FIGHTING REALITY

From time to time I get into e-mail exchanges with friends and colleagues that help me understand why America is so lost when it comes to policy debates. Simply put, many people exist in an intellectually bankrupt world, where their reality checks bounce ... on a regular basis.

Recently I got into an exchange with a friend who argued that there was no money in the social security trust fund. He was responding to my point that social security is not "broke" because the federal government owes the social security trust fund trillions of dollars. It's owed trillions because every single administration (Democrat and Republican) has drawn from social security surpluses to fund yearly budgets.

My point was that social security is flush with cash as long as the federal government honors its financial responsibilities and repays the trillions it has borrowed (often listed under "intragovernmental" holdings).

My friends response? It was straight from the republican book of magic numbers. He argued that what the government owes social security isn't real money since, as President Bush once put it, the promise to pay is nothing more than an IOU. So, ta da, there's no money, we're broke ... and it's all President Obama's fault.

I responded by pointing out that if the trillions the feds owe social security are simply IOUs (blue slice on pie chart below) then he just solved our national debt problem. Why? Because the promise to repay those who lend us money to run the government every year are also IOUs (other colors on the chart below).

I argued that if we don't have to pay back the nearly $2.7 trillion we "borrowed" from social security (because they're IOUs) then we should not have to pay the IOUs on our national debt either. So, ta da, no budget problem. Pretty simple, right?

After grudgingly acknowledging his failed logic my friend did what most Fox News watchers do. He switched topics.

He began by saying that our real problem is not that social security is broke but that President Obama and the Democrats are to blame for our debt mess because President Obama isn't taking responsibility for the economic condition of our nation.

Huh?

To make his point (forget that there really wasn't one except to change topics) my friend argued that Senate Democrats are irresponsible for not passing a budget (resolution) in over two years. This, according to his logic, is the height of irresponsibility. He added that at least President Bush's budget deficits can be explained by the fact that he had to deal with two wars, Katrina, and market bubbles.

I thought to myself, Didn't President Obama inherit two wars and have a bubble-induced financial Katrina dumped on his lap? So I sent my friend these comments ...

* ... why does President Bush - who inherited budget surpluses (yes, they were real) and who blew through projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion - get excused for his tax cut driven budget deficits but President Obama - who inherited trillion dollar deficits, two wars, and a collapsed market - have to accept responsibility for what was dumped in his lap? Strange.

* ... If we want to point fingers because there is no budget from Senate Democrats then we need to ask why every major budget proposal now requires a filibuster proof vote (which requires 60 votes to pass) when this has NEVER been a requirement for any president in the past?

* .. Let's get real, Senate Dems can not pass a budget resolution this year for two reasons: First, filibuster, filibuster, filibuster ... Senate Republicans have made it clear that they will filibuster (60 votes) anything they don't like ... Republicans won't cooperate on anything the Senate Dems pass because they want President Obama to look bad. Period. Second, this years budget was effectively completed when the debt limit bill passed last August (keep in mind that Appropriations take up discretionary spending). So, long story short, we do not need a budget resolution this year because Republicans already signed off on debt limit spending.

My friends response? He changed the subject. Again.

There's more, but you get the point. You can't argue with people who are more interested in either creating a strawman argument that only they understand or who want to believe that the world they see is reality.

If I get time I'll be posting about similar conversations I've had in future posts. While they're entertaining, they're also a bit disturbing.

- Mark

PAT ROBERTSON: THIS WEEK'S VILLAGE IDIOT

Making a repeat visit to my "This Week's Village Idiot" category, via the Huffington Post, we learn that God shared with Pat Robertson who the next President of the United States will be. Here's Robertson, in his own words: "I think He showed me about the next President, but I'm not supposed to talk about that ..."



 
Also, according to Robertson, God told him that President Obama has "radical" views. Well, at least he's not making any more asteroid predictions for 2011.

What an idiot.
 
