A New Opportunity, and Random Facts

I'm late posting this, but it's still worth a read......  

I'm still in some shock about what happened in the presidential election.  I never expected such an easy, and huge, win for the Democratic Party.  I really expected late voting count shenanigans from the Republicans, who have pulled these off so well in the last three elections.  I was somewhat prepared for the night to drag on into the next day before we had the results.  None of that happened.  Instead, we knew President Obama had been re-elected before we went to bed; we knew the Democrats had captured new seats in the Senate AND the House!  We knew that the worst of the Tea Party had all been turned out of Congress!  What a clear, if surprising, victory for Democrats, and repudiation for, at last, the extreme right wing of the Republican Party.  We now have a chance to continue the real momentum of progress in the United States.

Random thoughts......

If you or someone you know has not seen the exhaustive study on the effects of lowering income taxes on the very rich on job growth, here is a link to the study:
Marginal Tax Rates and the Concentration of Wealth  It shows clearly that there is no correlation, and it was done by a Congressional group known for objectivety.  Senator Mitch McConnell forced the withdrawal of this important study, but it is still seeing the light of day.

Here is an interesting article on why Obama does so poorly with white men:

Why Do White Men Think Romney Should Be President?

Another 'must read,' from Robert Reich, posted on his Facebook page, October 31, 2012, emphasis mine:

Monday's post provoked lots of discussion -- some quite heated. The main point is that our concept of "the market" has always had a moral dimension. At various times in our history we have outlawed war profiteering, windfall profits, price gouging, usury, scalping, and other instances in which one party exploits certain advantages it has over another party because we deem such exploitation to be unfair and immoral. 

But as inequality grows, and wealth and power are concentrated in fewer hands, the vast majority of us are losing our ability to be heard; we no longer have much say over what's fair or unfair, and the moral dimension of "the market" are being lost. What had been thought of as exploitative is becoming merely a matter of supply and demand. The economy no longer works for us, we work for it....."

Republic Senator Tom Colburn Reports the Facts

Somehow I missed Senator Tom Colburn's report when it came out last year.  While I don't agree with all of his factors, I'm so glad to see such a report from the Right, especially his dollar amount for tax subsidies to the rich for their homes.  I've never seen a number attached to this ridiculous tax break, which Senator Colburn's report states is $28 billion annually! This, by the way, is from a Senator who scores a net liberal rating of -50 at my favorite website for rating Congress, That's My Congress  For comparison, Senator Barbara Boxer scores a +50 (and is far from the top rating).

From the Huffington Post article on this report:  "For Coburn, who describes his survey as the first-ever compilation of federal aid for the richest, such a startling figure makes no sense when most of the country is struggling to get by. He also thinks it reveals some sensible targets for Congress' stymied debt-trimming super committee.

"Even in these difficult times, the United States remains a land of opportunity and not everyone is in need of government handouts," wrote Coburn in the accompanying letter.

"The income of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans has risen dramatically over the last decade. Yet, the federal government lavishes these millionaires with billions of dollars in giveaways and tax breaks," he wrote, referring to the growing income gap recently documented in stark fashion by the Congressional Budget Office.

"The government's social safety net, which has long existed to catch those who are down and help them get back up, is now being used as a hammock by some millionaires, some who are paying less taxes than average middle class families," Coburn contended.

And what the report "reveals is sheer Washington stupidity with government policies pampering the wealthy costing taxpayers billions of dollars every year," Coburn argued."

Coburn totaled up all the federal money for millionaires over several years that his office could find. Among the handouts for the well-heeled are:

• $18.15 million in child care tax credits
• $74 million in unemployment checks
• $89 million for preservation of ranches and estates
• $316 million in farm subsidies
• $608 million in business entertainment deductions
• $9 billion in retirement checks
• $21 billion in gambling losses
• $28 billion in mortgage breaks for mansions, vacation homes and yachts

Some of the payments, such as for Social Security and Medicare, stem from payroll taxes and are not means-tested when they are paid out. Advocates of such payments believe the government made a promise to individuals that it must keep, regardless of their wealth.

