tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-61778483535592343312024-03-05T09:45:43.528-05:00Sign Sans Signified"...man [sic] is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself [sic] has spun." --Clifford GeertzSign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.comBlogger139125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-60277021429881017532016-05-21T23:27:00.000-04:002016-05-22T00:02:26.620-04:00Paging Don Quixote<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0-edAiFrfXdX6nSCXCZUpr1xKuTJr6pK7uuG4E6keRSCFjV41vu4QLwPDYAshLGUGHWOIyK4bOghHiTNUtCZ0LzZdxc28E0S9-1lrDf0tBZYMbA5jW7j858UCa35PEOExAmAVv6lRKjTy/s1600/ralph_nader_millionaire_hypocrite.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0-edAiFrfXdX6nSCXCZUpr1xKuTJr6pK7uuG4E6keRSCFjV41vu4QLwPDYAshLGUGHWOIyK4bOghHiTNUtCZ0LzZdxc28E0S9-1lrDf0tBZYMbA5jW7j858UCa35PEOExAmAVv6lRKjTy/s1600/ralph_nader_millionaire_hypocrite.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 16px;"><i>Note: When confronted with an argument as ludicrous as this, I generally move on to something more fruitful. But given that this nonsense is spreading around at the moment, I felt it necessary to say something.</i></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 16px;">In <a href="http://bit.ly/1WIjXu2" target="_blank">one of the most poorly reasoned posts</a> I've ever read, Patrick Walker & Kevin Zeese argue that Bernie Sanders could win the election as a third party candidate on a ticket with the Green Party's Jill Stein. They claim Sanders is “well-positioned for the general election campaign” because the largest group of voters is, like Sanders, independent; his “views...have become the national consensus;” and he's opposed by “the two most disliked major-party nominees in history” and “two divided parties.” Moreover, they claim that “[w]ithout Sanders in the picture, Trump could run to Clinton’s left.” Trump, they say, “has made some sensible statements against wars that contrast with Clinton’s militarist positions.” Lastly, they note that “Sanders has defeated Trump by more than 14 points in the last 10 polls measuring who would win if they ran against each other. And Sanders and Clinton are neck and neck in national polls.”</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 16px;">Walker & Zeese's argument has a multitude of problems. </span><br />
<span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 16px;">The fact that Sanders is an independent and that independents make up the largest bloc of voters does not mean independent voters are monolithic. In fact, as the <a href="http://pewrsr.ch/1JkAM4S" target="_blank">Pew Center for the People and the Press notes</a>,</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="line-height: 16px;">Most of those who identify as independents lean toward a party. And in many respects, partisan leaners have attitudes that are similar to those of partisans – they just prefer not to identify with a party. (See this appendix to our 2014 polarization report for an explainer on partisan “leaners.”)</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span><span style="line-height: 16px;">The balance of leaned partisan affiliation has changed little in recent years: 48% identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, while 39% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Democrats have led in leaned party identification among the public for most of the past two decades.</span></blockquote>
<span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 16px;">Assuming for the sake of argument that independents will vote as a bloc based on their prior party affiliation, Sanders could conceivably garner the votes of 49% of independents, if we assume that formerly Democratic independents would vote as a bloc for him alone. This might conceivably make some kind of sense (I find it far-fetched on its face) if we conveniently assume further that Hillary simply drops out of the race as a convenience to Sanders. But what evidence do Walker & Zeese have in support of such convenient assumptions? In reality, faced with a three-way race, the formerly Democratic portion of independents would split their votes between the two Democrats, giving the advantage to Trump.</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 16px;">Likewise, Walker & Zeese's assumption that Sanders' “views...have become the national consensus” is a bit of a stretch. While it is true that a large majority of the electorate agree very generally on the issues mentioned by the authors, such agreement dissolves fairly quickly when the conversation turns to remedies. Canvass the GOP on single payer health care, government action to break up the big banks and regulate the financial sector much more tightly than is currently the case, and you'll see consensus collapse in a heap. </span><br />
<span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 16px;">Amazingly, Walker & Zeese claim that “[w]ithout Sanders in the picture, Trump could run to Clinton’s left,” which, aside from a total absence of any inclination by Trump to do so, is belied by the obvious fact that were he to try it, he'd instantly lose the support of everyone within the GOP on whom he must depend to win the presidency and to fill appointments to government positions in his new administration. Moreover, Trump, they say, “has made some sensible statements against wars that contrast with Clinton’s militarist positions.” Presumably they weren't referring to Trump's statement that “I would bomb the [expletive deleted] out of [ISIS],” or his claim that he could force soldiers to ignore their oath of obedience to the constitution and perform acts of torture & kill their families. While it is true that Trump has made a few statements that were well outside traditional GOP warmongering boundaries, his inconsistencies are reflections not of any liberal impulses, but rather a total ignorance of politics, economics and everything else. Walker & Zeese may comfort themselves by redefining Trump as an occasional progressive. A more accurate interpretation of Trump's rhetorical teetering across the political spectrum is that a broken clock is right twice a day. </span><br />
<span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 16px;">Walker & Zeese note that “Sanders has defeated Trump by more than 14 points in the last 10 polls measuring who would win if they ran against each other. And Sanders and Clinton are neck and neck in national polls.” This, of course, conveniently overlooks the fact that while Clinton and Trump are known universally, Sanders himself is relatively unknown by the general public. And voters generally don't tune into the election contest until just before voting starts. Sanders has yet to undergo the kind of pulverizing Clinton has experienced at the hands of the GOP over the last 24 years. Tell me what his poll numbers look like after an avalanche of GOP slander. </span><br />
<span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 16px;">Why exactly an alliance with Jill Stein is supposed to be the vehicle for Bernie's accession to the presidency is never made clear in the post. Stein has far less name recognition than Bernie & no appreciable resources. The only possible effect such a quixotic candidacy would have is to siphon off votes from Hillary Clinton, thereby electing Trump. It is telling that Walker & Zeese assert that </span><span style="line-height: 16px;">“</span><span style="line-height: 16px;">It is also a myth that Nader cost Gore the election,</span><span style="line-height: 16px;">”</span><span style="line-height: 16px;"> given that their ridiculous argument is a blueprint for a repetition of exactly the same folly.</span></div>
Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0United States42.553080288955826 -72.773437517.031045788955826 -114.0820315 68.07511478895583 -31.4648435tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-55981050722291302852012-08-08T23:51:00.000-04:002012-08-08T23:51:25.806-04:00Romney Economic Team Disgraces Itself<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYt8_Yj2NG3_okATiXCaCUH8xtBMe4BNrH1JyXZ9UAgV9_HEoWZu3Ut0dN7ICE97cmrUzaq5-gPFFkF-ctmahyphenhyphenRuE_MTr9hV2O8r2MxCG-ioKIYEmw-DSWjdK7eqLrE4NDZxkyU44nQE2F/s1600/the-man-behind-the-curtain-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYt8_Yj2NG3_okATiXCaCUH8xtBMe4BNrH1JyXZ9UAgV9_HEoWZu3Ut0dN7ICE97cmrUzaq5-gPFFkF-ctmahyphenhyphenRuE_MTr9hV2O8r2MxCG-ioKIYEmw-DSWjdK7eqLrE4NDZxkyU44nQE2F/s320/the-man-behind-the-curtain-01.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The Brookings/Tax Policy Center study released a few days ago showed that Mitt Romney's taxation plans to :<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Lower tax rates by 20%</li>
<li>Offset rate reduction by eliminating tax expenditures (exemptions, deductions & credits)</li>
<li>But excluding expenditures dealing with investment income & savings</li>
<li>"[M]aintain the current level of progressivity by making sure that the top one percent pays no less in taxes and everyone else pays no more."</li>
</ul>
<br />
are impossible to achieve.<br />
<br />
Breaking down tax expenditures by social class, <a href="http://tinyurl.com/cq74ydz" target="_blank">Mike Konczal</a> shows that of those aimed at the working poor, 60% go to the bottom 40%; of those aimed at the middle class and upper middle class, +50% go to those between 80th & 99th percentile; and of those aimed at the top 1%, over 50% go to the top 0.1%, while 75% go to the top 1%.<br />
<br />
Romney's problem is that he wants to lower taxes on each group and offset the reduction by eliminating its tax expenditures--except for those related to capital gains, dividends and savings, which go almost entirely to the 1%. Ergo, he has to make up the gap by cutting deeper into tax expenditures for the poor and working class. The problem is that there aren't enough in tax expenditures to the latter two groups to make up the gap.<br />
<br />
The Romney campaign responded with a <a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/125714335/Romney-Tax-Reform-White-Paper" target="_blank">white paper</a> put together by its economic team: economists Kevin Hassett, Glenn Hubbard, Gregory Mankiw, and John Taylor, <b>"The Romney Program for Economic Recovery, Growth, and Jobs."</b><br />
<br />
The white paper <a href="http://tinyurl.com/9zcge93" target="_blank">claims </a>that Obama's economic stimulus plan was ineffective, and that "Uncertainty over policy – particularly over tax and regulatory policy – limited both the recovery and job creation."<br />
<br />
Unfortunately Romney's economic team cherry-picked the studies it used. Out of 15 studies of the stimulus, 13 found it to be at least partly effective. Of the two remaining, <a href="http://tinyurl.com/9zcge93" target="_blank">one was by John Taylor</a>, a member of Romney's economic team, and showed not that the stimulus didn't work, but that stimulus funds were diverted by states for other purposes. The <a href="http://tinyurl.com/8dvjjnw" target="_blank">other study</a> focused on the "cash for clunkers" program, not the stimulus as a whole.<br />
<br />
The white paper's claims that Obama tax and regulatory policies suppressed the recovery by creating uncertainty relies on circular reasoning and astonishingly shoddy methodology. The white paper creates an uncertainty index consisting of a news search, disagreement among economic forecasters, and "the number of federal tax code provisions set to expire in future years."<br />
<br />
The latter essentially blames Obama for uncertainty created by the fact that the Bush tax cuts, constructed by (among others) Romney economic team member Glenn Hubbard, were designed to be temporary, with an expiration date coinciding with Obama's election.<br />
<br />
The second part involves creation of a news search index constructed so as to function as a sort of echo chamber for conservative talking points, much like Fox News. As Mike Konzcal notes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Spokespeople for the conservative movement tell reporters that President Obama's policies are causing economic uncertainty. Reporters write it down and publish it. Economic researchers search newspapers for stories about economic uncertainty and policy, and create a policy uncertainty index out of those talking points. The conservative movement then turns around and points to the policy uncertainty index as scientifically justifying their initial talking points about Obama and uncertainty as well as the need to implement their policies. Taa-daa! Magic.</blockquote>
Lastly, the news search is <a href="http://tinyurl.com/8wjwerd" target="_blank">constructed </a>such that any story referencing the search terms will yield a positive result, whether the story reflects support for or opposition to the idea that uncertainty dampened the recovery, or whether the uncertainty in question had to do with supply or demand.<br />
<br />
So aside from the fact that the white paper (1) cherry picks studies to give a misleading picture of the stimulus; (2) tries to hold Obama responsible for the temporary nature of a GOP-written tax cut plan; (3) creates a news search index that pushes GOP talking points and falsely inflates its results, it's all good.<br />
<br />
And isn't this the perfect defense for a candidate who (a) tries to deny paternity of Obamacare; (b) has to hide from his record at Bain Capital; (c) had his gubernatorial staff destroy all e-mails prior to leaving the Massachusetts state house; (d) won't release his taxes; and most importantly, (e) won't tell the American public what he'll cut or by how much in order to pay for enormous tax cuts for the wealthiest?<br />
<br />Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-63367180994008613452012-07-25T23:14:00.000-04:002012-07-25T23:14:26.401-04:00Romney's Economic "Plan" in Brief<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRpH6HSVwOxjm85jD4Z8Ictdx1F2OU5dyDoohwQ-aKBRiU7dFkOxh6VmprpPDkcepzwaDlXdKOF3BOanoxe0i7FLmpNFK98dJDLwrEQBw5_EN1DPfwi2RxZTtTEooyceIsMt4GXOGojW9y/s1600/Anasethia.fivesurgeons.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRpH6HSVwOxjm85jD4Z8Ictdx1F2OU5dyDoohwQ-aKBRiU7dFkOxh6VmprpPDkcepzwaDlXdKOF3BOanoxe0i7FLmpNFK98dJDLwrEQBw5_EN1DPfwi2RxZTtTEooyceIsMt4GXOGojW9y/s320/Anasethia.fivesurgeons.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /><br /><div>
According to a <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-07-23/poll-romney-obama-economy/56439758/1" target="_blank">recent poll</a>, registered voters trust Mitt Romney more than Obama when it comes to managing the economy. Partly, this can be explained by the fact that the economy is still sputtering, with an <a href="http://www.bls.gov/cps/" target="_blank">8.2% unemployment rate</a> and slow GDP growth. Another cause may be the fact that hardly anyone knows what Romney actually has in store for our country's economy.<br /><br />With that in mind, here's a brief rundown of the economic components of Romney's plan and its effects, budgetary and economic.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To put it simply, Romney combines Paul Ryan's economic plan, the tea party demands for "cut, cap and balance," and replaces Ryan's call for a reduced rate of increase in defense spending with a massive increase of 66% above current levels.<br /><ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Massive tax cuts, overwhelmingly to the richest 1%:</span></li>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Making the Bush tax cuts (all of them) permanent</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Cutting tax rates 20% across all brackets</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Elimination of the estate tax</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Reduction of corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Elimination of corporate tax loopholes to offset the rate reduction above</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Changing corporate taxation so corporate earnings overseas are not taxable in the US</span></li>
</ul>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Cap on federal spending at 20% of GDP (federal budget is now 24% of GDP)</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">A huge increase in defense spending</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Repeal of Affordable Care Act</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Repeal of Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Turning Medicare into a voucher system</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Turning Medicaid funding into block grants</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution</span></li>
</ul>
<br /><div>
<b>Key Points:</b><br /><ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Total reduction in federal revenues from the above: $10.7 trillion over 10 years.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Eliminating tax loopholes won’t be enough to offset the huge loss of federal revenues. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">To grow our way out of the deficit, as Romney claims, would require the economy to grow <a href="http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/03/ascoringa_the_r.html#more" target="_blank">twice as fast</a>--every year--as it has historically (on average). No credible economist thinks this can happen.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">The GOP is against raising any tax, of any kind, at any time. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">So the only options are enormous budget cuts or even bigger deficits and much deeper debt.</span></li>
