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.

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.

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.

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.