Some other payments, such as the millions received by the wealthy to preserve land or to use alternative energy sources, arise from programs that proponents consider beneficial overall, even if the rich get the money.

But Coburn doesn't see much justification for these payments, considering how well the wealthy have done over the last 30 years compared to everyone else. "Fleecing the taxpayer while contributing nothing is not the American way," he wrote.

Wonderful Logic from the Right

$5 Trillion in Debt, And Swimming in Gross Exaggerations

WE are down to the wire, folks!  In just a few more days, we will know who will lead us for the next four years.  I'm optimistic, and scared, and here is why:

This could happen, if enough people are jaded by the many exaggerations put out by the Republican Party machine, AND enough of us don't vote.  

I don't expect that anyone is happy with the slowness of the  recovery.  We all wish we were much further along, beginning with President Obama.  I'll concede he made campaign promises four years ago that he hasn't kept, but it's not for lack of giving it everything he had.  There were huge, trillion-dollar factors literally beyond his control.  I have absolutely no doubt he will continue to make progress, to make it faster as his policies continue to work, and that he is far and away the best candidate to get the job done.  I hope the following information confirms that for you, and that you will share this with all of your friends and relatives.  It's not too late.  I've put together some very telling articles and charts below. 



Let's look over recent quotes and headlines.  

In a statement following the announcement, House Speaker John Boehner targeted President Obama's economic record, casting the news as "another sad reminder of President Obama's broken promise to cut the deficit in half."

"This debt is a drain on our economy and a crushing burden on our kids and grandkids, and it's yet another indication that the president's policies have made things worse," he argued.

"The past four years Barack Obama hasn't offered any serious solutions to get our spending under control and instead he has run 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficits," said Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee. "President Obama's budget got zero votes in Congress and we can only expect more of the same inaction in a second term."

National Debt Surpasses $16 Billion  

In the above quotes, President Obama is blamed for the last four years of federal budget deficits and increasing the national debt.  The fact that the budget of his first year in office was set by his predecessor is ignored, and he gets 'credit' for that.  This is blatantly false, and tells me the extreme bias of those quoted, and they obviously knew better.  It also tells me that the real numbers are not, by themselves, bad enough, in the minds of those quoted, so must be exaggerated.  Again, a very telling factor.  

Next is another quote, this from someone affiliated with the Wall Street Journal, a powerful media source that has never been included under the so-called 'liberal media' label, so can assumed to be no friend of Democrats or liberals.  it points out very specifically that Obama has not wildly expanded federal spending, and in fact has barely expanded it:

Obama was referring to an analysis released this week by Rex Nutting, a reporter for CBS MarketWatch who is also affiliated with the Wall Street Journal. Nutting concluded that Obama has presided over the slowest growth in federal spending in decades. 

“Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4 percent annualized pace – slower than at any time in nearly 60 years,” Nutting wrote, citing data from the Congressional Budget Office, Office of Management and Budget and an independent financial firm.

“The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat,” he wrote. “Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4 percent. There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.”

President Obama Denounces Republican Wild Debts Claim

Okay, if you believe as I do that Obama has not expanded the federal budget, why are we in such a deficit hole, and growing the federal debt by leaps and bounds?  The following article and chart answers these questions.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/28/republican-national-convention-the-one-graph-you-need-to-see-before-watching/

Along with the above chart, the following story does a good job of explaining how we got to where we are, and cutting through the rhetoric.  One huge fact that jumps out of this article is that President Bush was able to hide the huge war debt, keeping it 'off the books,' apparently.  I, for one, very much appreciate and respect Obama's change in this respect, to disclose it, account for it properly, and, as ugly as it is, put it out there for all to see.  Again, I have to ask, the real fiscal disaster we were in, and are coming out of slowly, is bad enough:  why do the Republicans feel it necessary to grossly exaggerate the numbers?  

