Category: Public Spending

Chuck Schumer Needs a Spine Transplant . . .

Michael Matheron1 Comment

Senate Minority Leader showed up in his invertebrate form for the battle over the GOP-led continuing resolution to fund the government through most of the remaining year. He has often railed about the possible collapse of democracy under Trump’s presidency, loudly trashing the GOP for their draconian plans to anyone who has a microphone. Nonetheless, actual tactical follow-up to his righteous indignation has rarely followed. He slithers away from a real fight and by now represents the ghost of a Democratic party long hobbled by bipartisanship and, frankly, fear of incivility, a decades old Democratic disability. His latest was his codging together enough Democratic senators’ votes to pass the GOP continuing resolution granting Trump with a carte blanche for chaos for the rest of the fiscal year. It’s what happens when you bring a Schumer to a knife fight.

MSNBC’s The Weekend‘s Symone Sanders-Townsend laid it on in her inimitable style:

“In 2024, Democrats ran on warnings that Trump was going to destroy democracy, and now that he and his team are very much in the process of doing just that, these same politicians are questioning whether or not to stand up to him and his party at one of the first opportunities they have to meaningfully do so. The only opportunity, I would add, there’s not another option for Senate or Democratic or Senate Democrats or House Democrats to effectively push back. This was it! They blew it! The Democratic Tea Party was born the same day that Chuck Schumer took to that podium to read that very well-crafted statement that told us he folded like a paper napkin.”

Does the Senate Democratic caucus have enough senators with spines to (finally) do what is needed and dethrone their minority leader? It’s long past time to do so. Pick a fighter, for example, Arizona’s Mark Kelly, Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen, Massachusetts’ Elizabeth Warren, or Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse. Put a tiger in your tank, and ditch the civility.

USAID Attacked Relentlessly

Michael Matheron1 Comment

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been oppressively besieged since the arrival of Elon Musk, Trump’s hatchet man. One of the results among the many agencies under attack is the stifling of public communications, including shutting information about the agency on the agency websites. Presently, USAID’s website consists of one page which sounds like a death knell, and it very likely is. Note the final sentence, “Thank you for your service.” Indeed. . .

On Friday, February 7, 2025, at 11:59 pm (EST) all USAID direct hire personnel will be placed on administrative leave globally, with the exception of designated personnel responsible for mission-critical functions, core leadership and specially designated programs. Essential personnel expected to continue working will be informed by Agency leadership by Thursday, February 6, at 3:00pm (EST).

For USAID personnel currently posted outside the United States, the Agency, in coordination with missions and the Department of State, is currently preparing a plan, in accordance with all applicable requirements and laws, under which the Agency would arrange and pay for return travel to the United States within 30 days and provide for the termination of PSC and ISC contracts that are not determined to be essential. The Agency will consider case-by-case exceptions and return travel extensions based on personal or family hardship, mobility or safety concerns, or other reasons. For example, the Agency will consider exceptions based on the timing of dependents’ school term, personal or familial medical needs, pregnancy, and other reasons. Further guidance on how to request an exception will be forthcoming.

Thank you for your service.

Food for Thought – Continuing Angst Over Food Prices . . . as Food Inflation Falls

Michael Matheron1 Comment

“Hardworking Americans are suffering because of the Harris-Biden administration’s dangerously liberal policies . . . Prices are excruciatingly high, and the cost of living has soared – leaving those on a fixed income unsure of how they are going to afford a basic standard of living in the future.”
Trump campaign statement prior to tonight’s MAGA rally in Asheville, NC

Continuing his trailblazing record of lying per minute (L/M), Donald Trump will tonight convince his MAGA acolytes that inflation is running at high speed. This in the face of Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report today that inflation is moderating as it has done for the past year. BLS sums it up:

“In July, the Consumer Price Index [CPI] rose 0.2 percent, seasonally adjusted, and rose 2.9 percent over the last 12 months, not seasonally adjusted.” 

Given the inflation panic afoot in the country, particularly among the always misinformed and generally undereducated MAGA crowd, the truth is clear: after peaking in 2022 and 2023 CPI has dropped over the past year to approximately 2.9%. Frankly, the inflation scare during the Biden administration was the result of unrelenting lying by the MAGA/GOP, and, of course, COVID’s negative economic impact, an extraneous and extraordinary event that has by and large worked its way through the economy as, for example, supply gluts diminish.

The COVID inflation 2-year “blip”


And below is CPI by sector, through July 2024 (note the overall trajectory and, apropos of this posting, the food sector, which, according to USDA’s Economic Research Service, peaked at 11.4% two years ago (year-over-year)(YOY), now sits at 2.2% YOY.

