One of the richest men in the country, ranking in the 0.006 percent of Americans, likes to accuse the President of creating an “entitlement society.” Mitt Romney, the heir apparent, next in line GOP nominee … is against entitlement.

When I hear “entitlement society” I think, “country club.” But When Mitt uses that phrase he doesn’t mean rich guys like him, given all the advantages of wealth, who are now enjoying its comforts – he means the rest of us. Yes, Mitt is against an “entitlement society” because that involves too many people and not just him and his ilk. It’s not the “entitlement” he contests – it’s the entire “society” part.

At the Monday Florida debate last week Mitt noted that under Gingrich’s tax plan Mitt would pay no taxes at all. Gingrich responded with, “Well, if that -- and if you created enough jobs doing that -- it was Alan Greenspan who first said the best rate, if you want to create jobs for capital gains, is zero.”

So rich people whose money makes their money (it’s literally capital gaining) are so fortunate they get to hire other people to pay taxes for them? Rich people with their alleged mythical power to create jobs even get to outsource their tax obligations to poor saps working for a living?

This is the prosperity gospel as a Super PAC-funded marketing blitz. Money is next to godliness and poverty is the fault of the poor for not being better people.

It’s as if Jesus were a CEO and the Romans job-killing communists.

“Contrary to the President's constant disparagement of people in business,” former George W. Bush budget director Gov. Mitch Daniels said in his State of the Union response last week, “It's one of the noblest of human pursuits.” This is one of those phrases you (usually) will only hear in business school (funnier if it was one of those rip-off for-profit colleges). Business is one of the noblest of human pursuits? Noble as in aristocratic? That phrase, “noble pursuits,” is usually applied to an avocation not paying much but rewarding in other ways: teachers; firefighters; nurses; foster parents; soldiers; community leaders; social workers; mentors; rescue workers; care givers; farmers. Or to anyone who’s honest, shows up every day and works hard. That’s a noble pursuit.

Are the wealthy really so sensitive they need Mitch Daniels to make them feel better about themselves in a spiritual sense? What they’re doing not only pays off with privilege and cash – it also has to be venerable from a moral perspective? How much reward does one group need? They own everything and they also need to be thanked?!

The rich are not just over-paid – they’re over valued. And generous welfare recipients.

As Senator Tom Coburn points out in his damning Nov. 2011 report, “Subsidies of the Rich and Famous,” we are a wealthfare state. It reads, “This reverse Robin Hood style of wealth redistribution is an intentional effort to get all Americans bought into a system where everyone appears to benefit.” In other words: We subsidize the rich by telling the poor to pay their fair share.

It’s been a strange three years under the Obama administration. First the GOP was against empathy. Yes, the party had to vehemently opposed seeing the plight of your fellow human beings because Obama was for it. Now their new hot button word? Fairness. Obama used the word fairness in his third State of the Union. And now the GOP has decided to be against fairness and celebrate inequality as being the thing that makes America great.

It’s as if Jesus were a CEO and the three wise men were shareholders.

The prosperity gospel is not America. It’s not democratic. It’s not even Christian. It’s greed warped into being a virtue by the greedy.

The rich aren’t better, they’re just richer.

DOWNLOADS: (195)

PLAYS: (643)

Embed

The press is supposed to confront and challenge politicians, to fact check, to provide a service to their viewership to be informed.

Which is why I'm less upset at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell publicly announcing that the Senate Republicans will be contributing an Amicus Brief to the case against President Obama's recess appointments than I am that Candy Crowley never bothered to mention that during the previous administration, Bush made 171 recess appointments--including Ambassador to the UN John Bolton--and Mitch McConnell never said boo to any of them.

There's nothing unconstitutional about Obama's appointments, as the Republicans well know:

The Justice Department is publicly rebutting Republican criticism of the legality of President Barack Obama's recent recess appointments of a national consumer watchdog and other officials.

The department released a 23-page legal opinion Thursday summarizing the advice it gave the White House before the Jan. 4 appointments. GOP leaders have argued the Senate was not technically in recess when Obama acted so the regular Senate confirmation process should have been followed.

Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz wrote that the president has authority to make such appointments because the Senate is on a 20-day recess, even though it has held periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is conducted. Seitz argued the pro forma sessions – some with as few as one member present – have not been sufficient for the chamber to exercise its constitutional authority to advise and consent to normal presidential nominations.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has said Obama has endangered the nation's systems of checks and balances, and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch says the appointments are a very grave decision by an autocratic White House.

Autocratic? Such pearl-clutching hypocrisy. Sen. Mike Lee has promised to obstruct all further nominations as retribution for this completely legal tactic made necessary by Republican obstruction. This, of course, doesn't bother Mitch McConnell either. Because the tyranny of the minority to hold the entire country hostage against the desires of its populace is absolutely acceptable practice, if you're a Republican.

Continue reading »

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the AFL-CIO say that the GOP's choice of Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels to deliver the official Republican response to the State of the Union should be scary and that it is a sign that Republicans are going all-in on so-called 'right-to-work' laws in 2012. AFSCME released a video Tuesday highlighting the reasons people should be scared of Daniels, including:

enlarge

Credit: President Bingo

State of the Union bingo cards are available here . Refresh so each party attendee gets their own.

The speech is live-streamed at Whitehouse.org, and the live stream will feature enhanced graphs and charts accompanying the speech.

And frankly, we can't wait for Herman Cain's Tea Party response. Can't. Wait.

State of the Union open thread below...

The buzz is that President Barack Obama is pushing hard for a deal with the big banks over the foreclosure crisis in advance of the State of the Union address on Tuesday. Most observers are afraid that the deal will be too small and that the banks will get a slap on the wrist despite playing a major role in creating the financial crisis that led to a recession.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka joined a growing chorus calling for a rejection of such a small deal and calling for an investigation of the banks over potential fraud and illegal activity:

We need to hold banks accountable for the fraudulent practices that brought about the worst economic crisis since the Depression. State Attorneys General have been investigating bank fraud, and these critical investigations must not be undermined by a premature and inadequate settlement. We call on the administration to reject any deal that insulates banks from full responsibility.

We commend state Attorneys Generals like New York’s Eric Schneiderman and Delaware’s Beau Biden for their leadership and courage in calling for a real investigation and relief on a scale that helps the millions of homeowners who face a new wave of foreclosures.

The economy is currently weighed down by $750 billion in negative home equity, so relief on a massive scale is needed to lift home values and stimulate the economy by increasing consumer demand. A comprehensive settlement must force banks to write down underwater mortgages. A sum significantly larger than the rumored $25 billion is needed for the economy to grow and create jobs.

Specifically, the administration must stand strong against the Big Banks and insist on:

1. A full and thorough investigation into problems tied to the residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) market, and

2. A guaranteed minimum amount of money set aside for reducing the mortgage principal of “underwater” homeowners in key states impacted by the foreclosure crisis.

This is an opportunity for the administration to demonstrate leadership and show that it has the political will to do what’s right for homeowners and right for our economy.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (166)

PLAYS: (1215)

Embed

The unemployment report that came out this week was something of a mixed blessing, as I reported earlier. The unemployment rate is coming down, the lowest it's been in two and a half years. But unfortunately, that number has less to do with jobs created than it does the chronically unemployed falling off the rolls.

The Department of Labor defines a "Discouraged Worker" as an unemployed person who has not found a job in over twelve months. Not that they don't want to work necessarily, but that they are unable to find work.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top five reasons for discouragement are:

1. The worker thinks no work is available.
2. The worker could not find work.
3. The worker lacks schooling or training.
4. The worker is viewed as too young or too old by the prospective employer.
5. The worker is the target of various types of discrimination.

Guess what the unemployment rate was twelve months ago? A near high of 9.8 percent. Those people are still looking a full twelve months later, but 315,000 of them don't count anymore as far as the BLS is concerned. Even still, Candy Crowley can't understand the concept of a discouraged worker. She asks Brookings Institution Fellow (and Obama Deficit Commission member) Alice Rivlin, who thinks this means that these chronically unemployed people are simply relying on a spouse for income:

CROWLEY: 120,000 jobs added; private sector jobs up 140,000; government jobs down 20,000.

