Left leaning political satire and serious analysis
Since 2022, and the price of food is also retreating from its highs, while energy prices have dropped 25+% since 2022’s rise. Nevertheless, all we will continue to hear from the GOP/MAGA candidates is that inflation is soaring. . .
November 27, 2011
It’s commonplace now, but still astonishing, the sense of panic consistently created by our news outlets, most recently, supercommittee madness. When the dire consequences then fail to emerge, pundits and newsheads wonder how such hysteria ever occurred. Case in point: the supercommittee sequestration deadline.
I’ve been aware of this falsely created hysteria for some time now, but, like the media I’m about to criticize, I haven’t written about just how false the “deadline” was. Its significance flew over my head. Classic fly-by. Mea culpa. What the mainstream media pundits and newsheads seldom mentioned is the most salient fact about the Supercommittee: it’s lack of recommendations, the “trigger” for sequestration of mammoth proportions, were, by statute, slated to begin in January 2013. That’s more than a year – and a complete session of Congress – from the statutory “deadline.” Yet, our newsheads kept the words “deadline” and “sequestration’ closely tied. Is this laziness? No (or let’s hope not, that would be even worse than their hysteria mongering). The newsies and their staff were aware of the practical “non-eventness” of the sequestration deadline. Then why the shell game?
It’s simple, as most of us know. Media thrives on creating ticking clocks, now more than ever. So, rather than mentioning that sequestration would not begin for another year, if at all, they deliberately “forgot” to mention that tidbit. Also, the yearlong (new) sequestration enforcement “deadline” leaves ample room for negotiating entirely new “deadlines,” budget cuts, or (hopefully) tax increases on the you-know-who. Moreover, despite President Obama’s veto threat, Congress can game play a bill that amends the entire idea of sequestration in such a way that Obama will be unable to use his veto for political or other reasons.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer – the worst of the hysteria-encouraging newsheads – is notorious for this. He does it unreservedly. Once a pretty good reporter, he’s now a shill for CNN’s ever more rightwing take on events. (Last night, he waxed lovingly about Newt Gingrich.) Other networks fared little better. So, the civics-undereducated American public (through no fault of their own) was, for the most part, consistently kept in the dark about what a superdupercommittee failure would bring in its immediate wake. Many folks were counting off the seconds, fearing immediate cutbacks affecting everything from Medicaid to defense spending. What a show! And that is what it’s all about in the era of entertainment news. Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, Edward R. Murrow, rest in peace, you’re all in a better place.
October 3, 2011
Beware The Anger of a Patient Man. What the Occupy Wall Street contingent protests is primarily that downward path of the 90% of Americans who have lost ground financially for more than three decades. Particularly, however, since the 2008 housing and financial market meltdown the decline of the well-being of most Americans is stark. Housing values – heretofore the staple of net worth for most Americans – are in a depression, and mortgage and credit burdens increase relative to stagnant income. The decline in home equity reminds me of Wily Coyote going off a cliff, only this isn’t a cartoon, it’s the sterile visual of the real pain suffered by most of us. Mortgage debt and credit debt has not moved downward at all, really, particularly when measured against stagnant personal income.
Income growth, by the way, is no growth, for many years. Moreover, despite the whining by the wealth class, their effective tax rates are lower than they’ve been in more than 25 years, and nearly as low as they’ve been since mid-Depression 1933. Who caused all this? The working class, Mr. Main Street, the poor, labor unions? Not even the daily mid- and low-level employees of Wall Street were responsible for the debacle. No, they too were the victims of a mammoth fraud based upon reckless financial instruments created by reckless and craven financial geniuses.
It’s no wonder we peasants-in-training are in the mood to march. Bravo, to those Wall Street marchers, and to those in other cities. Recall that protests against the Vietnam war were small at first, but in the end, small beginnings mobilized millions. I was there – we even tried to levitate the Pentagon – and the mood on Wall Street is reminiscent of ours then. We just kept pushing forward, day after day, march after march. And, in my experience, the present Wall Street contingent, at this writing, is in no way “small.” This physical embodiment of resistance will bear fruit. Oligarchs and kleptarchs rely on complacency. You there in New York City, Boston, Portland, Maine, and elsewhere, you’ve got their attention, and they’ve already, courtesy of the NYPD, released the hounds . . . They hear you coming.
September 21, 2011
Why did the GOP congressional leadership send a snail-mail missive to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke? Haven’t they gotten the news about “e-mail”? Do they need pen pals that badly? Do they need a loan? Or what?