</ul>
<b>What would be the economic effects of such huge budget cuts?</b> To get an idea, look at what’s happening in the Eurozone. Drastic budget cuts have left the UK in a longer period without economic growth than during the Great Depression, and the UK has just gone back into recession. The unemployment rate in Spain is now 25%--for workers under age 25, it’s 50%. Ireland, Portugal and Greece are in recession, the latter having become an economic basket case with no hope of revival. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Or consider this: Last summer's debt ceiling debacle led to an agreement in which huge cuts in domestic spending (17%) and defense spending (15%) would kick in automatically (a "sequester") if a congressional supercommittee failed to reach a deal on raising the debt ceiling and cutting the deficit. Republicans refused to allow tax increases of any kind and the deal fell apart. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the combination of the sequester and expiration of the Bush tax cuts would push the economy back into recession for the first half of 2013, regardless who is in the White House. Or, to put it another way, withdrawing a large amount of money from an already weakened system is exactly the opposite of what should be done when economic activity has declined significantly.<br /><br />Is that the kind of economic future we want?</div>
</div>
</div>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-79173711491137379642012-07-01T10:12:00.000-04:002012-07-04T14:20:15.822-04:00Conservative Complaints about Obamacare--Deficits, Universality, Bipartisanship<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4ka7uET1l9Vxl8LoKuksA1Xndw3r8_Y8eSXwK6HRzoJuyOwrXPTvIiRs2qEHrXmqj8ZvnYRbY0q0emrp_Jt2lTsDa5j9JiRf2G83hxSfWOOxFZRiZ_TwxnTDN4_1_-7pY5HoVXNB-pEkE/s1600/Russians_are_coming_UAL4142.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4ka7uET1l9Vxl8LoKuksA1Xndw3r8_Y8eSXwK6HRzoJuyOwrXPTvIiRs2qEHrXmqj8ZvnYRbY0q0emrp_Jt2lTsDa5j9JiRf2G83hxSfWOOxFZRiZ_TwxnTDN4_1_-7pY5HoVXNB-pEkE/s1600/Russians_are_coming_UAL4142.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
A conservative comments on a friend's Facebook page:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I think most Conservatives are concerned that the plan
offered will increase the debt, increase taxes, increase costs of healthcare
for many, and was the furthest thing from a bipartisan effort. Everyone agrees
that healthcare needs reforming, but there was little attempt to come up with a
plan that works for both sides and contains costs. And, I think that most
Conservatives disagree with Romney's assertion that the individual mandate is
the answer... I, and many others, believe that it is an unconstitutional
over-reach of federal powers. Even SCOTUS agreed that this was an
unconstitutional used of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS then said that this was
constitutional based on Congress' taxing authority. Even Obama knew that
backing the mandate with a tax would not be tenable. So, he did everything
possible to convince everyone that it was a "penalty" rather than a
"tax". </blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;">In re constitutionality, you have no argument, agreeing in your own comments above that the SCOTUS has declared the ACA constitutional. Whether the mandate is defined in re commerce or as a tax is a political decision, as it was for Romney when he instituted basically the same plan in Massachusetts.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;">Let's look at the rest of the points raised.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b>Debt & Deficits:</b> The Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/publication/25049" target="_blank">analyzed </a>the Affordable Care Act & found it will produce a "net
reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period." </span><span style="background-color: white;">This is because the bill was crafted according to
"Pay-go" rules in Congress, which were abandoned when the GOP
regained control of the House.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b>Universality:</b> The ACA does not result in universal health
care. Neither did the GOP bill authored by Dave Camp. In fact, Kaiser Health
News <a href="http://tinyurl.com/778v2lz" target="_blank">compared it</a> to the Affordable Care Act & the 1993 GOP health care
reform bill. It found that the Affordable Care Act is almost identical to the
1993 GOP bill. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The November 2009 GOP bill:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Makes Efforts To Create More Efficient Health Care System</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Includes Medical Malpractice Reform</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Prohibits Insurance Company From Cancelling Coverage</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Prohibits Insurers From Setting Lifetime Spending Caps</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Extends Coverage To Dependents (up to age 25)</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Would cost $8 billion over 10 years</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Reduces by deficit by $68 billion over 10 years</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Would have covered 82% of Americans by 2019</span></li>
</ul>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;">By contrast, the Affordable Care Act does the following:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">For Insurance Of Self-Employed</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Extends CoverageRequire Individuals To Purchase Health
Insurance (this obviously is the most unpopular part)</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Requires Employers To Offer Health Insurance To Employees</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Provides Standard Benefits Package</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Bans Denying Medical Coverage For Pre-existing Conditions</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Establish State-based Exchanges/Purchasing Groups</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Offers Subsidies For Low-Income People To Buy Insurance</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Long Term Care Insurance</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Makes Efforts To Create More Efficient Health Care System</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Medicaid Expansion</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Reduces Growth In Medicare Spending</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Controls High Cost Health Plans</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Prohibits Insurance Company From Cancelling Coverage</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Prohibits Insurers From Setting Lifetime Spending Caps</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Equalize Tax Treatment To Dependents</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Cost: $871 billion over 10 years</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Reduces by $132 billion over 10 years (the CBO has since
revised this estimate up to $230 billion)</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Will cover 94% of Americans by 2019</span></li>
</ul>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;">Then there's the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6sen4e5" target="_blank">Romney plan</a>. Romney (1) won't act to reduce
the number of uninsured; (2) will turn Medicaid funding into block grants,
making the program vulnerable to, say, increased demand due to recessions; (3)
use tax incentives to move people from employer-sponsored to private insurance;
(4) encourage state-level risk pools--with less market power than a national
pool; (5) eliminate parents' ability to cover children up to age 26; (6) allow
denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions--to those not already
insured; (7) implement all of the above incrementally--essentially verifying
that there won't be anything systematic about the resulting "system."
Look at all this & ask yourself who gains & who loses. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b>Bipartisanship:</b> In a bipartisan process, Jon Perr
outlines the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/bsn244m" target="_blank">20-year GOP campaign</a> to prevent health care reform.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I'd add to that record the following:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">15 top Republican congressmembers met--on Inauguration
Day--to plot out a <a href="http://tinyurl.com/8xmxjrq" target="_blank">plan to obstruct</a> Obama's agenda--across the board. </span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Rush Limbaugh inaugurated the campaign of obstruction the
day after Obama's inauguration with his declaration that <a href="http://tinyurl.com/7tlqf6w" target="_blank">"I hope hefails."</a> </span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Eric Cantor declared on February 9, 2009, that the GOP
strategy would be <a href="http://tinyurl.com/bg5f8t" target="_blank">"justing say no"</a> to everything. </span></li>
</ul>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;">Note also that health care reform was one of the major
issues in the 2008 campaign, and was discussed extensively during that campaign
by Democrats & was argued extensively in Congress & across the country
during the 18-month legislative process that ended with the bill being signed
into law. And when Dave Camp's bill was introduced, the GOP congressional
leadership didn't put its support behind it. Why? See above.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
UPDATED: I included links in the last bulleted list & cleaned up some spacing irregularities.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-89821007012080049762012-06-19T20:04:00.003-04:002012-06-19T20:04:46.590-04:00GOP Economic Genius, Chapter 537,629<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6T8iaofFJH7D9ShoOtWWK19M5P7ar7LqsHIThIr2D5G5q-v0K2Vx-mjubr28oEoQ17h4Pq8Th4Qt0lKk0LIE7Q8RxC3XMhoajmTS8nKEZkCX8TGXxucWbhXf9dTv3vRblbQTS4KiU57KE/s1600/tooMuchWeight-OffTheBoat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6T8iaofFJH7D9ShoOtWWK19M5P7ar7LqsHIThIr2D5G5q-v0K2Vx-mjubr28oEoQ17h4Pq8Th4Qt0lKk0LIE7Q8RxC3XMhoajmTS8nKEZkCX8TGXxucWbhXf9dTv3vRblbQTS4KiU57KE/s1600/tooMuchWeight-OffTheBoat.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The GOP wants to <a href="http://tinyurl.com/8y75zhm" target="_blank">cut $2 billion a year</a> from the SNAP program (formerly known as food stamps), ostensibly to reduce the deficit</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">. A few questions are in order:</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span><br />
<br style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Does the GOP care about reducing the deficit? They say so (loudly & often) but if so, why do they resist raising a single penny in taxes, regardless of circumstances, to increase revenues? And why do they continue their push to make the Bush tax cuts permanent & (in Paul Ryan's--and Romney's budget) to give even more tax cuts to the wealthy, further reducing federal revenues?</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span><br />
<br style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The GOP makes two claims in defense of tax cuts:</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Cutting taxes on the wealthy (sorry--I mean, "job creators") will lead to a rush of investment, causing a dramatic increase in GDP growth. But that was tried under George W. Bush & we had the slowest growth in GDP & job creation since Herbert Hoover.</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Behind the scenes, many in the GOP (such as Grover Norquist) argue that intentionally creating the biggest deficits possible will force the government to stop spending, thereby making it, as Norquist put it, "small enough to <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3x896nv" target="_blank">drown in the bathtub</a>."</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-size: 13px;"></span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The GOP has managed to create the biggest deficits in history, but they faces a conundrum: The public hates government spending in the abstract, but they love the programs that provide them with benefits (Medicare & Social Security, for instance). Luckily for them, Obama tried to make a grand bargain with the GOP last year over the debt ceiling issue that includes cuts to Medicare, complicating Democratic efforts to draw clear distinctions between the two parties. The difference is that Obama seeks to reduce Medicare spending via a combination of guaranteed issue, quality metrics & other measures reducing costs by increasing the efficiency of delivery, while the Romney/Ryan plan simply hacks away at Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security with a hatchet. The problem for us is that explaining the difference is complicated while obfuscating it is easy.</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span><br />
<br style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Meanwhile, there are the macroeconomic effects of the proposed GOP cuts to SNAP. Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics and former adviser to John McCain's 2008 campaign, has analyzed the tools available to government in boosting economic growth & <a href="http://tinyurl.com/7byzgpw" target="_blank">ranked them</a> in order of effectiveness</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">. At the top? SNAP, unemployment insurance & direct aid to the states. At the bottom (just above accelerated depreciation)? Making the Bush tax cuts permanent. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-size: 13px;"></span><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-size: 13px;" /></span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Ask yourself whether a party devoted to imposing the least effective economic stimulus while opposing all the most effective stimuli is more committed to improving the economy or to creating misery for their own electoral purposes. Is that patriotism? It's loyalty to something, but country seems to come second to the GOP.</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-75799222774247837472012-06-10T21:58:00.001-04:002012-06-10T21:58:35.810-04:00Medved's Latest Folly<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
For years Michael Medved has written opinion pieces claiming
that liberals in Hollywood use films and TV shows to surreptitiously
indoctrinate America’s teenagers. Now he’s evidently decided to turn his
learned gaze in the direction of economics. I should add that I ordinarily
wouldn’t give an argument this shoddy the time of day, but given that (a) a
friend asked me to write a commentary about it and (b) the piece is loaded with
the kinds of accusations we’re likely to face from now until November, I
thought I’d better suck it up and respond.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a typically ill-informed <a href="http://tinyurl.com/87ldkbu">column</a> in The Daily Beast, Michael Medved
argues that (1) Obama’s claim that federal spending under his administration is
the lowest since the 1950s is false; (2) job creation has been poor under
Obama; (3) historically, deficit and debt reduction have only occurred when
Republicans controlled at least one house of Congress; and (4) therefore, if we
want to see the deficit reduced further, the GOP should control at least one
house of Congress going forward.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Before going further, let’s look at Medved’s claim about
Obama’s record on employment. Medved, after terming the idea that any president
can create jobs “dubious,” says</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
…[T]he nation unequivocally lost
jobs in the first 39 months of the Obama presidency: with 142,287,000 working
in May, 2012 (the most recent statistics available) compared with 143,338,000
at the end of December, 2008—the last employment numbers announced under
President George W. Bush.</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He bases this on what he calls the “raw” numbers at the
Department of Labor. It’s not clear what Medved means by “raw” (he doesn’t
supply links to any sources) so I have to assume it means simple unemployment
figures. That’s problematic because "raw" number comparisons are
misleading in that they don't account for changes in the size of the
population. That's why economists use the employment-population ratio instead.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Regardless, Medved’s comparison is based on inclusion of
Obama’s first year in office—before most of his programs took effect. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVp912snjd_jQtRW-QNIuNnMOplgeGM4Sj-1Q2uj7MNZLalvMa5sXoEiNRD3wmssZhFE5GhfzVmkH8onEvW1HY68ur3yzKa1VDCl4fwratd4Oddbxm0VOgTsWflmcuFXHM8xvzc1x0Abov/s1600/Graph-Obama-vs.-Bush.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVp912snjd_jQtRW-QNIuNnMOplgeGM4Sj-1Q2uj7MNZLalvMa5sXoEiNRD3wmssZhFE5GhfzVmkH8onEvW1HY68ur3yzKa1VDCl4fwratd4Oddbxm0VOgTsWflmcuFXHM8xvzc1x0Abov/s320/Graph-Obama-vs.-Bush.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
