Practical Progressive Minnesotan

The more important point of outrage behind the AIG bonuses

2009-03-17T18:33:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-08T19:14:00.000-07:00

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

2009-02-22T13:54:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-22T13:36:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-22T13:33:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-02-20T19:46:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-20T18:11:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-19T21:16:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-19T21:10:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-18T18:21:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-11T17:49:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-09T09:57:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-06T09:12:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-06T08:10:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-04T18:30:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-02-04T18:25:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-02-03T21:02:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-03T20:38:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-28T19:29:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-28T18:42:00.000-08:00

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!

2009-01-27T20:17:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-27T19:50:00.000-08:00

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!

2009-01-27T19:48:00.000-08:00

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.

Motherhood as a political issue

2008-11-11T00:14:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-06T22:45:00.001-08:00

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

2008-10-27T20:29:00.000-07:00

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:

The treatments to stop the hemorrhaging hurt way worse than labor itself.
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.
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

2008-10-27T19:28:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-27T18:57:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-27T18:39:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-27T18:29:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-23T20:15:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-23T19:51:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-23T19:44:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-23T19:40:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-23T18:47:00.000-07:00

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!!!

2008-10-23T18:46:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-12T13:23:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-10T10:40:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-10T10:35:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-10T09:49:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-07T10:29:00.000-07:00

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?

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

2008-10-07T09:57:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-07T09:26:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-06T12:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-05T16:29:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-03T18:32:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-03T13:26:00.000-07:00

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

VP Debate - Impressions

2008-10-03T12:16:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-02T09:03:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-02T08:45:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-30T08:40:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-30T08:36:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-30T08:19:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-27T12:21:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-27T11:57:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-26T09:06:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-26T08:45:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-24T16:19:00.001-07:00

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

2008-09-22T10:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-20T12:05:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-19T18:14:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-19T09:06:00.001-07:00

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

2008-09-19T09:06:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-18T12:26:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-17T20:55:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-09-17T14:21:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-17T07:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Socialism - oh my!

2008-09-16T23:39:00.000-07:00

It drives me absolutely up the wall when people say that Obama, or Democrats in general, or progressive economic policies, are socialist. I can only guess that people say this because of one of the following three reasons:

1) They don't know what the actual policies of Obama/Dems, etc. are.
2) They don't know what socialism actually is.
3) They know socialism is a dirty word, just like liberal has been made into a dirty word, and they are attempting to discredit a policy/philosophy they disagree with via ad hominem attack because they are either lazy or they know mud-slinging is really effective.

Socialism is a "social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources." What does that mean? Let's take an example.

In our economy (a mixed economy), I can open a small business. For the sake of example, let's say it's a convenience store. Most likely, I would take out a loan, rent a store, buy inventory, hire staff, sell goods, pay taxes, and hopefully, have some profit to enjoy. I would need to comply with government regulations on things like minimum wages, anti-discrimination, obtaining sales licenses, etc.

In a socialist economy, convenience stores (and everything else) are owned by the state. I may work at a convenience store, but I could not own one. The state would decide what inventory I should buy, at what price I should buy it, exactly how much staff are to be paid, and how much the goods would sell for.

As a little extra bonus in the example, in a communist economy, the convenience store would be owned by all the people. Decisions on inventory, pricing, wages, etc., would be made by the population at large.

At this point, I think it's important to note that the examples are simplified. That's what happens when you're trying to describe an economic system in a few sentences.

Anyhow, now let's look examine progressive policies, and see if they are socialist. In order for progressive policies to be socialist, the state would need to own the means of production.

Does anyone think that the Democrats are trying to nationalize all industry? Has anyone heard a proposal to end private ownership of businesses? No. Has anyone heard a single call from a Democrat, and in particular, Obama, that says everyone should make exactly the same amount of money? That no one should be wealthy? That regardless of personal merit, everyone should have the same standard of living?

No.

Believing in progressive taxation is NOT the same as socialism. Progressive taxation is the idea that the more you make, the more in taxes you should pay. It is not the same as the idea that you should not make any more than anyone else. It is not an attempt to enforce income equality through taxation.

There are many reasons that progressives favor the idea of progressive taxation. In my view, some of the benefits of progressive taxation are:

1) After a certain level of income, the propensity to consume decreases. No matter how rich you are, there is some limit to how much you can eat, how much gas you can burn, how many purses or cars or whatever you are likely to buy. Lower tax rates on lower-income families allow those families to buy more, which stimulates demand, and thus, stimulates the economy. Lower tax rates for the wealthy do not tend to stimulate demand in the same way, because whether their tax rates are low or high, they pretty much have enough money to buy whatever they want to anyway.

2) Higher income people tend to have more disposable income, and therefore, can afford a higher tax burden. Is this fair? I guess it depends on what your definition of fair is. I say that if someone is earning just enough to eat and pay for basic housing, it is less fair to tax them (driving them into starvation or the poorhouse) than it is to tax someone who's basic survival will not be imperiled by the tax.