- Mark

MONDAY FUNNIES (kind of) ...

Speaking of village idiots, here's the headline ... "Brothers charged with stealing western Pa. bridge, selling 15.5 tons of scrap metal for $5,179."

From this story, it appears that this is the bridge ...

- Mark

BILL O'REILLY: THIS WEEKS VILLAGE IDIOT

While defending Wall Street and the big banks, Fox's Bill O'Reilly asked why there haven't been any investigations into Wall Street criminality if what they did was so bad. In an exchange with Cornell West and Tavis Smiley, O'Reilly argued that there is "no evidence" of wrongdoing because "they didn't violate any laws!"

What an idiot.

We haven't had big investigations - let alone convictions - after the 2008 market collapse because we dumped trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts and other guarantees into the financial sector. In the process we effectively removed the threat of receivership, bankruptcy, disgrace, or the full force of our legal system from Wall Street's horizon. This is the way our legal and political system works for white collar executives with money.

So, it's not that there wasn't illegality and theft in the lead up to 2008. It's just that the rules of the game prevents our financial mandarins from having to account for their actions. And, yes, this undermines the integrity of our market system.

Specifically, O'Reilly needs to take a look at:


Purified Toxic Crap ...
Bailouts essentially turned straw into gold by using taxpayer funded cash, to purchase toxic "legacy assets" for example. To date, well over $5 trillion in watered stock, bad assets, and toxic securities have been pretty much cleaned up (forcibly) by the U.S. government taxpayer. If the worst is cleaned up, what do you go after?

Information Blackouts ...
One of the cornerstones of any market economy - and any democracy - is transparency. Without it you can't get good information. Guess what? Bailout payout information was deliberately withheld from the public on orders from current Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner. With an information blackout the most toxic and ethically challenged market instruments have been able to fly under the radar (and then get cleaned up).

Out of Court Legal Settlements ...
Instead of entering into court battles - which are critical for building precedent and case law - financial firms like Goldman Sachs routinely pay fines into the hundreds of millions of dollars. This is chump change when you look at the trillions the financial industry has hauled in (and the trillions more we're on the hook for). It's hard to get convictions when you can pay a taxpayer subsidized fine and walk away.

Right to Sue is Waived ...
At the center of all the toxic payouts in 2008 was A.I.G. In exchange for getting bailout cash, A.I.G. was forced to give up it's right to sue Wall Street firms in court. In a few words, A.I.G. was given an offer they couldn't refuse: Take the money and shut up, or you don't get any help at all (and you might even get caught up in a legal dragnet too). But it gets better (or is that worse?). At one point during the height of the market crisis in 2008 the Federal Reserve demanded unusual national security procedures before it would share or supply critical A.I.G. bailout related documents.

For whatever reason, none of this adds up for Bill O'Reilly.

So, to simplify, you can't be sued or convicted if the problem is purified with a pile of taxpayer backed cash ... information is deliberately withheld or distorted ... you pay record fines to avoid court trials ... and if the initial keystone bailout institution is told they can't sue as a condition for receiving taxpayer money.

Let me repeat the point. You can't get investigations - let alone sued - if the state intervenes to help you bury the financial bodies. It's that simple.

If you understand this you know why Bill O'Reilly is this weeks Village Idiot.

- Mark

Addendum: As you can imagine, things haven't gotten any better over the years. Corporate America is busy playing Blame Games, and are suing one another for selling toxic crap to one another. Similarly, we're learning about the usual political stonewalling and massive lobbying of state attorney generals, which prevents or undermines larger investigations. All of this is critical for understanding why there haven't been any investigations because of how the FBI acknowledged that "mortgage fraud was substantial" as early as January 2008.

UPDATE: Here's Robert Reich with more examples of Wall Street seeking and getting legislative and legal cover from Washington.

