Motherhood as a political issue

President-elect Obama will have not just a full plate, but a whole buffet of urgent items to address when he takes office. He will need to address the current economic crisis, the economic plan long-term, tax policy, Gitmo, energy policy, health care, education, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and a slew of other priorities.

One item I sincerely hope he makes time for is the issue of working women and the discrimination and challenges we face in the workplace and in society as a whole.

Moms Rising is an organization that works to promote policies that really make a difference for mothers. One of those policies is the issue of Realistic and Fair Wages. They report that the wage gap for working mothers is 27% of their pay. Non-working mothers receive 10% less pay than their male counterparts, and single mothers receive around 40% less. This absolutely has to change.

I am currently reading Not Guilty! The Good News for Working Mothers, by Betty Holcomb. This book is illustrating for me something that I have noticed in my own life: the workplace becomes a great deal more difficult and complicated once you have children.

When I was pregnant with my first child, I was interviewing for a new position at my company. I made the decision to not disclose my pregnancy. Indeed, I was not required to do so due to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This decision, however, was a source of great anxiety for me. Would my new boss (yes, I did get the position) feel betrayed or tricked? How would taking a maternity leave so soon after starting a new position affect my performance review? How would taking a maternity leave affect my relationship with my new co-workers?

It turns out that I made the right decision at the time. When I did disclose my pregnancy to my new boss, she (yes, a woman) was visibly angry. Luckily for me, she left the company less than two weeks later to take a position at another company. I was also fortunate enough to have co-workers that, in the main, greatly supported me. While most of my co-workers with children had teen aged or older children, they remembered what it had been like for them when their children were young.

It turns out that I was pregnant with my second child when I interviewed for my current position at work. This time, I chose to tell my new boss (yes, I got the position) during the interview that I was pregnant. She expressed that she did not have any concerns about my pregnancy as long as I was committed to returning to work after maternity leave. Barring a lottery windfall, I fully intend to return to work, so this was not a problem for me. My current boss has been wonderfully supportive of me during my pregnancy, and now, my maternity leave.

While my two experiences with pregnancy at work were different, overall, they were very good. Many women face discrimination at the workplace due to pregnancy or motherhood. Unfortunately, this type of discrimination is often almost impossible to prove, and thus, most women just accept it and try their best to move on.

In Holcomb's book, she details the story of one workplace where, despite seemingly family and mother-friendly amenities like on-site childcare, women experienced a great deal of anxiety about announcing a pregnancy or asking for time off to care for a sick child. During a workshop on diversity, men in senior management were asked about their beliefs about why women weren't generally representing in senior management. Their responses ranged from "they are not willing to sacrifice family interests" to "they aren't tough enough." Then, women at the company were told about the men's comments, and allowed to respond. One woman was compelled to tell her story in response: she made the decision to not have a second child because she felt that management would decide that she was on the "Mommy Track" and not committed to her job. She felt she had to speak up - wasn't the decision to forgo having a second child enough "sacrifice?" She also spoke about how women in the office strategized with each other on how best to break the news of a pregnancy, and how women were afraid to place photos of their children on their desks, for fear of being seen as not committed to work. Why was it that men were not afraid to have children, but the women were? Why was it that men were not pegged as "not serious about work" when they had children, but women were?


Moms Rising has a term for this problem: Maternal Profiling. Maternal Profiling is "Employment discrimination against a woman who has, or will have, children."

I don't know of any magic bullets for this issue. However, there are a number of things that would help. One is ensuring that safe and affordable childcare is more abundant. Another is advocating for paid maternity AND paternity leaves for new parents. A third would be passage of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which would remove the ridiculous restriction that a woman must file any suit claiming pay discrimination the basis of gender within 180 days of starting a job, as opposed to a reasonable amount of time after she learns that she is the victim of pay discrimination. A fourth would be increasing options (for all workers - NOT just women) for telecommuting, flex time, and other work-flexibility options. These are all issues which can be influenced by the presidential bully pulpit, and I hope President-elect Obama uses some of his political capital on these important issues.

Joyful tears and small disappointments

First, on a personal note: newborn + toddler + other medical concerns = very little sleep, and thus, little time/desire/coherence with which to blog.

My husband and I watched the election results come in, along with one of our closest friends. We allowed our son to stay up and watch the results with us. (By the way - hearing a 2-year old say "Barack Obama for Pres-ent" is very cute.)

Every time a state was called for Obama, there was a lot of cheering and, honestly, perhaps a frightening amount of dancing in our home. When Pennsylvania was called, the cheering was very loud. When Ohio was called, there was much rejoicing. We then waited eagerly for the polls to close on the West Coast, knowing that the race would be called for Obama shortly thereafter.

A flood of phone calls, back and forth, between our friends and family ensued. I came close to crying in my happiness and relief, but pride made me hold back in front of our friend. Of course, he reads this blog, so it doesn't do me any good now. However, when I started this blog, I promised myself I would be honest and open on it, so, there's the truth.

When my dad started school, he wasn't allowed to attend school with white children. He didn't believe until Tuesday night that he would live to see a black man elected President of the United States. I'm so grateful that he has.

From a national perspective, I'm thrilled with the outcome of this election. From a local perspective, I am somewhat disappointed.

On a personal level, a friend of mine was running for the Minnesota House of Representatives, and he lost his race. I'm so disappointed for him, and I know that he would have made a fine Representative. I hope that he decides to run again in 2 years; hopefully, I will have more time and physical energy with which to help him at that point.

Melissa Hortman, the Democratic incumbent in my local House race, easily won her bid for re-election. I am very pleased about this, but honestly, I'm a little shocked. Just based on the sheer aggressiveness of her opponent's campaign (and the nasty PACs aligned with him), I assumed she would be in trouble. I'm very glad that I was wrong.

I am disappointed that both Madia and Tinklenberg lost their bids for election in CD3 and CD6, respectively. While Michele Bachmann's paranoid red-scare comments helped Tinklenberg in fundraising and in gaining the DCCC's interest in his race, I worry that the new focus on the CD6 race took away the DCCC's focus on the CD3 race. Paulsen's campaign (and organizations on his behalf) ran some very hard-hitting campaign ads painting Madia as a liar obsessed with raising everyone's taxes. I saw very little response from the Madia campaign. I believe this may have cost him the race. Ramstad's representation of this district has been that of a relative Republican moderate, otherwise known as the "Whatever - just please don't raise my taxes" Republican.

Ah, and the race for Senate between Coleman and Franken. As things stand as of now, Coleman is leading Franken by 236 votes out of 2,422,848 votes cast (for those two - about 15% voted for Barkley, and about 1% voted for another third-party candidate.) Coleman's lead has been shrinking day-by-day as more results come in - and this is before a state-mandated recount. Coleman has shown incredible nerve in claiming that he hopes Franken will request that no recount happens, supposedly in an effort to save taxpayers' money.

Um....Norm....no one believes that absolute bullshit you're spewing. I'd say save it for someone stupid enough to believe that, but I'm not sure anyone like that exists.

The Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution designating funding for the outdoors and for the arts passed with about 59% of the vote. I voted against this amendment, mainly on the principles that 1) budgets shouldn't be Constitutionally determined, and 2) putting together the outdoors and the arts smacks of annoyingly-obvious special interests interference. However, all things considered, I'm not that disappointed that the amendment passed.