3) The wealthy benefit more from societal goods, and therefore, should pay more. For example - the police investigate robberies. A low income person may lose $500 of goods due to a robbery. A wealthy person may lose $50,000 of goods due to a robbery. The wealthy person has more to lose, and thus, more to gain by paying taxes for police. The same idea can be applied to infrastructure. Fed Ex makes more based on the roadways than I do. If there are no roads, I lose my salary of $X. If there are no roads, Fed Ex loses its profits of $Y (which is far greater than my $X). It makes sense that Fed Ex should pay more for roads.

Now, you may or may not agree with these reasons. For example, some people feel that progressive taxation discourages work and innovation. (The old "why should I work harder to earn money if it's going to be taxed away?" argument. I say this is bunk - if I had the opportunity to make $100,000 more this year than last year, I would do it in a heartbeat. Yes, my tax rate would go up. So? I'd still be ahead. ) But in any event, let's say you disagree with progressive taxation.

Still doesn't make it socialism. Or communism. And if you keep calling it that, you're either ignorant, lazy, or deliberately deceptive.

How will Obama or McCain's tax plan affect your family?

2008-09-16T20:41:00.000-07:00

There is a very interesting calculator available that can provide an estimate for you. The figures are based on the assessment of the candidates' tax proposals done by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

Granted, you do need to keep in mind that the calculator provides an estimate, and not an exact figure. But the results are very interesting.

Incidentally, on the Tax Policy Center's website, you can find all kinds of detailed analysis of the candidates' tax plans.

McCain v. Obama on regulation

2008-09-16T19:23:00.000-07:00

Apparently someone recently mentioned to McCain that the rest of the country is having this teensy little economic meltdown and he maybe ought to say something to address it. Oh, and it's apparently caused, in large part, by deregulation.

So today, McCain says: "The McCain-Palin administration will replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington and bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street."

Really? I was under the impression that McCain was "always for less regulation." As he said in the Wall Street Journal on March 3, 2008.

McCain proposed, unsuccessfully, a moratorium on regulations in 1995.

He also gave a speech on the housing crisis in March of 2008. In that speech, he said, “Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.”

McCain's campaign co-chairman and economic adviser (until recently), Phil Gramm, has been a massive champion of the deregulation cause. Gramm attached the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into an omnibus spending bill in 2000, just after the Bush v. Gore case was decided (i.e., no one was paying attention). The Commodity Futures Modernization Act contains the Enron loophole.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (catch his name) was passed in 1999, on pretty much a party line vote. McCain, like most Republicans, voted for it. This act created significant deregulation of the financial market. Many economists indicate this act as a significant contributor to the housing crisis.

Of course, Gramm is no longer officially with the McCain campaign, since his boneheaded "mental recession/nation of whiners" remark earned the McCain campaign a lot of very well-deserved flak.

McCain's record on regulation is clear. He supports deregulation. He supports those that support deregulation. Changing his mind after the financial crisis has begun is too little, too late.

In contrast, Obama said in March of this year: “Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices,” Senator Obama said. “We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.”

In the same speech, Obama also offered a detailed six point plan for creating the appropriate regulation needed to prevent this from happening again.

McCain's lobbyist ties

2008-09-16T19:01:00.000-07:00

Would it surprise you to know that John McCain says he and Sarah Palin are going to reform Washington? It should.

It should surprise you that he has the sheer audacity to look into a camera, or at a crowd, and say that with a straight face.

Why do I say this?

John McCain has 134 lobbyists currently working for him. The companies they've lobbied for include such favorites as AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch, and Lehman Brothers. Sound familiar? These are the latest business entities to crash and burn due to deregulation coupled with warm, gooey greed.

The Top 10 reasons I keep harping on Sarah Palin

2008-09-11T19:56:00.000-07:00

You may be wondering why I keep harping on Sarah Palin. Could it be, like some in the McCain campaign suggest, that those that dislike Palin are sexist? Jealous? Bitter?

No.

Here are the Top 10 reasons I keep harping on Palin.

Reason #1: She lies, and lies poorly, and lies repeatedly, and it really annoys me. Sorry, but I've had to endure Bush & Co. lying to us for the last 8 years. I'm really tired of it.

Reason #2: It really annoys me that she's willing to pimp her family out for political gain. See earlier posts if you're not sure what I mean by this.

Reason #3: She claims that one of her qualifications is that "she's just a normal mom - just like you!" First of all - no. She's not like me. I am not a politician. I don't agree with her views. Second of all - I don't want a "normal mom" or a "hockey mom" or a "Wal-Mart mom", etc., as VP or President. I don't want an average person as President. I expect the President to be above average. Exceptional even.

Reason #4: She is snide about things I value. Like community organizing, for example.

Reason #5: She is the worst thing to happen to the cause for true feminism/equality in a while. Why do I say this? She is the most high-profile example of a token women. The only other qualification she has (in McCain's eyes) is that she is appealing to the fundamentalist religious right. Palin has no qualifications that some other potential VP choice wouldn't have had more of. McCain needed a hard-line anti-abortion/anti-gay/pro-fundie pick (eliminating people like Lieberman, or Kay Bailey Hutchison). The fact that McCain had only met her once prior to her selection is additional proof that she's a token. Everything about her that was important to McCain could be summed up in that one visit.

