GOP, STILL GOING TO SAY "NO"

___________________________________________________

With President Obama gearing up to present a jobs and growth agenda next week, expect the Republicans to fight him tooth and nail on it. How do I know they'll do this? Because they have a long history of doing this. In fact, a little over 2 1/2 years ago I wrote that the GOP would refuse to work with President Obama because laying President Bush's economic mess at President Obama's doorstep would work politically for the the GOP in 2010 and 2012. As a reminder of when the GOP's obstructionism with President Obama began I'm re-posting my January 29, 2009 post below (with pictures this time).

___________________________________________________

Thursday, January 29, 2009

A NATION OF MORONS

A nation of morons . . . This is what Republicans think of America.

The House Republican’s party-line “thumbs down” to President Obama’s economic stimulus program, and their rejection of Obama’s pre-vote olive branch, represents one thing and one thing only: their first step toward regaining power

According to Republicans, if they leave President Obama and the Democrats to deal with President Bush’s economic mess, they believe their rejection of the stimulus package will allow them to cast blame and gain some seats in 2010, with the goal of regaining power in 2012.

Unfortunately, this line of thinking is not so far-fetched.

Republicans understand very well that the economic catastrophe facing this country is real. Record deficits, stagnant wages, record personal debt, and an exploding national debt will not disappear any time soon. Still, they don’t want to help President Obama because they also understand that if Obama’s vision (making government work) and policy initiatives (directed toward social justice) help Americans see light at the end of the tunnel he will be rewarded. So will the Democratic Party.

Simply put, Republicans see FDR’s spirit in Barack Obama’s initiatives, and it scares the hell out of them. Obama has become a political Ghost Whisperer of sorts.

So the Republican strategy today is to put some distance between Bush’s record, and their blind support for Bush’s programs. They believe America will forget that they handed President Bush the matches he used to light our national house on fire. Worse, they think this will happen if they say "No" to everything President Obama proposes and wait for the underlying economic tsunami that is poised to wash up on our political shores (the numbers surrounding bank positions on derivatives are truly scary).

They are banking on additional meltdowns and bailout fatigue. Like political vultures, they are waiting for system rot and the smell of death. Hence the non-cooperation.

Obstructionism and a lack of cooperation worked for Republicans at the national level in 1994 (led by Gingrich), and in 2003 with California Governor Gray Davis (led, in part, by current minority Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy). The goal is not to govern, but to obtain power. It makes no difference to Republicans that the ideas they offer today – more tax cuts and deregulation – are the exact same ideas that ran this country into the ground under Bush.

You’re probably scratching your head, and asking yourself, “Are they really thinking like this? ... Do they really think America will forget?" The short answer to these questions is YES.

Like I said, Republicans think America is inhabited by a nation of morons.
___________________________________________________

OK, back to the present ...

Pretending to stand on principle (where were these guys when Reagan tripled and Bush II doubled our nation's debt?), the GOP's "just say no" program was noticed by the NY Times in October of 2009, but it really began during the health care debate under Newt Gingrich in 1993, as Adam Clymer documents here.

Now, think back over the past 2 1/2 years and ask yourself if the GOP has tried to work with President Obama to correct the mess that President Bush left behind.

* Repeal President Bush's budget busting tax cuts, which cost $300 billion per year? No.

* Repeal of President Bush's Medicare Part D, which costs $40-70 billion per year? No.

* Bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, which costs $250 billion per year? No.

* A jobs or stimulus program to deal with the $250 billion a year hit we're taking because of the 2008 meltdown? No.

* Reining in the bailout gravy train (and pursuing the crooks on Wall Street), which costs at least $250 billion per year? No.

* Asking our nation's wealthy and upper middle class to cut back on some of their tax deductions, which cost us about $1.2 trillion per year? No.

They won't even consider cutting back on oil subsidies though the industry is making record profits. Simply put, the GOP isn't serious about the debt, or helping President Obama fix the economy unless it's done their way.

My new prediction? The GOP's going to do what they can to kill anything of substance that President Obama proposes on jobs. And if they do offer to help they won't touch tax cuts for the rich, or their tax deductions. Instead, their help will come with the poison pill of more cuts on insurance and other programs that help America's middle class and the poor. Then they'll propose more of President Bush-style tax cuts and deregulation programs.

What a mess.
___________________________________________________

- Mark

WIKILEAKS DID US ALL A FAVOR

This is funny. I always enjoyed how Yosemite Sam got hot and bothered over trespassers getting "footy prints" all over his desert. It's a classic. Best of all, the clip reminds me of how people are getting hot and bothered over the WikiLeaks document dump that's all over the Internet. Seriously.

Why beat up the camel on Julian Assange for dropping "footy prints" all over when there's all kinds of "footy prints" already out there?

I've been watching the WikiLeaks-National Security drama unfold for the past week and see Yosemite Sams and political theater all around. Indeed, cries of treason and terrorism are almost as absurd as are suggestions that we should consider both the death penalty and the censorship of private media groups for those who helped publish WikiLeaks' documents.

What a bunch of drama queens. Here's why.

