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."

Robert Reich: Invest in People

Robert Reich was a guest on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Wednesday to discuss his new ebook, Beyond Outrage, where the former Secretary of Labor theorizes how we can fix the economy, get Americans back to work, and create a vibrant, healthy middle-class again. It's a long clip, but there are many good points throughout. And what Reich, and the other panelists boil it down to, "invest in the people". Don't shower the wealthy with tax breaks. Start at the bottom, a reverse Trickle Down theory, a "Bubble Up" as Reich calls it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#47084503

Senate Blocks Concealed Carry Reciprocity Laws

Two controversial pieces of gun legislation before the Senate are being blocked by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein in response to the tragic death of Trayvon Martin and the shooting rampage at Oikos University, a small college in Oakland, California, that left 7 dead. The bills would force neighboring states to recognize the concealed carry laws of a resident’s home state when traveling.

Feinstein, and other opponents, object to the bills because they fail to recognize a state’s rights which might have more strict regulations on concealed carry laws than a traveler’s state of residence. For instance, George Zimmerman, the man who fatally shot and killed 17-year old Trayvon Martin, was issued a concealed carry permit in Florida (notably lax in gun control) even though he has a domestic abuse charge against him. Despite another state’s regulations that would deny Zimmerman a concealed carry permit, the two bills would force that state to recognize the traveler’s home state permit. Opponents of the bills say the laws put victims of domestic violence and possibly law enforcement officers at danger.

Feinstein’s objection blocks the easiest route for passage of the bills, unanimous consent, but the bills could still pass through regular means of garnering 60 votes to start and end debate on a law.

Catholic Bishops Object to GOP Budget Proposal

A group of Catholic bishops have sent letters to Congress over the proposed budget cuts in Rep. Paul Ryan's GOP budget plan, arguing the cuts fail to meet the "moral criteria" of the church. Some excerpts of the letters are as follows:

"At a time of great competition for agricultural resources and budgetary constraints, the needs of those who are hungry, poor and vulnerable should come before assistance to those who are relatively well off and powerful."

"Just solutions ... must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs. The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria."

The demands within the letters are powerful accusations against the GOP, but seem to be falling on deaf ears. Speaker of the House John Boehner, responded by saying the bishops are missing the "bigger picture" of the GOP budget proposal, that without fiscal restraint, the country will be buried in debt and no social safety net programs will survive. Boehner seems to have missed the point where the bishops address "raising adequate revenue" to cover these basic, "moral" needs of the people.

It's also noteworthy that Boehner, and the rest of the GOP, didn't seem to see the 'big picture' last month when Catholic bishops and other religious institutions objected to the ACA's mandate that all institutions requiring employees to purchase health insurance must cover all patient needs, including birth control and contraception.

Dems Introduce WORK Act: All Mothers Deserve 'Dignity'

House Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this week in an apparent response to the ballyhoo surrounding Hilary Rosen's comments last week alluding to Ann Romney's never working a day in her life. The WORK (Women's Option to Raise Kids) Act will allow mothers with children 3 and under to stay at home and continue to receive benefits under the federal TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) program that was part of the 1996 welfare reform passed by Pres. Bill Clinton. Under current law, raising children is exempt toward the required "work activity" that must be performed by the recipient - some states do allow exceptions for children under 1 year old.

According to Pete Stark, sponsor of the bill and a top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, "Mitt Romney was for forcing mothers into the workforce before he decided that 'all moms are working moms.'" Stark's comments reference Romney's flip-flop on the dignity of working mothers from his stance in 1994 during a Senate bid to about 3 months ago to now. Stark continued, "I think we should take Mr. Romney at his most recent word and change our federal laws to recognize the importance and legitimacy of raising young children. That's why I'm introducing the WORK Act to provide low-income parents the option of staying home to raise young children without fear of being pushed into poverty."

Washington Dysfunction: Buffett Rule Defeated (For Now)

Yesterday, the Senate voted down debate on the ‘Buffett Rule,’ effectively ending push by Democrats, including President Obama, the most vocal proponent of the law, to make the rule law. In a highly partisan vote, the measure was voted down 51-45, with only one Republican voting to continue debate, and one Democrat voting against the bill.

Republicans, with their blind intransigence to any sort of tax increase, do not see the bill as a viable solution to addressing either the deficit problem or unemployment. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has a better idea (more on that shortly).

