DOWNLOADS: (94)

PLAYS: (729)

Embed

Only on Fox News would unemployment insurance be presented as some kind of “cruelty” to the poor that “deters” them from getting hired at low-paying jobs. That’s right, with a straight face, Fox guest John Tamny said that we should scrap federal unemployment benefits in order to make “existing jobs” more attractive and “help” the unemployed by “luring” them back into the workforce. Naturally, host Tucker Carlson was all ears.

It started with a suggestion by Carlson that unemployment insurance benefits are unnecessary and wasteful. He cited a statistic that, during the past recession, the federal government paid “almost $80 million in jobless benefits to households that made more than $1 million a year.” He added, “Is this proof that the system is broken or should top earners be entitled to federal assistance if they lose their jobs?”

His guest, John Tamny took the concept a few steps further. He thought it would be even worse if millionaires were “forced” to pay into a system “that only non-millionaires could collect from.” But he went on to advocate for getting rid of unemployment insurance altogether - couched in the kind of rhetoric George Orwell would surely have loved - by calling one of our most important social safety nets “anti-poor” because it doesn’t encourage them to work for lower wages.

(The system) makes it that much more expensive for (businesses) to lure workers back from the sidelines. It actually raises their labor cost. If you didn’t have the federal government essentially paying people not to work, their labor demands would naturally fall to the level at which the markets would hire them again and they would get back to work more quickly. I think it’s anti-poor to say only you get a program that’s going to make you unemployed for a longer time.

…If you’re being paid money not to work, it’s going to make it that more expensive for businesses to hire you back into the labor force. So if you wanted to rid that, you’d get rid of unemployment benefits and people would then have to accept the existing jobs that are available. Many of them maybe don’t look attractive now. …Unemployment benefits are a deterrent to getting back into the labor force so I think it would be particularly cruel to say if you’re poor, you get paid to stay on the sidelines.

Predictably, Tamny’s solution is to privatize. He wants “401K-style programs" that both employers and employees would pay into "so that if the unthinkable happens, you have a little cushion that you own for during the time that you’re looking for new job.” What nobody mentioned is that this would do exactly what Carlson was supposedly against in the first place - subsidize higher-paid workers' unemployment longer and better.

But if you're new at a job before getting laid off or working at a low-paying job that would only provide a very small “cushion” or if the stock market should tank again – well, I guess the rest of us could count our “lucky” stars as we flip burgers at McDonald’s.

Not bad, OccupyDC.

This was voted on Thursday and sent to me. Apparently it is 95 percent completed and HAS NOT been voted on by the Occupy DC GA. This is what happens in a "leaderless" movement - hard to verify what is what. It's still worth a read. I'd be curious to know what changes they make.

The Declaration of the Occupation of Washington, D.C.
Consented to in committee November 15th, 2011

We have been captives of corrupt economic and political systems for far too long. The concentration of wealth and the purchase of political power stifle the voices of the increasingly disenfranchised 99%. Corporate dominance subverts democracy, intentionally sows division, destroys the environment, obstructs the just and equitable pursuit of happiness, and violates the rights and dignity of all life.

Occupy D.C. is an open community of diverse individuals, founded on equality for the common good. We are peaceably assembled at McPherson Square, practicing direct democracy on the doorstep of K Street, the center of destructive corporate and governmental relationships. We insist that our political and economic systems serve the people’s interests. Now is the time to advance and complete the struggles of those who came before us.

We are assembled because...

It is absurd that The 1% has taken 40% of the nation’s wealth through exploiting labor, outsourcing jobs, and manipulating the tax code to their benefit through special capital tax rates and loopholes. The system is rigged in their favor, yet they cry foul when anyone even dares to question their relentless class warfare.
Candidates in our electoral system require huge sums of money to be competitive. These contributions from multi-national corporations and wealthy individuals destroy responsive representative governance. A system of backroom deals, kickbacks, bribes, and dirty politics overrides the will of the people. The rotation of decision-makers between the public and private sectors cultivates a network of public officials, lobbyists, and executives whose aligned interests do not serve the American people.

The entrenched 2-party system overlooks public interests by pursuing narrow political goals. This climate encourages candidates to polarize voters for individual power and personal gain. Citizens’ meaningful input has been compromised by gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, and unresponsive politicians. Residents of Washington DC continue to lack autonomy and legislative representation.

Those with power have divided us from working in solidarity by perpetuating historical prejudices and discrimination based on color of skin, perceived race, immigrant or indigenous status, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability, among other things.

