The more important point of outrage behind the AIG bonuses

Yes, yes, by now, we've all heard: AIG paid $165 million in bonuses to many of its workers, including some who are suspected of being behind the products that are a major cause of AIG's meltdown. Some people got multi-million dollar bonuses, including some that no longer work for AIG. The company claims it was legally obligated to do so because the bonuses were contractually guaranteed.

I will spare you a long tirade about my outrage that these bonuses are being paid to the greedy morons who got us into this mess by average folks, many of whom no longer are employed or have faced significant cutbacks in income due to the economic fallout of this debacle. It's not that I'm not outraged; it's that almost everyone is outraged, and thus, you (and all the rest of us) have all heard it before.

There is, however, something even more outrageous than the fact that these bonuses were paid. It is the fact that they were paid due to contractual obligations.

We need a major reform of contract law in this country. Today, it is set up to favor the strong and wealthy over the weak and poor (or relatively poor). This system is unfair and unsustainable.

Take for example UAW. The Big 3 need federal bailout funds, but one of the conditions being imposed upon them is to "renegotiate" labor contracts in order to obtain wage cuts, benefit cuts, and most of all, cuts to benefits promised to past workers.

But wait. UAW had a contract, right? It's impossible to break contracts, right? Apparently not, so long as the parties taking it in the shorts due to the contract break are the average worker bee, and not a "genius" derivatives trader.

A contract basically consists of the following:

-Mutual Consent
-Offer and Acceptance
-Mutual Consideration
-Performance/Delivery
-Good Faith
-No Violation of Public Policy

Now, think about the last time you got an (unsolicited, likely) offer from Citibank or some similar company for a loan. The back of the check probably said something like "By cashing this check, you agree to be bound by our Terms." If you were lucky, they may have including their "Terms" in the same solicitation, and told you what interest rate they would charge, what fees they'd assess, whether or not they would force you to give up your Constitutional right to a trial by jury for civil matters, etc. If you weren't lucky, you were told that you'd get the terms AFTER you agreed to them by cashing the check.

Now, think about the reverse. Let's say you send a check to Citibank, and you write on it "By cashing this check, you agree to lower my interest rate to 2%, assess no further fees on my account, and agree that arbitration is voluntary, not mandatory." Would your "contract" be held up in court? No. Large corporations are not held responsible for reading the terms presented with a check from an individual consumer. Without being responsible for reading the terms, the corporation is assumed not to have agreed with them when cashing the check.

This is not fair. Either a contract is a contract is a contract....or it isn't. If the average citizen cannot enforce contract provisions, then frankly, the whining about "allowing bankruptcy judges to restructure mortgage terms would deal a fatal blow to contract law" needs to stop.

The Big 3 made wage and benefit agreements, and then purposefully chose to not fund them at the time of the agreements. Now they don't have enough money to do so profitably. Big shocker. If I made an agreement to pay $X to someone in the future, I better start saving for that future date now. Waiting until the day it's due and saying "Oh no, you guys are at fault for my poor financial situation" is bunk. Paying a CEO 800 times the average worker, and then demanding that the average worker take even more pay cuts is bunk. Paying a CEO 800 times the average worker and then demanding that the worker accept wages and benefits comparable to a company where the CEO is paid 8 times the average worker is bunk. And these bunk excuses do not warrant a mandated breaking of the UAW contract. The contract was negotiated and agreed to by both parties. The contract meets all the terms of a contract. The contract should stand.

Earmarks - The Horror

I don't understand the drama over earmarks. Apparently, there are more than 8,500 earmarks in the omnibus spending bill currently before the Senate, and a few Democrats, and more Republicans, are having a cow about it.

Really guys? This is where you want to make your stand?

I just love how people seem to think that civil society, and all of its perks, come out of nowhere. Fiscal conservatives love frugal entertainment. Take the kids to the park, to the "free day" at the museum, etc. People want to drive to work on pot-hole free, uncongested roads. People want businesses to be protected from litigation. People want to live in odor-free neighborhoods. But they don't want to pay for it.

Oh, no, that stuff comes by magic, right? Dropped off by the shoemaker's elves, right?

No.