Republicans essentially have two points of contention with the ‘Buffett Rule’. One, they argue, is that the bill does not significantly address the mounting debt in the country, which is true. The bill will only raise about $46 billion over 10 years. And that money would likely go to small businesses in the form of tax breaks for hiring new workers. Their second contention is that the target group, those making more than $1 million per year, is unfairly asked to pay an even greater share of the overall tax burden. Republicans argue that the wealthy pay an enormous sum of federal taxes, while many in the middle and lower classes pay nothing at all. Again, that’s all true, but when the top 20% control 80% of the total wealth of the country, yet only pay 40% of the total tax burden, their argument loses some leverage. And what Republicans never account in their “the wealthy pay enough taxes” argument is that the middle and lower classes pay a substantially higher proportion of their tax burden in state, local, and payroll taxes.

Republicans do, however, have an alternative solution. House Majority Leader Cantor is expected to bring a bill forward this week targeting tax breaks for small businesses in an attempt to spur investment and hopefully new hiring. The problems with Cantor’s bill are that one: the $47 billion price tag is simply going to be added to the deficit, a seemingly anathema proposal to Republicans over the past two years, but now do not seem to think much of a problem since tax breaks always lead to new hiring and hence more tax revenue. Except they don’t… And that’s the second problem, the Republican alternative relies solely on optimism and that business leaders will invariably invest their tax breaks back into their business to grow. But without customers, businesses are not likely to do any such thing.

At least with the Democrats proposal, the money generated from the ‘Buffett Rule’ will provide additional tax breaks to small businesses by incentivizing new hiring. Republicans protestations that the ‘Buffett Rule’ does nothing to address the unemployment problem are simply not accurate.

But I think this latest squabble again encapsulates perfectly the growing dysfunction in Washington. Republicans propose a plan that adds roughly $45 billion on to the deficit. Democrats have a plan ready to raise roughly $45 billion over the same time period. Why is it so difficult for any of the over 400 members of the House, or the 100 members in the Senate to see they need only put these two bills together? The costs offset. Republicans get their small-business tax breaks to spur investment (a popular position with the American people). Democrats get to raise taxes on the wealthy and address ever-so slightly the deficit problem (popular positions with the American people).

But I don’t foresee this happening. By doing so, Republicans would inadvertently admit that you can spur investment and growth by taking slightly from the rich and giving to the poor(er).

Breaking News: Mushrooms Save Earth from Doom

This is an absolutely fascinating story. A species of mushroom has been discovered in an Ecuadorian
forest that actually can feed off plastic. It needs no sunlight, so theoretically it could be planted in the bottom of landfills where it would degrade plastics, instead of simply burying that vile substance polluting the earth endlessly.

What's more about mushrooms? A New York-based company has created a styrofoam-like substance made from the root systems of a different mushroom species and other natural substances. I plan to do another post on this company over the next couple of days, so stayed tuned. Until then, watch the video below and get ready to say goodnight to everlasting plastics.

In case the embed fails, here's the link: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/this-could-be-big-abc-news/more-mere-magic-mushrooms-154207424.html

Raising Their Voices: Iranian Intellectuals Speak Out on War

A new video out from the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran highlights some leading Iranian intellectuals in the country denouncing any kind of attack from the U.S. or any of its allies. These leading Iranian thinkers, who seek change through democracy in Iran, warn of the constriction war would cease upon the people, where the already heavily militarized government would further oppress the people inside the country fighting back against the tyranny and unjust rule of the current Iranian government. This is a great video everyone should see.

Besides the horrible effects a U.S. or maybe Israeli, strike would have on Iran and it's democracy seeking citizens, if we were to engage in yet another Middle-Eastern conflict, it would be a truly emotionally demoralizing and economically bankrupting endeavor.

Robert Reich: Mitt Romney's Capital Gains Magic

Here's a new video from Robert Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, about the magic of "capital gains," the promary source of Mitt Romney's income and how it is that Romney could make $21 million in 2010 alone and pay only 13.9% in taxes. Reich breaks down how our tax law is skewed so badly to allow hedge fund managers, and private equity investors like Romney, to reap so much in reward while never risking a dime of their own money.

You can read more from Robert Reich at his blog.

Will Obama Instill 'Martial Law'?

A friend of mine posted a link to my Facebook timeline of The Washington Post article by Charles Blahous where he purports to show President Obama’s Affordable Care Act will actually raise the deficit, not lower it. Turned out, as I responded to my friend, Blahous’ article was full of faulty math that, and if Blahous were so inclined, applying his conclusions to Paul Ryan’s budget proposal released two weeks ago, it would have shown Ryan’s plan also increases the deficit. I made light of the initial link exaggerating my complete surprise how a Republican might attempt to show the health care law as increasing the deficit.