Corporations broke the financial system by gambling with our savings, property, and economy. They needed the public to bail them out of their failures yet deny any responsibility and continue to fight oversight. They loot from those whose labor creates society’s prosperity, while the government allows them to privatize profits and socialize risk.

Continue reading »

What one hand giveth, the other seeks to take away. Such is the case with our Republican Congress, who wants to publicly appear sympathetic with the long-term unemployed while backing away from the deal they made with Democrats last year to extend tax cuts in exchange for extended unemployment benefits.

>House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Republican Orrin Hatch have introduced a bill that, they say, would improve the unemployment insurance (UI) system by “forward funding” federal UI payments to states. That sounds good and, in fact, “forward funding” is a worthy goal, as explained below. But, their bill actually would let states take federal funds that are supposed to help the long-term unemployed and use them for other purposes. That not only would hurt some of the most vulnerable Americans but also would slow the economic recovery.

Forward funding for UI is the equivalent of block grants for Medicare. It would give governors like Michigan governor Rick Snyder a way to go forward with the deep cuts to unemployment benefits in Michigan while continuing to fund them.

Digby writes:

Surely the Republicans wouldn't just blatantly break this deal would they? And there's no way that the Democrats would let them, right? Yeah ...

I honestly don't know. But with the unemployment numbers stuck at around 9%, the housing market shakier than ever and growth looking anemic at best, it's a very bad idea, not to mention cruel and dishonest. But get ready, they are going to argue that the private sector is going gangbusters now and there's nothing stopping these lazy sods from getting a job. It's just how they roll.

They will, by the way, do the same thing with any other "concessions" in the next Grand Bargain the first chance they get. Their post-modern politics doesn't acknowledge the concepts of hypocrisy or intellectual consistency. Keeping their end of a bargain would hardly break any of their rules.

Of course, they'll argue that there's no effort here to back away from the deal they made when they're simply "improving the system" to be more efficient. In a time where Republican governors are balancing their budgets by cutting the number of weeks of unemployment benefits paid, an unallocated windfall from the federal government would be awesome, wouldn't it?

I hope the Senate will turn this proposal back. But it's equally clear that Republicans don't believe in keeping their word or striking honorable deals, and if Democrats don't learn this now, they're going to keep being played for fools.

There was a time in this country where the poor went to poorhouses, where they were treated like chattel and had no real opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty. Progress changed all that. Programs like unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, and Social Security gave Americans an opportunity to survive with at least a foothold to a better life.

This is what Republicans hate. They want the poor to stay poor, to be enslaved to Republican corporate masters, to be grateful for whatever scraps are tossed their way. With that in mind, consider teabagger racist candidate Carl Paladino's latest proposal:

Paladino laid out several plans that included converting underused state prisons into centers that would house welfare recipients. There, they would do work for the state — "military service, in some cases park service, in other cases public works service," he said — while prison guards would be retrained to work as counselors.

"Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we'll teach people how to earn their check. We'll teach them personal hygiene ... the personal things they don't get when they come from dysfunctional homes," Paladino said.

Of course, this is the same guy that thinks bestiality and racist photoshop jobs are fun to email other people, and has no problem using eminent domain to stop the mosque.

I thought teabaggers believed in less government, not more. But Paladino wants to conscript the poor to work for the state and live in prisons in their off time, use state power to confiscate land and the right to build on that land because he doesn't like the religion of the owners of said land, and has no problem with sharing his somewhat twisted fantasies via email.

Fortunately, Andrew Cuomo has a comfortable lead over both GOP candidates, but if Paladino keeps spouting off this stuff, Cuomo might win by the biggest landslide in New York history.

DOWNLOADS: (2768)

PLAYS: (1322)

Embed

I think it's a clear indication that the Republican reflexive obstructionism has reached absurd levels when even Chris Wallace calls you on your crap. All that pearl clutching over the deficit--something that mattered not a whit during the Bush years--now requires that Obama offset the costs of extending unemployment insurance but not for the Republican answer for all societal evils, tax cuts for the wealthy. Wrap your mind around that cognitive dissonance.

WALLACE: Congressman Pence, why is it that extending unemployment benefits has to be paid for according to Republicans but extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy which would cost $678 billion, that doesn’t have to be paid for?

