Friday, November 12, 2010

Oh Jeeze....

This guy wants to chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee:
First, he noted God's post-Flood promise to Noah in Genesis 8:21-22.

"Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done.

"As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease."

"I believe that's the infallible word of God, and that's the way it's going to be for his creation," Shimkus said.

Then he quoted Matthew 24:31.

"And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other."

"The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood," Shimkus asserted. "I do believe that God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect."

Dear, Sweet Jesus....

Are My Missing Something?

This is really concerning. I'm wondering if I'm missing something?
If you really get into the guts of the Simpson-Bowles deficit plan, what you'll find are a lot of caps. Most of the early savings come from a cap on discretionary spending that "rolls discretionary spending back to FY2010 levels for FY2012, requires [a] 1% cut in discretionary budget authority every year from FY2013 though 2015" and then indexes discretionary spending growth to inflation from 2015 to 2020. They've got some "recommendations on how to apply the caps," which mostly apply to congressional procedure, and they offer ideas for where the discretionary cuts might come from, but those are just "illustrative." The plan is the cap, and however you hit the cap, it nets you $1.46 trillion by 2020.

This makes even less sense.
There's also a cap on taxes. That's a bit odd, as there's no real reason a commission dedicated to reducing the budget deficit should be limiting the revenues we can bring in to reduce that deficit, but it's there nonetheless. The cap is 21 percent of GDP, which is a bit above the 19 percent of GDP that's been the historical average, and the 18.5 percent of GDP that was the case in 2007. Again, they don't say how exactly we should hit that level, but they offer some options, and note that if we get there, it'll net us $751 billion by 2020.

And that's most of the plan. It's also the best way to think about the plan. Even if Congress did seriously consider this proposal, the details would never make it through the legislative process intact. The commission doesn't pretend otherwise, offering "illustrative" specifics rather than throwing its weight behind detailed plans. What they've largely outlined are the spending and revenue targets they think we'll need over the next few decades, and the areas we need to consider if we're to hit them. In their telling, that means more revenues and fewer tax expenditures (like the mortgage-interest deduction), less discretionary spending in both the defense and non-defense sectors, some reforms to Social Security and, over the long-term, substantially slower growth in the health-care sector.

So wait. Nothing's spelled out. Nothing's going to make it through as is. And wait up, it curbs Social Security, doesn't have a carbon tax, and has cuts to defense spending. Seems a little worrying.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Welcome Back To Our Map

I was just reading about how Pat Toomey didn't beat Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia turnout did. I hadn't really gone into how Democratic turnout returning to normal or worse hurt Democrats, because I had been looking at how good Republican turnout was. As I read it, it dawned on me, maybe this isn't the generational shock we think. Maybe it was just a loss, and that's it.

Why does this matter? I mean, 60 plus seats are 60 plus seats. An apple's an apple. Well, there's two ways to view this. Either you believe the 2010 mid-terms are a generational move, where the nation returned to the right-of-center politics of Reagan, and now will draw a GOP friendly map that holds for at least a decade, ushering in the end of Obama, or you believe that in two years the Democrats will win the Presidency, gain seats, and usher out the Reagan era for good, with re-districting being a side note since most of the new seats will be in places young people and Latinos live, not the old angry types. The answer you choose of these two takes us a long way towards where we're going.

The answer will play out immediately too. All told, 63 Republican House members live in seats that President Obama carried in 2008. A solid 13 are in Kerry seats from 2004. The Democrats need just 21 seats in 2012 to re-take the House, and no winning party (the party that netted more new seats) has failed to win that many new seats since 2004. A whopping 75% of "McCain Democratic" seats (Democrats in a McCain district) fell in 2010, so if that holds up for President Obama, in the event he wins again, the House is back blue, with room to spare. The list of Republicans in these seats are:
California's 3rd
California's 24th
California's 25th
California's 26th
California's 44th
California's 45th
California's 48th
California's 50th
Florida's 8th
Florida's 10th
Florida's 18th
Florida's 22nd*
Illinois' 6th
Illinois' 8th (race not called but GOP candidate leads)
Illinois' 10th*
Illinois' 11th
Illinois' 13th
Illinois' 14th
Illinois' 16th
Illinois' 17th*
Illinois' 18th
Iowa's 4th
Kansas' 3rd
Michigan's 1st
Michigan's 4th
Michigan's 6th
Michigan's 7th
Michigan's 8th
Michigan's 11th
Minnesota's 3rd
Minnesota's 8th*
Nebraska's 2nd
Nevada's 3rd
New Hampshire's 1st
New Hampshire's 2nd*
New Jersey's 2nd
New Jersey's 3rd
New Jersey's 7th
New York's 1st (race not called but GOP candidate leads)
New York's 19th
New York's 20th
New York's 23rd (race not called but GOP candidate leads)
New York's 24th
North Carolina's 2nd
Ohio's 1st
Ohio's 12th
Ohio's 15th*
Pennsylvania's 6th*
Pennsylvania's 7th*
Pennsylvania's 8th*
Pennsylvania's 11th*
Pennsylvania's 15th*
Texas' 23rd
Texas' 27th (race not called by GOP candidate leads)
Virginia's 2nd
Virginia's 4th
Virginia's 10th
Washington's 3rd
Washington's 8th*
Wisconsin's 1st
Wisconsin's 6th
Wisconsin's 7th*
Wisconsin's 8th

So can they do it? Well, if the GOP listens to it's base, I think yes. The GOP has a field full of nutjobs, has-beens, and never will-bes so far running for President, and little exciting to offer. IF the President plays his cards right, takes a page from the Clinton 1995 playbook, and plays right, yes.

