On Monday, President Obama commemorated Memorial Day at Arlington National Cemetery, declaring “Today we come together as Americans to pray, to reflect and to remember these heroes.” But across the country in San Diego, his GOP rival Mitt Romney joined John McCain at a gathering of veterans to instead deliver a not-so-thinly-veiled attack on the President. But if his message that the U.S. must not “shrink our military smaller and smaller to pay for our social needs” sounds familiar, it should. After all, back in 2000 George W. Bush deployed the same “hollow military” myth to win the battle for the White House.

On Monday morning, PBS Newshour announced, “Presidential Campaigns Pause to Honor Veterans on Memorial Day.” Unfortunately, that story was published before Mitt Romney addressed the audience at the Memorial Day Center Museum in San Diego. As ABC reported, Romney did not pause for a cease-fire (around the 11:00 mark in the video above):

“We have two courses we can follow,” said Romney. “One is to follow the pathway of Europe. To shrink our military smaller and smaller to pay for our social needs. And they of course rely on the strength of America and they hope for the best. Were we to follow that kind of course, there would be no one that could stand to protect us.”

“The other is to commit to preserve America as the strongest military in the world, second to none, with no comparable power anywhere in the world,” he said. “We choose that course. We choose that course for America not just so that we can win wars, but so we can prevent wars. Because a strong America is the best deterrent to war that ever has been invented.”

As the chart below the fold shows, core U.S. defense spending (that is, outside of Iraq and Afghanistan war funding in red) has risen during every year of the Obama administration. Nevertheless, Mitt Romney announced last fall, "I will reverse President Obama's massive defense cuts." Then during last week's NATO summit in Chicago, Romney penned an op-ed to charge:

"The United States [is] on a path to a hollow military."

If that sound bite rings a bell, it should. That's because the same slander was a centerpiece of Texas Governor George W. Bush's successful campaign 12 years ago.

Continue reading »

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 »

Towards the beginning of the cult classic "Dazed & Confused," a high school senior named Slater, inquires of baby-faced freshman Mitch, "Are you cool?" What Slater was really asking—in this ode to 1970s youth and the counterculture—was, "Do you smoke pot?"

Ahh the '70s. Back before the Reagan Revolution kicked the kooky, corrupt and thoroughly counterproductive War On Drugs into high gear. Suddenly this country lost its collective mind, suffering a lapse in judgment that vaulted well past ill-advised and beyond "they have weapons of mass destruction" to what might best be labeled "the mind of Ted Nugent."

By any measure; economically, morally, democratically, we are the worse for allowing special interests—from private prisons to the security industry—to take us down this road. It has spiritually hollowed us out, while erecting a prominent prison culture that makes The People's Republic of China seem like Woodstock.

This was made all the more evident recently when a Harvard economist, Jeffrey Miron, released a study showing this exercise in dunderheadedness is costing us $13.7 billion a year. Ernest A. Canning points to some statistics reported on Democracy Now! showing that "over the last 40 years, more than 45 million drug-related arrests have cost an estimated $1 trillion."

Hmm, I can't think of any better way we could have spent this money, can you?

But I do know some neo-conservative types who seemingly kneel down in prayer a few times a day to make supple offerings to the graven idol of The Balanced Budget. You'd think they might notice a statistic like this and do something to save money being wasted on imprisoning people who take their mind altering substances through the beer bong, as opposed to a funnel, filter, or medically-approved prescription pill bottle. Although, as Paul Ryan has found out when weighing raising taxes on ascots vs. slashing social programs, it's just so much easier and more fun to cut basic healthcare programs from kids than to honestly tackle real problems.

Sadly, things have gotten no better under President Obama than they were under his predecessors. Back when he was running for President in 2008, Obama claimed to support the “basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs,” He even went further, claiming he would "not be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.”

Yet, that is exactly what he has done, using the very same Justice Department to raid over 100 marijuana dispensaries during his term. It is shameful really.

The wasted potential of those who will go to our jails instead of our colleges (although at least Rick Santorum won't shake his head in not-so-subtle disapproval of their obvious snobbery) will not only cost these individuals and their families dearly, but our society as a whole. Much like with our health care system, when we ignore or create problems in the short term, they always come back to haunt us as the Ghost of Christmas past—and not the cool one played by Buster Poindexter in Scrooged, either.