In fact, the overall CPI is nearing the Federal Reserve Board’s so-called “target rate” of 2%, and stock market mavens are so very pleased because inflation’s decreasing trend of late signals to them that the Fed next move may be to reduce interest rates, which – WHOOPEE! – will help reverse the equity markets’ recent swoon. Nonetheless, inflation hysteria haunts many American families, often at mealtime.

How did the now dissipated surge in overall food prices occur over the last few years (falling from August 2022’s 11.4% to today’s 2.1%)? The reasons, as with all food sector inflations, are familiar, although the COVID pandemic was an unusual event, and the principal driver of inflation throughout the economy. Food inflation factors, 2020-2024, include:

  • Supply chain issues due to COVID disruptions throughout the world
  • Economy-wide inflationary pressures, particularly in housing and services, and for a time, food 
  • Wholesale food prices, as suppliers raised prices, controversially, many label this price gouging 
  • Weather conditions, droughts reduce crop yields by causing crops to fail, and forced cow-calf producers to sell cows, which cause to tighter beef supplies and higher price; and extreme summer heat that damages crops, such as olive trees, soybeans, rice, potatoes and cocoa.
  • Supply disruptions in major food producing countries, particularly in war torn Ukraine, a European breadbasket
  • Rapid recovery of consumer demand, particularly in restaurant food
  • Animal disease outbreaks, avian flu substantially affected egg prices (and still does)

Eat, Drink, Be Merry, Inflation Be Damned

As we see, despite perceived food inflation causing gnashing of Americans’ teeth, their food costs have gone downhill, and the decline has occurred for long enough to have been noticeable to consumers. This is especially true for food at home, nonetheless, inflation remains troublesome at the businesses where food price inflation is the highest, restaurants of all kinds.

Let’s unpack this: where Americans eat is an personal and economic choice, and their choices are, according to especially right-wing economists, supposedly determined by price. Therefore, the “rational” economic choice would be to eat where one can eat most inexpensively, i.e., at home. And food at home prices have moderated since January 2023, with today’s BLS report revealing that food CPI is at 2.2% (YOY), with food at home inflation falling to 1.1% for July (YOY). Food away from home – a segment of the inflation-hot service economy – sits at 4.1%(YOY). The economically rational choice would be to eat at home, would it not? Indeed.

According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service July 2024 forecast, Food Price Outlook, 2024 and 2025:

“The level of food price inflation varies depending on whether the food was purchased for consumption at home or away from home.

  • The food-at-home (grocery store or supermarket food purchases) CPI was unchanged from May 2024 to June 2024 and was 1.1 percent higher than June 2023; and
  • The food-away-from-home (restaurant purchases) CPI increased 0.4 percent in June 2024 and was 4.1 percent higher than June 2023.”
Note the significantly higher rate of inflation growth for food away from home.

The CPI discrepancy between the choice of home prepared meals and restaurant meals is large, and this was not always true. As the chart indicates, beginning in 2011, restaurants, including fast food entities, claimed a large and growing share of consumer spending, except for the period when COVID adversely affected restaurants and families ate at home. A USDA report also observed, “Food-away-from-home expenditures accounted for 58.5 percent of total food expenditures in 2023—their highest share of total food spending observed in the series.”

So, the right-wing economists argument that consumers will make rational choices when prices are high seems to come up short when applied to food choices. We have inclinations to rational thought, nonetheless, we have impulses as well, and we simply enjoy going out to eat, especially when we perceive economic hard times. This despite the fact that we are manifestly not in a swooning economy. Perceptions, though are important. Thus we do the non rational things as a way to soothe those perceptions, and, ironically, we feed the very price inflation we perceive. It doesn’t help that media and the MAGA crowd push false messages, particularly Trump and company. As for me, I’ve convinced myself that what I need is an inflatedly large rib eye steak, at an inflatedly expensive restaurant. Tonight.

Insulin Cost Cap – Trump Attacks a Biden Signature Achievement With a Trump Signature Deception

Michael Matheron2 Comments

A week ago, Trump took to his Truth Social safe space to make a specious claim about a problem vexing millions of diabetic Americans on Medicare, the out-of-pocket/copay cost of insulin, one of the more contentious political issues of the day, especially since Medicare beneficiaries comprise a population with higher prevalence of diabetes (33%, 22 million) than the general population (11%, 37 million). More than three million people with Medicare coverage use insulin.