Blame Lieberman?

Since he's not likely to run as a Democrat, if he runs in 2012 for re-election, I'm totally fine with us pointing at Joe Lieberman and blaming him for a part in this year's defeat. Ezra Klein just does that, albeit I'm going to have to caveat my support for his statement after the jump.
Late in the negotiations over the public option, a group of five conservative Democrats and five more-liberal Democrats seemed near to an unexpectedly smart compromise: Allow adults over 55 to buy into Medicare. This idea had a couple of different virtues: For one, it opened an effective and cheap program up to a group of Americans who often have the most trouble finding affordable insurance. For another, the Congressional Budget Office has said this policy would improve Medicare's finances by bringing healthier, younger applicants into the risk pool. Oh, and it's wildly popular with liberals, who want to see Medicare offered as an option to more people, and since Medicare is already up and running, it could've been implemented rapidly.

But Lieberman killed it. It was never really clear why. He'd been invited to the meetings where the compromise was developed, but he'd skipped them. He'd supported the idea when he ran for president with Al Gore, and he'd reaffirmed that support three months prior to its emergence in the health-care debate during an interview with the editorial board of the Connecticut Post. But now that it was on the table, he seemed to be groping for reasons to oppose it. About the best he managed was that it was "duplicative," which was about as nonsensical a position as could be imagined. Nevertheless, he swore to filibuster the bill if the buy-in option was added. The proposal was duly removed.

It's easy to say that this made for worse policy. Medicare buy-in was a smart, helpful idea that should've been included in the legislation. It's harder to say whether it had a defined political cost in the election: Liberals would've been a lot happier if they'd managed to add this to the law, and maybe more of them would've turned out to vote. Seniors might've been pleased to see Medicare's finances improved, and many of the people who would've been helped by the new rule would've been, well, their children. The law could've begun delivering benefits earlier, and maybe that would've helped its popularity. Polls of doctors and the public have repeatedly shown broad support for making Medicare available to more Americans.

I couldn't agree more. Lieberman is an egomaniacal hypocrite, and an embarrassment to the great people of Connecticut, who should be used to good representation in Congress by now. They should kick this bum out, ASAP. Let's not try to re-write history though. Back in 2008, Lieberman backed John McCain for President. Rather than kick him to the curb, Democrats welcomed him back with open arms, all in the name of bi-partisanship/kumbaya/whatever other crap they cited. They should have stripped him of his chairmanship and kicked him to the curb. Back during the health care debate,  President Obama chose to empower the moderates in the Senate, letting Max Baucus convene his "gang of 6" to come to a compromise, empowering all the Lieberman-ish forces in that chamber to slow this down, and ultimately allowing the August 2009 rush of crazies at town halls, which watered this down. My point is, it's fun to blame Lieberman, and right, but let's not pretend we didn't mess this up along the way.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

In Case You Missed It...

Major League Baseball's free agency period is under way, and a really good list of available players is here. Watch not only the big names, but some of the interesting role players and guys looking for one more contract on this list. That's where some of the biggest steals every year happen.

Some More Notes On The Deficit Commission

"PostPartisan" blog from the Washington Post says the President is basically punting on today's deficit commission report from the co-chairs. They basically make the point that he didn't come out and endorse it in part or full, and kind of pushed off taking a side, which was effectively a slap at it.

The same blog later notes that the recommendations aren't really radical or bold, despite Beltway talk to the opposite. I think they are overwhelmingly right in this sense, and perhaps they are being more ambitious than anyone in Washington wants to be.

While I'm not a big fan of curbing benefits or raising the retirement age for Social Security, I generally agree with them that it's a debate worth having. The fact is, people live longer than they did at the time we set 65 as the age for Social Security, and more private retirement accounts exist now than at the program's outset. Hence, it's at least worth exploring whether or not most seniors need it as primary income, and if 65 is really the age where we want to stop most people from working. When life expectancy is for 20-25 more years after that, as opposed to 5, it's hard to say we've got it exactly right. With that said, we should first be exploring what taking off the cap on payroll taxes for Social Security (after roughly $107,000 of income you pay no more taxes into the program) would do for the program's solvency, and see what other changes we can put into law to help the program's revenue issues in the future.

