web statisticsRealtime Web Statistics

Income Inequality: Not An Accident

So I got nothing but grief over this meme that I created several months ago;

Tax Distribution copy

It caused a lot of consternation from people who just didn’t want to believe it, despite the fact that I cited every source I used and explained that when I found differing numbers, I always used the lowest number I could find. I enumerated a list of corporate subsidies I left out because they were either too hard to calculate (since they were buried in hundreds of bills), or because they were subsidies that come out of your state taxes.

I’ve posted hundreds of articles discussing the income inequality in America, complete with data and sources. Some people just don’t want to believe in that data. I’ve posted data (and as always, sources) showing that the six heirs to the Walton (or Walmart) fortune, who have done nothing in their lives, other than to win the birth lottery possess the same wealth as the bottom 40% of Americans. Still, there are some that don’t want to believe.

I have to say that unless your last name is Walton, I find this desire not to believe completely perplexing.

Well, here’s some more data for some to reject out of whole cloth. Oxfam just released a report on global income inequality. That report finds that the richest 85 people in the world, possess half of the world’s wealth. That wasn’t a typo. I didn’t forget to include any zeros or Ks after 85. It’s not 85,000 own half of the wealth. It’s eighty-five people that own half of all of the wealth in the world.

Why did I start the post by referring to my meme? Because that kind of inequality doesn’t happen organically. That kind of inequality happens because the game is rigged. Nobody is blessed with the kind of talent, brains, and good looks that earns them the wealth of the next 8.2 million people. That is not fucking possible, and the burning desire to believe that, is inexplicable. This kind of income inequality is only made possible by what I showed in my meme. You’re not voluntary giving your money to people whose products you want to buy. It’s being taken from you by people you’ve never done business with.

This happens when Bush and Pelosi decide that the best way to mend a failing economy is to give a barrelful of money to the banks, instead of to the homeowners whose property value was intentionally and systematically fictionalized by those banks. And it’s compounded by the "oopsie" that didn’t require those banks to lend that money back to you at a low interest rate. It’s rigged when your city pays to build a new Walmart store, and then lets that story keep the sales tax they collect for several years. You think that the 6 people that possess 40% of the country’s wealth can’t afford to build their own damned stores?  It’s rigged.

Income inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. Some people are more talented than others, and should earn more than others. Nobody is advocating for equality of outcome. Frankly, if you believe that, you’re the kind of willfully ignorant asshole who can’t be reasoned with. But equality of opportunity is essential to the growth of a healthy society. Everybody should have the opportunity to prosper from their intelligence, innovation, and yes good looks. That isn’t what’s happening here. A vast majority of the population will never have that opportunity. Not because they’re not talented, brilliant, or innovative, but because they’re being shut out of the system.

That’s what I’m against. I’m against shutting 40% of Americans out of the prosperity ladder, and you should be too. This kind of income inequality is toxic for a society. I always say that millionaires are great for America, but billionaires aren’t. Millionaires put a healthier percentage of their incomes back into the economy. Billionaires can’t possibly do that. When 40% of Americans can’t buy anything other than food and gas, that hurts all of us. We need a population with more disposable income than we have. Jobs aren’t created in a country where nearly half of the citizens have no purchasing power. It just doesn’t work.

What we’re seeing today is very close to pre-Great Depression era income inequality. It didn’t work then, and it isn’t going to work now. We can, and have to change this trend. From the report;

This dangerous trend can be reversed. The good news is that there are clear examples of success, both historical and current. The US and Europe in the three decades after World War II reduced inequality while growing prosperous. Latin America has
significantly reduced inequality in the last decade through more progressive taxation, public services, social protection and decent work. Central to this progress has been popular politics that represent the majority, instead of being captured by a tiny minority. This has benefited all, both rich and poor.

This is exactly right. Comically, the report gives some recommendations on a pledge they would like the billionaires to take when meeting at Davos for the World Economic Forum. The recommendations are as follows;

  • Not dodge taxes in their own countries or in countries where they invest and operate, by using tax havens;
  • Not use their economic wealth to seek political favors that undermine the democratic will of their fellow citizens;
  • Make public all the investments in companies and trusts for which they are the ultimate beneficial owners;
  • Support progressive taxation on wealth and income;
  • Challenge governments to use their tax revenue to provide universal healthcare, education and social protection for citizens;
  • Demand a living wage in all the companies they own or control;
  • Challenge other economic elites to join them in these pledges

 The idea that the people who have been mercilessly fucking you out of your wealth or any opportunity to get some wealth, will miraculously decide to stop is comical. Fortunately, we don’t have to wait for them to grow a conscience. We can do something about it.

If you’re reading this, you’ve seen my relentless pleas to get you to join me at Wolf Pac. I really believe that what Wolf Pac is doing is our last and only resort to fix this. Let me explain what we’re doing and why it’s our only option for fixing this.

