Trouble

Well, I'll admit it: if the election were just about today's economy, Obama would probably lose; and deservedly, by his own lights. I'm among those that think he's done about as well as he could have, given R obstructionism at all times and at all levels; and, compared to Europe's, the US economy is as hot as these ladies think they are. But, no matter how the president tries to spin it, the latest jobs numbers are piss-poor, and it's not good politically or economically. (Except, of course, for Rs, so they assume, whose plan has been to block jobs programs and then point to the poor jobs reports.)

Which is why I think Obama and the Ds need to campaign, factually!, on how much worse things would have been and will surely be if R ideas are put back in place. How the Ryan/Romney budget will destroy what's left of our ability to pay for our most basic needs. Other than aircraft carriers, that is.

Affecting greatly the poor jobs numbers is the loss of government jobs (despite the continuing lie that Obama has increased the size of government.) Importantly, a very large portion of that loss is teachers (and, as we've read, cops and firefighters...) And that's exactly how the Rs like it: on the altar of tax cuts for the wealthy and spending increases for the military (despite the fact that the US spends more on its military than all the rest of the world combined), they're more than happy to sacrifice spending on virtually everything else. It's out there; it's obvious.

So, yeah, the economy still sucks. But it's the best one in the western world at the moment; and there can be no argument what it'd be looking like -- what it will look like -- if The Rominee and his fellow Rs (to whom he caves even on terminology, faster than Hadron particles, and to whose wealthy donors, clearly, he'll bend at the slightest pressure, now and forever more) get their way. To point it out, over and over, in as many ways possible, is to win the election. Assuming the message can be heard above the upcoming torrent of billionaire money flooding the airwaves with distortions and legal lies.

The way I see it, the only hope for our country's long-term survival is if Obama is reelected and if the remaining Rs in Congress finally decide to work with him and Ds to fix things. Obamacare is among the things that can and ought to be improved; so are ways to pay for teachers, and roads, and.... the list is long.

Which, given the current R insanity and willingness to sink the country, their own states, to destroy President Obama, is, clearly, wishful thinking. Until they're thoroughly rejected by their own party, until conservatives demand more of their elected than just dishonest and hypocritical obstructionism, these cynical, blockheaded, scorched-earth destroyers will wreak their havoc, unapologetically, gleefully, until the last teacher is laid off, the last bridge collapses, the last uninsured person dies a needless death. If I'm wrong, show me the evidence.

Ds, Rs, and $$

It's not news to anyone who gets it from an actual news source: the US economy generally does better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones.

The linked article spells out its methodology pretty clearly. I can't judge its merits, and it's not a wipeout of all Rs. Still, it puts George W. Bush at the very bottom, so it can't be off by much. And, interestingly, it scores based on claimed Republican economic verities:

In “The President as Economist: Scoring Economic Performance From Harry Truman to Barack Obama,” I compare the 12 presidents since World War II using 17 economic indicators, including growth in gross domestic product, rate of unemployment, inflation, population below the poverty line, increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, savings and investment rates, exports and trade balances, federal budget growth, and debt and federal taxes as a share of GDP.

Smaller Government

The analysis accepts Republican economic philosophy that says the U.S. would be better off with a lower rate of federal budget growth and a smaller federal budget relative to GDP. So presidents were penalized if the federal budget grew faster than the economy during their terms. Likewise, higher tax revenue as a share of GDP also counts against a president’s record. It is a framework that rewards smaller government.

And it includes the following reasonable statement:

It’s important to note that the analysis uses a one-year lag on the indicators to reflect that a president’s first year in office is usually dominated by the federal budgets and policies adopted under the previous administration. No reasonable economist would blame the 10.5 percent inflation rate and other weak economic conditions of 1981 on Reagan. Clearly, Carter was mainly responsible, presidentially speaking. Similarly, the slow economic growth of 2001 had nothing to do with George W. Bush’s policies, and Obama cannot credibly be blamed for the economic fallout of 2009.

