Alec MacGillis: Ohio Politics

Here's a thorough examination of the current state of politics in Ohio. As an important swing-state in the presidential election, many eyes will be focused here over the next 6 months of campaigning.

"Lodge 141 of the Fraternal Order of Police is housed, along with 446 jail cells, inside the Mahoning County Justice Center, a forbidding brick and steel hulk at the edge of the frayed downtown of Youngstown, Ohio. It’s a humble office, but its proprietors have embellished it with a number of rather pointed political decorations. There is a spoof of Shepard Fairey’s iconic Barack Obama poster, with the face of Ohio’s Republican governor, John Kasich, in place of the president’s and the word “DOUCHE” written across the bottom instead of “HOPE.” There is a newspaper clip describing protests by police officers last year in Columbus, the state capital. And there is a quotation from Martin Luther King decrying “right-to-work” laws, which limit the power of unions."

You can read the entire piece here.

Jonathan Cohn: Romneycare Offers Significant Clues to What Obamacare Would Do

Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic has a great article up today focusing on some conclusions we can make about Obamacare's implementation, namely to use what has happened in Massachusetts since Mitt Romney passed Romneycare (the blueprint of Obamacare). You can read the entire article here.

"But we can imagine what the world would be like if the new law were already in place. One way is to go back through the data, and figure out what would have happened over the last decade if the Affordable Care Act, or something like it, had been in place. Steven Hill, a senior economist at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, did just that. And he's published his findings in Health Affairs:"

If adults who had individual insurance during 2001–08 had instead had benefits similar to those under the Affordable Care Act, their average annual out-of-pocket spending on medical care and drugs might have been $280 less. The near-elderly and people with low incomes might have saved $589 and $535, respectively. An important improvement would have been the reduced probability of incurring very high out-of-pocket spending. The likelihood of having out-of-pocket expenditures on care exceeding $6,000 would have been reduced for all adults with individual insurance, and the likelihood of having expenditures exceeding $4,000 would have been reduced for many.

This part is also good: "The usual rap on the Massachusetts health reforms is that they haven’t controlled medical costs. And it’s true: Romneycare hasn’t slowed the growth in health care spending. But that was never its goal. The idea was to expand coverage and then, hopefully, address costs later. This is precisely what the state is doing right now: Lawmakers and stakeholders are hammering out a law that, they hope, will blaze a trail for cost containment just as the previous reforms blazed a trail for coverage expansion. (For more on these efforts, see this great primer from Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post.)"

Obama Pushes For Economic Stimulus Over Austerity at G8 Summit

This weekend, President Obama held an informal summit of the G8 leaders at Camp David, prior to the NATO summit being held in Chicago on Sunday and Monday. The talks of the this first-of-its-kind Camp David meeting focused primarily on the volatile economic woes plaguing much of Europe and its effects on the U.S.’s tepid economic recovery.

President Obama offered his take on the situation in Europe, addressing concerns of Spain’s worsening fiscal crisis and Greece’s possible exit from the European Union, and the disastrous effects a Greece default will have on the rest of Europe, which would surely send shockwaves throughout much of the world and certainly have an impact on the economy here at home. The President pushed for the G8 leaders to assure Greece’s stability and the rest of Europe’s commitment to keeping Greece in the Union, but more importantly spoke of the necessity for Europe to relinquish their intractable stance on austerity measures that have recoiled Europe back into recession. The good news for President Obama is that he will surely have a new ally in his calls for less austerity and more stimulus in France’s newly-elected President, Francois Hollande. Hollande is the first socialist president France has elected since the early 1990′s, and won the French election a few weeks ago on a populist wave amidst growing criticism of the austerity measures that has left Europe reeling with record unemployment.

Obama’s increased pressure on Europe to enact stimulus measures should come as no surprise to those familiar with the President’s leanings. The stimulus plan the President passed after taking office in 2009 was nearly a $1 trillion, but he wanted more. Republicans wouldn’t do it, and Obama compromised, partly because the severity of the recession was still unknown to many, and the administration reduced the amount from $1.2 trillion to about $800 billion. The stimulus, by most accounts, saved anywhere from 2-4 million people from losing their jobs during the worst of the recession. Since that time, Obama has spoken often of the need for more spending and stimulus, but a Republican-controlled Congress is absolutely unwilling to negotiate any new spending measures unless offset by cuts in other departments (excluding defense, of course…), and will do nothing at this point if it will add to the deficit, nothing except reduce taxes on the wealthy, which account for an immense portion of our current deficit.

I feel Obama’s posturing on the plight facing Europe will be viewed as strictly political. I’m anticipating pundits dismissing the President’s recommendations to his fellow G8 allies as a way to stave off critique should the economies in Europe continue to decline and those effects make their way across the Atlantic. If our economy should falter, unemployment rise, stocks dip, any of these things, Obama’s re-election chances become even slimmer.

But aren’t Mitt Romney’s attacks on the President’s handling of the economy after the recession also political? Aren’t the things pretty much any elected politician do political? Yes, they are. Obama’s hardened stance on Europe’s austerity failure should not be viewed as political, should not be construed as ‘saving his skin’ when it comes to criticism for the country’s economic woes. The President was elected to help the American people. A weakened economy in Europe will certainly be felt here before too long with our economic situation so anemic. The President is trying to prevent hardship on the people he was elected to protect. And, you know, he’s trying to lessen the burden so many Europeans are feeling because of the failed policies of austerity economics.

Cory Booker Doesn't Like Obama Bain Ad, Realizes Later He's Not Allowed to Think For Himself

On Sunday morning’s Meet the Press, Newark Mayor Cory Booker had some pointed criticism for President Barack Obama’s recent campaign ads attacking Mitt Romney’s record as a “job creator” with Bain Capital. Booker, comparing the Obama ads with Republican ads that were going to air (but now will not) drawing comparisons to Obama’s ties with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, said these kinds of campaign tactics were “nauseating.”
“This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It’s nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough,” Booker said during the round-table discussion.

This was apparently ill-advised criticism of the President’s re-election campaign strategy as Sunday night Booker posted a video to YouTube clarifying his remarks and insisting it is “reasonable” for the Obama team to criticize Romney’s Bain Capital rhetoric.