Reason #6: She ought to know she's a token, and feel ashamed of being used. If the McCain campaign thought she was truly experienced and ready, they wouldn't be insisting that she only do limited soft-ball interviews with friendly hosts. They wouldn't have her repeating the very same speech she gave at the RNC Convention day after day on the stump. They don't trust her. To add insult to injury, they're using her to cry "sexism" every time anyone says anything critical of her.

Reason #7: Her religious views scare me. It's not that she is religious. That's fine. It's that she seems to think that God's will is manifested in her policy decisions, such as the natural gas pipeline. That's really scary to me because if you think that it is God's will that you do x, y, and z, you are probably very likely to be willing to do anything to get that accomplished.

Reason #8: Her attitude toward the Troopergate investigation is very troubling. Her administration is saying they will only cooperate with the expected subpoenas if the Alaska legislature says that she did nothing wrong - BEFORE doing the investigation. She's also refusing to turn over her emails as requested.

Reason #9: She supports censorship in public libraries.

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON OF ALL:

Reason #10: Her selection as the VP nominee is further proof to me that McCain is willing to do anything at all to win. It tells me he doesn't care what happens to this country if he should die in office. It's a cynical choice made for political reasons, and I think it is disrespectful of this country. And the choice tells me that McCain does not have the judgement to be president.

Palin can't describe the Bush doctrine (aka the pre-emption doctrine)

2008-09-11T19:24:00.000-07:00

The Bush Doctrine is a 2 part doctrine that says:
1) we have the right to attack/invade any country that harbors or aids terrorists (therefore, we can invade Afghanistan), and
2) we have the right to pre-emptively attack any country that may, at some point in the future, pose a threat to the security of the US.

This is not hard. Palin could have found this out on Wikipedia if she was just too busy to watch the news in 2001, 2002, and 2003, when this doctrine was being discussed by the Bush Administration in preparation for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I mean....I was watching the news then. I know...I know....I've never been mayor of a small town. Or on the PTA. Or a hockey mom. Or shot a moose. Or in a beauty pagent. But I can describe the Bush doctrine.

Which, frankly, from a national security aspect, makes me more qualified than Sarah Palin.

When asked about the Bush doctrine by Charlie Gibson of ABC, she first needed Gibson to explain what it was to her. Gibson said "The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a pre-emptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"

Palin responded "Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty, to defend."

Now....that sounds fairly reasonable, right? Here's the trouble....the Bush doctrine does not require that the strike to be pre-empted is imminent. What Palin is describing and/or endorsing is the doctrine of self-defense.

Bush, in an attempt to justify his doctrine of unchecked military aggression (which, yes, is MY name for it) said in a speech at West Point in 2002:

"We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."

In order for a threat to be imminent, it must be fully materialized. Sarah Palin doesn't even understand the Bush doctrine, which is the justification for the wars her Presidential candidate insists we must continue until we "win with honor" or "obtain victory" or something nice and vague and undefined like that. If she cannot even explain the justification for the original invasion (whether or not she agrees with it) she isn't even nearly qualified to run the country.

The "Straight Talker" is a crooked, crooked man

2008-09-11T18:33:00.000-07:00

I honestly don't know what happened to McCain between 2000 and now. I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but seriously, it's like he made a deal with the devil (Rove?) to win this election.

This week has been filled with lie after lie after lie. And here's the thing: a lot of times, when someone says that a politician told a lie, what they're really saying is that they disagree with someone's position. That is NOT what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about saying the opposite of a verifiable fact. Like saying "water is dry" or "most dogs are 60 feet tall." Saying things that ought to make average Americans look at you and wonder which med you forgot to take this morning.

McCain keeps saying that Palin killed the Bridge to Nowhere. This is 100% not true, and that's an independently verified fact.

(There is an excellent NPR story on this here: NPR story on Bridge to Nowhere )

On April 11, 2004, McCain railed against the Bridge to Nowhere on Meet the Press. McCain later said that a 2005 story about the Bridge to Nowhere was a primary reason Republicans lost so many seats in the 2006. As late as September 2006, during her campaign for governor, Palin supported the bridge, holding up a "Nowhere Alaska" t-shirt. In October 2006, Palin said she supported continuing funding for the bridge "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." She did not change her mind until the project was mocked and trashed by pretty much the entire nation. Even then, she kept the money and used it for other projects. That is not saying "thanks but no thanks." And that makes McCain and Palin liars.

McCain and his campaign staff are now saying that Obama is sexist and that Obama called Palin a pig this week. This, too, is a verifiable lie. There are numerous stories on this, and you can also go to You Tube to see Obama's remarks. Obama was equating McCain's current positions on, well, pretty much everything, with the Bush Administration, and saying that there's no change there. He did not say that Palin was a pig. He wasn't even talking about Palin - he was talking about McCain's positions. Now, this is on camera. You can't make it up. He said what he said. And yet McCain and his campaign keep insisting that this was somehow about Palin.

