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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

Dems Target Romney Tax Loophole

In a companion piece to my earlier post, Democrats are also looking to close a tax loophole that allows hedge fund managers to avoid paying the standard 35% tax rate on their capital gains, a loophole used by presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The loophole would reduce the deficit by $23 billion over the next ten years.

"Under current tax law, certain kinds of financiers, including private equity investors and some managers of hedge funds, are allowed to treat bonuses like long-term investment income, called carried interest, taxable at the maximum 15 percent capital gains rate. Others have to pay up to 35 percent taxes on their labor income. The cost to the U.S. Treasury is more than $1 billion a year."

Continue reading here.

President Opposes Minnesota's Gay Marriage Amendment

The GOP's war of religion continues. Across the country, state legislatures have sought to restrict access to contraception for women in the name of "religious freedom," a thinly veiled attempt to restrict women's reproductive rights. And in Minnesota, the state is now seeking to restrict the rights of the LGBT community by proposing Amendment One, a law to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The state already has a same-sex marriage ban in place.

But in response, the Obama campaign in Minnesota has come out against the proposed amendment. In a statement from Kristen Sosanie, spokeswoman for the President's election campaign in Minnesota, "While the President does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples. That's what the Minnesota ballot initiative would do -- it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples -- and that's why the President does not support it."

While the President's stance on gay marriage continues to "evolve" (whatever that means), it's good to see them drawing attention to this issue in Minnesota and the GOP's continued hypocrisy on individual freedom and the question of repressive religious regimes on individual rights.

Romney's Swiss Bank Account

On Monday, President Barack Obama's campaign held a conference call discussing their push for higher taxes on millionaires, and the discussion quickly turned to Obama's presumptive opponent in the general election, Mitt Romney, and his Swiss Bank account.

The conference call held between Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Ill), and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill), revolved around discussion of the 'Buffett Rule,' a law the Senate plans to bring up for a vote on April 15th, tax day. The 'Buffett Rule' seeks to raise revenue in order to reduce the deficit by closing tax loopholes that unproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans and help to ensure every American is paying their fair share. Income inequality in America is at an all-time high, where the richest 1% of Americans own over 40% of the total wealth of the nation (a figure unseen since right before The Great Depression), continue to slowly siphon wealth from the middle- and lower-classes, while the lower classes are increasingly squeezed by rising food and gas prices as well as budget cuts at the state and federal level.

And Mitt Romney seems to be the ideal poster-child for this widening income gap in America. Besides a majority of Americans supporting increased taxes on the rich, Romney has embraced Paul Ryan's "marvelous" budget presented by the House last week. Romney paid less than 15% in federal taxes over the last two years, despite making millions of dollars. He worked for Bain Capital, a venture capital firm notorious for buying struggling companies, laying off workers and selling the company for enormous profits while leaving them shackled in debt. Now, the Obama campaign wants to focus their attacks on Romney's overseas accounts, asking 'Why do you have a Swiss Bank account?'

I think Warren Buffett's response best captures the essence of the inquiry. Durbin asked the billionaire investor if he had a Swiss Bank account. Buffett simply responded, "No, there are plenty of good banks in the United States."

Obama to Tap Strategic Petroleum Reserves?

President Barack Obama

With gas prices on the rise – some parts of the country are seeing $4 per gallon of gas – President Obama is going on the offensive in response to criticism of his handling of rising fuel costs. The President is sticking to his points that America “cannot drill our way out” of high fuel costs and foreign oil dependence. His opponents seem to think otherwise. Sadly, it’s another election year. So, what we get is a lot of rhetoric from both sides and very little action. As the President has fended off criticism of his handling so far, he’s gearing up to take action by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The question is: will this help, and if so, for how long?

The U.S. is the largest consumer of oil in the world. We consume about 19 million barrels of oil per day. In the SPR, the U.S. has about 750 million barrels of oil. Modest estimates say that opening the SPR will only provide relief for, at most, about 100 days. That’s enough to ease the pain at the pump for the summer, but what happens after that? Many do not see indications that the U.S. alone can help the price of oil. Most analysts do not predict costs of crude will be affected unless there is a coordinated effort by the U.S., Europe, and Japan to release oil reserves. And critics contend the SPR should only be used in emergency situations.

World's Top Oil Consumers

Opponents of the idea, notably Republicans (because a Democrat is in the White House; remember all the flack on GWB 4 years ago?), argue the SPR is our safety net for emergencies and should be left alone until absolutely necessary. The recent escalation of tensions with Iran is being used as a ploy to dissuade the President from tapping the reserves, arguing that if we were to go to war with Iran and the Strait of Hormuz were to be blocked, we would desperately need these reserves. Of course, it’s the President who is diplomatically easing tensions with Iran while the GOP, and almost every Republican candidate in the race for the nomination, who are calling for intervention in Iran.