What About Scooter Libby (and Iraq)?
Remember I. "Scooter" Libby? He was convicted of lying to conceal the involvement of the Bush White House in leaking the identity of an active CIA agent. Curiously, the same people who either gave Libby a free pass or provided propaganda cover are now suddenly concerned over national security secrets. Why is that?

And what about all the lies and corruption that led us into war in Iraq in the first place? Where's the indignation here? The last time I looked, going to war on a pack of lies has produced far more death, destruction, and debt than what WikiLeaks has done.

State Secrets Exposed? Hardly
Still, I'm particularly amused by the absurd claims of damage to our national secrets. As I pointed out months ago, starting with the cold war our nation has slowly become an overly militarized and secretive state. The events of 9/11 only made this trend worse.

How bad is it? Think about this:

* We now have over 10,000 counter terrorism, homeland security and intelligence locations across the country.

* We have over 850,000 intelligence personnel with "top secret" access.

* We also produce over 50,000 intelligence reports (no doubt all "top secret") every year.

What this means is that most of the cables that were downloaded and transferred to WikiLeaks were already accessible to around 3 million diplomats, military people, agencies, and private security companies (and their staff) at many levels. In addition, most of the stuff we've seen from WikiLeaks we've known about for years. As John Allen Paulos put it, "Something is not all that secret ... if millions of people can pull it up on their computers."

(And, besides, according to George Bush's Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, "not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime.”)

But Let's Kill the Messenger Anyways ...
Just as I'm concerned by the absurd claims of damage to our national secrets, I'm equally concerned over the equally absurd notion that killing the messenger, Julian Assange, will somehow make us safer (or send a message). Just as Yosemite Sam did himself a disservice by beating the heck out the poor camel, going after Julian Assange and WikiLeaks will not make anyone safer.

This is the 21st century. Because there are lots of "footy prints" out there we will have more WikiLeaks. What our diplomatic corps needs to keep in mind is what I tell my students - don't write or post anything that would prove embarrassing if it were put on the front page of a newspaper.

Concluding Comments
As we privatized and expanded our military apparatus the result has been that we've ended up with more and more national security crazies. Their level of importance (in their minds) is tied to the amount of top secret stuff they work with. Many of them think they're the second coming of James Bond. They're not.

With so many top secret clearances, and with so many hands and eyes in the national security pot, many of them are doing little more than looking for Boris and Natasha ...

This is why so many work to classify everything that crosses their desks as "top secret" - even when the information is run of the mill stuff that can be easily accessed on the Internet. While much of the stuff our analysts see is important, they don't want to appear insignificant by missing anything or, worse, be accused of overlooking some thing.

Put another way, our evolving cloak and dagger culture is increasingly making a mockery of national security. 

Still, we're urged to kill the messenger of leaked national security documents because the documents are considered so "top secret" that only a few million should have access to them. The reality is the WikiLeaks document dump revealed petty gossip, and proved more embarrassing than many are comfortable with. Worse, they show how we've become an overly secretive and militarized culture - which allowed us to be lied into a war of choice that we still don't know how to leave.

WikiLeaks did us all a favor by reminding us all of this.

I'm with Rep. Ron Paul on this one. If it's not WikiLeaks today, there are plenty of "footy prints" and wannabe WikiLeaks out there. I guarantee it.

- Mark

Update: This piece from Arianna Huffington argues that the WikiLeaks that were posted revealed little because they were limited and vetted by Julian Assange's group. Put another way, they provided no national security threat (unlike George Bush's wars). It also underscores my point that we live in the 21st century, and that there will be more WikiLeaks coming down the pike. Just because the U.S. gets embarrassed by inconvenient stories - many of which should not even be classified - should not be the basis for turning exposed lies into protected speech (while the truth becomes criminal). This is especially pertinent for the Obama administration, who turned its back on their opportunity to expose and prosecute extraordinary lies when they had the opportunity. At the end of the day, Huffingtonpost reminds us, we should be focusing on transparency and what the government is doing, instead of protecting the lies that make Washington insiders uncomfortable.

SO, WHAT HAPPENED TO "COUNTRY FIRST"?

Worse than traitors in arms

are the men who pretend loyalty

to the flag, feast and fatten on the

misfortunes of the Nation while patriotic

blood is crimsoning the plains of the South

and their countrymen moldering the dust.

- Abraham Lincoln, Discussing Greed in America

During the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union competed with each other for Geo-strategic turf, consecutive U.S. presidents regularly encouraged U.S. firms to ship jobs overseas. The argument was that it was better to have Italians and Scandinavians making shoes and working on their docks than to have high unemployment, where socialist parties could gain a foothold.

It was a legitimate argument, given the stakes.

To be sure, where jobs had been lost congressional representatives complained regularly, but to no avail. The executive branch and national security concerns won out.

Today, rather than the executive branch leading the way, it's members of Congress working for specific corporate interests who are OK with shipping jobs overseas. Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic plan which would have encouraged companies to bring jobs back from overseas. The GOP caucus voted unanimously today against a motion to debate the measure on the Senate floor (the motion failed 53 to 45).

So much for Country First.