GOP Debunked: Obama did not create $5 trillion in new debt

• ELECTION 2012
• OCTOBER 28, 2012
• BY: LOU COLAGIOVANNI

Republican pundits love to say that the national debt has increased by $5 trillion because of President Obama. Factually, that statement is simply untrue. Let's examine the evidence.

Of the alleged $5 trillion, $1.6 trillion is related to costs of the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars. These were costs George W. Bush intentionally hid from the budget, and that President Obama allowed to be calculated when he assumed office.

Note that Obama could have continued to hide the bill as Bush did, passing it along to his successor.

President Bush was able to manipulate funding for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars using special emergency authorization bills. He did this because, as you recall, the Democrats were attempting to defund the war legislatively.

The overall point is simple: Obama, as president, authorized not one cent of that $1.6 trillion to be spent.

It has been previously reported by marketwatch.com that President Obama increased overall government spending by a smaller margin than any modern president, all the way to President Eisenhower.

Rex Nutting at marketwatch clarifies:

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

Over $1.4 trillion was spent on interest payments caused by the already standing debt.

Knowing that, let's examine the GOP's argument.

They say President Obama has spent too much, but 32% of the total amount they claim has been spent is a direct result of Republican presidential policies, and previous spending.

President Obama is stuck paying the bill for the previous GOP administrations of Reagan, H.W. Bush, and W. Bush. President Clinton left with a surplus if you recall, and added nothing to our debt. This point has been discussed constantly, and was even visited by President Obama's former Press Secretary Jay Carney during a press gaggle.

It is not disputed that the national debt was $10 trillion before President Obama took office.

The interest that is paid on the debt today was created by the very same people who now are attempting to blame the cost of that interest on the president. Do not allow yourself to be fooled,the GOP is attempting to blame the president for something they caused.

Now our journey of $5 trillion has been twiddled down to $2 trillion.

Another piece of the puzzle is that the CBO projected because of the Bush Era Tax Cuts, our government lost over $1.6 trillion in projected revenue. Of course, these unpaid taxes weresupposed to create jobs for the middle class. The tax cuts have been in place for over 10 years, one would think our nation would be swimming in jobs. Yet, friends, that is not the case.

If reasonable tax rates were in place that were similar to those used while President Clinton was in office -- America's fiscal outlook would be more optimistic.

This leaves only $400 billion to be unaccounted for, and surely the fervor about reckless spending can not be over that amount because in that regard there are many instances where the GOP is equally guilty, if not more culpable. For example, our nation is still paying for the wasteful Medicare part D plan. Passed in 2003 and enacted in 2006, it has been estimated to cost a staggering $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Others put a more conservative price of $8 trillion including former head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, David Walker.

$8 - $17 trillion in spending, and yet they say President Obama is the reckless spender? No matter how you look at the numbers, the GOP is guilty of at least one-and-a-half more spending, or three times as much spending. How can they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility?

The overall premise of the argument has now been debunked, and the truth is quite clear; 88% of the debt which the GOP blames on President Obama was not created as a consequence of his policies.

The Examiner.com

Filibusters and Obstructionists

For months, we have heard many Republicans tell us one reason they judge President Obama's first term in office as a failure is that he did virtually nothing his first two years despite having a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress to work with:  he could have gotten any bill he wanted passed into law, they claim.  I finally took the time to look into this claim, and, surprise, this claim, like so many others, is shot full of holes, to the point of being an outright lie.  

I'm not going to repeat the explanation, because I found an excellent one that I couldn't improve on:  The Myth of the Filibuster  I highly recommend this article, with one caveat:  it might make you sick to see how twisted the Republicans have had to go perpetuate this lie.  

Next question, has there been any significant increase in the use of the filibuster by the minority party since President Obama took office?  The answer is below, in an excellent chart, which can be seen in this link:  History of the Filibuster

For me, as always, one doesn't have to run from the facts if truth if true progress is the goal.  In fact, true progress and success cannot be had without using the truth.  Of course there is almost always room for interpretation.  That must be based, however, on real facts, and not those manipulated to one degree or another to support one's pre-set notions.  