Followers of my FB, G+, or Twitter pages understand that I call all politicians out on bullshit when I see it. I’m not a blind partisan or a "team player". I’m a liberal, which is why I find the democratic party increasingly unacceptable. Not totally unacceptable, but increasingly unacceptable. Republicans are totally unacceptable. Not because I don’t agree with them ideologically, but because they no longer have an ideology. There’s no "conserve" left in conservatism. This is no longer a party of small government. Republicans have become a wholly owned subsidiary of the word’s corporations. They don’t believe in anything other than serving their corporate masters anymore. They believe in giant corporate subsidies and giant government in your bedroom and in your home. The last place left where they believe in low taxes, is with corporations and their billionaire executives. For everyone else, it’s layer upon layer of middle class decimating fees (because a fee is somehow better than a tax?) and really damned big government. Democrats are moving in that direction in increasing numbers. That said, democrats still have a handful of legislators that actually advocate for your best interest. I’m not interested in playing a false equivalency game. Both sides aren’t the same, yet.

As I’ve watched democrats fall down the same rabbit hole or corporatism that republicans fell down decades ago, I’ve come to realize that the root of the problem isn’t in the individual people. It’s in the system, which has all the wrong incentive structures built into it. We have a system that incentivizes our politicians to serve the wrong people. They’re forced to serve the people and corporations that can afford to get them elected, and that can keep them in office. In America, the candidate with the most money wins an election 94% of the time. Their ideas don’t matter. Who they are doesn’t matter. Their platforms don’t matter. 94% of the time, the only thing that matters, is how much more money than their opponent they have. This doesn’t exactly inspire or promote creative or progressive governing.

It almost doesn’t matter who you vote for anymore. I say almost, because there are still a handful of issues where who you vote for makes a difference (marriage equality, marijuana legalization, etc) . But on issues that involve large corporations, your vote is meaningless. No president in America will ever deal with the Wall Street situation. No president in America will ever deal with the perpetually increasing waste in our defense spending. No president in America will ever deal with Monsanto’s takeover of our food supply. These are issues where the vast majority of Americans will always lose because the system is designed to put us on the losing end, regardless of who we vote for. Third parties are not the answer as long as the system remains as it is.

So what is Wolf PAC doing? We’re calling for an amendment to the constitution to get money out of politics. We’re not going through congress or the supreme court. We’re working on the state level to introduce a resolution calling for a constitutional convention. We need 34 states to pass our resolution. We have 10 states on the board right now. By "on the board", I mean that they have either already introduced, or are about to introduce our resolution. How did we do this? By working with legislators in our state. Why? For a couple of reasons. First off, we’re finding that democracy actually exists on a state level. When you call your state senator, on average, you can get a meeting with them in 3 calls. Since no one ever calls their local representatives, they seem to mostly be willing to meet with their constituents because they assume that if one constituent took the time to call, hundreds more are concerned with that issue. I personally met with both the assemblyman (woman) and the state senator who introduced our legislation here in New York. In one state (I can’t remember which), a Wolf PAC volunteer called their legislator, who actually personally answered the phone. He met that legislator for coffee later that afternoon, and had the resolution introduced the next day. In 3 states, the legislators introducing our resolution are far right wing republicans. This is a bipartisan issue, and we have a bipartisan group of volunteers.The second reason for doing it this way, is because we don’t trust congress to get it done. There’s way too much money being spent on a federal level, and our odds of crossing the finish line are exponentially higher if we work on a state level. 

When I first heard Cenk (Uygur, from The Young Turks) announce the formation of Wolf PAC, I thought the idea was preposterous. The obstacles to getting an amendment to the constitution seemed insurmountable to me. But after a year of mulling it over, I realized that we don’t have a choice. There’s literally nothing else we can do to fix our problems. I concluded that spinning my wheels in trying to get someone elected, or in getting out the vote was pointless, since that person would have to work within the fucked up system before them. Amending the constitution started to sound far less preposterous a proposition than continuing to do what I’ve been doing.

If you’ve come to the same conclusion I have, you should help us to fix it. Sign up to either volunteer, or donate to Wolf Pac. Whether you want to get money out because your party isn’t conservative anymore, or liberal anymore doesn’t matter. We’re both facing the same issue. Fortunately, it’s an issue that we still have the power to fix. We can make this happen with a few thousand people contributing, and a few thousand people volunteering. This is my primary issue because dealing with this one issue fixes the vast majority of the problems we’re facing. Personally, I’m done with "us versus them" being framed in a way to distract from the real problem. The "us" and the "them" are not republicans and democrats. They’re the 85 people who hold half of the world’s wealth, versus everyone else.         

Share

Greed Is Goooooood

So Boeing is dropping their pension plans and cutting salaries.

This would be a “just another day in corporate America” story, except that they’re not even pretending they’re doing it to “save the company”. They didn’t bother to shift all the pensions to a subsidiary company that they could then load up with the first company’s debt to “put it in the brink of bankruptcy” in order to dump the pensions.

As a society, we’ve gotten used to that practice. Remember when the appallingly named Patriot Coal did it last year? It really wasn’t even news because robbing workers by playing accounting tricks is just how we do business in America now.

Boeing is taking a new approach to robbing their employees. They’re just doing it without the pretense and the hassles that come with the shell game we’ve gotten used to. From the LA Times article;

For just as the company was wringing concessions from its workers, its board of directors approved a 50% increase in the company’s stock dividend and a $10-billion stock buyback that will richly reward investors and executives who get paid in Boeing shares.