I don't -- unless you're in the government, that -- you know, people think that sounds great. Long-term unemployed, 5.7 million; retail jobs, up 50,000; change in the labor force, down 315,000.

OK. So that down -- I want to talk about that down 315,000, because I don't know who people are that suddenly decide they're so discouraged they can't look anymore. Who is that?

ALICE RIVLIN, FORMER MEMBER, SIMPSON-BOWLES COMMISSION: Oh, I think it is people who've been looking for a long time, or maybe some more positive explanation, like their spouse just got a job, so they aren't looking as hard.

But it is the downside of what's happening at the moment. Jobs are being created, but not as many people are looking. So that helps the unemployment rate look a little better than it might otherwise look.

Sweet jeebus, save us from these privileged talking heads who can't understand how difficult life in the wealthiest nation in the world is for 99 percent of Americans. These people aren't magically now able to support themselves just because they've fallen off the official rolls that the Bureau of Labor Statistics use. They didn't voluntarily stop counting themselves as unemployed; the BLS did that. It's not that they don't want a job, it's that the search has been massively discouraging.

In the real world these “discouraged workers” know they are unemployed even if the Department of Labor does not count them. As has happened in the past, they’ll come out of the woodwork and take jobs as soon as jobs are available.

What is the actual rate and what does it mean for investors?

A very different rate occurs when one considers people who are only working part-time but want full time jobs and those who want jobs and will take them as soon as they become available: The real rate for November is far greater than 8.6% according to macroeconomists who analyze labor force participation rates. They look at November's population by age and sex and analyze it in terms of the very stable and very traditional historical hours the people in each age and sex group have been willing to work when jobs are generally available.

More specifically, the real rate of involuntarily idled labor, say the real economists, is 20.8% and rising. They report 20.8% of the labor hours that would be worked if jobs were available are not being worked. Moreover, they say, the 20.8% unemployment rate is conservative because people are living longer and because millions of Americans have lost their savings and pensions and will have to work longer in the future before they totally retire.

In other words, the real economists say unemployment in the United States is continuing to grow and the economy is continuing to sink further and further below its full employment level of output.

But Crowley and Rivlin--who has advised Democratic presidents on economics--seem blithely unaware of that.

DOWNLOADS: (245)

PLAYS: (727)

Embed

When Sen. Lamar Alexander resigned his leadership position in the GOP, I had a faint hope that Alexander was protesting the caricature his party has become with the increasing but clueless influence of the tea party. But no, that was for naught, as his very first Sunday show appearance after his Good Bye Cruel GOP letter of resignation was to blame Senate Leader Harry Reid for "manufacturing a crisis" in terms of the potential for another government shutdown over funding disaster relief for Hurricane Irene:

CROWLEY: Senator Alexander, let me ask you if you buy into Senator Warner's premise, which is that tea party folks are basically at fault, I think I'm -- that's not a direct quote, but that the tea party-backed folks in the House are the ones behind this stalemate that is now threatening yet another government shutdown. Do you agree with that?

SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R), TENNESSEE: No, I don't. You know, I'll give the Senate Democratic leader most of the credit. He manufactured a crisis all week about disaster when there's no crisis.

Everybody knows we're going to pay for every single penny of disaster aid that the president declares and that FEMA certifies. And the House sent over a bill that does that and the Senate should have approved it.

What it did was take $1.5 billion of unobligated funds and say, we're going to -- instead of adding to the debt we're going to not add to the debt when we do this.

No crisis? Our third approach to a government shutdown in a year due to the ridiculous hostage taking of the Republican Party and it's Harry Reid that is manufacturing the crisis? We are well and truly in Bizarro-land. But of course, it's not for Candy Crowley to point out that every little thing is being held up by the Republicans in congress, making this one of the least productive congressional sessions in history.