So, let us ask of the man who spent much of his administration trying to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, “What would a serious and informed policy disagreement about Medicare and insulin coverage be without Donald Trump?” Asked and answered last Saturday:

“Low INSULIN PRICING was gotten for millions of Americans by me, and the Trump Administration, not by Crooked Joe Biden. He had NOTHING to do with it. It was all done long before he so sadly entered office. All he does is try to take credit for things done by others, in this case, ME!” Truth Social, June 8, 2024

This is firstly, stupid, and secondly, nonresponsive, simultaneously both false and true, a hallmark of Trump & Company. It’s a technique that confuses those who do not follow the ins-and-outs of government policy, and many who do follow it. Trump’s Truth Social post conflates outright lying with some actual facts that, on analysis, are, indeed, truthful, but that don’t advance Trump’s argument. Given that, his argument is iconically specious, i.e., apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible. So, let’s dig in and deconstruct.

Trump Administration’s Half-Baked Accomplishment

“I don’t use insulin, Should I be? Huh? I never thought about it.
But I know a lot of people are very badly affected, right? Unbelievable.”
Donald Trump, a nondiabetic, displaying
his advanced knowledge of the subject
USA Today, May 26, 2020

The above crackpot quote was served up by then President Trump at a May 26, 2020 formal White House Rose Garden speech about, among other things, an executive action reducing the copay cost of insulin to $35 for Medicare recipients. Here’s the summary excerpt from the White House (ironically named) Fact Sheet released during that Rose Garden speech:

LOWERING COST OF INSULIN FOR SENIORS: President Donald J. Trump and his Administration are lowering out-of-pocket insulin costs for Medicare’s seniors.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is announcing that many Medicare Part D plans and Medicare Advantage plans have applied to offer lower out-of-pocket insulin costs to seniors for the 2021 plan year.

Across the Nation, participating enhanced Part D plans will provide many seniors with Medicare access to a broad set of insulins at a maximum $35 copay for a month’s supply of each type of insulin.

And,

Lowering out-of-pocket insulin costs will provide the many Medicare beneficiaries who rely on one or more common forms of insulin with plan options that will deliver critical relief.

And,

No effort will be spared to give America’s seniors the care and support and devotion and love they have earned and that they deserve. President Donald J. Trump, March 26, 2020

In fact, rather than sparing no efforts, Trump administration’s policy spared many efforts. Unrevealed was that the cost cap would apply to only a small subset of 3.5 million insulin-dependent Medicare beneficiaries, and they were still stuck with a yearly deductible. That’s a big “unreveal” that affected many. Nonetheless, the Fact Sheet excerpt reads as if all insulin-dependent Medicare beneficiaries would receive the new copay cost cap. So, factually, Trump’s policy did lower insulin costs, but despite being presented as a cure-all for Medicare patients, it was misleadingly presented, ergo, factual but largely false since so many on Medicare were left out.

For Trump, even this half-baked policy was something he didn’t want to establish, nor did the pharmaceutical CEOs, or insulin suppliers who colluded with him design it as anything more than a sop to the Medicare voting bloc. Trump had been suffering some blowback on the issue and needed something that he knew he could sell as a major accomplishment to his diabetic MAGA Medicare recipients (many of whom were excluded from the insulin cap). Nonetheless, at a 2020 presidential debate Trump boasted that lowered insulin prices that vials were “so cheap, it’s like water”, despite insulin prices remaining fixed at about $300 per vial. And that wasn’t misleading, that was 100% false.

The Biden Administration’s Meaningful Accomplishment

Jump forward from the Trump administration’s weak insulin copay cost policy to today. President Biden achieved much when he signed the August 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Among those achievements was a new insulin copay cap program (effective date January 1, 2023 for Medicare Part D, and July 1, 2023 for Medicare Part B). Also, as of January 1, 2024, eligibility for the Part D Low Income Subsidy (LIS) expanded from 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) to 150 percent of FPL, which allows these enrollees to further reduce their out-of-pocket costs for insulin. Also, under the Inflation Reduction Act, beginning in plan year 2023 (Jan-Dec), Medicare Part D enrollees no longer may have a deductible for insulin and must have a maximum $35 monthly co-payment. These are broad and meaningful benefits, rather than – as Trump’s 2020 executive action was – a simply cynical political expedient to attempt to silence critics by, basically, confusing them. (Note, however, as always, Senate Republicans tried to block the $35 cap on price of insulin from the Inflation Reduction Act.)