My point, as is usually the case, is just to wish that the election would be about reality. If people want failed Reaganomics again, fully understanding its future implications and past failures, so be it. If they really think we're better off as a country going back to throwing millions off the health care rolls and paying the consequences, recognizing Rs have never proposed anything but the preexisting (pun intended) "market forces," well, okay, I guess.

If voters prefer the absolutely true image of Mitt Romney as a pathological liar over the made-up image of Barack Obama as a terrorist-loving America-hating destroyer of capitalism, there's not much we can do. And, given the corporate billions flowing into the process, the only difference between the choice as outlined and the one they think they'll be making will be between Mitt Romney, man of the people, balancer of the budget without costing anyone anything, and Barack Obama, evil incarnate.

That Was Then...

I read, the other day, a telling comment: both candidates have stood for the same health care reform plan. The difference is one has the support of his party, and the other's party is running away from him on it like a rat from a cat (my words). It'll be entertaining to see where the it's a tax - it's not a tax contretemps will end up as November approaches. Poor "tell me what to say and I'll say it" Rominee: his false claim of never raising taxes in Massachusetts vs the false claim that Rs want to make about the ACA.

Knowing Mitt as we now do, let's assume he'll just tell both lies at the same time. It's a lifestyle choice.

[Update: well, I guess we know: it's a tax. Except that he lied about it, as you'd expect. He said the majority of the court said it's a tax, which, as we know, is flat-out wrong. One of nine said it's a tax. Nice try, Mitt, ass-coverer. He went on to add that at the federal level it's a tax, and at the state level, it's a penalty. Even better. Fact is, it is what it is: a conservative idea, first enacted by Romney, and now by Obama. Call it what you want. Evaluate it on its merits. Yeah. That'll happen.]

Businessman

At the heart of The Rominee's argument for why he should be our leader is his business experience, so it's nice that there are at least a few reporters giving it a hard look. There's no doubt he was highly successful; but the sort of success he had in the sort of business he ran has nothing to do with running an economy. Nothing illegal about buying up companies, firing their workers, and selling them for profit before they went bankrupt. But in what way does that translate to presidentialism?

The more one reads about or observes the guy, the more one sees a dishonest and nasty man, guided not by any core morality, but by the goal of success at any price. So I found this article interesting. I'll be waiting for a thoughtful analysis by Fox "news" and the rest of the RWS™.

A person who worked for Mitt Romney at the consulting firm Bain and Co. in 1977 remembers him with mixed feelings. “Mitt was … a really wonderful boss,” the former employee says. ... But Bain and Co., the person recalls, pushed employees to find out secret revenue and sales data on its clients’ competitors. Romney, the person says, suggested “falsifying” who they were to get such information...“Mitt said to me something like ‘We won’t ask you to lie. I am not going to tell you to do this, but [it is] a really good way to get the information.’ ...

[...]

To give but one example, there is a Bermuda-based entity called Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd., which has been described in securities filings as “a Bermuda corporation wholly owned by W. Mitt Romney.” ... He set it up in 1997, then transferred it to his wife’s newly created blind trust on January 1, 2003... Romney failed to list this entity on several financial disclosures, even though such a closely held entity would not qualify as an “excepted investment fund” that would not need to be on his disclosure forms. ...

... they are in “jurisdictions where there is virtually no tax and virtually no compliance,” as one Miami-based offshore lawyer put it.

... The mantra of his campaign is that he was a businessman who created tens of thousands of jobs, and Bain certainly did bring useful operational skills to many companies it bought. But his critics point to several cases where Bain bought companies, loaded them with debt, and paid itself extravagant fees, thereby bankrupting the companies and destroying tens of thousands of jobs.

...

Come August, Romney, with an estimated net worth as high as $250 million (he won’t reveal the exact amount), will be one of the richest people ever to be nominated for president. Given his reticence to discuss his wealth, it’s only natural to wonder how he got it, how he invests it, and if he pays all his taxes on it.

...

