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.

Sen. Bernie Sanders Attacks Oil Speculators

Vermont independent Senator Bernie Sanders sponsored a bill to the Senate on March 21, to set a 14-day deadline for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to implement rules to stop excessive speculation by Wall Street investors in oil futures markets. The bill was co-sponsored by six other Senators.

With U.S. demand for oil down and increases in domestic production at an 8-year high, the rising prices at the pump are attributed little to nothing with administrative policy. Studies, including one by Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investors in oil futures, cites excessive oil speculation leading to an increase by as much as 56 cents per gallon of gas. The national average sits just below $4 right now, meaning almost 20% of the price of gas at the pumps has nothing to do with supply or demand. According to Sen. Sanders, it's time to reign in Wall Street.

via Think Progress

But there's another point to make here: global demand for oil is up. While the U.S. continues to be the world's largest user of oil, since 1970, Asia has increased its oil consumption by nearly 3 times. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, global demand accounts for 40% of the increase in prices, while speculation only accounts for 15%. What does this mean? That even if the U.S. opened every possible oil and natural gas reserve in the country, with global demand on the rise and by no means looking to slow down, Americans are going to pay more and more every year for gas no matter what we do with our natural resources. In essence, there's no better time to look to alternative fuel sources such as solar and wind energy.

Salon: Billionaires Ruin Democracy

Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks have a new book out from Beacon Press, Billionaires' Ball: Gluttony and Hubris in an Age of Epic Inequality, and Salon was permitted to excerpt portions of the book prior to release. Give the entire thing a read, but here's a sampling of what to expect:

"He identified the fact that managers of private equity, venture capital and hedge funds were claiming a significant part of their incomes as capital gains (taxed at 15 percent), rather than treating them as regular income (taxed at 35 percent). That substantial difference in rates was magnified by the enormity of the incomes in question. A private equity manager receiving, say, $600 million as a capital gain would pay $90 million in tax. If the same income were treated as income from salary, it would be taxed at 35 percent (and also be subject to a 2.9 percent payroll tax), bringing the private equity manager’s tax bill to $227.4 million — almost $140 million more.

"The ostensible purpose of the lower capital gains rate is to compensate investors for the risk they take in investing their capital. But private equity and fund managers aren’t investing their own capital. They’re investing other people’s capital. They’re simply money managers. By claiming capital gains treatment, they are passing off regular income as capital gains, simply to save themselves taxes."

Continue reading here.

Gingrich Putting the Children to Work

With the Republican Presidential nomination race maintaining its highly contested aura, the candidates are searching for ways each can pull ahead. Generally such a highly contested race might spur some candidates to veer more towards the middle, to a more moderate stance in their party to avoid becoming the outlier, the crazy one, and draw more supporters. If we look back at the 2008 Presidential election, there were many independents on the fence about voting for an untested Barack Obama, but when it came down to it, they couldn’t bring themselves to lay down their vote for the gaffe-prone, “rogue,” Sarah Palin, John McCain’s Vice Presidential pick. After the landslide margin of victory for the Democrats in that election, you’d think the Republican Party might have turned down the far Right rhetoric. But it only seemed to get worse after Obama took office. And now here we are one year out from the 2012 election and it seems the crazier the Republican nominee, the better chance they have of winning the nomination.

That’s where Newt Gingrich comes in. Once considered completely out of the race, suddenly the former Speaker of the House finds himself in the lead with a slight edge over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Romney has had his share of problems, mostly his John Kerry-like indecisiveness and “flip-flopping” on key issues. (I use the term ‘flip-flopping’ here loosely. Romney, I feel if elected, would actually move far more the Left of his current positions on certain issues. I believe he’s aware that the GOP has shifted drastically Right since Obama’s election and to simply court the vote, Romney is veering far Right until the nomination.) Gingrich, on the other hand, has simply maintained. He has not had the major flubs that Michelle Bachmann and Gov. Rick Perry have had. Also, despite Gingrich’s marital problems, no extra-marital affairs or sexual harassment allegations have sprung up, like nose-diving Herman Cain. What Gingrich has going for him thus far seems to be only that he is the GOP’s self-professed “ideas man.” What exactly has Gingrich come up with lately? Well, this week he once again attacked child labor laws defending a remark he made in mid-November for how ‘truly stupid’ they are. Frankly, if these are the types of ideas a Presidential nominee is going to come up with, I fear the Right is far more out of touch with the American public, and the American economy than most realize.

