cool news from the "Nasty"

*from an Ohio Citizen Action email I received this weekend--saves money and lessens environmental impacts . . . who knew such things could be done?!

I have a very exciting announcement. Cincinnati has just become the first major U.S. city to offer 100% renewable energy power to electric customers. Cincinnati City Manager Milton Dohoney, Jr. just announced he selected FirstEnergy Solutions with a 100% renewable energy contract as the provider for the new electric aggregation program in Cincinnati. Ohio Citizen Action’s members have their fingerprints all over this victory with a long history of working on community electric aggregation in Ohio. The organization worked hard to successfully include the program in the 1999 Ohio deregulation bill. I testified before city council committee last year encouraging the members to allow voters the chance to vote on the issue just like dozens of other communities in the region had done. We compiled a report of all the local communities in the Cincinnati area that already had an aggregation program for electricity and were saving money. Along with Greenpeace members and volunteers, we worked tirelessly to explain the issue and inform voters about the November 2011 vote, as well as turning out dozens of participants in the two public hearings held in February. Voters passed the issue last November allowing the city to create a system that allows the city to buy electricity in bulk, which would offer to opportunity to reduce costs for customers as well as influence the source of the electricity. According to the City Manager’s office, the average eligible household will save approximately $133 per year on their electricity bills.

Trippin' w/ Jack (Archie B., Jimmy C., & Ronny R., too)

sorry, been away a bit lately--helping tend to a sick baby (she's fine now, thanks) and caddying for two days for one of my former high school golfers (it's the only way I'll ever get on Firestone Country Club). So, as I was saying . . .

* * * * *

To those of you old enough to remember prime time TV of the late '70s, you probably know All in the Family. If you go back and watch one of those shows, you get a sense of how much our country has changed since then--and not just the dearth of leisure suits in contemporary fashion. Jokes about marijuana, for examples, were common (this wasn't cable, mind you)--the horror!

How about Soap? <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZJvG4j3cN4&feature=relmfu> Billy Crystal played an openly gay character--again, not cable (and well before the cartoonish portrayals on Will and Grace).

It doesn't take much imagination to see the arc that the country was on around this time. Legalizing pot? Yeah, probably. Equal Rights for LGBT. Yep, could see that around the corner, too. But some felt that a malaise had fallen upon the country and change was needed if we were to make America strong again (cue flags and the Lee Greenwood http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL_GRKURoEY).  

This is when Reagan is elected. One of his first acts was to remove the solar panels from the roof of the White House that had been installed under Carter, you know, to send a message that conservation was for wimps. The other stuff (breaking unions, Iran-Contra, S & L crisis, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," etc. you probably remember).

I bring this up b/c I've been watching the NFL draft and the Steelers just took Mike Adams, a lineman from The Ohio State University, in the 2nd round. It's been a story b/c he's tested positive several times while at OSU; he was also one of the players suspended for their role in the tattoo/car scandal that led to the firing of Coach Tressel.  But Adams wrote a letter of contrition and asked that the Steelers re-consider--and they did by committing a high draft pick on the young man.

OK--so what? Well, back in 1983 the Steelers were looking for a replacement for Terry Bradshaw, whose career was winding down. A local kid at the University of Pittsburgh seemed like the perfect fit for the venerable franchise--an organization that had already won four Super Bowls by this time. But Dan Marino, the rumors go, had tested positive for marijuana while in college. And the venerable organization that has been run by the same family for nearly 80 years passed on Marino, who, of course, went on to play for the Miami Dolphins in a Hall of Fame career. The Tom Selleck look-alike, Mark Malone, and many others tried to replace Bradshaw, but it was a gap in the organization for two decades.

The fact that Pittsburgh has given this young man another chance a sign that we as a society have gotten more liberal, more accepting? (the owners of the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Rooneys, sensing possibly a shift in the zeitgeist?) No way does this team at any point in its past take this chance--not just for business reasons but for ethical reasons as well. But it did now. Why? Like I said, the same family has owned the franchise since the '30s, and if they're known for anything it's consistency. 

So, what's changed?  The country sure doesn't feel more liberal (forced vaginal probes for prospective abortion seekers? de-funding Planned Parenthood?) Many studies have identified younger voters as being more tolerant and generally more progressive (this is often sited as the rationale for why gay marriage/equality is just matter of time--the older, more conservative voters who oppose gay marriage, e.g., will age out and be replaced by younger, more liberal voters). Sounds good. But I'm not so sure that is the arc our country is currently bending toward, do you? I mean, do you see us trending toward a great progressive future, say, 20 years out? Not when the Paul Ryans and their harsh budget solutions are actually debated as possible solutions, instead of being blown out of the water for what they are--the death of the New Deal. And yet, as I've often lamented, many middle and working class folks support specifically this legislation and others like it. Imagine it's 1988 or 2002--peak conservative years, at least politically; does a Paul Ryan budget even see the light of day? Nope, I think even the Republicans keep it stuffed in the closet. In the basement. But something has changed when policy that used to be settled or not spoken aloud in polite circles, as they say, not only gets out into the open but is given the credibility afforded possibility.