Here's just one video showing Obama's actual words.
"You Tube pig in lipstick"

McCain keeps insisting Obama would raise everyone's taxes. This is simply not true. FactCheck.org has written a piece ( A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern ) explaining McCain's lies and Obama's actual tax plan. FactCheck.org relied on the analysis provided by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which is nonpartisan. McCain keeps on saying "Obama will raise your taxes" because it's worked for Republicans in the past. How many of you can hear the phrase "tax and spend liberal" in your minds right now? It doesn't seem to matter that it's a lie. It works, so McCain says it anyway.

I just don't understand how anyone can stand to vote for someone that is so disrespectful of the American electorate that he not only lies repeatedly, but badly.

Some other community organizers Sarah Palin may want to apologize to

2008-09-05T10:50:00.001-07:00

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony, among others. Without these community organizers, Sarah Palin, as well as all other women, wouldn't be allowed to vote, much less run for office.

Another excellent video response to Palin's mockery of community organizing

2008-09-04T21:00:00.001-07:00

This video is longer than the last one, and it's not just Obama speaking. It's worth the 5:26 running time.

Barack Obama's Response to Palin, Et Al's Mockery of Community Organizing

2008-09-04T20:42:00.001-07:00

I was going to write a long post on this issue, but Obama's response is pretty much what I was going to say anyway.

I will add one thing - only an elitist snob would mock community organizers.

Why do the Palins hate America?

2008-09-04T13:29:00.000-07:00

Here's a quote from the founder of the AIP, Joe Vogel. Vogel was the chair of the AIP until his death in 1993.

"You get to think why the hell do I owe them anything and then you get mad; and you say to hell with them; and you renounce allegiance; and you pledge your efforts, your effects, your honor, your life, to Alaska; that is how I do it; I am an Alaskan; they know it; I've told them to go to hell in every way I can in a nice way; I took a case to the Supreme Court believing in the Supreme Court, but I'd rather be tried in a whorehouse with the madam as the Judge; there is more Justice in a whorehouse than in the Supreme Court; and if they don't like they know where they can go; ..... and if you think I am ever going to forget that, the fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American Government, and I won't be buried under their damn flag; I'll be buried in Dawson and when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones back to Alaska, back to my country."

Remember how the Republicans went around saying the Michelle Obama hates America? She "wasn't proud" of America. And so on. And for some reason, criticism of family was totally fair game back then.

Well, Sarah Palin's husband was a member of the Alaska Independence Party. Question for you: why does he hate America? Sarah Palin married him, stayed married to him, attended an AIP convention, and has maintained a very cordial relationship with the AIP. Why would an America-loving patriot associate with the AIP?

The AIP wants to have a vote to possibly secede from the USA. That's patriotic, right? A good group for a patriot to associate with in any way?

Verbatim from the AIP website FAQ page

[C]onsidering the moral, educational, and economic decay of the U.S., Alaskans' who hold themselves to a higher standard might very well decide to at least maintain an arm's length distance from a country in decline.

Oh, and one more thing: Sarah Palin wasn't wearing a American flag pin last night during her convention speech. A sure sign she's not a true patriot. ::snort::

So, given this, I'm sure we can expect to see Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Hannity, et al, denouncing the Palins for their YEARs of anti-American associations. Right? Right?

Interesting blog

2008-09-03T21:45:00.000-07:00

I haven't vetted this yet, but I thought I'd post it and folks can feel free to see it as they wish.

http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/about-sarah-palin-a-letter-from-anne-kilkenny/741/#comment-1086

Oh wow, Palin is a liar!

2008-09-03T21:15:00.000-07:00

I cannot believe how many times I watched her lie tonight. I think I need a shower.

Palin said "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

The truth is that Mayor Palin hired one of Ted Steven's lobbyists and sent him to D.C., where he sent back $27 million federal dollars to her podunk hamlet of Wasilla. The truth is that Govenor Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere until it was being mocked on a national level. The truth is that while Palin has been govenor, Alaska has requested more per capita federal earmarks than any other state in the nation.

Palin said that Obama hasn't authored any bills.

I suppose that for her, working with Richard Lugar to stop illegal shipments of WMDs isn't important. I suppose to Palin, working in the state senate to stop racial profiling and working to ensure that interrogations are videotaped (so there's no question as to what happened) is not important. I suppose the ethics reform legislation Obama introduced with Sen. Feingold just doesn't exist for Palin.

Actually, I take that back. I suppose that Palin is actually just a liar.

Palin said that Obama would raise taxes. Then she went on to list a boring and exhaustive litany of every kind of tax there is, and claimed Obama wants to raise it.

I'm not going to both to list this all out right now. I'll remind you that
a) Palin is a liar,
b) you can go to http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_new_stitch_in_a_bad_pattern.html and see just what Obama's tax plan is and how much the McCain campaign lies about it, and
c) you can go to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html if you want a very brief comparison of the McCain and Obama tax plans.