Keystone XL Pipeline Map

Others are pointing to politics and policy decisions on the part of the administration for our fossil fuel woes. There is strong urging from the Right to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, even though the oil procured from the pipeline would be negligible in comparison to the global market, and the “job creation” aspect of the plan is widely disputed—industry estimates skyrocket as high as 20,000; more modest independent studies say a few thousand temporary jobs, and only about 200 permanent jobs created. Opponents also say the President isn’t being truthful when he talks about the U.S.’s oil cache, that we in fact have much more oil than he’s telling us. And this is true – to a point.

The President has been making the claim in his stump speeches that the U.S. has only 2% of the “proven” oil reserves in the world, yet we consume over 20% of the world’s oil. “We can’t just drill our way out,” is his famous slogan. But his opponents say our oil reserves are vastly superior to what the administration is telling us and that there are billions of gallons of oil in untapped wells in Wyoming, Alaska, and other parts of the country. But these areas are not “proven” oil reserves. We have no idea how much oil is there and we can’t accurately estimate until we drill. Yes, there have been times when the amount of oil in a well has far exceeded the original estimation. But for every one of those times, there is another time when our estimates were grossly overstated. And what if the U.S. opened up every inch of land today? It’d take 10-15 years before any of that oil was refined and ready for consumption. That’s hardly going to make an impact on prices today, tomorrow, or over the next decade.

Oil Rig

In reality, the President can do very little when it comes to setting oil prices. Overall, America is small potatoes in the oil market. U.S. oil consumption is at a 10-year low, but U.S. oil production is at an 8-year high. Reasonably speaking, current policy has little to do with the costs at the pump. Tapping the reserves could help – in fact, rumors of such already brought the price of oil down a little – but it’s not good policy to tap into your rainy-day fund when the sun is shining. So, what’s an administration to do?

To significantly, and quickly, affect the price of oil, the President should look to Wall Street, and a bill sponsored by the Independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. As the good Senator highlights, a Goldman Sachs study shows excessive speculation on Wall Street raising the price of gas by as much as 56₵ a gallon. That’s almost 20% of what we’re paying at the pump. The bill would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to implement rules within 14 days to stop this excessive speculation. As everyone knows by now, Wall Street is essentially the only one at this point recovered from the Recession. Maybe it’s time policy decisions were put in place to help the rest of the country.

Solar Farm

Here's the broader point in all this: with oil consumption down, oil production up, and little in the way of immediate relief at the pump by drilling more, isn't it time we legitimately pursue alternative fuel sources to create an economy no longer dependent on fossil fuels, foreign oil, or ravaging our natural habitat? Opportunity is ripe. We have willing investors and innovators who want to change how the world is powered. We have ample evidence to support green technology and renewable resources will be the next economic boon. We are at a critical moment where we can once again lead in innovation. We can once again crumble the boundaries of what we think is possible, and once again inspire the world to look towards America as a leader and beacon of light shining beneath the gray dreary skies.

Romney: 'It's Good, but It Could Be Better.'

I've been talking about this for a month now. An improving economy is the absolute worst thing for Mitt Romney. He has thus far staked his entire campaign on how the policies of President Obama have failed to restore American prosperity and Romney alone offers the secret ointment to cure our economic malaise. But as the months have drifted by and Romney's inability to focus on the general election, what, with having so much trouble securing just the republican nomination from Rick Santorum, who's been hard-lining social issues on the campaign trail, Romney has been unable to focus on the true issue of this election, the economy.

But that looks to be over. Romney cruised to victory in Tuesday night's primaries and that will secure half the delegates he needs for the nomination. With the nomination squarely in his sights, his focus is turning back to the President and the economy. Except while Romney's been hunkered down in far-right social conservatism land, the economy has continued to improve. Romney's arguments that the President has failed seems more vacuous day after day. So, what is the Romney campaign's answer? "It could be better."

The pivot is to say it's taking too long to recover from this recession, and that someone else could have done it better. Here's Jonathan Chait lambasting the Wall Street Journal for their noxious examination of the U.S. recovering from recessions. Besides the fact that the Journal's Ed Lazear skips over the '90's recession, because it'd be inconvenient for the Journal to talk about Clinton's tax hikes and their economic boost, he completely disregards the severity of the 2008 crash. Much like the Great Depression, the Great Recession was exceptional, and the culmination of a myriad series of events slowly crumbling the foundation of our economic infrastructure. It took years of damage to erode that foundation, and it will take years of careful repair to fortify it once again.

