging responses from Democrats, all from Massachusetts.

Rep. Michael Capuano: “We either have to give Republicans everything they want or they’ll take their ball and go home? Well, go home then."

Rep. Jim McGovern: “I would be happy to listen to any ideas that my Republican friends have that won’t explode the deficit and which would actually help create jobs — like tax credits for small businesses and incentives for manufacturing.’’

Rep. Richard Neal, a key member of the House Ways and Means Committee: “If there’s a compromise that we can live with that protects the middle class, I’m open to it,’’ adding he wants to dedicate revenue from expiring tax cuts to begin to pay down Iraq war debt.

Let's see if THAT message gets out.

Take 5 / 12-07-09

(First things first: Apologies to Dave Brubeck for the headline.)

Here are five quick takes on the three topics that are legal to discuss on this blog. By the way, that holy trinity is comprised of politics, sports and spirituality. In case you hadn't noticed.

I. Health care reform

A bill reforming health care will clear the Senate. Sometime this month or next. It may or may not be a good bill. What's a good bill, you ask? Something that addresses the unethical number of uninsured Americans and something that provides for an avenue for certain folks to purchase government-issued health insurance in certain states; in other words, something that brings down long-term costs to society by accomplishing those two goals.

A great bill would be Medicare For Everyone. That's not on the table, sadly. But with incremental progress, we can get there, and this bill would appear to represent incremental progress in that direction. Just because it doesn't go far enough doesn't make it a bad bill, just a placeholder.

The opposition will not muster the 41 votes necessary to filibuster the bill, whatever form it takes. Filibustering, for the political novices out there, is the act of NOT ending debate on a bill. Debate must end, by a 60-40 or greater vote, for a piece of legislation to be considered for passage. (Even more parenthetically, it is FALSE and UNTRUE and INACCURATE that a bill must receive 60 votes to clear the Senate and head to President Obama's desk. It only needs a simple majority of 51 votes, or failing that, 50 plus Vice President Biden's.) So a very determined group of 40 or more Senators can keep legislation from ever COMING to a vote by filibustering it, but it takes 51 to vote it down once it clears that hurdle. Yes, I'm done with caps lock for a few paragraphs.

In short, not that I have any brevity-ability whatsoever, too many individual Democrats have too much to lose, and by "too much" I mean any position of privilege or leadership or committee chairmanship, by filibustering a bill brought to the floor by their own party. A number of D's may elect to vote against the bill after it clears the filibuster, but they will not commit political suicide by snubbing their self-interested noses at the party leaders. And if one of them does (yes, I'm glaring at you, Joe L.), Obama will pick off one of the Maine Republicans to break ranks.

II. TARP refund

Apparently, of the approximately $97,245 quopthrillion earmarked last year for the bailing out of financial institutions, the government will receive a refund of $200 billion. (Yes, the first figure is a slight slight slight tiny little tiny exaggeration. The second number is accuratish. Truthy, even.)

Early speculation had Obama laundering that money into a jobs bill. Because there seems to be a rumor out there that unemployment is high. Well, BHO said today he's gonna use a chunk of it to pay down the projected budget deficit instead.

This move is either shrewd, concessionary (not an actual word), morally responsible, or a combination of all three. (Always my favorite. The large supreme sans olives.)

Shrewd because it appeals to independents for whom the mounting deficit is alarming. Concessionary because Republicans have hypocritically been clamoring for excess funds to be applied to the gaping budget hole. (This despite the fact that their presidents practically invented the deficit.) And morally responsible because a good way to screw our kids and grandkids over is to leave them with a crippling national debt. We should be teaching them loads and loads of Mandarin, by the way. Just in case.

All three of the above, in 40-25-35 proportions, seems about right.

III. Merriners ad newe thurd basemen

Seeattle whill sine thurd basemen Chone (prunounced "Schawn") Figgins tuah 4-yeer, $36-miliun kontrakt tudde'.

Two out of the last 20 words are spelled right... Yes, Mr. Figgins spells his name so it'll rhyme with scone, just not the way you're necessarily used to saying "scone" unless you're from London, Manchester, Sydney, or North Uppitycrust. Parents are interesting people sometimes.

Anyway. Figgins is awesome. Ichiro-lite with the bat, only with more walks, and a good defender to boot. The M's will annoy their way to many wins this season with those two dudes at the top of the lineup. I look forward to many 32-pitch first innings from the opposing pitcher. Hee hee.

IV. Tiger

Newsflash: Tiger Woods has a penis.

V. Copin' Hagglin'

(One of my best/worst recent puns. Admire it.)

Obama hosted Al Gore in the Oval Office as worldwide climate change talks in Denmark began. Other than providing Fox "News" with a chance to put two of their favorite villians (where was Hillary!?) in the same picture without having to use Photoshop, the meeting was uneventful... except to remind us that for all of Obama's compromising with Republicans, he is committed to addressing climate change from an orthodoxically liberal point of view.