Specifically, the proposed bill would have:

(1) ended tax deductions for businesses when they close a U.S. firm and then shift the work abroad,
(2) imposed a new tax on products once made in the United States but now manufactured by foreign workers and shipped to the U.S., and
(3) enacted a payroll tax holiday for firms that brought jobs back to the U.S.

Republicans voted the bill down, by promising yet another filibuster. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) explained why he was going to vote no, claiming the issue was simply "a tool of political demagoguery."
 
Bringing jobs back to America is demagoguery? Seriously?
 
- Mark

SOLVING OUR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM ... LET'S BRING BACK ATTORNEY GENERAL MUKASEY

Hey, I have an idea that may solve the legal side of the "illegal immigration" debate. If precedent means anything we should get the support of the conservatives. Check this out ...

Remember when then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey's Inspector General found that half a dozen officials in President Bush's Justice Department illegally rejected viable job candidates? The IG found that their criteria for dismissing candidates was that they had “liberal” backgrounds (members of the ACLU, Democrats on Campus, etc.).

Weeding out candidates because of political beliefs or affiliations at the federal level is a crime.

In this case, the perpetrators of the crime were religious conservatives. One of the perpetrators, Monica Goodling, graduated from Christian fundamentalist madrassa Regent University Law School (founded by Pat Robertson), and believed that her religion came first. Her responsibilities as a citizen of the U.S. was a secondary concern. Specifically, she believed she was doing the right thing because she was doing "God's work" (this mind-set forms the heart of the Dominionist movement in America, which argues that the Kingdom of God will be established here on earth through political and even military means). Her partner in crime, Kyle Sampson, is a "devout Mormon" who graduated from Brigham Young University.

Ignoring the evidenc laid out by the IG report, the Bush administration's Justice Department declined to press charges against Goodling, Sampson, and others who helped weed out perceived "liberal" candidates. The reasoning was clear: According to then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, "not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime.”

So much for Republicans being the party of law and order.

According to Mukasey, because those who might have violated "federal and civil service law" had already suffered "substantial negative publicity" his office wouldn't act on the Inspector General's findings. It didn't matter that Goodling believed her responsibilities as a citizen of the U.S. didn't always fit into her religious beliefs. Respecting your duties as a U.S. citizen and protecting the Constitution is really no biggy, as long as you have God on your side.

No charges were ever filed against the perpetrators.

Got that? If you've got faith, and have already been persecuted in the court of public opinion, your duties as a citizen are optional, and you don't have to respect our laws. Screw citizenship. Screw the law. That is, of course, if the Attorney General will speak up for you and says "every violation of the law" isn't a crime.

I say let's bring back Michael "Laws-Are-Relative" Mukasey. If he can be convinced to revive his "every-violation-of-the-law-isn't-a-crime" doctrine almost every undocumented worker will find themselves in a new legal universe.  More specfically, we should be able to do away with the "What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" nonsense coming from the anti-immigrant crowd.

With a little faith, and a wink and a nod from the Attorney General, the path towards redemption and citizenship will be open.

See how that works?

With religion and faith trumping the laws of our land, and with the proper ideological blinders, virtually anything can be justified ... including flying a couple of planes into buildings.

- Mark

THE REAL NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT

Of all the problems we've had over the past two years, perhaps the worst is what's been happening in Congress. Rather than look at itself and understand that it's the institution that's supposed to control the rules of the game, it points to Wall Street and says they're to blame for making things bad. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich looks at Sen. Christopher Dodd complaining about Wall Street and says that Dodd complaining about Wall Street is like an alcoholic complaining about the bartender who gives him more drinks when he only wanted one. Indeed.

At issue is how bailing out Wall Street over and over, coupled with the continuous and seemingly never-ending costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, drains our national treasury. As I've pointed out before, because they're not being paid for today the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan constitute a "hidden tax" on our future. Worse, war coupled with the incompetence of Wall Street are putting a drain on our larger economy, which the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, points out poses a greater threat to our country than al Qaeda.

This article makes it clear that reckless financing is the real threat we face as a nation. Why? Because "More empires have fallen because of reckless finances than invasion ..." I couldn't agree more. Read this article. It's a good one.

- Mark

RUMP REPUBLICAN(S) CAST ME OUT

Paul Krugman’s most recent op-ed makes an interesting observation. Currently the Republican Party - a.k.a. the Party of No - is bent on standing in the way of legislation that might hand President Obama any degree of success. As a result our national political scene has become more and more burlesque and may soon become “Californified.”

Having become the minority party, and tethered to an increasingly ideological and symbol-responsive base, the G.O.P. has essentially arrived at the point where it has become a “rump” party, interested in little more than making sure that if it can’t govern no else will.

For those of you who are a bit dusty in history, the rump party reference is a nod to the Rump Parliament that rose up during England’s Civil War. The background is illustrative for what it tells us about today’s political environment, and deserves a few brief words.

A Brief History Lesson: The Rump Parliament
Like the Republican and conservative radicals today who refuse to believe that anyone but themselves are capable of virtue and governing, those who rose to oppose King Charles I during the English Civil War (c. 1641-1653) didn’t trust the business of governing to those in Parliament. This was especially the case for members of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army.