You want to live somewhere nice, you gotta pay for it. You want parks, libraries, playgrounds, you gotta pay for 'em. You want Hormel to be able to sell their pork tenderloins Buy One/Get One Free, you gotta pay for pig manure smell reduction research so Hormel isn't constantly getting the crap sued out of them for the stench their operations create. You want research into autism - pay for fruit fly research.

In short, you want to live in civilization - quit your bitching and pay your dues.

Earmarks are an efficient way for Congress to get projects paid for. Projects that are necessary but would never pass on their own, because everyone is too fucking selfish and self-interested to vote for things like "pig odor research" when they aren't smelling any pigs yet.

Would-be GOP Presidential Candidates for 2012

Let's play a little guessing game, shall we?

Who is considering running for the GOP nomination in 2012?

I think that Palin may. Ick. Let's just not talk about that now.

I'm also thinking Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

You see, they're all making noise about not taking some of the stimulus package.

Apparently, there's a provision in the stimulus package that provides additional money for unemployment compensation. In order to qualify for the funds, states have to accept mandates about which workers are eligible for unemployment - sometimes, mandates that exceed those already in law as states compete in the desperate race to the bottom to attract business.

Now, the stimulus package provides funds to cover the extra mandates for roughly three years. However, when the federal money runs out, states would be left with no choice other than to raise unemployment taxes on business. And God forbid we raise business taxes - you know, when businesses have to pay taxes, they don't create jobs and they leave the state and they leave the country and they hire Martians that will work for .01 a month with no OSHA regulation or mandated breaks and... you get the point.

But wait? Why is there "no choice" but to raise unemployment taxes? Couldn't state laws to amended to exclude those new categories of workers eligible for unemployment in three years? Jindal apparently doesn't think so, but others disagree and say that a sunset provision could be put into the state law changes.

I can hear the stump speeches now: "I made the hard choices, and rejected money from the pork-laden stimulus package because it would have required a tax increase on businesses, and would therefore have been bad for workers. It wasn't popular, but I stuck to my principles."

Thankfully, I don't think it's going to work. People are going to ask (and rightfully so) "So, where are the hoards of businesses that flew these crushing unemployment tax increases in other states and fled to Louisiana/South Carolina/Mississippi?" I don't think they'll be there.

A sad reflection on our justice system

An 11-year-old Pennsylvania boy has been accused of killing his father's pregnant girlfriend.

That sentence alone should be horror enough.

But what makes it worse is that this child is going to be charged as an adult. Pennsylvania law stipulates that anyone over 10 who is accused of murder is charged as an adult.

This boy is not deemed mature enough to buy a pack of cigarettes, or a beer. He cannot buy a lottery ticket, apply for a driver's license, enter into any legal contract, or likely stay out past 10 PM. He cannot hold a job, or join the military, or choose to quit compulsory education.

But he can go to jail for the rest of his life if convicted.

Laws like this are intolerable. I understand the desire to feel safe in your community. I understand the desire for retribution. But for a society which deems a child too immature to be trusted with the decision to quit school, it is shameful that our fear and rage would forever imprison that same child on the basis of an admittedly horrific decision.

Children like this need help - something has very obviously gone badly wrong in their childhood. If they cannot be held accountable for the contract terms of joining Colombia house, they should not be held accountable in the same way an adult would when they commit crimes. One of the reasons our society holds that children do not have the same rights as adults is that we acknowledge that ignorance, naivete, and lack of emotional control are normal for children. Wisdom and emotional/impulse control are things that children gain as they grow into adults, presumably because they are taught to model those behaviors/characteristics from the adults around them.

As an aside, where the hell does an 11-year old get a gun and ammunition? Apparently the boy "owned" the gun - and it was designed for youth. The adult responsible for allowing him unlimited access to the gun and ammunition is the person who needs to be criminally charged.

You want to take your kid hunting? Fine. When Bambi is dead, the gun should be returned to the custody of the adult. The adult should unload the gun and lock it, and its ammunition, in a place where impulsive and immature children cannot gain access to it.

Payroll tax cut to begin showing up by April 1st

President Obama ordered the Treasury to begin implementation of the $65/month payroll tax cuts now, so that they will be in effect by April 1st of this year.

No time to waste - and no time wasted.