In the video, Mayor Booker tries to clarify that it’s not the content of the ad that he found nauseating, per se, but the denegrating trend of campaign ads. Booker does not find the Obama campaign’s use of Romney’s Bain record as nauseating. In fact, since Romney himself has made his economic policies a forefront of his campaign, he believes the Obama campaign is “reasonable” to use Bain criticism against Romney, and Booker actually “encourages” it. What the Mayor finds “nauseating” is the use of Romney’s Bain Capital record in TV ads because Romney’s record at Bain Capital had so many negative outcomes! In other words: ‘It’s okay to attack Romney’s record for all the negative outcomes he had with Bain Capital, just don’t make a negative campaign ad.’ This makes no sense.

Towards the beginning of Booker’s Sunday night video, he says, “And now [Obama's] focus on other issues going forward to me provide the best hope for our nation moving forward.” [My emphasis added.] It’s funny that Mayor Booker should use the term “forward” since it’s essentially what the Obama campaign is boiling their campaign message down to be. Were there some phone calls made Sunday to Mayor Booker about what he should be saying when he’s on TV?

Since when did it become impossible to think for yourself in politics? Just because you align yourself with a particular political affiliation, this does not mean you have to agree with that party on every single thing!! I commend Cory Booker for taking a stand and saying what he thinks about Obama’s campaign focus so far.

Besides now taking both sides of the “What’s fair game in campaign ads?” debate, Booker did offer some important criticism for Team Obama towards the end of Sunday night’s YouTube video. We need to “focus on the issues that count,” Booker says. He’s right. As I’ve said before, the Obama campaign is far too focused on their past accomplishments and with simply painting Romney as a far-right, ‘back to the days of George Bush’ candidate. The Obama campaign is offering little to their supporters of what we can expect from him over the next 4 years if we vote for him in November. With less than 6 months before the election, it’s high-time Obama’s supporters are told exactly what he plans to do next.

Can North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban Awaken the Silent Majority?

It wasn’t a surprising outcome. With a week before the official vote, polls showed overwhelming support of the amendment. So, on Tuesday, when North Carolinians stepped out of the voting booths, it was pretty clear what the outcome would be. After today, marriage would only be recognized between one man and one woman. North Carolina became the 30^th State to ban gay marriage. It would be remiss to state this as unprecedented. Maybe, though, this was the wakeup call needed for the unexcited, disillusioned liberals.

I woke up this morning with my inbox flooded with PAC, nonprofit, and grassroots email blasts excoriating North Carolina for passing Amendment 1, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between one man and one woman. Facebook was replete with posts and links pertaining to the vote, but not from the usual suspects. People tending to shy away from political opinions on their feeds were up-in-arms over the vote, casting shame on the voters in North Carolina who supported the amendment. On Twitter and news sites, it was much of the same from liberals and Democrats. But something may have happened last night that’s bigger than North Carolina. With just six months prior to the election, a swath of young voters no longer “energized” behind President Obama and, by extension, Democrats across the country running for office, may now see one man cannot make all the difference. They must be active. Voters, you must be engaged.

The issue of gay marriage highlights perfectly the disheartened sect of democratic voters with the President. During the 2008 campaign, then-candidate Obama proclaimed a sturdy acceptance of equal marriage rights and a promise to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But since his election, the President has softened on his strong support for marriage equality, his campaign staff defensively claiming his “evolution” on the matter of gay marriage. This is strictly a political move by the President, one that he hopes will pull some independents and maybe moderate conservatives his way before the election, though it’s caused a rift in the liberal base (despite his kept promise of repealing DODT). What has happened over 3 years is that the President made wide-sweeping promises during his campaign, aiming high, and only finding he can reach the middle unless congressional allies can help him. Liberals are disappointed that all the things he promised have yet to come true. But liberals have only themselves to blame.

They sat on the sidelines in Massachusetts after Ted Kennedy passed away and Republicans elected conservative Scott Brown into his Senate seat, effectively guaranteeing health-care reform’s failure. Then the midterm elections rolled through and liberal voters sat back as a Tea Party coalition of far-right candidates were swept into office, effectively jeopardizing much of Obama’s campaign priorities. Do you think government should be more proactive in regards to the economy by increasing spending? Not with conservative deficit-hawks and "austerity" Republicans in the House and Senate. You want strong Wall Street reform? Tough, you let Republicans water down Dodd-Frank. You want higher taxes on the rich? Sorry, Republicans have all signed (non-elected official) Grover Norquist’s tax pledge to never, never raise taxes on the wealthy. You want better funding for public education, health care, parks? Too bad! Republicans want to slash the budgets on all of those things to give more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. You want equal protection under the law for women, gays, lesbians, transgender, hell, any minority (!!)? Sorry to break it to ya, none of that will happen with a Congress controlled by neo-cons who view their God’s law as more important than your rights.

“I think it sends a message to the rest of the country that marriage is between one man and one woman,” said Tami Fitzgerald, head of the pro-Amendment 1 group Vote FOR Marriage NC. “The whole point is simply that you don’t rewrite the nature of God’s design based on the demands of a group of adults.” In other words, the rights of the minority are at the whims of the (Christian) majority.

But, statistical trends show that Ms. Fitzgerald does not speak for the rest of the country, which for the first time in our history is on the side of equal marriage rights for LGBT individuals. I do agree with Ms. Fitzgerald: North Carolina very likely did send a message to the rest of the country, just not the message she was hoping for. Judging by the reaction, last night's outcome seems a plausible alarm for liberals to get excited about this election, or they can certainly expect more of the same after November.

“We have courage like we never had before,” said Jeremy Kennedy of Protect All NC Families, a group opposed to Amendment 1, “and we have strength to carry on.”

I think, I can only hope, the true “silent majority” is finally awake.

Robert Reich: "Who's an economy for?"

That's the question UC Berkeley Chancellor Professor of Public Policy asks to lead off this blog piece about Europe's weekend elections

"Voters in France and Greece have made it clear it’s not for the bond traders."

Reich looks at the wide-ranging effects this weekend's elections could have on other European countries and some possible affects here at home.

Krugman: "Revolting" Europeans

Paul Krugman's Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today looks at the failure of Europe's leaders to address their unemployment and other economic woes, opting instead to rely on austerity measures to restore "confidence" in the markets.

"What’s wrong with the prescription of spending cuts as the remedy for Europe’s ills? One answer is that the confidence fairy doesn’t exist — that is, claims that slashing government spending would somehow encourage consumers and businesses to spend more have been overwhelmingly refuted by the experience of the past two years. So spending cuts in a depressed economy just make the depression deeper."