:( She Won't Be In Leadership

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) will not be in Republican Leadership for the next Congress. You don't know how disappointed I am. Congresswoman Bachmann is certifiably nuts. She's got the uncensored stream of words coming from her mouth, and she would have made Congress more fun next term. With that said, she's still a leader in the Tea Party Caucus, and she'll find her way in front of microphones, so I can deal with it.

"Ryno" In Allentown?

The Phillies website says the Phillies may have an interest in hiring Ryne Sandberg to be the new manager of the Lehigh Valley Ironpigs, bringing the Hall of Famer to Allentown for the 2011 season. This would be a welcome jolt of good energy after a horrible season for the Pigs, and would help to keep interest in the club high in the Lehigh Valley. At the same time, I'm not going to get too worked up about a manager right now, as this doesn't mean the product on the field is going to be real good yet. Even so, hire him! He had the Iowa Cubs 20 games over .500 this season.

A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words....

More On This Later, But Bush's Book Is About To Come Out

So This Is What Deficit Relief Looks Like?

Well, Ezra Klein is not impressed. Not at all. And he's probably right not to be, as he's probably right that it's not going to become law "as is." The fact is though, today was the day that Senator Simpson and Erskin Bowles presented the first real deficit reduction plan this country has had since the days of William Jefferson Clinton's budgets. Unfortunately, Klein correctly points out that it won't get too far.

It's worth taking a moment to consider how we got here: The fiscal commission we have is not the fiscal commission we were supposed to have. The fiscal commission we were supposed to have was the brainchild of Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, the two senior members of the Senate Budget Committee. "The inability of the regular legislative process to meaningfully act on [the deficit] couldn't be clearer," they wrote. Their proposal would have set up a commission dominated by members of Congress and able to fast-track its consensus recommendations through the congressional process -- no delays, no amendments. But that proposal was filibustered in the Senate, mainly by Republicans who worried it would end in tax increases.

So the president stepped in and created a fiscal commission of his own. Like the Conrad-Gregg commission, it had 18 members, though fewer of them were members of Congress. Like the Conrad-Gregg commission, it would need 14 of its 18 participants to agree to report out its recommendations. But unlike the Conrad-Gregg commission, it had no actual power in Congress. If 14 members agreed on the recommendations, all that meant was that ... 14 members agreed on the recommendations. They could still be filibustered, amended -- whatever. The political logic of this seemed rather peculiar: If the fiscal commission itself could not pass Congress, how would the recommendations from an executive-branch fiscal commission pass Congress? The recommendations, after all, are where the hard stuff is.

Increasingly, the concern looks to be moot: The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will not get agreement from 14 of its members. It might not even get a majority. Today's release, unexpectedly, is a draft proposal from the co-chairs, and that might be as close as the commission comes to a comprehensive product. "This is not a proposal I could support," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, one of the members. Rep. Jeb Hensarling, another participant, was less definitive, but nowhere near supportive. "Some of it I like," he said. "Some of it disturbs me. And some of it I've got to study." The full commission is expected to debate the proposal over the next week.

So this is basically hopeless. Or is it? While it is difficult to see Congress voting both to curb Social Security benefits and raise taxes in one foul swoop, the GOP won at least in part by stoking fears about the future deficits. So how could they not act now? Especially while they argue for continued tax cuts for millionaires, a total budget buster.

So what's actually in this report anyway? Well, glad you asked:
The document makes five basic recommendations: First, to "enact tough discretionary spending caps" and find $200 billion in savings by 2015. Second: tax reform "that dramatically reduces rates, simplifies the code, broadens the base and reduces the deficit." The third step addresses reforms of the health system. Fourth: mandatory savings from farm subsidies and civilian and military retirement costs. And fifth: reforms to Social Security to ensure its solvency "while reducing poverty among seniors."

The chairmen say these steps could reduce the deficit to 2.2% of gross domestic product by 2015, and achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction by 2020.

There's several important factors to remember here. First off, defense spending is not exempted from cuts and curbs here. Second, Social Security is impacted, both in benefit reductions and taking caps off of the payroll taxes. Third, there's no stomach for more Health Care reform, my guess being even on the right. All of these make me think it's not going to happen. The other part of me says this is quite the "wedge issue" for President Obama to exploit. I mean, how can he not attempt to address deficits after the GOP played with the issue, despite a bad record on it. He could use the bully-pulpit to beat on them for doing damage and not working with him, and he'd be spot on. I guess we'll see, but I'm hopeful that something will happen here.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

A Mystery Missile Launches Off The California Coast

So there's apparently some random missile that got shot off the coast of California. No one knows who shot it or why yet. It could have been the U.S. Navy, at least that's the speculation, but nobody really knows. It's rare that something like this would happen in the open, where the public could see it (off the coast of LA is pretty public). Hopefully we'll hear more answers soon.

Dina Lohan Admitting That Lindsay Is An Addict Is News How?