Is the foreclosure plan fair?

Actually, the better question is, does it matter?

Let me give you a little insight and background into my personal situation, just so you can see where I'm coming from. My husband and I bought our house in 2004. We bought it with a 3-1 ARM loan (not a subprime one - and not because we couldn't afford the fixed rate - this was a strategic decision on our part). In 2007, we refinanced to a 30-year fixed rate at a lower rate. We did have auto debt and credit card debt, and significant equity in our house. We could have rolled the other debt into the refi, but we chose not to (nor did we take out cash).

Fast forward to today. Not only do we no longer have any equity in our house, we are "upside-down" - we owe more than our house is worth. We still have our other debts too. Thankfully, we both have our health and our jobs (knock on wood) and we're managing fine although we feel somewhat stressed out.

So yes, it irks a little that someone who rolled their other debts into a refi, or took out cash and enjoyed a glorious vacation to Rome (complete with the gelato I want so badly) could potentially qualify for help, whereas my husband and I will not. We did what was the right thing to do. We are responsible. We pay our mortgage and other bills every month. Where's our incentive?

Here's a better question: Is there a plan that truly is better for the collective interests of the country? Not a better plan for the "responsible ones" or the "lucky ones" or the "irresponsible ones" or the "fraudulent ones" and so on. What is the plan that best addresses the needs of everyone?

Obama's foreclosure plan isn't perfect. There is no plan that is.

But is doing nothing a better alternative? No. The housing market continues to spiral downward, resulting in foreclosures, bad debts, the credit crunch, loss of jobs in construction and real estate, loss of jobs in construction-related industries, and so on. The longer this goes on, the worse it gets. Doing nothing may feel "fair" to those who were BOTH responsible and lucky*, but their housing values still go down. Eventually, the downward spiral will catch up with those that paid 20% down and got a fixed rate mortgage and carry no debt.

Well, what about the Republican 4% mortgage plan? Jeff Rosenberg deals quite nicely with this bad idea here and here on the Twin Cities Daily Liberal. (Summary - the plan would cost hundreds of billions and "bail out" those who don't need a bailout, leaving those that do need help S. O. L. In other words, Republican S. O. P.)

Frankly, I don't think the foreclosure plan needs to be fair. It needs to be effective. It needs to be for the good of the nation in general. And I think Obama's plan does that.

So, I can be mature enough to get over the fact that even though I was a "good girl" someone else who, quite possibly, was a "bad girl" may get a bigger piece of cake than I will. Especially when my alternative is no cake at all, and eventually no bread and no water either.





*Sorry, but no one succeeds entirely on the basis of their superior merit - there is always an element of luck involved. Sorry to burst your self-righteous bubble.

Michael Steele - The RNC Wannabe

After reading the latest about Michael Steele, the new RNC chairman, I am forced to conclude that the GOP just doesn't really understand....well, anything but wealthy white men and the rabid homophobic/anti-abortion sects of Christianity. However, they are trying to appeal to those they don't understand.

Sadly, this effort just doesn't seem to work well. Like, you know, when they tried to appeal to Hillary supporters with the choice of Sarah Palin. It seems as though they thought "Well, one woman is pretty much like another....right? Hillary supporters will like Sarah because she has ovaries and breasts, right?"

Um...no.

"And how about this - a black guy for the chair of the RNC. Surely, with a black guy as chair, no one will remember that there were almost no people of color at the national convention. Now we'll just automatically have wide appeal with blacks, right?"

Um...no.

And now, Michael Steele has declared that the RNC needs to go after the youth vote. What better way to do this but to throw out some random terms he's heard those kids say nowadays?

He's going to launch an "off the hook" public relations campaign. He's going to go for urban-suburban hip-hop settings. He's even going after the "one-armed midget" vote? (Did I mention this guy also has absolutely no tact?)

Here's the kicker: He doesn't really want to change any of the "principles" of his party. Guess what? RNC principles are not really attractive to youth. This would be evident by the fact that Obama took around 68% of the youth vote in the election.