GALILEO'S FOOL ... RICK PERRY (and his Flat Earth Moment)

So Texas Governor Rick Perry decided to throw Galileo into the discussion at last night's Republican presidential debate. All it did was showcase his flat earth credentials, and that he's ready to pander to a mob of Luddites. Either way, it's an embarrassment. Here's why.

As a thought exercise imagine what would happen 500 years ago if an individual hit the floor in a sudden frenzy of uncontrolled spasms. Depending on where you were in the world, an accepted response might be, “They’re possessed by an evil spirit, or the devil.” Accusations would be made. A good ol' witch burning might follow.

Because somebody began to question this mentality, today we know about seizures, epilepsy, and much more about how the body works. How did we get to this point? Because someone decided to doubt what we were told, and challenged what we knew. This is the essence of the scientific method.

Unlike accepting what we are told, or believing what we want because it comforts us - as was the case during the medieval period - the scientific method forces us to pursue new answers to questions we have about the world.

This is what happened when Galileo looked through a telescope and found that the earth moved. As I point out in my classes, this has had a significant impact on our world, and is an important aspect of our modern world that should be respected.

Apparently Rick Perry disagrees. Before I discuss this, let's take a look at the real Galileo moment that makes Rick Perry Galileo's Fool.

By looking through a telescope, and playing with some figures, Galileo was the first to scientifically suggest that the earth moved (heliocentrism). The discovery was so revolutionary it brought the authority of the Catholic Church down on Galileo. The high priests of the Catholic Church disagreed with Galileo and were, one would assume, the "influential" people that Rick Perry was referring to last night.

According to Church teachings at the time, the earth was flat and the center of the universe. The danger in Galileo’s discovery for the Church was that if the Church could be wrong about something as important as the position of the earth perhaps they could be wrong about other things, like the Divine Right to Rule and other aspects of life. Galileo’s findings so unnerved his colleagues at the university in Padua that many refused the opportunity to look through Galileo’s telescope. Galileo was forced to recant.

Perry's comments at last nights GOP debate should remind us all that the people who disagreed with Galileo were eventually proven wrong. The earth moves (though over 20% of Americans continue to believe the earth is the center of the universe). The earth isn't flat. And you won't fall off if you sail far into the ocean blue.

Perry's flat earth moment was an embarrassment. His huckleberry mind-set might fly in Texas, but it has no place on the larger American stage of presidential politics. Not when we're falling behind other nations in areas like math and science (among other areas).

At least I hope it doesn't have a place ...

- Mark

RANDOM THOUGHTS (and links)

* Ha, ha, ha, ha ... I love happy endings that involve morons getting their clocks cleaned. Via Digg, check this out.

* I've been saying this about taxes and our deficits for some time now. But it's nice to get updated (or is that corrected?) tax revenue figures.

* Speaking of the "Update-Mistake" department, this is a big one. It turns out that tax expert David Cay Johnston fell into a tax accounting spider hole, and used what he thought he found in an article. At least he explains what happened. You'll understand too once you read the "Checking the Records" section of his mea culpa. (And Kudos to Johnston for, once again, helping us understand why the U.S. doesn't always collect the taxes it is owed.)

* Eric Cantor's account of President Obama "walking out" of budget negotiations - after Cantor actually did so last month - is in line with his claim that his offices had been fired at when, in fact, it was random gunfire. Then, as now, Cantor's trying to personalize and use headline news to score cheap political points. What a drama queen.

- Mark

THE SARAH PALIN CHANNEL II

Earlier this month we heard about Sarah Palin's mind-numbing recount of Paul Revere's famous ride (according to Sarah, it was to warn the British). So I posted Conan O'Brian's hilarious The Sarah Palin History Channel skit here. In that spirit, I'm posting another clip that I'll call The Sarah Palin History Channel II. Enjoy.



Too funny. Kudos to my daughter for finding it.

- Mark 

A LESSON IN THE STRAW MAN ARGUMENT

Have you ever wanted to know what constitutes a Straw Man argument? Well wonder no more.