If Obama’s first year is excluded, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/congressional-budget-office-defends-stimulus/2012/06/06/gJQAnFnjJV_story.html" target="_blank">4 million jobs</a> were created by Obama—much
more than were created under Bush in 8 years (even excluding the losses during
the economic crisis). Yet in touting his own record as governor of
Massachusetts, <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/axelrod-accuses-romney-campaign-of-breaktaking-hypocrisy-on-economic-record/?emc=eta1">Romney
excludes the job losses</a> that occurred during his first year in office—an
exclusion that draws no criticism from Medved. So why does he use a different
metric for Obama? I’ll comment more on the employment issue further on.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Medved cites Glenn Kessler of Politifact approvingly for
giving a “3 pinocchios” rating to President Obama’s claim that “federal
spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in
almost 60 years.” The basis for Kessler’s
(and Medved’s) claim is hard to determine. Economists <a href="http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/03/per-capita-government-spending-by-president.html">Mark
Thoma</a>, <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/reagan-obama-austerity/">Paul
Krugman</a> and <a href="http://botc.tcf.org/2012/03/graph-of-the-day-president-obama-fiscal-conservative.html">Benjamin
Landy</a>, and journalists <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/obama-most-fiscally-conservative-president-in-modern-history/254658/">Derek
Thompson</a> and <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/federal-reserve-economic-data-chart-real-government-spending-obama-recovery.php">Sahil
Kapur</a> have shown that Obama’s claim is fundamentally correct.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuZuNN8pUkYvHsUTgZZXa5ePphcNJpm9B3VV_ZlkfQNWZv7PZwQOZXkJqWfZoIbYRQSAoCn5SHHGMiRXvsedNIBFL9coA_SxuMJ5lQ6_eWADYTsOwTcf5lhN81Vv-bhr8S3-5rb2xcGSz-/s1600/AnnualzdGrwthRealPrCapitaUSGSpndng.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuZuNN8pUkYvHsUTgZZXa5ePphcNJpm9B3VV_ZlkfQNWZv7PZwQOZXkJqWfZoIbYRQSAoCn5SHHGMiRXvsedNIBFL9coA_SxuMJ5lQ6_eWADYTsOwTcf5lhN81Vv-bhr8S3-5rb2xcGSz-/s320/AnnualzdGrwthRealPrCapitaUSGSpndng.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Underlying Medved’s criticisms of Obama is a vision of the
appropriate economic role of government shared with many in the GOP—i.e., a
role restricted to deficit reduction. This approach implies that the sole
economic role of the US government—even during the worst economic crisis since
the Great Depression—is a balanced budget. The obvious logical extension is
that no action is needed by the government to deal with the recession. This
completely misunderstands the difference between this recession and every other
modern recession. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
For the current recession, unlike any we’ve experienced in
modern times, is a <a href="http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/03/28/941241/the-balance-sheet-recession-charted/">balance
sheet recession</a>, characterized by the following:
<br />
<ul>
<li>An asset bubble bursts (i.e., real estate).</li>
<li>Private sector balance sheets have much more
debt than assets.</li>
<li>Businesses turn from profit maximization to debt
reduction as a result.</li>
<li>Because all are reacting similarly, there are no
places to put accrued savings and debt repayments.</li>
<li>The result is increasing pressure toward
depression.</li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Perusal of an <a href="http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000">employment-population ratio</a>
chart on the BLS website (for a really clear picture of the severity of the
crisis, select the period 1947-2010) shows the sharpest drop in employment in
the US ever recorded.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpj8oOjp42M1qpkNvKeU7aDCkQk0CvEoOiC93GvBbLxUPh5lCKXzRZM8niLUi0Yfp4q65V61-UZSAf4hmLZUNDakqBedM18Gcu_3kcjN-SBhkXApG6cNNQfbyLzX4uzl1VVxBh8SNLauPj/s1600/Emp-PopulationRatio_1940-2012.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="193" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpj8oOjp42M1qpkNvKeU7aDCkQk0CvEoOiC93GvBbLxUPh5lCKXzRZM8niLUi0Yfp4q65V61-UZSAf4hmLZUNDakqBedM18Gcu_3kcjN-SBhkXApG6cNNQfbyLzX4uzl1VVxBh8SNLauPj/s320/Emp-PopulationRatio_1940-2012.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
We lost 4 million jobs from the collapse of Lehman in
September 2008 until Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009. From December 2007
until the stimulus package started to take effect in June 2009, we lost a total
of 8.8 million jobs. We also lost 4% of GDP. That was one huge bubble bursting.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And the <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Financial_Markets/Uneven_progress_on_the_path_to_growth">overhang</a>
of private sector debt was enormous. Total private and public debt in the US
rose by 75 percentage points from 2000 to 2008, reaching about 300%. It has
since declined by a higher rate than that of any other country, due entirely to
debt reduction in the private sector. Government debt has increased during that
time, due to emergency measures taken to counteract the effects of the economic
collapse, about which, more later. And as mentioned, the shift from profit
maximization to debt reduction has eliminated opportunities for investment, fueling
pressures toward deflation and, eventually, depression. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So here we are. The unemployment
rate currently is 8.2%. GDP growth, now 1.9%, is far below the historical
average of 3.4%. Millions of people are out of work, many for over a year, and
the poverty rate is now 15.1%. And
again, the private sector, due to its current devotion to debt reduction, is in
no position to create economic growth. Given that the states are mandated by
their constitutions to balance their budgets, state efforts to boost the
economy cannot be counted on, either. That leaves the only entity in a position
to do so: the federal government.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Because of the nature and depth
of the economic crisis (and the Obama administration did not know the full
extent of the crisis, since it was depending on available numbers, which were
inaccurate), Obama responded with the stimulus package, which included the
following:<o:p></o:p></div>
<ul>
<li>TARP (signed by Bush)</li>
<li>Auto industry bailout (opposed by Mitt Romney at the time)</li>
<li>ARRA (passed without a single GOP vote in the House; passed with 3 GOP votes in the
Senate)</li>
<li>Health care reform (universally opposed by GOP. Romney has vowed to repeal it.)</li>
</ul>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
How did those measures work out?<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
TARP, which was signed into law
by President Bush on October 8, 2008, is one of the most unpopular laws ever
enacted. It’s not hard to understand why—the prospect of paying taxpayer money
to the banks that primarily caused the economic crisis (and whose executives
then paid themselves enormous bonuses with the money) was infuriating to all of
us, as was the failure of the bailout deal to give the public a controlling
equity stake in the financial institutions we paid. However, given the depth of
the crisis, the intertwining of financial institutions across the globe via
complex deals based on mortgage-backed securities, the lack of federal laws
giving the government authority to wind down failed banks, and the sheer size
of the institutions involved, there was little alternative. The results have
been mixed. The economic freefall stopped. The surviving banks have returned to
profitability, but have not made credit noticeably more available. Moreover,
they are still laying off employees by the thousands.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The auto industry bailout was
much more straightforwardly successful. The industry has recovered and millions
of jobs were saved. Incidentally, Mitt Romney opposed the auto industry
bailout, although he has since tried to change his story.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf">According
to Alan Blinder</a>, former member of the Federal Reserve Board, and <a href="http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf">Mark
Zandi</a>, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and former adviser to Sen. John
McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, the stimulus saved about 8.5 million jobs
and boosted GDP by about 6.5%. If not for the stimulus, they said, we’d be
experiencing deflation right now.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf">Congressional
Budget Office (CBO</a>) recently analyzed the Affordable Care Act. They found
that the act will (1) provide 34 million more people with health insurance; (2)
end recission; (3) end denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions; (4) end yearly and lifetime caps on coverage;
and (5) enable children to receive coverage under their parents’ plans up to
the age of 26, all at a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over 10 years;
reduce the deficit by $210 billion over 10 years; and implementation costs to
the IRS and HHS will total between $5 billion and $10 billion over 10 years. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So what is our current economic
situation? <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We are currently facing an
international economic slowdown, at best, with ominous implications for
economic recovery in the US. The Eurozone is on the verge of implosion due to
an inability to respond to their own balance sheet recession. Northern and
western Eurozone banks lent heavily to Greece, and the latter, an economic
basket case, is unlikely ever to be able to pay them back, especially under the
harsh austerity measures that have been imposed on that country. Eurozone
overhang also represents exposure by many large US banks, so we may experience
more turmoil as a result. The Eurozone fixation on austerity measures has greatly
increase misery in Europe. <o:p></o:p></div>
<ul>
<li>The UK, which has experienced drastic budget
cutting courtesy of the Conservative government of David Cameron, has
experienced the longest period of zero economic growth since the Great
Depression, and recently sank back into recession. Unemployment is skyrocketing
and social services have been slashed.</li>
<li>Greece, as mentioned, is utterly dysfunctional
and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.</li>
<li>Spain, with a much larger economy than that of
Greece, has a huge problem with real estate overbuilding and has just sought a
bailout.</li>
<li>Italy, Portugal and Ireland are all suffering
due to austerity measures.</li>
</ul>
All of this means the Eurozone is
increasingly unlikely to be a source of robust business for American companies,
many of which have extensive trade with the Eurozone countries. In addition,
instability created by the very real possibility of Greece’s exit from the
Eurozone may very well translate to economic instability globally. <o:p></o:p>
<br />
<ul>
<li>Meanwhile, the Chinese economy is slowing due to
lack of development of domestic markets to offset the recession-fueled decline
of international trade.</li>
<li>India has likewise slowed down, and Brazil,
whose economy is closely tied to that of China in a number of ways, is also
slowing down.</li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In short, there are no global
alternative sources to which we can turn in efforts to boost trade.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As mentioned previously, in the
US we face 8.2% unemployment and GDP growth of 1.9%. During Obama’s first term
in office, 780,000 private sector jobs have been created, but due to cutbacks
at the state level, we’ve lost 660,000 public sector jobs.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0hY72Na0N6zQ3umobPFHSICCZqXjBrYaKytfjkdatb6_Gm01zvenRKTN5r6THcvCLIXaoL5mW0pX8WMsRY529_i-RNzO9B8kFizgiuO5iyZb6OGc1k3BztSFqHyvRO9eRfHolwN0fuHK0/s1600/private-vs-public.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0hY72Na0N6zQ3umobPFHSICCZqXjBrYaKytfjkdatb6_Gm01zvenRKTN5r6THcvCLIXaoL5mW0pX8WMsRY529_i-RNzO9B8kFizgiuO5iyZb6OGc1k3BztSFqHyvRO9eRfHolwN0fuHK0/s320/private-vs-public.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This is because all
states (except Vermont) are mandated by their constitutions to balance their
budgets. Thanks to a deal in exchange for GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe’s vote, 40% of
the Recovery Act consisted of tax cuts. As a result of that and the previously
mentioned misunderstanding of the depth of the recession, the Recovery Act did
not contain enough direct financial aid to the states to offset budget cuts at
that level.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
US government spending, as noted
by Obama, is now lower than at any time since the 1950s—this at a time when the
government is the only actor capable of offsetting the effects of the
recession. These cutbacks are, as Medved says, largely due to the influence of
the GOP in Congress, although the implications of that budget cutting
insistence are far different from the positive picture he paints.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a balance sheet recession, any
quick government action to boost the economy, such as lowering interest rates,
will not produce discernible results in the short run. This is particularly
true given that interest rates are already close to zero—the lowest we’ve seen
in our lifetimes. Inflation is at record lows, too, which can actually be
dangerous given the tendency of a balance sheet recession to push toward
depression. However, austerity policies in the face of such a crisis are
virtual guarantees of return to recession or worse. The financial crisis begat
the economic crisis when credit markets froze up. Without access to short-term
credit for things like payroll, businesses began laying people off. Those laid
off were no longer in a position to engage in consumer purchases, meaning that
businesses lost more customers. In the context of huge layoffs, individuals and
businesses cut back across the economy, which makes perfect sense at the
individual level. The problem is that the combined effect of this mass
withdrawal from participation in the economy is a substantial decrease in
economic activity, meaning far less money flowing through the system, reflected
in lower GDP. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Into this mix the GOP has added severe
budget cutting while giving additional tax cuts to the wealthy. Both represent
a decline in federal revenues at precisely the time when our government faces
the most severe economic crisis in 70 years. On top of that, the GOP has used
various extortion tactics to get their way, despite having a majority in only
one house of Congress. This brinkmanship resulted in the debt ceiling fiasco of
last summer, the result of which was the looming sequester at the end of this
year—automatic cuts of 17.1% of non-defense spending across the board, and
automatic cuts of 15% of defense spending across the board. Leaving aside the
arbitrary nature of the cuts, we’re facing, at a time when not enough money is
flowing through our economic system, further withdrawals of about $1 trillion
from that system. The <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43262">CBO
analyzed</a> the combination of sequester and expiration of the Bush tax cuts,
concluding that it would cause a return to recession in the first half of 2013,
regardless who gets elected in November.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDt5MW5d4Mt09AcoCasxaVQy_fxLlFLVElxd21frE8uI_FhR55ntgl8nt9d7qjDI60bwGZNie9_BkyWT1gV4E-NQrIh9596Ua84vB65ZXRIkFOBhluAuXt_eAL94rZz4U54_JGvVv_hPeJ/s1600/animal-skeleton-drought-ethiopia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDt5MW5d4Mt09AcoCasxaVQy_fxLlFLVElxd21frE8uI_FhR55ntgl8nt9d7qjDI60bwGZNie9_BkyWT1gV4E-NQrIh9596Ua84vB65ZXRIkFOBhluAuXt_eAL94rZz4U54_JGvVv_hPeJ/s320/animal-skeleton-drought-ethiopia.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This, evidently, is Medved’s idea
of responsible economic stewardship. Excuse me for thinking that his (and the
GOP’s cure is more damaging than the disease.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I especially love this: Medved then goes on to say,
“Statistics show the dramatic difference in fiscal performance between
Congresses controlled by Republicans and those dominated by Democrats.” I assume he must be referring to the enormous
deficits and debt racked up by first Ronald Reagan and then, especially, George
W. Bush. He must have in mind the Bush tax cuts, which turned the biggest
surplus in US history into an enormous deficit; or fighting two wars without
raising taxes to pay for them; or Medicare Part D, an unfunded mandate. Those
three alone made up about 70% of the $1.2 trillion deficit Obama inherited from
Bush and almost every Republican whose been howling about debt and deficits
for the past 3 years voted to create them—undoubtedly urged on by Medved
himself. Or maybe Medved has in mind the GOP’s taking hostage extension of
unemployment insurance at the beginning of 2011 in exchange for—you guessed
it—extension of the totally non-stimulative Bush tax cuts—which continue to
gouge a huge (and growing) hole in the budget. Then there’s the debt ceiling
extortion by the GOP, resulting, as previously noted, in the upcoming sequester.