Birth control is back on the table but Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been scuttled. In Arizona a woman must tell her employer why she needs birth control, yet Dick Cheney (yeah, that one) recently helped to pass legislation in Maryland that will allow for marriage equality for his lesbian daughter and other gays and homosexuals. And the Pittsburgh Steelers draft a young man who has at least three failed drug tests.

What to make of this apparent inconsistency and contradiction? I don't want to fall into the common trap, like some, who extrapolate the characteristics of an entire group based on individual behavior or a singular event (19 terrorist who are Muslim fly planes into the Twin Towers--all Muslims bad; Nordic shooter kills 80+ in  Norway and he is troubled individual--the word "terrorist" is not even applied when that's exactly what he was doing--and nobody tries to draw conclusions on all fair, white guys).

But it seems to be that the those w/ wealth and power have gotten more conservative as it relates to the lives of others (witness the legislation against women, voter suppression, austerity measures)--harsh, punitive, controlling, conservative. While, those w/ power are more liberal and lax w/ matters that benefit them personally (more money for elections via Citizens United? more tax cuts? repeal of the estate tax? drafting a talented but troubled individual?)--all tilt toward enriching only those at the top, and, often, at the expense and to the detriment to those who don't have access to power.

And this dual reality allows for a Mitt Romney (or Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin or Ronald Reagan) to say just whatever the hell they want and not once ever correct the record for their mis-rememberings/mis-speakings--and a lapdog press allows them to get away w/ it.

I realize I'm slipping toward a "Two Americas" stump speech here, but accountability seems to have gone out of style along w/ polyester slacks, Air Supply, and the AMC Gremlin. Unless, of course, it involves sex. David Vitter pays for sex with prostitutes and still serves the great state of Louisiana as their senator, but John Edwards--despicable man that he is--is about to get hammered like Tom DeLay should have been (you tell me which is worse: blowing the campaign contributions of wealthy supporters, or fleecing Native American tribes out of what little money they have??).

In some ways, Edwards's biggest screw-up was doing his thing before Citizens United would have made the point moot. .

Eye Drops

I'll have a longer piece or two up in the next day or two--in the meanwhile, here are a few pieces that have resonated w/ me.
* * * * *

Regulations create jobs? You mean ensuring cleaner air and water and the like doesn't have to ruin the economy? Laura Clawson has a piece (btw, quick read) on the Daily Kos that addresses a common Republican talking point:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/30/1011856/-Counter-to-the-Republican-talking-point-regulations-create-jobs

* * * * *

Yes, we try to have something for everyone. This piece by Matt Stoller should be good reading for my conservative friends (and tick off many liberals, too). It's why I believe it's good that Ron Paul stays in the race as long as possible (only candidate who openly calls for us to leave Afghanistan post-haste). And like Stoller, I would never, ever vote for Ron Paul: 
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html

* * * * *
The always good, and the typically uncomfortable read that is Glenn Greenwald has a piece from the Guardian that many liberals resist (I wrote on the "my team vs your team" scenario in American politics in a recent post). I just wish conservatives would read this kind of stuff so we don't have to hear about birth certificates and other silliness. Note the date on this piece--last summer, about a month or two before Pres. Obama dusted off the populism that got him elected in '08. I wonder if he would be in a better position for re-election if he had actually governed as a Democrat rather than a moderate Republican?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jul/21/barack-obama-social-security-cuts

* * * * *
The student debt debate has been in the news quite a bit lately, most notably in the reversal presented by Mitt Romney; he now says he supports keeping interest rates low for student loans (something that contradicts his earlier positions--let's hope he actually means it).

Pvt. Manning still feels like an under-covered story (well, anything beyond state propaganda declaring that he is guilty. Never mind he hasn't gone to trial yet).

Why am I including a snippet of campaign literature from the Green Party? Good question--but whenever I need reminded of what a progressive platform could actually look like, I can go here. It's almost become an accepted truth that both of the major parties are in the pocket of big business and not responsive to their constituents. Jill Stein advocates for the things that many folks want from their government (even conservatives) but are willing to sacrifice when they check the box for the D or the R.

$1 TRILLION DOLLARS OF STUDENT DEBT

Join Dr. Stein in New York City and around the country in support of the Occupy Student Debt campaign tomorrow, Wednesday for 1TDay! April 25, 2012 is designated as 1TDay because it is the day that student loan debt in America will pass $1 Trillion. Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy Student Debt campaign have called for a National Day of Action.

Dr. Stein calls upon Greens all over the country to participate, either because we are debtors ourselves or in solidarity for generational justice. Jill Stein for President stands with students and college graduates who are effectively indentured servants, who seek jobs upon graduation only to see long unemployment lines and outstanding student loan bills.

  CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO ABOUT 1TDay

DR. STEIN WOULD PARDON PFC. MANNING

Dr. Jill Stein released a video statement today in support of Pfc. Bradley Manning, in coordination with today's Occupy the Justice Department actions:
  "My name is Jill Stein and I’m running with the Green Party for President of the United States. If elected,  I will immediately pardon Bradley Manning,  the U.S. Army soldier accused of leaking classified material to the whistleblower website, WikiLeaks, while working as an intelligence analyst near Baghdad."
  CLICK HERE FOR THE VIDEO AND THE FULL TEXT

Hooray, I'm for the Other Team

A conservative friend of mine recently wrote me about the email signature that I've been using to mark Earth Day--it's from Barry Goldwater:

"While I am a great believer in the free-enterprise system, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean, pollution-free environment." (1970)

First, he noted Goldwater's age (I would point out that it was only six years after he had run for the WH); next, my friend asserted that pollution was much worse then (in 1970) than it is now, which is certainly true for burning rivers and the like, but asserting pollution is not a problem now is like saying that we're post-racial.