A few weeks ago I penned this op-ed on GOP budget myths for our local paper, the Bakersfield Californian. This morning a friend called to let me know that this was the op-ed response. It's too funny (and a bit sad too when you consider that this kind of argument passes for serious public debate in many corners of America).

With that, I think it's important to take a quick look at what the Straw Man argument is all about ...

The key to making a Straw Man argument is getting people to believe that you're addressing the key points of your opponents argument when, in fact, you've misrepresented, taken out of context, or oversimplified the original arguments (creating grotesque caricatures of your opponent helps the cause too). Put more simply, you recreate your opponents argument, but do so in such a poor manner that it's easy for you to take it apart.

In many cases it's easy for those making a Straw Man argument to distort or poorly recreate their opponents position because they don't really understand the points made in the first place. Or they have no real understanding of the topic.

While no one really knows the origins (etymology) of the Straw Man argument, it's often tied to the idea of scarecrows and dummy figures, which are created to give the illusion of reality. These recreations, as we know, are picked apart (by crows, as it were) and easily tossed around because they're poor substitutes for the real thing.

The overall goal of the Straw Man argument is to give the impression that you've covered the points when what you've actually done is distorted or trivialized the original issue(s). If you do a real good job you can get your opponent to respond to your poorly made argument, which sucks your opponent down an intellectual cul-de-sac, where facts are redirected, innuendo replaces substance, and the original points are lost.

The classic Straw Man argument might go like this:

Person A: Our prisons are stuffed with petty criminals who drain our financial resources. We need to decriminalize the actions of those who use small amounts of pot to help ease prison budgets.

Person B: Legalizing drugs will only lead to more crimes by those looking for drug money. More crimes means you will be mugged and robbed. Be afraid of supporting those who want to legalize drugs.

In the example above, if you get into a debate with Person B you have to go off track to explain that your original argument is tied to public finance and the decriminalization of small, petty users. Person B, on the other hand, will have none of it. That's the goal. They will try and paint you as a supporter of drug users and crime. Points of fact are lost to ideology and point scoring. Policy is undermined in the long run.

In the case of my op-ed article on GOP budget myths the author who responded to my piece begins by ignoring the very specific numbers I present on the sources behind our budget deficit. He then says plainly "Both the GOP and the Democrats have annual deficits. The GOP is the party trying to change that behavior." And, like a bad horror movie, the Straw Man begins to grow ...

In the process the author ignores how President Reagan tripled our national debt, how President Bush doubled it, and that President Clinton left budget surpluses to his successor. He also ignores what I had to say specifically about the origins of our budget deficits today. And on it went ...

If anyone were to respond point-by-point to the arguments made by the author they would be drawn into a cul-de-sac of ignorance, where political grandstanding and point scoring drowns out the real issues that need to be addressed. Fox News does this. Rush Limbaugh does this too. Glenn Beck is a master of the tactic.

That many Americans don't understand the tactic is most unfortunate.

 - Mark  

FOX NEWS HITTING NEW RACIAL LOWS

This Fox News intro from Eric Bolling is both childish and disrespectful (at best) ...




During the segment, Human Events editor Jason Mattera declared that "Barack Obama likes to defecate on American allies," and Bolling had this exchange with Fox Business reporter Sandra Smith:

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CA): There are good guys. There are bad guys out there. We've got to stay engaged.

SMITH: We don't have to have them at home, though.

BOLLING: Thank you, Smitty.

SMITH: We don't have to have them in our White House and entertaining them.

BOLLING: Where? Where? Where? Go ahead, say it. Where?

SMITH: In the hizzy.

BOLLING: In the hizzy. Thank you, Smitty.

SMITH: Do we really have to have them in the White Hizzy?

Did Fox News ever refer to the White House as the "hizzy" when President Bush visited with African leaders?

Fortunately, Whoopi Goldberg had an interesting - if not humorous - response to Bollings' ignorant race-baiting introduction ...