And if "everybody knows" that Congress will approve the disaster aid, then what is the kabuki theater that the tea party Republicans insist upon? Why are Republicans suddenly now looking for budgetary offsets when they approved trillions of off-budget expenditures while they held the majority?

Of course, none of this was raised by Crowley in response. Why give her viewers any context or facts to assess Alexander's statement?

I seriously think that at some point we will see some conservative's head explode from all the cognitive dissonance they hold. I'm putting my money on Sen. Lindsey Graham. Graham is such an interesting paradox, since he was the one Republican to break from his party and refuse to vote to convict Bill Clinton during the impeachment, is often part of these bipartisan gangs in Congress that actually get legislation passed and has occasionally been fairly reasonable on the issues of immigration, climate change and economic issues. But he will often also backtrack on all of these issues, especially in defense of his BFF, John McCain.

On State of the Union, Graham exhibited this cognitive dissonance perfectly. Host Candy Crowley asked him his opinion on President Obama's upcoming tax plan--quaintly referred to as "The Buffett Plan"-- and Graham just spouted off the same tried and true talking points about targeting the uber-wealthy for tax increases as class warfare that we heard every single conservative use on every other show.

But then...

Graham went off the talking points and get this...advocated for raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires and shirking corporations:

The tax code should be reformed for one purpose: to generate more revenue, to run the government and create jobs. And when you pick one area of the economy and say we’re going to tax those people, because people are not those people, that’s class warfare.

Look at what Bowles/Simpson did. They didn’t pick on Warren Buffett or any other group. They’re going to make all millionaires and billionaires pay a higher rate, by eliminating the deductions. They’re going to make corporate pay a higher rate – 25% will be the top rate – but they’re going to have to pay it because they won’t have the deductions and loopholes of getting out of paying. That’s the model. What Bowles/Simpson did with the Gang of Six, let’s take the tax code that’s so complicated – that GE pays no taxes – and flatten the rates to be economically competitive but get people to actually pay taxes.

Uh...Lindsey, how exactly is this different from what Obama and the Democratic Party has been saying about making the tax burden fair? Seriously, this logic pretzel of simultaneously advocating for and blocking what the White House is trying to do to improve the economy is gonna kill you.

Candy Crowley sat down with Mike McConnell, former Director of National Intelligence, over the recent report from cyber security company McAfee on cyber-terrorism. McAfee made the somewhat startlingly under-reported claim that it could identify at least 72 victims -- including the governments and agencies of several countries -- of "Operation Shady Rat" pointing to a single state actor as the perpetuator:

On August 3rd, Reuters reported that McAfee was set to reveal that the company has uncovered an extensive, far-reaching case of espionage. When the report came, foreign states were implicated in general, but China was not specifically blamed.

Vice President of threat research for McAfee, Dmitri Alperovitch, told Reuters that “Operation Shady RAT” – the term used for a massive loss of information due to recent hacking efforts – poses a significant threat to the United States. He wrote the following statement in a blog post on the threat:

“What is happening to all this data — by now reaching petabytes as a whole — is still largely an open question. However, if even a fraction of it is used to build better competing products or beat a competitor at a key negotiation (due to having stolen the other team’s playbook), the loss represents a massive economic threat.”

According to The Washington Post, many analysts are blaming China for hacking up to 72 networks across the world, including 49 intrusions in the U.S. alone.

Oddly enough, what most media outlets leave out is the rest of the story – the fact that most of the security experts do not see this as a significant “new” threat – only an change in where the particular threat is coming from. Yet, that is not stopping major news networks and government officials from claiming that this is some sort of sign of massive increase of international cyber-terrorism.

The truth is that the threat has been around as far back as 2006.

What's more notable to me is that not only was McAfee reticent to name names and point at China, but that we're seeing a national moratorium against speaking out against these kind of terrorism attacks specifically by China.

The long list of victims in the extended campaign include the governments of the United States, Taiwan, India, South Korea, Vietnam and Canada; the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN); the International Olympic Committee (IOC); the World Anti-Doping Agency; and an array of companies, from defense contractors to high-tech enterprises.