But the thing that most caught my attention was this: my conservative friend questioned whether I believed in all of Goldwater's doctrine, suggesting that if I didn't completely endorse his--or G. Gordon Liddy's or Ronald Reagan's or Pope John Paul II's--thinking/beliefs/morals/world-view/philosophy then I shouldn't quote them, regardless of the sentiment being expressed.

I found his line of thinking revealing--and this is not to single out just conservatives; many liberals operate the same way, and that's the problem--call it tribalism or team cheerleading but the result is a  flattening of perspective and intelligent engagement of ideas. We tend to defend our "team" from the other side, our opposition. And this is how we end up with a "liberal" President who endorses the use of drones abroad that kill in our name indiscriminately.  It's how we still have Gitmo; it's why nobody has gone to jail for the economic collapse of 2008, or nobody has been tried for the torture conducted under the last Administration; our government has killed at least two US citizens abroad, justification based simply on being accused; and Pvt. Bradley Manning is not the whistleblower he intended himself to be but instead is already an enemy of the state, presumed guilty before having gone to trial. Imagine, my fellow liberals, if these abuses (or worse) had taken place under our last President--I can hear the screams of protest from here.

But because he's one of ours, he has, for the most part, gotten away w/ it (mainstream media certainly haven't pushed on these issues w/ any authority. The other side? They can't get their noses out of the Birther websites or turn off Rush Limbaugh long enough to criticize, to challenge this President on things that matter, devolving their credibility in the process of constructing another conspiracy theory to replace last week's. 

I don't think there is anybody--Republican or Democrat or even a Jill Stein--we should endorse without conditions, without accountability and transparency. This is blind faith and doesn't promote a vibrant democracy where we need to challenge policies and debate on issues--not root for our team to win. That's what tyrants teach and dictators desire.

* * * * *
I almost . . . almost included some lyrics here from Immortal Technique but decided to keep it PG ("read, m effers . . . read . . . ")

Happy Birthday, Will--

A bit of a late post but wanted to acknowledge the birth of William Shakespeare in 1564 (April 23). Not to be so literal, but the gusty winds today reminded me of this sonnet by WS--what's your favorite?

PS--my friend Vern wrote a contemporary song based on this one called "Number 18"--I'll see if he has it recorded somewhere; definitely be worth a listen . . .

SONNET 18

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this and this gives life to thee. 

* * * * * 


*sorry been away from the blog for a couple days; I'll have things back up to speed shortly. Thanks again for stopping by--

Eye Candy

I hate to take anyone away from the salacious and saucy details of the recent Secret Service Scandal (hookers! Columbia!), but there are some under-reported stories out there that actually could impact our lives. Wouldn't it be nice if the media actually did that sort of thing--reporting, holding folks accountable, breaking stories, etc--instead of trying to out-Nancy Grace their competitors?

* * * * *

Why isn't anyone talking about the voter suppression efforts of numerous, typically conservative states, incl my ol' Ohio? The line that gets thrown around a lot is that it's a solution in search of a problem. In fact, the last case of someone being convicted of voter fraud that I heard about was a Republican in Indiana who was in charge of that sort of thing as Secretary of State. I can track this down if you like, but I think you can count on two hands the number of voter fraud cases that actually resulted in a conviction over the last decade. For the whole country. Yeah, that's it. Not what you heard, huh . . . ?

What's the big deal, right? Well, if you happen to be elderly, poor, a minority, a college student, or a combination thereof, you are disproportionally impacted by this kind of legislation. Some of the numbers I've seen put the estimates in the hundreds of thousands (I've seen that Tennessee and South Carolina would be hit especially hard b/c of their demographics) that could be disenfranchised by new requirements (remember, not everyone has a life like yours). My grandmother always voted yet never had a drivers license. If the proposed legislation is enacted, people like my grandmother wouldn't be able to vote unless they get a state-issued ID. Again, no big deal, right? So, if you're somebody like my grandmother she has to arrange for a ride, use her walker, pay a fee, etc, etc. just to get this new requirement that again doesn't really solve any real problem (couldn't you have a fake ID? I've heard they do that sort of thing on college campuses). How many people would just say "screw it" and stay home? And that's the point of the legislation--getting people who typically vote for Democrats to stay at home.

* * * * *
gerrymandering? Whether it's Democrats or Republicans, haven't we had enough of this? Take a look at the new Congressional map of Ohio--if you didn't know any better, you would think it was a drunken prank (those of you in Athens--I know I'm preaching to the choir).
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/12/ohio_congressional_district_ma.html

* * * * *

If you read Glenn Greenwald (and you should if you don't--he's not a comfortable read nor is he a cheerleader for either party, but he's one of the few in the media who writes on the topics we all try to ignore), you know about the use of drones by the US government in its War on Terror.