Decrying funding for education as "pork" is not popular with youth. Economic policies that oversaw a decrease in income after inflation for college grads are not popular with youth. Wars with no end and no real goal - not popular with the youth that are expected to fight. In short - the Republicans are going to have to become more of a big tent, because throwing out phrases like "off the hook" isn't going to fool anyone. At best, it will annoy them. At worse, it will insult them.

This is apparently the best the GOP could do. I mean, um....the G to the O to the P.

Message to MN Vikings: Please leave

The Vikings, apparently living in a world populated by sugar dust and fairies, still want a subsidized stadium.

Seriously.

Sorry, dude, but we have NO MONEY to just hand out to people that are already incredibly wealthy. Perhaps you've heard of the recession? Greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression? Budget deficit? If not, spend 10 minutes with a newspaper.

Oh, but isn't building a stadium stimulus?

No, not really. At least not in the sense that building a school, or a road, or weatherizing homes, or laying green infrastructure is. Stadiums, at best, produce short-term construction jobs and leave the state with little to nothing to show for their investment. Wilf, on the other hand, will see the value of his franchise increase. If he sells the team, he stands to make massive profits on the backs of education, healthcare, and other services that would be neglected to make room for his greed.

Don't believe me? Just ask good ol' W. David Cay Johnston, in his book "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)" details how W. bought a partial ownership stake in the Texas Rangers in 1989. The entire value of the team at that point was roughly $83 million. They threatened to leave, and the suckers taxpayers of Arlington ponied up $202.5 million to buy them a new stadium. In 1998, when the team was sold again, the sales price was roughly $250 million - yes, three times more.

Saying building a stadium would be stimulus would be akin to giving, oh.....let's say Paris Hilton a massive subsidy and then crowing about how her spending on a new $2.85 million townhouse and a custom Bentley provided a boost and jobs to the housing and auto markets. (I'm a little ashamed that I actually looked that up, but it's all in service to you, reader.)

Please Vikings - leave. Seriously. If you simply can't afford to go on with what you have, then go. See what other state wants to cut education, nutrition programs, health care coverage, etc., so that its residents have, at BEST, a marginally better chance to see a pro football team "in person" as opposed to on TV. Perhaps the Vikings could find someplace with actual access to international waters.

It's just too easy

Okay, I could write a post about how Michele Bachmann is showing her crazy again, but Jason Linkins at Huffington Post did it so well, why bother?

Those of you that re-elected her, please come and claim her. Please.

Pelosi issued orders from the Pope

Apparently, the Pope has decided to tell Nancy Pelosi that Catholic politicians have a duty to protect life "at all stages of its development."

Now, the Pope can say whatever he wants. But being able to say something is not the same as being wise in saying something.

First of all, do we really want to go back to a time in the U.S. where citizens are concerned about electing Catholics for fear that they will be taking marching orders from the Vatican? I don't. Yet this business of denying communion to pro-choice Catholics, and comments like this one...might lead us back to a time like that.

Secondly, if the Pope is so terribly concerned about protecting life, perhaps he could exert his influence toward birth control? Or is this not really about "life" at all, but about sex?

Thirdly, I'm waiting for the Pope to announce that all good Catholics must make their bodies available for providing life support to others (blood donations, organ donations, and anything else medical science can come up with) no matter how inconvenient or intrusive or dangerous it may be. Otherwise, sorry, but this statement smacks of hypocrisy. It's not about life. It's about tying women to pregnancy to fit this strangely idealized view of what is in the Bible.

An open letter to the America's corporate executives

Dear Executives,

With the exception of this paragraph, this letter is not intended for those executives that managed their companies in a sustainable and responsible way. I don't know how many of you there are out there, but I choose to believe there must be some. To you, I say thank you, and I am sorry you have to deal with the economic crisis dealt to all of us by "conservative" deregulation and unfettered avarice.

For the rest of you, but most especially those that are engaged in any of the following:

• Claiming to desperately need TARP money until a cap on executive pay is required, then deciding you don't really "need" a government bailout, or
  
• Taking TARP money and then raising interest rates on the same taxpayers who are bailing you out, or
  
• Taking TARP money and then paying bonuses to executives, or
  
• Sending your spouse to withdraw $15.5 million out of your illegal Ponzi scheme before your arrest.

I have one word for you:

Asshole.