Why health of the mother is not just another excuse for pro-choicers

I just recently had a baby girl. She's beautiful, and funny, and makes a lot of weird squeaky noises. I also have a wonderful little boy. I love having kids, and if I had more financial resources, I would probably be lobbying my husband to adopt more children.

The night after I gave birth to my daughter, I had postpartum hemorrhaging. This is a relatively rare complication where basically the mother has excessive bleeding. Thankfully, I was in the hospital and able to summon assistance. There were 5 nurses in my room, administering various treatments to me as a stop-gap until the doctor came. More treatments from the doctor followed. In an attempt to find a balance between providing too-much-info and being frank, let me say this:

1. The treatments to stop the hemorrhaging hurt way worse than labor itself.
2. If I hadn't woke up because my daughter started crying, I don't know how much longer I would have been lying in bed, bleeding. Nor do I know just how long I could have been lying there bleeding and still had the same (relatively good) outcome.
   
3. While I am obviously alive and relatively well, I am now seriously anemic. This means months of prescription-strength iron supplements (and their nasty side effects), fatigue, stress on organs of my body, heart palpitations, etc.

I went home from the hospital on the afternoon of October 15th. That evening, my husband and I watched the 3rd presidential debate between Obama and McCain. During the discussion on abortion, Obama indicated his support for a ban on late term abortions as long as there are health and life exceptions for the mother. In response, McCain said:

Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He's [for the] health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health."

I was so angry when I heard this, I wanted to cry.

I don't regret having my daughter. I carried through with this pregnancy, fully knowing that, although rare, there are pregnancy complications that exist that could damage my health or end my life. I made a CHOICE, a personal choice, to accept those risks and continue a pregnancy to its conclusion.

Who exactly does John McCain think he is? What makes him think that he has the right to discount my health? What gives him the right to say which risks to my health are serious enough to allow me to make decisions about my body, and which are not?

Liberal media bias my......um....foot

Being a Minnesotan, I visit the Star Tribune website pretty frequently. Conservative commenters on the site often refer to the paper as the "Red Star," saying that the paper is heavily biased toward Democrats (and inferring that we Dems are all crazy-commies, as per usual).

Looking at the editorials, the Star Tribune has endorsed

• Barack Obama (D) for president,
  
• Norm Coleman (R) for Senate,
  
• Tim Walz (D) for the 1st Congressional District (CD),
• John Kline (R) for the 2nd CD,
• No endorsement in the heated 3-way 3rd CD race,
• El Tinklenberg (D) in the 6th CD race (largely because of Michelle Bachman's much publicized ranting about her suspicions of "anti-American views" in Congress.)

Notice something odd for a newspaper with a supposed liberal bias?

The endorsements are pretty much split down the middle. Quite frankly, if you can endorse Kline or Coleman....you don't have a liberal bias.

I haven't read any endorsements from the Star Tribune in the 4th, 5th, 7th, or 8th District races. In these races, the Democratic incumbents (Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison, Collin Peterson, and Jim Oberstar) are very likely to win re-election. Those races are not very competitive; therefore, endorsing a candidate is pretty meaningless.

Claims of ACORN vote fraud are ridiculous

Donna Brazile has an excellent commentary on this issue on CNN.com.

An excerpt:

Let's look at the facts. ACORN labeled as "suspicious" the fraudulent registration forms a few of its paid volunteers submitted. Moreover, ACORN delivered them to election authorities under that heading. ACORN offered to help election officials pursue prosecutions against those who filled out the fraudulent forms.

The so-called ACORN scandal is no more than a few canvassers trying to meet their quota and make easy money by cheating the system.

Ask yourself how likely is it that someone would go through the effort and risk of submitting multiple false registration forms, find an accomplished forger capable of producing IDs of sufficient quality to trick election officials, and then spend Election Day racking up a couple extra votes at the potential cost of spending a decade in jail?

A simple cost-benefit analysis tells us this is not a reasonable or significant threat. The real threat here is the Republican Party using attacks on ACORN as a calculated strategy to justify massive challenges to the votes cast in Democratic-leaning voting precincts on Election Day. And this is what is truly outrageous, but where is John McCain's concern when it comes to people being harassed at the voting booth?

Yet another assassination plot

CNN has a story about yet another assassination plot against Obama. The men also planned to kill 100+ additional African-Americans in the same spree. Thankfully, the would-be perpetrators were completely inept and they've been caught.

Still, this sort of thing makes me very sad. Obviously, we've come a long way since the Civil Rights era. We have not come far enough.

How to tell you're a real Democrat

Last week, Rachel Maddow explained how to tell if you're a true Democrat. This is not the exact quote - more of a paraphrasing....

If you look at all the polling, and see how far Obama is ahead, and see that the electoral map looks more and more like a landslide in Obama's favor, and yet, still, you're afraid that something will happen and Obama will not win....you're a true Democrat.

Yep. That's just how I feel.

Michelle Bachman - 4 feet in her mouth

Michelle Bachman appeared on Hardball on Friday, and managed to not only stuff both of her own feet into her mouth, but also both of Joe McCarthy's feet.



She basically thinks that there are anti-American members of Congress, including Barack Obama, and the media needs to do an investigation and show the results in an expose.

Yes, she's a nut.

The silver lining to her paranoid rant is that her comments have provoked a firestorm. Her opponent, El Tinklenberg, raised $1 million dollars within the first 4 days following Bachman's rant. The RCCC pulled all monetary support from her campaign as a result of her anger-filled bungling. The DCCC is now going to support Tinklenberg in his battle for her seat.

Thank you to Chris Matthews for pressing Bachman on her snide, divisive, hate-filled comments.

Actual vote fraud - GOP style

Unlike the baseless accusations of voter fraud made by the GOP, there are true instances of vote fraud taking place in West Virginia today.

Those pesky touch-screen machines....with no paper trail....ARE SWITCHING VOTES FROM THE SELECTED DEMOCRAT TO THEIR REPUBLICAN CHALLENGER.

Where is the uproar and outrage about this? This is actual disenfranchisement.

The "ACORN is destroying democracy" whining is stupid, baseless bullshit. ACORN is required to turn in every voter registration card it receives, even ones it suspects are false. ACORN pointed out suspicious voter registration cards to state election officials as it turned them in. ACORN was scammed by dishonest employees. Mickey Mouse just might get registered to vote, but since he won't show up at the polls, there's really no harm done to anyone but ACORN.

Actually changing someone's vote is not a mistake, and it is actual vote fraud.

Just what I wanted to see

Obama has double-digit leads in all the Midwest states in the latest Big Ten poll.

Oh happiness!

Wal Mart mom dressed up via Neiman Marcus and Saks

Sarah Palin's just like me. She understands what it's like to be a mom on a budget.

That's why she's gotten a $150,000 shopping spree, courtesy of the RNC, for campaign clothing from Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue.

I wonder what $150,000 would buy at Wal Mart.

Hortman v. Reinhart - the local house race

I live in Minnesota House District 47B. Our incumbent state representative is Melissa Hortman (D). I truly feel bad for this woman.

Every two years, she's challenged by a Republican. Ok, nothing weird about that, right?

For some reason, the Republican challengers in our district seem determined to attempt to paint her as someone who is not loyal to the interests of our district. Pretty disgusting, but also not a surprising tactic, right?

But wow. The bizarre claims that are made about where her loyalty does lie are truly mind-boggling.

Two years ago, her opponent flooded my mailbox and littered my doorstep with mailings claiming that Representative Hortman was beholden to "Indian casino interests."