How exactly putting children to work will help the economy, and more specifically the unemployment rate, is something the prospective nominee does not purport to theorize. But, nonetheless, Gingrich is maintaining his stance on this issue. He believes that ‘poor’ children do not know how to work, that their work ethic is nonexistent because if they are poor, then surely their parents must not work. Gingrich glances over the fact that 15% of the country, 46 million people, are in poverty. The official unemployment rate is just below 9%. That means that 6% of the population works, but is still below the poverty line. That’s not lack of motivation, that’s lack of livable wages in the private sector. But say that Gingrich does somehow manage to rollback child labor laws, and his idea of putting school children to work with janitors in the evenings is implemented. How exactly does this help unemployment? Children are not officially counted in the unemployment rate. So, that would not dent the unemployed. But, if suddenly schools are allowed to hire children for less wages, thus more hands, they could feasibly layoff adults working in the school, which would actually worsen unemployment.

And what exactly does this do for a child? True, I’m sure they’d get valuable experience learning how to clean toilets and clean up kindergartener’s puke, if they aspired to be janitors when they grow up. Children should not be made to work in school. Parents should be raising their children. (Is this big government from Newt Gingrich?) Children should be concentrating on bettering their education, not what cleaning product works best on permanent marker scribbled on school lockers. A better education for the youth of our generation is the only means to a better future. India and China, the two fastest growing economies in the world, have invested billions into their education systems and they are leading the way in graduating math and science students, producing future innovators and entrepreneurs. It’s true that an after-school work program might keep a lot of kids off the streets and it will better prepare them for the future by teaching them needed skills, but it should be a voluntary, unpaid program. It should be like an internship program, or provide extra-credit for students struggling with their grades. Or perhaps it could be used as a reduction in school taxes for those parents whose children join the program. Lower taxes? Every Republican can get onboard with that one.

And speaking of China: until recently the country had very lax child labor laws. Comparatively to the US, they still do. Maybe Mr. Gingrich doesn’t quite remember sweat shops? Maybe Mr. Gingrich doesn’t quite remember our own sordid history with child labor in the fields and factories of the early 1900’s? For someone who’s written so many books, especially on history, I find that hard to believe. Maybe someone needs to remind Mr. Gingrich of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire of 1911? The point is this country has already seen it’s more than fair share of needless accidents involving the deaths of workers, especially children who were put into unsafe working conditions. We enacted laws to better safety standards of factory conditions so that workers are not risking their lives to make below poverty rate wages. The funny thing that happened along the way though is that as American labor laws became stricter, the factory owners and “job creators” just took their industries overseas to China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, to name a few. Sure enough, however, the same thing that happened here is happening overseas. There have been countless reports of death and injury in Chinese factories where the labor laws were extremely lax. But after some very public, egregious stories of operose workers being hurt, especially poor children from China’s vast countryside coming to the booming cities for work, the country has had little choice but to enact stronger labor laws to protect its people from unsafe American business practices. Why then, in a bit of hyperbole, does Mr. Gingrich wish the United States to rollback our labor laws and become more aligned with Communist China? Isn’t Obama supposed to be the socialist Kenyan, Newt?