Just check this out for a minute:
(PEOPLE) -- After years of downplaying Lindsay Lohan's struggles with substance abuse, Dina Lohan admitted Monday that her daughter is an addict.
In an interview with "Today's" Matt Lauer, Dina described her famous daughter, who is being treated at the Betty Ford Center in California, as "happy [and] relaxed."
"She's just a different person," Dina said. "She's been in a couple facilities, but this one to me has really changed her."
Dina had previously defended Lindsay on the "Today" show, instead placing blame on the judge in her case.
When asked on Monday by Lauer why she was unwilling to admit Lindsay had a problem in the past, Dina said, "That was for Lindsay to admit. As a mother it wasn't for me to come to tell the world ... about her problem."
"That was for her to do," she said. "I wasn't in denial."



Wow. So much to write about here. First off, Matt Lauer! In one week's time, he's gotten George W. Bush and Lindsanity! Second off, really Dina? Third off, the author of this site thinks Lindsay Lohan is the greatest, so no criticizing her here!

:-(

I was really hoping he'd at least finish the year, so the Cowboys would remain this bad. Oh well, at least the Cowboys were dumb enough to put Jerry Jones handpicked guy in. This is what happens when your owner gets too involved.

Did The Yankees Really Just Allow Derek Jeter To Be A Free Agent

I keep telling myself this is a non-story, and it probably is. Yeah sure, Derek Jeter is a free agent, but he's not going anywhere else, right? There's no way he can leave the Yankees a good season away from 3,000 hits, and there's no real way they can not sign him back to do that. So there's no story here, right?

Well, here's the story I see: Him, Mariano Rivera, and Andy Pettitte, three of the cornerstones of the 2009 World Champions, and three legends (with five rings a pop), all reached Free Agency. This makes zero sense, and it looks disrespectful. Maybe they are a lot closer than we all think, but even so, this seems almost like a sin. I guess we'll see how things go.

My 5 Biggest Disappointments In 2010





When your party loses 60 seats in Congress, there's lots to be disappointed in. You can be disappointed in all of the losses, but some will stand out. There are some so bad, that you stand there and wonder who in the world voted for them. I've picked out five that I find to be the most awful of them all. Feel free to disagree.

#1- Lou Barletta over Paul Kanjorski-
Yeah sure, it was close in 2008, so this wasn't a shock. What's that say for it though? Barletta, a mayor known best for his nativist, racist rhetoric against Latinos, is now a Congressman-elect, on his third try for the office. What'd he do to get promoted? Frankly, nothing. His city, Hazleton, where he has been Mayor since 1999's election, has the highest unemployment in the state, an achievement in a state suffering from the recession, and a true credit to how bad he has done (lots of mayors are suffering right now, but that he tops them all after 12 years tells the story). He's raided his pension fund, and even has floated selling his Water Authority. He's been a real failure as Mayor (despite his support locally), so it's shocking he got promoted to Congress. After all Kanjorski did for that region (and Hazleton), it's a shame.
#2- Jon Runyan got elected to Congress-
Just the fact that a guy who never seemed all that bright amongst football players got elected to Congress, convinces me that we're a half step from electing someone from "Jersey Shore" to high office in this country. Yes I know the Eagles are a religion in South Jersey, but did anyone really pay attention to what this guy was saying? I think not, and that's half the problem.
#3- Florida Elected A Criminal Governor-
Rick Scott's health care companies admitted to huge Medicare fraud. Somehow, only his companies paid fines, but he as CEO faced no consequences. So no jail time for Rick, but something else was coming his way. He's the Governor of Florida. Scott got elected despite having admitted essentially that he defrauded the government for Medicare money. Sound like a Governor? No. Not to me either.
#4- Chet Edwards Lost-
Texas Congressman Chet Edwards, who had survived Tom DeLay's efforts to topple him with the extra re-districting, finally lost in 2010. A military man and moderate, it seemed like he might last forever in Texas politics, a young enough man yet to have a future of moving up. Not now. He's unemployed.
#5- Patrick Murphy Lost His Re-Match-
In 2006, Congressman Patrick Murphy became the first Iraq War vet to be elected to Congress. He's now the latest guy out the door. Considered a rising star, Murphy's race really went sour in the fall, and there was just no turning it around. He seemed to fit this district perfectly, but in fact, he apparently didn't.

Monday, November 8, 2010

Obama Backs India Receiving A Seat On The UN Security Council

President Obama explicitly backed India becoming the sixth permanent member of the UN Security Council today. Before we all get too excited that something happened here, let's remember he's not the only say, and China may or may not agree. Same for the other permanent members. So this is an important step.

The Security Council seems like such a broken institution. The permanent members literally pick and choose which wars are ok. The permanent members are all set based on World War II. I'm not claiming expertise here, just saying this whole thing seems off.

