enlarge

Credit: Marketwatch

This week, Rex Nutting of the MarketWatch caused a stir with his analysis correctly showing that federal spending has hardly budged under President Obama, rising at the slowest pace since the Dwight Eisenhower was in the White House. Predictably, James Pethokoukis of the conservative American Enterprise Institute cited the jump in Washington's spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy to comically "prove" that "actually, the Obama spending binge really did happen." Comically, that is, because Pethokoukis conveniently ignores the staggering economic contraction resulting from the Bush recession, with GDP only last year having returned to 2008 levels. Even less surprising, the perpetual tax-cutters of the right neglected to mention that thanks to the steep recession and the Treasury-draining Bush tax cuts, total federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP hit their lowest level since 1950.

On January 7, 2009, Reuters reported that President Bush was bequeathing a $1.2 trillion budget deficit to his successor. That record gap was fueled by Bush's $700 billion TARP program and plummeting tax revenue due to the shrinking American economy. As Reuters noted, President-Elect Obama "said he expects deficits around $1 trillion for years, forcing tough budget choices."

Which is exactly what came to pass. But even with the 2009 stimulus program and the necessarily growing outlays for Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other safety net programs, those trillion deficits had less to do with Barack Obama boosting spending than the dramatic loss of tax revenue. As former Reagan administration official Bruce Bartlett explained in October 2009:

According to the Congressional Budget Office's January 2009 estimate for fiscal year 2009, outlays were projected to be $3,543 billion and revenues were projected to be $2,357 billion, leaving a deficit of $1,186 billion. Keep in mind that these estimates were made before Obama took office, based on existing law and policy, and did not take into account any actions that Obama might implement...

Now let's fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion.

To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected [in January], but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending.

Obama's own tax cuts, the ones contained in the February 2009 stimulus bill, "reduced revenues in FY2009 by $98 billion over what would otherwise have been the case."

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (187)

PLAYS: (1368)

Embed

In his latest web attack video on Barack Obama, Mitt Romney cited comments by Steven Rattner, who had served as the 'car czar' under Obama, that defended Romney's record with Bain Capital. On MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell, however, Rattner makes it very clear that Romney was not a job creator with Bain or at any other point in his career. Ratner described Romney's claims about being a job creator as "silly," "contradictory," based on "false accounting," "about maximizing profits," and "misleading."

MITCHELL: Many people believe that what Mitt Romney has done in claiming he is a job creator and that is his record from Bain Capital is as you point out, silly and contradictory because Bain Capital was not in business to create jobs, they were in business to make money for investors. At the same time, was he that eager, so eager, to avoid being tagged as the former Massachusetts governor? That he doesn't want to talk about the Massachusetts record for probably a number of reasons but also because that is not what he wants to be his calling card. He wants to be the businessman, the guy who can get things done, who can fix it, not... that liberal Massachusetts record, which is the sort of stereotype.

RATTNER: Well that liberal Massachusetts record and, of course, there's the point that Massachusetts was 47th in job creation when he was governor…. he seems to much prefer to be thought of as a business guy. I would have no problem with that. I think business is a useful experience, not saying it qualifies you to be president but as he said, it's part of life's experience. It’s when he reweaves history and tries to turn a perfectly respectable business career into some idea he was the world's greatest job creator that I think he is misleading people.

Continue reading »

enlarge

Credit: McClatchy

It's rare that a criminal publicly announces his intent to commit a felony. But when it came to their scorched-earth campaign of obstructionism to destroy the Obama presidency, GOP leaders weren't shy about their plans. While 15 top Republicans schemed in private on the night of Obama's inauguration to "challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign," conservative mouthpieces like Bill Kristol and Rush Limbaugh promised gridlock at every turn.

Three years later, as Congressional scholars Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann suggest in their new book, the Republicans' foul deed is done. From its record-setting use of the filibuster and its united front against Obama's legislative agenda to blocking judicial nominees and its unprecedented (and repeated) threats to trigger a U.S. default, the most conservative Congress in over 100 years has stopped Washington dead in its tracks. But judging from the muted reaction from the press and a public evenly split in its Congressional preference, Republicans are getting away with their crime.

You don't need to work for CSI to identify the guilty party in the death of Washington.

Even before Barack Obama took the oath office, Republicans leaders, conservative think-tanks and right-wing pundits were calling for total obstruction of the new president's agenda. Bill Kristol, who helped block Bill Clinton's health care reform attempt in 1993, called for history to repeat on the Obama stimulus - and everything else. Pointing with pride to the Clinton economic program which received exactly zero GOP votes in either House, Kristol in January 2009 advised:

"That it made, that it made it so much easier to then defeat his health care initiative. So, it's very important for Republicans who think they're going to have to fight later on health care, fight later on maybe on some of the bank bailout legislation, fight later on on all kinds of issues."