This year, the big scary claim is that Representative Hortman wants "unelected California bureaucrats to make laws for Minnesota."

Wow. That seems random, doesn't it?

Here's the deal: Representative Hortman introduced legislation designed to adopt California's vehicle emission standards. Because California started regulating vehicle emission standards before the feds did, federal law allows the states to choose either California's standards or (weaker) federal standards. States are not allowed to craft their own standards under federal law.

California's standards are created by the California Air Resources Board, which is under the umbrella of the California EPA. Whether it's the federal EPA or the California EPA, these "bureaucrats" are not elected.

Apparently, Representative Hortman's challenger, Andrew Reinhart, or to be more precise, "Local Action PAC" doesn't seem to understand that California has stricter air emissions laws because, well, air quality is important. Funny, but it seems to work, too. After all, California's rules have prompted the auto industry to create and showcase new, cleaner and more efficient vehicles. Something that doesn't really happen often in Minnesota.

Granted, Minnesota's air is not as bad as California's air. Do we really want to wait for it to get that bad before we actually act on it? Oh, wait, I forgot. We're talking about a Republican here. So yes, the answer would be that it would be better to do nothing and just hope that the auto industry starts making cleaner and more efficient vehicles out of benevolence. Free market is God and all that, right?

Also, apparently it has not occurred to "Local Action PAC" (which is a really chicken-shit name, by the way, and says something about the lack of character of Andew Reinhart) that if those unelected California bureaucrats go all crazy and enact something completely beyond the pale (all cars must run on moon dust) Minnesota could vote to go back to the federal standards.

Actually, the policy disagreement doesn't annoy me as much as the actual ad itself. I can accept that good-willed people might disagree on how best to regulate (or not) auto emissions.

I find it obnoxious that the photograph they have of Representative Hortman on this mailing makes her look like she has a mental affliction of some sort. I wonder if making your opponent look like a buffoon is part of "protecting your values" as Andrew Reinhart suggests that he will do. I wonder if his mother taught him that value.

I find it even more obnoxious that the flyer says "California and Minnesota are very different" and has two pictures. The picture representing California has a picture of a boy who doesn't comb his hair, is wearing suspenders and a belt with a very nerdy plaid shirt, and he's holding a flower while standing in front of a Prius. The picture representing Minnesota has a well groomed buff handyman standing in front of a pickup truck.

How dumb do you really think the people in this district are?

Why do you think that Toyota is doing really well compared to the Big 3? It might have something to do with the popularity of the Prius and the inability of the Big 3 to make a really fuel efficient vehicle.

How insulting do you have to be to the people of California just because they're smart enough to actually start doing something concrete about air pollution? Is this also demonstrative of Andrew Reinhart's values? Because it makes him look like an asshole.

What exactly is wrong with driving a Prius? (And no, I don't have one. Yet.)

I personally think that keeping Minnesota's air quality in the "not scary, asthma-causing" range is a worthy goal to shoot for. Why? Mostly because I think that breathing is a real family value.

Game on!!!

I'm back. It's likely that my posting may be somewhat sporadic for a while. Having a newborn and a 2 1/2 year old does that.

I am now the proud mother of a baby girl and a toddler son!

I am suspending my blog

I have a situation that requires real leadership. This situation is too grave to play politics with. I am not the type to "phone it in."

Until this situation is resolved, my blog will be suspended. Unlike McCain, I will not have surrogates make posts for me. I will not decide in the middle to unsuspend my blog with my work unfinished and the situation unresolved. I will not do interviews with Katie Couric, nor anyone else.

I have to go have my baby. (Okay, I admit it. I would really prefer the ability to phone this one in.)

So it's unlikely I will be making any new posts until sometime next week.

Have you seen her?

Jeff Rosenberg at The Twin Cities Daily Liberal has reported on a new Tinklenberg ad. He's urging everyone to donate to Tinklenberg so that the ad can be run on TV rather than just on the web.

This isn't my district, but Bachmann is such a nut that I may have to consider donating some money to Tinklenberg anyway.

The ad is an absolute hoot - I highly suggest you check it out!

McCain nastiness turning off former Republican supporters

The Grand Rapids Press reported today on former Governor Milliken's withdrawal of his endorsement for McCain.

"He is not the McCain I endorsed," said Milliken, reached at his Traverse City home Thursday. "He keeps saying, 'Who is Barack Obama?' I would ask the question, 'Who is John McCain?' because his campaign has become rather disappointing to me.

"I'm disappointed in the tenor and the personal attacks on the part of the McCain campaign, when he ought to be talking about the issues."

The article also mentions Lincoln Chafee's (R - former Sen. from RI) support for Obama.

Do I laugh or cry at the sheer stupidity and hypocrisy?

Yesterday at a McCain rally in Wisconsin, there was an angry man who expressed his anger at "the socialists takin' over our country." He suggested that Obama and Pelosi were socialists.

Of course, McCain just smiled and said that the man was right.

Obviously, this man is unhinged. He clearly doesn't understand what socialism actually is. Folks, he's had way too much Republican hate-monger koolaid.

I suppose the man in the crowd managed to get to the rally on roads not supported by taxpayer dollars. And I'm sure he has not attended a taxpayer-supported school. And obviously, when he gets medical care, he gets it from a doctor that has never received a taxpayer subsidy, directly (via loans and scholarships) or indirectly (like interning at a taxpayer-subsidized teaching hospital or doing research with grant money, etc.) The streetlights that will light his way home at night must have been provided by magical fairies - certainly not taxpayer funds. The medications he takes certainly weren't subsidized by taxpayer funds. My guess is that while the man appeared (to me) to be old enough to collect Social Security and utilize Medicare, he doesn't. After all, he would be using my tax dollars to fund his retirement and health care, right, and that would be socialism, right?

Obama's tax plan returns income tax levels on families making more than $250,000 a year to pre-Bush tax cut levels. In other words, to the same level as during the Clinton years. The same level as during the Reagan (that big socialist!) years.

I'd like to ask anyone, ANYONE, out there, look at the Clinton years, and look at the Bush years, and tell me that we're better off now. I've lost about 50% of my 401k savings in just the last year (and quite frankly, most of the loss in just the past month.) Prices for food, gas, heat, health care, education, and other necessities are way, way up. Incomes are stagnant. Unemployment is up.

The middle class is the engine that fuels this economy. The upper class only loots and plunders.

I'll say it again. You may not agree with the concept of progressive taxation. You may not agree on the appropriate tax rates. Still doesn't make it socialism. Or communism. And if you keep calling it that, you're either ignorant, lazy, or deliberately deceptive.

McCain's very own dangerous violent radical buddy

Apparently G. Gordon LIddy and John McCain have at least as close a tie, if not closer, than Obama and Ayers.

Liddy, who served 4 years in prison for his role in Watergate, apparently has hosted McCain at his home for a political fundraiser, given McCain campaign contributions, and hosted McCain on his radio show. McCain, on the radio show, told Liddy, "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

So, what are the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great? Well, besides of course, politically motivated burglary and spying, for which he has said that he is completely unrepetant?

• Proposing to kidnap anti-war activists
• Equating environmentalists to Osama Bin Laden
  
• Giving advice on how best to kill government agents to the nuts at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas
• Idolizing Hitler
  

What a winner you picked to be proud of McCain. I think you have some explaining to do.