Palin said she would tell us "exactly what a Mayor does." But all she could tell us was that "unlike a community organizer, she had actual responsibilties." As a community organizer, Obama was responsible for organizing a public housing project with a population comparable to Mayor Palin's hamlet, and working with them on job training, community infrastructure needs (like road maintenance, asbestos removal, etc.)

Since Palin couldn't be bothered to keep her commitment and tell us the duties of the Wasilla mayor, perhaps I can help. See, it's amazing what you can find on google. http://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Wasilla/Wasilla02/Wasilla0216.html#2.16

Hmmm...she attended meetings. She was the ceremonial head of the city. She enforced city law and proposed budgets, but didn't actually get to make city law or pass the budgets. She was an an administrator with figurehead duties.

How many lies do we really need to hear this woman say?

Lazy blogging day

2008-09-03T12:42:00.000-07:00

I was going to write a post on John McCain's many flip flops. However, I'm not feeling particularly perky today, and this is much easier and more amusing.

McCain thinks it's funny when a rabid right-winger calls Hillary a bitch

2008-09-03T12:39:00.000-07:00

So you PUMAs are standing up for Hillary...how?

Jesus Obama the Messiah

2008-09-02T19:21:00.000-07:00

Why is it that there are a certain group of right-wing nutsos that insist on calling Obama "The Messiah" or "Jesus Obama"? Isn't that blasphemy if you're a believer?

Does Palin want to have her cake, or eat it?

2008-09-02T18:09:00.000-07:00

So, Bristol Palin is keeping her baby. In the words of Madonna, "uh, I'm gonna keep ma bay-bay!"

Please forgive the strange channeling of Madonna. I can only assure you that it happens infrequently.

The Republicans would like us to ignore this story. After all, it's a private family matter, right? No one else's business, right?

But wait.....did anyone mention this whole "private family business" line to Sarah Palin?

I mean....why is her knocked-up teen private family business that has no bearing on Palin's character/values/judgement, but the fact that her teen is keeping the baby proof of her supposedly superior character/values/judgement?

Why is Palin's decision to give birth to her most recent child somehow proof of her character/values/judgement, and not "personal family business that is strictly off-limits.?" Isn't exploiting your newborn's disability for political gain kind of disgusting? I think it is. She's essentially saying "Look at how messed up my kid is and I still kept him. That's how you can tell I'm a hard-core conservative." And that's sick - to use your child to burnish your political credentials.

Look - if it's private, then Palin should have said nothing at all. "No comment - my family's business is their business only." Once she agrees to discuss it, and then uses it to make herself look even better to the fundies, it ceases to be private. Which is a real shame for her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend.

One other thing - apparently Sarah Palin is proud of her daughter's decision, and proud that she's about to become a grandmother. And good for her. But does she realize that it's nothing but dumb luck that her daughter is carrying around a baby and not HIV? Or a nice case of syphilis? Unprotected sex sometimes doesn't result in babies. It can result in death, or severe illness. Would she be crowing about her values in action (abstinence only education, for example) if her daughter brought home a virus instead of a pregnancy?

I'd like to offer a few additional observations here:

1) I think it's really interesting that Palin has indicated that she and her family will be providing her daughter and her-presumably-soon-to-be son-in-law with support. And it's great that they are both willing and able to do so. I wonder if Palin and her family are against providing support for girls in similar situations who do not have such a supportive family? Because when that support is organized and universal....it's called welfare. If you're truly pro-life, put your god dammed money where your mouth is. Quit bitching about welfare queens. Quit telling lies about how all the welfare mothers are "living large" while all the responsible people have to work to pay for their ignorant and immoral lifestyles.

And if that support is not organized and universal, why on earth should a ban on abortion be organized and universal? Again, put your money where your mouth is. It's somehow moral for you to force a woman to use her body to give life to a potential person, but immoral for someone to force you to give less than one cent out of each tax dollar you pay to the federal government for the TANF program? Why are your tax dollars private but every woman's body is public?

2) If Obama has a pregnant, unwed, teen-age daughter....there is no way he'd have the nomination. If somehow he managed to obtain the nomination, the Republicans would be all over him. "Look, there's the result of liberal values at work. Kids having kids. There's no way his daughter can support herself. If he wasn't rich his daughter would be sucking off the government teat. I wonder if she's going on Maury to find out who the baby's daddy is. " And so on.

Why the PUMAs need to grow up

2008-09-01T14:00:00.000-07:00

As a woman, I am flabbergasted by all of the media attention given to the PUMA group that supposedly supports Hillary Clinton. In all of their shrill vows to never support Obama (they promise to either stay home on Election Day or vote for McCain), you rarely hear any sort of coherent reasoning. I suppose that if this election is close, their refusal to support the won-100%-by-the-rules Democratic candidate may be responsible for a McCain win.