At first glance, you might like the idea of drones helping in our "fight"--no US soldiers are put at risk by flying these weapons; he or she can control the drones from the safety of distance. You should know, however, that our government (who gets flack requiring employers to provide birth control for its employees) now has a policy that allows for the drones to attack suspected terrorists--even if they can't identify the "suspects" specifically. In other words, we're just kind of guessing. Numerous reports detail the women and children who are being killed in these attacks. The number of Al Qaeda operatives in many areas leave one to wonder if the risk of inflaming anti-American sentiment is worth the cost.

Even more disturbing is the tactic of the drones making an attack, waiting 30 min. or so and returning to the scene to bomb those who are first-responders, which, of course, violates the Geneva Convention (and I didn't even mention the reports of the drones attacking funerals). Ugly stuff--yet no one is really pushing the administration on this (Jake Trapper from ABC might be the exception).

* * * * *
If you've read a bit of what I've posted, you know I don't hide my liberal perspective. But I would offer that I try to call attention to flaws w/in the system, in particular money in politics and the integrity of politicians as a group (it's not a coincidence that Congress's approval rating is 9%, below that of Fidel Castro and others); we know that most politicians do what is best for them and their wallets. And many politicians sometimes just plain and simple lie (I know, I know--water is wet).

Having established this pre-amble, pay attention to Mitt Romney as we move into the general election. Rachel Maddow has done a nice job of tracking Mitt's flips, but I haven't heard a peep from other media. I've never seen a politician so readily flip his positions or to say something that is so easily demonstrated to be false (if Rick Santorum had stayed in the race, I might not be able to say that). Use whatever source you like, but the April 18 Rachel Maddow Show <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/> has provided a time capsule of sorts for Romney's policy positions--it'll be revealing, I think, to watch Romney now try to distance himself from his hard right run in the Republican Primary. Not to get all soap-boxy and all, but shouldn't we expect our politicians to at least tell the truth and to set the record straight when they screw up--or, am I just too naive . . .

* * * * *
it's April 20, 2012 . . . has anyone gone to jail yet for the Wall Street collapse of 2008? The seeds of the Occupy Movement are here, yet the media generally hasn't pushed the current Administration on their head in the sand approach to holding anyone accountable for the thievery (same way they handled "enhanced interrogation" that went on under Pres. Bush). I guess when Timmy Geithner and Larry Summers are two of your key advisers, then it gets a little awkward holding other insiders accountable (I'm thinking of the line in Apocalypse Now--"it's like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500").

* * * * *
RIP Levon Helm and Dick Clark (my friend Mark calls "The Weight" the perfect song--I agree). & here is a killer version from Scorcese's The Last Waltz, which many consider to be the best concert film ever made (btw, Levon is the drummer).

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2024671/the_weight_the_staples_singers_the_band_the_last_waltz/

* * * * * 
I'll be traveling Friday and Saturday; I'll try to post when I can . . .

Drill, Baby, Drill

3,300.  That’s how many drilling leases have been issued in Stark County here in Ohio since July 2010.  I don’t know how many were filed before, but 3,300 is a lot of potential drill sites for one county in one year.

I don’t want to bog you down with a bunch of numbers—you should know most of it by now because of the coverage—but this is too important to ignore. Each drill site occupies about a football field—sized area. Each well requires between 1 and 8 million gallons of fluid (half stays in the ground, the other half comes out). Each drill pad can have up to 8 “arms” or separate wells. Each well can be re-fracked up to18 times. Each drill job requires about 500 truckloads just to handle the fracking fluid.

Lots of numbers, I know. But, like I said, this is too important to ignore. Because the oil and gas industry itself and state regulators tell us that it’s true, we know that contamination will happen. But nobody knows just how much contamination. Rep. Renacci recently said that a single accident shouldn't hinder or shut down operations; we need to learn from our mistakes and correct them--you know, I'm not terribly inspired by the "figure it out as we go" approach. 

It’s a matter of tradeoffs. Collateral damage. Some people might get jobs; some landowners will have their ship come in. And the rest of us get to wait, wait for the first report of contaminated water, sick kids, sick animals, or a spill closing down 77S while they wash the crud off into the water fields where many of us reading this get our drinking water. 

When you have 3,300 leases filed in just one year just in Stark County, it’s going to happen. Rep. Hagan recently wrote of Ohio as “an economic force to be reckoned with.” Well, if this is the job creation she’s talking about, I’ll stay dirt poor and keep my water clean. Thank you very much. 

Rich Guys: 1; Everyone Else: 0

 

*from the Elizabeth Warren Campaign

* * * * *

One of the most interesting pieces of information that I’ve seen in the last few weeks comes from a recent study done by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez.  This study, based on an analysis of American tax returns, showed that in 2010, 93 percent of all new income growth went to the top one percent of American households.  Everyone else, the bottom ninety-nine percent, divided up the remaining seven percent.