In the face of such arguments, Romney’s defense is that he never broke the rules: if there is a problem, it is in the laws, not in his behavior. “I pay all the taxes that are legally required, not a dollar more,” he said. Even so. “When you are running for president, you might want to err on the side of overpaying your taxes, and not chase every tax gimmick that comes down the pike,” says Sheppard. “It kind of looks tacky.”

The article is long and, frankly, contains a bunch of snooze-worthy references to various tax dodges and shady -- if legal -- stock manipulations. To me, though, the point is this: Mitt Romney used every tax loophole and foreign investment dodge there are to get where he is, financially. On some levels -- the take-'em for all they're worth level, the teabaggR "screw you I got mine" level -- he's a paragon. But on the level of doing what's right for others, of maximizing success for the greatest number of average people, his business experience would suggest he's devoid.

Is it disqualifying? Well, certainly not to Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers; not to Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes. But is such a guy likely to address tax inequities for the good of America? In his much-touted business experience has he ever shown concern beyond his personal wealth aggrandizement? Is his really the kind of experience that indicates understanding of the larger economy as it affects the 99%? As he trolls for huge offshore campaign donations from international bankers, is he thinking of the average American? Consumer protection? Fair-minded regulation?

I'm thinking no.

[For commentary saying sort of the same thing, but more authoritatively, focusing on the fact that the problem with Romney's business experience is that it's exactly the kind of dealings that sank our economy, read this.]

Voters

Happy Fourth

If you like puffins, check this out. It has little or nothing to do with The Fourth, but it's nice, if you catch it at the right time.

Rock Anthem

Thoughts For The Fourth

Wise thoughts from our founders.

Climate Change

It's Coming

Among the many themes I find the need to repeat here -- since it's evident people of the teabagger mentality don't and might never get it -- is that the budgetary disaster of Messers Romney and Ryan will, if enacted, lead to the end of civilization as we know it. And if I've never put it exactly in those terms, it's undeniable -- they not only don't deny it but seem proud of it -- that it'll lead to defunding of such critical government functions as police, firefighters, infrastructure, education, research, environmental protection, etc, etc, ad destructum.

Want proof? Here's the pudding, in tidy microcosm:

As Colorado Springs battles a rash of burglaries after a wildfire that still licks at its boundaries, it does so with fewer police and firefighters.

The municipality, at 416,000 the state’s second-largest, auctioned both its police helicopters and shrank public-safety ranks through attrition by about 8 percent; it has 50 fewer police and 39 fewer firefighters than five years ago. ...

The city where the Waldo Canyon fire destroyed 346 homes and forced more than 34,000 residents to evacuate turned off one-third of its streetlights two years ago, halted park maintenance and cut services to close a $28 million budget gap after sales-tax revenue plummeted and voters rejected a property-tax increase.

“It has impacted the response,” said Karin White, a 54- year-old accountant, who returned home June 28 to a looted and vandalized house...

Well, you get what you pay for, as it's said. And the only thing Rs want to pay for is tax cuts for their fellow wealthians, and more military spending. The rest of it? Who cares, right? Besides, we know that when you cut taxes, money pours into government like fetuses to that company Romney invested in, right? Always has.

Hasn't it?

Afterbirth

And so a new RWS™ lie is born, fully adulterated at its nativity, becoming a universal right-wing talking point faster than Mitt Romney fired people when he ran Bain; faster than he changes principles.

(And faster than that, Chief Justice Roberts, a right-wing hero of the first order until mere moments ago, has fallen into disgrace for referring to the Constitution. It tells us much about their concept of judicial review, and what defines judicial activism.)

The lie, of course, is that the Affordable Care Act is the biggest tax increase in US history (or, as Rush Limbaugh put it, in the history of the world.) Surpassingly, virtually every word in the claim is false, making it the Platonic ideal of a RWS™ talking point.