- Mark

SARAH PALIN: THIS WEEK'S VILLAGE IDIOT

While Sarah's supporters are bending over backwards to defend her history malfunctions, there's not a "Twinky" defense in the books that can make this right ...





Paul Revere rode to alert the British? Good one. Sarah later tried to defend her ignorance on Fox News (where else?). Chris Wallace's barely concealed smirk says it all.

Ignored in all of this is that Sarah also got her history on the Statue of Liberty wrong. She claimed that the French gave us the Statue of Liberty as a way of warning us not to make the same mistakes that they (the Europeans?) did. It was actually given to help celebrate the end of slavery (which helps explain the broken chains and shackles at the bottom of the statue).

I'm with Bill Maher on this one. Sarah shouldn't be on a summer bus tour. She should be in summer school. What an idiot.

- Mark

POST-RAPTURE UPDATE

So the world didn't come to an end on Saturday. No Rapture-like body disappearances. No Apocalyptic ending. Not even space aliens. Nada. Zilch (though I did have a good time at the game on Saturday).

However, this is what happens when people take the charlatans seriously.

Too bad. People need to remember what the Bible says about predicting the end of time. December 2012 could be an unnecessary nightmare for many. Sigh ...

- Mark

UPDATE: Harold Camping has rescheduled the Rapture for Oct. 21, 2011. Halloween time. Pretty spooky, wouldn't you say? But rather than a long torturous road, the end "will come at once."

TENNESSEE IS SO GAY ... (and why I'm going to teach Intelligent Revolution)

So the state of Tennessee is prepared to have their school children challenge the Theory of Evolution so they can discuss the merits of Intelligent Design. Presumably this might include how Jesus helped domesticate the dinoasurs ...

But, in Tennessee's public schools, it may not be OK to say anything or discuss the challenges and realities of American citizens who are part of our gay community ...

And the South wonders why the rest of America often views them as out of touch hillbillies. The way they do business has a way of making people think that they view the Flinstones as a documentary ...

While believing that the dinosaurs made it for the trip on Noah's Ark, the reality is that it would have probably ended something like this ...

Yeah, yeah ... I know.

Anyways, in the spirit of the South, I have an idea. The next time I teach American Politics I'm going to start off the American Experience by teaching Intelligent Revolution ...

Think about it. How else can we explain American revolutionaries beating the British against all odds? They must have had some divine help from the Spirit. Now if we can just find Washington's dinosaur saddle ...

- Mark  

STEWART EXPOSES FOX STUPIDITY (again)

Once again, Jon Stewart shows how foolish and petty Fox News is ...

The Daily Show - Tone Def Poetry Jam
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

These guys are pathetic and poisonous. I won't comment on the racial undertones behind the Fox commentary. Sean Hannity, especially, looks like a complete tool.

- Mark

THANK YOU BIRTHER NATION

What do you know? The Birthers actually did us a favor. They're going to help us understand why we can ignore the "let's-see-the-body" crowd.

After killing Osama Bin Laden President Obama made it clear that the world doesn't need to see Bin Laden's mutilated carcass hanging in front of us. There were plenty of people involved (go ahead, question the Navy Seals), enough evidence collected (which should worry al Qaeda operatives), and real time crow-eating (read, Pakistan) for those of us in the reality based world to know that Bin Laden is dead.

Carrier-speech grandstanding ...

... or reality TV-like displays of chest-thumping patriotism simply aren't necessary for this White House. This is where the Birthers are going to help us out.

Anyone who saw how Orly Taitz, Eric Bolling of Fox News, or how Donald Trump upped the ante after President Obama released his long form birth certificate learned one thing: The crazies and lunatic fringe will never be satisfied.

Because they continue to cling to their thinly veiled racist-Manchurian Candidate theories about President Obama, Americans are able to see with great clarity just how out of touch the Birthers are. They live in an entirely different world than you and me.