Boeing’s excuse? They’re not the first company to dump pensions, so they’re just “following the market”. Well that’s true. Again from the LA Times story; 

In 1980, 84% of American workers at companies with 100 or more employees received lifetime pensions from their companies, and 70% got health insurance fully paid for by their employers. Today, fewer than 30% have lifetime pensions and only 18% have fully employer-paid health insurance.

Now remember, a pension is not a benefit on top of an employees salary. It’s deferred compensation. In other words, an employee agrees to a lower take home wage, in order to defer some of their total compensation into a retirement plan. I don’t have any experience in negotiating union contracts, but I do have a few colleagues that come from that world. When I negotiate salary with a candidate, I’m negotiating their annual salary and their annual bonus. When negotiations happen in a union environment, the whole package is negotiated. In other words, a negotiated salary of 80k for an employee encompasses everything; take home pay, pension contributions and health insurance costs. The union determines how that 80k is allocated. So that employee (for example) will take home a salary of 50k per year. 20k will go into health insurance (present and future), and 10k is diverted into their pension. So when a company (or the government) takes away someone’s negotiated pension, they’re retroactively cutting their salary for every year that employee has already worked.

Think about that next time you hear about a state, county, or corporation dumping their employee pensions. Would that work for you? Would it be okay for you, if your employer could retroactively take money out of your bank account to cut your pay for work you’ve already done? In my opinion, it’s never acceptable to go after pensions as long as there’s a single nickle left anywhere else. Assets should be liquidated, executives should retroactively pay back their salaries (since the fate of the company lies squarely in their hands), and a dozen other steps should be taken before fucking with an employees pension. But that’s just me, blindly protecting those fat cat airplane mechanics (and their kids) again!

Boeing has been fucking with its union workers for years despite the fact that in the past 10 years, they’ve reaped $35 billion dollars in profits and not paid a single dime in taxes. In 2011, 38% of Boeing’s revenue came from government contracts. In 2011, Boeing opened a plant in South Carolina, a “right to work” state. In case you’re not aware, “right to work” means “no rights to organize and negotiate”. Boeing pays its South Carolina plant workers 50% of what those same plant workers get paid in Washington state.

Before you go all “free market” libertarian lunatic on me, let’s unpack what this means for you. Does earning 50% less make it more likely, or less likely that that line worker can send his kids to college? Does earning 50% less make it more likely, or less likely that that line worker can absorb a sharp decline in the housing market? Does earning 50% less make it more likely, or less likely that that line worker can survive a layoff and avoid having to turn to public assistance?

Let’s unpack how well this has turned out for Boeing. The South Carolina plant is where the 787s are being built. That plant is running far behind its production goals, and is less productive than the Washington plant. The stunning part is that Boeing knew this would happen, but they calculated that long term gain of busting the unions in Washington was worth the short term (wrong again, Bob) losses of moving to a less skilled state. Part of what unions do, is constantly train people. The costs of that training are baked into those union contracts. Employees without training are less productive cause they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing. On top of the dramatically lower productivity rates, the South Carolina 787 has a tendency to go up in fucking flames.

So well played Boeing, well played.

I’m sure this bold new move of simply telling us they’re greedy by not even trying to make a case for fucking over their employees will turn out equally well for them. Cause it’s not like there’s anger brewing in America over increasingly obvious income inequality. Keep doing what you’re doing, corporate America. I’m sure there won’t even be any consequences for turning this country into a giant pyramid scheme, where only a few people at the top walk away with all of the wealth. Cause we’ve never seen civilizations and countries fall under these circumstances.

Share

Me? I’m Not Corrupt, I’m Just Incompetent

This is a refrain we’re all familiar with. It’s the old standby for politicians and corporate executives when they’re caught doing some really shady shit.

Angelo Mozilo (the former CEO of Countrywide Financial) played it when he was charged with massive mortgage fraud. He didn’t know that Countrywide locations across the country (oh the irony) were cranking out “liar loans” in high volumes. He didn’t know, he was just incompetent!

We heard Ron Paul proclaim his incompetence when we found out that newsletters bearing his name were really fucking racist. He naturally had no idea what the people he hired to write and edit the newsletters were doing. He was just totally incompetent and yet, wanted your vote for president because incompetence shouldn’t disqualify someone from holding the highest office in the land (or something). And some people did vote for him because the racism wasn’t real, and the self professed incompetence wasn’t an issue for them.

There are dozens of examples I can give but these two come to mind, and you get the point. In both of these cases, all you had to do was look at who benefited from these “oopsies”. Ron Paul got himself out of 3/4 of a million dollars worth of debt with those newsletters, and Mozilo got really fucking rich.

But you shouldn’t even have to go that far. Common sense should tell you that the “incompetence” defense is a load of crap. But for some reason, it’s still used all the time.