Finally, I think the biggest problem I have with this whole idea of Gingrich’s is that he specifically points out that “poor” children are the ones in need of a solid employed role model in order to garner some kind of proper work ethic. Why is it just poor children who need this? What kind of work ethic do rich kids have that poor children do not? Poor children do not see how their parents boss the maid around the house in order for the maid to pick up after the messy child. Do rich children by some under-reported phenomenon, some kind of osmosis of ambition, absorb the ingenuity, the entrepreneurial spirit that their parents supposedly have? What about the children of Bernie Madoff? What kind of work ethic do they have if their father’s wealth came from crime? And what of the executives on Wall Street who crashed the economy with fraudulent mortgage foreclosures, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, etc.? Sure these people made a lot of money, and they stole a lot of money from the country and the middle class. Is this the type of “ambition” that Mr. Gingrich feels we should be instilling in all our children?

Public Health and Safety

As we reported last week, the Occupy Wall Street camp down at Zuccotti Park was raided in the early morning hours of Tuesday, November 15th. The occupiers were removed from the park, either obeying a city ordinance to clean the area, or disobeying the ordinance and removed forcibly by police. When the cleaning was done (tents, books, their personal belongings trashed or packed up and taken to a holding area where they could be picked up later), the occupiers were allowed to return, but no longer could bring tents or sleeping bags back into the park with them. The city, and notably Mayor Michael Bloomberg, rationalized their decision citing the encampments dangers to public health and safety. I wish the Mayor, and other city officials, were more concerned with risks to public health and safety in other areas of the city.

To Mayor Bloomberg's credit, I will say that his concern for public safety in this situation seems synchronous with some of his other social and political stances. He is a large voice in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns campaign, and generally believes lax gun laws in urban environments leads to higher rates of crime and homicide. Though Republican, Bloomberg is not a climate science denier. He believes global warming is a serious threat to people, our children, and our world. Couple these things with his reasoning to effectively shut down the Occupy Wall Street camp, and it's easy to draw the correlations of his concern for the safety of the public. However, it still was not right to trash constitutional rights of citizens.

But more importantly here, we must ask the Mayor, or any right-wing pundit who seems to have no problem reporting and parroting the Mayor's excuse for raiding the camp: why does this "threat" to public health and safety of the Occupy Wall Street camp bear any more danger to lower Manhattan than crime in other parts of the city? Why doesn't the Mayor send a military-style police force into Bed-Stuy, Chelsea, or Midtown to "clean" that part of the city? Why doesn't the Mayor send a military-trained police force into the subway system to clean the crumbling platforms, the filth-covered drainage gutters between the tracks, or the rust-streaked white tiling on the walls? Most importantly, why aren't the police invading the buildings down at Wall Street not to arrest and disperse Occupiers, but to raid the offices of commercial banks whose practices are a threat to the public health and safety of America, whose packaging of mortgages into derivatives collapsed the economy, who skirted and lobbied Washington to waterdown Dodd-Frank so they could build another economic bubble just to see it pop again, to get bailed out and to hemorrhage even more money from the poor and middle class? The people on Wall Street represent a clear and present danger to the public health and safety of New York City, Mr. Bloomberg. Just ask Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, since he told the Congressional panel investigating the causes of the financial meltdown that "crises" should be expected "every five to seven years." If you take into account that every crisis only serves to hurt the poor and middle class while the rich get more well-off, then it seems to me like these crises are planned and actually the financial sector hopes for them. They get the bailout. America gets the bill.

Penn State's Students

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Jon Stewart sums up the absolutely appalling response to the Joe Paterno firing by students at Penn State this past week pretty clearly, and I think points to a much broader issue of cover-up, denial, lying, etc. by those in power, most often, men in power. He probably could have gone on about this story much longer in the opening segment of the show, but I think it's pretty clear, judging by how unfunny this clip is, how upset he is over the whole situation and chose to keep his response short. This is the kind of anger that should, and rightfully is, down on Occupy Wall Street. Joe Paterno was fired unceremoniously from his job for not taking stronger action against his Assistant Coach for molesting children. Wall Street criminals should be fired for what they have done to our world.