PENCE: Well, let me…look, Republicans, me included, have supported numerous extensions of unemployment benefits. We’re anxious to do so again. But look….the deficit this year is a trillion dollars for the second year in a row and more. The American people have had it with runaway federal spending, deficits and debt and they want to begin to see the men and women in Washington DC begin to make the hard choices and prioritize spending. The other part of it too…

[crosstalk]

WALLACE: But you’re not answering the question. I can understand the argument: pay for the unemployment benefits. Why then not pay for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?

Pence weasels out of it again. Because clearly, there are no justifications for this except craven political ones. He then argues that the tax cuts expand the economy, despite the fact that the expressed concern up to this point has been reducing the deficit.

At this point, I think it's important to add a little GOP-dreaded facts into the discussion. As a method of stimulating the economy, something we all agree must be done, tax cuts don't help nearly as much as extending unemployment insurance:

Lowering taxes puts money in consumers' pockets quickly, but economists worry that with uncertainty running high, many households will choose to save rather than spend the money. While most economists would like to see the U.S. saving rate rise from its current low level of 1.2 percent, a sudden jump in savings would deepen the recession.

Many economists are pushing for targeted benefits such as food stamps or extending unemployment benefits. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, estimates that every dollar dedicated to increasing food stamps puts $1.73 into the economy. Increasing jobless insurance benefits typically gets a return of $1.64 per dollar. (here)

Obama also is expected to support tax cuts for businesses, which would raise corporate profits and may help the stock market. Unless the economy recovers quickly those tax reductions would probably do little to encourage companies to step up hiring and investment, Deutsche Bank economist Peter Hooper said.[..]

In congressional testimony last year, Zandi said tax cuts delivered the least bang for the buck, with a dollar's worth of temporary nonrefundable rebates worth $1.02 with a one-year lag. Permanent tax cuts yielded less than 50 cents of additional spending.

So by his own admission, Pence wants to do the least effective method of expanding the economy and add hundreds of billions to trillions to the deficit all the while gnashing and wailing about those irresponsible Democrats growing the deficit. Wow. Nice game if you can get it.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

No matter how hard Sharron Angle tries, she can't shake the fact of her radical associations and ideas away so easily.

In her own words:

"If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are going to start looking for second amendment remedies..."

Which she then follows up with this:

"The first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

DOWNLOADS: 1432

PLAYS: 521

Embed

In the span of about a minute or so, Angle advocates for armed insurrection, 'taking out' a duly elected Senator of the United States, and curing Congress' problems with a 'Second Amendment solution'.

Would this be before or after she repeals Social Security, ends unemployment insurance, outlaws alcohol and terminates Medicare? I suppose she would say it's just one of those oaths she keeps, right? Because she's not an Oath Keeper, but a 'keeper of oaths'. So that's how they do that.

Also, let's not forget about her long association with the Independent Right Party, a group so far fringe most of us haven't peeked far enough under the covers to look at them, but we probably should, since they seem to have written some of the current right-wing dialogue:

Hansen's brother, the late Daniel Hansen, founded the Independent American Party in 1967 "after realizing that the Republican Party was growing too corrupt and socialistic," according to the party website. The party lost its ballot position in the late 1970s and didn't get back on until a push by Hansen in 1992. That year, Angle signed the petition to get the Independent American Party back on the ballot, according to multiple party members and news reports.

That was a heady time for the reborn party. A 1992 Los Angeles Times article (via Nexis) describes Hansen at a political rally wearing a Stetson hat and bearing a sign that read, "If Guns Are Outlawed, How Can We Shoot the Liberals?" His rhetoric would not be out of place at a 2010 tea party.

"Don't give up your guns, folks," he told a crowd. "That's all we've got to protect us against the advance of socialism. America is in a survival phase." (via TalkingPointsMemo)

I don't think even Frank Luntz can fix this one.

Cartoon Credit: Danziger Cartoons

There's a basic economic reality that escapes politicians in election years: It takes money in consumers' hands to buy things which then creates demand for more things to be made which then creates jobs which put money in the pockets of consumers which they use to buy things.

In other words, if people don't have money, they won't spend money. Seems simple enough.

But it's an election year, which means the deficit hawks have swooped down upon our politicians and stolen their brains (and, evidently, their ability to read).

Huffington Post reports on a recent survey conducted by the National Unemployment Law Project. The results aren't a huge surprise: 74% of respondents believe extensions to unemployment insurance and COBRA subsidies take priority over deficit reduction.

