enlarge

Credit: Blue Gal

I'm not saying Mitt Romney is a unicorn.....

Open Thread below....

Paul McCartney's excellent Ram was gussied up and re-released this week. And if you need more proof of how cool Sir Paul is, click here. What's your favorite Paul song?

RAM [Deluxe Book Edition] [4CD+1DVD]
	Artist: Paul McCartney Price: $90.98 (As of 05/23/12 05:38 pm details)

Washington, DC - Last week we witnessed the capo di tutti capi of political and policy evolution. President Barack Obama, after Vice-President Joe Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan played the role of his social-issue Shofar, came out in favour of the equality of marriage for all in the US, regardless of sexual orientation. To put it in simple terms: for the first time in the history of this country, the president of the United States supports gay marriage.

This is obviously a big moment. For those seeking to enter loving relationships recognised by law, nothing has changed in that realm. But culturally, when the president or other major political figures make strong statements on issues, it changes everything. To quote Republican House Leader Shelley Runyon in the film The Contender: "What I say, the American people will believe. And do you know why? Because I will have a very big microphone in front of me."

This rhetorical power is why a concomitant devolution by many in the Democratic Party, in protecting one of the two or three most important programs of the past century, the creation of social security, is so disturbing.

During the 2011 debate over the cliched "Grand Bargain", when right-wing Congressman were doing their darndest to moonwalk this country into financial default, perhaps just as frightening is what Democrats were willing to put on the table to appease the economic Morlocks. Namely, Medicare and the aforementioned social security (an issue that I work on), the latter so successful and politically powerful that it was responsible for taking millions of seniors (and children) out of poverty and helping cement an economically populist coalition within the Democratic Party that lasted a half century.

Why would Democrats be willing to touch this program, the crown jewel of progressive accomplishment, to deal with people who don't believe in compromise and have been trying to destroy the programme for decades? Likely, because too many Democrats have done their own evolving into a form of species known as Midcenturia Republicanus. Or Washington GOPers from the 1930s-1970s, who went along to get along, tried to always seem more "reasonable" than Democrats and, most importantly, remained a loveable minority in the halls of Congress.

Today, the consensus is rigged in the other direction. As Trudy Lieberman pointed out in her great piece in The Columbia Journalism Review:

"For nearly three years CJR has observed that much of the press has reported only one side of this story using 'facts' that are misleading, or flat-out wrong, while ignoring others ... news outlets have given the public a skewed picture of the financial health of this hugely important programme, which is the sole source of retirement funds for millions of Americans and will continue to be for decades to come."

When President Obama seems willing to talk about cutting social security, House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi refuses to rule it out and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer seems like a lion on the Serengeti eyeing a gazelle, this just sends a signal that it is OK for others to go even further - which bodes very badly for the future.

As Lieberman goes on to say, "the program can pay full benefits until 2036, and three-quarters of the benefits after that without new revenues. Many experts believe small fixes like lifting the cap on income subject to payroll taxes - $110,100 for 2012 - will make Social Security solvent for decades. But that option is not on Washington’s table, nor has it been discussed much in the press".

Why not?

Then there are ideas such as trimming the bloated, out-of-control defence budget, or allowing the US government to bulk negotiate for lower-priced prescription drugs for Medicare (like virtually every other post-industrial nation does) - or not imprisoning a larger share of our population, per capita, than Ming The Merciless.

Save billions on these wastes of funds and human potential, sprinkle some taxes on Kimye and poof. No deficit.

Yup, I hate to ruin it for any adrenaline junkies reading this, but not only is there no deficit crisis, but there are myriad ways to cure any minor ills without defenestrating social security, a programme that protects the 99 per cent of us - or one that you could say is more streetcar than car elevator. Additionally, recent elections in France and Greece reminded their elites that austerity is not only completely unnecessary and economically ahistorical, but ridiculously unpopular. Even 76 per cent of self described Tea Partiers - or people who think Christian rock is cool and lipids are a food group - don't want anyone touching their social security. Clear enough?