Imagine, these legendary GOP lunkheads suddenly looking for “ample data,” “quantifiable benefits,” “measurable outcomes,” and . . . evidence! Characteristically, in their letter below, they offer none of those to back up their assertions about the effects of Fed policies. They offer nothing but naked – and uncharacteristically weaselly – claims that “the Federal Reserve’s actions have likely led to more fluctuations and uncertainty in our already weak economy,” and “further intervention by the Federal Reserve could exacerbate current problems or further harm the U.S. economy.”
It’s not surprising this Gang of No would “instruct” the Fed this way. They speak for the bigger gang of GOP/TP Fed haters. In good times and in bad times they detest the Federal Reserve. Now, however, having consciously slowed the economy by blocking any meaningful – and temporary – fiscal stimulus, they must kneecap the Fed. And now. Why? To cut off monetary stimulus as well. They cannot win the White House in 2012 without a substantially weakening economy between now and November 2012. Moreover, the blatant, if hamfistedly muted, threat against Bernanke and the Fed inherent in their letter is as subtle as a Hustler billboard in Vatican Square.
One wonders, are they playing chicken with a depression? Are they actively courting one for political purposes alone? It seems unlikely to seek economic catastrophe, but, recall, they are batsh*t crazy. We ought never underestimate batsh*t, or crazy. Here’s their cris de coeur, dated September 19, 2011:
“Dear Chairman Bernanke,
It is our understanding that the Board Members of the Federal Reserve will meet later this week to consider additional monetary stimulus proposals. We write to express our reservations about any such measures. Respectfully, we submit that the board should resist further extraordinary intervention in the U.S. economy, particularly without a clear articulation of the goals of such a policy, direction for success, ample data proving a case for economic action and quantifiable benefits to the American people.
It is not clear that the recent round of quantitative easing undertaken by the Federal Reserve has facilitated economic growth or reduced the unemployment rate. To the contrary, there has been significant concern expressed by Federal Reserve Board Members, academics, business leaders, Members of Congress and the public. Although the goal of quantitative easing was, in part, to stabilize the price level against deflationary fears, the Federal Reserve’s actions have likely led to more fluctuations and uncertainty in our already weak economy.
We have serious concerns that further intervention by the Federal Reserve could exacerbate current problems or further harm the U.S. economy. Such steps may erode the already weakened U.S. dollar or promote more borrowing by overleveraged consumers. To date, we have seen no evidence that further monetary stimulus will create jobs or provide a sustainable path towards economic recovery.
Ultimately, the American economy is driven by the confidence of consumers and investors and the innovations of its workers. The American people have reason to be skeptical of the Federal Reserve vastly increasing its role in the economy if measurable outcomes cannot be demonstrated. We respectfully request that a copy of this letter be shared with each Member of the Board.
Sincerely, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. John Boehner, Sen. Jon Kyl, Rep. Eric Cantor”
August 4, 2011
Today, I’m not simply referencing the equities market collapse over the past week, including today’s significant losses as of 2:30 p.m. There are many other reasons for this week’s swan dive. So, eager as I may be to do so, I can’t put this entirely at the door of the GOP and its maniacal dancing monkeys, the Tea party. This week, though, undeniably, the debt “deal” is among the forces decimating equity prices and Americans’ confidence.
The deal’s unrelenting tight-fisted approach seems, at present, to rule out any fiscal stimulus emerging from Congress. The independent Federal Reserve’s “according to Hoyle” monetary stimulus efforts seem to have done little good stimulating employment growth and lending so far, and it shouldn’t be expected to be helpful in the future. The fed funds rate has for a long time been as low as a snake in a cesspool, and, today, the Treasuries that were almost a pariah two days ago are rallying across the board, sending interest rates lower than low. To what avail after four years of recession? (Note: We never emerged from it in 2009 . . .) And now, without fiscal stimulus, the country and the equally shaky world faces a likely killing dose of American “fiscal austerity” and the further unemployment it brings with it. Who will be able to buy cars, refrigerators, computers, or bubble gum? Who, then, will be able to provide the earnings that could revive this critically sick stock market?
Well, no one, it seems, in D.C., thought about that very much. The Tea Party wrecking crew pushed our overly accommodating President and most of the Democratic and Republican parties into a final package that will pummel employment at all levels and in all sectors. The debt ceiling deal just signed into law will, perhaps radically, worsen employment, lessen personal income, and diminish already anemic personal spending. If we avoid what would be remembered as the 2nd Great Depression, we need to make some WPA-type Hail Mary passes, and soon.
For now, though, the Tea Party and the GOP it commands stand stolidly and stubbornly by the windows in their House and watch all this destruction without so much as offering the tiniest ray of hope that we, as a nation, will pull together again as we did in the 1930s. Unfortunately, the President, an apparently conflict averse leader, as well as much of the far too “civil” Democratic party, also watch from afar as well. Just watching, it seems, deeming it too uncivil or uncouth or strenuous to fight for the country. The unindicted co-conspirators.