What We Read This Weekend

Well, it's Monday, and we're busy catching up from the weekend. Here's what we were reading:

-Ah, the internet era and our overly prudish society. Apparently, Facebook and Google are already causing issues for politicians in 2010. Shouldn't we not really care about this? I'm willing to bet that most people who actually can go on Facebook have been drunk at a party before. In fact, I'm willing to bet they've been photographed doing something distasteful and drunk at a party before. Do you know what the instances of Congressman Schock and candidate Krystal Ball tell me? They probably would have partied at the same types of places as I did if we had crossed paths, and that goes a long way towards telling me they are normal people. Why is this bad?

-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs jacked up the Indian Security at the President's meeting with their Prime Minister for trying to stop our press from going in. I must say, good. Now jack up their government for providing cheap labor for our companies who leave us.

Matt Taibbi jacks up the "popular notion" that the Democrats lost for catering to their base too much. To quote the man, in his quoting of David Sirota:
For example, I could have told you that a washed-up has-been like Evan Bayh would publish a New York Times op-ed insisting that Democrats "were too deferential to our most zealous supporters" (read: liberals) even after the Democratic Party crushed a public option, watered down Wall Street "reform," extended Bush-era civil liberties atrocities, escalated the Afghanistan War, further ballooned the defense budget and began moving to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Likewise, I could have told you that those careerists in D.C. who make their livelihood off this kind of pablum would publish a "strategy memo" in something self-importantly called "The Democratic Strategist." And I could have told you that this "strategy memo" would defend the bash-the-liberals meme with bromides about how "all of the major perspectives within the Democratic Party have a legitimate place and role in today's Democratic coalition" and about how "the present moment categorically demands a basic level of Democratic unity from every element of the coalition" (read: liberals shouldn't criticize the corporatists who destroyed the Democratic Party -- and the country).

I could have told you all of this because, as I said, it's pre-programmed. It's not spontaneous. It's not reacting to any reality out here in the real world. It's not responding to a changing country. It's pre-written, pre-conceived, pre-packaged feces sprayed at us in liquid form, all to justify a continuation of how it's always been -- and, frankly, how it probably will always be.
Amen brother. I'm tired of this narrative that "the radicals" run our party. Really, because what have they won on? Hell, what has the mainstream left won on? This President is the most successful legislative President in a generation plus, and he still had to sacrafice nearly all of his leftward movement. Another thing here too, via Bill Maher, stop equating our radicals with their's. Keith Olbermann is not Glenn Beck, he does not, even with Bush in office, speak of the President as an illegal alien, or spew any of the other rhetoric from Beck. MoveOn is not the Tea Party, in that there was no call for "second amendment remedies" from MoveOn, nor was the party quick to co-opt them. Frankly, even the Hitler name-calling, on their side the Tea Party does this, and gets visits from Congressional leaders. Enough left-hating here.

-Want a job now? Well, the foreclosure market is booming, and banks are hiring thousands of workers to process the foreclosure proceedings, all for $10-12 an hour. Sounds like a McDonalds to be frank.

-How broken is our tax code? Well Truthout dives into this debate some more. Warren Buffett says he pays too little. Check this passage out though to tell you what you need to know:
The major vehicle is George W. Bush’s 15 percent levy on long-term capital gains - the lowest since FDR’s first term - and on corporate dividends. The top 1 percent of US households owns nearly 40 percent of all privately held stock, from which the dividends flow. Similarly, the super-rich get more than half their income from capital gains, as documented by tax expert David Cay Johnston in his book “Perfectly Legal.” In the meantime, for the working middle-class, the tax rate on wages is 25 percent.
Taxing income from wealth at little more than half the rate of income from work: it’s the perfect recipe to make sure that Warren Buffett (and all the Buffett wannabes) pay effective tax rates far below what their incomes suggest.
  
Wow. And it gets better:
The tax code sets marginal rates too, and these were gutted by President Reagan in 1981 and again in 1986. He slashed the top rate from 70 to 28 percent, and made the code even less progressive by cutting the number of brackets from 15 to four. The yearning for tax simplification (fewer brackets) trumped the case for progressivity (more brackets).
There are six today, with the top four taxed at 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent - a narrow spread, easily offset by provisions like the capital gains rate. The top rate kicks in at about $400,000 of taxable income, a practice Johnston told Truthout he finds “bizarre.” It’s a long way, he argued in a recent email, from $400,000 to $1 million, $5 million, $100 million and hedge-fund billions: “Why don’t we have higher rates for those incomes?” he asked.
Yeah, if you think you're "Taxed Enough Already," HERE is why.

-ThinkProgress brings up the scary point that the GOP Congress, lead by Labor Committee Chairman John Kline and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, may in fact take the hatchet to PELL GRANTS. Yup, there are consequences to the temper-tantrum we just had in 2010. While we are likely to face a shortage of college educated labor in coming decades, the new House leadership is going to make sure we do nothing about that.