Krugman has been harping on Europe's economic problems for some time now, and it seems the voters in many European countries are taking notice and "revolting." You can read the entire article here.

France, Greece Elections Referendum on Austerity Economics

Over the weekend, several countries in Europe held elections and the changes were wide-spreading. But it was in France and Greece where the largest impacts of Europe’s economic crisis could be felt.


In Greece, voters made apparent their displeasure with the country’s handling of their debt crisis, specifically the eurozone deal signed by the former Parliamentary leaders which has led to strict austerity measures increasing the countries economic issues with rising unemployment (now at 21%) and thousands of small businesses shuttering their doors. New Democracy and PASOK, the country’s political powerhouses over the last 40 years, suffered immense losses, receiving only 33% of the total vote – less than half of the vote total they received during the last elections in 2009. The two parties will hold 150 seats in Parliament, not enough to form a coalition government. Rejecting the policies of Greece’s ruling elite, voters instead turned to other political factions, notably the Syriza party, which came in second behind New Democracy’s 19% with 16.6% of the vote. The broad consensus of voters want Greece to remain in the Eurozone, but reject the notion of austerity as the most pressing option for handling the debt crisis. Antonis Samaras, the New Democracy party leader said the newly formed government should have two exclusive aims: first, to stay in the euro; second, to “amend the terms of the loan agreements so there is economic growth and relief for Greek society.”

Renegotiating the terms of the euro bailout likely just became much easier for Parliament in Greece with France’s Nicolas Sarkozy losing to socialist challenger Francois Hollande. Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, Germany’s Chancellor, were the most vocal proponents of the austerity measures taking hold throughout much of Europe, arguing for strict budget cuts to reduce deficits, which would in turn restore “confidence” to the markets and that would spur growth. However, that has yet to happen and most countries that adopted austerity have now dipped back into a recession, as we pointed out in this column last week. Austerity has failed in Europe, and voters saw Sarkozy as having failed to restore the country to its pre-recession levels. Now, with Hollande as President, France can be assured to take a more proactive role in the budget cuts imposed by the Merkel-Sarkozy European treaty, opting instead for increased spending and more government stimulus to return the french, and Europeans in general back to work.

And how does this affect the United States? The implications are varied. Are most Americans aware of the failure of austerity economics in Europe, and thus reject the calls of many conservative politicians to cut spending? Will Americans view the rise of a “socialist” leader in France as threatening and thus reject any idea of ‘wealth redistribution’? (There has been plenty of ‘wealth redistribution’ in the country over the last 3 1/2 decades from the poor and middle classes to the top, but not many see this as such a bad thing; it’s only when it works the other way do some cry foul.) Is the impatience of the Greeks and the French indicative of the impatience of Americans, that no matter who is in office, if they failed to fix things quick enough, the voters are looking for someone different? Will the changing governments in Greece and France be able to enact any palpable, substantive change in the next 6 months prior to our own election to act as a marker? It’s hard to say. All we know right now is Europeans were unhappy and they sent a clear message to their own governments and the other governments around them: it’s high time someone was held accountable.

More Proof This Week Obama Is Not A Socialist

A few weeks ago, Rep. Allen West (R-FL), made some incendiary comments to a group of supporters claiming there were "about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party." Those are some pretty specific numbers, prompting many to question exactly who these card-carrying socialists are. He has yet to provide names. Seems the Right missed the "Red Scare" days and wanted to live vicariously through those great times once again. We're going to hear a whole lot until November about how socialist Democrats are, and it all starts with the de facto head of their party, (President) Barack Obama. Actually, we've been hearing President Obama is a socialist since Day-1 in office. Oh wait, he was a socialist back in 2007-8 too when he was running for president. Republicans want so badly to convince voters of this fact. It's been 5 years since Barack Obama burst onto the national scene and conservatives have yet to prove it. And this week, with just a couple stories of the economy, it's shown once again how far the Right's fear-mongering veers from any semblance of truth.

On Thursday, one-time Republican presidential nominee front-runner, and purporter of HPV vaccines causing mental retardation, Michelle Bachmann, endorsed Mitt Romney for the presidential nomination. In her endorsement, Bachmann says that Romney is "the last chance we have to keep America from going ... over a cliff." Bachmann is not one to be great with facts. So, it's not really surprising that she'd forget America went off a cliff towards the end of 2008. Jeez, must be another cliff down here somewhere. But Bachmann is one of the consistent demagogues of the House (along with Rep. West) appealing to people's fears that Democrats and Barack Obama are socialists and leading the country down the path to communism.

The President isn't, never has been, and never will. He's a firm believer of the free market system. In his latest interview with Rolling Stone, Obama says, "The free market is the greatest generator of wealth in history. I'm a firm believer in the free market, and the capacity of Americans to start a business, pursue their dreams and strike it rich." The President has never advocated simply taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. He has, however, been a strong voice against the corruption that has ensnared the country and politicians through the unequal distribution of wealth not seen since prior to The Great Depression. This does not make him a socialist. It shows he is conscious of some of the deep underlying issues plaguing this country. I could go on, but I'll stop, because we have some very clear evidence this week (again) contrary to Republican claims that Obama is a socialist.

On Tuesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached a 4-year high on news that manufacturing in the U.S. had reached a 10-month high. Wall Street and investors have returned to the level from before the Great Recession. If Obama had instilled some socialist policies, wouldn't it be the poor and middle class who had actually recovered first after the recession? Well, they haven't. In fact, we have Friday's jobs report now and the numbers are not good. Only 115,000 jobs were created. The three month average is 170,000, but that's down from 218,000 from the previous three months. Obama can point to the fact that the unemployment rate ticked down to 8.1%, but a heavy caveat hangs on that number since 342,000 people dropped out of the work force. (According to Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the CBPP, that number is actually fairly consistent; so we shouldn't place too much emphasis on it.) And then there's the data on average hourly earnings for workers: it went up one penny. One stinkin' cent. That's not enough to keep up with inflation, so the poor and middle class are feeling the pinch even worse this month. Socialist? I don't think so.

You might not agree with the President on everything. I don't agree with the President on everything. But let's quit with all this fear-mongering Communist nonsense, please. Let's get to the root of the problem. Let's solve our problems with cooperation, not division.

Inventor of Paul Ryan Medicare Overhaul Says Plan Will Not Work

Paul Ryan's budget plan passed by a highly partisan House vote last month calls for sweeping changes to the Medicare program, reaching so far some analysts say to effectively destroy the program altogether. However, now the inventor of the plan adopted by Ryan's budget says the idea will not work.