Cromwell’s army eventually surrounded Parliament in 1648 and only let those who they favored back in. This left a Rump Parliament that was made up of about 20% of its actual membership. These virtuous guarders of English “liberties” went after "enemies" of the state, eventually executed Charles I, and attempted to establish a Puritan republic, with Oliver Cromwell as its leader.

Over time Cromwell, who naturally distrusted assemblies, grew weary of the Rump Parliamentarians inability to create a “godly reformation” in England. Former radicals were no longer held in good standing, or were not seen as pure enough. Cromwell would dissolve the Parliament that brought him to power in a military coup in 1653, which marked the beginning of The Protectorate (1653-1658).

The Tea Baggers as Rump Republicans
The fact that former radicals during the English Civil War were no longer seen as sufficiently loyal is instructive for our political scene today. Paul Krugman finds it especially ironic that Newt Gingrich is now seen as a “sober, reasonable elder statesman of the G.O.P.” The problem, as Krugman points out, is that Gingrich “has no authority: Republican voters ignored his call to support a relatively moderate, electable candidate in New York’s special Congressional election … Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.”

Put another way, moderation in the Republican Party has been buried by a Radical Right who is either unwilling or incapable of reaching out to middle America. Imagine what this means. The first Republican Puritans of the modern age - Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America crowd - are no longer seen as pure enough. They have been replaced by a group of ideologues who, one would assume, can bring the “godly reformation” and the market purity demanded by Conservative Independents and the dwindling but faithful 20% who continue to claim they belong to the Republican Party.

The problem, according to Krugman, is that because “these people aren’t interested in actually governing” their only recourse is to “feed the base’s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it.” These people want blood. This explains why the Republican Party and Conservatives in general have increasingly been captured by a tea-bagging movement that puts hate, empty slogans, and symbolism above social purpose and our nation’s political health.

How does this affect people like you and me? I'm glad you asked.

I'm Cast Out (as a Non-Patriot)
Today, purity tests and name-calling stand in where analysis and judgment once did. While I have had the honor of enduring my share of name-calling while on air, I especially enjoyed this Facebook exchange directed at me (on another FB account) I had over the weekend.

… you belong to that low life, scum sucking, bottom dwelling, dingy smelling group of nefarious would be communist Marxist who are by some twisted fate, members of that disgraceful group known as the Barney Frank, act alike, Democrats.

Interestingly, being part of a “disgraceful group” (the Democratic Party) was not enough. I was also told that I should hide myself in shame, and then was cast out of the “real American patriot” campaign (I didn’t know a drive was going on).

… you really are not American at heart or of mind. But most definitely are an accumulation from some oderferious, decayed part of the world, like the bottom of a human waste pit. Consider yourself properly vetted and cast out of membership with any real American patriot. "WE THE PEOPLE" shall overcome the likes of detrimental ilk, such as you. I will pray for you, but not very much!

And to think, this is the response I got (from a Christian, no less) because I support health care reform. At least he's praying for me (but not very hard). 

For anyone interested in historical lessons the experiences of England's Rump Parliament does not bode well for America. Ideological and spiritual purity are not what the the Framers had in mind when they fought for and shaped our Constitution. Losing an election because your team left a mess of things does not give you the right to throw in the towel on democracy, in the process giving America a case of political constipation.

Should we be worried? Paul Krugman thinks there's something afoot. If the movement driving the tea baggers today gains any real traction, I think he's on to something.

- Mark

NOTE: "Rump" normally means the hind end of an animal; Since 1649, the term "rump parliament" has been used to refer to any parliament left over from the actual legitimate parliament.

IT'S OFFICIAL: THE FAR RIGHT WANTS THE VILLAGE TO BURN (unless, of course, they're in charge)

This Rachel Maddow clip makes it clear that the far right officially hates President Omaba and is opposed to anything he does, even if it undermines the larger obejectives of this country.



The far right and their elected officials have already made it clear that they want President Obama to fail and that they will not support any significant policy proposal he promotes(they didn't support the stimulus plan and they will not support his health care proposal). Simply put, they have decided to take their ball and go home.

Now, with their reaction to the IOC's announcement that Brazil will host the 2016 Olympics, it's quite clear that these same people hate President Obama more than they want America to succeed.

This is more than disturbing. It's a sign of a disorder.

Critical to this disorder is that it compels those afflicted with it to ignore both the facts and what is good for America. Among these, as Dailykos points out, is that no South American nation has ever hosted any Olympic games while the U.S. has hosted numerous Olympic events (both summer and winter). Second, Olympic Committee members were concerned about America's "fortress" like approach to visas, which means America's accessibility after 9/11 is a concern for those who sponsor global events like the Olympics. Finally, even former President George W. Bush had chimed in about the need to bring the Olympics to Chicago. In fact, an overwhelming majority of the work done to bring the games to Chicago was done while George W. Bush was president (it was a four year, $48 million, project).

The far right needs to move beyond sitting on the sidelines and pushing their "we-need-to-destroy-the-village-in-order-to-save-it" mentality into our political bloodlines. At a domestic level it is neither helpful nor healthy. Internationally, it's simply embarrassing.