The latest inductee in the hall of incompetents is Chris Christie. He decided to proclaim his incompetence after derisively dismissing his little “oopsie” as being nothing to talk about. When asked about it, he originally mockingly said, “I worked the cones actually, Matt. Unbeknownst to everybody, I was actually the guy out there. I was in overalls and a hat….you’re really not serious with that question”. When his office was directly tied to the unnecessary bridge closure yesterday, he decided to go with a classic; I’m incompetent. The new statement is;

What I’ve seen today for the first time is unacceptable. I am outraged and deeply saddened to learn that not only was I misled by a member of my staff, but this completely inappropriate and unsanctioned conduct was made without my knowledge.

Translation; I’m just not competent, and I have no control over my own administration.

I don’t know why people think this is a good defense. I don’t know why anyone would say or write Chris Christie’s name ever again, without actively using the word “incompetent”. We should take him at his word, right? If you’re going to tell me you’re incompetent, who am I not to believe you?

But for some inexplicable reason, that’s not what we do in America. We let people get away with the incompetent defense. Ron Paul got away with it, Angelo Mozilo got away with it, and everyone else who has ever invoked “incompetence” has gotten away with it.

This has to stop. Incompetence is not a defense. Regardless of whether facts emerge that tie Chris Christie directly to this reckless and craven bridge closure, he should be driven out of office. He told us he’s incompetent. We should believe him. We need to stop letting people get away with this crap. You want to plead incompetence, fine. But you don’t get to keep governing the eleventh largest state in the country. The people of New Jersey deserve competent leadership. If that’s not you, get the fuck out. I’m fed up with the “I’m stupid” defense, and you should be too.

Share

The Biggest Republican Lie Of Them All

So I posted a meme on Facebok and G+ last night that said, “A conservative says If It Hasn’t Happened To Me, I Don’t Care. A liberal says This Should Never Happen To Anyone, That’s Why I Care”. I agree with the meme, and posted the following story to accompany the meme:

This happened to me 30 minutes ago.

I was walking home. 1 block from my house, I saw someone that I hadn’t noticed before that moment fall on the sidewalk. He was an elderly man with a cane laying on the sidewalk beside him. I asked him if he was okay, and if he needed something from me. He had a very thick accent, so I couldn’t understand most of what he way saying. The only word I could make out was, “shelter”. So my mind started doing the math; I don’t really want to take him home, but I can’t leave him laying on the street. I was closing in on calling an ambulance.

At that moment, another woman in a car pulled over to ask if she could help, not knowing if I knew the man. I told her that I didn’t, and that I couldn’t really understand him. She tried asking the same questions I had asked. We agreed than an ambulance was what was needed. The only other 2 people walking down the street both stopped to help (both men). One of them noticed a hospital bracelet on his arm. At this point, the woman was on the phone with emergency services, so an ambulance was on the way. At some point, we noticed another plastic hospital bracelet on his other arm that said, “fall risk”. We still couldn’t get much information from him, as to his circumstances.

At some point, I realized that his accent was Russian and it occurred to me that he had come here for a better life.

The EMTs took him away. It wasn’t until after they got him on the gurney, that we noticed a pool of blood where his head was laying. I was fairly freaked out by the amount of blood. Now that I’ve thought about it, I’m kind of glad that he had an injury that would get him admitted into the hospital for the night. It wasn’t life threatening blood loss, but it was a warm bed for the night blood loss.

My only thought was that this shouldn’t happen to anyone, especially to someone that came here for a better life.

I also added the following comment;

Let me add one thing. I believe that a conservative, or even a republican would have done exactly the same thing I did. Because I know that you’re only heartless and self serving in theory, but not in practice. I just need for you to bridge that gap that I know exists.

I then got a few comments from republicans, who missed the  whole point and crushed my sunny optimism. I’m not going to speak to the comments that were just purely hateful because there’s no point. I’m going to speak to the ideological comments making the “nanny state” and “dependency” arguments because those arguments are, in my opinion, the biggest fallacy republicans have ever put out. The “dependency” argument arose when I asked one commenter to give me one example of a piece of legislation that republicans passed that helped most Americans (I actually asked this of several commenters, but only bothered to answer). When he couldn’t come up with a single example of republicans helping people, he fell back on the old “we should help ourselves because it’s not government’s job to do it” crap.

This is the biggest bullshit argument I’ve ever heard and frankly, it’s designed to absolve republicans from any responsibility for doing anything helpful for the American people. Government help does not disincentivize people from helping themselves or others around them and to claim it does, is to ignore the world around you. Time after time, we see communities coming together after a natural disaster or a traumatic event. We always see people coming to eachother’s aid.

Look at what happened during Hurricane Sandy. Immediately after the hurricane struck, dozens of groups formed and organized to get food and supplies to neighborhoods that took the brunt of the storm. I happen to live in a part of Manhattan that wasn’t affected at all. I heard about Occupy Sandy gathering supplies, food, and donations to help lower Manhattan (other areas too, but I live here) victims of the storm. I headed down to one of the meetup locations here in Harlem with flashlights and food that were taken down to the lower east side. Everything south of 30th street was completely without power for nearly a week. Thousands of shops and bodegas that were on the border between “first world Manhattan” and “third world Manhattan” strung extension cords and power strips outside their shops so that the “third worlders” could charge their electronics. People came together to help eachother on an island where 74% of us are registered democrats. We believe that government is there to help, and it was. FEMA was here putting people into hotel rooms and issuing checks so that people could get temporary housing until their residence was inhabitable again. They set up headquarters next to high rise buildings that were completely flooded so that they could directly respond to the needs of the hundreds of people who could no longer get into their building. Where FEMA fell short, neighbors took up the slack.