You know the thing that most disgusts me in all this? It's not that your greed and mismanagement is resulting in millions of Americans losing their jobs, and then their credit ratings, their vehicles, their retirement savings, and their homes. It's not that your greed and mismanagement have resulted in an economic crisis which is global in nature. It's not that your greed and mismanagement have resulted in the American public, including as-yet unborn members of the American public, having to pay to bail your sorry asses out.

Don't get me wrong: all that makes me sick.

But the worst part is that you are the same assholes that, a year after this economic crisis have passed, will be funding groups that launch wars against the poor. You and your cronies will rail about "welfare moms driving Cadillacs and eating steak." You will drive wedges between the poor and the middle class in order to distract us from the looting and pillaging that you have resumed.

A special place in hell has been reserved for you.

Republican Terrorists

Pete Sessions just brewed up a storm with his recent comments indicating that the House Republicans are learning from the Taliban's example:

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Perhaps, if they can't kill the stimulus bill via voting and spreading lying propaganda, they'll try car bombings next?

Okay, so let me be clear. Do I really think that the Republican party is going to start an organized campaign of car bombings and other violent activities? No.

But their obstructionism is nothing short of economic terrorism against the recently unemployed, the working poor and the middle class. They would rather stand on the crumbling ruins of this nation's prosperity than work together with Democrats. This is worse than "if I can't have my way, I'll take my ball and go home." Unemployment dramatically raises suicide risks and increases poor health outcomes. That's not to mention the rise of homelessness and the additional deaths and hardships that come as a result.

So perhaps we should thank Sessions for at least being honest.

Stimulus - The difference between tax cuts and government spending

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, has prepared several analyses of the various stimulus proposals being discussed.

Looking at his latest, titled "The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" (January 21, 2009), provides some interesting insights. The report is 18 pages long, but it's definitely worth a read.

One section I found particularly interesting is the table on page 9 of the report. This table documents the Fiscal Stimulus Bang for the Buck of various components to potential stimulus packages, such as differing types of tax cuts, increasing food stamps, and increasing infrastructure spending. The "bang" is measured in increase in dollar increase in GDP created by each dollar in stimulus spending of that type.

Surprise - increasing food stamp aid increases GDP the most - $1.73 for each $1 spent. Why would that be?

• The food stamp program already exists, so there is no need for "wasted" money to start the program.
• People who receive food stamps generally spend all financial aid they receive quickly.
• Food stamps assist not only those that fit the traditional notion of welfare recipients (chronically unemployed, single mothers, etc.) but also those that have run out of unemployment insurance aid or did not otherwise qualify for unemployment insurance (like part time workers, self-employed workers, etc.)

But wait - why should we spend all kinds of money on welfare recipients and unemployed people. He who does not work shall not eat, and so forth, right?

Putting aside the notion that it's a piece of right-wing mythology that this country is over-run with people that contribute nothing but live large off of government benefits, the answer is that because that spending is what is best for the country because we are assured the money will travel around in the economy. A dollar spent at Cub Foods (or whatever grocery store) is a dollar that the workers at Cub Foods get a piece of. It's a dollar that the people at Kraft Foods get a piece of. It's a dollar that farmers get a piece of. It's a dollar that the truckers that move the food from the farm to the store get a piece of. It works.

Now look at tax cuts. A $1 cut in the corporate tax rate gives us only a $0.30 boost in GDP. Why?

The corporation is not likely to spend it, especially given the current economic situation. Most would "save" it to shore up their balance sheets. Some may hire new workers - but here's the kicker. They don't have to hire US workers. The creation of jobs in India is not helpful for the US unemployment rate.

Without the stimulus package, Zandi estimates that the unemployment rate (today announced at 7.6%) will be over 11% in 2010. Even with the stimulus package, he estimates it will be 9%.

Republicans need to get out of the way of economic relief for this country, or they will pay a heavy price in the 2010 midterms. If filibuster after filibuster leads to unemployment of 11%, people will be waiting in lines of whatever length necessary to throw them out to end the gridlock.

Carly Fiorina - Looter Baroness defends the Barons

Why on earth is anyone listening to Carly Fiorina? Seriously.