Yes, Medved, tell us more about those differences in fiscal performance between
the GOP and the Democrats.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then Medved really jumps the shark, claiming that “partisan
majorities in the House of Representatives (where the Constitution stipulates
that spending bills must originate) seem to matter more to the scope of deficit
spending than whether a donkey or an elephant occupies the Oval Office.” To
which I say, Balderdash. The only time in modern history when a majority in one
house of Congress has been enough to dictate federal policy has been during the
current administration, thanks to the combination of a House dominated by right
wing fanatics and a Senate in which continual filibuster threats by the GOP
have created a new de facto Senate requirement of 60 votes to pass any
legislation or even to have a debate about a nomination. And again, when it
comes to deficits, George W. Bush is in a class by himself. And Mitt Romney's
economic plan threatens to dwarf every predecessor when it comes to debt and
deficits. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Medved goes on: <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
“President Obama rightly chides his
Republican presidential predecessors for disappointing records of fiscal
management, but fails to note that for all 12 years of the Reagan and first
Bush administrations, and for the last two difficult years of the second Bush
administration, Democrats wielded big majorities in the House.”<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One might draw from this that Medved has never heard of the
veto. In fact, many Democrats, to their eternal shame, went along with Reagan
and Bush policies. Back then, you see, we had a thing called
bipartisanship—which, as these examples show, is not always an unalloyed Good
Thing. Sometimes, the content of policies really is more important than the
nature of the process—but that’s a story for another day. Medved then continues to cherry-pick history,
attributing the boom economy under Clinton to the alleged economic stewardship
of the House GOP, conveniently omitting Clinton's first economic plan, passed
without a single GOP vote amid GOP predictions of economic ruin. Medved's
account also omits mention of the TARP bailout of the banks--signed into law by
Bush and continued by Obama. Given the magnitude of the crisis and the legal
constraints on the government, any president would have done the same,
regardless how distasteful it was. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The great economist-cum-historian then gives a good news-bad
news assessment and ends with this: <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Based on historical patterns, the
deficit might well continue to decline in a second Obama term—as long as the
GOP maintains control of Congress and exercises stern supervision of the
administration’s credit card.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A faulty major premise leads to a faulty minor premise,
which leads in turn to a faulty conclusion. Perhaps Medved should learn
something about economics—not to mention economic history and logic—before he
decides to write about the subject again in the future.<o:p></o:p></div>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-34934572194901558722012-05-26T11:31:00.001-04:002012-05-26T11:31:34.676-04:00<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">Yesterday, my friend Ben Yee
posted this infographic on facebook with the comment, “It’s called investment.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMjcdCzSsoNX3-lMiDtiWC6A4VCkWxCQe5H4LjV-H4iAASZlP-OvszCedTAaGAOHwX-M1PgPnuEfHypGJGP7u5XVioJcrqZxHgLn8Tb61D0pcmLFClEAYh5Jj_W_oRPK3yOiw2_5gq6lJI/s1600/CDF_ItsCalledInvestment.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMjcdCzSsoNX3-lMiDtiWC6A4VCkWxCQe5H4LjV-H4iAASZlP-OvszCedTAaGAOHwX-M1PgPnuEfHypGJGP7u5XVioJcrqZxHgLn8Tb61D0pcmLFClEAYh5Jj_W_oRPK3yOiw2_5gq6lJI/s320/CDF_ItsCalledInvestment.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">In response, one commenter
wrote, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN">So all we have to do to get money is just spend more of it. Oh wow, and can
I eat my cake and have it too?! Come on. This is totally disingenuous. Let's
not pretend we are trying to optimize government fiscal health here. We're not
going to consider the cost-cutting measure of executing this kid for his first
misdemeanor because it's immoral. And the people who make posters like these
would not be at all interested if it could be established that total tax
revenue might actually increase if you just slashed programs and taxes and let
successful business people keep more of the wealth they generated so as to
provide bigger incentives to innovate. By all means, make an argument for
statist social planning if you want, but don't peddle snake oil.</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">This is a classic example of
reductio ad absurdum. What's actually being argued via the infographic is that
prevention, in the form of social investments enabling the development of
marketable skills, is much more cost-effective than denying such investments
& dealing instead with the long-term consequences of such neglect.
Underlying that is the standard economic concept of the<a href="http://tinyurl.com/cpjrsfo"> multiplier effect</a>--the
process by which money spent by me in a store, for example, is then re-spent by
the merchant on supplies, salaries, rent, utilities, etc., in each case then
being spent again further on down the line. In this way, my spending contributes
to stimulation of the economy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><a href="http://tinyurl.com/6r6pks6">Mark Zandi</a>, chief economist
at Moody's Analytics & former economic adviser to John McCain's 2008
campaign, ranked the various tools available to the government for use in
stimulating the economy. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhujQwoILIAJAQ_BUvIeDnkUzJPcho-4HqlQEindh2Ep00jpWCPzUwTuksG9BLjmDoHm2GCyiM2F82dQRd6ZEWX0PIEEpEr31nVq9Bpomy5n_qWNT8PtnuFJ8bFB9nEruhP-7p33uD5fXc5/s1600/Bangforthebuck_zandi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhujQwoILIAJAQ_BUvIeDnkUzJPcho-4HqlQEindh2Ep00jpWCPzUwTuksG9BLjmDoHm2GCyiM2F82dQRd6ZEWX0PIEEpEr31nVq9Bpomy5n_qWNT8PtnuFJ8bFB9nEruhP-7p33uD5fXc5/s320/Bangforthebuck_zandi.jpg" width="307" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">The most effective?
Food stamps, unemployment insurance & infrastructure spending, because they
provide direct funding (the latter in the form of salaries to workers) for
people in an economic position where they need to spend it immediately, thus
contributing to the multiplier effect. The least effective? Accelerated
depreciation allowance & making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Why is that?
There are several reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">Recall that the financial
crisis led to a <a href="http://tinyurl.com/7hpmh3r">freezing up of commercial credit</a>.</span><span lang="EN"> When businesses became <a href="http://tinyurl.com/7qqwglm">unable to get short-term credit</a> via the so-called shadow banking system, they became
unable to meet payroll, pay rents & utilities, </span><span lang="EN">and began laying people off
in droves. When Obama took office, we were losing 750,000 jobs per month. In
that context, people across all income brackets began cutting their own
spending in a perfectly understandable reaction to the worsening economy.
Unfortunately, this had the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/lcp2pc">unintended consequence</a> of worsening the recession,
as a balance sheet recession in which not enough money was flowing through the
system combined with a drastic reduction in demand, further reducing the amount
of money flowing through the system.</span> Making the situation even worse was the
fact that the states, mandated (in all but one case) by law to balance their
budgets every year, began <a href="http://tinyurl.com/7utec4">laying off thousands of public sector workers &cutting spending</a>, again reducing the amount of money flowing through the
system. By the way, all those laid-off workers were no longer paying taxes on
their former salaries, further reducing the amount of federal revenues. Note
that in addition to reduced federal revenues caused by a reduction in the
number of taxpayers, the recession has been characterized by lack of demand, as
explained above. Contra GOP claims that uncertainty is the main cause of
continued economic doldrums, repeated quarterly business surveys have shown that
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/782o427" target="_blank">businesses rate low demand</a> as the main reason they're not hiring &
expanding. Neither the Bush tax cuts or accelerated depreciation allowance will
compensate for lack of demand.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">The commenter also stated that "...if it could be established that total tax revenue might actually
increase if you just slashed programs and taxes and let successful business
people keep more of the wealth they generated so as to provide bigger
incentives to innovate." </span>This is a repetition of the by now all-too-familiar
supply-side argument for austerity budgeting combined with tax cuts for the
wealthy. But in a way, the wording above is more accurate than the commenter
may have realized. Contra supply-side claims that high tax rates are depressing
the incentive to create and expand businesses, James Kwak notes that <a href="http://tinyurl.com/7cgce5k" target="_blank">a recent study</a> by Christina & David Romer shows that "you could
raise taxes up to 84 percent before people’s reduced incentives to make money
would compensate for the higher tax rates." What actually happens when you
lower the taxes of the wealthy in a recession is that, not being forced to
spend the fruits of such largess (since their costs are already covered very
well, thank you very much), they simply pocket the money. They're willing to
pay lawyers & accountants more to hide their wealth from the taxman, but
they don't invest in growing businesses. In short, they just get richer. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/6qtbkuo" target="_blank">Nor is there any correlation between capital gains tax rates and business investment</a>, as noted by Len Burman in Forbes. He notes that</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If low capital gains tax rates catalyzed economic growth, you’d expect to see a negative relationship–high gains rates, low growth, and vice versa–but there is no apparent relationship between the two time series. The correlation is 0.12, the wrong sign and not statistically different from zero. I’ve tried lags up to five years and also looking at moving averages of the tax rates and growth. There is never a statistically significant relationship.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Does this prove that capital gains taxes are unrelated to economic growth? Of course not. Many other things have changed at the same time as gains rates and many other factors affect economic growth. But the graph should dispel the silver bullet theory of capital gains taxes. Cutting capital gains taxes will not turbocharge the economy and raising them would not usher in a depression.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Low capital gains tax rates do accomplish one thing: they create lots of work for lawyers, accountants, and financial geniuses because there is a huge reward to making ordinary income (taxed at rates up to 35%) look like capital gains (top rate of 15%). The tax shelters that these geniuses invent are economically inefficient, and the geniuses themselves might do productive work were the tax shelter racket not so profitable. And the revenue lost to the capital gains tax loophole adds to the deficit, which also hurts the economy. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">"Optimiz[ing] government
fiscal health" is an interesting concept. What constitutes optimization? A
balanced budget? Modern societies rarely achieve that; rather, there's ongoing
fluctuation in levels of spending & income, dependent on numerous factors
including tax receipts, the state of the economy, the state of imports &
exports, inflation, interest rates, exogenous factors like wars, natural
disasters, demographic changes, etc. A balanced budget amendment, which Paul
Ryan, the Tea Party & Romney have proposed to bring the federal budget into
balance, ignores all such things. By setting an arbitrary mechanism to achieve
balance, a BBA (especially in combination with an automatic spending cap of 20%
of GDP, also advocated by the same sources), would condemn the government
(especially given the GOP's resistence to the raising of taxes under any
circumstances) to perpetual budget cuts. In the context of the worst recession
since Herbert Hoover, the combined effects of budget cutting & additional
tax cuts would be to push us back into recession, possibly a depression. Here's
the <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43262" target="_blank">most recent analysis by the CBO</a> of the massive cuts due to take effect at
the end of 2012 (thanks to the debt ceiling fiasco), making the same point.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">One last point. The reference
to "statist social planning" implies a libertarian frame of
reference. At root, libertarianism rests on the notion that the only unit of
analysis in studying society with any validity is the individual & the only
allowable focus is on the rights of the individual. But the answers we reach
depend on the nature of the questions we ask, and excluding everything larger
than the individual (i.e., the social & historical context within which
each individual lives) obscures the influence of those larger phenomena on the
individual, making it impossible to see those influences & therefore to
create solutions to problems involving such influences. With that in mind, let's not pretend
that individual entrepreneurs have been solely or even mostly responsible for
the results of their efforts. The development of canals, railroads, highways,
the electrical grid, the internet & the GPS technology underlying the
functioning of your cell phone have all been central to the growth of
technological & social change in the US, as they have been in other
countries. Thomas Edison, Henry Ford & Mark Zuckerberg would never have
been able to develop their businesses in the first place if not for
technologies made possible by (gasp) the government. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">The <a href="http://tinyurl.com/7sklx64" target="_blank">influence of thepernicious anti-government ideology</a> promoted by Ronald Reagan, Ayn Rand et al
has been central to the galloping inequality our society has been experiencing.