The Atlantic looks into the possibility that the GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling. Only in America folks, and I don't put that in a good light. "American Exceptionalism" could be replaced with "third world status" quickly.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Saturday Humor:







Let's Get This Straight: They Can Spend Whatever They Want, He's Not Allowed, And You Can't

About one-in-four (25%) Americans know about the anonymous spending that went on in the 2010 elections. In other words, most people either don't know (or more likely don't care) about the "Citizens United"  ruling that allowed corporations to spend whatever they want to influence elections. It looks like a considerably higher amount may hear about Keith Olbermann being suspended indefinitely for contributing to Democrats. There will be much debate about journalism ethics, although the reality is that Olbermann is not a reporter, he's a partisan, much like Glenn Beck (although way less crazy). I guess it's ok for the Chamber of Commerce to spend millions, but it's not ok for Olbermann to donate thousands.

The real sad reality here? Most of you reading this can't write a check for several hundred dollars, let alone thousands. Who's this system stacked towards again?

Friday, November 5, 2010

Oh, Now We're Seeing Jobs...

Great. Now that we're three days after the election, we get a jobs report that is good. We added 151,000 jobs in October. Great. Now we're seeing good stuff.

So basically, we're going to see the economy begin to come back because of the work of the last two years by the DEMOCRATIC Administration and Congress, but the GOP House (who is going to spend the next two years trying to repeal Health Care Reform) will get the credit, hold the House for a few terms, and then lead us to another crash in about ten years. Beautiful.

Should Nancy Pelosi Run For Minority Leader?

Nancy Pelosi was the most effective Speaker of the House in at least a generation. She passed a national Health Care Reform law. She passed the Stimulus. She passed "Cap and Trade." She passed the Lilly Ledbetter act. I could go on and on. She was pretty damn good. In fact, she was pretty much unbeatable.

Now she's mulling over whether or not to run for Minority Leader. A two term former Minority Leader (and a former Minority Whip), and a two term Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has done everything you can do in the House of Representatives. At 70 years old, one must wonder why she's considering this? After the abuse she's taken from the right, the achievements she's done for the left, and the lack of appreciation she's received from everyone on all angles, what's the upside for her?

Either way, my main question is whether or not what she's thinking about will help the party? I do not think the GOP will work with her as Minority Leader at all, but I also don't think they will work with anyone else. I guess the real bottom line question is, will Pelosi as Minority Leader be able to take the fight to the GOP House Majority in the media? I think she is tough enough, but she will need to work on her image a bit.

Senator Bernie Sanders Take On Reality

I just wanted to share a part of this letter from Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), an actual "Socialist" Senator from Vermont, on where we should go now after the 2010 Elections. While Sanders goes further than I would on some stuff, he seems to have a grasp on what's going to happen now.
Republican senators and members of Congress who are conservatives today will become even more conservative, by far. They will all be looking over their shoulders at potential Tea Party challenges in the 2012 elections. The belief that government can meet the needs of ordinary Americans - for secure retirements, for oversight that makes food and drugs safe, for regulation that reins in the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street - will be undermined by a harsh and dishonest campaign to portray government as the "enemy" of Americans.

Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that allowed huge amounts of corporate money to secretly fund advertisements in the recent election, will likely be supported by every single Republican. Many will seek to demonize immigrants, gays, and minorities. They will seek to greatly circumscribe a woman's right to choose. And on and on it will go.

In short, at the very moment when the United States faces huge challenges, the Republicans in Congress will follow the agenda announced by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell: Make sure President Obama cannot be re-elected. Rather than trying to address our severe economic problems - high unemployment rates, reduced wages and income, the outsourcing of American jobs, a housing foreclosure crisis - Republicans will do everything they can to play politics and position themselves for better electoral prospects in 2012. One of the central items on their agenda will be to undermine President Obama through a variety of congressional investigations. I would not be surprised if some of the right-wing extremists in the House pushed for Obama's impeachment on one or another absurd charge.

In the face of this impending Republican onslaught, let me briefly address four issues that are certain to come to the forefront in the very near future.

Should the Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent be extended? At a time when this country has (a) a $13.7 trillion national debt and (b) the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country I disagree with Republicans who believe that we should be providing, over a 10-year period, $700 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest people in our country. For people earning more than $1 million a year, this would amount to an average tax break of about $100,000 a year. With the top 1 percent already earning 23.5 percent of all income in this country, which is more than the bottom 50 percent makes, that would be morally unfair and economically unwise.

What should we do with Social Security? Many of my Republican colleagues will be telling you that Social Security "is going bankrupt," that it needs to be privatized or, at the very least, that Social Security benefits should be cut and the retirement age raised to 70. In my view, this is wrong, wrong, wrong. The Social Security trust fund today has a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus, has not contributed one nickel to our national debt, and can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 29 years. Social Security has been enormously successful for the last 75 years in its goal of lowering poverty among seniors, the disabled, widows and orphans. Our job must be to strengthen Social Security to make sure that it is there for our kids and grandchildren. One way to do that is to lift the cap on income that is subject to Social Security payroll taxes (now at $106,800) as we did with Medicare.