And so, as the chart below reveals, it came to pass.

Time after time, President Obama could count the votes he received from Congressional Republicans on the fingers (usually the middle one) of one hand. The expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) to four million more American kids earned the backing of a whopping eight GOP Senators. (One of them, Arlen Specter, later became a Democrat.) Badly needed Wall Street reform eventually overcame GOP filibusters to pass with the support of just three Republicans in the House and Senate, respectively. Last summer, it took 50 days for President Obama to get past Republican filibusters of extended unemployment benefits and the Small Business Jobs Act. As for the DISCLOSE Act, legislation designed to limit the torrent of secret campaign cash unleashed by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, in September Republican Senators prevented it from ever coming to a vote.

Continue reading »

President Obama spoke at the high school commencement Monday night about the power of community, the "bigness of spirit," and the value of unity.

The gist of his message centered on how a community set aside its differences to come together and rebuild after the tornado that nearly wiped out the entire city. His themes touched on the "power of shared effort," and forging a new vision when everything seems hopeless. His primary themes of hope and community are woven throughout the entire twenty minutes. I thought it was an inspiring and touching speech. If it needs a summation, it is his statement that "we are better together than on our own."

At one point in the speech, he mentioned that right after the tornado, the community came together for a meeting and each person was given a Post-it note to write down what their vision was for the community. 1500 Post-its later, there is a wall with all of them on it, and architects are following the suggestions for the rebuilding process. The President quipped, "I'm thinking of trying it with Congress! Give them some Post-it notes."

In a climate where cynicism and negativity seems to rule the day, it's worth taking the twenty minutes to watch this and no matter what you think of the man, his message is true, and it does not depend on him. For me, it's worth remembering that I do this thing, writing, researching, sharing -- blogging -- because I want a record that says we truly are better together than we are alone, and working toward that goal every day is worth enduring the negative and the cynical.

I hope it inspires you today, at least a little bit.

DOWNLOADS: (457)

PLAYS: (3000)

Embed

I'm not sure how the Republican party came to be known as the party of "compassionate conservatism," unless it was simply because they used to at least pretend to care about the problems of the middle and low-income class people. In this 2007 video of Republican Mitt Romney's exchange with a wheelchair bound man suffering from a rare and deadly form of muscular dystrophy, Romney's compassionate conservatism takes an icy cold form, as he turns his back on the ill young man, Clayton Holton, and walks away without answering his question.

This exchange, and others like it, will no doubt keep cropping up to haunt Romney throughout his campaign. His complete inability to relate to, or show anything resembling empathy towards mainstream Americans is stunningly on display here. If his position on medical marijuana was due to something he believes is a greater good, as a contender for president of the United States, he should certainly be able to articulate that.However this is likely due to the fact that Romney has no real solutions for real people's problems.

Transcript:

Sick Man: "I suffer from an extremely rare type of muscular dystrophy and I have to take medication or I'll die. Right now I weigh less than 80 pounds, I have all my life. Um, I have support of 5 of my doctors that I am living proof that Medical Marijuana works. I am completely against legalizing it for everyone but there is medical . . ."

Romney: "And you have synthetic marijuana that's available and other . . . "

Sick Man: "It makes me sick. I've tried it and it makes me throw up. I have tried all the medications they are and all the forms they come in after my stimulators, the steroids. I have muscular dystrophy, that's completely against my DNA."

Romney: "I'm sorry to hear that."

Sick Man: "My question to you is, will you arrest me and my doctors if I get medical marijuana?"

Romney: "I'm not in favor of medical marijuana."

(Romney looks away, moves on to next person mid-conversation)

Sick Man: "So, will you have me arrested? . . . "

Romney: "Hi, how are you?" (moving on to next person in line)

Sick Man: "Excuse me, will you please answer my question?"

3rd Person: "You're not going to answer his question, Governor?"

Romney: "I think I have."

3rd Person: "No, he asked you if you were going to arrest him. He asked if you were going to arrest patients like him, Governor? You're just going to ignore a person in a wheelchair?"

Romney: "I spoke with him."

3rd Person: "Yeah, but you didn't answer his question!"