By the way, I have to correct something I've repeated several times, that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stated the Republican's number one goal was to make sure President Obama was a one-term president.  He did say this, but not at the beginning of Obama's first time, as I believed, but on the eve of the midterm elections, half way through Obama's first term  Some people, too, claim Senator McConnell was quoted out of context.  I've read the interview answers around the main one, and I don't see that it changes the intent of his comments, but you might, so here is a good place to read for yourself:  Senator Mitch McConnell's famous quote

Obama Returns, So Does GW Bush

I finally came down this morning from 'walking on air' over the return of the real President Barack Obama.  What a powerful debate performance, despite what William Bennett says (more on that later).  

Very interestingly, George W. Bush also returned, in the shape of Mitt Rmoney!  He was specifically asked how he was different from Bush, and he gave several examples of how he was different.  The trouble was, as usual, all of his examples were incorrect:  Bush had proposed and supported the same issues as Rmoney noted!  In one of the many, many Obama highlights of the debate, Obama pointed out how Rmoney was exactly like, or even worse than, Bush, especially on social issues. 

Rachel Maddow noted tonight that the next debate will be focused on foreign policy, an area that both Rmoney and Ryan have zero experience.  Worse, she pointed out that 17 of the 24 foreign policy advisors to the Rmoney-Ryan campaign are from the Bush camp!  Then, she showed a video clip from an appearance Paul Ryan made today, with Condoleezza Rice! What?!  Are you beginning to see a trend here?!

Obama provided highlight after highlight after highlight last night, just had a fantastic event.  It was a little long, but otherwise, it was AWESOME!  Kudos to moderator Candy Crowley, too.

William Bennett, on the other had, had a different view of how well Obama did.  
"President Obama entered the second presidential debate needing to make up serious ground after his first debate performance. He turned around the narrative from the first debate -- that he was listless and lethargic and on the defensive -- but showing up is one thing, winning is another. Obama needed a convincing win Tuesday night, and he did not get it."  Really?  Did you see the same debate the rest of the country saw, Bill?  (emphasis mine)

He continued his fantasy review:  "Tuesday night Romney delivered again and proved his performance was consistent and legitimate. He has established himself as a legitimate alternative to the president."  Consistent, yes, continuing to lie, but far from legitimate.  

Remember Paul Ryan's campaign event today:  "In what may be one of the more important political moments of the debate, Romney was asked how he would be different from George W. Bush. Romney effectively distanced himself from Bush on policy specifics, noting he would control deficit spending and champion small business, not just big business. It was an important moment to convince many undecided voters that he is not Bush 2.0."  What?!

Un-freaking-believable.  Obama knocked it out of the park, all night long, period.  

Social Darwinism, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney

Robert Reich, one of my favorite political commentators, has written a piece for the Huffington Post that is worth reading.  His last paragraphs are:

"Not until the twentieth century did America reject social Darwinism. We created a large middle class that became the engine of our economy and our democracy. We built safety nets to catch Americans who fell downward, often through no fault of their own.

We designed regulations to protect against the inevitable excesses of free-market greed. We taxed the rich and invested in public goods -- public schools, public universities, public transportation, public parks, public health -- that made us all better off.

In short, we rejected the notion that each of us is on our own in a competitive contest for survival.

But choosing Ryan, Romney has raised for the nation the starkest of choices: Do we want to return to that earlier time, or are we willing and able to move forward -- toward a democracy and an economy that works for us all?"

I strongly believe that our welfare system needs a major overhaul.  I believe it doesn't help people in the long run as much as it should our could.  It allows 10 million children to go to bed hungry every night in our country. Cutting funding is the opposite of what is needed though.  What should happen is a thorough review and solutions developed to truly help people lift themselves and their children out of poverty, and push them along toward personal fulfillment of their potential, guaranteeing equal access to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," something I don't believe is true today.  One only has to look at public schools to see the great disparity in education.  