Of course, I wonder if they understand that not only would they be virtually guaranteeing complete takeover of the Supreme Court by the right-wing nutsos in this country, but they would be pretty much responsible for the deaths of additional American men and women in Iraq, plus where ever else McCain decides that we ought to invade. Let's see - he's already expressed quite belligerent rhetoric toward Iran and Russia. Oh yes, North Korea too.

In the ramblings of PUMAs, sometimes you hear the assertion that the way in which the Democratic party conducted the primary contests was unfair. Of course, there wasn't a murmur about it being unfair specifically toward Senator Clinton until after it was obvious to ummm....EVERYONE (excepting apparently the PUMAs) that she was not going to be able to catch up to Senator Obama's delegate leads. The fact is, both campaigns fully knew about and agreed to the rules beforehand. Senator Clinton is an experienced politician, but Senator Obama's campaign staff just schooled Senator Clinton's staff. Obama's campaign was smart and strategic, and was able to exploit the fact that Senator Clinton and her supporters felt her nomination was inevitable. Senator Clinton ignored caucus states. President Clinton's mouth could not be controlled. Senator Clinton's staff bickered with each other and they became more interested in their own careers than Senator Clinton's success. Her vote in support of the Iraq war didn't help. Neither did her insistence on siding with McCain on the gas tax holiday gimmick or her "tough-guy" stance on foreign policy.

I, too, think that the idea that New Hampshire and Iowa are somehow entitled to vote first is completely bunk. Some also think that caucuses are bunk, and would prefer only primaries. I actually agree with that too, mostly because bringing a 2-year old to a caucus on a weeknight is not particularly fun.

For the record, I also happen to think that the Electoral College is bunk. I think the 21-year-old drinking age law is bunk. I'm sure I could come up with plenty of laws/rules that are unfair. However, in a civil society, you cannot violate the law/rules without expecting some sort of consequence. Michigan and Florida violated the rules. There was a consequence imposed on them. (Well, sort of. Kind of more like when your parents ground you for a month and then let you out after two weeks.) In any event, the appropriate way to deal with these issues is to petition for change. Become a delegate. Push for change in the party platform. Do something relevant. Working to overturn Roe v. Wade or bomb Iran (which is exactly what you do when you vote for McCain) is not going to help.

Sometimes you hear the "but women deserve it" argument. AKA "but it's our time". First of all, women do NOT deserve it. Neither do men. Neither do blacks. The idea that some group in history deserves the presidency due to a history of oppression is stupid beyond belief.

Face it folks. There are EVIL men, EVIL women, EVIL minorities, EVIL homosexuals, etc. in this world. The merit of an individual does not follow from victimization of a group.

Gender or race or sexual orientation alone are not good reasons to vote for someone. I wouldn't vote for Elizabeth Dole. I wouldn't vote for Sarah Palin. I wouldn't vote for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. I'm not saying these are evil people by the way. Just that I do not consider them worthy of my vote.

But "Hillary should have been the VP." Um, no. Senator Clinton's insistence on continuing the primary fight to the very bitter end virtually ensured she could not be selected as the VP. In order to do well in the last few contests, Senator Clinton (and her campaign, and her husband) said some very nasty things about Obama. She ensured that Senator Obama would look like the world's biggest wuss if he picked her. She ensured that the campaign "story" would be all about her and the drama between her and Obama if she was picked.

If Obama loses in a close election this fall, and the blame is attributed to PUMAs, the Democrats will probably not win another election for a really, really long time. There will be too much bitterness and spite to coalesce the party again around one candidate. There will be too much talk of "oh, too many racists in the Democratic party" on one side. Too much talk about sexism on another side. The media will feed the frenzy every election, running around and asking if anyone is pissed off about anything.

Abstinence-only oopsie

2008-09-01T13:57:00.000-07:00

So Sarah Palin's 17-year old daughter, a senior in high school, is apparently 5-months pregnant. Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only education. Let's hope for her soon-to-be grandchild's sake that anything she taught her kids about child-rearing sticks better than the "don't have sex until you're married" message did.

Palin WTF?

2008-08-29T14:09:00.000-07:00

Seriously....this person has been governor, for less than two years, of a state with a smaller population than the Twin Cities metro area. Prior to that, she was mayor of a town with a population less than 7,000 people. The Alaskan legislature meets for 90 days a year. And McCain is 72. And McCain talks about how important experience is.

I honestly don't get it. I mean, I know she has breasts and ovaries....but the Hillary supporters that are going to vote against Obama on "principle" were going to do so anyway. They didn't need to be led away on an estrogen trail.

And lucky us. From what I've read, she's often compared to Minnesota's own Michele Bachmann. Great. Apparently Palin would like creationism taught in science classes. The Republican party platform in Alaska indicates that "if evolution is taught, it should be presented as a theory." Note they say IF evolution is taught. Nutty.

Once Upon a Time, there was a maverick named McCain

2008-08-29T08:06:00.000-07:00

The 2000 Presidential election was the first one that I had the opportunity to vote in. I knew that I was a practical progressive, but I wasn't exactly sure what that meant in terms of who I would be voting for.