Henry Aaron (not to be confused with the baseball great) came up with an idea in 1995, after Hilary Clinton's first attempt to overhaul the health care industry. It was called "premium support." It was simple: let consumers pick their health insurers in the private market, subsidize the premiums, and competition will drive down costs in the free market. It's the same theory in Ryan's plan. But Aaron, now with the Brookings Institute, no longer thinks the plan will work. In his testimony to Congress last week, Aaron says, "The conditions that recommended premium support in the mid-1990s no longer apply."

The relevancy here is important because Mitt Romney has campaigned to overturn the Affordable Care Act on Day-1 in office, yet he hasn't proffered an alternative to covering the tens of millions of Americans who are already uninsured or will be if the law is overturned. (Still waiting for the Supreme Court's ruling on this, so Romney might get off the hook.) Instead of having a new plan to cover the uninsured, Romney has endorsed Paul Ryan's budget (a potential VP pick), which looks to change Medicare substantially and pragmatically. But as Mr. Aaron's testimony points out repeatedly, the ACA will strengthen the Medicare system already in place and addresses its' so-called "insolvency."

"The [Medicare] Part A trust fund is currently in better shape financially than it has been for most of its history. If all provisions of the Affordable Care Act are enforced, its financial gap is small.

"Many are concerned over Medicare's long-term affordability. If provisions of the [ACA] are enforced, the added budget costs of Medicare over the next quarter century are modest and affordable...

"The conditions that recommended premium support in the mid-1990s no longer apply. The current Medicare program already fosters competition between publicly-administered, traditional Medicare and private plans. Current privately-administered plans raise costs."

Paul Ryan did not respond during the hearing, allowing Aaron's fellow Brookings Institute colleague, Alice Rivlin to defend the "premium support" measure.

Labor Shows Increase in Deaths on the Job

There's been swift movement in Congress to gut regulatory measures for businesses and corporations throughout much of the United States as proponents of anti-regulatory measures site regulations as an impediment to job growth during the Recession. However, sometimes, as a new AFL-CIO report has found, many times regulations are there to protect the workers from abuses.

Every day in 2010, 13 workers were killed on the job and nearly 50,000 were killed by job-related diseases, an alarming uptick in totals from 2009. That's according to the AFL-CIO.

The largest U.S. federation of labor unions, AFL-CIO, released a report Wednesday that shows from 2009 to 2010, 3.1% more workers were killed on the job, totaling 4,690. The long-term trends are decreasing, but with the current state of the economy and so many Americans unemployed, analysts think the number of deaths would have been even higher.

The study lashes out at regulatory measures that have stalled in Congress, mostly from a cohesive Republican House that views regulations as impediments to job creation and growth. The AFL-CIO supports President Obama's initiatives to strengthen workers' laws, but cites an intractable Office of Management and Budget, the agency which oversees rulemaking as leaving new laws in "purgatory". "The job safety laws need to be strengthened," the report concludes. "The nation must renew the committment to protect workers from injury, disease and death and make this a high priority."

The report certainly does not seem without merit. In 2010, the U.S. witnessed 29 miners killed by an explosion in a Massey Energy mine, as well as 11 rig operators killed when the Deep Horizon oil rig exploded sparking the BP Gulf of Mexico spill.

Economy Reports: Jobless Claims Fall and GM Rises

Though the official government numbers will come out on Friday, there's some good news for the economy today. First, jobless claims fell last week more than expected and GM posted higher than expected profits for Q1, both tepid signs the economy is not stalling amid fears of the worst.

Claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 27,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 365,000, the biggest weekly drop in claims since last May. This data assuaged the fears of many in the labor market after it was released earlier in the week that private employers in April had created the fewest jobs in 7 months. The government's report on Friday is expected to show a gain of 170,000 private-sector jobs in April, an anemic total but still better than the paltry 120,000 jobs created in March.

While these numbers are good and immediate, there's even more reason to see sustained growth ahead for the economy with General Motor's latest Q1 data released. Their first quarter profits surpassed forecast expectations in large part due to better-than-expected results in Europe and South America. North American demand is up, though it fell short of Wall Street expectations, driving down stock prices. But parts maker Lear Corp. posted higher-than-expected profits for Q1, as did GM's chief automotive rival, Ford Motor Co. signaling that North American demand is strong and should continue to be so. That's good news for automakers, but the faltering European economy could prove to halt the gains the automakers have made.

Still, with this fair unemployment numbers and seeing such strong demand emerge from the U.S. automotive industry is good news for us domestically and will hopefully continue this trend to see America get back to its' pre-Recession levels of growth.

Eurozone Unemployment Hits Record High

Unemployment in the Eurozone has risen to a record high of 10.9%, continuing a worsening trend since last year. In the 17 countries comprising the Eurozone, the countries whose currency is based on the euro, there was only a rise in unemployment of 169,000 from February’s mark, but enough to raise unemployment up from 10.8%. By contrast, the U.S. has seen unemployment fall from 9.1% last August to 8.2% in March. Europe’s growing crisis has lead to renewed calls to shift their economic focus from austerity to spending, with the president of the European Central Bank calling for a growth pact.

Led by Germany, Europe’s #1 economy, and Britain, Europe has tested austerity economics – reduced spending and raising taxes – championed by many conservatives and Right-wing analysts who say that tackling debt is the best way to revive a faltering economy, claiming reduced debt will restore confidence in the markets for people to start investing again.

But progressive economists, such as Dean Baker and Paul Krugman, have been arguing for years a Keynesian approach to restoring growth after the recession, that deficit spending is not only the best way to resuscitate the economy, but austerity actually exacerbates a recession, prolonging the downturn and increasing unemployment.

And now, it seems, their projections are in fact coming to fruition. After some initial upticks in some European economies (Ireland was lauded early as a prime example of austerity success), half of Europe has now slipped back into a recession. Unemployment in Spain and Greece is over 20%, and, even worse, unemployment for people under 25 is staggeringly over 50%. Even Germany has begun contracting.

With elections set this week in Greece and, more importantly, France, where the likely winners will push for less austerity and more pro-growth initiatives, it’s likely Europe will see even more opposition to their failed fiscal adherence to austerity of the last two years.