In the case of the United Nations, the hackers broke into the computer system of its secretariat in Geneva in 2008, hid there for nearly two years, and quietly combed through reams of secret data, according to McAfee.

"Even we were surprised by the enormous diversity of the victim organizations and were taken aback by the audacity of the perpetrators," McAfee's vice president of threat research, Dmitri Alperovitch, wrote in a 14-page report released on Wednesday.

"What is happening to all this data ... is still largely an open question. However, if even a fraction of it is used to build better competing products or beat a competitor at a key negotiation (due to having stolen the other team's playbook), the loss represents a massive economic threat."

As McConnell tells Crowley, the McAfee report could easily be the tip of the iceberg. And while the Obama administration has taken some measures, there's a real danger of some fairly disastrous consequences:

MCCONNELL: Now this administration has done many good things. They have an international policy, they've sent legislation to the congress for consideration. But it's not nearly enough. It has to be significantly more enhanced than it is because as a nation, we are vulnerable.

Let me give you two examples. A terrorist group that had cyber skills could attack the critical infrastructure of this country, particularly in the heat of summer or the cold of winter and cause chaos. It could disrupt banking, electric power.

CROWLEY: It could shut down power grids.

MCCONNELL: Indeed. And remember there was a blackout in about 2003 in the northeast. We were without power for several days. And it put us on the brink of chaos. It's possible for a relatively small group to be able to do that to the country today.

Now, if you go to cyber war where we were mad at someone, we were exchanging hostilities in some way, some of these nation states have penetrated our systems, not only to gain information advantage, but to leave capability that can be used...

CROWLEY: Later on.

MCCONNELL: Later on when there's a crisis of some sort.

So at one level we're losing our economic advantage of our innovation engine. And at another level, we haven't adequately addressed the potential for a terrorist group, someone that would not be deterred from inflicting major damage on what I call the soft underbelly of the country.

Scary.

So when will we be able to be honest and name names? When will we start calling out China for their IP espionage? What will we do to fight this kind of terrorism?

DOWNLOADS: (158)

PLAYS: (683)

Embed

Everybody's favorite Sunday news show guest loves to play concern troll over how President Obama is handling his presidency. Because you know, Grampy McSame would have handled all of this *so* much better.

With his fake sincere expression and his Mr. Rogers voice, along with back up from BFF Joe Lieberman, Mr. Prisoner of War is only to eager to lead the narrative on Libya into serious mission creep from enforcing the No-Fly Zone to taking out Gadhafi and nation-building once again. If only Obama had listened to their war mongering cheerleading earlier.

CROWLEY: Did President Obama wait too long on the U.N. to act?

MCCAIN: He waited too long. There is no doubt in my mind about it. But now it is what it is. And we need now to support him and the efforts that our military are going to make. And I regret that we didn't act much more quickly and we could have, but that's not the point now. The point now is let's get behind this effort and do everything we can to support it.

Golly gee whillikers, Candy, maybe that inadequate, ineffectual POTUS--who is not nearly as strong as *I* would have been in office, by the way--had listened to me earlier and committed us to yet another front in the Middle East even though we're so broke that my party makes a point of saying we can't afford to take care of our own citizens.

WTH??? Explain to me why anyone should give a crap what this also-ran has to say about foreign policy? The same guy who said that walking in Baghdad was as safe as walking down Main Street USA, as long as you were protected by 100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead as well as a bulletproof vest and helmet. In fact, McCain just pulls some old chestnuts from the old Iraq playbook:

And I say to my friends in the congress who are nervous about another intervention, I'm confident we can prevail. And I'm confident that if we hadn't have taken this action that the consequences of failure would have reverberated for years.

Well, ain't that sweet with other people's children? Joe "Never Met A Neocon Meme I Didn't Love" Lieberman counsels us that this could take a while, but we could get lucky:

I think we've got to be ready for a longer battle to get him out of there. But it could go more quickly. Because his troops could lose their confidence and abandon him.

Military geniuses, the both of them. What a great plan for more of America's blood and treasure.

Continue reading »