Republican Terrorists

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stimulus - The difference between tax cuts and government spending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carly Fiorina - Looter Baroness defends the Barons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Times is Hard

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

How much rejection can Coleman take?

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

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

When is a job not a job?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Daschle Debacle - a good thing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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