We don't need to waste our time indulging their fantasies.

Today, we have the "carnival barkers" calling on President Obama to release photos to prove that Osama Bin Laden is dead. But they forget one thing, which proves they're nuts: Even if President Obama authorized the release of Bin Laden's photos the conspiracy theorists and their media support staff (Fox News) would still criticize President Obama.

But this time they would criticize President Obama for putting on a show that rattles Islamic sensibilities ... for over sensationalized the issue ... for putting our troops in harms way ... for, well, you get the picture. These people aren't playing with a full deck.

The Birthers and their psychological shadows - who are now emerging because Bin Laden's photos haven't been released - are disturbed people who live in the dark corners of the human experience. They have to. The real world is too hard for them to figure out. They can't accept a black man as president the United State. So they work to create a world that delegitimizes him ... He can't be a citizen ... How did he get into Harvard? ... President Obama created the budget mess ... and on it goes.

Similarly, the partisan Obama-haters who think we need to see "proof" of Bin Laden's death are hoping to create doubts where none should be cast. It's part of the delegitimization process. It's their life-blood. For al Qaeda supporters, and professional conspiracy theorists, proof is required because who they are depends on sustaining invented myths and legends.

But proof of Bin Laden's death won't satisfy any of these groups. Nothing will. It only encourages them to create new theories that must be proven false, again. It's the process and the recognition that makes them feel important.

If most Americans didn't see this before the Birthers they can see it now. So, on behalf of those of us who live in the real world, thank you Birther Nation.

- Mark

A WILD DISPLAY OF BIBLICAL IGNORANCE

In his nightly Rewrite MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell takes Rush Limbaugh to task for his "wild display of biblical ignorance." He does so because of how Rush mocks and then lies about what Jesus would ask of those who are more fortunate than the rest of us ...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

- Mark

DONALD TRUMP ... SUPER GENIUS?

If you haven't watched any of The Trump interviews check out this Michael Isikoff interview, which Isikoff goes over with Cenk Uygur in this clip.



Whether it's Trump's brain power, his birther stupidity, not knowing what classifies as a university, failing to acknowledge failure, or the fact that Trump was born into wealth and still managed to run his company into 3 bankruptcy filings, I think it's time someone bought Mr. Trump a nice cup of special blend coffee ...

Seriously, when did the race for the American presidency begin to include mistaking obnoxious stupidity and media presence for gravitas? Think about it, Trump's recipe for bringing down oil prices includes using his "brain power" to go after OPEC. 

That's not just brain power. In Trump's mind, I'm sure, it's out-of-the-box "super policy" thinking that, no doubt, can only be explained by his "super genius"  ...



I'll leave it at that, for now.

- Mark

EVEN THE VILLAGE IDIOTS ARE SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS

In my American Politics classes I always be sure to say that there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that forbids anyone from making a fool of themselves. It looks like Glenn Beck is taking this sentiment to an entirely different level. This is from Huffingtonpost.com ...

Glenn Beck: Some Muslims Want to Bring About the Antichrist

Glenn Beck theorized that some Muslims are trying to bring about the equivalent of the Antichrist on his Thursday show.


Beck claimed that he was bringing the issue up because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt both believe in the Twelfth Imam--a figure in Shia Islam who Beck and his guest, author Joel Richardson, said bore a disturbing resemblance to the Biblical Antichrist.

Hey. I have an idea ...

Why doesn't Glenn Beck tap into the 911-God call line that he has in his head, and ask that the Spirit of God be unleashed against the Muslim-invited Antichrist. You know, like he claimed was possible when he spoke in front of the Lincoln Memorial during the summer. That way we can have the God vs. Antichrist Cage Match that Beck thinks he's uniquely qualified to see developing before anyone else.

What a goofball.

Seriously. Even the village idiots have to be scratching their heads on this one. No doubt, they're laughing too.