What you can buy with McCain's $5,000 family tax credit for health care

Jeff Rosenberg at the Twin Cities Daily Liberal has an excellent post on what kind of health care coverage you could purchase with McCain's proposed $5,000 health care tax credit.

It's not pretty.

Also, check out his prior post on the McCain health care plan.

Palin speech incites violent terroristic threat and racial slurs

In Palin's rally in Clearwater, Florida, she again brought up the lies and innuendos about Obama and Ayers. Not surprising, considering that the recent polls have shown that America has rejected McCain's proposal to implement a Bush 2.0 economic plan, as well as his frenetic stumbling from position to position on the economic crisis.

Her lies whipped her supporters up into such a frenzy that one man yelled "Kill him!" about Obama. Of course, she said nothing to suggest that she doesn't condone assassination attempts on the opposing ticket.

At the rally, after Palin blamed Katie Couric for her own inability to answer questions like a moderately intelligent and informed person, her supporters turned on the media. When her supporters actually began mobbing the media, shouting obscenities, she did nothing. When one of her supportes yelled "Nigger - sit down boy!" at a black journalist, she did nothing.

Yep. Death threats and lynch mobs. That's very maverick. That's reform. That's what you get with McCain-Palin.

They ought to be ashamed.

Keating 5 Video

The Obama campaign says "It's on like Donkey Kong!"

Keating Economics - a video released by the Obama campaign on McCain's role in the Keating 5 scandal.

Guilt by association - a losing strategy for McCain

So, the McCain campaign has announced that it plans to launch more fierce attacks against Obama's "character." The first shot they fired in their new offensive was having Sarah Palin claim that Obama has been "palling around with terrorists that would target their own country" at a rally yesterday.

Of course, that would be false. Also known as untrue. Also known as yet another McCain-Palin bald-faced shameful lie.

Of course, if one fact check showing Palin to be lying isn't enough for you, you can also check this one at factcheck.org. Corsi already tried smearing Obama with the "Ayers guilt-by-association" paintbrush. Factcheck.org reported:

"Other chapters offer more of the same regarding Obama's well-known connections to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to former Weather Underground fugitive (and now longtime professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago) William Ayers, and Obama's friend Tony Rezko, recently convicted in a celebrated corruption trial. Nowhere does Corsi demonstrate that Obama agrees with what Wright or Ayers have said or done, or that he broke any laws as Rezko did. Corsi completely ignores what Obama actually says about both Wright and Ayers. Nowhere in the book will be found Obama's March 14 statement rejecting Wright, when Obama said, "I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country," or Obama's April 16 comment on Ayers, whom he said "engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old." Nor does Corsi offer anything new connecting Obama to Rezko, a relationship we've addressed twice in earlier articles.

Attempting to discredit Obama because of an association with unsavory people rather than with actual proof that Obama shares their views is an instance of a logical fallacy that philosophers call guilt-by-association. Corsi uses the technique to fill chapters three through seven. "

Of course, the McCain campaign is planning on bringing up Rezko too. Of course, there's no evidence Obama did anything improper with Rezko.

This smacks of a desperate campaign. One that knows it absolutely cannot win the election with its chosen message on domestic or foreign policy. One that knows it has less than a month to somehow distract the voting public from the reality that is comprised of two ongoing (and apparently endless) wars and an economic recession.

Unfortunately, this strategy could seriously backfire on McCain and make things worse than they already are. Obama's campaign has already released an ad pointing out that McCain is trying to distract voters from the economy. (Have I mentioned that I love how the Obama campaign doesn't just sit on this kind of stuff like Kerry did?)

But even worse for McCain is that he and Palin are not safe from guilt-by-association smears - not safe by a long shot. I predict that the Obama campaign itself will not be making those sorts of attacks, but organizations like MoveOn or other 527s very well might take the gloves all the way off.

Starting with Palin - and her ties to the AIP. Her husband was a member of the Alaska Independence Party. A party pushing for a vote for Alaska to secede from the United States.

And there's McCain and the Keating 5 scandal.

And then there's McCain's connections to the anti-semetic and racist World Anti-Communist League. As discussed on Meet the Press this morning:

MR. BEGALA: Well, no. Obama was—he was asked about this in a debate in a primaries with Hillary Clinton sitting there; George Stephanopoulos of ABC asked him about it. He answered it. He pointed out that the despicable acts this guy committed were committed when, apparently, Barack Obama was eight years old. And, and I think Governor Palin here is making a strategic mistake. This guilt by association path is going to be trouble ultimately for the McCain campaign. You know, you can go back—I’ve written a book about McCain. I had a dozen researchers go through him. I didn’t even put this in the book. But John McCain sat on the board of a very right-wing organization. It was the U.S. Council for World Freedom. It was chaired by a guy named John Singlaub, who wound up involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. It was an ultraconservative right-wing group. The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981, when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League, the parent organization, which ADL said, “has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and Anti-Semites.” Now, that’s not John McCain. I don’t think he is that. But, but, you know, the problem is that a lot of people know John McCain’s record better than Governor Palin, and he does not want to play guilt by association or this thing could blow up in his face.

So yeah, I don't think McCain really ought to go there. Sadly, I think he's just desperate enough to do it anyway.

Additional thoughts on the VP debate

1) Proper English, please.

Why is it charming, cute, folksy, or "real" when white people don't speak proper English, but when black people don't speak proper English, it's lazy or worse?

I wonder what the reaction would be if Obama said something like this in a debate:

"You sho-nuff iz gonna hear some fear in dat momma's voice."

2) The issue of "looking back" on the Bush Administration.

Yes, Obama and Biden both often compare McCain to Bush. It's a legitimate comparison as McCain's current policy stances are, for the most part, the same as the stances of the Bush Administration.

Palin criticized Biden for "looking back" and "playing the blame game" last night whenever he brought up Bush.

I have a hint for the McCain campaign. If you don't want to be compared to Bush, stop supporting the same policies and philosophies that Bush supported for the last 8 years. Stop directing most of your tax cuts to the wealthiest people (and for God's sake stop lying about how it's really for the small businesses.) Stop trying to outlaw abortion via judicial appointments. And so on.

And PS - the McCain campaign claims it's going to bring reform and change to Washington. How are they going to know what reforms are needed, or what change is needed, if they refuse on "principle" to look to the past?

DOING THE SAME AS WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR EIGHT YEARS IS NOT CHANGE OR REFORM. DOING THE SAME AS WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR EIGHT YEARS DOES NOT MAKE YOU A MAVERICK.

(And PPS - let's just accept your claim that Obama votes with the Democrats 96% of the time. Guess what? That would suggest he's different (i.e., a CHANGE) from Bush.

Palin's debate cheatsheet

This was created and posted by Aden Nak at ph33r and loathing.

VP Debate - Impressions

Okay, again, I'm not going to post the debate video or fact-check it. I'm just going to write about some of my general observations and feelings about the debate.

First of all, I am absolutely livid at Sarah Palin. I was irritated and angry last night while watching the debate, but as time has passed and I've thought more about it, I've become even angrier. Why?

The damned winking.

I am a working woman. I know that based on statistics, it's likely that I earn less than most of my male colleagues. I know I've watched men at my workplace get promoted, over and over again, while women that are more competent are left behind. I've participated in meetings where men would interrupt women repeatedly, or be dismissive of their comments. The fact is, it is difficult being a professional woman. It's difficult to be taken seriously. It's difficult to be respected equally.