In a commentary on cnn.com, she expressed misgivings about President Obama's plan to cap executive compensation at $500,000.

Instead, she says that CEOs that run institutions asking for bailout money should be forced to resign as part of the deal.

I suppose that might seem harsh to some, but when you consider that without a cap, these executives walk away with golden parachutes when they resign. You'd think that Ms. Fiorina would remember that, having drifted away from HP with a $20 million+ severance package, after overseeing the layoffs of 15,000 people, aggressively lobbying for the H1-B visa program to replace highly-skilled American workers with highly-skilled foreign workers, and setting up HP for another 25,000 layoffs after she left.

She says: "In this country, the opportunity to be rewarded for taking prudent risk is fundamental to our economic vitality and strength."

I'm not sure what she's objecting to here. Could it be that she's against "punishment" for taking excessive, reckless risks? These executives had the opportunity to be rewarded for taking prudent risks. They blew it in a fit of unbridled greed. (By the way - for anyone that thinks $500,000 a year is punishment - let's trade jobs.)

Although not directly stated in her commentary, I've also heard the argument that pay caps will lead to a "brain drain" and force talented bankers/executives to go elsewhere for the pay they deserve. Umm...yeah. So talented they led us right into a financial crisis second only to the Great Depression. Please, go elsewhere. And get your bailout money from "elsewhere" too.

There is a huge sense of entitlement in this country. Contrary to popular belief, the most damaging sense of entitlement isn't from welfare recipients and credit-card-carrying youngsters. The most damaging sense of entitlement is displayed by executives, bankers, and other high-rollers in the private sector. The sense that they "deserve" outrageously large compensation packages. The sense that they should be able to do anything they want with no consequences. The sense they "deserve" unfettered access to lawmakers. The sense that they "deserve" hero worship and praise for their "unique" abilities and skills.

Not everyone has the skills or talent to be an executive at a large company. But far more than enough people do. If the crop of executives that helped get us to this crisis are unwilling to work for $500,000, fine. Let them leave. They can join their failed business's other creditors in waiting for their severance package. I guarantee that there will be someone in that company who's more than happy to have the opportunity to run it for $500,000 and restricted stock options.

Times is Hard

NPR's All Things Considered show played Loudon Wainwright III's song "Times is Hard." I found this rather amusing on my way home from work tonight - perhaps you will too.

How much rejection can Coleman take?

Nate Silver has to have the most amusing take on the MN Senate court trial. He points out that the ballots the Coleman campaign wants the judicial panel to review have already been reviewed and rejected, sometimes more than twice. He says:

Don't be impressed, in other words, by the sheer number of ballots under
review. If you ask a girl out, and she turns you down the first three times, you
don't really improve your odds of success by asking her out another 30 times.
(You may, however, increase your odds of getting a slap in the face or a
restraining order).

When is a job not a job?

Apparently when the Republicans don't "create" it via tax cuts to the wealthy, then new jobs don't count.

You see, the Republicans are complaining about all the "waste" in the stimulus bill. Of course, given their supposed belief that the only way to create jobs is via tax cuts, I guess that's not surprising. They've even drawn up a list of the provisions they find wasteful, which is going to be so helpful in discussing what fucking boneheads they are.

And yes, there just may be a slightly more "raw" feel to the blog tonight. Deal with it. I never promised to be kind.

For example, they don't like the allocations for green vehicles for government employees, or making federal buildings more energy efficient. Because, you know, when the federal government buys a bunch of Ford Escape hybrids, that doesn't create any jobs.

Oh, wait a second. It does - jobs at Ford. Jobs wherever Ford buys its steel and plastic and other stuff from. Jobs wherever Ford employees that are actually WORKING and getting paid go and SPEND their money.

The Republicans also don't like youth job activities, or smoking cessation, or drug and alcohol treatment programs. Because, you know, those don't create jobs.

Oh, wait, yes, they do. Counselors for drug and alcohol addiction. Professors to teach new counselors. Organizations that can rent/build spaces to actually hold counseling sessions. Counselors to teach young people job skills.

Okay, I could go on, but I'm fairly confident you get the point. Just in case, the point is:

Government spending creates a stimulus UNLESS the spending is in the form of tax cuts/breaks for rich people that will hoard most of their new-found money.