In other words, the outrageous income and wealth inequality in America continues to get worse.  Almost all new income is going to the wealthiest people in our country, the people who need it the least,  while the middle class continues to collapse and tens of millions of Americans struggle daily just to put food on the table, fill up their gas tanks to get to work and pay for their housing.  We have not seen this level of greed from the people on top in the last hundred years. 
(from Sen. Bernie Sanders, Independent, VT, in recent campaign email)


* * * * *

So, a Democratic Senate and WH can't figure out how to pass the Buffett Rule b/c of the all-powerful Republican filibuster. Geez. Maybe it's time to change the Senate rules and make the filibusterers (filibustees?) read from the phone book--at least then, Senators would have to own their obstruction (and when it's a Democrat, it'll be b/c they're standing up for a minority position. j/k)  Besides, it's great theater (my second favorite West Wing episode "The Stackhouse Filibuster" is worth tracking down if you haven't seen it in a while).

Yes, I know the money raised by the increase in taxes for the wealthy on their own wouldn't eliminate the deficit, but don' you think it's at least a step in the right direction?  And go ahead and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of this year (which should be the easiest thing for this Congress to do--do nothing and the cuts go away automatically) and now you're talking real money. And we didn't even have to ask the custodian at the local school to pay for subsidies to Big Oil.

You want to know what surprises me the most in this debate? Not that Republicans (and maybe some Democrats) vote against the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans--we've seen that for years. Many/most of our "elected" politicians are in the pocket of Big Business--and that's not an earth-shattering announcement (Citizens United makes our government more of a plutocracy than it's ever been).

No, what I find most surprising is the number of middle class folks--maybe even someone reading this post--who support the Republican position on the Buffett Rule. And the most impressive thing about the Republican party, esp over the last 30 years or so, has been their ability to craft narratives that smart, educated people buy into--so much so, that these folks are willing to vote against their own best self-interest. Masterful.

* * * * *
(from Paul Krugman's blog at NYT: April 10, 2012)
To take the really big example: on current law, the whole of the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of this year. If that’s your baseline, then plans like the Ryan budget, which not only maintains those tax cuts but adds another $4.6 trillion to the pot, are wildly deficit-increasing — in fact, the Ryan plan would be a huge budget-buster even if hell freezes over and his secret loophole-closers turn out to be real.


And yet, smart, educated people will support Mitt Romney, who has stated he supports the Ryan Plan, and believe they're making a better fiscal choice. Again, facts be damned.

Fracking Makes You Dumb

As a not-so-recent graduate of Alliance City Schools, I read with a certain pride at the announcement of the installation of a wind tower at the middle school that will generate energy, save money, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions; the project is the culmination of a two-year effort by an Alliance science teacher and his students. What a great way to demonstrate real-world learning and problem solving, not only to the student themselves but to others as well.

I just wish that the leadership at Marlington had thought to collaborate with its same-city neighbors before they placed their educational community at risk when they decided that the only way to generate revenue was to allow fracking beneath school property.

What the Alliance students and their teacher demonstrated is that there is often more than one solution, and it may not be readily apparent. Marlington’s decision reminds me of an episode from the old TV program Night Gallery; a character is desperately broke so he decides to sell his eyes to a blind billionaire—sure, the now-blind character got some money but at what cost?

We hear and read every day about how we gotta tighten our belts, etc. But austerity didn’t get us out of the Great Depression, and austerity won’t get us out of this mess we’re in now. We’ve tried max tax cuts for nearly a decade now—how’s that working out? Do you really believe that if the Tea Partiers get their way that additional cuts will help stimulate the economy for working families? I sure don’t.

So, instead of the governor giving another 56 million dollars to Diebold, I’ve got a better idea: let’s send some of that money to the schools. At least the kids are getting real results and solving real problems. Bravo, Aviators!

*this piece first appeared in The Canton Repository over the winter. 

57 Communists

Mrs. Iselin: [at meal time] I'm sorry, hon'. Would it really make it easier for you if we settled on just one number?
Sen. John Yerkes Iselin: Yeah. Just one, real, simple number that'd be easy for me to remember.
[Mrs. Iselin watches her husband thump a bottle of Heinz Tomato Ketchup onto his plate]
Sen. John Yerkes Iselin: [addressing the Senate] There are exactly 57 card-carrying members of the Communist Party in the Department of Defense at this time!
(from IMDB)

* * * * *
I owe Rep. Allen West of Florida--his recent proclamation that he knows of 80 Dems in Congress who are harboring secrets (gasp!), immediately reminded me of the great classic film The Manchurian Candidate (see dialogue above for the scene that parallels West's), and I had an excuse to peruse film trailers.

If you haven't seen it, please do so--it is so good. Great cast: Angela Lansbery (of Murder, She Wrote fame), Frank Sinatra, Lawrence Harvey, Janet Leigh (Jamie Lee Curtis's mom), and the wonderful James Gregory (Inspector Luger on Barney Miller) who portrays a character-type that seems to pop up in real life around election season. Still one of the smartest, most entertaining, thought-provoking films to this day (its back story alone makes for a good story as the film was pulled from theaters after the JFK assassination and wasn't seen for years).

I couldn't find the entire scene on youtube but here is a trailer for the film: http://youtu.be/4fop7Go_csU

*History buffs will, of course, be reminded of McCarthyism . . .