It's a lot better than it used to be. Back in the good old days (days which I particularly would not have enjoyed, being a mixed-race woman) the women who did have careers were often regarded as fair-game for sexual attention at work. Winks, shoulder rubs, a pat on the ass - secretaries, bookkeepers, clerks, and waitresses were expected to put up with this bullshit. And women certainly weren't going to be promoted to management or be given official responsibility.

One of the things that women have had to fight against in order to make the progress we have made is being sexualized in the workplace. We've had to struggle to be seen as colleagues and not office ornaments. We struggle with walking a fine line between being attractive/well-groomed and being suggestive/sexual.

On what essentially is the biggest job interview for any woman in the United States, Sarah Palin decides to wink and grin like she's in a bar and more than half drunk. More than once.

Governor, you're not running for VPILF. You're running for VP.

And before any Palin apologist starts running off with "Oh, that wasn't meant to be sexual. That was just cute/folksy/charming/pick-your-euphemism" I'd like to mention:

• You don't see Biden winking.
• You don't see Obama winking.
• You don't see McCain winking.
• You didn't see Bush winking (either one, including the charming, folksy W.)
• You didn't see Hilary Clinton winking.
• If you watched the post-debate coverage, you probably saw several male and female journalists, campaign staff, pundits, spinners, etc. NOT A ONE OF THEM WINKED.

It was about as cute and folksy as when some women decide to wear cleavage-baring camisoles, open-toed stilettos, and/or thongs that "accidentally" show whenever they bend over (which seems to be often). In other words, it's not cute. It sets women in the workforce back. And it makes me sick.

In addition, even if you want to pretend that it wasn't sexual, it was extremely juvenile. This country faces grave challenges. We have 2 wars going on. We have instability in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia. We have a looming official recession (in addition to the unofficial recession that most of us have been feeling for some time now). We have a health care crisis. We have an exploding national debt and a growing budget deficit.

THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR WINKING AND GRINNING. Governor, you're not 16. You're a grown, professional woman interviewing for the 2nd highest job in the nation. You're trying to show that you have the knowledge, judgment, and seriousness to be able to negotiate with members of Congress, meet with foreign leaders, and conduct business on behalf of this entire nation. And you ought to be embarrassed when the barista at Caribou Coffee acts more professional than you do.

Okay - with that aside....other debate impressions.

I thought it was obvious that Biden knows a great deal more than Palin. Biden was well informed on the issues last night, and made it a point to answer questions for the most part. Palin generally ignored questions that were difficult or potentially damaging. This was not surprising to me, or probably anyone. Her few interviews have shown her staggering level of ignorance on most national issues.

I was surprised about Palin's comments on benefits for same sex couples. I know that her voting record on the issue and her religious convictions on the issue don't really match up to each other. I was mostly surprised to hear her be so willing to provide benefits. I wonder what folks like Dobson are saying about that comment (if anything). I'll have to check later.

I was shocked and horrified to hear Palin agrees with Cheney on the role of the Vice President, and even worse, she seems to want additional "powers and flexibility." Umm.....no thanks.

Overall, I don't think this debate changed much as far as the race is concerned. The people that loved Palin still love her. The people that hated Palin still hate her. And the undecideds - most are still undecided. Those undecideds knew pre-debate that Biden would know more than Palin, but that Palin was more "folksy" than Biden, and they simply had that confirmed. Not a game changer.

I will probably add more to this posting later.

Palin - well, she knows Roe v. Wade

And good for her! After all, Joe Six-Pack knows about Roe v. Wade, right?

Katie Couric then asked her what other Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with. Unfortunately, she couldn't name a single one. Not even Plessy v. Ferguson (upheld "separate but equal" laws). Not the Dred Scott case (saying slaves and their decendants could never be American citizens, but instead, would always be considered the personal property of whites.) Not the Korematsu case, which upheld the right of the government to imprision its citizens in concentration camps without due process.

She couldn't name Exxon v. Baker, which was decided this year. The Court cut punitive damages from the Exxon oil spill from $2.5 billion to $500 million. This decision was very unpopular with Alaskans and Alaskan politicians. Well, apparently some Alaskan politicians....

Not even Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (said Bush's military commissions were insufficient) or the ruling this year that the prisoners at Guantanamo should have some teeny bit of due process. You know....one of the rulings where McCain backed up Bush's "disappointment" in the outcome, just like a true maverick would. She could have said she disagreed that flag burning was protected speech. She could have said that she disagreed that child rapists should not be eligible for the death penalty. These are all easy, meat-and-potato, stock conservative positions. No one would have expected her to know the actual name of any court case - she would have gotten kudos for appearing even remotely informed about the Supreme Court.

When Couric asked Joe Biden the same question....surprise! He actually could name a specific decision, and provide context behind his reasoning.


Watch CBS Videos Online


Funny....even though Couric asked them the same questions, somehow, Republicans are claiming that it's Couric's fault that Palin couldn't answer the questions in an intelligent and informed manner.

And now the Republicans are out in droves, crying that the debate tonight cannot possibly be fair because Gwen Ifill has published a book about African-American politicians. Of course, the debate moderators were chosen well after the announcement about Ifill's book. Oh, but the McCain campaign couldn't possibly be expected to know that....I mean, they're not professionals or anything, right?

Let's just pretend for a moment that there is a vast, organized, EVIL conspiracy in the media against conservatives. (Cue fairy tale music here.) Couric and Ifill don't like Palin. Here's my question:

SO WHAT?

Seriously. The best argument that the Palin apologists can come up with is that it is unfair for Palin to be expected to have an intelligent, coherent, and consistent answer for any question unless it is asked by someone that likes Sarah Palin, and preferably, given to Palin before-hand so that someone else can write up the answer for her and she can read it off of a teleprompter.

An extremely pleasant sight this morning

I took a peek at the Current Electoral Map from www.electoral-vote.com this morning. Based on the latest state-by-state polling data, Obama is leading the electoral college 338-185, with North Carolina (15 electoral votes) listed as a complete tie. To give you a little perspective, at this point in 2004, Kerry was losing 238-296 at this point in the race.

(For those of you who are interested, there are a series of links on the electoral-vote.com website that explain their methodology, show their predictions about prior elections, and discuss their historical accuracy. I've read through some of this, and I was pretty impressed.)

Obama seems to have picked up Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia (again, compared to 2004 results.)

I think Chuck Todd summed up the situation really well this morning on MSNBC. Chuck said:

“All the trend lines are pointing in Obama’s direction …. This should really scare the McCain campaign. This thing -- it’s at a tipping point. And this debate, frankly, is coming at GOOD time for McCain because he needs something – anything – to stop this Obama momentum. … The pressure is all on Sarah Palin, not just for her own persona, but to SAVE THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN. … I think Virginia, frankly, is a trailing indicator of the national numbers. … John McCain is campaigning in Missouri later this week. That’s not a good sign. You shouldn’t have to be worrying about Missouri at this point.”

House Republican Leadership supports sulking

The Republican House leadership couldn't exercise leadership and keep their promise to bring half their caucus to vote for the bailout bill...and somehow, it's Pelosi's fault?

Apparently she's made the first partisan speech in the history of Congress? Frankly....I don't care if Pelosi said bad things about their mamas. You don't punish the entire country (and the whole world economy) just because your feelings are hurt. This has got to be the lamest excuse for a leadership failure I have heard.