My husband and I attended the Minnesota Green Party state convention. That was an absolute disaster. As much as I rail about the Democratic Party being fractured and unorganized, the Greens are much, much worse. While I don't wish to dismiss the hard work and dedication of the convention organizers, the event itself was a sad joke. Random, unrelated groups of people ran about, handing out fliers and shouting for freeing various prisoners, legalizing marijuana, banning plastics, etc. No one was running for Attorney General, so the organizers got on stage and begged for any random person to offer to run. Instead of voting to back Paul Wellstone, the Green Party voted to endorse a guy who's only coherent campaign promise was to "make half the Senate woman [sic]." I'm not sure how he intended to do that....and not sure if forced sex-change surgery or a Constitutional amendment would be the scarier prospect. My husband and I left the convention at that point.

Point being....I was disillusioned with the Green Party. I had started looking at the Greens because I was also unimpressed by the Democratic Party. Al Gore was about as exciting to me as Wonder Bread. Smushy, white, nothing surprising. While he wasn't particularly offensive to me, he didn't give me a whole lot to vote for.

I watched the Republican primary contest with interest. Now, I was pretty certain that I would be unlikely to vote Republican in the general contest. Most of the candidates stood for the standard Republican platform of:

socializing business costs,
privatizing business profits,
inciting class warfare between the middle class and the poor in order to distract them while the rich take and eat the whole pie,
promoting irresponsible military aggression, and
prying into the private religious, sexual, and familial lives of the public.

But one of them....well, he seemed different. No, he wasn't a progressive. But he seemed to have some principled stands of his own. I didn't necessarily agree with all of his stands, but he seemed so firm in his convictions that he was attractive. He was McCain.

Back in 2000, McCain focused on:

campaign finance reform,
getting the Religious Right and their narrow litmus tests out of politics,
refusing to attempt an overturn of Roe v. Wade,
allocating the budget surplus to shore up Medicare and Medicaid, and
moderate tax cuts that were not skewed almost entirely to the wealthy.

Of course, in typical Republican fashion, McCain was skewered for these stands. His war record, which is now unquestionable, was smeared. The drug addiction of his wife, which is now off-limits, was fair game. Questions of his temper and mental health, again, now off-limits for some reason, were raised. And even though there supposedly is no such thing as racism (or so the Republicans would have us believe), push polling was done, implying that McCain had a mixed race child out of wedlock.

If McCain had won the Republican primary, I would have had a tough decision to make in the general election. I didn't agree with McCain on everything, but I also didn't agree with Gore on everything. Nader was interesting but my experience with the Minnesota Green Party left me leery.

Alas, the McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the McCain of 2008. After all, he's your typical Republican. Tax cuts for the rich, subsidies for multi-national corporations, war without end, fear without end, you name it, McCain is for it now. I guess all fairy tales must eventually end.

Abortion - We might as well talk about it

2008-08-28T20:01:00.000-07:00

My guess is that this is not going to be the only post about abortion on this blog. The issue is complex and divisive.

While there should be no need for me to say this, let me just offer up some personal information. I have never had an abortion. It is very unlikely that I would ever choose to do so. I, personally, do not feel that abortion is a choice I would make for myself in any circumstance I think it is likely I may find myself in. I have one son, and I am currently eight months pregnant with my second child. None of this is really anyone's business but mine (and my family) but I'm trying to avoid turning this discussion into a question of my personal choices by laying out the information up front.

Now that we have that out of the way....

I am pro-choice. Although the right may like to say this means I am pro-abortion, that is not true. I think that generally speaking, the fewer abortions there are, the better off we are as a country. I also personally think that the fewer unplanned pregnancies there are, especially as the result of sexual encounters between couples that are not strongly committed to one another, the better off we are as a country. I also think that my personal beliefs about "what is best" do not trump the law.

Anti-abortion activists say that abortion is murder, and therefore, it is appropriate for the state to outlaw abortion. I find that argument severely lacking in a legal sense.

Judith Jarvis Thomson offers an analogy in her 1971 writing "A Defense of Abortion." A variation of her argument would be this.

Suppose one night, Mary gets very, very drunk. She does many stupid things that night and makes many bad choices. Eventually, she passes out. She awakes to find herself in a hospital, hooked up to another person by various machines. She asks what has happened.

The hospital personnel inform her "Well, you made bad choices last night. Just before you passed out, you came up to this floor of the hospital, and entered the life support wing. We clearly labeled this wing, and provide multiple verbal and written warnings that if you choose to enter this wing, and you happen to have the ability to provide life support to someone in need, we will restrain you and hook you up to provide life support to another person. You had sufficient warning, but you made a bad choice anyway. "

"So now, you will need to stay here for the next 9 months. Your blood, ingested nutrients, etc, will be used for the benefit of this other human who will die without the life support your body can provide. While the risks are relatively low, it is possible that your life and health could be compromised by this. You almost certainly will suffer financial losses as a result. Your family and friends will know about your poor choices. Tough."