How do we create the jobs we need to rebuild the middle class? During the eight years of President Bush, this country lost nearly 5 million manufacturing jobs, contributing to a net loss of over 600,000 private sector jobs. Median family income declined by about $2,200. Millions of American workers were forced to work longer hours for lower wages, while millions more were driven out of the middle class and into poverty. The only people who did well under Bush were the very wealthy with almost all new income going to the top 2 percent. In fact, the top 400 wealthiest families in the country saw their incomes more than double.

Amazingly, my Republican colleagues want to go back to the exact same policies that created this disastrous record. Despite the fact that we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country, they want to continue "trickle-down economics" and provide more tax breaks for the rich. Despite the fact that millions of good paying jobs were outsourced to China, India, Mexico and other low wage countries, they want to expand unfettered free trade. Despite the fact that de-regulation allowed the crooks on Wall Street to sell worthless products and plunge our economy into the worst economic downturn since the 1930s, many of them want to repeal the recently passed financial reform law and allow the huge banks to continue doing anything they want. Despite the fact that small business is our engine for job growth, almost all Republicans voted against a recently-passed bill which will provide $30 billion in affordable loans to small businesses across the country and provided $12 billion in small business tax relief.


Why Do So Many Phillies Fans Hate Pat Burrell?

I'm not happy the Phillies lost to the Giants, but I have no real issue with the Giants. I'm not happy to have watched Pat Burrell play well against us, but I still like Pat Burrell a little bit, I mean the guy had THE big hit in the 2008 World Series (his hit lead to the series winning run). Lots of other people aren't so positive, and some Phillies fans are pointing out that Burrell has two World Series rings and one World Series hit. While I understand the pain of losing this year, let's not forget what a big piece of the 2008 puzzle Pat was guys. 

Thursday, November 4, 2010

My Phillies Off-Season Outlook

Well, count it out, 2 years since the parade. While the Phillies won 97 games, had baseball's best record, won a fourth straight division title, and finally swept a post-season series, they did not get to a third straight World Series, let alone win a second. They ran into a team who did not have a better rotation or line-up, but instead had a better 1-25 man roster, a team that did all the little things right to beat them. Now facing the reality of not being the only big dog in the National League, the Phillies come to a very pivotal off-season.

The Phillies cannot stand pat and expect things to change for them. That's not possible, and even Phillies.com's off-season predictions says it won't happen. The Phillies open the off-season with $146.85 million dollars committed to 16 players, more than last year's payroll. The current roster looks like this:
Catchers- Ruiz ($2.75 million), Schneider ($1.5 million)
Infielders- Howard ($20 million), Utley ($15 million), Rollins ($8.5 million), Polanco ($5.25 million, plus a $500,000 signing bonus), Gload ($1.6 million)
Outfielders- Ibanez ($11.5 million), Victorino ($7.5 million)
Starting Pitchers- Halladay ($20 million), Oswalt ($16 million), Hamels ($9.5 million), Blanton ($8.5 million)
Relievers- Lidge ($11.5 million), Madson ($4.5 million), Baez ($2.75 million)
Arbitration Eligible- Francisco (Estimated in the $1 million to $1.5 million range), Kendrick (Estimated in the $2 million to $2.5 million range).
Under Club Control- Brown, Bastardo, Herndon
Free Agents they'd like to keep: Werth, Contreras, Durbin, Valdez, Moyer (possibly)
Unlikely to return- Romero, Sweeney, Dobbs

FREE AGENTS THEY COULD CHASE- Cliff Lee, Pat Burrell, Brad Hawpe, Magglio Ordonez, Javier Vasquez, Scott Downs, Jeremy Affeldt, Brian Fuentes

WHAT TO WATCH FOR- Do the Phillies have enough money to realistically keep Werth, let alone chase Lee? Well, yes and no. No as is, they simply won't pay out $175 million next year. Yes, if they move someone. So, will they try and move a contract out of town? They could potentially try and move any number of players. I'm sure they'd love to part ways with the Ibanez or Blanton contract, but they'd either have to take lesser prospects or eat more money, or both, to trade them. They could put a Victorino type of player on the market, if they'd like, but it's not easy to part ways with such an important piece, so they'd have to get a lot back. Remember that in addition to the big names they will chase, the Phillies have other needs too. They need a dominant left-handed reliever, as well as some other guys you can trust in the 7th inning, including their own Contreras and Durbin (who they should keep at least one of). They need a right-handed bat with pop off the bench, or at least someone who can spot their lefty corner outfielders in addition to Francisco. They'd love to keep Valdez around, as he plays stellar defense all over the infield. All this leads me to believe we should watch the trade world. Already, the rumors that they will go get Aaron Rowand from San Francisco is out there. I like it. He'd be a nice 300 AB guy, and he'd benefit from our park. Don't be shocked if the Phillies are all over the trade market in the coming weeks. The Phillies need not improve their top shelf talent, which is as good as any team's, but they need to improve their roster depth, and be more complete.

My Picks For Best Ads Of The 2010 Elections


The best of the best. Let me spell this out for West Virginia Republicans: You can't beat Joe Manchin. In other words, I'm saying the new Bob Byrd is there, and this ad just underlines how.