Buffett Rule Re-visited

I know I'm just some tree-hugger out here in O-hi-a but somebody explain to me (again) why 22K households pay lower tax rates than you or I. Yeah, yeah--you're gonna tell me about "trickle down economics" and "a high tide raises all boats"--things that sound good in bar arguments or on bumper stickers, but I still don't get it. I mean, where do you draw the line? Should millionaires pay less for their milk b/c the money they save there will be passed on down to their employees, b/c as everyone knows, every millionaire is a small business owner who benevolently shares his or her profits w/ all his or her employees, right?  (just like they extended the 40 hr workweek, healthcare, weekends off, sick leave, vacation time, etc all on their own--and those greedy labor unions came along and took all the credit).

It seems to me that since about 2000, we've tried tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and the result has been the worst economy since John Steinbeck was writing about dust bowls and fruit picking. Maybe the supply-siders are wrong . . . it sure looks that way. But facts be damned.

My good friend Jeff, who teaches at what we used to call a vocational school, was lamenting recently how few of his students actually study the issues and then make informed choices at the polls. It was a good conversation, but I didn't have the heart to tell him that the majority of adults operate the same way--they vote on their gut, or, worse, they rationalize their vote on some accepted fictionalized narrative (the economy does better w/ a Republican President--not true, go look at the stock market under Democratic Presidents).

Tell you what--I promise that I'll check out George Will and track down some David Frum, generally viewed as honest conservatives, if you promise to read honest progressives like Glenn Greenwald and Paul Krugman or to watch Rachel Maddow (yeah, yeah--it won't kill you). Wouldn't it be nice if we both voted this fall after being informed by facts, and then we made choices that actually benefited our communities and our families rather than just going with our gut or what the corporate media shilled to us?  Doesn't that seem like a worthy pursuit? I sure think so . . .

* * * * *
*Elizabeth Warren email below (senatorial candidate in Massachusetts).

I wanted to forward one more email to you today. Like you, I've signed up for a few email lists.
On Monday, President Obama's team sent an email about the Buffett Rule -- legislation that makes sure people who make more than $1 million a year pay their fair share in taxes.

The President didn't ask me to do this, but I wanted to double check that you'd seen this email. It's that important.

In 2009, there were 22,000 households making more than $1 million annually but paying less than 15% of their income in income taxes -- and 1,470 paid no federal income taxes at all.

My opponent, Republican Senator Scott Brown, agrees with Mitt Romney that it's okay for millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than everyone else. He wants to block the Buffett Rule. I think that's wrong, and I'm standing with President Obama on this.

To me, the Buffett Rule shows what this upcoming election is all about. It's a clear choice: do we want a Senator who protects millionaires and billionaires while voting against rebuilding roads and bridges and voting against preventing layoffs for our teachers?

Or do we want to level the playing field, to change the rules so millionaires don't pay a lower tax rate than everyone else, and to use that money to honor our promises to our parents and to make the investments so more kids have their chance to get ahead?

Thanks,
Elizabeth

Go see The Hunger Games--like, seriously

Went to see the buzzy The Hunger Games last weekend and was pleased with the faithful adaptation, good casting, and overall look of the film. The English teacher in me would prefer that you would read the book first, but I think you can still enjoy the film w/out having read the YA Lit book.

If you haven’t read the book, it is Young Adult Literature (not to be confused with children’s lit), meaning it has a young protagonist who is dealing with issues that a reader of her age might also be dealing with. It borrows from familiar texts but isn’t derivative, creating its own world and characters with their own particular problems. One of the sub-genres that usually goes over well with young readers is the dystopian novel (one of my favorite short stories is “Harrison Bergeron” by Vonnegut and my fav YA Lit book is The Giver). Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” is an obvious parallel with HG’s “reaping,” held every year where one male, one female between 12-18 is selected to represent his and her own district. Thus, you have 24 young people fighting to the death for the entertainment of the home viewers as well as part of a political calculus to remind the citizens of their past transgressions during the Uprisings of some 74 years past (think Survivor meets Running Man meets ancient Rome’s Bread and Circuses???).

In The Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen is our protagonist (btw, played by Jennifer Lawrence, who was nominated for an Oscar in Winter’s Bone two years ago for her portrayal of a daughter trying to keep her family together b/c of an absent father in a “dirt poor rural town”; a role, where according to IMDB, Ms. Lawrence had to learn how to fight, skin squirrels, and chop wood--don’t you just love intertextuality!); she is one tough cookie and very easy to root for (you’ll want to see how she catches the attention of the Gamemakers). She lives w/ her sister Prim and mother in District 12, which sure looks a lot like SE Ohio or other coal-mining regions of Appalachia. The film doesn’t spend much time there (just enough to establish some back story for Katniss), but it does evoke the overcast drabness we might associate with coal-mining towns of yore. It’s a bleak place. We get the sense, reading the book and viewing the film, that the 12 districts are a constructed hierarchy, thus District 1 and its implied relative wealth can select its Tributes early and train them throughout their childhood; whereas, District 12 kids are needed for the hand-to-mouth existence that most know there, and District 11, comprised mostly of an African American population, is the scene of an uprising w/in the film (interesting parallels w/ what is going on w/ the Trayvon Martin shooting).