The United States has only two major parties, but nobody can make voters who are unenthusiastic trudge on over to their local polling place this November. Democrats need to stand up and protect social security, because it is the right thing to do, because there is simply no reason to cut it and because it shows strength politically (especially to those older voters who might not like the gay marriage decision). In other words, when it comes to social security: re-evolve already!

I love this Bain debate. It is exactly the kind of debate about the nature of business and job creation we need to be having in this campaign. The Republicans, along with pro-Wall Street Democrats, are squealing like stuck pigs about the Obama campaign “attacking free enterprise” because they want to change the subject fast. They are saying to themselves: please, let’s talk about anything else. Deficits would be their first choice, but anything would be preferable. Maybe we’ll see them start talking about contraceptives and how people shouldn’t have sex again just to change the subject. Because this debate goes straight to the heart of what kind of economy we should be trying to build in this country.

This is isn’t about being for or against free enterprise. This is about how the economy should work better for everyone in it, not just the top 1 percent. The Republicans -- and Democrats like Cory Booker and Harold Ford, who both have raised millions of dollars in Wall Street money (including money from Bain) for their campaigns -- say that it is great when financial corporations like Bain make money by loading up the companies they buy with debt, taking all the tax write-offs the law allows, and then walking away with tons of money whatever happens to the original company. In fact, the companies Bain bought frequently went bankrupt, and Bain usually profited when those companies did go belly-up because of tax write-offs and sucking the companies’ assets dry. But in this line of reasoning, it’s all good, because capitalism should be unrestrained and some people got very rich.

What Obama and other Democrats are arguing is that our government should be on the side of the businesses that create not just wealth for a few at the top, but jobs and incomes for a lot of people. That is why Obama made the incredibly gutsy move to save the American auto industry, a policy that saved 1.45 million jobs in the short run, and kept desperately needed manufacturing jobs in this country for years to come. It is why Obama has made big investments in the budget for Small Business Administration jobs. It is why investments have been made in clean energy jobs of the future. It is why the U.S. Department of Agriculture has emphasized rural economic development and small business development in areas where jobs and incomes are desperately needed.

Democratic policies are in fact far more pro-business than policies like the Romney-Ryan budget, which independent studies estimate would cost the nation more than 4 million jobs in the next two years. That’s a lot of business customers who no longer have money to spend.

The Republican attack machine (helped by Democrats like Booker and Ford who have been feeding at the Wall Street trough for their entire careers) wants to intimidate the Obama campaign by making the claim that any attack on greedy business practices like the ones Romney perfected at Bain is an attack on all business and the market. It’s the same kind of argument Republicans make when they complain about class warfare politics when Democrats suggest that millionaires ought to pay a little more in taxes. It is an utterly soulless, amoral argument. But this is a fight Democrats can and will win if we make our case, because I think most people understand that there are ethical and unethical business practices. And they get that there is a difference between making money by manipulating the tax code and squeezing all the value out of businesses before throwing them away, and making money by making and selling good products that people want to buy. Biden laid this case out beautifully in a speech in Youngstown:

Continue reading »

If there was ever any doubt that the recently announced JPMorgan Chase "probe" was merely an early summer's entertainment to keep the masses distracted, I'd say their hire of this former SEC chief to help them has cleared up that question. The SEC is notorious for its incestuous ties with Wall Street and their all-too-forgiving ways toward their former (and possibly future) employers. (For instance, JPMorgan’s general counsel Stephen Cutler was previously head of enforcement at the SEC.) Why, it's almost like Capitol Hill!

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), the biggest U.S. bank, has hired former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement chief William McLucas to help respond to regulatory probes of the firm’s $2 billion trading loss.

The lender retained law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, where McLucas is a partner, shortly after the bank disclosed the loss on May 10, said Kristin Lemkau, a spokeswoman for New York-based JPMorgan.