July 29, 2011
Older Americans do not intend to ruin America,
but as a group, that’s what they’re about.
Robert J. Samuelson,
Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid.
Washington Post, July 28, 2011
Answer: The Bucket. Mr. Samuelson, a right-wing economist, in yesterday’s Washington Post POSTOPINIONS column didn’t bury the lede: Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid. This (unfortunately) memorable title tells you where this is going, and Samuelson does not disappoint, except one does walk away from his screed a bit more disappointed than usual in how right-wingers think. They relish attacking those who live one crisis away from poverty. Samuelson gives those weakened geriatric gray hairs a good beatdown, like Seinfeld‘s Kramer when he thrashed those prepubescent youngsters in the karate dojo, “I’m dominating the dojo. I’m class champion!” Or the man who plotted to throw his mother off a train, but in that case, decided against it. Samuelson did not.
You may not have known that your seemingly sweet Granny and Gramps were on a jihad bent on burying you and their other children and grandkids under mountains of nationalized debt. I would’ve never suspected my own grandparents, they were always good for a hug and a cookie. (There are exceptions, however. My Aunt Ruth, for example, for my ninth birthday, gave me the 670 page 1955 edition of Emily Post’s Etiquette: The Blue Book of Social Usage. Obviously, by that act alone, she proved that she’d do anything to anyone. Thus, she, now at 89 years, remains suspect of burying us all under mountains of public debt.)
Samuelson’s point is obvious, a lot of those rampaging elders are gaming the system, many do not need the benefits they receive, especially from Social Security and Medicare. He ignores the fact that a national social welfare program ought to embrace all the elderly; after all, well-off elders may, during their retirement, lose everything. (And don’t be fooled, Samuelson believes that poor Americans in any age group don’t deserve their benefits either.) Statistics show that the majority of elders need social security to live any kind of decent life at all. Medicare to live a healthy life at all.
Of course, Obama and the Democrats are Samuelson’s villains de jour, but he includes his own companions:
“the shunning [of even discussing entitlement cuts] is bipartisan. Tea Party advocates broadly deplore government spending without acknowledging that most of it goes for popular Social Security and Medicare.”
Thus he proves that he is worse than Tea Partiers. He forgets that the vast majority of retirement aged Tea Partiers collect Social Security and Medicare, (rightfully) believe they earned it, are therefore “entitled” to it, and would smack you with their canes should you try to even discuss cutting benefits. Of course, they also believe that other groups of elderly persons do not deserve what they have; funny how that works, eh? Samuelson doesn’t understand politics very well, doe he?
The social contract which we have includes income and health security, and yet does not eviscerate free enterprise. It’s benefits are for all citizens. Samuelson is no friend of our social contract:
“By now, it’s obvious that we need to rewrite the social contract that, over the past half-century, has transformed the federal government’s main task into transferring income from workers to retirees.”
To him, and the GOP/TP when it suits them, the federal government ought to have few mandates, i.e., foreign relations, border protection, building a national armed forces, and, most of all, cutting taxes paid by those who, by and large, are already doing quite well. For people like Samuelson, doing well is always the best revenge on those whose paths through life are rocky and dangerous. Tea Partiers, in particular, detest those they consider lazy welfare queens and kings, despite the fact that many Tea Partiers collect what the call “welfare,” within which they have been known to include Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. When this wrongheaded enmity is pressed against the elderly, especially those who rely upon those programs, on those who have lived long enough to achieve old age, it’s akin to saying to them, “Thanks for your hard work, and drop dead.”
Robert Samuelson’s Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid proves he’s comfortable warring on the nation’s elderly. Period. Paragraph. Throw him off a train . . .
March 11, 2011
Let’s ask a really meaningful question: Why are non-public sector workers paid so little that, by comparison, moderately compensated public sector workers appear to be overpaid or “over-benefitted” or both?
It’s a way to pit the dwindling middle class against itself. In a way it’s saying to non-public sector workers,” Hey, these underpaid public sector bums are making more than you are, and they have more generous benefits at lower cost to them.” Unspoken truth: The GOP way to fix this apparent injustice is not to work to increase wages and benefits to non public-sector employees, but to bring public-sector workers down to your income/benefit levels. And income among the old-fashioned middle class has fallen or stayed steady for the past ten years, benefits have worsened, and pensions are a memory for many, a craven “success” for the GOP.
This, in the long run, will make public sector work less attractive in order to undermine government operations. Given the recent troubles, will the public sector be able to staff its operations, even at the far lower level of operations being budgeted for in many states? GOP rabid economists want the answer to be a permanent “Yes!”