Three-quarters of registered voters think Congress should forget about the deficit and preserve extended unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for laid-off workers, according to a new poll commissioned by the National Employment Law Project.

Citing deficit concerns, Democrats in both chambers of Congress have said it's time to start thinking about how to wrap up the extended unemployment benefits put in place to fight the recession. But 74 percent of people surveyed said they agreed with the statement that "it is too early to start cutting back benefits and health coverage for workers who lost their jobs."

Let's think through what happens when those '99ers' don't have their unemployment check. Do they rush right out to the local McDonald's and get a counter job? Well, no. Not that they wouldn't if they could, but because they are unlikely to be hired, particularly if their experience is in a different area or they are over age 50. Depending on their skills, self-employment might be an option, but only if they have the means to live while building an income stream.

And then there's the COBRA subsidy, which should be extended for the unemployed until the subsidies available to insureds under health care reform kick in. Losing that will simply cause more medical bankruptcies, more deaths, and more poverty.

This is not the time for Congress to kick the floor out from under the unemployed. We neither asked for, nor did we invite being laid off, downsized, or merged out of existence. We are not lazy, bloodsucking maggots intent on undermining the American way of life. We are real people with real children and real concerns who also happen to vote.

That voting thing is going to be really important in November. Don't be fooled by the press meme about incumbent hate. Incumbents who stand up for the people will be re-elected. Those who don't, won't.

So this whole process was a sorry mess, and for progressives, there were plenty of disappointments along the way. (I will get back to those.) We also have far bigger battles ahead. (I will get back to those, too.) But one of my themes in life with my fellow progressives is that we need to do a better job celebrating what we win, and we won a lot this round. It’s worth taking a moment to celebrate those victories while we get ready for the next round. Celebrating victories is important, as all the great progressive movement leaders have known well- it empowers people, and makes them believe that victory is possible so they should keep fighting.

For many progressives, including me, we had four major goals going into this budget battle. First priority: that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits- the most important safety net for low and middle income Americans- not be cut. These three programs are the heart and soul of the New Deal and Great Society programs passed by progressives in generations past. They are by far the biggest and most successful social insurance programs ever created in American history, and are central both to our ability to protect our most vulnerable citizens and to our efforts to keep the middle class from being hollowed even more.

These programs, especially Social Security, were in dire danger throughout these negotiations, with Obama and Pelosi and Republicans all willing to make cuts. But because of Republican stubbornness on taxes and strong progressive pushback, in the final deal, Social Security and the other two programs were saved. That is a huge, huge victory- but one that will only be preserved if we keep fighting, and fighting hard, because the Republicans got politically destroyed on this deal and will be even more determined to attack these programs going forward.

A second major goal was more tax revenue from the wealthiest Americans and again, this deal got that done. Not nearly enough-- obviously, the compromises on the 250K vs. 450K threshold and the estate tax are disappointing. As far as I am concerned, we should have a higher top rate than 39.6% on wealthy Americans, it should kick in at $200,000 rather than 250 or 450, and we ought to have a carbon tax and financial transactions tax as well. But a Republican controlled House significantly increased taxes on the top 1% for the first time since early in the first term of the Eisenhower administration, almost 60 years ago. Before that, I think you have to go back to the Civil War 150 years ago to have a Republican-controlled House that raised taxes for high income people That is a big deal, and well worth celebrating.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (688)

PLAYS: (2941)

Embed

Everyone wants to be part of a winning team. It's human nature. But I've never understood the bizarre jingoism of right-wing America to scream "We're #1!!!!" without a whole lot of facts to back them up.

In fact, according to last week's Newsweek, they'd be more accurate to yell "We're #11!!!", which doesn't quite have the cachet of being #1.

It would be nice if we could learn the lessons of how other countries are successful and adapt them to this country. One such country that has been bandied about of late is Germany. At a time where we have economists warning of a double dip recession here, Germany's economy is growing stronger consistently month after month.

Why?

As Fareed Zakaria describes it, it's is because Germany is investing in its own long-term economic success, by focusing on strengthening their manufacturing base, educating future employees, and offering social safety nets to keep the workforce happy and secure.

I've talked to people in my private life who question whether we could actually adopt Germany's policies here, given that our GDP is exponentially much larger. I don't think it's an issue of GDP so much as it is a willingness to stop structuring all of our economic policies for the short-term benefit of corporations over everything else.

But even without the political will, it's clear something has to change, or we risk dropping even further down the list.

Transcripts below the fold:

Continue reading »