- Mark

P.S. This article by Frank Rich at the NY Times explains what's going on with Glenn Beck and modern conservatism. One thing is clear to Rich: The GOP and modern conservatism appears to be both shrill and adrift. Not a good combination.

THIS IS WHY PENSIONS ARE UNDERFUNDED ...

Want to know why many public pension funds are sucking wind these days? While the right wing blogosphere wants you to think it's due to spiraling costs and overly generous pension plans this simply is not true. Corporate arrogance, market fraud, and our recent market collapse have done more to underfund and rob pensions of their market value than anything else.

Here's how it happened ...

Take My Pensions, Please
In the area of corporate theft - what William C. Black might call "control fraud" - we need to begin by understanding that when large firms file for bankruptcy protection they can, and they will, dump their pension obligations on the federal government, through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). 

But dumping private obligations on the American taxpayer isn't necessarily the problem. The PBGC has traditionally been a conservative investor and trustee of pensions (more on this below). What we've learned is that in an effort to boost their bottom line corporate chieftains would deliberately pay less into their employee's pension plans.

This tactic boosted profits, allowed corporate executives to pay themselves more in the short-term, and helped keep stock prices artificially high. But it also left the federal government with big financial holes to fill when "private" pension plans were dumped on to the American taxpayer during corporate bankruptcy proceedings (as I pointed out last year).

These financial holes - again, made possible because the private sector deliberately underfunded pensions - now make it appear that underfunded government guaranteed pensions are out of control. In fact, many of these once private plans were underfunded to begin with, and became a burden for the federal government American taxpayer only after companies like Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Air, Nortel Networks, etc. declared bankruptcy and dumped them on us.

I'm From Wall Street & I'm Smart ... Seriously
Today the federal government is now left trying to fill in shortfalls with new investment strategies that don't always pan out. Apart from the general risk of market collapse, the American taxpayer has to deal with overly zealous market players in key government positions who make extremely dumb investment decisions, as the following makes abundantly clear.

If ever there was a story that should put an end to the "Public-Pensions-Are-Too-Expensive/Let's-Cut-Benefits" crowd, this is it.

WASHINGTON - Just months before the [2008] stock market collapse, the federal agency that insures the retirement funds of 44 million Americans departed from its conservative investment strategy and decided to put much of its $64 billion insurance fund into stocks.

Switching from a heavy reliance on bonds, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation decided to pour billions of dollars into speculative investments such as stocks in emerging foreign markets, real estate, and private equity funds.

Got that? Believing in the magic of the market - in spite of red flags that were going up all around him - Bush administration PBGC director, Charles E.F. Millard, implemented a new aggressive market strategy. He began directing billions of dollars in public retirement funds away from safe government bonds and into the stock market, right before the market collapsed.

Guess who has to live with the consequences of this decision after 2008? Not Mr. Millard.

On the bright side, for Wall Street and the institutional players who were able to get their hands on these retirement funds, many of Wall Street's fat cats and investment firms won big fees and, no doubt, even bigger bonuses for bringing in these accounts.

I'm Not Just Ignorant, I'm Arrogant Too
We now know that corporate America deliberately underfunded private pension plans. We also know that they dumped their underfunded pensions on the American taxpayer when they declared bankruptcy. Then, in an effort to make up anticipated shortfalls, Mr. Millard - a former managing director of Lehman Brothers - took public funds and dumped them on to Wall Street right before the market collapsed (no word on whether Millard shoveled the money into Lehman Brothers, or toward other institutions where his buddies worked).

It was like throwing money down a drain.

Not only was this a classic case of "Heads you win, tails we lose", but it was a case of corporate welfare and public subsidies at its finest.

Incredibly, Mr. Millard isn't too concerned over the losses. As a former Wall Street genius, Millard said that his "new investment policy is not riskier than the old one." Asked whether the stock over bonds strategy was a mistake, especially given the subsequent decline in stock and real estate prices, Millard offered the classic sociopath's "Don't blame me" response,

Ask me in 20 years. The question is whether policymakers will have the fortitude to stick with it.