- Mark

UPDATE: BarbinMD has an update on the Weekly Standard's reaction to Chicago not getting the Olympic bid. She also calls attention to a list of the things the far right has either ignored or rooted against: Bill Clinton freeing American journalists from North Korea ... Marines rescuing Americans from Somali pirates ... Rescuing American automobile manufacturers ... Health care for all Americans ...

UPDATE, II: Things that would make the right wing happy? Hint: It involves America getting attacked. See it here, here, here, and here.

FIXING SOCIAL SECURITY ... and other thoughts

A little over four years ago I wrote this op-ed article for the Bakersfield Californian. At the time the Bush administration was pushing hard to privatize Social Security. In layman terms "privatization" meant turning Social Security accounts - and their funds - over to Wall Street investment houses for them to invest. The argument at the time was that Wall Street understands finance and money better than government, and can be counted on to do the right thing. Ooops.

Among the points I made in the article was that Social Security wasn't in as much trouble as the scare-mongerers (i.e. the Bush administration & FOX News) were making it out to be. I also provided several solutions for fixing the system. Here they are:

1) Rescind Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. This would add approximately $1.8 trillion to government coffers over the next ten years.

2) Raise the cap on payroll taxes.

3) Raise the eligibility requirements, or reduce social security cost of living increases (COLAs) by one-half percent per year.

Of these, because of this Wall Street Journal article ("Pay of Top Earners Erodes Social Security"), the proposed remedy that sticks out today is #2. When I wrote the article in 2005 all income above $90,000 was exempt from the payroll tax. This meant that every dollar earned past $90,000 was not assessed a Social Security tax and that approximately 15% of all national income was released from the social security tax.

Today, every dollar earned past $106,800 is not taxed by the Social Security system.

This means that if you earn $1 million per year every dollar past $106,800 is not taxed by social security. Why is this important? Because the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the pay of wage earners who receive more than the Social Security wage base ($106,800) increased by 78%, or nearly $1 trillion, over the past decade. This means that nearly $1 trillion dollars in national income that could be taxed like your salary (or mine) is not taxed. The total ammount represents about 17% of national income that is exempt. Here's what the WSJ says about this:

Social Security Administration actuaries estimate removing the earnings ceiling could eliminate the trust fund's deficit altogether for the next 75 years, or nearly eliminate it if credit toward benefits was provided for the additional taxable earnings.

Republicans and other "fiscal conservatives" are, of course, opposed to the idea leveling the social security tax playing field. Wall Street bankers and their politically-connected patrons, after all, have earned every bailout dollar that they've received. How dare we threaten to tax their bailout-escorted riches?

And, besides, it's not like our nation needs the money. We can depend on the Chinese and the Saudis forever, can't we? (So much for Country First.)

At the end of the day, the Social Security tax is a regressive tax that affects the working poor and America's Middle Class disproportionately. That we allow bonus-drenched Wall Street bankers and their minions to continue feeding at the trough of bailouts and favorable legislation - without feeling the taxman's pinch like you and I - is a travesty.

- Mark

REPUBLICANS: STILL ROOTING FOR FAILURE

The Wall Street Journal is reporting - and Congressman Kevin McCarthy's (R-Bakersfield) Friday evening "Facebook Post" verifies - that the Republicans are going to start attacking President Obama because of his dismal job creation record. Not only have 2.2 million jobs been lost since the recession began, but unemployment now hovers around 9.4% for the nation.

Part of the "jobs problem" that Republicans are rooting for can be attributed to the too-bold-to-be-true projections made early on by the Obama administration (which were designed to bolster confidence). As well, the missteps made by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, as he stumbled in front of Congress and during the roll out of the various bailout programs, did not help build confidence. Finally, and perhaps most important, George W. Bush handed President Obama a national economic disaster. Still, can you blame the fire department because the house continues to burn while they're getting the hoses out? The Republicans seem to think so.

But as the Wall Street Journal points out, the record is clear. George W. Bush not only had to backtrack from his first term job projections, but he ended up with the worst job creation record of any U.S. President since records have been kept. And this was after President Bush added over $6 trillion to our national debt (a lesson for President Obama?).

George W. Bush's job creation record (3 million) even pales in comparison to stagflation-haunted Jimmy Carter (10.5 million). Even John F. Kennedy, in his short tenure, created more jobs than George W. Bush (3.5 million jobs). In fact, going all the way back to President Harry S. Truman, payroll expansion under presidential administrations is dominated by Democrats rather than Republicans. Bill Clinton leads the way with 21.1% (23.1 million jobs created), followed by Truman's 20.1% (8.4 million jobs created) and LBJ's 20.8% (11.9 million jobs created). Ronald Reagan is fourth at 17.6% (16 million jobs).

With current trends we can expect all of the jobs "created" under George W. Bush to disappear by the end of the summer (yet, the result of his failed policies remain). In the meantime, we can also expect the Republicans to continue to root for our nation's continued economic demise. But can you blame them? With their record under President Bush this is the only way they believe they can make it back into power.

So much for Country First.