We knew that the government was coming, and we still sprung into action. We worked with the government to fix everything. We didn’t sit around waiting for the government to fix everything. This isn’t unique to New Yorkers. This happens all the time, all around the world and all across the country.

We are not  disincentivized by government assistance. $30 a week in SNAP benefits or a lifetime maximum of 5 years of welfare benefits isn’t keeping anyone from getting a job. The lack of jobs is what’s keeping people from getting a job. If you believe otherwise, you know nothing about human nature and how self esteem works. If you don’t think that being on public assistance is a deeply humiliating thing for the vast majority of people, you really need to get out more. Or more likely, you need to stop thinking of yourself, or your friend who needed unemployment insurance for a while as “worthy” or “the exception to the rule”.

Until you can show me how this helps yourself or anyone else, you need stop perpetuating this bullshit argument. You need to stop trying to absolve yourself from taking any responsibility for contributing to the world you live in. Be honest with yourself about who you are, and stop with the big lie that you’re only trying to help by doing nothing and advocating for nothing. Personally, I will continue working with the government to make things better, while I fight for better government.

Share

We Won’t Be Calling It Obamacare By Next Summer

According to a Bloomberg article this morning, 100,000 people purchased insurance on the federal exchanges in November alone. That’s nearly 4x more than the nearly 27,000 who bought insurance on the federal exchanges in October.

127,000 enrollments nationwide may sound low, but it’s actually very promising for a number of reasons. First off, if you look at when people actually bought health insurance in Massachusetts when they rolled out their own Obamacare, you’ll realize that the lion’s share of enrollments will happen just before the deadline to buy. There’s no empirical reason to believe that the same thing won’t happen nationally.

Secondly, those 127,000 people represent enrollment in just the states who have governors that refused to help their constituents get affordable insurance. That number does not include people in NY, CA, KY, or the other twenty-three states who took the medicaid expansion and set up their own exchanges. California alone has enrolled 80,000 people, and Kentucky has enrolled about 50,000 people so that 127,000 federal enrollment number is already smaller than those of just two states who embraced the ACA. The number of people who have been able to purchase insurance as a result of the ACA is much higher than we’re currently aware of.

Thirdly, you need to look at the trend. A four time multiplier on the number of enrollments from one month to the next is much more telling than the overall number. This is especially true since we’re still four months away from the deadline to buy insurance.

But there is one factor that is more relevant to the success of the ACA than overall enrollment numbers; how many people under the age of 30 are signing up? We don’t yet know what that number is on the federal exchange. I don’t believe we’re going to know that number until March or April. But we do know what is happening in Kentucky. 41% of the people that bought insurance in Kentucky are under 31 years old. That’s a huge percentage that I never saw coming. I suspect (I don’t have the data on any other state yet) that the percentages will be similar in all of the states that elected to take the medicaid expansion, since Kentucky doesn’t have a substantively younger population than any of the other states. I also suspect that the national percentage of under 31s will be lower, absent the medicaid expansion. For the under 30 population in the expansion states, coverage is well under $100 a month. It will be around, or a little bit higher than $100 for those same people who live in states where their governors are trying to undermine Obamacare. It’s reasonable to expect that higher costs will equal lower enrollments. I would be shocked if that 41% were cut in half in the more expensive states. But if we assume that nationally, the under 30 percentage is 20%, we will definitely get the 2.9 million enrollments that we need to keep the current premium levels.

In other words, this reform is most assuredly going to work. None of the early indicators suggest otherwise to me. I must say that I’m pleasantly surprised at how well this is going. I was very skeptical was passed, but I’m always happy to be proven wrong by evidence. 

Share

Not So Much With The Nuclear

So the headline today is that the senate “invoked the nuclear option” and made a rules change that would limit the endless filibustering.

Not so fast. Using the term “nuclear” makes it sound ginormous, when it’s really not. To be clear, what the senate did today was to ensure that a majority vote on executive branch and non-Supreme Court judicial nominations. That’s it. They eliminated the “super majority” nonsense only on executive branch nominees. Nothing else. The minority in the senate can still filibuster everything else. So we’re still stuck in super majority hell for any other bill.

Why such a limited “nuclear” strike, when they could have effectively eviscerated the filibuster? The standard argument is that democrats understand that they will one day be in the minority, and are therefore not interested in neutering minority rights. Nonsense. The senate changed the rules today. They can change the rules tomorrow, and every day after that. And if democrats in the senate don’t think that republicans won’t go ahead and eviscerate the rights of the minority if they ever take over, they haven’t been paying attention to GOP tactics. Republicans went “nuclear” when they launched an unprecedented number of filibusters on the duly elected majority. I’m not buying the “looking ahead at future ramifications” horseshit argument.

