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