Gay Romney Spokesman Quits

Two weeks. It took two weeks for the GOP pundits to drive out Richard Grenell, newly appointed national security spokesman for the Romney campaign. Grenell resigned from the campaign on Tuesday amidst a conservative coalition out to destroy his reputation. Grenell is openly gay.

This is despicable. It's descpicable for those urging him to resign. It's despicable for evangelicals everywhere who refuse to stand up to this bullying. It's despicable for conservatives, as Grenell was a former Bush administration official - a clear sign of how far right the party has shifted in so short a time. It's incredibly despicable for the Romney campaign itself for never strongly backing or defending Grenell and merely offering tepid support after his appointment.

Stephen King: "Tough Shit;" Tax the Rich

Author, and 1-percenter, Stephen King wrote an Op-Ed piece into Newsweek/The Daily Caller yesterday castigating the calls of some prominent Republican legislators (he specifically calls out New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie) to such 1 %'ers as King, as Warren Buffett, as Bill Gates, and many more, to just write a check to the IRS and "shut up" instead of questioning why their tax rates are so low and demanding politicians raise their rates to fix the fiscal mess plaguing the country.

King, ostensibly insouciant to any political fire that may result, pulls no punches in his argument for increased taxes on the wealthy, and seems particularly disdainful of Christie's "rudeness." What I think is important here is that even though Democrats have (for now) lost the vote on President Obama's "Buffett Rule," some people are not done having this debate.

"Tired of hearing about it, they said," King paraphrases opponents to the rule.
"Tough shit for you guys, because I'm not tired of talking about it."

King goes on to explain that yes, he and many other (even the Koch brothers) charitable, wealthy 1 %'ers already give millions in donations every year, but it's simply not enough.

"What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry." [Emphasis not mine.]

You can read the entire article here.

Obama Trying Too Hard For 'Cool' Vote?

George Stephanopoulos asks this question on this week’s The Bottom Line video, addressing the political reaction to President Obama’s visit to Late Night with Jimmy Fallon earlier this week. The segment under particular scrutiny is the “slow jam” session President Obama did in response to the vote before Congress preventing student loan interest rates from increasing this summer. The GOP has become particularly defensive about this issue.

I wasn’t going to even watch the video of Obama slow jamming. It just didn’t seem that interesting. Sure, it’s funny, but it’s not like Obama hasn’t done late night shows before. Then I saw something about Fox and Friends host Gretchen Carlson calling his appearance on Fallon, “nutso.” Being Fox and Friends, I didn’t think much of it. The backlash continued. A Missouri GOP House Member was reported to say in apparent response to the video that student loans gave America “stage three cancer of socialism.” Even that was not reason for me to watch. Republicans in the House have said much worse. But now we have George Stephanopoulos, of all people, reducing the issue to, “Campaigning for the ‘Cool’ Vote.” I drew the line. No, George. The President is just trying to do what is right.

The bill has stalled in Congress over a political tug-of-war of how to pay for the student loan stabilization. Keeping interest rates at their current level of 3.4% will cost about $5.9 billion over the next year (this is only for a one-year extension). The Democrats’ bill asks that the $5.9 billion be paid for by boosting the payroll taxes on the owners of some privately held firms. Republicans are in agreement. They do not want the interest rates to go up (though it should be noted the Paul Ryan budget passed by the House accounts for the rates to do just that, ostensibly a ‘yes’ vote for rate increases). However, the Republican proposal looks to offset the costs of the student loans with cuts from health care funds reserved for low and middle income families. Essentially, the Republicans would save money for middle class families by taking money from middle class families.

Stephanopoulos questioning whether the President is simply using this as a wedge device between himself and his presumptive opponent, Mitt Romney, is not totally ludicrous. Much has already been made this week about President Obama’s sliding popularity with young voters. But Obama’s push to keep student loan rates constant is not some pedantic attempt to win the youth vote. The President is doing what should be done. Middle and low income families are the ones struggling right now. The highest income earners are not, and have not struggled for decades. The GOP has blocked any and all attempts to request the wealthy start paying a little more in taxes because they argue during a recession ‘is not the time to raise taxes.’ They argue taxes should remain at their current level (extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy), even if it adds to the deficit, because now ‘is not the time to raise taxes.’ Why then, for the sake of the economy, is there a fight to take money out of the hands of lower and middle income families? Money that pays off student loan debt will not be spent in the marketplace. We’re already dangerously close to dipping back into a recession. Taking money from the consumers’ hands makes no sense. The President recognizes this, he recognizes the struggles that everyone but the ultra-wealthy are experiencing right now. Even Mitt Romney recognizes the GOP is botching this one. He’s come out in support of the extension, though he too endorsed Paul Ryan’s House budget.

Stephanopoulos’ analysis is, in my view, completely off the mark and devoid of import. His concern is: ‘Who does this help come election time?’ and ‘Is Obama pandering?’ His morning show routine has made him complacent to ask the difficult questions. In a country of disillusioned youth, a generation who view their own government not as ally but foe, we need a President who can identify with this new generation of voters, who can laugh with them, and maybe come out to the ‘playground’ for a game every so often. They don’t need another authority figure in their lives telling them what to do. They need someone who is listening (and will occasionally sing a slow jam).

Biden Hits Romney on Foreign Policy

Earlier today, Vice President Joe Biden gave a speech at New York University, where he set out to distinguish President Obama’s foreign policy from his presumptive republican contender’s, Mitt Romney. Biden views Romney’s proposed foreign policy as dangerous, “totally out of touch,” and has the potential to lead us into yet another mired military operation.

According to excerpts from Biden’s speech at NYU, the Vice President says Romney would once again “isolate America instead of enemies” and “waste hundreds of billions of dollars and risk thousands of American lives on an unnecessary war.” Biden is of course referring to the dismal reputation of America many of our foreign allies held throughout the Bush Administration, and how people and other nations still perceive us from around the world.

The Romney campaign has attempted to define Obama’s foreign policy as naïve and potentially alienating our allies, supposedly in reference to the President’s handling of Iran’s nuclear program – imposed sanctions (which have thus far worked) – and the dangers a nuclear-Iran poses to Israel. Romney, during several presidential debates ardently pushed for military action against Iran to impede their nuclear program, though his rhetoric flies in the face of some of our country’s highest ranking Defense Department officials who note there is no substantive evidence Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Romney and Republicans in general would like everyone to conveniently forget the past decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which have been a major contributor to our national debt. They also hope the public doesn’t remember the fact that President Obama was Commander-in-Chief when Osama bin Laden was killed, and gave the order for the mission. “If you’re looking for a bumper sticker to sum up how President Obama has handled what he inherited,” quipped Biden, “it’s pretty simple: Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.”