No, I think that democrats limited the radius of the nuclear strike because they want the cover that having recalcitrant republicans give them. The blue dogs and the corporatists like being able to avoid taking votes on many of the issues that republicans filibuster. Not voting on those issues allows them to keep both their “blue dog” and their “democrat” cred. This enables certain democrats (like Dianne Feinstein, for example) to not cast votes that may jeopardize their seats. I mention Dianne Feinstein specifically, because I really believe she would be in trouble in California if she had to let her blue dog freak flag fly. Most of the blue dog senators would probably be safe because they legitimately represent states whose views are blue doggedy. But the corporatists would be in trouble.

This “nuclear” vote wasn’t about making government run much more smoothly. It was limited for a reason. I suspect that Harry Reid was worried about protecting “democratic” seats. I think he’s mostly wrong. I think that if a corporatist democrat gets ousted for being too corporatist, they’re more likely going to be replaced by a more democraty candidate, than they are by a republican. Limiting the “simple majority” to executive branch nominees isn’t going to have much impact on elections, since most people don’t pay much attention to judicial nominees.

While it may seem like Harry Reid took a giant step forward to restore democracy, it’s really just a tiny little baby step. Don’t everyone get too excited over this.

Share

Libertarian; So Full Of Shit

We’re all familiar with the basic ideas behind libertarianism. They really boil down to two words; freedom and responsibility. That sounds nice, doesn’t it? It sounds great, until you grow up and experience life. But I’m not going to take apart the ideology again (see my past posts).

In this post, I’m going to point out how libertarians are massively full of shit, particularly when it comes to the “responsibility” part of their equation. Let me begin with the granddaddy of all libertarians; their messiah, Ron Paul. We’re all familiar with his incredibly racist newsletters (if you’re not, click here). You know, the ones that bore his name, but that he didn’t write and had no idea how they happened, even though they helped raise enough money to get him out of 3/4 of a million dollars worth of debt in the 80s? How a “responsible” person racks up that kind of debt (it would be equivalent to around $2 million today), I don’t know, but I digress. So the newsletters wrote themselves and had the happy side effect of paying Paul’s bills? Really? What happened to taking responsibility? When your name appears on something, isn’t it purely your responsibility? Not when you’re the grand poobah of libertarianism, apparently. I can’t tell you how many times a libertarian has replied to my posts about the newsletters by using the “it wasn’t his fault” defense.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we saw the grand poobah’s miscreant son follow in his father’s footsteps. Rand Paul was caught plagiarising lots of shit. What did Mr Freedom and Responsibility do? Did he take responsibility and apologize profusely? Not even remotely. He blamed the media who exposed him, calling them “hacks and haters”. I couldn’t help but notice that he never called them liars. Even he couldn’t, with a straight face, say they were lying. No, they were hacks and haters for telling the truth. He still hasn’t really taken responsibility for his own actions. Responsibility is the annoying and inconvenient half of the libertarian formula. And how did libertarians react to this information about their demigod? They mostly obfuscated by pointing at someone else, who they claim did something worse. When they addressed what he did, they dismissed it as a “footnoting” problem.

Now we have another asshat libertarian who refuses to take responsibility for his actions. Yesterday on Facebook, I posted a story on Mark Patterson. He’s a state representative in Idaho who was pissed that conceal/ carry application was denied because he failed to disclose a rape conviction that was on his record. It was a conviction because he plead guilty. This guy is a staunch libertarian acolyte of the grand poobah, so you would naturally expect that he would apologize for not disclosing the rape conviction, take responsibility for it, and move on his merry way, right? You won’t be shocked to hear that he didn’t do that. In the (now) libertarian tradition, he didn’t take any responsibility for the fraudulent application, claiming that the Men in Black guys erased his memory, or something. Maddow did a segment on this asshat last night. She turned up another rape trial (no conviction that time) and a whole bunch of other gratuitous lying. In addition to dodging that whole responsibility thing by claiming amnesia, this libertarian acolyte decided to follow the grand poobah and his miscreant son’s path by attacking the sheriff who denied him the permit. He’s rantings include claiming, “[the sheriff] ….a bare-knuckled campaign to intimidate me from serving the people of Idaho.” So the sheriff is trying to intimidate you by denying you a permit that you’re not legally entitled to have because of what you admitted you did? I Googled, and Googled, and Googled, but I never managed to find the part of his statement wherein he took responsibility for what he did.

I’m starting to see an epidemic among libertarians. One in which they cast off the “responsibility” part of libertarianism whenever it becomes inconvenient for them. Now keep in mind that this is a group of people who love to point the finger of hypocrisy at everyone else. Let me be clear, I’m not accusing all libertarians of being full of shit. But I am accusing all libertarians who support the Pauls, and anyone who behaves the way they do of being full of shit. If you support and bolster people who champion libertarianism without taking responsibility for themselves, you’re full of shit.

And you’re seriously undermining your ideology. You are why libertarianism is a joke that I thoroughly enjoy mocking mercilessly.  And you know what? When I point at you and laugh, it’s not my fault. I take no responsibility (you should all appreciate that). It’s your fault for not making an effort to be less full of shit and less laughable. Seriously, you should focus making the case for why your ideology is so brilliant, instead of constantly demonstrating you’re full of shit. Take responsibility for yourself. Hold your leaders responsible for what they’ve done, and show me why you have it right, and I have it wrong. But until you do that; I laugh, oh how I laugh!