Just who is it that is leading the Republican party? Is it Bush? McCain? Apparently not, since they can't get their share of the votes on the bailout bill they support.

You know, I'm not happy about the bailout bill either. The idea that we should fix the results of the unchecked greed and speculation on Wall Street on the backs of the poor, the middle class, and our children really makes me angry.

However....

The market dropped about 777 points yesterday. Now, for me, from a retirement perspective, that's probably not as bad as it seems to be. I have a long time before retirement. Some people, particularly those close to retirement and those already retired, are taking a brutal hit due to inaction. For those people, this isn't a loss on paper. This is a "do I have to start subsisting on cat food?" kind of loss.

From a job market perspective, the market drop yesterday is horrible. Many companies, and in particular, financial services companies, make much of their profits through investments. When their investments aren't making money....they lay off employees in an attempt to reduce expenses to boost their profit margin. Unemployment was already high prior to this mess. The more unemployment there is....the more foreclosures and bankruptcies there will be. The more foreclosures and bankruptcies there are, the more home prices will drop and the credit market will freeze up.

And if you are lucky enough to not lose your job, perhaps you just won't get paid in a timely manner.

This bill, or something like it, needs to pass, and it needs to pass very soon. Sulking is not acceptable.

Coleman's new "don't blame me" ad

Jeff Rosenberg at The Twin Cities Daily Liberal has a hysterical post about Norm Coleman's latest ad. You can see the post, and the ad, here.

I couldn't decide what was funnier - the sappy guitar music in the ad, or the "please don't attempt to assign blame (to me) pleading in Norm's voice.

Palin - not prepared to answer questions - not prepared to lead

I have yet to see a single instance where someone actually defends what Palin has said in an interview, or a response to a question, etc. The litany of excuses is staggering.

• "Oh, it's the elite liberal mean media's fault."
  
• "It's a gotcha question."
  
• "McCain's campaign staff aren't letting her be herself."
  
• "She isn't a Washington insider."

Whatever.

I'd love to see a Palin apologist actually defend her comments. Tell me why it's okay that she didn't give the same answer about Pakistan that McCain did. Tell me why it's okay that she rambled vaguely and aimlessly about health care reform, tax relief, and job creation when Couric asked her why the bailout wasn't directed at individuals instead of Wall St. firms. Tell me why it's okay that she apparently has no idea what John McCain's record on deregulation is other than one bill he cosponsored in 2005. Tell me why it's okay to have a potential VP who seems astounded by the idea that a democratic election in a Muslim country may result in a government that is anti-democracy and anti-US.

Frankly, it's condescending and sexist not to expect her to be able to answer questions like she's competent. The fact is she's been sent only to handpicked interviewers and she still can't handle it. The fact is that she's answered maybe 10 questions from the press since being nominated, and flubbed most of them.

McCain's judgment in choosing Palin was terrible. He made a gamble that her gender would pull in women voters, and her social conservative bona-fides would pull in the base.

Now McCain is comparing Palin to Clinton and Reagan. He claims she's being underestimated because she's a governor.

Um....I hate to break it to you, John. She's being viewed the way she is because she can't answer questions in a way that is coherent, consistent with her prior positions, and consistent with your positions. She's being viewed the way she is because she's flubbed her interviews and the questions she's actually been allowed to answer. She's being viewed the way she is because the only fully functional sentences that have left her mouth since the day you announced her nomination have been the ones that were written for her convention and stump speeches by other people.

First Debate - Reactions

If you didn't have the opportunity to watch the debate last night, I highly suggest you do so. You can find the full version of the debate here. Likewise, I'm not going to fact check the debate. You can read factcheck.org's view on the accuracy of the candidates here. As expected, McCain's inaccuracies were more, well, inaccurate, than Obama's.

I would just like to give my initial general impressions of the debate overall.

• At worst, this debate was a tie. And what that really means is a loss for McCain. According to the McCain campaign, McCain should have wiped the floor with Obama. However, Obama was informed, coherent, measured, and certain throughout the entire debate. Obama only had to prove to be "good enough" on foreign policy. With as much as McCain has been bragging about foreign policy and his credentials, McCain should have been the clear winner and he was not.
• Initial polling suggests that Obama was viewed as the winner of the debate, both overall, and by uncommitted voters. That is very bad news for McCain.
  
• McCain's inability to even look at Obama, coupled with his hunched posture, sighing, and grimacing, may hurt his standing with some voters.
  

Regulation did not cause the sub-prime crisis

I've recently read a lot of chatter on the blogosphere that implies that, somehow, regulation was the cause of the sub-prime crisis. Usually, the blame is shifted on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which was originally enacted in 1977. The basic goal of the CRA was to require banks to stop the practice of redlining. (Basically the practice of refusing to offer credit to, or increasing the cost of credit to, individuals and businesses located in poor or minority neighborhoods.) The CRA did not require that credit be offered to un-credit-worthy individuals - just that credit be offered to credit-worthy individuals even if they lived in a poor or minority neighborhood.

The idea that the CRA caused the sub-prime crisis is completely false. Robert Gordon wrote an excellent article about this issue on April 7, 2008. It's called "Did Liberals Cause the Sub-Prime Crisis?"

Some key points from the article:

• About 50% of the sub-prime loans made were made by independent mortgage companies that are not required to follow CRA guidelines.
• Another 25-30% of the sub-prime loans made came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, and they do not have to fully follow CRA guidelines.
• Institutions that do not have to comply with CRA made sub-prime loans at twice the rate of CRA-compliant institutions.

Conservatives need to recognize that deregulation is what got us into this mess. CRA has been around since 1977, and in fact, a study published in January of this year suggests that

• CRA deterred irresponsible lending,
  
• CRA institutions sold fewer of the sub-prime loans they did make onto the secondary market,
• Sub-prime loans made by CRA institutions were not as damaging (i.e., had lower interest rates) as sub-primes loans made by non-CRA institutions, and
• Foreclosure rates were lower in metropolitan areas with higher concentrations of CRA lenders.

Quite frankly, conservatives need to QUIT BLAMING THE POOR AND MINORITIES for the results of the greed of the wealthy. They need to take a little of the "culture of personal responsibility" for themselves.

Putin's head rearing into Alaskan airspace

A snippet from Palin's latest disaster of an interview with Katie Couric.

Couric: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It’s funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don’t know, you know … reporters.

Couric: Mocked?

Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.

Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: We don’t have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That’s not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

Seriously. She sounds like she's high. This is who is supposed to be ready, day one, to step into the role of the presidency.

The more I see of Palin, the more I understand why they pretty much don't let her answer any questions from the media, and why they have been severely restricting her appearances on talk shows, and why they're trying to move tonight's debate to the VP debate date and "delay" the VP debate. This woman is an embarrassment every time she opens her mouth.

I shock myself by agreeing with the Taxpayers League

For any readers not from Minnesota, I will provide a little background. The Taxpayers League of Minnesota is a conservative group that wields a great deal of influence over Republicans, in particular, in Minnesota. Their basic philosophy is that taxes are bad. Tax increases of any sort, for any reason, are down right evil. Tax cuts are always good. Spending cuts are always good, and government should not be providing most services they provide. Their talking heads like to use words like "socialist" and "liberal" when describing Democrats. They push candidates for office to take "no new taxes" pledges.

There will be a proposed amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution this November on the ballot. The amendment proposes an increase in the state sales tax by 3/8 of a percent. The money will be dedicated to projects for "helping the outdoors" and "the arts."