To clarify that hideous sentence, he might ditch the public option, he might work a bunch of tax cuts into a stimulus bill, he might drag his feet on closing the Guantanamo prison, but he's holding the line on climate change. 17 percent cuts in CO2 by 2020 is his short-term goal; that climbs to 83 percent cuts by 2050. This is another reason he has a chance to be the most important/successful President in recent history.

P.S. I had fun with some of the links. Enjoy. Also, I'll try to not go a month between posts again. But no guarantees.

I guess we're all in / 5-31-09

There's a story the mainstream media loves to tell to illustrate housing bubble follies, and it goes a little somethin' like this:

Family sees friends' fancy house and fancy cars and buys matching toys without the income to back it up. Banks avert their eyes, lend the money. Family's debts come due and they opt to refinance to put the bill on the house, which eliminates their easily earned equity. Banks avert their eyes, lend the money. Housing market crashes. Family freaks out. So does the bank. Mayhem ensues.

(Maybe you know someone who fell into a similar trap. Maybe you find parts of your own story above. Don't be embarrassed.)

Turns out, the early part of this decade saw plenty of Americans crash and burn in such a way. (Other families, those whose income actually did grow to match their expenses, those folks landed softly, as per their plan, but they don't get a lot of play in the national media.) A good chunk of Americans got foreclosed on or had to declare bankruptcy or sold their homes at a six-figure loss. Lots of people got burned whether they "deserved" it or not. Which is a great topic for a future post.

The economic pain is ongoing. too: just pick up a newspaper, while you still can, and read five stories about how the economy is ruining dreams.

But you've heard all this before... what might not be clear yet is that we're pursuing a similar strategy on a national level.

We, the family U.S.A., owe an unconscionable sum to lenders. It's an unfathomable figure, but I'll link to it anyway. I refuse to type it. It's bigger now than when I typed the final "e" of the word that ends this sentence. (I just re-read that, and that's a pretty nifty mind trick, if I say so myself.)

Anyway, not only do we owe enough money to dedicate about $450 billion this year to INTEREST payments on that debt, but our annual pay. i.e., tax revenue, is inconveniently shrinking. You might have noticed we are in a steep recession. Just FYI.

So, because cause and effect are very real forces, our family is projected to be over $1.75 trillion in the hole this year. Reagan, Daddy Bush and Bushito were immorally careless to the tune of $8 trillion combined, but that nation-crippling project took them 20 years. (And they had to work around Bill Clinton's annoying penchant for balancing the budget.) Obama is shattering some hideous records here at a frightening pace. 1.75 trillion this year, maybe over a trillion again next year.

But if rosier times ARE around the corner, if health care reform passes and rescues countless households, if the giga-stimulus stops the bleeding, if home prices ever bounce back, if the stock market slowly but surely gets back on its horse, if consumer confidence rebounds soon enough, then we, the family U.S.A., could avoid forecluptcy at the hands of our creditors. And bankrosure, too, we could avoid that too.

In fact, not only could we emerge from Obama's presidency in a healthier, greener, energy-independentier lifestyle, but the long-term dividends from such moves could far eclipse our deficits this year and next. We could reverse the course set by so many shortsighted "leaders."

And that's Obama's bet. He's said to be a fair poker player; he's preparing to put us all in. Let's hope, for our kids' sake, that our hand is good enough.

Things that go "bong" in the night / 5-8-09

The rumors are all true: I've never smoked any weed. Never touched any illegal drugs, and I mean that literally. Caught a whiff of a joint once in an adjacent room. Didn't inhale.

But people, come on, really, can't we just stop prosecuting Americans who smoke pot?

I will leave the moral dimension of the argument for another day. I will leave the dilemma of impaired drivers by the wayside. For now. What I WILL do is talk about finances.

It costs this nation about $8 billion annually in prosecution costs and another billion in incarceration to wage war on potheads.

Certainly, mandated treatment is a real cost. Surely there exists a burden on business, when employees are jailed and/or terminated for weed-related offenses.

And think of the other side of the balance sheet: all that lost revenue. The grass tax. It's not just a catchy slogan. It could pay for programs. In a real shocker, California is considering this course of action.

Oh, and you want to make a real impact in the long-term budget, Mr. President? Legalize weed. (He's not going to do it. But maybe someday, someone in power will have the balls or the ovaries to try.)

And by the way, this crackdown on pot users, how well is it working? This well: 94 million of us are or have been users. But now I'm in Tangentville, and I semi-promised to argue for legalization on financial merits only. It'll take an awfully good counterargument to change my mind, but bring it on.

Bonus item: A variety of polls shows a variety of levels of support for legalization. What these polls don't show is that the issue is cut-and-dried.

Finally, a bit of full disclosure is in order: This post was not sponsored by Frito-Lay.