The probes began after JPMorgan traders in London built up positions in illiquid credit derivatives that were so large they distorted market prices and eventually led to what Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon called “self-inflicted” losses that may grow. That spurred reviews by the SEC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“Our focus right now is on whether the company’s public disclosure and financial reporting is accurate,” SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro said today in congressional testimony. “The agencies collectively, including the criminal authorities, are working very hard to untangle what happened at the firm.”

The SEC is reviewing the accuracy and timing of JPMorgan’s disclosure of changes in how it calculates value-at-risk, or VaR, which shows how much it could lose from trading most days, Schapiro said. The bank changed its VaR model for the chief investment office during the first quarter without telling investors. The new model, which has since been scrapped, had cut the risk estimation almost in half, Dimon told investors May 10.

Watch the Thom Hartmann video, it's quite informative. Don't you love how this game is played? The temporary Bush tax cuts, the very same ones that helped ballooned the deficit to record levels, are about to expire and the Capitol Hill Chicken Littles are running around screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" So letting them expire will throw the country into recession? For those of us outside the Village, how would we even know the difference? We're already out of work, or working for peanuts.

Now, you realize where this is going: This is the scary story that's supposed to provide cover for the usual suspects who want to make the Grand Bargain on Social Security. The Greek chorus is gathering, chanting about the "obvious" solutions (hint, hint). "We'll let you have a little stimulus now, provided we can slash the hell out of your earned benefits later!"

And because this is a complicated idea, most people won't understand, the librul media can't explain because they're too hooked on access to make waves, only a few reporters will bring up the idea of simply raising new revenue, and the hollowing of Social Security and Medicare will soon be a "bipartisan" victory. Don't you love politics?

Tax hikes and spending cuts set to take effect in January would suck $607 billion out of the economy next year, plunging the nation at least briefly back into recession, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

Unless lawmakers act, the economy is likely to contract in the first half of 2013 at an annualized rate of 1.3 percent, the CBO said, before returning to 2.3 percent growth later in the year.

Continue reading »

A financial watchdog for the city of San Diego and the California state comptroller are warning that if the city's proposed ban on project labor agreements passes, it will be a financial disaster, as the city will lose, at a minimum, more than $158 million in state grants. The ban seems to be pointless, anyway, since San Diego has never required a PLA for any project.

For background, California passed a set of laws that ensure taxpayer protections in a PLA — a construction agreement for large-scale public works projects that outlines wage, safety, and diversity standards as well as local and veteran hiring goals — and prohibit cities from adopting blanket PLA bans. Charter cities lose state funds if they limit PLAs. Since the passing of the state law, public agencies have started backtracking on PLA bans. Escondido removed its proposed ban on PLAs by revising its draft charter proposal citing the potential loss of state funds. El Cajon followed, also removing the language banning PLAs from a proposed charter, and the Palmdale Water District Board voted unanimously to repeal its ban on PLAs. Other cities that have adopted PLA bans are also considering repealing them.

PLA bans at a local level started a few years ago in Southern California. With fiscal repercussions looming, they will likely end here as well.

Despite right-wing and corporate claims about PLAs, the evidence is quite clear that they are a benefit to workers, governments and taxpayers:

Saying PLAs are “only used in the public sector at the behest of union-allied politicians” is a blatant falsehood, and one this paper should immediately correct. PLAs have been used by public- and private-sector entities across the United States since the 1940s and are the method of choice for complex private-sector projects, where cost and quality are the overriding issues. The former head of construction for Toyota North America, Jeff Caldwell, wrote, “I have had numerous real-world experiences with PLAs, and I can say without any equivocation that they are a valuable tool for any entity seeking an economical and efficient construction process.”