But here's something interesting: the presumed "could be better" candidate would ostensibly by Sen. John McCain, President Obama's opponent in 2008. McCain's economic plan was similar to the plan Britain's David Cameron employed: economic austerity. And, as Paul Krugman has noted repeatedly now that England--and the other nations that chose strict austerity after the recession--is entering a double-dip recession and unemployment is soaring, as an economy contracts and consumer spending pulls back, the government must make up that spending with economic stimulus in order to avoid further depressing the economy. McCain's policies, like Cameron's, would have prolonged the recession, and these are the same policies that Paul Ryan proposed in the House budget last week, a plan Mitt Romney has wholeheartedly endorsed. So, the rational, contextual view is, no, things could not be better with another candidate.

Supreme Court Hears Case Against the Affordable Care Act

The dust is still settling inside the Supreme Court. With all arguments now present before the nine justices in the case against the Affordable Care Act, pejoratively dubbed Obamacare by its opponents, and with still so many railing against it, including the activist conservative judges currently sitting on the Court, and a near-equal chorus in and out of Washington, it bears a moment to step back and look at where things now stand.

With so much media focus on the Affordable Care Act, there are still wide misperceptions of what exactly the law will do. Many of these misconceptions center around a simple premise: “I don’t want to pay for someone else’s health insurance.” Think of Rush Limbaugh’s vitriolic attack on a Georgetown law student two weeks ago, ignorantly claiming this woman a “slut” because she wants the university to pay for her contraception since they mandate that she purchase health insurance through the school. Limbaugh displayed a complete and total lack of understanding of how contraception works, as well as how insurance companies under the Affordable Care Act are supposed to cover these basic medical needs. And it stands to reason this ignorance extends to his listeners’ understanding of the implementation of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, whether intended by Limbaugh and other opponents of the ACA or otherwise.

It is the individual mandate at the heart of the case heard before the Supreme Court. The mandate is that every individual would be forced to get insurance, and if the government is justified in compelling an individual to purchase health insurance, what is the ‘limiting principle’ stopping the government from compelling people to buy broccoli, GM cars, or something else. Those who brought the suit against the Department of Health and Human Services argue that compulsion by the government violates individual freedom and is thus unconstitutional. The government argues that this mandate is non-compulsory because every individual gets sick and is in essence already a participant in the health insurance industry and cannot be compelled to join a group they are inherently a part, and that by the powers vested in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Congress has a right to regulate this industry and those participants therein.

That’s the arguments for both sides in a nutshell, but it doesn’t necessarily address the premise that one person is paying for another’s health insurance, i.e. the well-off are subsidizing the poor. This, sadly, is a simple talking-point hounded and harped by those opposed to the bill, and is grounded with no factual basis. The truth is no one is paying for another’s health insurance under the law. The individual mandate forces the person without health insurance to purchase insurance from a private supplier. So, in essence, this is assisting the free market. If the person fails to purchase health insurance, the government retrieves a fee from them off their yearly tax return. Here’s the kicker in all this: without the law, you, me, and everyone else are already paying for other people’s health insurance. When someone without health insurance walks into an emergency room, those visits are paid by other taxes. The government spends over $100 billion per year to cover the uninsured. The additional revenue of mandating all individuals to have some form of health insurance far outweighs these costs.



So how did these arguments go over in the Court? Mostly in accordance with pregame analysis. Conservative judges hit hard against the bill. The Liberal Justices hit back hard against the States. There were moments of trepidation on Day Two of the hearings when Donald Verilli nearly collapsed beneath the pressure of arguing before the Court and many reporters in the room thought for sure the bill would be struck down that very day. Luckily, the Liberal Justices were there to bail Verilli out, and he gathered himself up for the third day of arguments and delivered a more forceful defense of the law. But the Court is tilted in Conservative favor and it seems likely the bill rests on the pen of Justice Kennedy alone. To paraphrase a Robert Reich tweet: how is it democracy when the fate of 30 million people’s health insurance rests in one man’s hands? But it’s not completely lost for the individual mandate, nor health care reform overall. Even if the individual mandate was struck down, many analysts believe most or all of the rest of the bill can stand. Then again, many think the Affordable Care Act hinges directly on the individual mandate and that if the mandate goes, the entire law crumbles after. Would this spell complete doom for President Obama, to repeal his signature social legislation before the 2012 election? Hardly. Thousands, if not millions, of Americans have already benefitted from aspects of the law that have gone into effect, from college graduates having the ability to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26, to millions of Americans now with access to coverage because insurance companies can no longer deny someone with a pre-existing condition, to many other benefits. More and more Americans are beginning to understand that this bill serves to help, not to hinder. Also, if health reform should fall, many do not think the private insurance industry could last. It would almost certainly open the door to a single-payer system, or Medicare for everybody, and that’s a win for us all.