It has also been the underpinning of the thinking that brought on the global
financial & economic crises that started in 2007. As noted in a recent
Guardian editorial,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN">At the heart of this
calamitous strategy is a wholesale misdiagnosis of how the market economy
functions and a complete failure to understand why the financial crisis took
place, the profundity of its impact and its implications for policy. For a
generation, business and finance, cheered on by US neoconservatives and free
market fundamentalists, have argued that the less capitalism is governed,
regulated and shaped by the state, the better it works. Markets do everything
best – managing business and systemic risk, innovating, investing, organising
executive reward – without the intervention of the supposed dead hand of the
state and without any acknowledgement of wider social obligations.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN">The lesson of the financial
crisis is that this is complete hokum that serves the political and personal
interests of the very rich. It has been an intellectual carapace to permit the
creation of dynastic personal fortunes while dismantling the social contract
that underpins the lives of millions...<br /> </span><span lang="EN"><br /></span><span lang="EN">The lesson of the financial
crisis is unambiguous. Risk – the existence of incalculable unknowns – cannot
be handled by markets alone. It has to be socialised by the state, otherwise we
encounter chronically low levels of investment and innovation, along with
periodic systemic crises, the core message of John Maynard Keynes.</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">What we've had up to now is
privatized profits & socialized risk. And the GOP politicians, who have been decrying
federal spending to counteract the effects of the deepest recession since the
Great Depression, are now campaigning on a program including repeal of efforts,
however inadequate, to attempt to correct that situation. While we're on the
subject of snake oil.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-15853363978692281542012-05-15T21:56:00.001-04:002012-05-15T21:56:16.853-04:00Mitt Romney's Supposed Moderation<br />
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
On May 11, Scott Lemieux wrote, in re claims by some on the left, that Romney is a moderate:</div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“He’ll govern as the head of a very right-wing Republican coalition and will be working with a Republican Congress that will send him plenty of terrible legislation. He’ll be working with the Republican foreign policy apparatus that will be urging him to attack Iran and will probably succeed. We don’t even want to think about what will happen to the federal courts. What Romney really thinks about this stuff is beside the point. John Tyler isn’t a successful leadership model for someone who wants to run for re-election.” [<a href="http://tinyurl.com/bwn3rnv" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/bwn3rnv</a>]</blockquote>
And I would like to elaborate on Scott’s elaboration. Mitt Romney’s economic proposals include:</div>
<ol style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Making the Bush tax cuts permanent;</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Cutting tax rates across all brackets by 20%;</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT);</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Eliminating the Estate Tax;</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%;</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Offsetting (D) by eliminating corporate tax loopholes;</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Changing the US tax system to a territorial one, meaning that corporate earnings from overseas would be exempt from US taxation;</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Repealing the Affordable Care Act;</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Repealing the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law;</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Setting minimum defense spending at 4% of GDP & taking funding for wars back off the books, as was done by George W. Bush;</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Capping federal spending at 20% of GDP;</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">A balanced budget amendment to the constitution.</li>
</ol>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
The proposals above would reduce federal revenues by $10.7 trillion over 10 years & eliminate any US government flexibility in spending that any modern government would need in emergencies such as wars, natural disasters, or (ahem) recessions and depressions.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Economist Menzie Chinn has guesstimated the scale of across-the-board spending cuts Romney will need to balance the budget by 2022 (no one can do more than that, since Romney has stated publicly that he’s not going to say what he’ll cut until after he’s elected).<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Excluding defense, Romney would have to cut every other federal program by 20% to achieve a balanced budget. Under that scenario, Social Security would be cut by $186 billion by 2016, and by $2 trillion in 2022. Three million people would be forced into poverty.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
If Social Security is excluded from the cuts, every other federal program would have to be cut by 28%. Medicare, under this scenario, would be hit with $176 billion in cuts by 2016, and $1.9 trillion in cuts by 2022. There would be a sharp increase in premiums and changes in cost sharing. Medicaid and CHIP would be cut by $1.3 trillion as of 2022. SNAP, formerly the food stamp program, would have to drop 12 million recipients, overwhelmingly poor families with children, the disabled and the elderly. Discretionary programs (aside from defense, of course) would lose $166 billion by 2016 and $1.6 trillion by 2022. To put discretionary cuts in perspective, almost all other major industrialized nations spend about 10% to 12% of GDP on such programs as agriculture, commerce, education, energy, environmental protection, food safety, justice, labor, scientific research, disease control, transportation/infrastructure and veterans affairs. The Romney plan would (again, assuming across-the-board cuts) reduce total funding for those programs from the current 30-year average rate of 3.7% of GDP to 2.3% of GDP in 2016 and 1.7% of GDP by 2022–the lowest rate ever recorded.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Thus far, we’ve only considered the implications of the above cuts for specific government programs and the people they benefit directly. What about the broader economic picture? Recall that the immediate consequence of the run on the shadow banking system in September 2008 was the seizing up of the commercial credit market. With credit no longer available, businesses began massive layoffs, lacking the short-term funding needed for things like payroll. And as the layoffs mounted, people around the country began responding in a commonsensical way, by sharply reducing spending. With demand drastically reduced, businesses saw no need to expand or to hire. Four years later, that is still the case, although the recession is technically over and some hiring has resumed. Recent business surveys have borne this out. Despite GOP claims that the cause of reduced hiring is lack of business “confidence” supposedly due to the possibility of higher taxes, businesses have reported that the number one reason for lack of expansion is low demand. To put it another way, not enough money is flowing through our economic system from one transaction to another, boosting economic growth in the process. This is reflected in an unemployment rate of 8.1% and GDP growth under 3%, in a country with a historical average GDP growth rate of 3.4%.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Given the above mentioned situation, what are the likely economic results of withdrawing $10.7 trillion from the economy over 10 years? And does the combination of budgetary, economic and human consequences described above strike you as moderate?</div>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-78698033824110633842011-08-07T12:02:00.011-04:002011-08-07T12:27:06.836-04:00Three Decades of Economic Insanity<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijHO9bJ5dK7KJmmeEcLXho_Q8S_JSuU_mJiKLMlB0_z4OGJSSjclCKGIxzB9E_7405ch_uGLc35Y_HTONWPJTWhlL2cKAIdIEi9bJV5C_zkdIj5y3n3RzCEK3_brbAIkdhT9SbnLmaMbvc/s1600/TeaPartyWorldByTheNose.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 254px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijHO9bJ5dK7KJmmeEcLXho_Q8S_JSuU_mJiKLMlB0_z4OGJSSjclCKGIxzB9E_7405ch_uGLc35Y_HTONWPJTWhlL2cKAIdIEi9bJV5C_zkdIj5y3n3RzCEK3_brbAIkdhT9SbnLmaMbvc/s400/TeaPartyWorldByTheNose.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5638145843565767362" border="0" /></a><br />Yesterday, Steve Benen posted a <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/a_timeline_of_events031362.php">timeline </a>on his blog. I'm posting it below in its entirety:<br /><blockquote>Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?<p><b>1980:</b> Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget</p> <p><b>1981 - 1989:</b> With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.</p> <p><b>1993:</b> Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.</p> <p><b>1998:</b> U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged.</p> <p><b>2000:</b> George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.</p> <p><b>2001:</b> CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.</p> <p><b>2001 - 2009:</b> With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.</p> <p><b>2002:</b> Dick Cheney declares, “Deficits don’t matter.” Congressional Republicans agree, approving tax cuts, two wars, and Medicare expansion without even trying to pay for them.</p> <p><b>2009:</b> Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.</p> <p><b>2009:</b> Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives — including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act — which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction.</p> <p><b>September 2010:</b> In Obama’s first fiscal year, the deficit <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026151.php"><i>shrinks</i> by $122 billion</a>. Republicans again condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.</p> <p><b>October 2010:</b> S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.</p> <p><b>November 2010:</b> Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.</p> <p><b>December 2010:</b> Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit financing. GOP continues to accuse Obama of fiscal irresponsibility.</p> <p><b>March 2011:</b> Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage — a move without precedent in American history — until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.</p> <p><b>July 2011:</b> Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets.</p> <p><b>August 2011:</b> S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility.</p> <p>There have been several instances since the mid 1990s in which I genuinely believed Republican politics couldn’t possibly get more blisteringly ridiculous. I was wrong; they just keep getting worse.</p></blockquote><br />Kevin Drum's <a href="http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/wee-fiscal-timeline">comments </a>on the above:<br /><blockquote>Congratulations, modern Republican Party! That was spectacularly fast work. The Bush-era party needed seven years to drive the economy into a ditch.</blockquote>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-54956220061878867622011-07-16T18:00:00.005-04:002011-07-16T18:15:59.464-04:00We Had to Destroy the Economy in Order to Save It<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVqiaSlxHRtbuy7IItFcG_jmFXN29usMA6SdzQaNNVFF-TenTquuhFRcHFkxkOjJxDyEv0NtNpqC0fupEnmzRTfXy3GUGLN-eWdA6qF8lNc5xPE00eYqztvPjJGAjB-gPSW8E26cjMQbs9/s1600/flamethrower.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 264px; height: 151px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVqiaSlxHRtbuy7IItFcG_jmFXN29usMA6SdzQaNNVFF-TenTquuhFRcHFkxkOjJxDyEv0NtNpqC0fupEnmzRTfXy3GUGLN-eWdA6qF8lNc5xPE00eYqztvPjJGAjB-gPSW8E26cjMQbs9/s400/flamethrower.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5630077307526255554" border="0" /></a><br />According to <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6xjms6o">Ezra Klein</a>, the thinking behind the Obama administration's push for the biggest possible budget cutting deal they can get includes this:<br /><br />The deficit stands in the way of any potential spending increases. And<br /><blockquote>if you finish the deficit conversation in a way that convinces the American people you’ve made sacrifices and forced government to live within its means, you have, at least in theory, more credibility when proposing new initiatives that would expand the size of government again.</blockquote><a href="http://tinyurl.com/6zrcnjw">President Obama confirmed</a> the first point in his 7/15/11 news conference, saying:<br /><blockquote>...if you are a progressive, you should be concerned about debt and deficit just as much as if you're a conservative. And the reason is because if the only thing we're talking about over the next year, two years, five years, is debt and deficits, then it's very hard to start talking about how do we make investments in community colleges so that our kids are trained, how do we actually rebuild $2 trillion worth of crumbling infrastructure.</blockquote>The implication is that there's a causal connection between the empirical situation and the narrative around it. Eliminate the deficit and GOP bloviating about it will supposedly subside. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6yxzspr">Greg Sargent</a> is unsure about this; <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6cu32wk">Jonathan Bernstein</a> thinks Obama's position is reasonable but risky; but <a href="http://tinyurl.com/64zu2kp">Joan Walsh</a> sees Obama's assumption that elimination of the deficit will end the GOP assault on his presidency as misguided.<br /><br />Walsh bases her argument on the record of GOP behavior during the Clinton administration. I don't think we have to look that far back--just consider what's happened over the past two years.<br /><br /><ul><li>According to the CBO, the GOP is responsible directly for about 70% of the deficit. This includes the Bush tax cuts, two wars fought without raising taxes to pay for them, and the Medicare Part D unfunded mandate. Obama is responsible for extending the Bush tax cuts and the two wars, 20% of the deficit. Obama's much maligned stimulus package, which the GOP has treated as fiscal suicide, accounts for about 7% of the deficit. All other Obama programs combined add up to 3% of the deficit. Yet the GOP has spent the past two years running around with their hair on fire, accusing Obama of irresponsible spending. Please tell me what relationship exists between GOP claims about the impact of Obama policies on the economy and the reality?</li><li>Obama's health care reform package was, according to the GOP, a "socialist" scheme that would be risky, unaffordable, and would interject the government between patients and their doctors. There were also claims that the plan included "death panels." They neglected to mention that it was based heavily on a GOP plan put forth during the Clinton administration and on the system Mitt Romney set up in Massachusetts. Again, what was the relationship between GOP rhetoric and reality?</li><li>Since 1980, the GOP has consistently expressed the view that cutting taxes spurs economic growth. Yet George W. Bush implemented enormous tax cuts and had the worst record for job creation and GDP growth since Herbert Hoover--and that was before the financial crisis and resulting economic collapse, both of which occurred during his term in office (yes, the GOP even lied about the timing of the economic collapse). Conversely, Bill Clinton implemented modest tax increases and presided over an enormous economic expansion. So much for the supposed stimulative effects of tax cuts and the alleged "job-killing" effects of tax increases. Did that stop the GOP from repeating robotically that tax cuts boost the economy while tax increases depress it? </li><li>The GOP has become increasingly driven by the notion that by cutting taxes, they can shrink the government to a size small enough to "drown in a bathtub," as tax cutting fanatic Grover Norquist famously put it. Yet the only administration to shrink the size of government in the past 40 years was Bill Clinton's. So it seems there's no relationship between the level of taxation and the size of the government. Yet the GOP persists in pursuing this goal. </li><li>Despite unanimous agreement among climate scientists that climate change is real and is in fact happening more rapidly than predicted, the GOP persists in claiming that climate change is a "hoax," as GOP Sen. James Inhofe puts it. Again, what is the relationship between rhetoric and reality?</li><li>Repeatedly since 1980, the GOP has responded to criticism that their policies favor the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor with claims that such criticism amounts to "class warfare." Meanwhile, as a result of those policies, the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans increased 60% while that of the bottom 40% fell by 10%. What is the relationship between GOP statements and the reality?</li></ul><br />Given the above examples (there are many more), what possible reason can there be for believing that giving the GOP what they want will have the slightest effect on their well-established record of lying about everything?Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-27048469266582924742011-07-12T20:24:00.026-04:002011-07-12T21:46:58.818-04:00The Debt Ceiling Debate in Plain English<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLOToXnlUwahy6wuedWgFGx2Csr-zCaCH7u7X2rZoFcgE7qeTc9-A9Frfz6fFYDaT5Y6QDPqxRVI7nC-Xxg3cBqrVZP4jv67ok_tg9jhXnYmpvMIMng2iOswADfyvYgOmC7vlH8sUhCcGo/s1600/LooneyTunesWallpaper1024.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLOToXnlUwahy6wuedWgFGx2Csr-zCaCH7u7X2rZoFcgE7qeTc9-A9Frfz6fFYDaT5Y6QDPqxRVI7nC-Xxg3cBqrVZP4jv67ok_tg9jhXnYmpvMIMng2iOswADfyvYgOmC7vlH8sUhCcGo/s400/LooneyTunesWallpaper1024.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5628643679067214354" border="0" /></a><p><span style="font-weight: bold;">First off, what exactly is the debt ceiling?