- Mark

HEDGE FUNDS FORCED BANKRUPTCY

According to Bloomberg.com, President Obama criticized debt holders for forcing Chrysler's bankruptcy at this stage. President Obama singled out hedge funds and other financial institutions for turning down administration loan-reduction proposals. The president said the following:

I don’t stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices ... A group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.

In a few words, the hedge funds were banking on the fact that everyone else would make sacrifices, with several firms demanding "twice the return that other lenders were getting."

- Mark

HOW TEABAGGERS WEAKEN OUR NATION

One of the things that draws me to challenge the sincerity of our Teabagging Republicans, and their FOX News patrons, is how their Anti-Tax Jihad not only exposes our country to geo-economic blackmail but how their Teabagging Temper Tantrum fails the "Adam Smith" test.

Think about this. Our nation depends on the good will of others to fund what we do. Currently, the top six purchasers of our debt - China, Japan, Russia, "Oil Exporters", Brazil, Caribbean Banking Centers (i.e. off-shore tax havens) - hold at least $2 trillion of our securities.

Of these only Japan, and perhaps Brazil, can be considered friendly to the U.S. The others could turn on us at any time ... yes, that includes the money that comes from the tax haven Caribbean nations, which are filled with tax cheats, money launderers, and wealthy traitors seeking to escape paying their fair share here. These groups are the real Pirates of the Caribbean.


The interesting point here is that rather than having our nation's richest and most leisure class (the same group who gained the most during the Reagan/Bush Years) pay what they paid in taxes under Ronald Reagan, Republicans and their Teabagging Buddies at FOX News want our nation to continue borrowing from people and nations who aren't our friends. Yes, they want to continue exposing our nation to the threat of economic blackmail. So much for "Country First" ...

As well, the Republicans are completely clueless to the fact that their anti-tax Jihad wouldn't sit right with the founding father of capitalism, Adam Smith.

While writing The Wealth of Nations (1776) the intellectual Godather of Capitalism recommended, and even encouraged, taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than the middle class. He argued, for example, that luxury carriages should pay higher tolls than regular or commercial travelers because he believed that "the indolence and vanity of the rich" should be made to contribute to larger societal goals.

And what do our economic elites do when confronted with the prospect of helping to put our nation's economy on firm financial footing? They send their money off-shore. According to recently released reports the United States loses up to $100 billion a year in tax revenue to offshore tax havens (the cost to individual states can be seen here).

Who do you think has to make up the difference? Yes, that's right, you and me. Worse, we're forced to go to the Chinese, tax cheats, and OPEC & other oil nations to fund our debts so that we can fight wars Republicans don't want to pay for, and refuse to fight.

This, my friends, explains what the Teabaggers at FOX & Republicanlandia want to promote with their political temper tantrum.

- Mark

A NATION SWINDLED ...

When two of President Obama's nominees went up for confirmation and were found to have not paid certain taxes the Conservative Echo Chamber had a field day. How dare these people try and avoid paying taxes! Let's see if the Echo Chamber creates the same circus atmosphere with this one: financial conglomerate UBS has agreed to pay $780 million to resolve claims that its offshore accounts were used primarily to evade taxes. But it gets better. UBS will also identify American clients who used the bank to avoid paying taxes.


The Justice Department is now moving to force UBS to disclose the identities of 52,000 Americans — far more than the 19,000 names that UBS was originally going to share with the U.S. government. It's estimated that this group has $20 billion in assets with UBS and, over time, has avoided paying about $300 million A YEAR in taxes.

I wonder if FOX News will do a segment on a "Nation Swindled!" or bemoaning "The Return of the Plutocrats" in a video set to the ominous sounds of "O Fortuna" from Carl Orff's Carmina Burana, you know, like this one ...

- Mark

UPDATE: Of course, no discussion of UBS is complete without discussing former Texas Senator Phil Gramm.

A NATION OF MORONS? REICH SAYS "YES"

Two weeks ago, in "A Nation of Morons," I wrote that the republican plan is to say no to everything President Obama wants - no matter how far he sticks out his hand - so that they can put some distance between themselves and an American economy they helped George Bush destroy (I also discussed this with economist Marc Thoma on this past Saturday's program). Their plan is to blame President Obama for not doing anything about the economic mess, in the hope that they can turn the political tide and win back a few seats in 2010, like they did in 1994.

The republicans are banking on Americans forgetting that the republican party was the group that handed George Bush the flamethrowers he needed to burn through trillions of dollars, while setting our national house on fire. Simply put, republicans think we are a forgetful nation of morons.

It turns out that former Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, agrees with my premise. Check out his post here.

The larger point of my original post, however, still stands. Republicans don't understand how serious this mess really is. They're still playing political games, for no other reason than to gain political power. Like Nero, and George Bush, they prefer to fiddle while Rome burns.