But as these things are wont to do, another friend chimed in, on a completely different subject, asking me how I could support a President (Obama) who granted the illegal, indefinite detention of American citizens without habeas corpus. This friend, it should be noted, is a Ron Paul supporter. He was of course alluding to Obama signing the NDAA for fiscal year 2012, and “controversial” sections 1021 and 1022 which grant the government the authority to detain “persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism” indefinitely and without trial. Outrage and fear of Obama authorizing such a thing is something I’ve seen an awful lot of recently, especially from conservatives and the right-wing media (just do a search for “obama martial law” and you’ll see what I mean). The curious thing is that the precedent set forth in the NDAA has actually been law since the week after 9/11.

In responding to my friend’s inquiry, I told him that there were a variety of other reasons why I support President Obama, and do not and never have supported the illegal, indefinite detention of American citizens. The NDAA signed by President Obama provided, among other things, sanctions on Iran, Dept. of Defense funding for health-care costs for soldiers, counter-terrorism funding within the U.S., and military modernization. The detention section conservatives find appalling suddenly has been law since the terrorist attacks of September 11^th. On September 14, 2001, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act (AUMF), complete with provisions granting the previous administration authority for indefinite detention of American citizens without habeas corpus.

Ron Paul voted for the AUMF Act.

Personally, do I think President Obama should have signed the bill? No. They should have stripped the provisions granting illegal detention out, which is exactly what the Obama administration attempted to do. According to Wikipedia: “The White House threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act,^[9] arguing in an executive statement on 17 November, 2011 that while ‘the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, including the detention authority... are essential to our ability to protect the American people... (and) Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk.’" This amendment was rejected by the Senate and ultimately the text of the AUMF was never changed.

After signing the bill, the Obama administration released a statement to this affect, presumably prescient to the rancor it might cause with conservatives. In the President’s signing statement, he maintains “the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF.” It continues, the "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens", and that it "will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law".

Clearly, President Obama should in no way be held accountable for instilling ‘martial law’ or the ability of the military or government to illegally detain any individual. Ron Paul, champion of personal liberty and responsibility, is more to blame than any current presidential contender. President Obama has had this precedent at his disposal for 3 years already. President Bush had this law at his disposal for 7 years. What rational explanation, what rational reasoning can conservatives really argue that if President Bush didn’t illegally detain individuals that our current President would ever do such a thing? There’s a simple answer to this question, the Occam’s razor, not based on fear-mongering, not based on partisan ideology. Some people just ignore the simple answer.

U.S. Workers Worth $420k Apiece, Don't Get Paid For It

I've made many arguments before that U.S. workers are largely underpaid and grossly taken advantage of by their employers. Trends over the last 30 years, since Ronald Reagan's ridiculous "Trickle Down" theory of free market economics, show median wages for the middle and lower classes have effectively decreased when adjusting for inflation even though worker production is at an all-time high, and yet corporations and the wealthiest 1% of Americans continue to see astronomical gains in wealth. A Wall Street Journal analysis shows that for S&P 500 companies, workers earned their employers roughly $420,000 of revenue per person. Yet, wages remain stagnant for the working class, and 1 in 4 Americans is out of work. And major corporations continue to send jobs overseas instead of hiring here at home. A study like this makes Republican calls for lower taxes to spur economic recovery even more baseless.

But I think that another point should be made in this. With workers being exploited so drastically, with their wages stuck in slow reverse, it'd be something if only they could all form some kind of group, I don't know, some kind of unified coalition to demand fair pay and better benefits. But unified coalitions in private and public companies are at a 70 year low. There's something there, I just can't put my finger on it.

"Bogus" Study Touted By The Washington Post

Last night, reports circulated that a new study showing the Affordable Care Act, pejoratively known as Obamacare, and more widely known as health-care reform, will actually increase the deficit. The study was completed by Republican Medicare trustee, and former Bush administration official, Charles Blahous. The Washington Post legitimized the study by pointing to Blahous' "trustee"signature, so surely it must be credible. Right? Unfortunately, as many have started to point out, Blahous' math is erroneous and it turns out that in fact the CBO analysis that the ACA will reduce the deficit is still correct. I'm still at a loss as to how this became such big news so quickly. It should not be incredibly shocking that a Republican and The Washington Post would argue against health-care reform.

Gary Weiss: "Oil Speculators: The Damage is Real"

Gary Weiss' op-ed piece on TheStreet.com (cross-posted on Sen. Bernie Sanders webpage as well) pinpoints recent studies by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Goldman Sachs, which I pointed to last week, showing that oil speculation causing gas prices to rise is not merely an undocumented theory, but a fairly substantiated one.