Listen, if you don't want to believe any of this, just see what Pat Robertson had to say about this issue recently (yes, I too am stunned I just wrote that). Yes, he took some time off from blaming hurricanes on abortion and "The Way We Were," to come out for marijuana legalization. Now I'm not going to say I think his every neuron is firing in what one might call a fecund direction, but on this one, politicians should listen. They should pay even more attention to the people of this country, who, by a 47 percent plurality, favor marijuana legalization.

Because if we continue with the half-baked idea of expanding this war, we will also continue to watch our financial future, our moral fiber and our civil liberties go up in smoke.

This piece was first published at Al Jazeera English

A new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Out of Balance: Cuts in Services Have Been States’ Primary Response to Budget Gaps, Harming the Nation’s Economy," places a spotlight on the right-wing assault on state budgets and the harmful effects of the growing trend of budget cuts.

The state budget gaps of the last five years led to $290 billion in cuts to public services and $100 billion in tax and fee increases. Those actions lengthened the recession and delayed the recovery. Because spending reductions were dominant, hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost; undermining education, health care and other state priorities, which likely will cause future economic harm to states. Federal aid mitigated the harmful effects of the spending cuts in the early years of the budget crunch, but its expiration last year had a catastrophic effect, making 2012 the worst year since the downturn began for cuts in funding for services.

The study looked at budget data for the last five years and found that more than 640,000 jobs have been cut by the states since 2008, undercutting the economic recovery and helping sustain a high unemployment rate nationally. Because 2012 has been the worst year for cuts since the recession began, further job losses are almost guaranteed.

The cuts have also led states to cancel contracts with vendors, reduce payments to businesses and nonprofits that provide services, and cut benefit payments to individuals — all steps that remove demand from the economy. There are long-term effects as well: By diminishing the quality of elementary and high schools, making college less affordable, and reducing residents’ access to health care, the cuts threaten to make the U.S. economy less competitive in coming decades.

While there has been a recent rebound in the growth of revenue at the state level, if the current rate of growth continues, it will take seven years to get back to where things were before the recession.

Overall, the methods used to balance state budgets — often a legal requirement — were very focused on methods that harm the economy:

DOWNLOADS: (173)

PLAYS: (324)

Embed

I'm not sure if Nancy Pelosi is playing smart politics or she's lost her mind. I'd like to think it's the former.

It's true, the Simpson-Bowles commission report has turned into something larger than a failed effort at deficit reduction. It has attracted a cult following among DC insiders, like Rep. Jim Cooper, who has lionized it as That Thing That Should Have Passed But Didn't, as if they actually agreed on the recommendations.

So Nancy Pelosi does an interview with Charlie Rose, who has apparently joined The Cult of B-S (Bowles-Simpson), and Rose pushes her all over the place on the Grand Bargain during the debt ceiling debacle, before pushing her hard on The Great B-S report, and after endorsing it as having "good bones," she says this:

The Republicans and Democrats -- it was bipartisan -- brought a version of Simpson-Bowles to the floor last week, but it was more of a caricature of Simpson-Bowles and that's why it didn't pass. If it were actually Simpson-Bowles I would have voted for it.

Really? She would have voted for something that touched Social Security even though Social Security isn't even a budget or deficit problem? Why? She would have raised the Medicare age because why?

Here's something I learned from David Corn's new book, Showdown: Senate Democrats were told at an early 2011 strategy session that voters were focused on deficit reduction and they'd better be too.

But the lawmakers had left Washington not to relax but to cogitate on the issues they would confront in the coming year. One session that would stick the most with many of them was not led by a policy expert but by Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, who had one major point to impart: you have to be serious about deficit reduction or the voters will not listen to you.

Garin based this warning on polls and focus groups, that showed voters supporting deficit reduction as the major pathway to job creation. We can thank right-wing message muddling for that misunderstanding, but nevertheless, there it is. As Corn put it:

They had imbibed the GOP message: the problem with the economy was governmental red ink.