- Mark

FOREIGN WORKERS = MORE BONUS MONEY

It used to be that companies in the U.S. sought H-1B visas (which allows temporary employment of foreign workers) when they had specialized needs that only a foreigner could address. Whether the need was tied to a specific skill or a language didn't matter. The goal behind securing an H-1B visa was to fill a gap that U.S. workers could not. This is no longer the case. The Associated Press is reporting:

The dozen banks now receiving the biggest rescue packages, totaling more than $150 billion, requested visas for more than 21,800 foreign workers over the past six years for positions that included senior vice presidents, corporate lawyers, junior investment analysts and human resources specialists. The average annual salary for those jobs was $90,721 ...

I find it difficult to believe that banks can't find corporate lawyers, junior investment analysts, or human resource specialists in this country. But here's the money quote from the AP report ...

During the last three months of 2008, the largest banks that received taxpayer loans announced more than 100,000 layoffs ... Foreigners are attractive hires because companies have found ways to pay them less than American workers.

I'm not even going to speculate here. Let's be blunt. By lowering costs the guys at the top can also pay themselves more bonus money. They also get a more pliant and servile workforce too. Just the threat of having your job handed to an "H-1B" is good enough to induce conformity. It's that simple.

They may not realize it just yet, but it appears that white collar executives could benefit from the assistance of organized labor. Or do we just let "the market" work it's magic?

- Mark

WHY REPUBLICANS FEAR OBAMA

The republicans are running scared because they know that their bankrupt ideas, plus their incompetent governance, broke the country. They're now telling the world that terrorists will be let loose in America if we close Gitmo or, worse, that "terrorist" detainees will be applying for citizenship - in your backyard no less. Spooky stuff.

Seriously, do these guys ever stop being afraid? Apparently not.

On the economic front, republicans are crowing like Chicken Little, telling America that Barack Obama's economic stimulus program is going to break the bank because it's so expensive. The problem is they've gotten religion on fiscal responsibility a bit late. They seem to have forgotten that they stood by and handed Team Bush the fiscal flamethrowers they used to burn through $5 trillion dollars. Oh, and they said nothing as President Bush prepared to leave town, handing Barack Obama trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and a collapsing economy.

So what does Barack Obama do during his first week in office? He spent part of this morning talking with congressional republicans, trying to explain the mechanics behind his $825 billion stimulus package. He's looking for bi-partisan support. I hope it works. But it probably won't. Here's why.

Apart from having to acknowledge that their ideas helped run this country into the ground, republicans are deathly afraid that Barack Obama will pull an FDR and lay the ground work for recovery. This is an interesting conundrum for the republicans because while they like spreading lies about FDR they also know that much of the prosperity and economic stability that we experienced in the post-war era was made possible by FDR's New Deal.

For all their talk about Country First, republicans see Barack's success as a threat to their political viability. The well being of the country is not their concern. It's really that simple.

- Mark

RUSH LIMBAUGH: AN AMERICAN FOOL

Here's Rush Limbaugh on Barack Obama: "I hope he fails."

Here's his rationale:

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated?

Rush forgets that liberals weren't out to "destroy" Bush. Rather, liberals questioned his legitimacy because he cheated. End of story.

Still, liberals like me wanted Bush to do well. After all, we are in this together. In fact, because of Bush's ties and early policy leanings on Mexico, I actually said he might become a pretty good president if he got NAFTA and immigration right. Others agreed. I know because I was at a bi-national conference with Mexican agriculture experts and other academics in Washington, D.C. when Mexico's Vicente Fox and George W. Bush got together to discuss NAFTA and immigration early in September of 2001. We were cautiously optimistic.

Then 9/11 hit.


I still count my lucky stars that I decided to return on my regularly scheduled flight, rather than stay an extra day in DC to visit with a friend I hadn't seen in years. If I had stayed I would have been on American Airlines flight 77, which hit the Pentagon. You can imagine, if I wanted Bush to do well before, I was especially supportive after 9/11.

In fact, I was called to do a series of commentaries on CBS's Channel 29 and publicly said on TV that I wanted Bush to do well. We all did. It was the moment, and it was genuine. But Bush screwed it up. Big time. None of us wanted what Bush has left Barack Obama. I seriously fear our nation's economic collapse because of the mess Bush has left us all.

At the end of the day, while liberals might have seen President Bush's election as tainted, the vast majority of us wanted him to do well. Why anyone would want any president to fail in this environment is beyond me.

Rush Limbaugh is no patriot. He's an idiot and a fool.

- Mark

ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING . . .

Goldman Sachs, which has received government debt guarantees and $10 billion in taxpayer funded bailout money, and saw it's effective tax rate drop to 1%. Why? Because it moved some of its money off shore to avoid paying taxes. Bloomberg News has the story here. But Rachel Maddow does a better job of explaining it here . . .

If the financial industry moving transactions off shore to avoid paying taxes - then asking for a taxpayer bailout - doesn't get your goat, check out this little noticed tax subsidy scam ...




So, I'm wondering ... How does bankrupting America and forcing Uncle Sam to borrow from the Chinese and Middle East make America safer? Why doesn't "America First" apply to Wall Street? Where are the "USA, USA" chanters now?

Just asking.

- Mark

A DISCUSSION ON TAXES

I'm not a big fan of the NY Time's Thomas L. Friedman. Especially after he served as Bush's cheerleader in the run-up to war in Iraq, and then gave him a never ending window to get things right with his "the-next-six-months-are-crucial" routine on the war (which has now been satirized as a "Friedman Unit").