Some critics, including Roger Ebert, felt that the film passes up opportunities to make a statement or to offer commentary on the political realities of today. Yes, the main character’s district is impoverished and could have been shot in Depression-era Appalachia (interestingly contrasted with the futuristic Capital city where the actual Games will take place), and the quick cuts to scenes of civil unrest have echoes to the 60s and to the current Occupy Movement, but many viewers will appreciate the more discreet approach taken by the film (Suzanne Collins, the author, also co-wrote the screenplay). I think, however, to suggest that the film lacks a point-of-view or fails to establish a position misses the intentionality of the film and the story itself.  In addition to the poverty and misery depicted in District 12, a vapid, grotesque elite class and an oppressive and manipulative centralized government are satirized throughout, revealing the political pov of the director/writer.  A powerful scene in a later portion of the film captures the pain and confusion we—through our governments—inflict on our young people when we send them to kill other human beings, if not for our entertainment, at least for our comfort and convenience and for the profits of the military industrial complex.  Katniss doesn’t need to make the speech that makes explicit the commentary on these characteristics of contemporary America (Rambo’s monologue at the end of First Blood comes to mind), but the film makes clear what it thinks of the direction we’re going—politically, culturally, and maybe, implicitly, intellectually.

Along with savvy use of intertextuality (Winter’s Bone; Donald Sutherland as a cold and calculating President—a long way from his Oddball days; Lenny freakin’ Kravitz! etc) and some smart literary allusions (Panem, the name of the new U.S.A.; Seneca, the Gamemaker; Cato, a Tribute from District 1; Bread and Circuses; etc), the topics of poverty/race/class, oligarchy vs democracy, freedom vs security, violence as means of control and pleasure, and the effects of living in a panopticon are just some of the directions a class could take in reading, writing, researching, and talking about this rich text. Like other good literature, HG provides a template that allows folks to connect to their lives today yet the text contains universalities that are relevant even to the more mature reader/viewer (yours truly incl).  It’s better than watching teenage vampires brood or the insular world that is Harry Potter—HG is something like futuristic realism and portrays a world that is not as far away as we would like to believe.

Fight! Fight! (not really, but maybe a cure for insomnia)

 *with his permission, what follows is a dialogue that my friend Hippy Tim (oddly, the conservative in the conversation) and I had over the last week or so via email--I've cleaned it up for readability. I should probably mention that you want to start at the bottom and work your way to the top--which, btw, is a favorite Republican mantra. Now, w/out further ado--our version of Crossfire!

note: I've highlighted my text in orange (Tim is a huge Mets fan) to make it easier to see who is saying what.

* * * * *

hey, Tim--no, I know you are engaging in a civil discussion--no worries.

I, however, do have a persuasive intent in my responses to you, and it's not to win an argument per se, but it is to fix what you and I both see as the problem. Where you and I differ is that I see the Republican "fix" as the problem--I think I've written enough to you about it, but just look at the situation from arm's length:

Bush implements huge tax cuts; surplus goes away; worst economy since Great Depression--and folks want to continue to cut taxes? What am I missing? The history of the 20th century shows the opposite effect of what R's advocate--the economy does worse with aggressive tax cuts.

Many honest, smart people will tell you that tax cuts typically don't have the stimulative effect that even unemployment insurance has on the economy (crazy, I know!). I just don't see historical evidence that supports supply side economics . . . the economy does best when we all do best and therefore we become consumers of the products that we all make here. Unless you're sitting on the board of a large corporation, I don't see how you personally (or me, for that matter) benefit from Republican policies.

Free market/trickle down/stimulative tax cuts are things that border on religion--you have to have faith that they work, and, again, I just don't see the historical evidence. Record profits for corporations? If it doesn't help the populace at large, then what's the point?

peace
Eric


________________________________


wow.    i hope you know that i am not trying to be argumentative....  and there are quite a few things that i agree with in your commentary.  but it is a recipe for continued paralysis.  i am interested in solutions only.  i stay away from what i call...  KNEECAPPERS    like hannity/michele malkin on the right  and ...  only because you cite them ....  rachel maddow and ezra klein on the left.  i enjoy the intellectual types on both sides    like thomas sowell  or lanny davis.  you are sophisticated enough to know that the romney/buffet types pay only capital gains tax rates...  not income tax rates.    income that remains after you pay taxes the first time...  is used to invest in business ventures.  sometimes they fail sometimes not.  if the business fails...  only 10% of the investment can be written off.    we want to encourage these investments...  which is why clinton lowered the rate.    but the big picture to me...  a right winger could duplicate the response that you sent.....  but where does that get us?    you are not going to agree with them....  they won't agree with you.  the decision is    do you want that tired KNEECAPPING to end so that we can save the country....  or is a rhetorical victory over the hated opposition more important.  i know where i stand..  because i truly fear for the effects on the most vunerable among us.  throughout these correspondences with you...  that is what i have been unartfully trying to get across.  happy easter brotherman!!!  to you and yours

________________________________

i don't feel this is partisan.  i am unconcerned about how we got here.  that is a recipe for disaster.  have we not had enough of the blame game?

Listen, I'm  not a cheerleader for the Democrats--they have enough of their flaws that I have criticized (see blog), but to not understand how we got into this situation is to ensure that we do it again and we undertake counter-productive steps to correct it. Tax cuts killed our surplus and adds to the deficit every day--to not acknowledge that is walk around the bright pink elephant in the living room. How many more ways can we demonstrate that "trickle-down" economics are a parlor game, and Bush 1 had it right when he called it "voodoo economics."