"Just look at this study by the staff of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, which found that speculation "played a significant role in the oil price increase between 2004 and 2008 and its subsequent collapse." Last year, a Goldman Sachs study found that every 10 million contracts traded by speculators adds 10 cents to the price of a barrel of oil. That translates to as much as $23 a barrel, when you consider that speculative futures contracts have been the equivalent of 230 million barrels of oil."

Even though signs are pointing that oil may now have peaked, it seems these common-sense reforms to regulate and discourage rampant oil speculation for the future only makes sense. Too bad Republicans are so immured by the oil industry to try any legislative tactic besides opening up more useless oil fields.

You can read the whole article here.

Jhumpa Lahiri: "My Life's Sentences"

This Opinionator piece in the New York Times from Jhumpa Lahiri, author of The Interpreter of Maladies, talks about the power of sentences. This is just an amazing piece so I had to post it. Here's a glimpse:

via Princeton.com

"[Sentences] remain the test, whether or not to read something. The most compelling narrative, expressed in sentences with which I have no chemical reaction, or an adverse one, leaves me cold. In fiction, plenty do the job of conveying information, rousing suspense, painting characters, enabling them to speak. But only certain sentences breathe and shift about, like live matter in soil. The first sentence of a book is a handshake, perhaps an embrace. Style and personality are irrelevant. They can be formal or casual. They can be tall or short or fat or thin. They can obey the rules or break them. But they need to contain a charge. A live current, which shocks and illuminates."

Continue reading here.

Timothy Noah: Taxed Enough Already?

Timothy Noah's piece in The New Republic from last Friday highlights some interesting points about taxation in America. Many certainly complain taxes are too high, and most Americans want taxes on the wealthy to increase to help pay off our national debt, and to fund the much-needed government programs many in the poor and middle classes depend on (not too mention nearly every gain in wealth in the country over the last 30 years has gone to the top 1% of the population). But I think Noah's piece is important for a couple of reasons:

1) He rightly points to the fact that as a whole, Americans do not pay that much in taxes, and haven't since the mid-1950's. Thus it should not be argued that decreasing taxes will somehow spur economic growth and investment. If the rich were going to invest with the trillions of dollars they have, they'd've done it by now.

2) He makes the obvious correlation that ever since Reagan was in office, the percentage of taxes paid per family has dropped, and we have pretty much run deficits ever since that time.

Read the entire article here.

Astrum Solar

I took a run through my neighborhood in Brooklyn the other day and spotted a Prius parked on side of the road near McCarren Park. On the door was a logo: Astrum Solar. I took my iPod and made a note for myself to look up the name when I returned home. Here's a link to the website. Solar has been something I've been thinking about an awful lot lately, what with gas prices so high (and the U.S. nearly powerless to curb the price by much), the recent news that in March over 7,000 record highs were shattered, making March the warmest on record, and just in general since alternative energy sources are on anybody's mind whose concerned about the environment. So, take a look around their site. If you're a homeowner, now might be a great time to jump aboard this train.

Matt Taibbi: Worst JOBS Act Ever

Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone has an intriguing piece up from Monday discussing the recent JOBS -"Jumpstart Our Business Startups"- Act, a law rammed through Congress, the Senate, and signed by President Obama last week that will, essentially, pave the way for widespread fraud in the stock market. But, Taibbi shows, the law could be far more dangerous.

"In fact, one could say this law is not just a sweeping piece of deregulation that will have an increase in securities fraud as an accidental, ancillary consequence. No, this law actually appears to have been specifically written to encourage fraud in the stock markets."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-obamas-jobs-act-couldnt-suck-worse-20120409#ixzz1rfG6vt5v

Rick Santorum Suspends Presidential Campaign

Moments ago, Rick Santorum suspended his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Santorum, who came virtually out of nowhere in the Republican field of candidates, showed a remarkable resiliency in maintaining his campaign and giving the presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, trouble in closing up the nomination early since winning the Iowa Caucus last fall. By dropping out, presumably Santorum will now be able to spend time with his family, and daughter Isabella, who has recently been in the hospital.

Stiglitz Argues for Stronger Governments

Truthout has an interesting piece up questioning why the narrative around strong governments has shifted so dramatically in the Conservative favor. Joseph Stiglitz offers some incredible insight.

"So why was there so much economic growth after World War II? Stiglitz says one reason is 'the legacy of the Roosevelts, the legacy that government made a difference.' In making the case for government he also points out that 'government has played an important catalytic role in a whole variety of other areas. If you think about our modern economy, you think about Internet, you think about biotech, you think about telecommunications and all of these things rest on government-funded basic research.' "

Continue reading here.