</span> Most people seem to think it's a license for the federal government to take on deeper debt, but Bruce Bartlett has the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-debt-ceiling/2011/07/06/gIQANwF01H_story.html">clearest explanation</a> I've read:<br /></p><p></p><blockquote>The debt ceiling is a cap on the amount of securities the Treasury can issue, something it does to raise money to pay for government expenses. These expenses, and the deficit they've wrought, are a result of past actions by Congress to create entitlement programs, make appropriations and cut taxes. In that sense, raising the debt limit is about paying for past expenses, not controlling future ones. For Congress to refuse to let Treasury raise the cash to pay the bills that Congress itself has run up simply makes no sense. </blockquote><p></p><p><a title="Failure to raise the debt ceiling will mean" href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/hitting-the-ceiling/" _mce_href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/hitting-the-ceiling/" target="_blank">Failure to raise debt ceiling will mean</a>:</p> <ul><li>The US currency is no longer the world standard</li><li>We'll have to pay much higher interest on everything we borrow as a country</li><li>And after a short time juggling the books,<a title="government spending for everything will be instantly cut by 44%" href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/analysts-failure-to-raise-debt-ceiling-means-44-spending-cut-10-drop-in-gdp-recession/" _mce_href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/analysts-failure-to-raise-debt-ceiling-means-44-spending-cut-10-drop-in-gdp-recession/" target="_blank"> government spending for everything will be instantly cut by 44%</a>.</li></ul> <p dir="ltr">Despite this, the GOP has insisted that any vote to raise the debt ceiling be accompanied by huge cuts in federal spending and they are adamantly opposed to raising any taxes to increase federal revenues (this extends to ending any existing tax cuts as well). On June 23, House Majority Leader <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/debt-ceiling-talks-hit-impasse-eric-cantor-walks-out/39169/">Eric Cantor (R, VA) walked</a> out of the talks due to the inclusion of some revenue increases. There was then some talk about returning to the earlier plan involving $2 trillion in budget cuts, but again, the GOP was insistent that no new revenues be included in the package while Democrats were adamantly opposed to cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. </p><p dir="ltr">On July 7, Obama changed the equation. According to the <a title="Washington Post" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/07/gIQAPoV31H_story.html" _mce_href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/07/gIQAPoV31H_story.html" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>,</p> <blockquote><p>Obama and Boehner have emerged as the most enthusiastic proponents of a big deal that would save as much as $4 trillion over the next decade by overhauling the tax code and tackling all the major drivers of federal spending, including the Pentagon and health and retirement programs.</p></blockquote> <p>However, resistance to revenue increases in the proposed package led to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/debt-ceiling-negotiations-turn-testy-as-republicans-reject-new-taxes-2011-7">abandonment of the idea by the GOP</a>.<br /></p><p>Today, Obama announced that <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html">Social Security payments would be delayed</a> if the debt ceiling was not raised, and <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/12/300-business-leaders-urge-congress-white-house-to-act-on-debt/">470 CEOs</a> of many of America's largest corporations signed a statement urging Congress to end the impasse. This afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) announced a <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/mcconnell-proposal-gives-obama-power-to-increase-debt-limit/">new plan</a> to give the President authority to raise the debt ceiling himself. Congress would then be free to vote on a resolution of disapproval, which the President could then veto, after which President Obama would raise the debt ceiling in three increments over the next year. Essentially, this would pass responsibility for raising the debt ceiling to the President and would draw attention to the raise throughout 2012, an election year. As <a href="http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/its-now-official-gop-party-sixth-graders">Kevin Drum</a> put it, "This is possibly the most juvenile, most buck passing, most transparently mendacious proposal I can recall from any party leader in recent memory."<br /></p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;">What’s behind the political battle over the debt ceiling?</span><br /></p><p>Since most people’s eyes glaze over when the subject is economics, here’s a plain English explanation of the ideas and interests underlying the debt ceiling debate.</p> <p><strong>Does Deficit Reduction Stimulate the Economy?</strong></p> <p><strong>1. Would it be safe to say that progressives believe that if the government spends money, the economy will be stimulated and grow, and more people will have jobs? </strong></p> <p>Well, not just that it spends money, but that it does so in targeted ways. According to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's, the most effective government spending to counteract a recession is food stamps & unemployment insurance (see chart below). Why? Because people who get that aid need it, so they spend the money right away & it starts circulating through the economy.</p> <p>Zandi found that among the least effective government spending would be the Bush tax cuts (see chart below). Why? (i) The Bush tax cuts were never targeted to boost the economy. They were set up, quite literally, to reward Bush's biggest donors (i.e., fat cats). (ii) Nobody spends money they don't need to in a recession. Our natural tendency is to hunker down. Do rich people have to spend the money they get in tax cuts? No. Do they? No. Ergo, no additional money circulates through the economy, so it doesn't grow.</p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfyXnmvAbnFcILkZEX4p2M2CGbF-YxQivy7Tg_MYCZLynV2p3s0HiapM2s9mQaZb27LVVm62ix4VlJkDXwrtp6eEXxvw_g24X5Yk4RVTfZXr3z2ZaTiM7g2SpyRVHMgJ1ulNwk4N3ZaRqU/s1600/bang4BuckStimulusMethods.png"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 283px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfyXnmvAbnFcILkZEX4p2M2CGbF-YxQivy7Tg_MYCZLynV2p3s0HiapM2s9mQaZb27LVVm62ix4VlJkDXwrtp6eEXxvw_g24X5Yk4RVTfZXr3z2ZaTiM7g2SpyRVHMgJ1ulNwk4N3ZaRqU/s400/bang4BuckStimulusMethods.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5628647284767880418" border="0" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3oCkMX-WWUneVzVkbfGxm6A7sr7wiQn1tmB9wQVKVofaKU3yoM029UItTMctpNON_4JVfwkp5VMojRk8OwV_YSH79V0NhSlKLzMTT6wu8k9hSf3H_06znpsXp4MWTSJijQEUk6m3xcSGO/s1600/bang4BuckStimulusMethods.png"></a><p><strong>2. Government spends on people, people spend money, other people receive that money, the economy is stimulated. This is good.</strong></p> <p>Basically, yes. In economic terms, government spending in a recession starts the process. The rest of the process you mention is called the multiplier effect.</p> <p><strong>3. Republicans believe that we have to reduce the deficit by cutting government spending in order to reduce the deficit because we have to reduce the deficit because....you get the point.</strong></p> <p>Republicans SAY they believe that, but they're the ones who created 90% of the current deficit, directly or indirectly, in the first place. They held an extension of unemployment insurance hostage over their demand for continuation of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010, further deepening the deficit. And they're now insisting that (a) no taxes be raised to reduce the deficit and (b) any increase in government revenues via elimination of tax loopholes be offset by additional spending cuts. So there's no reason to take seriously any statements they make about their supposed concern about the deficit. They love deficits. So if they're not concerned about the deficit, what are their ulterior motives for all the posturing?</p> <p><a title="Republicans believe several different things" href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html" _mce_href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html" target="_blank">Republicans believe several different things</a> that underlie what they say they believe about the economy, all of them wrong:</p> <p>a.<strong> The smaller the government, the greater the individual freedom</strong>.<strong> Conversely, the bigger the government, the greater the encroachments on individual freedom:</strong> This sounds straightforward. In fact, it has deep roots in American culture, having been expressed directly by Thoreau in the early 19th century. More recently, Friedrich Hayek enunciated it when he predicted that the development of Britain's National Health Service (universal health care to you & me) would turn the UK into another Soviet Union. His prediction obviously was wrong, but that didn't stop conservatives from continuing to believe it with their typical fervor. There are lots of other problems with this (what measure is used to determine the size of government? i..e, how do we know if a government is too big or too small?), but limits of space & time preclude further elaboration.</p> <p>b. <strong>Tax cuts pay for themselves by increasing economic activity:</strong> Reagan tried it with huge tax cuts in 1981. The enormous resulting deficits led him to pass 8 consecutive tax increases (yes, increases), but nobody in the GOP seems to remember that part of the story. Bush, as we know, gave us the closest thing to a pure scientific test of this we're ever likely to have: With the GOP in control of all 3 branches of government, he passed enormous tax cuts & didn't subsequently offset them. He had the worst economic growth record of any president since Hoover. Conversely, Clinton raised taxes & had the biggest economic expansion in our country's history. So much for tax cuts stimulating growth. Again, the evidence has had no influence on GOP thinking.</p> <p>c. <strong>Starve the beast:</strong> Grover Norquist famously said he wanted to shrink government to a size that would enable him to "drown it in a bathtub." Again, see Bush. He cut taxes, waged two wars without paying for them, & passed the Medicare Part D unfunded mandate. Money was drained from the Treasury, but did government shrink? No, it grew. The only president to preside over a shrinkage in the size of government was Clinton, who raised taxes, as previously noted. Again, no correlation backing up the claim, and no acknowledgment of the fact by the GOP.</p> <p>Lastly, remember who funds their campaigns. The GOP always knows which side their bread is buttered on.</p> <p><strong>4. Obama believes that we have to reduce the deficit by cutting government spending because ________?</strong></p> <p>See my answer to #7 below.</p> <p><strong>5. Obama wants the economy to be stimulated because if more people have more money they will vote for him. Also theoretically he does actually want people to have more money.</strong></p> <p>One would think...</p> <p><strong>6. Does Obama think that cutting the deficit is going to stimulate the economy?</strong></p> <p>I guess he must, but I don't know.</p> <p><strong>7. Does deficit reduction stimulate the economy?</strong></p> <p>For an economy stuck in a severe recession? Hell, no. See #1 above. Just as there's a multiplier effect, there's also a negative multiplier effect. Think about it like this: As rain falls on crops, the water circulates into the soil, around the roots of plants, and the plants are fed, enabling them to grow. Imagine what happens when there's a drought. Water no longer circulates, plants are not fed, and they die.</p> <p>Right now, not enough money is circulating through the economy--at least, not to ordinary people (the banks have oodles of the stuff--much of it from the bailouts--but they're not issuing much credit, businesses are not expanding & hiring, unemployed people are not making ends meet, so they're not spending, so there's little demand, so businesses aren't expanding & hiring, rinse & repeat). Since interest rates are near zero, the Fed can't lower interest rates any more to stimulate the economy. And the consensus in Washington is that we don't dare--no, no, no--do further stimulus spending to boost the economy. So we're stuck.</p> <p>All deficit reduction will do in this context is remove more money from an economy that already has too little circulating through it. Take a look at what's happening to public service employees. State employees are being laid off right & left. All of them have families, most have houses, cars, bills to pay, etc. but there's no money to be had. All this is creating enormous strain on state budgets because the demand for Medicaid is going through the roof due to all these people becoming unemployed. So what are the GOP & now Obama talking about? Making enormous cuts to the federal budget (including aid to the states, which is already failing to meet the exploding need). But all the Very Serious People to whom Obama seems to be listening in DC make 6- or 7-figure salaries. None of them know anybody who's unemployed, I'd venture to guess. Economists have declared the recession over (that's the recession defined in technical terms, not in terms of what's actually happening to ordinary people). So I guess Obama thinks that if the technocrats say it's over, it's over, & it's time to start reducing the deficit. Now that I think of it, this brings to mind a recent thread about <a title="epistemic closure" href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/04/22/a-coda-on-closure/" _mce_href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/04/22/a-coda-on-closure/" target="_blank"> epistemic closure</a> among conservatives that appeared in blog posts by Henry Farrell, Julian Sanchez & some other smart people. But obviously, conservatives are not the only ones susceptible to that dynamic (of course, reasonable people may disagree about whether Obama is a liberal, a conservative or something else).</p><p style="font-weight: bold;">One Final Note</p><p>As <a href="http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/class-warfare-boomerangs-gop">Kevin Drum</a> and others have remarked tonight after Mitch McConnell's plan was announced, it seems that the GOP may have boxed themselves in with their insistence on drastic budget cuts with no revenue increases under any circumstances. Speaker of the House John Boehner himself told fellow House Republicans earlier today that they were going to lose leverage steadily as the August 2 deadline drew nearer. Judging by McConnell's announcement, that leverage may be ebbing more quickly than they'd anticipated. It's always a stretch to try to read the minds of others, and some of my comments above may go further in that direction than the evidence supports. Whether Obama is a fool or a genius (or both) is probably best evaluated with greater temporal and emotional detachment than I possess. My own perceptions of him are susceptible to changes in the political winds so I'm probably well advised to restrict my analyses to the economics and politics of the issues at hand. That said, I do think that allowing the entire debate over the budget to take place on GOP terms--i.e., with a focus on the deficit rather than on job creation--is a huge unforced error on Obama's part. We still don't know how the whole debt ceiling debate will play out; nor do we know what will happen vis a vis the deficit. But it's hard to see how we get from our current situation of high unemployment and low job growth to one that returns our economy to health. This short-term deficit obsession is a detour that doesn't help us get where we need to go, and may actually make the situation far worse.<br /></p> <p>An earlier version of this was cross posted at <a href="http://www.greaternycforchange.org/?p=676">http://www.greaternycforchange.org/?p=676</a>.</p>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-44790047872833489682011-03-15T20:02:00.002-04:002011-03-15T20:08:49.272-04:00Links to Aid for Japanese Disaster Victims<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOwR5XDkv_bXIlV8yNIsj4SXz8dgodgrXkXUS1zQq_tM_q3z_H7sRxwapAimiR6gqQw8byLQoDLxCGHzG16K3ylN0bKXWtsrp8uJShGXCcn0T3HcoCPiMUFUdd_jbrH6lRsuPP0y8gvrNp/s1600/natori_500323f.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 255px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOwR5XDkv_bXIlV8yNIsj4SXz8dgodgrXkXUS1zQq_tM_q3z_H7sRxwapAimiR6gqQw8byLQoDLxCGHzG16K3ylN0bKXWtsrp8uJShGXCcn0T3HcoCPiMUFUdd_jbrH6lRsuPP0y8gvrNp/s400/natori_500323f.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5584462955272074082" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Here's a great <a href="http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-how-to-help/">collection of links</a>, courtesy of the NY Times.<br /><br />At this point the tally is one earthquake, one tsunami, and three explosions plus a fire at a nuclear power plant. Millions of people have been displaced, many people have died or been injured.<br /><br />Please do what you can to help.Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-78950033403210471692011-03-09T22:22:00.002-05:002011-03-09T22:38:57.105-05:00A Message from Daily Kos on the Wisconsin Vote<p>The following message was sent to a friend of mine. It has taken on particular urgency given the Wisconsin Senate's vote tonight to end collective bargaining in that state, which is why I'm taking the liberty of re-posting excerpts from it:<br /></p><p></p><blockquote><p>You can support the recall [against Republican state Senators, ed.] by <a href="http://www.actblue.com/page/orangetoblue2012?refcode=3_09_Recall3" target="_blank"><b>contributing to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin</b></a>, which is the central organizing hub for the campaign. The DPW has already gathered 15% of the petition signatures required to force a recall election.</p> <p><a href="http://www.actblue.com/page/orangetoblue2012?refcode=3_09_Recall3" target="_blank"><b>Please, contribute $5 to the recall.</b></a></p>...<br /><br />The outcome of these recall campaigns will largely determine whether those who make policy decisions believe there is any political price to pay for gutting the middle class. So even beyond the rights of tens of thousands of public workers in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere, the stakes in the Wisconsin recall campaign are very high. <p><a href="http://www.actblue.com/page/orangetoblue2012?refcode=3_09_Recall3" target="_blank"><b>Please contribute $5 to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.</b></a> If we do not complete even this first crucial step in winning the recall elections, then all of our efforts over these past three weeks will largely be for naught.</p> </blockquote><p></p>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-64731829420769341782011-02-09T21:50:00.006-05:002011-02-09T22:16:23.824-05:00What's Ron Paul's Beef with the Federal Reserve?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj16MGkApdQbWvX27gb81XNItmzi9vW6zYHSST2vnKrLSAavBhNucIQgI9RYusUSxjTbhY3hGpl1UPPE3TgXD5i1bFGbktbgX9h1rgyY-tI-wOnms7Juw_KIWXfBXzlnRJj1e7PPs_K9sKt/s1600/mib_tentacles.