As the copay cap program became effective in January 2023, an October HHS report, Insulin Affordability and the Inflation Reduction Act: Medicare Beneficiary Savings by State and Demographics, disclosed:

KEY POINTS
• The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) caps insulin out-of-pocket spending at $35 per month’s supply of each insulin product covered under a Medicare Part D plan, with similar limits for out-of-pocket costs for insulin supplied under Part B, and reduces out-of-pocket drug spending in Medicare in other ways.
. . . [Omitted — States that the study used data below based upon analysis of 2019 data]
• Nationally, [during 2019, Trump administration] the average out-of-pocket cost was $58 per insulin fill, typically for a 30-day supply. The average cost per fill among people who were uninsured for the entire year was $123, more than double the national average. Patients with private insurance or Medicare paid about $63 per fill on average.
• [During 2019] About 37 percent of insulin fills for Medicare enrollees (Part B and Part D) required cost-sharing exceeding $35 per fill, including 24 percent that exceeded $70 per fill. About 36 percent of insulin fills for people without insurance and 35 percent for people with private insurance had cost sharing above $35 per fill. These estimates are only for enrollees who filled an insulin prescription and do not include potential costs for patients who did not fill their insulin due to cost or other reasons.
• We estimate that 1.5 million Medicare beneficiaries would have benefited from the new [Inflation Reduction Act] insulin cost-sharing limits if they had been in effect [during] 2020, [rather than Trump’s policy] with savings to those beneficiaries of about $734 million in Part D and $27 million in Part B – or approximately $500 in average annual savings per person among those benefiting from the provision. [Emphasis added]

The Trump plan lacked coverage for millions of Medicare insulin users. The Inflation Reduction Act remedied that.

Jump Forward to . . . Last Saturday & Donald Trump

Yes, this again:

“Low INSULIN PRICING was gotten for millions of Americans by me, and the Trump Administration, not by Crooked Joe Biden. He had NOTHING to do with it. It was all done long before he so sadly entered office. All he does is try to take credit for things done by others, in this case, ME!” Truth Social post, June 8, 2024

Why now, why this spirited defense? The closeness of the 2024 election, in time and in winning margin, sespite Trump’s overwhelming confidence, he may have been alerted to the fact that today’s seniors, particularly baby boomers over 64, are not majority GOP voters seniors as we’ve assumed. And Trump relies on them, and trusts them to support him, and boomers now represent 60+% of the senior vote. More conservative or radical voters have died since the 2016 and 2020 elections at a greater number than baby boomers have joined the senior voting bloc. An April 26 NYT article succinctly summed it up:

“Mr. Biden’s strength among seniors might be surprising, but the likeliest explanation is deceptively simple: At every stage earlier in their lives, many of today’s seniors voted Democratic. They just got older.”

As a 74 year-old baby boomer I unanimously agree. (I’m also a diabetic who once used insulin and now use Ozempic exclusively: O! O! O! Ozempic!) Given the millions of Medicare insulin-dependent patients, insulin costs – Trump may have learned is a salient issue in the presidential race and as the chart below suggests, the blue seniors still retain their leftie reputation:

NYT, April 6, 2024

And since the 2012 election, much has changed. Baby boomers could decide the 2024 election, although Gen Z voters appear to be trending more conservative/MAGA, older voters vote in greater percentage terms than younger ones. Therefore, if not Trump himself, then it’s likely someone in the Trump campaign alerted him that the Medicare voting bloc was at risk, not only on general issues, but on pocketbook issues like the Medicare insulin cap. It’s unlikely, however, that many approved of his outlandish June 8th tweet and the blowback that established how cynical and untrue it was. We baby boomers aren’t babies anymore and we are still predominantly hippies . . .

Marjorie Taylor Greene, Legislator . . . from Deep Space

Michael Matheron1 Comment

The walking, talking, vacuum Marjorie Taylor Greene has again and again fashioned herself as the guardian-at-arms of her self-appointed House leadership office: Lady High Executioner of the Speaker of the House. She’s not yet met one she didn’t have her fangs out for, and she rarely shuts up about it, demanding attention. attention, and attention. In fact, she’s lately filed a so-called motion to vacate the chair, i.e., the Speaker’s chair, along with its ceremonial gavel. One suspects that she covets that prize – goodbye gavel, hello AR15. Nonetheless, yesterday, in her best dungeon speaking voice she laid down the law to House membership, especially to Mike Johnson, the present Speaker who was then trying to shepherd a group of military assistance bills through the House:

“I don’t care if the Speaker’s office becomes a revolving door. If that’s exactly what needs to happen, then let it be. But the days are over of the old Republican Party that wants to fund foreign wars and murder people in foreign lands, while they stab the American people in their face.”*

How’s that for high dudgeon? Though many in her own party wish she’d simply shut up and resign, they also know she’s a Trump favorite, perhaps on the short list of VP candidates. Of course, that’s ludicrous, but that’s where we are, isn’t it? Would you want an exceedingly bad tempered AR15 packing VP in your White House?