Granted, the Obama administration's stance on medical marijuana isn't any more appealing to medical marijuana advocates than Romney's, and came under fire from Democrat Nancy Pelosi earlier this month for the continued raids on marijuana dispensaries. The difference is that I doubt Obama would turn his back and walk away from someone with a legitimate concern about any issue, let alone a sick man in a wheel chair.

At least Romney didn't throw this man down on the ground and cut his hair off.

Clayton Holton, while still wheel-chair bound, and suffering the effects of the muscular dystrophy as it ravages his body, he is able to maintain some semblance of normalcy in his quality of life. He continues to credit marijuana for keeping him alive, and remains a staunch advocate of medical marijuana.

[Video Credit: Heather, H/T Ministry of Truth]

It seems to me if you can afford to spend $10 million on an attack ad, you can probably afford to renovate your own damned stadium. And it seems like Mayor Emanuel has come to the same conclusion:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is not returning calls from the Ricketts family and is “livid” over a New York Times report that Joe Ricketts commissioned a proposal for a multimillion-dollar ad campaign linking President Obama to the president’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, according to an Emanuel aide.

Joe Ricketts’s children, which include Obama bundler Laura Ricketts, bought the Chicago Cubs in 2009 and have been in talks with the city about renovating the team’s 98-year-old stadium, Wrigley Field.

That appears to be on hold now.

“The Mayor was livid when he read that the Ricketts were going to launch a $10 million campaign against President Obama – with the type of racially motivated ads that are insulting to the president and the presidential campaign,” said the aide, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation. “He is also livid with their blatant hypocrisy.”

The aide also said Emanuel, who is Obama’s former chief of staff, has cut off communication with the family.

“The Ricketts have tried to contact the mayor, but he’s said that he does not want to talk with them today, tomorrow or anytime soon,” the aide said.

The most critical battle in this election year is the battle over Wall Street. Candidates all over the place, from the high profile candidates like Elizabeth Warren to a slew of others all over the country, are battling over who is on Wall Street’s side, who wants to keep bailing them out, and who is pushing them to go to jail. But nowhere is this battle being played out more prominently than in the race for the White House.

The Obama campaign is doing a major push in the coming weeks on Mitt Romney’s sordid history at the helm of Bain Capital. His fellow Republicans called it vulture capitalism, and they were right. Mitt bought companies (many of them doing just fine at the time he bought them), loaded them up with massive amounts of debt that Bain could write off on their taxes, in many cases destroyed and outsourced jobs and cut pay and benefits, and then frequently carved them up and sold off the pieces to maximize short-term profits. A few of these companies ended up surviving this brutal process and becoming more profitable, and we will hear a lot from Mitt about those examples. But way too many times, Mitt and Bain left these companies, and especially their workers, far worse for the wear, leaving behind a lot of shattered lives in the process, while Mitt and his fun-loving pals stuffed money in their pockets and walked away. High School wasn’t the only place Mitt brutalized those weaker than him, and he enjoyed doing it.

Bain Capital was Wall Street at its worst. But the cutthroat, anything-goes-in-the-pursuit-of-one-more-dollar culture at Bain has infected our entire banking system. The Obama campaign is right to attack on Bain and on the culture of Wall Street; it is in my view their single most powerful attack line. However, that attack will be undercut unless they buttress their own credibility on taking on Wall Street. Republicans aren’t going to hesitate coming after Obama hard on his ties to Wall Street (ironically with a lot of Wall Street money) in order to weaken the campaign’s credibility when they attack Bain, and we are seeing signs of that right now.

Look at how the issue has played out in recent days. Over the course of the last week, we have seen Jamie Dimon twisting himself into a pretzel trying to explain why his bank’s dangerous and irresponsible trades don’t merit any regulation, stories on how the Obama campaign is being hurt by not being tougher on Wall Street, like this one from Politico, a major new ad campaign by a Republican group attacking Obama for his ties to Wall Street, and new polling paid for by an anti-Wall Street coalition showing Obama’s numbers on housing/banking issues in swing states being pretty bad. These issues are clearly going to be huge in this campaign, and the Republicans will do everything in their power to exploit any Obama weakness in this area.

The Obama team, in the White House and in the campaign, in order to win on the Bain attack, needs to face—and turn around —the perception that the administration has been weak on Wall Street. They need to be willing to shed past caution and take Wall Street titans head on.