This analogy is similar to pregnancy in many ways. Yes, it is true - one would hope that by this day and age, the majority of women understand that sex carries a risk of pregnancy. And yet, some women make the abysmally stupid choice of having sex (or worse, unprotected sex) when they have no desire to have children.

However, there is a difference between killing someone, and refusing to support their life with the resources of your own body. If I walk outside and stab someone to death, I have murdered them. I actively stolen their life.

If I walk outside, and encounter someone that desperately needs a kidney just like mine in order to live, and I refuse to donate one of my kidneys, I have not murdered anyone. I have stolen nothing from no one. At worst, I have declined to use my body to support the life of another. And no one would suggest I have a legal obligation to do so.

In the case of a pregnancy, the legal obligation is even less. Pre-viability, there is no independent life to steal or deny. No one can guarantee that at the end of any particular pregnancy, the end result will be new life. Any woman who has experienced a pregnancy, and worried over every odd twinge, or blood spot, or odd feeling, knows just how uncertain life is. Approximately 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and other pregnancies may result in a stillbirth. If there is no legal obligation to provide the use of your body to another person to ensure they live, how can there be a legal obligation to use your body to provide the potential for life to what may, one day, possibly be another person?

The question becomes more complicated after the point of viability. I think that the basic framework that allows abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimesters, and places severe restrictions on abortion in the 3rd trimester is a very practical approach to this issue. Post-viability, the state has two lives to balance against one another. The woman has had 6 months to act to preserve her bodily integrity.

One reason why "Grab your crotch and grunt" is a crappy foreign policy

2008-08-28T19:55:00.000-07:00

This is a short post - but perhaps it will provide some food for thought.

In Bush's 2002 State of the Union address, he named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the "axis of evil."

In 2003, the Bush administration began the invasion of Iraq.

North Korea and Iran subsequently began the aggressive pursuit of nuclear programs.

Coincidence - I think not.

Celebrity, or why the GOP is so darn jealous

2008-08-28T19:37:00.000-07:00

The GOP strategy seems to be: If you can't beat them, mock them. Take the examples of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections. Bush cannot speak coherently (much less in a manner that inspires) to save his life. His public speaking skills seem to have stopped somewhere around perhaps the 7th grade-level. So, instead of demanding better from their candidate, the GOP mocked Gore and Kerry. Speaking intelligently is "elitist."

The same thing is happening in this election. Obama has inspired so many to become involved in the political process. On caucus night here in Minnesota, my husband and I marveled at the crowds of people standing in long lines, waiting for the opportunity to vote. Obama draws in enormous crowds, and is very inspiring.

McCain, on the other hand, inspires...um....no one. Why? It could be that those who were impressed by his maverick status are distressed by how he sold-out after getting trashed by Bush 8 years ago. It could be that the Religious Right is distressed by the fact that 8 years ago, he opposed overturning Roe v. Wade, and he said that Falwell and Robertson were "agents of intolerance," and now the Religious Right is uncertain as to whether they can trust McCain to do their bidding.

It could be because he's old. McCain turns 72 tomorrow. Average life expectancy for white men in this country is 75 years old. No one would be terribly surprised if he keeled over tomorrow, perhaps from a heart attack or stroke, or any of the other maladies that frequently strike the elderly suddenly. The right may not like to hear it, but the fact is, McCain is old. Really old.

Whatever the reason, the fact is that McCain can't draw the kind of crowds that Obama can and does, over and over again. McCain is just not as popular. So, the answer from the GOP is to mock Obama as a celebrity. Perhaps what they do not realize is that they are only preaching to their narrow choir. A tendency to mock others is not an attractive trait. It's juvenile. And someone who is 72 ought to have learned better by now.

Introduction

2008-08-28T19:25:00.000-07:00

I am a practical, progressive, Minnesotan woman. I am a wife and mother of one (soon to be two). I work hard, as does my husband, and we are fortunate enough to live a middle-class lifestyle in a relatively safe and clean neighborhood.

Over the last 10 years, I have watched this country fall prey to the likes of Gingrich, Rove, Bush, and Cheney. I've watched them manipulate the electorate, convincing people to vote against their own economic self-interests, using lame and false Ayn Rand-like rhetoric. I've watched the Democratic party run hither and yon, afraid to tell the truth about the Republican party, for fear that someone will criticize them. And I just can't stand it anymore.

I will be sharing my thoughts on a number of issues. Many of them will be national, but some may be focused on Minnesota. In this blog, I intend to explain why I am a practical progressive, and why I feel the way I do about the issues that impact my state, my nation, and my world.

I welcome discussion in the comments section of this blog. However, please note: this is not Fox News. I don't want to hear any religious ranting. I don't want to hear "But Bill O'Reilly said...." I don't want to hear "black people are all gang-bangers." I hear enough of that nonsense. Therefore, I reserve the right to delete any comments as I see fit. I will not be deleting all comments that show disagreement with my positions, but I will delete ranting, racist, and other offensive contents. I also will delete spam.