* By the way, Despite MTG’s opposition, Speaker Johnson succeeded in moving the foreign aid package through the House Rules Committee and a vote on that rule was passed by a 316-94 vote this morning, with a final vote on passage perhaps tomorrow, to the relief of Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan.

She Has Her Serious Moments

Although sentient beings criticize MTG for her magnetic attraction to conspiracy theories and for her abhorrence to what many for thousands of years have called facts, her indestructible armor has held up well. Media Matter’s Eric Hannoki, among other duties, seems tasked with keeping tabs on MTG’s various research endeavours, which resulted in what might be called a well worth reading citizen’s annotated guide to her disclosures on various murky matters, listing 28 areas where she has plenty to say. Here’s the kicker: his list is only complete through February 2, 2021! Imagine if, in the intervening years, she put her mind to it! And she did.

In 2022, she told supporters: “The government totally wants to provide surveillance on every part of your life. They want to know when you’re eating. They want to know if you’re eating a cheeseburger, which is very bad because Bill Gates wants you to eat his fake meat, which is grown in a peach tree dish. So you’ll probably get a little zap inside your body and that’s saying, ‘No no! Don’t eat a real cheeseburger, you need to eat the fake, the fake burger, the fake meat from Bill Gates.’”

I haven’t touched a cheeseburger since.

Also, in 2022, when criticizing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of spying on her colleagues, she confused the name of the Nazi secret police, the Gestapo, with a delicious Spanish chilled tomato soup, Gazpacho. With that, she sparked a boom in Gazpacho Police tee shirts, jewelry, and Nazi-themed soups, like Blitzkrieg Chili.

But Wait! There’s More!

Her conspiracy IQ, high as it is, is matched by her grasp of lawmaking, where one’s imagination needs some restraint if legislative proposals are to recognized, approved, and passed. And here, she’s covered herself in glory. In the present 118th Congress she’s sponsored some obviously essential proposals, including:

H.J.Res.95 – Declaring a state of war between certain cartels and the United States of America and making provision to prosecute the same.

H.Res.538 – Expunging the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President Donald John Trump. And, showcasing her principled and consistent stand on the concept and law of constitutional impeachment, she’s sponsored four eminently readable and well-thought out bills calling for the impeachment of President Biden, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Matthew M. Graves, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, whose Senate trial concluded with both charges dismissed on day one.

H.R.5636 – Protect Children’s Innocence Act, o prohibit gender affirming care of minors.

H.Res.829 – Censuring Representative Rashida Tlaib for antisemitic activity, sympathizing with terrorist organizations, and leading an insurrection at the United States Capitol Complex.

But, Wait Again! There’s Still More!!

Continuing her Jewish space lasers crusade, MTG has offered this amendment to the Israel aid package, but not for Israel’s defense needs, but, rather, to build an anti-immigrant laser defense system on our southwest border in order to deep fry illegal border invaders. Some in Congress do not take her seriously.

FDR 1934, A Fireside Chat That Still Resonates

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

September 23, 2011

By 1934 our country was pulling out of the depths of the Great Depression. During FDR’s first hundred days, from March to June 1933, with a huge Democratic party majority in the 73rd Congress, a parade of legislative enactments emerged, including the Emergency Banking Act to the National Industrial Recovery Act. Such a response to economic emergency was unprecedented and caused much concern among many, especially the conservatives who mostly occupied the Republican party.

The arguments against federal “intervention” then were philosophically the same as what we hear today from the likes of Eric Cantor (R-VA), Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), and all of the GOP presidential primary contestants: allow the free markets to operate unfettered by government regulation in good times, and without government assistance in bad times.

FDR faced the same kind of resistance that President Obama faces today. Roosevelt, an upper cruster with ancestors who arrived on the Mayflower, and having a cousin named Theodore Roosevelt, became known among the scions of industry as a “traitor to his class,” a socialist, or fascist, or communist. His relentless program of relief, recovery, and reform frightened those accustomed to near absolute privilege. This is a primary theme in American – and world – history. It is class warfare, in its diplomatic stage. 

In mid-1934, FDR gave one of his “Fireside Chats” to summarize the achievements of the first session of the 73rd Congress. In it, he discussed the numerous programs designed to continue the progress begun in the first hundred days, including the passage of the Securities Exchange Act. Below is a portion of that chat. It’s both eloquent and, these days, familiar in his descriptions of the criticisms he’d received from opponents:

FIRESIDE CHAT — June 28, 1934

Later in the year I hope to talk with you more fully about these plans. A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it “Fascism”, sometimes “Communism”, sometimes “Regimentation”, sometimes “Socialism”. But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical.