One of the toughest problems they have to work through is that the most visible vehicle for action on holding Wall Street accountable is the financial fraud task force announced with great fanfare at the State of the Union. This task force raised hopes that an aggressive investigation was forthcoming, that perhaps some of the big bankers who intentionally pumped up the housing market and then dumped the securities, would be brought to justice. But the best case scenario (and that is only if things really start moving) is that indictments won’t start rolling out until September, and that is a very long time to wait given the narrative being written as we speak on the Wall Street issue. And even in terms of that best case scenario, unfortunately questions continue to be raised by sources I am talking to about whether the DOJ is slow-walking this investigation, whether enough resources are being given to the task force, and whether key staff at the White House are paying enough attention. Those questions ultimately won’t be answered until the task force starts to produce something tangible, and if we have to wait until the fall, these questions are going to keep building. The administration should act right now to give the DOJ much more in the way of staff resources to the task force, and the President and White House senior staff need to send signals that they care about what is going on and that this is a high priority for them. If, for example, the DOJ is slow-walking, the White House needs to lean hard on the DOJ to make sure they aren’t. It seems like politics 101 to me to make sure the task force has the person-power to be successful in its work, but they are failing the test.

Continue reading »

Anyone who closely followed the 2000 presidential election fiasco in Florida remembers that one of the key reasons that George W. Bush "won" the state was the fact that thousands of black voters were falsely purged from the voter rolls in advance of the election, preventing those Floridians from voting, most of whom would've voted for Al Gore. In 2012, Republicans are looking at purging 180,000 Hispanics from the voting rolls. Is history repeating itself?

In 2000, more than 20,000 voters -- most of them African American -- were prevented from voting because they had names similar to convicted felons. People who had the full right to vote, most of whom had never been convicted of a serious crime, were prevented from voting by Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and the Republicans in Tallahassee. Most black voters in Florida, like elsewhere, voted for Al Gore. And considering the state went to George W. Bush by less than 550 votes, it's clear that the purge was a major factor in stealing the election for the governor's brother.

Now the Rick Scott administration -- which by any standard is thought to be less ethical than the Jeb Bush administration -- is preparing a voter purge list that could reach 180,000 strong. Since the purge list is specifically targeted at trying to stop undocumented immigrants from voting, the list will be almost completely Hispanic. And despite the fact that Cuban-American Floridians tend to vote Republican, the majority of Florida Hispanics are not of Cuban heritage. If the list is successfully completed, then, it's obvious that it will disproportionately target Democratic voters. Just like the Bush-Harris list from 2000.

The full universe of potentially ineligible voters that state elections officials plan to check for possible removal from the roles is about 180,000, a spokesman for the Division of Elections said Friday, reports David Royse of the News Service of Florida.

Elections spokesman Chris Cate told the News Service that in all, when matching voter rolls against newly available citizenship data from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, officials found that number of possible matches, and began further investigating each one to see if they were likely to be wrongly registered to vote.

Officials reported earlier this week that they had forwarded the first batch of those names, about 2,600 to local supervisors of elections for further review and for each voter to be notified that they were on a list of people suspected of being illegally registered.

“Everyone of those individuals would be contacted by supervisors,” Cate said.

Continue reading »

enlarge

Two funny things happened this week on Mitt Romney's way to the White House. First, the man who cried "let Detroit go bankrupt" announced "I'll take a lot of credit" for President Obama's million-job saving rescue of the American auto industry. But just as telling was the Republican's claim that, despite Obama's "Forward" campaign slogan, it was the President who was "looking backward." After all, Mitt Romney isn't merely offering an even more reactionary resurrection of George W. Bush's failed policies. As it turns out, from his charges on immigration reform and women's issues to labeling Obama an out of touch "Marie Antoinette" and so much else, Romney's strategy is call to the kettle black.

(Click a link below for the details on each.)

• "Looking Backward"
• "Fairness"
• "Out of Touch"
• "Spent Too Much Time at Harvard"
• "Hide-and-Seek Campaign"
• "Broke His Promise to Hispanics"
• "Respect Women in All Those Choices That They Make"

"Looking Backward"

In April, the RNC's Alexandra Franceschi gave away the game when she explained that even after the calamitous Bush recession which began over four years ago, the2012 GOP economic platform would be the Bush program, "just updated." As a quick glance at Mitt Romney's proposals shows, Franceschi has a gift for understatement.

Romney, after all, is promising massive tax cuts which would deliver the lion's share of their winnings to the very richest Americans, his family included. (His 20 percent across-the-board tax cut is simply a tired retread of Bob Dole's failed 1996 plan, one that nevertheless steers a third of its benefits to the wealthiest one-tenth of one percent of Americans.) He nevertheless pledges to balance the budget even while boosting defense spending. And this latest scion of a proud Republican family would like to privatize Social Security and leave Americans to fend for themselves in the private health insurance marketplace.