Just because a job is not a job that a Republican doesn't like doesn't mean it's not a job. We can't all be border patrol agents, after all.

The Daschle Debacle - a good thing

Tom Daschle withdrew his name from consideration for the HHS Secretary today, and I gave an enormous sigh of relief.

I could understand and empathize with failing to realize a particular benefit was income, and failing to report that. I could not empathize with "over-reporting" charitable contribution deductions. I could not empathize with "forgetting" about $80,000 in income - especially since I make less than $80,000 a year.

Not only could I not empathize - in a Democrat, I found it disgusting. Blunt but true. To claim you fight for fairness, that you stand up for the little guy, and then you turn out to be a tax cheat just like every other rich entitled (usually Republican) asshole out there? Make. Me. Vomit.

Now, giving the vomiting and assorted carrying-on above, why on earth would I say the Daschle debacle is a good thing?

President Obama has admitted that he screwed up with this nomination.

For those of you that just picked yourselves off the floor, yes, you read that right. The president has admitted to making a mistake.

I find it wonderfully reassuring that he has admitted, on national television, that he screwed this up. Because, yes, he did screw it up. But he realizes it. He acknowledges it. He's thought about why he did it and how it happened. And he's vowed not to do it again.

That's what rational adults do when they make a mistake. Isn't it nice to have a rational adult in charge again?

President Obama is going to make more mistakes. That's natural. But unlike our recent history, we now have a president that will acknowledge mistakes and work to fix them.

More of the same from T-Paw

Governor Pawlenty has unveiled his "plan" to deal with Minnesota's projected $4.8 billion budget deficit. I have to use the quotes around plan, because it's just more of the same "loot everything you can" philosophy that has gotten this country into the mess it is in.

Pawlenty would boot 85,000 working Minnesotans from state supported health care. But business taxes - those he wants to cut by half.

Cutting business taxes in half during a time of state government crisis is silly.

"Oh, but it will keep jobs in Minnesota." I can hear the refrain now. Unfortunately, it's wrong. See, when we cut our taxes in an attempt to lure companies here, other states cut theirs as well, trying to lure them there. We get engaged in a 50-state race to the bottom. And the shame of it all is that corporations have the nerve to complain that American schools don't produce the type of knowledge workers that they need.

Back to T-Paw and his silly "plan" - He relies on stimulus money from the federal government (better get on the horn Tim and let your GOP buddies know that you really are hard up for cash.)

He also proposes over $1 Billion in accounting shifts (I guess that's like when you transfer your credit card balance from one card to another and say it's paid off?) And the kicker is that he wants to sell bonds that are to be covered by the state's annual infusion of tobacco settlement money.

What this means is that things have gotten so out of control under Pawlenty's "no new taxes" administration that his only resort is to use up accounting gimmicks, trade future recurring income for a much lower amount of one-time income today.

I think Pawlenty ought to have the guts to simply cover the deficit 100% with spending cuts, since he's so adamantly opposed to increasing state revenues in any sort of meaningful or stable way. OWN the decision, Pawlenty. Let everyone know just how many people you're willing to throw under the bus so that the CEOs get nice fat bonuses again. Don't hide behind one time money and act like you're a nice guy. Because you're not, and you're leaving a mess for the next Governor to clean up.

House Republicans - aka whiny babies that won't play nice

Today the US House passed their $819 billion dollar version of the economic stimulus plan. The vote was strictly on party lines - no Republicans voted for the bill.

President Obama bent over backwards meeting with Congressional Republicans to hear their concerns. He leaned on Democrats to get things like family planning money removed from the bill ('cuz remember, the Republican God hates family planning). And yet, they still snubbed the bill.

Can anyone say sour grapes?

I wonder if this is what the next two years will be like. Republicans voting in a bloc to be as obstructionist as possible.

I seriously cannot understand how it is that they do not realize that their slanted views of economics, and the result of putting those slanted views into action, is the reason why they are the minority party. And if they continue on this path, they will be an even smaller minority party for some time now.

Tax cuts for workers (note, I said workers, i.e., the poor and middle class, not trust fund babies, CEOs, and corporations) are a good thing. And that's why the package has $212 billion dollars in tax cuts.