Rachel Maddow: Romney and Arizona's S.B. 1070

A thorough summation of the Supreme Court's hearing on the Arizona Immigration Law, S.B. 1070.

WSJ: High Tax Rates Won't Slow Growth

Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, argue for high tax rates as a means to reduce the deficit, as well as showing higher tax rates have no real correlation to slowing growth in our global economy.

"According to our analysis of current tax rates and their elasticity, the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50%-70% (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes). Thus we conclude that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases at least until we reach the 50% rate that held during the first Reagan administration, and possibly until the 70% rate of the 1970s."

Also:

"But will raising top tax rates significantly lower economic growth? In the postwar U.S., higher top tax rates tend to go with higher economic growth—not lower. Indeed, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP annual growth per capita (to adjust for population growth) averaged 1.68% between 1980 and 2010 when top tax rates were relatively low, while growth averaged 2.23% between 1950 and 1980 when top tax rates were at or above 70%."

Read the entire article here.

Elizabeth Warren Supports Iran Military Intervention?

This is disheartening. According to Elizabeth Warren's own website, she looks to be confirming a stance on Iran's nuclear capabilities completely out of sync with conclusions of several senior U.S. defense officials.

According to Warren's website, "Iran is a significant threat to the United States and our allies. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it is an active state sponsor of terrorism, and its leaders have consistently challenged Israel’s right to exist. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world."

However, according to many leading defense dept. officials, and even some high-ranking members of Israel's military, Iran is not in fact pursuing a nuclear weapon. Warren's inclusion of this statement is synonymous with many drumming the beats of war with Iran, pitting her more in line with many prominent Republicans on this issue, including presumptive republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

Warren does not explicitly state military intervention, though. "I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well." It's good to see her pushing the diplomatic route on this, but even parroting the notion of Iran's supposed nuclear capabilities is dangerous, and might even come back to haunt her as this election season rolls on.

Wal-Mart Lobbies Changes to Bribery Law

Wal-Mart, America's largest employer, now under investigation for allegations of bribery in Mexico, may also have been an influential voice in efforts to reform the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the international law protecting against such things as bribing foreign companies in order to hurdle regulatory restrictions in garnering building and/or zoning permits. As the Washington Post reports, the Institute for Legal Reform, a branch of the Chamber of Commerce, has sought to "clarify" the law in a push for amendments. These efforts have gone largely unnoticed in the public eye, but there have been battles raging in Congress and the White House on this issue.

The Chamber seeks reforms to the 1977 Watergate-era law in limiting a company's liability for the actions of its subsidiaries and a clearer definition of who qualifies as a "foreign official." The push for these changes comes in response to an increase in enforcement by federal authorities. However, according to Paul Pelletier, a former supervisor in the FCPA unit, the increased scrutiny came because it had found more and more violations of the law. "The more we lifted up rocks, the more we saw of it."

This case illustrates perfectly the legitimacy and necessity of federal regulation when regulators in charge are doing what they are appointed to do. This isn't a case of bureaucratic overreach, or intrusive government meddling in business and free market affairs, as it seems the Chamber (and likely anti-government legislators in the House and Senate) would want you to think. It is clear that the law is working and the people in charge of enforcing it are competent. This suggests the need for stricter regulations to broaden the effectiveness of the department.

What I see here in the ILR and the Chamber's efforts is an attempt to "clarify" the law so that they can figure out new ways around it, work some loophole so that bribes are technically no longer illegal. By narrowing the definition of a "foreign official," Wal-Mart, or any other international corporation, could then simply tip-toe around this definition. As assistant U.S. attorney general Lanny A. Breuer, notes, "This is precisely the wrong moment in history to weaken the FCPA. There is no argument for becoming more permissive when it comes to corruption." Wal-Mart didn't like the law, so they didn't abide by it, and even when it was brought to the attention of their then-CEO, they brushed the internal investigation beneath the rug and failed to alert authorities in the U.S. It has also been reported that their current CEO knew of these allegations back when they were first divulged to company executives in 2005. Even if the ILR, the Chamber, and Wal-Mart succeed in reforming the law and company liability, it doesn't seem their top executives could still escape scrutiny since they were complicit in the cover-up.

Krugman: "How Stupid Does Romney Think We Are?"

Paul Krugman's Op-Ed piece today in the New York Times asks this question in response to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's appearance last week in front of a closed Ohio factory and Obama's handling of the economy.

From the piece:

"For the Bush era didn’t just end in catastrophe; it started off badly, too. Yes, Mr. Obama’s jobs record has been disappointing — but it has been unambiguously better than Mr. Bush’s over the comparable period of his administration.

This is especially true if you focus on private-sector jobs. Overall employment in the Obama years has been held back by mass layoffs of schoolteachers and other state and local government employees. But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the administration’s early months. That compares favorably with the Bush era: as of March 2004, private employment was still 2.4 million below its level when Mr. Bush took office.

Oh, and where have those mass layoffs of schoolteachers been taking place? Largely in states controlled by the G.O.P.: 70 percent of public job losses have been either in Texas or in states where Republicans recently took control."

You can read the entire article here.

Medicare Not Going Broke

Sarah Kliff at The Washington Post writes today about the "greatly exaggerated" reports of Medicare's insolvency before the new Medicare Trustees Report is released for 2012. As it turns out, the Trustees Report has been performing this analysis since 1970 and in every year has predicted the programs inevitable demise. Of course, it's now been 42 years since the Project first released their analysis and the program has yet to go under. With the political popularity of the program and the myriad of avenues Congress can pursue to refrain the program from going broke, it seems unlikely the program will ever actually go broke. But rest assured, I'm sure we'll see much about Medicare's impending doom over the next couple of days, especially from those fervently opposed to the program.

"In 1970, the Medicare Trustees began issuing annual reports on the financial state of the Medicare Trust Fund. It has faced a projected shortfall “almost from its inception,” a 2009 Congressional Research Service report found. In 1970, the Medicare Trustees Report predicted that the fund would be insolvent just two years later, in 1972. Pretty much every year after that, the Trust Funds’ insolvency has never seemed that far off:"

 Continue to the article here.