I don't know which is worse. Millard's arrogance or his ignorance.

Either way, putting more public money - like trillions of dollars in social security funds - into our current market environment would be little more than an undeserved market reward, and another bailout, for Wall Street.

At the end of the day, they don't deserve it. And we can't afford it.

- Mark

Update: Here's an update, which focuses on the implications of the market crash and total obligations as they compare to corporate pensions.

SET FIRE TO A HOUSE ... GET CALLED A HERO? THE ABSURD LOGIC BEHIND THANKING BUSH

If I set fire to a house and then call the fire department - who then put out the fire - am I a hero? No? What if I ran into the house to save a few family members before the fire department arrived. Am I a hero now? This is precisely what Fox News and their conservative drones on the right want us to believe about George W. Bush because of "The Surge" strategy in Iraq.

Let's make this clear. We never should have been in Iraq. It was a war of choice. The Surge was made possible only because George W. Bush and his administration decided, as it were, to set Iraq on fire.

But as long as we're talking about The Surge, let me make this clear too: The Surge was not the primary factor behind the decline of violence in Iraq. Here's why.

As I posted in March 2008 the decline in violence in Iraq was a product of four developments, none of which had anything to to do with The Surge.

1. Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's August 2007 cease-fire.

2. The Anbar Awakening, which began in Sept. 2006 (in essence the Sunni's began saying no to Al Qaeda).

3. The physical separation (which included barrier walls) of Shi'a and Sunnis right before The Surge.

4. The Low-Hanging Fruit of Death were gone. Shi'a & Sunnis, tired of surprise murders, had moved out of previously "integrated" neighborhoods by August 2007.

To be sure, The Surge helped solidify and reemphasize the gains that came from these developments. But this makes The Surge a "supporting" rather than determining factor for Iraq's decline in violence.

More importantly, “the surge worked” crowd (conveniently) ignores that The Surge was designed to provide stability for national reconciliation so that specific political benchmarks could be met. The key here is that while a degree of security and stability has been achieved, violence still plagues Iraq, sectarian divisions continue, while the larger goals of national reconciliation and certain political benchmarks have only been partially met.

Still, to think that The Surge makes George W. Bush a hero, who should be thanked for his military genius, is akin to saying arsonists should be thanked for calling 911 on themselves. Would you give them a parade?
 
Finally, the "We should thank George W. Bush" crowd miss a fundamental point about our nation's war of choice. We spent over $700 billion (interest not tacked on), saw our national prestige decline, had 31,926 U.S. soldiers returned who were injured or maimed (20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries), and lost over 4,400 U.S. soldiers to the war in Iraq ...
 

 
Should we thank George W. Bush for this too?

- Mark

GLENN BECK: THIS WEEK'S VILLAGE IDIOT

There are so many things wrong with Glenn Back speaking in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech that I don't know where to begin.

Well, actually, I do know where to begin. Let's start by naming Glenn Beck this week's Village Idiot.

Beck would earn this week's honor for this claim alone: "This is a moment, quite honestly, that I think we reclaim the civil rights movement."

I might be inclined to believe Glenn Beck except for two things. First, unlike the intellectually challenged and historically clueless zombies who follow Beck, I can think for myself. Second, the last time a bigoted, hate-mongering, nutjob tried to claim the civil rights movement for white America he came with fire hoses and dogs, and was named Bull Connor.

But Glenn Beck really deserves this week's Village Idiot award because of his delusional claim that we're "going to see the Spirit of God unleashed" as he helps to "restore the values that founded this great nation."

And just who do we owe for the opportunity to see "the Spirit of God unleashed"? Why, Glenn Beck, of course.

It turns out that Glenn's only "writing a few bullet points" for the speech so he doesn't "get in the way of the Spirit in case He wants to talk."

What an idiot.

- Mark