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 219px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj16MGkApdQbWvX27gb81XNItmzi9vW6zYHSST2vnKrLSAavBhNucIQgI9RYusUSxjTbhY3hGpl1UPPE3TgXD5i1bFGbktbgX9h1rgyY-tI-wOnms7Juw_KIWXfBXzlnRJj1e7PPs_K9sKt/s400/mib_tentacles.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5571894338341350402" border="0" /></a><br />[LENGTH WARNING]<br /><br />My, it has been quite a while, hasn't it.<br /><br /><br /><br />A friend posed the following question:<br /><br /><blockquote>...And I am truly trying to wrap my brain around the Federal Reserve information I want so much to understand, but I can't get any 'good' out of it, only criminal mischief. And I never trusted Ron Paul, but a lot of people I know are ready to put him in the White House. Why do I mistrust him? Can you tell me, because I don't know exactly why, BUT I KNOW...</blockquote>I'll try to give something like an answer; hopefully, it'll be coherent.<br /><br />Ron Paul (like his son, Rand) is intensely devoted to libertarianism. I don't know if you're familiar with that particular ism. Basically, the underlying idea of libertarianism is that the only frame of reference for analyzing society is that of the individual. Collective behavior of any kind is inherently suspected. Culture, history, sociology, psychology--forget it. There's only the individual & the only question worth asking is whether any social program, idea or phenomenon increases individual freedom. For a number of libertarians, this dovetails neatly with the writings of Ayn Rand, the creator of a "philosophy" called objectivism. Rand posited in Atlas Shrugged that the smartest, most individualistic people in society are carrying a vast majority of sheeplike wastrels on their backs, giving more to society through the results of their hard work & taxes than they receive from the masses of shirkers. Her hero, John Galt, and other producers decide to withhold their labor in protest, thereby bringing society to its knees. You can see that same sense of indispensibility & entitlement among today's hedge fund managers & bond traders as they howl along with Rick Santelli on MSNBC about how they're paying the mortgages of all those lazy people who sit around expecting handouts, blah blah.<br /><br />You can see how this almost hysterical exaltation of the individual is a very attractive notion. After all, we're products of the most extremely individualistic culture on earth. But the problem is that by essentially ruling out every other way of looking at society except the individual & his/her freedom, libertarians exclude the vast majority of evidence available to our sense organs (not to mention research libraries). That denial of context leads to weird positions such as Rand Paul's statement that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 & 1965 as encroachments on the individual rights of segregationists (OK, in Rand's case there's clearly something else at work here. He certainly doesn't consider infringements on the individual rights of black people caused by discrimination, for example). To be fair, some libertarians are very good on first amendment rights issues (after all, individual rights is their sole obsession), but on everything else, you get this weird prezel logic based on denial of everything beyond the individual & his or her rights. In their denial of the importance of power differentials in society, libertarians, whether intentionally or not, open the door to Social Darwinism.<br /><br />The libertarian obsession with the individual leads to economic ideas hostile to government & to collective activity of any kind. Thus libertarians like Ron Paul find congenial economic theories that rationalize the elimination of government action & programs. Paul is an adherent of what's known as the Austrian School of economics, an approach that's rejected by mainstream economists, both liberal & conservative. Essentially, the Austrian School argues for laissez-faire economics with government involvement in & oversight of the economy reduced to the barest minimum. Austrian School adherents also argue that mathematical modeling, statistics & testing are basically useless in the study of economics & argue instead for the use of logical deduction based on first principles instead. And ouija boards (just kidding).<br /><br />One of the heroes of economic libertarians, Friedrich Hayek, was a member of the Austrian School. Hayek argued that Britain was going to become another Soviet Union due to the creation of its National Health Service. (Hayek is often cited for saying that the bigger the government, the greater the encroachment on human freedom. What exactly is meant by "big" & "small" in this context has always confused me. Does this mean that the US, for example, is less free than Chile under Augusto Pinochet?) Needless to say, Hayek's prediction didn't work out very well, but that hasn't dulled the ardor of his adherents. (After all, who needs evidence when you've got first principles?)<br /><br />Paul is also extremely hostile to the Federal Reserve, which he wants to eliminate (Paul Ryan, another libertarian, shares this view). Another big institution, and therefore threatening to human freedom. Have I told you how oppressed I feel when I hear that the Fed has lowered interest rates? The irony is that the Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 in response to the extreme concentration of economic power, lack of regulation of banking activities, and the absence of a central bank to bolster the economy in the case of a crisis, all of which was exposed in the aftermath of the Panic of 1907. The Fed provided the latter, but it was far too weak to deal with the other two problems, as was illustrated by the Great Depression. Now, you may be wondering, in the aftermath of the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression, with extreme concentrations of economic power in a highly unregulated financial system, why Ron Paul wants to do away with the institution that provides the bulwark for that system. Why, you might ask, does he not instead focus his efforts on strengthening regulation of the financial sector (creating an institution that would provide training & advancement to successively higher levels of regulatory complexity & responsibility, a la the training program at the State Department, for example, and working to make the salaries of regulators comparable to those of their counterparts at banks, thereby removing the incentive of regulators to go to work for the firms they regulate)? Why, in short, does Paul not work to prevent a recurrence of the crisis we’ve just experienced, rather than weaken one of the institutions responsible for minimizing the damage when such crises occur? That question applies to the GOP in Congress, almost across the board. It’s one of the questions of the age.Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-77695902340618116492010-04-17T09:38:00.003-04:002010-04-17T11:06:41.088-04:00I Only Talk to People & Get My News from Sources Agreeing with Me. Who Needs Reality?A long time ago, a commenter on a blog thread (I no longer remember which blog or thread--sorry) asked me to comment on libertarianism. At the time I didn't know anything about the subject, so I said nothing. If you're in the mood for a rather involved but quite rewarding/entertaining exploration of the subject, here's an argument (not mine--I'm just a spectator) to follow:<br /><br />A post on a libertarian website bemoans the supposed loss of freedom in American life since the late 19th century--neglecting to notice the dramatically improved status of black people, women, Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Italians, etc. since then. This has led to an involved debate on a bunch of blogs devoted to philosophy and politics which I find interesting, illuminating and, at times, very amusing.<br /><br /><a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2010/04/11/adventures-in-libertarian-blind-spots/">John Holbo</a> reviews the ensuing debate, noting an obvious blind spot among many libertarians. He then follows up, citing Jacob Levy on the role played by <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2010/04/12/more-libertarianism-thread/">ideological blinders</a> in these peculiar omissions among many libertarians.<br /><br />Then John Quiggen steps in with some delicious snark about the <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2010/04/12/the-road-to-where/">predictive powers</a> of libertarian hero Friedrich Hayek's theory about the relationship between laissez-faire economics and freedom.<br /><br />Bryan Caplan then tries to defend libertarianism, but does so, as <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2010/04/13/if-those-women/">Holbo observes</a>, in a way that demolishes his whole argument.<br /><br />But wait! There's more! Megan McCardle steps in with that old conservative chestnut, conservatives are being excluded from academia. Except she argues by claiming equivalence between that supposed exclusion and the exclusion of black people from business leadership, both of which, she asserts, occurred via "things like social networks, subtle bias, and tacit norms about what constituted the boundaries of acceptable traits" for inclusion. This, of course, omits those minor details, Jim Crow and de facto racial discrimination, notes <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2010/04/13/nobody-knows-the-trouble-theyve-seen/">Michael Berube</a>. Hmmm... We're right back at the beginning with those libertarian blind spots.<br /><br />Speaking of blind spots, Julian Sanchez considers the conservative echo chamber with reference to the concept of "<a href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/04/07/epistemic-closure-technology-and-the-end-of-distance/">epistemic closure</a>."Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-42955538386383832352010-03-12T19:54:00.004-05:002010-03-14T20:26:38.490-04:00BUS TRIP TO WASHINGTON, DC<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);font-size:130%;" >MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2010</span><br /><br /><div> </div> <div style="font-weight: bold;">Join medical professionals and community members from across the country.</div><br /><div style="font-weight: bold;"> </div> <div style="font-weight: bold;">Tell Congress, <em>we need health reform now</em>! Put people ahead of politics.</div><br /><div style="font-weight: bold;"> </div> <div><span style="font-weight: bold;">To RSVP</span>, go to <a href="http://www.healthmarch.org/" target="_blank">www.healthmarch.org</a></div><br /><div><span style="font-weight: bold;">To sign up for a FREE bus</span>, go to <a href="http://tinyurl.com/march22bus" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/march22bus</a></div><br /><div><span style="font-weight: bold;">Meet up time</span> is 5:30 AM, leave at 6 AM on the North Side of Union Square (17th St.) </div> <div> </div><br /><div style="font-weight: bold;">*Volunteers are needed!</div><br /><div>Meet new people, have fun, and make history!</div> <div> </div><br /><div>***</div> <div>For the full schedule, go to <a href="http://www.healthmarch.org/agenda.php" target="_blank">http://www.healthmarch.org/<wbr>agenda.php</a></div> <div> </div><br /><div>10:00 am – 11:00 am: Gather at the White House (Freedom Plaza) on Pennsylvania avenue between 13th and 14th street in NW DC</div> <div>11:00 am – 11:30 am: White House Rally</div> <div>— Members of Congress, doctors, nurses and other health professionals featured.</div> <div>11:30 am – 12:30 pm: March down Pennsylvania Avenue to Capitol Hill.</div> <div>1:00 pm – 2:00 pm: Capitol Hill Visitor Center media event with Congressional Leadership*</div> <div>2:00 - 4:00 pm: Visits with members of Congress or their staff</div><div>4:00 - 6:00 pm: Social Hour, Place TBD</div>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-85775519410999072552009-12-16T13:05:00.001-05:002009-12-16T13:07:33.669-05:00How To Wreck an Economy in Eight Short YearsThis pretty much says it all:<br /><br /><a href="http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/12/how-wreck-economy-eight-short-years?nocache=1">How To Wreck an Economy in Eight Short Years</a><br /><br />(HT Kevin Drum)Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-13486641793521856102009-12-15T07:11:00.003-05:002009-12-15T07:18:15.841-05:00Portrait of a ScoundrelHere's a <a href="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/12/health-care-reform-watch-senator-joe-lieberman-humiliates-himself-yet-again.html">video clip</a> of Joe Lieberman advocating--just three months ago!!!--for the same Medicare buy-in plan he's now threatening to filibuster.<br /><br />There's no excuse for anyone to pretend any longer that Lieberman's behavior can be explained in terms of logic, evidence or principle. Ezra Klein's <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/liebermans_principles_or_lack.html?referrer=emaillink">comments</a> on this are particularly apt.Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-51269002448183472732009-11-01T10:25:00.002-05:002009-11-01T10:34:22.774-05:00Jon Stewart Explains Fox NoyzeI have nothing to add to <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-">this commentary</a>.Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-39659544482195770362009-10-12T21:33:00.007-04:002009-10-12T22:27:14.298-04:00Now's the Time<span style="font-weight: bold;">We are on the cusp of a decision that may launch our country on a path of genuine improvements to our health care system. Whether the outcome is progressive reform depends on all of us.<br /><br />Here's a list of events, most in New York, some not. Please do what you can.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">TUES</span></b><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">DAY – OCTOBER 13</span></b><br /></span><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" > </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><b><u><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Upper Manhattan Health Care Reform Forum with Barack Obama Democratic Club of Upper Manhattan</span></u></b><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><br /></span></b></span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >Time:<u> </u><span> </span>7 PM<br />Location: The Armory – 216 Ft. Washington Ave., between 168th & 169th St. (ground floor theater).</span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >• State Senator Eric Schneiderman, sponsor of a bill that would enact universal health coverage in NY State.<br />• Councilman Bill de Blasio, Democratic nominee for NYC Public Advocate, and sponsor of a bill to promote healthy eating.<br />• Geoff Berman, Deputy Field Director for OFA NY.<br />• Dr. Aaron Fox, National Physicians Alliance </span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" ><span> <b><br />WEDNE</b></span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">SDAY</span></b><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> - OCTOBER 14<br /><br /></span></b><b><u><span style="font-family:Verdana;">National Day of Action - Rally for the Public Option</span></u></b><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><br /></span></b></span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >Time: </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">4:30 - 5:30 PM</span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><br /></span></b></span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >Location:<span> </span>Southwest corner of </span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >Union Square</span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >.<br /><b><span style="font-weight: normal;font-family:Verdana;" >Host: <a href="http://moveon.org/" target="_blank"><span><span><span style="text-decoration: none;">Moveon.org</span></span></span></a></span></b><b><br /></b></span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >Bring thank you cards written to Sen. Schumer, or write them right there at the event.<span> </span>A member of Sen. Schumer's office will be on hand to accept the cards.<br /><b><br /></b></span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" ><b>S</b></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">ATU</span></b><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">RDA</span></b><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Y – OCTOBER 17<br /><u><br /></u><a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gpc57t" target="_blank">Get BACK on the Bus for Health Care Reform</a><br /></span></b></span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >Time: 9:00 AM<br />Location: Easton, PA - Departing from Port Authority Bus Terminal<br />Host: Tom Predhome<br /><b><br />UPCOMING EVENTS – WEEK OF OCTOBER 19TH<br />MONDAY – OCTOBER 19<u><br /></u></b></span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><b><u><span style="font-family:Verdana;">"Health Care Issues: Urgent<span> </span>Issues, Critical Information"</span></u></b><b><u><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><br /></span></u></b></span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >Time<span> </span>5:30 - 7:30 pm<br />Location: <a href="http://nyp.org/facilities/westchester.html" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: none;">New York Presbyterian Hospital - Main Building 21 Bloomingdale Road, White Plains, NY 10605</span></a><br />Host: NASW NYS Westchester Division & the League of Women Voters of Westchester<br />Speakers:<br />• Mark Hannay, Director, New York Metro Health Care for All Campaign<br />• Mary Beth Morrissey, </span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >MPH</span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >, Health Care Attorney, Fordham Ravazzin Center on Aging </span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" ><b> TUESDAY – OCTOBER 20 - HEALTH </b></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">CARE</span></b><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> REFORM DAY OF </span></b><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">ACTI</span></b><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">ON</span></b></span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-size:85%;"><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><u><br /><a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/healthcarephonebank/gpc5j3" target="_blank">OFA Phone Bank for Health Care Reform</a></u></span></b></span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" ><br />Times: Shifts at 12 pm, 2 pm<br />Location: OFA office in Midtown East<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><br /><a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/timetodeliverseniors/gpcx5b" target="_blank">Staten Island Senior Center Tour</a><br /></span></b></span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >Time: 12:00 PM - 4:00 PM<br />Location: TBD (Staten Island, NY)<br /><br /><b><a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/timetodeliverwomen/gpcx5y" target="_blank">Women Calling Women to Fight for Health Care Reform</a><br /></b>Time: 12:00 PM - 3:00 PM<br />Bronx, NY 10463<span> </span><br /><br /><b><a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/timetodelivercallparty/gpcxh8" target="_blank">Time to Deliver Call Party</a><br /></b>Time: 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM<br />Location: 308 East 72nd Street, 11 D (New York, NY)<br /><br /><b><a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/timetodeliverseniors/gpcx5s" target="_blank">Queens Senior to Senior Phonebank</a><br /></b>Time: 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM<br />Location: TBD (Jamaica, NY)<br /><span> </span><br /><b><a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/timetodeliverwomen/gpcx5p" target="_blank">Women Calling Women to Fight for Health Care Reform</a><br /></b>Time: 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM<br />Location: TBD (Bronxville, NY)<br /><br /><b><a target="_blank">Bushwick Health-Care Reform Telephone Soiree</a></b><b><br /></b>Time: 7:00 PM - 10:00 PM<br />Location: Brooklyn, NY (Brooklyn, NY)<br /><br /><b><a target="_blank">Call for Health Reform (UWS)</a></b><b><br /></b>Time: 8:00 PM - 9:00 PM<br />Location: 300 W 110th Street, Apt. 5E, New York, NY 10026<br /></span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"> </p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">THURSDAY – OCTOBER 22<br /><u><br />TEACH-IN ON HEALTH CARE REFORM<br /></u></span></b></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >Busting the<span> </span>myths and making the case for health care for all!