Undaunted, Romney slammed the President this week in East Lansing, Michigan:

"Looking backward won't solve the problems of today, nor will it take advantage of the opportunities of tomorrow," Romney said. "His are the policies of the past. The challenges of the present and the promise of tomorrow must be met by a new and bold vision for the future, and I will bring it."

Despite the conclusion of the nonpartisan CBO and the overwhelming consensus of economists that Obama's actions saved the U.S. from "Great Depression 2.0," Romney has insisted for months that the President "made the economy worse." Unfortunately for Mitt, "we are not stupid."

"Fairness"

Barack Obama has made "fairness" a central theme of his reelection campaign. And with good reason. After all, at a time of record income inequality and the lowest federal tax burden since 1950, Both Mitt Romney and his budgetary twin Paul Ryan would deliver a massive tax cut windfall for the rich, paying for it by gutting the social safety net each pretends to protect. Each would end Medicare as we know it with a premium support gambit that would dramatically shift health care costs to America's seniors. While increasing defense spending, the House Budget Chairman and the GOP frontrunner would repeal the Affordable Care and leave at least 30 million people without insurance. And despite their mutual pledges to end many tax loopholes and deductions to fund their gilded-class giveaway, neither Paul Ryan nor Mitt Romney has the courage to say which ones. As a result, these supposed deficit hawks would actually add trillions more in red ink to the national debt.

Nevertheless, Romney used the occasion of his Northeast primary sweep three weeks ago to portray himself as the crusader for fairness:

"We will stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice; we will stop the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends' businesses; we will stop the unfairness of requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing; we will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve; and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next."

Afterwards, The Democratic Strategist translated Romney's cynically transparent gimmick, "We will twist and distort the concept of fairness to justify bashing government workers, crushing labor unions and privatizing public schools."

"Out of Touch"

Four years ago, the campaign of John McCain - a hundred-millionaire who literally lost count of how many homes he owned - unsuccessfully tried to portray Barack Obama as an out-of-touch, arugula-eating elitist who vacationed in exotic Hawaii. Now Mitt Romney has branded President Obama a modern day Marie Antoinette, an "out of touch" occupant of the White House whose message to financially struggling Americans is "let them eat cake."

That might not be the wisest strategy.

Continue reading »

Yesterday, I reported that several major labor unions expressed support for Barack Obama's statement that he supports the right of all Americans to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. More unions expressed their support for the president and marriage equality in a move that, as I pointed out yesterday, is good for Obama, for unions and for LGBT Americans:

This is a great development for a number of reasons. One, it's a clear statement from unions that they recognize that LGBT families are working families, too. Two, it gives Obama strong public support on an issue that he is certain to be attacked on. Third, it is a good way to attract new people to the labor movement who might have otherwise not paid much attention to unions because they had other issues that were more important to them. If it is clear that unions support LGBT families -- which it is -- there is more reason for people to move out of issue silos, recognizing that they have allies they can work together with to improve everybody's situation.

UNITE HERE President John Wilhelm (via press release):

We applaud President Obama's statement in support of marriage equality. Our members support full equality for LGBT Americans in all matters governed by civil law, and we are grateful for the President's
courage and leadership. Today the United States took an important step towards fulfilling the Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law. UNITE HERE stands with working families of all descriptions in the ongoing struggle for social and economic justice.

I am proud that UNITE HERE is on the side of justice for the LGBT community. Thanks, and congratulations on this important step, to all those in our Union who work to achieve full equality for our LGBT members, and for all our members. I have been especially grateful that Cleve Jones, a life-long warrior for equality, has become such an important leader in UNITE HERE. President Obama’s announcement is an important step. The struggle continues.

United Auto Workers President Bob King:

“The UAW applauds President Obama’s remarks on same-sex marriage, and we regard it as a historic and courageous leap toward equality for all Americans.

We oppose all discrimination and believe there is a definite connection between civil, human and workers’ rights. This belief continues to define us today.

Solidarity means economic and social justice for all, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. This commitment to civil and human rights for all helped fuel many early UAW organizing victories. The UAW helped organize African-American workers during the 1930s when companies used race as a divisive anti-union strategy. In 1955 we were the first industrial union to establish a Women’s Department, its mission to encourage female participation in the predominantly male UAW – and to ensure that a woman’s place was in her union. We were arm in arm with the civil rights movement in the 1950s and ‘60s.

The ongoing struggle for civil and human rights for everyone – including LGBT Americans – cannot be separated from the fight for justice for all workers. That’s something the UAW has known from the start.”

Association of Flight Attendants:

Continue reading »