 

Share

Safer

Readers of this blog or followers of the various places I exist on social media know that I spent several months volunteering with the Bill de Blasio campaign. I must say that last night was a good night. There was much jubilation at the victory party last night. Progressivism steam rolled both fear mongering and the tired fallacies of trickle down economics. My primary reason for jumping on the de Blasio bandwagon when he was in fourth place was really centered around his position on ending stop and frisk and firing Ray Kelly. I’m not going to rehash the reasons why ending this policy is so important to me, since I already made my case here. De Blasio’s stance on ending the practice of stop and frisk actually turned out to be the primary line of attack against him. His opponent actually put this ad out two weeks before the election;

YouTube Preview Image

It was a disgusting and transparent attempt at scaring New Yorkers. Classic modern republican campaigning. It’s never about getting you to vote for something, but instead to get you to vote against something out of fear.

While canvassing for the campaign, I actually spoke to a few (mostly older) people of color who were afraid that New York would be less safe if our police force didn’t stop harassing young men of color. That was actually kind of shocking to me because I expect that if someone isn’t going to base their opinions on the facts, they would surely base their opinions on their own self interest. I want to now share some facts with you, that I shared with those people I spoke with. Yes, crime is down in New York City. Crime was on a steady downward slope for ten years before Ray Kelly ever started his racially discriminatory practices. That would be two years before Guiliani started these unproved and racist approach, referred to as "the broken window" theory. stop and frisk is part of that strategy. The idea is that if you spend your resources going after low level street crimes, you will discourage those small time criminals from becoming Jamie Dimon (or something).

Here are some more facts about crime;

From 1994 – 2010, crime started to sharply decline in many large cities in America.

During that time, New York City’s violent crime rate dropped 29%.

In that same time period, Los Angeles’ violent crime rate dropped by 59%.

In that same time period, New Orleans’ violent crime rate dropped by 49%.

In that same time period, Dallas’ violent crime rate dropped by 37%.

In that same time period, Baltimore’s violent crime rate dropped by 37%.

These statistics all came from the FBI’s uniform crime reports. I encourage you to look them up for yourself. 

None of these cities were practicing the blatant racism that is stopping and frisking young men of color. If I wanted to be as stupid and reactionary as supporters of stop and frisk, I would be proclaiming that stop and frisk slowed down the decline of crime in New York City. But since I’m not an idiot, and I understand that correlation isn’t causation, I’m not going to make that claim, although producing a republican style "you’re going to be shitting in your pants" ad around this premise might be kind of fun.

No one has ever produced any credible evidence that stop and frisk is effective. My belief in the destructiveness of this program isn’t based in a warm and fuzzy egalitarian, one world utopia. It’s based in pragmatism. So if you’re worried that on January 2nd, New York City is going to become a post apocalyptic, Thunderdome-like hellscape, you’re just wrong. And if you think that I’m just some doe eye sunny optimist, you should definitely provide me with your evidence to the contrary.

But until you do that, my pants will be devoid of the shit that irrational fear produces, and so should yours.  

Share

It’s The Contractors, Stupid

Now that the government is open again, republicans are finally getting their opportunity to talk about something other than their cravenness and incompetence; the failure that is healthcare.gov. To be clear, the failure is limited to the website and in no way, shape or form extends to the ACA at large.

Let’s not kid ourselves, the launch of healthcare.gov was a monumental disaster. As an aside, the issues aren’t all emanating from just the federal site. Most of the state run sites were also poorly coded. We don’t have one giant federal failure, we have one giant federal failure and twenty some odd state failures.

Yes, the site was overwhelmed with traffic. But there were telltale error messages that are indicative of bad coding. There were sql errors, query errors, and javascript errors. These errors would not have been the result of overwhelming traffic. For those of you who don’t know much about software development (I’m not an expert, but I’m reasonably knowledgeable), the query errors and the sql errors indicate that there are issues with the back end and with the database. In other words, the bad coding goes all the way to the core. The javascript errors tell me the front end is also fucked up. These back end issues typically can’t be resolved in a few days, especially if the site isn’t taken completely offline while the code is reviewed. In other words, keeping the site live will prolong the repairs. Additionally, it’s much more difficult to find the errors in someone else’s code so fixing the problems is really challenging.

There doesn’t seem to have been much quality assurance testing done prior to launch. I literally can’t imagine that even a canned piece of QA software, didn’t pick up those query errors.

In discussing this disaster, everyone is missing the heart of the problem, which is the way in which government contracts are awarded. Our government doesn’t award contracts to a company that has a proven track record of successfully completing the type of task they’re being contracted to complete. Our government awards government contracts to companies that have a proven track record of securing government contracts. This ineptitude is often compounded by the practice of either awarding a contract to a crony, the biggest lobbyist, or someone’s nephew. The job almost never goes to the company most qualified to deliver the best result.