<br />LEARN WHAT YOU CAN DO to fight the myths and misinformation about health reform!<br /><b>• </b>Time: 7:00 - 9:00 pm; Doors open at 6:30 pm with refreshments<br /><span><b>• </b><span></span>Location</span>: Rosenfield Building, Hess Commons (Main Flr.)<br />Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University722 W 168th St<span>.</span><br />Myth-busting speakers will include:<br /><b>• </b>Karen Wang, MD; THE NATIONAL PHYSICIANS ALLIANCE<br /><b>• </b>William Jordan, MD, MPH; THE NATIONAL PHYSICIANS ALLIANCE<br /><b>• </b>Tim Foley; NYC FOR CHANGE<br /><b>• </b>Mark Hannay; METRO NY HEALTH CARE FOR ALL<br /><b>• </b>Carmina Bernardo; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NYC<br />For up-to-date information on speakers, visit <a href="http://www.phanyc.org/index.html" target="_blank">www.phanyc.org</a><br />Help make sure we get health reform this year!<br /><br /><b><i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">More events on <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/user/login?successurl=L3BhZ2UvZGFzaGJvYXJkL3ByaXZhdGU=&_h=R7eLleNlvR32IUbri4ek40kHrFI" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span><span><span style="text-decoration: none;">my.barackobama.com</span></span></span></a></span></i></b></span>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-91973004102511566802009-09-12T14:05:00.013-04:002009-09-12T15:34:02.813-04:00I Have to Raise My Voice<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr2RP6Qv74g3OixZGpzSASkXplrDFj0FILo6MlDBB29Ol1WGtD_ja8gnx_FlOKlzB1GIwmj6_ReYZ8WyXCGyCn27UXKoLMbNSBxKAASLQg_NxzS7ToKYAazKwBaLw_zJXnB_8aLu2KnLF0/s1600-h/karlrove.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 267px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr2RP6Qv74g3OixZGpzSASkXplrDFj0FILo6MlDBB29Ol1WGtD_ja8gnx_FlOKlzB1GIwmj6_ReYZ8WyXCGyCn27UXKoLMbNSBxKAASLQg_NxzS7ToKYAazKwBaLw_zJXnB_8aLu2KnLF0/s400/karlrove.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5380666031419028322" border="0" /></a><br />Tuesday is primary day in NYC, which of course means we're all being bombarded with flyers, ads, etc. You all know the drill.<br /><br />I got home last night to find a really sleazy flyer in my mailbox from one Delia Hunley-Adossa containing the following:<br /><br />At the top of the page is a very unflattering black & white photo of my councilwoman, Letitia James.<br /><br />Underneath, in bold solid caps, is the following text:<br /><blockquote>CONVICTED BROOKLYN COUNTY ORGANIZATION LEADERS SOLD POLITICAL OFFICE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER.<br /><br />So just how much did Letitia James have to pay?<br /><br />James' political career was borne of a corrupt county system that put a price on holding office and collected big from ambitious candidates like James. The party bosses ruled and the power-hungry paid for their support.<br /><br />The County Organization hand-delivered James into office and James... well, let's just say that one hand washes the other.</blockquote><br />A few points:<br /><br />1. Note the juxtaposition of the word "convicted" with the photo, clearly implying , by association, criminality on the part of James.<br /><br />2. Unnamed "leaders" are accused of selling "office" (which office?) in the upper-case text. Just below, the flyer asks how much James had to pay. There is nothing in the flyer specifying any charges whatsoever against James.<br /><br />3. The accusations are all made via implication, which is pretty underhanded. The implicit argument seems to be the following:<br /><ul><br /><li>The Brooklyn Democratic organization (never mentioned by name, btw) is corrupt;</li><br /><li>Letitia James is part of the Brooklyn Democratic Party;</li><br /><li>Ergo, she must be corrupt, too (this is obviously guilt-by-association, which is a slimy way to make an argument).</li></ul><br />4. The last sentence in the flyer is in two parts. The first says "The County Organization hand-delivered James into office..." This is false. James actually had decided not to run for the council seat then held by James Davis, but his assassination led to the problematic candidacy of his brother. James then entered the race, winning handily.<br /><br />5. The second part of the last sentence is another unsourced smear: "and James... well, let's just say that one hand washes the other." What's the basis for this claim? As with all the other innuendos in the flyer, no evidence is provided to support it.<br /><br />So who is the object of all these innuendos and smears?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Letitia James</span> is a <a href="http://fort-greene.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/in-council-race-james-banks-on-ay-opposition/">lawyer</a> whose role models were Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley & Barbara Jordan. She worked for the Legal Aid Society, then was Assistant Attorney General under then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. She served as Chief of Staff to Assemblyman Roger L. Green, then as counsel to then-State Assemblyman Albert Vann. She gained a reputation as a rough-edged election lawyer for the Democratic Party, which probably earned her the enmity of some. On the City Council, she led efforts to set up a Business Improvement District on Fulton Street, opposed Mayor Bloomberg's successful effort to repeal term limits, supported the creation of bike lanes, and for greater stimulus funding for the 35th district, <span style="font-weight: bold;">and, most relevant to the Hunley-Adossa flyer, has been one of the most prominent opponents of the Atlantic Yards project.<br /><br /></span>And who, you ask, is the candidate behind the sleazy flyer? <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br />Delia Hunley-Adossa</span> is a <a href="http://tinyurl.com/o6vyoy">long-time community activist</a> whose group, Brooklyn Endeavor Experience, has <a href="http://tinyurl.com/pvhoac">received over $400,000 from Bruce Ratner</a>. Yes, that Bruce Ratner--the developer of Atlantic Yards. Needless to say, Hunley-Adossa is a <a href="http://tinyurl.com/o6vyoy">staunch supporter of the Atlantic Yards project</a>. Her group is also <a href="http://tinyurl.com/pkvvtf">heavily stocked with family members</a>, according to The Brooklyn Paper, a practice commonly known as nepotism, and one we certainly don't need to see on the City Council.<br /><br />Hunley-Adossa has distinguished herself in this campaign by comments in a debate at the offices of The Brooklyn Paper in which she exhibited <a href="http://tinyurl.com/pkvvtf">unfamiliarity</a> with the powers and responsibilities of the City Council, and a pronounced aversion to questioning by the news media, as reported by Brooklyn Paper:<br /><blockquote><br />The debate was a rare opportunity for The Brooklyn Paper to question Hunley-Adossa, who stopped returning phone calls from The Paper’s reporters months ago. She explained the snub, saying she didn’t know that we had called, though later revealed that she must have known about the reporters’ calls because they came to her home phone and cellphone — devices that she does not answer because they are “private” lines.<br /><br />“It’s invasive,” said the candidate, whose opinion about privacy was not shared by the other candidates.<br /><br />She promised to answer her phone 24 hours a day if she’s elected to office.</blockquote><br />It remains to be seen whether Hunley-Adossa's veracity with regard to accessibility will be any greater if she's elected than it has been during the campaign.<br /><br />Hunley-Adossa is very well funded, thanks to Ratner. The flyer in question is very well produced--heavy paper stock, glossy finish, high resolution, perfect registration, and diabolically clever wording & positioning of page elements. It looks and feels, in fact, very much like a piece one would expect to find in a Republican Party campaign. National political consultants have been hired to work on election races in NY city & state before, and this certainly feels like the work of the kinds of people who gave us the Willy Horton ad, the assaults on Michael Dukakis and the teabaggers, with their bogus claims about Obama plans for euthenasia, kidnapping and indoctrination.<br /><br />Let's give the people behind this sort of campaigning the kind of result they deserve. Let's vote on Tuesday for Letitia James, who has done a good job representing us in the 35th district, and who does not reduce public discourse to the gutter level to promote her candidacy.Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-30016650964598585402009-09-11T22:15:00.003-04:002009-09-11T22:22:31.570-04:00We're #37!!!!Here's a little song about our global standing in terms of health care. I don't know who's responsible for it, but it's letter perfect:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yVgOl3cETb4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yVgOl3cETb4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />[H/T Marta Evry at <a href="http://www.veniceforchange.com/">Venice for Change</a>]Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-87104321203198424432009-08-13T23:02:00.005-04:002009-08-13T23:08:48.140-04:00UNITY WALK AND RALLY FOR HEALTH CARE<b><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);font-size:6;" >August 29, 2009</span><br /><br /><i><span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 102);">UNITED, WE WALK FOR REFORM</span></i><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-size:6;" ><br /> </span></span><i><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 51, 0);">2 PM Rally at Times Square, 42nd St. and 7th Avenue</span></span><br /> <br /></i></b>Health reform is finally within grasp. Opponents are spending millions every day to destroy it. We cannot let this happen. We voted for change in '08 and we must see it through.<br /><br />On Saturday, August 29, 2009, New Yorkers will walk from all parts of the city for the first ever United We Walk for Reform Rally in support of the historic health reform legislation before Congress.<br /><br />It's our health care. It's our time. Save the date to make your voice heard.<br /><b><br />MID-MORNING, ACROSS THE CITY: </b>Grassroots groups will meet in front of hospitals and health clinics across the city to walk to rally at Times Square. Check out <a href="http://mybarackobama.com/" target="_blank">mybarackobama.com</a> for meeting locations in the next week (or set up one of your own).<br /> <b>2 - 3:30 PM - UNITY RALLY:</b> Rally for health care at Times Square, 42nd St. and 7th Avenue<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Want to organize your own walk to the rally? It's easy:</span><br /> <br />1) List your "United, We Walk for Health Care Reform" event on <a href="http://mybarackobama.com/" target="_blank">mybarackobama.com</a> and spread the word to your friends.<br />2) To calculate the time you'll need to get to Times Square, we recommend <a href="http://hopstop.com/" target="_blank">hopstop.com</a>.<br /> 3) Have fun and bring banners, wear t-shirts and buttons. Be creative!<br />4) Remind people to use sidewalks and bring posterboard signs (nothing on sticks).<br /><br />Thank you for being a leader for health care reform. This can't happen without you!<b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);"><br /></b>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-20286839656305056192009-08-11T22:51:00.006-04:002009-08-11T23:16:37.144-04:00Demystifying the Health Care Debate<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-size:130%;" >We break down what’s going on with Health Care Reform</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);font-size:130%;" >Saturday, August 15 at 3pm</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">Harlem4</span><br /></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">2479 Frederick Douglass Blvd just below 133rd St.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 204);">Featuring Harlem4 members:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Dr. Janet Taylor</span> (Today Show, Star Jones Live)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Steve Leser</span> (Editor, OpEd News)<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."</span> -Martin Luther King, Jr.<br /><br />In November-and against all odds, we took the driver's seat. We cannot become guilty of falling asleep at the wheel.<br /><br />The availability, the expense and the inadequacies of health care in America are a national disgrace. We worked hard to elect an Administration that is responsive to the needs of everyday Americans. The next stage requires that we continue our call that health care in America is regarded as a human right. We are making the statement that national health care is a national imperative and we feel that there is no more appropriate place to make our stand than in Harlem.<br /><br />Join us. Bring your family. Bring your friends, neighbors and coworkers. Please forward and distribute the flier below. To make change, we must make our stand.<br /><br />As Barack Obama said himself, change in health care "requires a mobilization of energy of the American people to insist on a Congress and a White House that are actually going to deliver this time."<br /><br />Chet Whye<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">On Facebook:</span><br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=113090443562&__a=1">http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=113090443562&__a=1</a><br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=113090443562&__a=1#/group.php?gid=103281453579">http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=113090443562&__a=1#/group.php?gid=103281453579</a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">On mybarackobama.com:</span><br /><a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gpfcl3">http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gpfcl3</a>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6177848353559234331.post-54109299506791133862009-08-06T20:31:00.016-04:002009-08-06T22:45:26.515-04:00Upcoming Events<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-size:130%;" ><b>Sick in the System</b></span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-size:7;" >Film Screening Party</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-size:100%;" ><b>Tuesday, August 11th, 7-10 PM</b></span><br /><br /><b><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);">Irish Rogue, 356 W. 44th St (between 8th and 9th Ave.)</span></b><br /><br />RSVP: <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/healthcareorganizingevent/gpf3lv" target="_blank">http://my.barackobama.com/<wbr>page/event/detail/<wbr>healthcareorganizingevent/<wbr>gpf3lv</a><br /><br />Join us at the Irish Rogue to view this powerful documentary made by a group of New York grassroots volunteers!<br /><br />We will also talk about how we will help cure our "sick" system!<br /><br />The film features real life stories, which have been central to swaying Congress and is something President Obama's been asking for. It's the all volunteer work of a young director, Brooklynite Brian Umana, and his team of twelve, who have interviewed dozens of New Yorkers over the past few months. We're learning how important personal stories are to this movement, and that's why this particular volunteer effort is so important: to get these stories to legislators.<br /><br />Check out clips here:<br /><br />Kelly (from Brooklyn): <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8yLr2LLrCQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=a8yLr2LLrCQ</a><div><br />Jaime: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3Q3omUSY88&feature=related" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=U3Q3omUSY88&feature=related</a><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-size:130%;" ><b>Community Health Fair</b></span></div><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-size:100%;" >Saturday, August 8 10:00 AM</span><br /><br /><a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/communityservice/gpf38y" target="_blank">http://my.barackobama.com/<wbr>page/event/detail/<wbr>communityservice/gpf38y</a><br /><br /><div>A multi cultural Annual health fair. With Music, food and fun. The celebration includes Health care and mental Health information. The goal is to Educate the community, while celebrating the end of summer. This Event will be held at the Calvary Cathedral of Praise, where several colorful tents will be erected. A variety of the finest exotic and comfort foods/dishes from various Countries including the U.S.A. Health care data via mobile equipment. Information about Health Care Reform will be on Hand. Members from Organizing for America are encouraged and urged to participate,and to enjoy the event.</div><br /><table><tbody align="center" valign="top"><tr align="left" valign="top"><th align="left" valign="top">Time</th><td align="left" valign="top">Saturday, August 8,10 AM</td></tr><tr align="left" valign="top"><th align="left" valign="top">Host:</th><td align="left" valign="top">Joanne A Bailey</td></tr><tr align="left" valign="top"><th align="left" valign="top">Location:</th><td align="left" valign="top">Calvary Cathedral of Praise (Brooklyn, NY)</td></tr><tr align="left" valign="top"><th align="left" valign="top"><br /></th><td align="left" valign="top">45 East 8th Street</td></tr><tr align="left" valign="top"><th align="left" valign="top"><br /></th><td align="left" valign="top">Brooklyn, NY 11218</td></tr></tbody></table>Sign Sans Signifiedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05517112691932613138noreply@blogger.com0