Romney's Etch-A-Sketch Shake Up Begins

Well, it didn't take long for Mitt Romney's Etch-A-Sketch mentality to infect other members of his staff. Take new national security and foreign policy spokesman, Richard Grenell, who joined the Romney campaign Thursday. Grenell removed over 800 tweets from his Twitter account and his personal website has been taken down. Coming under fire for several tweets attacking the media, several prominent Democratic women - including a sexist remark to Rachel Maddow to "put a necklace on" - and even the Gingriches, it seems Grenell was in preemptive damage-control to rid his accounts of anything really incriminating. Hmm, I wonder what he has to hide. Luckily, there's an archive with some of his past writings.

Romney's Campaign Slogan Should Be 'War is Good'

Yahoo! had this piece up this morning sparking a little dialogue in me:

Romney has embraced the Paul Ryan budget, which by many factors will explode the deficit by giving the rich and wealthy more tax breaks and cutting essential services that the poor and middle classes depend on, including Social Security, Medicaid, benefits for veterans, environmental regulations (by cutting the EPA), and many, many more. What Romney however has no intention of cutting is the military budget, pledging to expand the Pentagon's budget, even more than most deficit hawk GOPers would do. I think Mitt Romney should unveil his new campaign slogan, 'War is Good,' because that's the only slogan that seems to fit with his campaign plan.

Even though most Americans oppose broad cuts to the above mentioned items, as well as a quick exit from Afghanistan - Romney has been on record several times saying he would stay in Afghanistan and would use military force to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - he still maintains these highly contentious points at odds with public opinion. But for the life of me, I can't understand why so many people still say they'll vote for him.

And it also raises and oft repeated line from the Occupy Wall Street protests, and the Occupy movement in general: "Why is it we have money for War, but nothing for Education?" I'd like to ask Mr. Romney that question some time.

Wal-Mart Bribe Scandal: Company Shifts to PR Focus

The Wal-Mart bribe scandal uncovered by the New York Times on Saturday is causing some headaches for the world's largest employer. The Times revealed a massive investigation into $24 million in bribes paid to local officials in Mexico to secure building and construction permits reported to top management in both the Mexican and American offices, but Wal-Mart's top brass attempted instead to cover-up the bribes and never alerted authorities. It's highly likely Wal-Mart violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, adopted in 1977 to help hinder and hold accountable bribery in foreign markets.

Predictably, on Sunday, Wal-Mart went into damage-control and released a statement and uploaded a video to YouTube. The company's VP of corporate communications, David Tovar, says Wal-Mart "voluntarily" approached the Department of Justice, but cannot yet discuss what happened "in Bentonville more than six years ago."

Of course, this "voluntary" approach to the DoJ was only after the Times informed them of the bribery investigation it was conducting. Also, this "more than six years ago" bit seems a feigned attempt to excuse themselves if maybe they 'don't remember everything because it was so long ago'. And this is the whole problem in the first place. Wal-Mart not only didn't follow through on the allegations coming from their Mexico headquarters, but top officials in America explicitly told internal investigators not to be "aggressive" in their search.

Rolling Stone: "Koch Brothers Exposed"

Rolling Stone's, Julian Brookes offers an in-depth look at Robert Greenwald's documentary, Koch Brothers Exposed sharing some insights into how the Kochs have polluted our democracy with "tentacles" into so many organizations and schools. You should give the entire article a read, as well as check out the film.

"They don't oppose big government so much as government – taxes, environmental protections, safety-net programs, public education: the whole bit. (By all accounts, the Kochs are true believers; they really buy that road-to-serfdom stuff about the the holiness of free markets. Still, you can't help but notice how neatly their philosophy lines up with their business interests.)"

"[The film] recounts how the brothers have:

• helped fund efforts to undo a model diversity policy in the Wake County school system in North Carolina, effectively resegregating the district – part of a larger campaign, the film alleges, to weaken the public school system and prepare the way for widespread privatization;
• pushed voter ID laws – purportedly aimed at combating ballot fraud but really designed to keep Democrats from voting – through their financial support for the American Legislative Exchange Council, an increasingly radioactive business group specializing in the drafting of corporate-friendly pick-up-and-pass legislation for state lawmakers. (ALEC is also behind the insane "Stand Your Ground" gun laws at issue in the Trayvon Martin shooting case);
• pumped millions of dollars into more than 150 colleges and university in exchange for control over hiring and curriculum decisions, to ensure students will be exposed to the free-market fundamentalism of Ayn Rand, Freidrich von Hayek and like minds;
• bankrolled a coordinated campaign to swing public opinion in favor of privatizing Social Security, deploying Koch-funded think tanks, experts, and pundits to spread the myth that the program is on the brink of bankruptcy."
"Of course, you might want to argue that even if the scale of the Kochs' doings puts them in a league of their own, they're just exercising their constitutional right to play politics at the platinum level, like plenty of other high rollers on the right (and on the left, for that matter). Which of course gets at the basic problem – the gigantic power of money in American politics makes a joke of our democracy," (my emphasis added).

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/the-koch-brothers-exposed-20120420#ixzz1snJXWLpK

Ed Schultz: Republican War on Poor

Much has been made recently of the Republican's "war on women". But there is another "war" being waged by conservatives according to Ed Schultz: a war on the poor.

Normally, I feel Schultz is over-the-top on his MSNBC program, but he really captures a great spirit in this piece, especially in highlighting the ignorance, or maybe it's selective reasoning, on the GOPs part of saying how the poor pay nothing in taxes, deciding only to point to federal taxes instead of looking at the entire tax burden (payroll, Medicare, state and sales taxes) shackled on the poor and middle classes. And, as Shultz points out, this is not unprecedented in the modern GOP party.

"This war is not new. It has been going on for years. But it really stands out this week. In a span of a few days, Republicans chose to protect the rich by voting down the Buffett Rule in the Senate. Now, they are attacking the most vulnerable. ... [Mitt] Romney tried to say he misspoke when he made that ["I'm not concerned about the very poor"] comment in February. But his policies prove, well, he was telling the truth. His economic plans puts money in the back pockets of the wealthiest Americans while raising taxes on people making less than $30,000 a year."

New York Times Uncovers Wal-Mart Bribery Scandal

A thorough investigation by the New York Times reveals top executives at Wal-Mart de Mexico's corporate headquarters used bribes to illegally obtain building permits in nearly every corner of Mexico. Not only are top officials in Wal-Mart's largest foreign subsidiary named, but the allegations show widespread corruption and a cover-up attempt by top executives at the American offices as well, including then-CEO H. Lee Scott Jr, and current CEO Michael Duke.

