Why I Read Andrew Sullivan's Blog

It is the drumbeat of accountability that Sullivan pounds out so frequently that makes me read him and follow his links. Stuff like this:

In my view, every single Republican who appears on cable or radio and who complains about the debt and rules out any tax hikes should be directly and specifically asked every single time what they propose to cut. Specifically. Every single time. Equally, every single Democrat who says they want to tackle the debt needs to be asked every single time which taxes they propose raising. Specifically. Every single time. If the journalist looks like an asshole, get over it. It is our job to look like assholes. We are professional assholes. We get paid to be rude. In order to expose the truth.

And just in case that wasn't to the point enough:

And by relentlessly, I mean - if they fail to answer, or offer vague generalizations, ask again. And again. And again. And again. On air. Refuse to move on. Put them on the spot. Both parties. Every time.

Go get 'em, Andrew.

Pay As You Go? Not The GOP!

Have a look at this. This is the roll call for the US Senate amendments to a House bill that would reinstate pay-as-you-go fiscal responsibility. In other words, if you want 'X' in the budget, you have to provide some means of funding it, either throu cuts elsewhere or raising taxes.

Look at how the GOP senators voted, and see "fiscal responsibility" as it's voted upon rather than how it's shouted on FOX "news" programs.

Not one single Republican voted for the amendments. Not one. Some of you are going to read this and say, "But the bill didn't go far enough." or some such thing. I would buy that except that there was not one bit of deviance from the obstructionist GOP response we have seen since Obama became president. It also is a strikingly clear of the fiscal behavior of Republicans in power since before Reagan (George H. W. Bush gets due props for attempting fiscal restraint and raising taxes to pay for what he wanted, but he also got hung out to dry by his party for exactly that behavior.)

The simple fact is that Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility. You may not like what they want to spend money on, but they are generally serious about funding their plans. The GOP has forsaken all claim to being the party that spends wisely. The GOP has become the party that Borrows-and-Spends, passing the burden on to subsequent generations or having faith that later boom year will refill the coffers. Exhibits number One and Two for my case: The unfunded, not even budgeted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Exhibit Three is the unfunded Medicare expansion, the single largest entitlement expansion since FDR.

The Democrat's tax-and-spend mindset is at least sane.

With Liberty and Justice For WMC

As if the recent SCOTUS ruling declaring corporate person-hood as far as direct campaign contributions and spending is concerned wasn't bad enough, we have some equally sickening news right here in Wisconsin:

The state’s highest court last week voted to adopt rules that would allow court judges and justices to remain on cases that involve their direct or indirect campaign contributors. In other words, if a judge in Wisconsin wants to, they can remain on a case even if it involves one of their influential campaign donors – they won’t have to recuse themselves if they have a direct conflict of interest.

Readers from Wisconsin may recall that our two most recent supreme court elections were contentious. The problem, especially apparent in the most recent election of justice Michael Gableman, was the obvious influence in the process by Wisconsin Manufacturing and Commerce, a business organization that seeks to create a pro-business environment in the state. And just who do you supposed authored the bill that the court passed in a 4-2 decision?

The rules were written by the Wisconsin Realtors Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, a business lobbying group that spent millions to elect Justices Annette K. Ziegler and Michael Gableman.

Voting for the rules were "justices" Gableman, Zeigler, Prosser and Roggensack. Voting against were Crooks, Bradley and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

The new rules come as defense attorneys are trying to force Gableman off eight cases because they believe he has expressed a bias against criminal defendants and defense attorneys. Gableman has said he is not biased and refused to step aside in six cases. He has not said what he will do in the other two.

My, what a surprise.

Clearly, what we have here as a fantastic ROIC (Return On Invested Capital) for WMC. They work diligently and spend lavishly on two supreme court justice positions and things really start to happen in their favor. Now Gableman, who may not have been elected without the substantial assistance of WMC, can be a perfect lap dog for the organization, and the new rules say he doesn't even have to pretend to be concerned with conflict of interest.

Workers in Wisconsin, it is about to get very ugly.

We the Corporations, of the Fascist States of America...

Are you alarmed by the recent supreme court ruling allowing unrestricted donations to campaigns and spending on political ads? Are you sickened by the marginalizing of the political power of We The People? Are you dismayed as you ponder just how bad the next election cycle is going to be as corporations spend millions to spread disinformation?

I am.

