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.

Ed Schultz: Republican War on Poor

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

You can read the whole article here.

Limbaugh Controversy a Big Win For Dems

A recovering economy is bad news for Republicans in 2012. If Republicans address social issues as virulently as they have the ‘contraception controversy,’ it will be a long, sad election season for them. Provisions in the Affordable Care Act made it so all employers had to cover contraceptive care. Republicans cried foul on infringing religious freedoms. This seemed a win-win for republicans: attack an already unpopular legislative bill, at least with conservatives, and pin the bill to a social issue they care deeply about.

But it didn’t really turn out that way. President Obama compromised. This consolation by the administration seemed a straight-forward alternative, but many still argued insurance companies would pass the costs of contraceptive care to the institutions through higher premiums, but this simply isn’t true. Furthermore, it’s in the insurance companies’ best interest, i.e. benefits their bottom-line, to offer free contraceptive care for ALL women.

The controversy should have died there, but, republicans kept on it. At a Congressional hearing, Darrell Issa actually barred a woman named Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, from giving testimony. Democrats, days later, held a congressional forum where Ms. Fluke finally gave her testimony. Republicans responded by letting Rush Limbaugh do the talking.

Limbaugh’s tirade has only served to help President Obama and the Democrats this fall. First of all, Limbaugh’s idiocy only proved how little he understands contraception and how women use it. Rachel Maddow expressed this brilliantly on her show Friday night. Limbaugh, and many other conservatives, do not seem to have a basic grasp of how contraceptive coverage works, and almost universally think contraception is solely used as an abortifacient, and ignore hormonal contraceptive use as a therapeutic drug, evidenced by Ms. Fluke’s testimony. Nobody is paying for somebody else’s contraceptive care. The taxes paid through your employer cover the health care benefits that YOU receive. If your employer objects to contraceptive coverage, or maybe they don’t like the diet pills you’ve been taking, or maybe the painkillers that you’re prescribed are too costly, and you have to go out of network to get those drugs then you’re essentially paying TWICE for medical insurance. As the Fluke testimony shows, going out of network can have disastrous consequences for women.

The right’s draconian furor against contraception will only further secure the women’s vote in 2012, especially the independent vote. Limbaugh, personally, is suffering. At least 9 advertisers, including AOL, Sleep Number, and a tax services company, have pulled their ads from his show. Limbaugh’s half-hearted (and now “left-blaming”) apology has been almost universally condemned as “insincere.” Even Ron Paul thinks it was all about ad revenue: "I don't think he's very apologetic. It's in his best interest, that's why he [apologized].” When a majority of Americans support the contraceptive requirement and conservative blowhards make such inexcusable comments, republicans are not only hurting their chances of winning the White House, but damage any chance to take the Senate or hold the House.

Sucker PAC'ed

President Obama today reversed his long-standing position on super PACs and his supporters donating to them. For a long time Obama has spoken of the dangers of the super PACs and the potential threat they pose to our elections and to democracy as a whole. Since the Citizens United decision back in January 2010, PACs have been able to raise unlimited amounts of money to spend in political campaigns without having to disclose their contributors, nor do the politicians affiliated with these PACs have to admit to any collaboration with them. These PACs have dwarfed the standard PACs of the past, and hence have now become "super" PACs simply based on the financial muscle they can now flex in influencing voters through attack ads. Some have argued that this wouldn't happen, but it's pretty clear the impact super PACs are going to have on the 2012 Presidential election already as evidenced by the brutal Republican primary currently taking place.

Now that Obama has changed his stance on the issue, how will this fair for his campaign and the democratic base. Over at The Huffington Post, Sam Stein writes an intuitive article on the potential impacts it could have on the left and Obama's supporters in general. And I have to agree mostly with what he is saying here. It does not seem likely that the base will abandon the President at all (especially given the choice of potential candidates coming out of the right). Sure, they're going to be angry with the President for a little while, but they will likely see this as consolation for the very nature the Citizens United decision has cast over the country. Just look at what the Koch brothers announced at a dinner this past weekend. The thing is, this presidential election is going to be costly and it's going to be downright ugly. The republicans have already shown their hand. They're attacking one another maliciously. Once the dust settles there, and all these super PACs focus their attention on the left, it's going to be worse. I for one will be happy the President has some allies in his corner to help. I don't like it, certainly, but he can't bring a knife to a gun fight.

But here is what I would hope the President does. He needs to continue to denounce super PACs and the Citizens United decision in general. He needs to reestablish his push for campaign finance reform, even though now it may seem hypocritical and he may have a hard time selling the public in general. But I think if he doubles-down on campaign finance reform he can at least appease the dissatisfied voters that are going to pop up because of this decision. And it's not really being hypocritical. Just because he wants to amend the rules of the game he's playing, doesn't mean he can't play by the rules already established. Mitt Romney made such a case for his 13.9% effective tax rate. After receiving initial criticism for for how little Romney actually pays in taxes, and that he has money in offshore tax havens, he argued not to begrudge him, he's just using the rule of law. And it's true. But Romney has made no mention that he wants to balance the disparities of the tax code (his tax plan will actually make it worse). President Obama still has the chance to do this, to make this argument against his opponents trying to draw him as hypocritical for this decision. Play the game by the rules. If you see a better way for the game to be played, make your voice heard and the people will follow.