This primary ad ended the career of FIVE-TERM U.S. Senator Arlen Specter with one, swift kill shot. While Sestak fell short in the fall, it is clear that Specter would have too, and Sestak's ads were nearly as effective, almost pulling off a win against stiff head winds.

Simply put, this ad underscores why Christine O'Donnell is not a U.S. Senator tonight. When you are answering the question of being a witch or not in an ad, you're toast.

Big Number Of The Day

Cliff Lee's going to get paid really well this off-season. Sports Illustrated's John Heyman tells us that baseball will have no problem making Lee wealthy:
Baseball is doing very well, much better than the economy as whole, with revenues up again, to more than $7 billion, and attendance off only about one percent in 2010, despite the obvious boost in 2009 of two new parks in New York City. So competition for free agents could be fierce at the very top of the market -- especially in the cases of Cliff Lee and Carl Crawford, and perhaps only to a slightly lesser degree, Jayson Werth.

So basically, bring out the check book. MLB's doing pretty well.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

What Really Happened Tuesday, And What It Means Nationally

Right now, Congressional offices are packing up, bringing in the moving van, and preparing to close. With good reason too, since sixty some members of the House are heading towards the Unemployment Benefits line. "Change" is the buzz word for the third straight cycle, and voters are basically going to the polls looking to "change" anything they can get their hands on. The truth is, this is easily explained right now, the economy is grim, it's long term recovery to pre-recession levels is suspect at best, and people are hearing a lot of highly negative news about deficits (which they hardly understand, by the way.). Basically, fear is in the air again, and in times of fear, elections are won by the party that harnesses those fears best. Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party took this "Fear Election" in a first round knockout.

So what took place Tuesday? In a purely by the numbers look, the GOP took 60 House seats so far, and John Boehner will be the next Speaker of the House, leading a caucus of minimally 239. This is the largest losses any party in power has taken since 1938, FDR's second mid-term. In the Senate, it appears that the GOP will win 6 seats, but the Democrats will still control the chamber by a 53-47 margin. So, in it's essence, we have a divided Congress, and government, from this election.

Now let's look at the politics of it. Much like many of us on the left  in 2008 (yes I'm guilty), some on the right are saying this is a generational shift their way. This is foolish thinking. Yes, they will re-draw some key state legislatures, and yes the Democrats will have to defend a lot of Senate seats the next two times by, but it would be foolish to believe the GOP's 2010 electorate is even possible to accomplish again, just as it was foolish to believe the Democratic 2008 electorate was repeatable. The fact of the matter is, this electorate was old, white, and male, more so than any other recent electorate. While the GOP will have more Senate targets and a better House map to shoot at in 2012, the reality is that they will face a younger, less white, more feminine electorate in 2012, and that is likely to at least balance itself out.

Then there is the policy implications of it. Perhaps the most telling move since the polls closed was that of the Federal Reserve Bank, who has decided to unilaterally pump $600 billion into the economy. Essentially, this is to say that they do not expect major Congressional action in the coming months and years to deal with the sluggish economy. In truth, one has to wonder how anything will happen. In the Senate, nothing passed in a 60-40 and 59-41 Senate, without major changes being made. In the new 53-47 Senate (or closer), not much that isn't very watered down either way will pass, and virtually nothing out of the Republican House will pass. In fact, one must ask what happens inside of the House? While you will have a Speaker Boehner leading the House, you will have a Majority Leader Cantor with his "Young Guns" and their agendas, and you will have Tea Party members who want to pass their agendas. So tell me this, how does Boehner really pass anything serious, that can clear the Senate, and will get signed into law, with those divisions? He doesn't.

The net effect is simple: Welcome to the 2012 Election. The President isn't likely to achieve much more major legislation, and the GOP field to face him is likely to kick into high gear now. President Obama enters a field where previously won swing states such as Pennsylvania, Indiana, Virginia, and Wisconsin swung against him in 2010. We are likely to see the House pass things like a "Repeal" of the Health Care law, and investigate the President's birth certificate. It's going to be a long two years. We may see a debate about lowering the deficit, but with the GOP pledging to not look at taxes at all to balance the budget, it's not likely we'll see much. In other words, don't expect much, but expect the bell to ring on the next round quickly.

Welcome To November 3rd, 2010....

If the images above look familiar to you, don't rub your eyes out making sure you see them right. They should look familiar, and they aren't THAT ancient. It was only, oh, two years ago. It's pretty amazing how much things change in two years. I begin to write this blog today, one day after the GOP won the most seats away from Democrats of either party in any election since 1938. The President's approval has dropped from historic highs to near un-electable lows in two years. The Iraq War has went from a major public issue to non-existent debate. Two teams have won the World Series since the Phillies won that title. Things change fast in life. I like to chronicle on these things, and my thoughts. This site is mostly my thoughts on the issues of the day, but also the events and culture of the day. I hope you enjoy it.