And that message led to the bottom line:

But Garin measured voter perceptions, not whether voters were correct. And he told the senators that voters would not listen to what the Democrats -- including the president -- had to say about jobs and investments if they did not sense that the Democrats were willing to wrestle the debt monster to the ground.

Clearly the Senators heard this, as did the White House, which is why there was the laser-like focus on the deficit. Not that it made a difference, since in the long run, it just doesn't matter what Democrats do. If they're for it, Republicans will oppose. In everyday life, we call that "oppositional defiant disorder." In politics, it's just standard operating procedure.

So when you hear Nancy Pelosi talking about the Grand Bargain in these terms, think in that context, and then think about her conclusion:

"It was a way to say we are serious about this, we can govern. And they walked away from that."

Continue reading »

Part 1 of Carolyn Federoff's speech

Carolyn Federoff, vice chair of the American Federation of Government Employees' HUD council (and Local AFGE 3258 president), gave a masterful takedown of conservative budget talking points at the Massachusetts AFL-CIO convention. Federoff takes a look at the current budget deficit and tackles Republican suggestions of spending cuts and explains how they just won't work. In a "Back to the Future"-like presentation, she shows a picture of the cabinet and takes away members as she hypothetically cuts parts of the budget, showing how even if you cut the major portion of the federal government, you still fall hundreds of billions of dollars short of closing the gap. The reality, she says, is that there is no way to balance the budget without increasing revenue. Even cutting all of the following programs (which would cause massive problems for the populace), would still leave a gap of nearly $200 billion:

Continue reading »

The trailer, yes I said trailer, for the Republican budget. Seriously.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka issued a statement condemning the extreme right-wing budget proposed by House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI), saying it was yet another Republican assault on America's working families:

Just as Republican governors and state legislators are assaulting the rights of working Americans under the guise of budget crises, Rep. Ryan and Republican leaders in Congress are using the federal budget to further their own political agendas. Their credo is that tax giveaways to the super rich and Wall Street should be paid for on the backs of working people.

They are holding the federal government hostage, along with hundreds of thousands of jobs and the services millions rely on, while simultaneously proposing irresponsible budget cuts. It is clear that they are not concerned with fiscal responsibility, but rather undermining their political opponents. This is simply further evidence of their determination to protect their friends on Wall Street at the expense of American jobs, seniors, our children and our future.

As we recover from the worst economic crisis of our time, cuts to essential programs threaten to push us back into recession, or even depression. Shame on those Republicans more worried about the politics of their choices than the economic consequences.

Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers similarly condemned the proposal:

"It is morally unacceptable and economically indefensible for House Republicans to put forth a budget that doubles down on a cuts-only approach to our economy at a time when our children and families continue to struggle to get by.

"Today, half of all Americans are either poor or low-income. Three million more children live in poverty today than when this recession began. And we've already slashed more than 300,000 education jobs at a time when our children and our public schools desperately need resources and support to compete in a 21st-century knowledge economy.

"This budget prioritizes huge tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations, while likely cutting money from public education and programs such as Title I that go directly to support low-income children in the classroom. It would end Medicare as we know it and leave seniors without access to affordable, high-quality healthcare, and it would make college more costly. It would do nothing to help Americans find good jobs, keep their homes, and ensure our children have a better and brighter future.

Continue reading »

enlarge

Credit: Wall Street Journal

Among the predictable Republican reactions to the President's proposed 2013 budget is the refrain that "Obama has failed to keep a 2009 promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term." Just days after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told a CPAC audience that President Obama "said he'd cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term," ABC's Jake Tapper dutifully announced "Obama's broken deficit promise." And today, the RNC debuted a new ad in which a supposedly betrayed voter warns, "President Obama, you broke your promise. I'll never forget that."

Of course, what everyone seems to be forgetting is that in 2004 President George W. Bush promised - and failed - to halve the federal budget deficit by 2009. As it turns out, Bush broke his pledge even before the economic cataclysm of 2008 that triggered the TARP bank bailout, sent government revenues plummeting, and required President Obama's rescue programs that saved the U.S. from "Greet Depression 2.0."