Wal-Mart has been conducting an internal investigation into the bribes and the alleged cover-up for the past 6 months, but only began to do so when they were informed of the Times investigation.

As the world's largest employer, and with 1 in 5 Wal-Mart stores in Mexico, this could prove a devastating blow to the company. We can only hope so...

Obama's Debt Problem? He's Served Leftovers

We’re going to see a lot over the next few months prior to the 2012 Election (as maybe some of you have seen already these past few months) charts and graphs excoriating President Obama’s lavish “spending” and how he will have increased the debt by nearly $5 trillion dollars over his first term, equal to Pres. George W. Bush’s full two terms in office. In truth, that’s a hell of a lot of money. And since Congress is steadfast in their opposition to any revenue raising legislation, our debt “crisis” will only get worse if conservatives win this election. But how is this even possible? How could Obama gorge himself so substantially in just a few years to the same tune as Pres. Bush did in eight? Well, turns out these figures only explain half the problem. It wasn’t that Obama waltzed up to the “per-pound” buffet and just started piling food on the plate. Sure, he went and picked a few of the things he liked, but when GWB got up from the table, he slid a mass of half-eaten food right onto President Obama’s plate before cutting out on the bill.

Last year, during the debt-ceiling debacle, Republicans were quick to judge Obama’s policies over his first two full years in office as “out of control spending”. The debt had already risen substantially during Obama’s first term in office, and someone had to put their foot down and say, “No more.” Republicans, led by a hungry scad of new Tea Party legislators, were just the team for the job. But while conservatives were quick to chastise the President, and liberals in general, for their lavish spending, most notably the $1 trillion stimulus package, they failed to recognize that much of the fast-increasing debt was from policies that they enacted during a Bush II presidency.

The previous winter, Republicans held lower- and middle-class tax cuts hostage unless tax cuts for the very rich, those making over $250,000 per year, were extended also, i.e. the Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts contributed to over $1.8 trillion worth of Bush’s total debt by time he left office, and they continue to do so today. It should be noted as well, that this figure alone disproves the mantra that tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves by spurring new hiring and hence increasing tax revenue from the working class. If that were true, the Bush Tax Cuts would have reduced the deficit.

And then there’re the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These mired military engagements have cost a staggering sum, not only in dollars, but in American morale and American lives. And really, what have we gained? That’s a discussion for another time. But these are Bush-era holdovers, Republican policies gone awry, and Obama is left to clean it up. Indeed, he has done an exceptional, responsible job in this regard, ending military operations in Iraq and continuing to wind down our involvement in Afghanistan.

What we have is a large bevy of Bush-era policies, continued by Republicans through the Obama administration, that are the sole reason for our national debt issues. But don’t take my word for it. This chart was released amidst the debt-ceiling debate last year highlighting new policies enacted under George W. Bush and new policies enacted during Obama’s first term in office.

The contextual view is that Obama’s policies have increased the debt, but his new policy measures were only temporary expenditures meant to stabilize a depressing economy. If he had not been shackled with so many poor policy decisions of the previous administration, the country would be in a considerably better position now than we are. If the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest had not been extended, that would be $1 trillion off Obama’s “tag” right there. If Bush hadn’t let the housing bubble inflate and burst so disastrously, Obama wouldn’t have needed his own stimulus package (it does one well to remember that Bush bailed out the banks and enacted his own stimulus package in the wake of the financial crash of 2008), and been left with high unemployment leading to decreased tax revenues, both of which are impacting the debt substantially.

I mean, these are pretty clear numbers here. Based on the policies Obama has enacted, he will only raise the deficit less than $1.5 trillion over an 8 year period. That’s 1/3 of Bush’s total over that same time period. The massive increase in debt over the past few years has been partly due to the stimulus and the effects of the Great Recession, but the rest has been the leftovers from what will be considered one of the worst presidencies in American history. Yes, there is some validity in the argument that Obama should have been stronger and Democrats should have done more to end Bush’s ridiculous policies. I agree with that. But when it comes to the deficit hawks’ fanatical insistence showing “Obama’s out of control spending,” it’s all just politics to get a Republican back into office to continue the same policies Bush used to bloat our national debt in the first place.

SUNY Campuses Sign Natural Gas Drilling Contract

via Buff State Protest; Alex Bornemisza

Five SUNY campuses in western New York started receiving natural gas last Sunday through pipelines from Pennsylvania in what is a $22 million contract SUNY signed with EnergyMark, LLC, a local natural gas drilling company. What's questionable, is that SUNY told EnergyMark not to disclose any information in their press release that the gas was received from hydraulically fractured wells, more commonly referrred to as "fracked" wells.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a highly controversial method used to obtain natural gas from shale deposits because it relies on a highly contaminated mixture of chemicals (over 500) and water rapidly pumped into the ground to break up rock formations allowing quick access to the gas wells. Josh Fox in the movie, Gasland, brought national attention to the fracking process and its effects on local communities and the environment. Numerous reports suggest fracking contaminates local water supplies and drinking water to where tap water actually lights on fire. There is also widespread speculation that recent earthquakes in places like Alabama, Ohio, and even Pennsylvania, where SUNY's gas is now coming from, are attributed to fracking.

All of that sounds bad enough, but there's the question as to why SUNY requested EnergyMark, LLC not disclose the fact that the gas being pumped to the schools would come from a fracked well. Clearly, SUNY is aware of the controversial and dangerous consequences of hydraulic fracturing and wanted to keep this issue away from the people, students, and citizens concerned. Anti-fracking protests were scheduled on campus Thursday, April 19th in participation with Occupy Buffalo.

Vermont Legislature Takes on 'Citizens United'

Vermont became the third state in the nation to pass resolutions allowing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the highly controversial Supreme Court decision that allowed unhindered money into our political elections.

By 92-40 vote in the Vermont House of Representatives - 5 Republicans backed the measure despite a filibuster attempt by a Republican State Rep - and an unquestionably wide margin in the Senate of 26-3, Vermont joined Hawaii and New Mexico as the only states to approve resolutions. However, over 100 cities and in more than 20 other state legislatures resolutions have been introduced to approve a constitutinal amendment to overturn Citizens United.

The resolution acknowledges government oversight to regulate the amount of money coporations can spend on elections, as well as to recognize that "corporations are not persons," what many analysts deem to be the logical conclusion to the Supreme Court's decision.

As they say, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."