Other than calling your Senator and Representative, here is one more thing you can do. Sign a petition to amend the Constitution to reverse the supreme court's decision. Declare that only people, not corporations, have constitutional rights. Remind corporations that they are nothing more than legal constructs designed to protect individuals from liability. Here is the petition:

http://movetoamend.org/we-corporations

Imagine your next president elected based on the corporate advertising "information" of Haliburton, Blackwater, Diebolt, Exxon-Mobil, and Walmart. Now take action!

Fascism in America

Not yet, but after reading this article, can you state with conviction that none of these things are happening?

To varying degrees I could cite examples of each and every one of the 14 key points. Where does your mind balk?

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
5. Rampant sexism (solid examples are extremely rare)
6. A controlled mass media (the article explores this with subtlety)
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
9. Power of corporations protected (the very basis for this blog!)
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts (Sarah Palin, anyone?)
12. Obsession with crime and punishment (I think this one is actually easing...)
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections (rare at the federal level...but notable)

I urge you to read this article and ponder the thoughts behind each of these topics. Then turn off your preferred news source and look at those that are "other". What do you see when you change your filters? Where does this list stack up? I had a coworker forward me an email in the months after 9/11 touting the evils of some "fascist" college professor. The email was a rant agains this professor, calling him a fascist, yet the arguments used against him (for questioning our involvement in Iraq) ticked off about 9-10 of the 14 items on the above list. I copied the definition of fascism and sent it back to my cowerker with the question, "Which one of these two is the real fascist?" Please note in the linked definition that fascism can emerge from either the political Left or Right, or some combination of them both.

To those who think I am crazy, please read THIS article and also the comments. Then tell me I'm crazy, bearing in mind #4, 7, 8,9, and 11.

No One Trusts You Anymore

Some straight talk to members of the Banking industry. Three cheers!

The Dismal Decade

The GOP likes to talk, a lot, about personal responsibility and the value of hard work. At the close of the first decade of the twenty-first century, it is difficult to ignore the facts that give lie to these concepts. We The People did work hard and productivity soared between 1999 and 2009, just like every other decade since WWII. But what else happened during that same time frame? Neil Irwin's article at The Washington Post explores.

Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

The graphs at the linked article provide a stark illustration of things gone wrong. There was net zero job creation during the decade, again a first. Reagan's trickle down economics sold us an empty promise that cutting taxes on the wealthy, and on Corporations, would result in those same noble industrial giants investing that wealth in America, creating a flood of jobs and a rising tide that floats all boats. A great concept except that it ignored the rapacious greed of those at the top. And in a fit of stupidity that has almost no equal, We The People thought we should keep up with the McGuire's and build our own McMansions and drive constantly-new vehicles (which were also consistently less efficient and ostentatious), which leveraged our idling incomes to the hilt. It was a heady decade that introduced the greed-based concept of interest-only mortgages which appealed to people who wanted more house and ignored the substantial risks.

The end result is that we were fleeced from the top by greed and avarice. To compound the problem, We turned the clippers on our selves to finish the fleecing by trying to outspend the one's who really had money. That was, of course, Reagan's grand plan for the Cold War which worked admirably. America spent and spent and the USSR tried to keep up and eventually collapsed into bankruptcy. We The People played the role of the USSR in the past decade. Imagine how much more pliable We are now that we feel grateful to simply have a job? We know that we're losing, but we still have our noses above water right? Too bad about your former neighbor who apparently went under and moved out as his house was foreclosed, and your brother-in-law whose successful start-up went bust because he couldn't get loans to expand when he needed to. At least it wasn't you.

"A big part of what happened this decade was that people engaged in excessively risky behavior without realizing the risks associated," said Karen Dynan, co-director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution. "It's true not just among consumers but among regulators, financial institutions, lenders, everyone."

I'm going to use my soapbox here for a moment and point out that I exclude myself from the above. My modest (tiny even) house is paid for, as are my vehicles. I have no debt. I did not try to spend what I did not have to live high off the hog. I have savings (considerably less than a few years ago to be sure). Some of you may be in the same situation, having chosen wisely and responsibly, and to you I offer my congratulations and my admiration, as well as my shared sympathy for the woes we suffer for having been responsible, and yet face similar consequences as those who created the mess. In Aesop's Fables, the grasshopper eventually understood the error of his ways and, presumably, suffered the consequences. I wonder if We The People understand our part in our failure?