However, he gets this one right ...

... Palin defended the government’s $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic.

I only wish she had been asked: “Governor Palin, if paying taxes is not considered patriotic in your neighborhood, who is going to pay for the body armor that will protect your son in Iraq? Who is going to pay for the bailout you endorsed? ... Do you think borrowing money from China is more patriotic than raising it in taxes from Americans?”

This country needs to have a serious discussion on taxes. And, no, I don't like paying them either ... but someone has to become an adult and start paying the bills. If we don't, we will become even more exposed and vulnerable to other nations ... and there's nothing patriotic about that.

President Bush turned surpluses into deficits by giving tax cuts to the people who needed it least. He also killed any hope of paying down the national debt. In the process he initiated one of the greatest transfers of wealth in world history. Almost 30 years of giving tax breaks to the rich and hoping it jump-starts another economic revolution is a joke.

America needs this discussion.

- Mark

WAR PROFITEERING & THE REPUBLICAN CULTURE OF DECEIT

By way of Dailykos …

A few months back the Boston Globe broke the story of Dick Cheney’s former firm, Kelly Brown & Root (formerly of Halliburton) contributing to the Republican fed culture of deceit and corruption. In a few words, KBR avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in Social Security and other taxes by claiming that more than 21,000 employees worked for a Cayman Islands subsidiary that had neither a phone number, nor an office (although it did exist in a computer file in the Cayman Islands).


Here’s what the Boston Globe wrote:

Kellogg Brown & Root, the nation's top Iraq war contractor and until last year a subsidiary of Halliburton Corp., has avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies based in this tropical tax haven.

More than 21,000 people working for KBR in Iraq - including about 10,500 Americans - are listed as employees of two companies that exist in a computer file on the fourth floor of a building on a palm-studded boulevard here in the Caribbean. Neither company has an office or phone number in the Cayman Islands.

The Defense Department has known since at least 2004 that KBR was avoiding taxes by declaring its American workers as employees of Cayman Islands shell companies, and officials said the move allowed KBR to perform the work more cheaply, saving Defense dollars.

Sure, the practice of off-shoring a firms business to avoid paying taxes isn’t illegal. It’s just shameful. And in this case, war profiteering (like this case) and tax-dodging slaps every American soldier and U.S. taxpayer in the face. And did I mention that KBR has no bid contracts that help provide it with 8 times the amount of work than its nearest competitor?

Fortunately Senator Kerry and Senator Obama jumped on this story. They just forced President Bush to sign legislation effectively closing this Cayman Island loophole. Beachmom from Dailykos has been following the story and has all the links here.

My only question now is whether we can get President Bush to sign on to legislation that will ask KBR to retroactively pay back the taxes they dodged over the years with their war-profiteering activities.

Think about it. If the Bush administration can fight for “retroactive immunity” for his telecom buddies (who illegally helped the government spy on Americans) they should also be prepared to support “retroactive tax responsibility” for his war-profiteering buddies … don’t you think?

- Mark

TIME FOR A LOYALTY OATH?

This morning I was channel-flipping as I was getting dressed and saw the press hanging the Rev. Jeremiah Wright around Obama's campaign - as if God Himself had made Wright Obama's VP running mate.

This anti-Wright fervor, with its reckless accusations, and guilt by association is reminiscent of McCarthyism. It's also a petty and pathetic display of double-standards by our nation's media. Worse, it's the media's way of saying "We don't understand the role of the church in Black America ... So, yes, we're going to make this an issue."

On the other side of the isle we have John McCain who openly accepts - and gets a free pass from the press on - the support of right-wing nut job, and Apocalyptic End-of-Times instigator John Hagee. Let's take a look at some of Pastor Hagee's views:

• On Women: “the difference between a terrorist and a woman? You can negotiate with a terrorist.

• On Catholicism: The “Great Whore” and a “false cult system”

• On Katrina: New Orleans “had level of sin that was so offensive to God” ... “there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that Katrina came” ... “they were the recipients of the judgment of God for that” ...

Still, John McCain is "very honored" to have Hagee's support, while Barack Obama has to back-peddle and distance himself from Rev. Wright, a man who served his country honorably in the military. Unbelievable.

And let's not forget what Hagee believes, and wants: A nuclear confrontation with Iran, which is a precondition for bringing on Armageddon. This makes John McCain, with his famous temper, the perfect candidate for people like Hagee.

Forget the level of ignorance and hubris necessary to believe that someone like Hagee can force his vision of Armageddon down God's throat. Let's focus on this: These guys want to bring destruction and despair to the United States, and the world. Does advocating the destruction of the U.S., in a religious war of dubious intent, sound like a "subversive" act to anyone else but me?

Since our president is so keen on national security perhaps it's time for a loyalty oath (republicans are already familiar with them). You know, something like this:

"Do you swear to support the Constitution and protect this nation above all other personal and religious affiliations?"

Pretty simple, don't you think? We can start with the Muslims ... you know, to make the John Hagees of the world feel better.

- Mark