I believe in practical explanations and in practical policies. I believe that what we are doing today is a necessary fulfillment of what Americans have always been doing — a fulfillment of old and tested American ideals.

Let me give you a simple illustration:

While I am away from Washington this summer, a long needed renovation of and addition to our White House office building is to be started. The architects have planned a few new rooms built into the present all too small one-story structure. We are going to include in this addition and in this renovation modern electric wiring and modern plumbing and modern means of keeping the offices cool in the hot Washington summers. But the structural lines of the old Executive Office Building will remain. The artistic lines of the White House buildings were the creation of master builders when our Republic was young. The simplicity and the strength of the structure remain in the face of every modern test. But within this magnificent pattern, the necessities of modern government business require constant reorganization and rebuilding.

If I were to listen to the arguments of some prophets of calamity who are talking these days, I should hesitate to make these alterations. I should fear that while I am away for a few weeks the architects might build some strange new Gothic tower or a factory building or perhaps a replica of the Kremlin or of the Potsdam Palace. But I have no such fears. The architects and builders are men of common sense and of artistic American tastes. They know that the principles of harmony and of necessity itself require that the building of the new structure shall blend with the essential lines of the old. It is this combination of the old and the new that marks orderly peaceful progress — not only in building buildings but in building government itself.

Our new structure is a part of and a fulfillment of the old.
——————————–
For the full text of this Fireside chat.

Obama 2.0 – Does a Challenger Lurk Within His Own Camp?

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

September 21, 2011

This year, in August, I wrote:

“In light of the generally lightweight resistance to the Tea Party mayhem caused during this long debt ceiling fight, I’m wondering about things I’ve never wondered before. Is the President who has often compromised with the GOP/TP, not the “down-in-the-dirt” fighter we need to run the Tea Party out-of-town? They are down and dirty, and, in this 21st century civil war skirmish, do we need a Grant rather than a McClellan, a Sherman rather than a Burnside?  It’s a war we’re in, without doubt. Clausewitz wrote, ‘War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.’ Since the close of the Civil War, whether we’ve formally noticed it or not, we’re largely a country where, to paraphrase freely, ‘Politics is a mere continuation of war by other means.’ Following his recent and worst compromise on the debt ceiling, is Obama up to this task?  And who is, or who might be?”

That was August, nonetheless, with this post, I’m disowning my conclusion then that we need a Democratic primary challenger to President Obama for the 2012 election. Three recent events caused my turnaround:  (1)  During his September 8th jobs program speech to Congress, President Obama debuted a new public persona, one with strength, resolve, and purpose. No pandering to Republicans, quite the opposite. No soft-spoken phrases to reassure the GOP of his bipartisanship; “Pass this bill” is short, sweet, and its intent obvious, a textbook declarative sentence, a leader’s statement. Incredibly for this President, he did not utter the word “bipartisan” a single time . . . A strong and hopeful start. Bipartisanship with this GOP Congress has been a losing proposition.

(2)  President Obama’s remarks on Monday about deficit reduction during which he added more heat to the fire that previously he lit on September 8th. Finally, he got rhetorically personal and physical, landing a series of roundhouse hooks to various GOP chins. Moreover, after calling out Speaker of the House Boehner by name, Obama – in the blue boxing trunks – hammered the Speaker’s orange nose. Yesterday, Boehner seemed a bit shaken, not stirred. His counter-punch was a weak non sequitur, a comment conflating “class warfare” with “leadership.”

(3) Ralph Nader’s Monday announcement that he is actively seeking six progressive/liberal contenders willing to challenge the President in primary contests was another reason I changed my mind.

Channeling Rocky Balboa?  The President’s deficit reduction remarks, added to his jobs plan speech two weeks ago, provided evidence of an unexpected moxie, a bit of a temper, and a tad of FDR’s sarcastic humor (“This is not class warfare. It’s math.”).  Rather than shadow boxing, he threw some swift, well-aimed uppercuts. He now evinces a full understanding that allowing the GOP to throttle him against the ropes will not wear them out, they can do that all day, all night.  You won’t exhaust them to the mat in the 15th round. You must flatten them, and publicly.

My earlier posting, set out above, pushed an entirely different agenda. Now, though, I believe that if Obama continues to battle without cravenly compromising with the GOP Congressloons on essentials, he’s got a reasonable chance to win some victories. It’s quite good too that he called out Grover Norquist and his anti-tax pledge that many Congressloons signed.  These moves are like spirited and stinging jabs to the nose, and if he does it long enough, publicly enough, the highly sought after Democratic base will rally.  Perhaps too will the independent voters, the Holy Grail of U.S. presidential elections, move into the Obama camp. . .