He also writes:  'But there's reason to believe Romney also agrees with Ryan's social Darwinism. Romney accuses President Obama of creating an "entitlement society" and thinks government shouldn't help distressed homeowners but instead let the market "hit the bottom." '  The government should not help distressed homeowners:  I could not disagree more.  I am all for accountability, personal as well as corporate and government.  That's why, although homeowners are not without blame in the housing crisis, the majority of the blame lies with corporations for painting way too rosy a picture and government for not protecting us against that picture.  It took a team effort to create the ridiculous housing bubble, and so the blame should be spread throughout that team, and not just on the backs of manipulated citizens who were told and believed an ARM and inflated household income was a ticket to home ownership.   

The scariest part of Dr. Reich's piece, though, is this:  Some believe Romney chose Ryan solely in order to drum up enthusiasm on the right. Since most Americans have already made up their minds about whom they'll vote for, and the polls show Americans highly polarized -- with an almost equal number supporting Romney as Obama -- the winner will be determined by how many on either side take the trouble to vote. So in picking Ryan, Romney is motivating his rightwing base to get to the polls, and pull everyone else they can along with them.  I can see this happening.  We need to get out and vote, and make sure all our liberal friends and relatives and strangers do so, too!

Who Benefits from the Federal 'Safety Net?' Better Question, Who Doesn't?!

Read this excellent article from the New York Times, and have your eyes opened.  I know I did:

Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.

Multimedia

Enlarge This Image

Enlarge This Image

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (1377) »

He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.

Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

Who really benefits from the federal government 'safety net?'

Kicking the Little Guy While He is Down

According to an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune on January 15, 2012, Congress did  it again, and did it without getting the front page headlines this story deserves, and that's just as big a shame.
 
Washington Post Reporter Kenneth Harney's article has the headline "Congress Is Making Owning Home More Expensive."  First, let me say that I am a very strong believer that home ownership is a very good thing, for individuals, for families, and for society.  Pride of ownership is much stronger than for renters.  Pride of ownership produces stronger ties to the community.  It means a property is better maintained, and so improves the entire neighborhood.

Mr. Harney's article begins, "Though its demise drew little attention because of the partisan year-end brawl over the payroll tax cut extension in Congress, a key mortgage financing benefit disappeared at the end of December: The ability of large numbers of homebuyers and owners to write off the premiums they pay for mortgage insurance.

The loss of that tax deduction — plus mandatory new fees imposed by Congress on all new conventional and FHA loans — could ratchet up the costs of homeownership this year."

His article continues:  "The expiration of mortgage insurance deductibility will hit... virtually all new mortgages closed this year where the down payment is less than 20 percent. Though industry experts do not have precise numbers, their estimates range into the millions of existing owners and new purchasers potentially touched by the deductibility termination. Borrowers using guaranteed veterans and rural housing loans, where down payments can drop to zero, also are affected.

David Stevens, who served as FHA commissioner and is now chief executive of the Mortgage Bankers Association, says the loss of deductibility of mortgage insurance “hits a segment (of consumers) — middle-income and first-time buyers— where affordability is especially important.”

At a time when the Federal Reserve is warning that there can be no broad economic improvement until housing recovers, it may strike you as odd public policy to raise costs for homebuyers and refinancers in order to fund unrelated, temporary tax relief. But that’s not the way they saw it on Capitol Hill in the rush to holiday recess."

What makes me crazy is that the mortgage deduction laws definitely do need fixing, but this is the wrong fix.  A law that promotes home ownership should not include any deductions for a second home!  A law that promotes home ownership should not include recreational vehicles!  A law designed to promote home ownership should not allow interest deductions on homes valued at up to $1,000,000!  And yet, current law allows all of those deductions.  To me, these are all no-brainer facts.  While I don't have hard figures, some research strongly supports my contention that changing the law to reflect these three simple facts would save billions and billions of dollars, and all without harming the premise of the law one cent!  

You can't convince me that this Congress doesn't know what they are doing, that my premise escapes them.  Only logical conclusion:  they don't care!