As he faced reelection in 2004, George W. Bush famously committed to cut the deficit in half by 2009. As it turned out, the budget Bush bequeathed to Barack Obama didn't even get close to that target. The FY 2009 budget Bush proposed in February 2008 called for a deficit of roughly $400 billion, almost identical to the result in 2004. But that January 2004 promise, as the Washington Post, CNN and The New York Times among others noted at the time, was premised upon two parallel frauds. As Perrspectives explained four years ago:

First, Bush's pompous prediction used as its baseline a wildly inflated White House deficit forecast of $521 billion, well above the CBO's estimate and the actual figure of $413 billion. More importantly, President Bush conveniently chose 2009 as his finish line, the year before his tax cuts were set to expire. Making them permanent (which he and all of the GOP presidential candidates endorse) would blow another $2.2 trillion hole in the federal budget by 2014.

(It's also worth noting, as the Obama administration has this week, that Bush's budget plans always understated the real deficit, because they routinely failed "to account for the costs of the wars in Afghanistan, the cost of preventing cuts to Medicare doctors, and the price of staving off an expansion of the alternative minimum tax.")

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (542)

PLAYS: (23969)

Embed

You have to be a real C-Span junkie like Karoli to catch some of the fireworks that come out on the House floor. On what is basically like the congressional version of Open Mic Night in the House of Representatives, Rep Pete DeFazio decided to use his time to slap down the GOP's draconian budget cut proposals, eliminating small potato programs in terms of fiscal impact in favor of raising defense spending, without regard for the very meaningful impact these programs have on Americans.

NY Rep. Hinchey argues against the GOP continuing resolution due to the disaster relief provisions

Someone should have told Eric Cantor holding disaster aid hostage for budget cuts was a bad idea. Maybe someone did, but he chose not to listen. The net result of that was a disastrous vote yesterday in the House of Representatives on what should have been a routine continuing resolution to keep agreed-upon budget numbers in place.

What happened instead highlights the ongoing and rising tension between the tea party freshmen and the rest of the Republican party.

ThinkProgress:

Attached to the bill was a highly controversial measure that gives the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Disaster Relief Fund additional funding to pay for both recent disaster relief efforts and recovery projects from disasters that may have happened years ago — but only by stealing $1.5 BILLION from a successful job creation program to “offset” the spending to help disaster victims. Strangely, Republicans steal $1.5 BILLION from the jobs program, but only offset $1 BILLION in disaster funding.

THE JOBS REPUBLICANS WANT TO KILL: The program they want to steal $1.5 BILLION from, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program, has already created approximately 40,000 American jobs by spurring American manufacturing in 11 states across the country. The program, if it remains fully funded, stands to createat least another 50-60,000 American jobs in states like Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Florida, Louisiana, Illinois, and Michigan.

Democrats whipped against the bill because of its job-killing nature, and it was defeated on a final bipartisan count of 195-230. Here's the thing: Had Republicans not defected, it would have passed. So the question is, which Republicans defected and why? Can you guess? Yes, tea party freshmen bolted because it didn't cut enough spending, and because they had vowed not to pass omnibus spending bills. So Democrats bolted because it killed jobs and inadequately funded disaster relief and Republicans bolted because it didn't kill enough jobs or cut enough spending. Oh, and they think it's totally okay to shut down the government, too.

That leaves John Boehner to figure out whether he's going to keep pandering to the extreme right wing of his party or try to fashion a compromise with Democrats. According to this National Journal report, he's very frustrated with the tea party folks right now.

Boehner was described as "spitting nails" during a closed-door member meeting on Wednesday, and his harsh talk demonstrated that the usually unflappable speaker is reaching something close to a breaking point with his internally divided conference.

Those close to Boehner said there is a growing anger in the leadership that some in the freshman class and other intractable conservatives pay no mind to the legislative dangers of abandoning leadership—especially at a time when Democrats feel as if they and President Obama are fighting for their political lives.

Top GOP leadership aides said Boehner knew the stopgap bill would fail and wanted to prove to the Republicans who defected how their actions would force party leaders to negotiate with Democrats to win passage of the must-pass bill. A government shutdown is not an acceptable alternative to GOP leaders, a message Boehner reiterated on Thursday. “There’s no threat of government shutdown—let’s just get this out there,” he said.

Continue reading »