This has got to be one of the silliest things I have heard. Why on earth would we want to dedicate, by way of constitutional amendment, revenue to specific areas? And why that particular combination?

In addition, I think sales taxes are a particularly punitive tax for the poor and middle class. The poor, and much of the middle class, must spend most or all of their income just to provide for basic living expenses. Sales taxes are regressive. And unfortunately, Minnesota has recently had several sales tax increases - .25% for transit, .15% to buy a new baseball stadium for a billionaire, plus some additional sales taxes imposed only in certain cities.

I think flexibility is a great thing in a budget. This proposal makes no sense to me, and I will be voting no on the proposal.

Rant on the bailout

For weeks, I've been seeing blogs and posts about how

* "all those deadbeats don't pay their bills" and how
* "no one forced people to take out those mortgages" and
* "you have to be stupid to think you can afford X on an income of Y" and
* "what happened to personal responsibility" and so on.

Well, the investment banker/Wall Street types were SUPPOSEDLY the most savvy people out there, but now we're all supposed to bail them out because it's the middle class' fault for defaulting on sub-prime mortgages?

No way.

This truly is class warfare - more of the same. The savvy and wealthy get the middle class to bear the burden. The top 20% own 84% of the wealth and pay only 64% of the total tax burden. Then they get middle class nuts (who continually vote against their own interests) to repeat their talking points that they pay so much more of the income tax burden than they earn in income. (Of course, they don't earn income. They earn capital gains, etc. Or, I mean, their shell corps. in the Caymans earn that money. Don't tax them! That would be socialist!)

Then, when the wealthy get what they want (deregulation), they rev up the system for short- term gain, loot the system via their annual bonuses and options, and then, when it comes crashing down, you and me, and worse yet, our kids and grandkids, will get to pay for it.

And if we complain, we're just "jealous" or "class warfare-mongers." Darn right I'm jealous. I work and pay my bills and my taxes. I don't get the government to pay my bills, and I don't get to shelter my money from taxes with all kinds of schemes. And I'm going to end up paying for their greed. So yeah, I'm jealous. And it's pretty rich (pun intended) to accuse the middle class of tax warfare when you've been lobbing grenades since the Reagan years.

Protect reproductive health services

Please - go to the link below and send in your petition. This is ridiculous. If your religious beliefs preclude you for doing your basic job functions, you need to seek other employment. (And for the record, I believe this is true whether you are an anti-abortion Christian working in health care, or a Muslim working as a taxi driver, or a Muslim working in a food service company, etc.)

George W. Bush has launched a new assault on birth control and reproductive freedom.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently proposed regulations that could seriously undermine access to basic reproductive health services -- including birth control and abortion.

Instead of striking a careful balance between individual religious liberty and patients’ access to reproductive health care, the Bush administration has taken patients’ rights and their health care needs out of the equation.

This far-reaching proposal doesn’t need congressional approval. But, it can’t go forward without allowing for public comment. That’s where you come in.

The deadline for public comments is fast approaching -- September 25 -- and we have to generate intense opposition to these dangerous regulations.

I just sent HHS my comment urging them to stop efforts to block women's access to basic reproductive health services. You can do the same here:

http://action.aclu.org/hhs_comment

McCain and Healthcare

Just a snippet:

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

John McCain -- in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries.

You know what I say?

Thanks, but no thanks.

McCain lies again - this time on Obama and nuclear energy

Does this man stop lying for even 1 day? Seriously. 1 day.

McCain says Obama is opposed to nuclear energy. Obama is not. The only real difference between Obama and McCain on nuclear energy is that Obama says we need to figure out how to store the waste before we start willy-nilly building more power plants. McCain says we can reprocess and store nuclear waste. Um...store where? No one wants that crap anywhere near them.

You know a lie is pretty bad when CNN, which bends over backwards to give the benefit of the fact-check doubt (lest it be accused of being biased toward liberals) says McCain's claim is flat out false. No cutesy hedging language like "misleading" or "incomplete." Just "Verdict: False"

McCain lies again - this time about campaign contributions

McCain has been running around today (sadly, even here in Minnesota) blaming Obama for the housing crisis. I am not sure whether to be more astonished or amused.

If you've been paying attention to the campaign, you know that up until today, McCain has been saying that Obama doesn't have enough experience. He hasn't been in politics long enough.

Now, apparently Obama is to blame for the entire housing mess. McCain said: "We've heard a lot of words from Sen. Obama over the course of this campaign. But maybe just this once he could spare us the lectures and admit to his own poor judgment in contributing to these problems. The crisis on Wall Street started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling, and he was square in the middle of it."

Whereas, John McCain has never been involved with lobbyists. Oh, wait, that's not true.

McCain's argument is that Obama has received the 2nd most campaign contributions from employees of Fannie and Freddie. No, wait, that's the truth. Here's what McCain actually said:

Amid "corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Sen. Barack Obama "profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairman of the committee that oversees them."

So, what's the difference? First let's take a simple example. I work for a company. I have given political contributions to Senator Obama's presidential campaign. If my company is doing something unethical, my contributions have nothing to do with that. These contributions came from me - not my employer. If anyone is expecting "influence" from these contributions, it would be me. I doubt my employer even knows I've made a contribution. I certainly have never asked the Obama campaign to consider doing something for my employer. I contributed to the Obama campaign because I believe in his positions on the issues that face our country.

Obama has received $126,349 in campaign contributions from employees of Fannie and Freddie. (This is out of $390 million dollars his campaign has raised, and it includes contributions back to 1989 - so it includes the campaign for Senate too.)

What McCain won't ever say is that McCain has received far more money than Obama from directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie and Freddie Mac for the 2008 presidential campaign. McCain has received $169,000 and Obama has received only $16,000, based on figures from the Federal Election Commission.

Who do you think is more likely to be an "influence peddler?" I'm betting on the lobbyist/director/officer over the average employee.

McCain has a lot of nerve. But I suppose at this point, it should be no surprise that he's lying...again. What is surprising to me is that people are still cheering when he lies to their face.

Today's Hoovervilles

Apparently we can afford to spend $1 trillion on bailing out the financial markets.

And yet, there are modern-day Hoovervilles popping up across the United States.

These tent cities are popping up in cities across the country in increasing numbers due to the foreclosure crisis and the rise in unemployment.

The AP is reporting that "homeless advocacy groups and city agencies are reporting the most visible rise in homeless encampments in a generation."

And yet, official government statistics shown that homelessness has decreased by 12%. How can that be?

Because the government has redefined homelessness. Now, if you lose your home, and you are lucky enough to have friends that are willing to allow you to stay temporarily with them, you are not homeless. If you live in a motel for more than a week, you are not homeless. If you live in a RV, you are not homeless. If you live in a campground for more than a week, you are not homeless. According to the government.

It is immoral for the government to use taxpayers' money to bail out institutions that are "too big to fail" but leave citizens in dusty tent cities. It is immoral for the government to use taxpayers money to buy up bad debt from banks and other financial institutions, but leave bad debt weighing on the shoulders of its citizens.

And please - don't give me that tired old line about how the government is benefiting us all with this bailout. Some people are actually going to argue that "Well, this will protect retirement savings in 401ks, etc. for citizens."