First of all, CJ Roberts is the only one of the nine who characterized the individual mandate as a tax. Eight rejected that idea. Does a one-ninth opinion make it, in fact, a tax? Second, the only thing he called a tax was exactly that: the individual mandate; ie, penalizing those who are able but refuse to buy health insurance. That. And only that, he saw as a tax. Which, compared, say, to any of the eleven tax hikes Reagan approved, approximates null. Because, among other things, most people won't be affected. As the first above-linked reference points out, in Massachusetts, where Obamenycare has been in effect for several years, only about 1% of its citizens paid the penalty.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good talking point. Ever since Sarah Palin lied about death panels, it's been the modus operandi of R opponents to fixing our pathetic health care system. Lies are easy, and god knows they work. And these are the people asking us to trust them to run the government. Liars and obstructionists; hypocrites and deceivers. None of which, by any reasonable standard, is an exaggeration.

There is an amusing aspect here, though: The Rominee has said he fixed health care without raising taxes in Massachusetts. So while the RWS™, the teabaggRs are all shouting "tax tax tax" nonstop, to anyone who'll listen, Mittens is saying "no no no, it wasn't a tax when I did it."

I'll ask it again: c'mon conservatives. When will the weight of reality get you to abandon these people? You're as smart as a thirteen year old, right? Assuming you value honesty and fact-based policy, they've long since abandoned you. Clearly, they believe you're stupid. Is there no point at which the conscience of a conservative would demand better and kick these liars off the stage?

Perfect

[click to enlarge]

Any questions?

At Least They Don't Hide It

Try not to be distracted by the highly amusing auto-translate at the bottom of the screen. The message, representing the true goals of today's Rs, is as scary as can be; and his final comment replicates my mood when I bailed for a while. How any thoughtful person, no matter his or her politics, could vote to give these people control over our future is beyond comprehension. This is not conservatism; it's some kind of evil doppleganger. This is people gone irretrievably over the edge and threatening to take us all with them. Back to the dark ages; across the seas to madrassas. Ironically.

For anyone who's capable of rational thought; for anyone who harbors any desire to see the US continue to function, there ought to be no way to excuse a vote for anyone claiming to be a Republican today. And it's not that there might not be a handful with some common sense and decency; it's that adding anyone to their rolls in Congress -- or, worse, to the White House -- is further to enable this sort of outrageous stupidity, and, undeniably, to put us further down the road to national failure.

Think about it, PT: by voting R, you're facilitating this sort of idiocy. And you're no idiot. Think Romney is that far from Texas? Listen to this, and ask yourself what it means for the non-wealthy, and for the future. "The most education you can afford." How very generous.

And if Rs get their way, even if you pay for it, education won't be worth a dime.

Get It?*

Eugene, down there in San Diego, has a point.

In throwing in the towel, I'm doing exactly what The Rominee, with his constant and pathological lying, the RWS™, and the pigpen of prevaricators in the propaganda palace preposterously pegged as Fox "news" are hoping will happen: People with truth on their side will simply collapse under the weight of pervasive prevarication. Repeating a lie often enough, seeing it go essentially unrefuted because at some point normal people will tire of hearing themselves say the same thing over and over, eventually makes it, effectively, true. For teabagger purposes, anyway.

Thus, The Rominee keeps saying stuff that's patently false, that has been unequivocally shown to be false. He doesn't care. It's his business plan. And he assumes, correctly, that his audience is too endumbed or too anxious to validate their prejudices to notice or care. And, depressingly accurate, that the non-Fox media will either give up or continue with their false-equivalency pussy-footing. Or both.

When I find it too much to bear, when it makes me feel hopeless and defeated, it validates everything they do. So I should take one for the team and let my gastric mucosa erode away like the beaches of the Maldives, right? Probably. Except for the fact, notwithstanding the nice comments I received recently, that my audience is too small -- and already smart enough that I'm not telling them anything they don't know or think -- to make any real difference.

Still, even if it's only me and a handful of others, I shouldn't let the liars win, at least with me. With the rest of the public? What will be will be, I guess. I think it'll depend on whether Obama and the rest of the Ds can package the truth in a small enough pill, and get it swallowed despite the mouthful of crap they've already been fed.

So, likely at a somewhat reduced rate, I'm back in. Thanks, everybody.

_____________________________________

*It's a sandy Eggo.

Joy