However - a tax cut doesn't do you any good if you don't have a job.

And that's why the bill contains $607 billion in other government spending. Money for the states, which can use those funds to:
a)pay government workers, as opposed to laying them off
b)give money to the university system, which can them employ education professionals, as opposed to laying them off
c)repair roads and bridges, and strangely enough, employ people to actually do those repairs, etc.

And strangely enough, when the government workers and professors and construction workers have income, they are better able to buy cars and cappacinos and insurance policies and other goods and services. So then other people will have jobs.

Conversely, if you gave that money to large corporations, they would use it to gobble up other companies (resulting in layoffs) or hoard it. They won't use it to hire more workers. Why? Because there's no one that can afford to buy the "stuff" that more workers would produce. They don't act altruistically, and therefore, why would they spend money to employ unnecessary workers? They wouldn't.

Hopefully some moderate Senate Republicans will be less petty when this bill comes to the US Senate. Otherwise, a really bad situation will just get worse. If you want a nightmare tonight, just imagine what the Dow and other world markets will do if we fail to pass a stimulus plan due to petty partisan idiocy.

Bye bye, what's left of my 401k. And sadly, probably bye bye my job. But hey, at least I'll have LOTS of company.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is on its way to the White House!

Today the US House passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. (Here's a Q&A on the Act for your reading enjoyment.) The Senate passed the Act last Thursday, and the legislation is on its way to the White House for President Obama's signature.

I am thrilled that this is finally happening. This common sense piece of legislation gives workers the ability to sue for pay discrimination within 180 days of the last paycheck impacted by illegal pay discrimination. In contrast, the US Supreme Court previously handed down a decision that could only make sense on Mars (or maybe if you run a large sexist corporation) and said that any suit must be filed within 180 days of the first discriminatory paycheck - whether or not the person discriminated against is aware of the discrimination at the time.

Think about it. Let's say we have a serial killer. Do we allow him or her to get off scot free if we don't manage to catch and file charges within 180 days of the first murder?

Why, then, should we allow employers to get away with financial murder if they can hide their wrongdoing for a mere 6 months?

Make no mistake: this Act does not solve all equal pay problems. After all, if they were solved, there would be no need for the Act. Proving pay discrimination is not easy, and pay discrimination is shockingly commonplace if you look at the statistics.

Recount woes

Alas for me - when will I learn that bragging is a cosmic invitation for a good ol' fashioned smack in the face?

During the Bush v. Gore/Florida recount debacle of 2000, I smugly remarked to my husband, more than once "That nonsense would never happen here. Everyone ought to just vote like we do here in Minnesota. It's not hard, and everyone that's taken a standardized test in school knows how to do it."

Alas - cruel fate has left me wincing at the mess that is the Minnesota Senate recount/legal battle.

I do have to say this - at least we did a full recount. And the winner of that recount was Al Franken. You'd think, given his statement just after election day, Norm Coleman would have the grace to withdraw and go off to lick his wounds in private.

What's that? You don't remember what he said? Oh, I can help you with that. He said:

"If you ask me what I would do, I would step back. I just think the need for the healing process is so important."

Rather than step back, Coleman has decided to contest the results of the painstaking recount in court. Of course, that shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who's watched our litigation-happy (and hopefully soon-to-be-former) Senator Coleman in action. He has a history of filing lawsuits against his opponents during campaigns, all the while decrying frivolous litigation.

Now Coleman's lawyers want the court to review 5,000 or so ballots, one by one. And I'm sure the Coleman camp is very sad that the three justices insist that they need to review the original ballots in question, as opposed to the ones that Coleman campaign staffers altered. The alterations, in some cases, cut off or otherwise hide the reason the ballots were rejected in the first place.

Norm, you're embarrassing us. Please just go gracefully. Go now. Minnesota needs two senators, and by a slim margin, we didn't choose you.

I'm back!

The newborn baby, the toddler, health issues, and other woes left me with no energy to really pay attention to politics, much less blog about them.

But now the baby is sleeping through the night (woohoo!), my health issues seem to be resolved (knock on wood) and the toddler....well, he's still a toddler. Anyhow, I'm back! I hope you'll join me.