So, if Obama and his entire administration forcefully attack, attack, and attack the GOP (and some weak Democrats too) on all points, and demand they enact, at a minimum, the more substantial portions of his suggested tax provisions and his jobs plan, an impending primary battle would do more damage than good. My reason for promoting a primary challenge in early August was precisely, and only, to underscore the importance of President Obama to move to the left from a position many of us viewed as pandering to the far right-wing. I’d hoped he would decide to stand on Democratic principles and start punching. Yesterday, and in his jobs plan speech two weeks ago, he did it, and he’s got some fancy footwork, and John Boehner, a tough fighter, was bloodied. If yesterday’s speech is followed up, this is the President we’ve been looking for, waiting for, and a primary challenge would be ill-advised. Let’s allow the President to “float like a butterfly, and sting like a bee,” undisturbed by a 5th column of primary contenders that, in the end, will only aid the GOP/TP.

Ladies and Gentlemen, In This Other Corner, at 180 I.Q, Ralph Naaaaaaderrrrr.  On Monday, five-time presidential contender Ralph Nader called for a primary challenge to the President. Mr. Nader – whose nearly 100,000 Florida votes as a 3rd party candidate in the 2000 election caused George W. Bush to (eventually) be quasi-elected president – is seeking, six “recognizable, articulate “candidates. Nader does not want them to mount serious challenges to Obama, but to instead “rigorously debate his policy stands” on issues. Six candidates, mind you. According to an LA Times article: “Nader insists the purpose of his latest electoral effort is not to deny Obama the Democratic nomination, or undermine his chances in the general election against whomever the Republicans put up against the president. ‘Just the opposite,’ Nader said, speaking via telephone from Washington shortly after the recruitment effort was made public. ‘If [Obama’s] smart, he’ll welcome it, because nothing’s worse than an incumbent president slipping in the polls, being constantly on the defensive, being accused by supporters of having no backbone and running an unenthusiastically received campaign. That’s a prescription for defeat. He’s got a lack of enthusiasm with his base,’ Nader continued, ‘If he goes through a one-year presidential campaign with mind-numbing repetition, responding to crazed Republican positions, he is not going to activate his base. He will be put on the defensive, just the way he is now.’” When Mr. Nader begins a project, as all of us over 50s know, he’s like a feral dog with a tasty bone. Nothing will stop him, although I’m sure at least some Democratic party HQ types are quietly trying to do so.

A primary challenge to the “new” Obama would be both constructive . . . and destructive. Constructive by forcing Obama to move more passionately toward his Democratic base and its members’ interests, to refine his sense of what the Democratic party stands for; destructive in causing a sense of Presidential weakness and vulnerability just at the time he’s building and demonstrating strength while taking the offensive against the GOP with force. In addition – and something I didn’t recognize in my early August posting  – a primary battle, despite some positives, would be a major distraction from the work the President has at hand – defeating the GOP and the Tea Party, or at least neutralizing them. Either result would likely secure Obama’s re-election, and just might deflate the most dangerous political group of fanatics since the civil war.

Boehner Accidentally Tells the Truth About Tax Cuts

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

September 16, 2011

Mr. Boehner: “And here in Washington, there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the economy and it’s led to an awful lot of bad decisions. And the reality is that employers will hire if they’ve got the right incentives, but the incentives have to outweigh the costs. As an example, businesses aren’t going to hire someone because the government’s going to give them a $4,000 tax credit, if the government mandates that are imposed on them cost a lot more than that temporary credit. In our recent years, these mandates have been overwhelming.”

“Government’s threat to job creation has two other components. One is the current tax code which discourages investments and rewards special interest. It strikes me as odd that at a time when it’s clear the tax code needs to be fundamentally reformed, the first instant to come out of Washington is to come up with a new host of tax credits that make the tax code more complex.”

In fact, what he criticizes is actually the ultimate Republican tax-cutting plan: It rewards the private sector for acting in its own best interest. And it gives wary companies that are now just hoarding their profits in cash the confidence that can get them to start expanding again.

And, it’s also the ultimate Democratic jobs-generating plan: It guarantees results before federal tax dollars are spent.

Moreover, it’s the ultimate tea party no-new-taxes/no-new-programs populist plan: It produces the new jobs without government adding more taxation or more reams of red tape.