That’s what happened here. This is a case of an incompetent company getting a contract to do develop the ACA website. I haven’t been able to find out any details on who the contractor was, or the means by which this contract was awarded. I know there’s at least one journalist working on this, but the media is once again asleep at the wheel. We should be having a national conversation about the menace that are inept government contractors, and how they continue to be awarded for their incompetence with more government contracts. But thanks to the media, we’re once again missing the opportunity to have an important conversation.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not absolving the administration from their responsibility in all of this. It is well within their power to award government contracts in a more effective way. They simply did nothing to fix the fucked up way in which we dole out federal tax dollars to contractors.

The Obama administration definitely failed here. But let me just say that it takes a special kind of stupid to conclude that the ACA is a failure on the basis of bad software coding. Making that conclusion really does take the kind of  simpleton that is beyond my comprehension.

That said, this situation isn’t a catastrophe since everyone has until March 31, 2014 to get health insurance before the $95 fine (you read that correctly, the fine is $95 or 1% of your annual salary) for not signing up is imposed. . The fact that they launched the site so far ahead of the deadline is a good thing. It’s inconceivable to me that these issues won’t be resolved before the December 14, 2013 deadline to sign up for coverage that is effective on January 1, 2014.

As we’re listening to the hyperbolic doomsdayers, let’s apply a little perspective to this situation. This fuck up didn’t kill anybody, unlike when KBR electrocuted  at least eighteen of our soldiers in Iraq. Personally, I would be delighted if delaying someone’s ability to find out how much money they were going to save on health insurance was the worst thing that an incompetent or greedy government contractor ever did.

Share

Pork Is The New Normal

So I woke up this morning, and did what I usually do; scoured the news. The news today is, of course, all about the budget deal. Predictably, there is lots of analysis on who “lost” and who “won”. I don’t care about that, since everyone has figured out that part of the whole equation, except to say that democracy won. Our already fucked up system of governance didn’t get more fucked up by setting the precedent that a recalcitrant minority can undo the will of the people, as well as unraveling decades of duly passed laws.

The more important story to me, is about everything that was included in this bill. Rachel Maddow spoke about some of the “pork barrel” items in the bill like;

  • $450 million in Colorado flood relief 
  • $600 million to fight forest fires
  • Money for the widow of the late New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg
  • Back pay for state workers funded through federal grants
  • A $2 billion dollar increase in funding for the Olmsted Lock dam in Kentucky

I didn’t highlight that last one to single out Mitch McConnel for being extra, super porky (although…). I highlighted that last one because it illustrates something about Mitch McConnell in particular, but many members of the senate at large; they all know how fucked up the government is. The very act of including some of these things in a bill that wasn’t going to get any scrutiny, due to time constraints is a tacit admission that their fucked up government can’t fund anything any other way.

They understand that Colorado will remain in shambles, and that we can’t fight forest fires, or pay the widow of a United States senator the “normal” way. We can’t get jack shit done the “normal” way, and it’s in large part Mitch McConnell’s fault.

Remember, until the 2010 election, when the tealiban won some seats in congress, Mitch McConnell was the nutbag in chief in the GOP. Okay, co-chief. He had Paul Ryan by his whackadoo side. They were the ones insisting that we cut, and cut, and cut the budget without raising a nickle in revenue to balance the budget. They championed the idea that the United States’ only problem is that we just spend way too much money, and that we can do with less.

Guess what, Mitch? Your little $2 billion dollar pork project demonstrates that you know you’re full of shit. Now McConnell is trying his best to push the responsibility for this spending off on Dianne Feinstein and Lamar Alexander, who are on the senate appropriations committee but it’s abundantly clear that they made a deal with McConnell.

I will admit that I don’t know anything about this dam project. I don’t know if it’s vital to Kentucky, or if it’s a giant gift to McConnell’s donors. But I do know that it’s no more or less important than all of the other infrastructure projects that are waiting for funding all across the country. I know it’s not more pressing than feeding the working poor in Kentucky. I know that very poor families in Kentucky are more concerned with feeding their kids, than they are with building a dam. Curiously, McConnell porked up a dam instead of bringing some of that evaporated food stamp money back home to his constituents.

Paying for shit that you’re interested in, while eliminating funding for programs that you’re not, doesn’t demonstrate that we can do with “less”. And having to pay for those projects that you’re interested in by using sneaky underhanded tactics proves that we can’t do with less, and you know it.

I suspect that McConnell’s dam may have gotten funded with stimulus money, had McConnell not done his damndest to whittle down as much as he could. He and the rest of the GOP wouldn’t have to fund things with federal money like thieves in the night, if they would just admit that we can’t do with less. Pork is the new normal.

I’m not avoiding talking about the Lautenberg pork because I’m a partisan, prone to excusing democrats. I don’t care about the Lautenberg pork because democrats aren’t the ones that have been pushing this “we can do with less” bullshit. The issue here is the hypocrisy, and the way that hypocrisy has sped up an already untenably fucked up government.

This runaway train is most assuredly going to crash and unfortunately, the only solace we get in all of this is that the conductors go down with the train. I know that this won’t help feed your kids or get you a job, but it’s all you get in tealiban America.       

 

Share
No Notify!