Continue reading »

enlarge

But really, all of that was just the pre-game show for the rollout of the Iowa Republican Party proposed platform, which is so completely bizarre it is only worthy of a man like Steve King. Here are some highlights:

• 18 separate anti-abortion planks: Everything from the personhood amendment to a 3-day waiting period with ultrasound at the woman's expense before an abortion can be performed which may not be paid for with state funds and in the case of an underage girl, must require parental consent before her ladyparts may be touched by any doctor to statistical reporting of all abortions to the state to banning Planned Parenthood and RU-486.
• Bizarre federal budget restrictions - Yes, a demand for an immediate $1 trillion reduction to the budget but that reduction will not be from the defense budget, bans on spending to build bike paths, but only a 10% salary cut to Congresscritters who actually fail to balance the budget.
• Free passes to all businesses in all things!
• Prison reforms! These include making inmates work for their room and board (in the fields, perhaps?), reinstating the death penalty and juror nullification.
• Free markets for education! Because you know, those education free markets? They're just what the country needs to make sure Republicans remain in power because the electorate is too stupid to know what they've done to the country. Also? Just say no to compulsory preschool. Can't have the kiddies learn to read too awfully early. (They haven't privatized preschool yet?)

Continue reading »

If Martin O'Malley is pretending to be a progressive so he can run for president, well, I wish more Democrats were that ambitious! Can we clone this guy? This is what a real progressive agenda looks like, Gov. Cuomo:

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley signed into law a package of tax increases Tuesday targeting six-figure earners, tobacco users and companies engaged in real estate transactions to cover record spending on education.

In a two-hour ceremony, it was easily the most recognizable measure O’Malley (D) signed but hardly the most popular. Rather, union members, minorities and interest groups crowded the State House to celebrate more than 200 lesser-known and often narrowly tailored bills. They passed the General Assembly with little fanfare but, taken together, will color the social and political identity of the Old Line State a slightly deeper shade of blue.

The bills included efforts to stimulate the economy, protect the environment and help family farms. And nearly a century after three-quarters of U.S. states ratified the 17th Amendment — which allowed U.S. senators to be elected instead of appointed by state legislatures — Maryland got on board.

One of the first bills O’Malley signed was a capital budget, which will accelerate borrowing of more than $100 million to promote job growth through construction and maintenance of schools, parks and public housing.

Answering a call from President Obama, Maryland will raise the age that children will be required to stay in school, from 16 to 17, and raise it again within five years, to 18.

Continue reading »

All politics is local, and my particular district is a battleground for the June 5th California open primary. Our Democratic candidate is Julia Brownley and the tea party corporate Republican is thug Young Gun Nominee Tony Strickland. Tony is definitely the preferred corporate candidate, and corporate donors who supported Gallegly have flocked to Tony, building his war chest up to five times the amount of any other candidate. Still, Republicans are hedging their bets with an "independent" candidate, and Gallegly's individual donors have stepped up to support that alleged independent.

Meet Linda Parks. She loves rocky road ice cream and will make everything warm and fuzzy in Congress, being a centrist, compromising sort running a campaign where she stands for pretty much nothing. We also have a couple of corporate Democrat vanity candidates, but at least they call themselves Democrats. Parks, on the other hand, wants voters to think she's a true "independent." Also? She won't say who she would caucus with if elected.

I decided to see if I could figure it out.

In her first ad (above), Parks tells voters she doesn't take corporate money and she doesn't do their bidding. Period. Sure, she doesn't. I went and had a look at Parks' donors, and to my great surprise...no, I really wasn't surprised...many of Parks' individual donors were Elton Gallegly's individual donors. Her political consultants orchestrated the Schwartzenegger defeat of Gray Davis, not to mention Pete Wilson's election over Jerry Brown. Her pollster (hired right out of the gate) lists Voter ID as one of the "sensitive" issues they poll "discreetly.

This is why I loathe the California Open Primary law passed in 2010. This was always the strategy. Put a well-known hard-right Republican in the primary against a Republican "independent" and try to knock the Democrat out of the top two. It's why Parks came running hard right at the outset and why she's playing coy with her true colors, which are red and darker red.

Continue reading »