And it is, by definition, the most shovel-ready plan any economist can conjure: By using job-generating tax credits to prime our economic pumps, not a dollar of taxpayer money would be spent before the private sector has created and filled the jobs.

A side benefit of this is that it is not one of those programs that reward the special interests that have invested in our politicians — presidents, senators and representatives — by giving them campaign money as a down payment for future access and consideration. All employers have a chance at getting this tax credit — all they need to do is hire new employees.

Now it turns out the template for this approach was just created. On Aug. 5, President Barack Obama announced a program to give companies tax credits for hiring unemployed military veterans. Employers hiring unemployed veterans would get a $2,400 maximum credit for every short-term hire and $4,800 for every long-term hire. The plan would give companies a $9,600 maximum credit for every long-term hire of a veteran with service-connected disabilities.

Well, if this works for creating jobs for unemployed military veterans, why not expand it to include all unemployed Americans? That Republican-sounding idea was raised by the former chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer: “There are 15 million other unemployed people,” Romer said. “Let’s do a big tax cut for any firm that’s willing to hire. Someone, I think, ought to be making the case for swinging for the fences, not small programs.”

GOP mantra, though, “no taxation without representation; no taxation with representation.”

Really, They Will Say ANYTHING! – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on $45 Billion for School & Home Rehabilitation

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

September 14, 2011

From the newsstand copy of POLITICO that I found in a Starb*cks this a.m., a report about Eric CAN’Tor’s thinking on a portion of the American Jobs Act, i.e. spending $45 billion dollars on rehabilitating schools and homes: “I don’t believe that our members are going to be interested in pursuing that,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) told reporters Monday. “I certainly am not. There are perhaps laudable goals behind the proposals, [but] the fact is we don’t have the money. And we’ve got to prioritize. And right now, it’s about getting people back to work.”

I wondered, is Mr. CAN’Tor acquainted with how buildings are “rehabilitated”? Without exception, these projects require construction workers and the use of durable goods, two areas where the unemployment rate runs from 9.1% (durables) to 13.5% (construction). That’s a bit more than 2 million people, many out of work for more than two years, and many more doing part-time work only, among the huge numbers of underemployed. In addition, rehab projects require electricians, plumbers, architects, security personnel, inspectors, permitting, and other allied professions. These jobs then cause other services to gear up. Think insurance, food services, etc. The dollar put into the economy “grows” – $45 billion for these projects might then result in $145 billion in carry on spending from the private sector that, now, is sitting on huge piles of cash, literally, cash in money market funds.

The real answer, though, is of course the obvious one: CAN’Tor and his minions are out to remove Keynes from the economics texts, to dismantle governments – don’t kid yourself – of all sizes. Supporting useful fiscal stimulus (they actually do know it’s useful) is, to them, off limits. And all this despite the mischief it spawns in the country. In poker terms, they are all in. They believe, despite all the evidence, that the private sector will leap to the rescue, and rehab those schools and homes! If only they could pay well below the minimum wage; if only they were utterly unregulated; if only they didn’t have to do this; if only they didn’t have to do that; if only; if only. . .

Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy on Ron Paul’s (R-TX) FEMA Stance, “He’s an Idiot.”

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

August 31, 2011

“He’s and idiot.” Now there’s a Democratic Governor for you! In a moment of purest truth, crystallizing the essence of Ron Paul’s recent anti-FEMA rant, no one could do it better, or with more harmony of syntax. “He’s an idiot.” It’s long overdue, this simple dismissal of Ron Paul. And nowhere is it more obvious than here: this tightfisted Mr. Burns envisioning a world without FEMA. Like my post yesterday about Virginia Congressloon Eric Cantor’s observation that his constituents – chide, chide, chide – had not secured earthquake insurance, Mr. Paul is of the same mind.  “We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960,” Paul said. “I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.”

Though it’s less discussed, don’t fool yourself, people like Ron Paul are just as committed to defunding state governments as they are to stripping the federal budget. It’s taxes they detest, and, of course, state governments impose taxes of all kinds. Some, like Paul’s Texas, have no income tax. In the end, anti-tax people are anti almost all taxes. Here, in the bluest county in blue Maryland, Montgomery County, a group has fought property taxes for years and years.

Insurance company bankruptcy is more common than people think, especially in difficult financial times. A major disaster can also result in insurance companies going bankrupt: Hurricane Andrew hit Florida and Louisiana in 1992, resulting in no less than 12 insurance company bankruptcies. But Ron Paul isn’t moved by that. FEMA? No. Just buy some insurance which will be unable to pay out to policy holders which the federal government will not be allowed to assist. Recipe for disaster upon disaster. Ron Paul is an idiot.