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.