Do you really think the people in those tent cities have 401ks? Do you think the people that are one missed paycheck away from a tent city have 401ks? What about the people that used to contribute to 401ks, but they have now had to stop those contributions (or even cash out their 401ks) to cover increasing costs from increasing regressive property taxes, higher gas prices, higher food prices, and higher prices in general for the cost of necessary goods?

This is what 8 years of the Bush Administration has given us. Tent cities, while the government assures us homelessness is decreasing. Wealth transfers from the middle class and from the taxpayers of the future to the wealthy of today.

This is sick. This is wrong. And this is what we will get more of with a McCain Administration.

What happens when they allow Palin to talk

Palin said today in a rally in Iowa: "We’re going to do a few new things also. For instance, as Alaska’s governor, I put the government’s checkbook online so that people can see where their money’s going. We’ll bring that kind of transparency, that responsibility, and accountability back. We’re going to bring that back to D.C.”

Problem: Obama has already done that. In a bipartisan bill, Senators Obama, Coburn (R), Carper (D), and McCain (R) introduced the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act - which does exactly that. (see USASpending.gov) It eventually passed the Senate unanimously.

In June 2008, the same group of senators introduced legislation to add additional information to the website, including earmarks.

The Fundamentals of the Economy are Strong

John McCain's boneheaded remark - and then his attempt to backtrack and say that what he meant was that American workers are the most productive, hardest working, best workers in the world.



Unfortunately, McCain hasn't always believed that American workers are the most productive, hardest working, best workers in the world.



"Because you can't do it, my friend."

I'm guessing there are somewhere around 9.4 million unemployed American workers that would be happy to earn $50 an hour. For full-time work, that would be $104,000 a year.

McCain could give less than a rat's ass about the American worker. McCain supports business - but he knows he can't win on that message this year. I hope no one falls for his utter crap.

Isn't my "Donate to the Obama Campaign" widget nifty?

Doesn't it make you want to click it, and then go donate $5 or $10? Maybe even more.....

PS - you can add this widget to your blog too. Click on "get widget" at the bottom of the widget.

Progressive taxation, continued

Let's explore some arguments against progressive taxation.

One of the arguments against progressive taxation is that when taxes increase on the wealthy, and in particular, on businesses, job growth is stifled.

Bunk.

Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post explored this issue in 2004. You can read a copy of his article here. What the article makes clear is that while Republican economists continue to insist that higher marginal tax rates stifle job growth and create unemployment, historical analysis proves that claim to be false. The best claim on this issue made by Republicans, (expressed in the article by Eric Engen, a Republican economist), is that higher marginal tax rates would stifle job growth "if you could hold everything else constant."

Pesky reality. You can't hold everything else constant. And some of those things that are not constant impact how a progressive tax policy, with higher marginal rates, impact employment and the economy as a whole.

When the government takes in more tax revenues, it can use those revenues to do things that fuel the economy and create jobs.

• It can reduce the national debt, thus reducing the amount of our annual budget we pay to service the debt. This means that long term, the government has even more revenues to utilize.
  
• It can stimulate job growth by funding things like infrastructure projects. Someone has to be hired to build roads, bridges, etc. When the government isn't paying for road construction....people that work in road construction are unemployed, or displacing people in other industries.
• It can stimulate economic demand by reducing the tax rates on the majority of the population. This provides them with additional disposable income, which they tend to use to purchase non-essential goods and services, that they otherwise could not afford and therefore would not buy. Again, someone has to be employed to make those lattes and televisions and knickknacks. In turn, the baristas and television engineers, etc., have money to go out and spend on meals out and new cars. Then the chefs and servers and car salespeople can go out and buy books and sneakers, etc. And the best part is that their employers are benefiting too. If a restaurant can serve 200 customers a night, the owner of that small business stands to make more money, even if their taxes are higher. If there is no one who has the money to go out to eat, tax rates could be 0 and that restaurant owner would still go out of business.
  
• It can provide a social safety net that also serves to stimulate the economy. As an example, let's look at the issue of subsidizing low income housing. A person who cannot afford housing on their own lives on the street. He or she is unlikely to be able to maintain employment. He or she contributes no money into the economy in the form or rent or a mortgage payment, thus, no profits for a landlord/mortgage holder. If the government subsidizes the cost of housing so that the person can afford a place to live, they provide profit to the landlord/mortgage holder. They are more likely to be able to maintain employment, and thus, pay taxes. They are more likely to be able to send their children to school, which in the short term creates teaching jobs, and in the long term, produces a contributing member to society.

In addition, a reality check on jobs is needed. Let's take the example of the restaurant. If a restaurant doing brisk business needs a total of 50 employees, that is how many will be hired. If the restaurant owner has the 50 employees they need, a decrease in marginal tax rates will not induce them to hire any more employees just because they have higher profits. They will only hire the number they need.

The restaurant owner is also not going to base decisions on whether to expand (by opening another location, for example) based on tax rates alone. If the economy cannot support expansion (i.e., there is not a suitable location, or there aren't enough potential customers, or the market is over saturated with that product/service) then the owner will not expand. If the economy can support expansion, the owner will expand.

Another argument is that progressive taxes decrease savings rates. However, this too is not borne out by historical analysis. Our savings rate in 2006 was the lowest in 73 years (yes, that's since 1933). Yet, marginal tax rates were decreased in 2001 and 2003. How could this be? Again, it's a matter of the "all other things remaining constant," i.e., pesky reality. The combination of deregulation of the markets and the consumption bubble fueled by deceptively cheap credit served to create an environment of negative savings, even in the midst of lower marginal tax rates.

Another argument is that progressive taxes lower the incentive to work and gain wealth. Again, I cry bunk. When higher marginal tax rates existed under Clinton, the wealthy did not suddenly say "Oh, forget it. I'm not investing anything." They enjoyed the prosperity fueled by the stock market just like everyone else. When we all do better, we all do better. The wealthiest 5% fared better under Clinton than Bush. So did the rest of the country. If that's the result of the wealthy having no incentive to work and invest, well, that's fine with me.

The final argument I will address is that the rich pay more in taxes, as a percentage of total tax revenues, than the middle class or the poor.

Well, yes. Under a progressive tax system, that's kind of the point.

But is it fair?

Well, the top 20% of the US owns 84% of the wealth in this country. Meanwhile, they shoulder 63.5% of the total tax burden in the country. So no, it's not fair. They should be paying more.

When Republicans make the argument that the wealthy pay more than their share in taxes, they talk about federal income taxes. Federal income taxes are the most progressive tax we have in the U.S. They conveniently forget to mention property taxes, state taxes, gas taxes, sin taxes, sales taxes, and governmental "fees." Why? Not because they don't exist. It's because those taxes are regressive, and therefore, damage their argument.

Republicans also rarely discuss another dirty little secret of the wealthy - tax avoidance through diversion of income. The wealthy have access to tax shelters (legal or illegal) that are not available to or practical for the middle class or the poor. Some examples: off shoring, complex trust agreements, and phony business transactions. Thus, the income reported by the wealthy is very often much less than they actually received. This makes it seem like the percentage of taxes they pay on their income is higher than it actually is.

Now, of course, there are limits. If the government took 100% of income in the form of taxes, sure, that would decrease job growth, and discourage innovation, and stifle the economy. Good thing that no one actually proposes that. It is reasonable to argue about what the ideal level of taxation is. It is not reasonable to suggest that every tax increase, or indeed, any tax at all, is socialist, marxist, communist, etc.