Go look at middle class incomes since 1980--losing traction while the wealthy continue to swell their bank accts, and w/ the terror of the estate tax being codified, we can put another nail into our meritocracy--just like merry old England--it'll be even more of the birth lottery than it is.

It was reckless, self-serving, and manipulative for the Bush tax cuts in the first place during at least two wars (and the same could be said for Dems who go along w/ them, even now.). I will give the R's props--they're masters at framing the narrative and the ensuing discussion. Even beyond that has been their ability to get working class and middle class voters to vote against their own self-interest (I'm not pointing at you, just a wink at you). And just to underscore the point: how much money could we generate if the Mitt Romneys paid more than 14% in taxes--less than what you and I paid last year. And before folks cry about oppressive tax rates, know that they're at their lowest since the 50s.

Blame? This is calling out failed policies and hoping we don't continue to fall into the trap. A tax code that asks Warren Buffett's secretary to pay a higher percentage in taxes is not the recipe for long-term success.

by 2015-16 we will be paying so much interest on our debt to china...  about 300 billion...that they will have their defense budget paid for by U.S. taxpayers.    by about 2021  the INTEREST on the debt will be about one trillion a year.  these are the kind of numbers we are looking at.  the bush tax cuts are about 700 billion...  OVER 10 YEARS.  70 billion a year.  not something that will make any significant  difference.

Not sure where your numbers are coming from, but the Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan) cites the Bush tax cuts dollars and its impact on the deficit. Sounds pretty significant to me--wouldn't going back to the Clinton tax rates, when the economy did pretty well, seem to be an easy fix? I mean before we start asking folks who make less than 20K to pony up more money so that Romney and the like can offshore more of their money and pass it on to their children shouldn't we at least explore policy that generated a budget surplus?

btw, China owns about 8% of our debt (I think), and several other countries actually have higher percentages--Japan and France come to mind. Again, deficits matter but not nearly as you and others make it out. Again, tell me why we don't worry about deficits when Reagan and Bush run up our debt? I'm waiting . . . we had 8 years under Bush and 8 years under Reagan--the size of the government increased and the deficits increased. This isn't blame game; this is to highlight flawed policy that is detrimental to the majority of Americans--you and I included. You know what I want right now? I want my government borrowing MORE money (have you seen interest rates lately?)--it's how we got out of the Great Depression--the government needs to increase demand; the private sector can't/won't do it alone (profits have never, ever been higher yet the economy is still weak--why?)

our politicians have made promises that cannot be kept.  not even close. for those under 55..  they can choose to stay with the current program...  or a voucher to choose among competing insurers.  out of pocket will be means tested.  will everyone take a hit.  YES.    will everyone take a bigger hit if we do nothing    YES.  will the poor be hurt the most if we do nothing...  absolutely.    but it is time for us to put on our big boy pants .  i would welcome a written plan from the left to compare/contrast to the ryan budget.  i am sure that there will be aspects of their plan.....  if it is ever written..  that will be helpful in the debate.  i am not advocating the ryan budget....

If nothing else happens (including taking money from it for other expenditures), Social Security is fully solvent until 2036. Yes, we need make changes but frankly it's silly at best to tell the custodian at the local school he can't retire until he's 70 b/c we want Romney/Buffet paying 14% in taxes. What's the cap for SS anyway? 100K, I believe--might that not be a place to start? And both parties continue to kick the can down the road, partly b/c taxes have becomes such a dirty word--the conversation neither party is willing to have w/ Americans is our need to increase revenue; this is so obvious that I'm not sure why it's not part of the debate. Go back and look at some of the negotiations that Reagan had regarding the deficit--he understood the need to increase revenue and actually raised taxes on Americans at least 7 times during his presidency--again, why is this not part of our current discussion? (start the blame w/ the Grover Norquist-types) And the comparison is available here:

*(I couldn't find the one chart that I saw that showed any current Republican candidate budget plan would actually increase the deficit over Obama's plan--but here are some other tidbits. btw, this isn't partisanship--I might vote for Jill Stein. I'm simply pointing out that the R's aren't offering a solution to your primary concern)

*from Ezra Klein on the Rachel Maddow Show on Feb. 13, 2012. (I formatted this a bit to aid reading) Right now, taxes are way, way, way low. In 2011, tax revenues were 15.4 percent of GDP.
To give you an idea of how low that is, before the financial crisis, you had to go back to 1950 -- 1950 -- to find a year when taxes were that low. In 1950, there was no Medicare, there was no Medicaid, there wasn`t even a Hawaii as one of the 50 states of the United States.For comparison sake, taxes under Reagan were 18.2 percent of GDP.

So, think about that next time you hear about Obama is taxing the economy to death. Taxes under Obama are lower, at least they have been so far, than they were under Reagan. It`s not even close.Now, taxes are so low right now Obama the Bush tax cuts brought them there, and because of the recession. But as the economy recovers, takes will come back a bit, too.
Budget experts say they`ll get back to 17.9 percent of GDP. That`s if we just keep the Bush tax cuts and let the economy come back. But if that happens our deficits will be huge -- huge. So we have to do something.
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31066137/media-kit/>
But Mitt Romney and President Obama have very, very, very different ideas as to what to do and who should pay for it.Obama`s budget wants to raise taxes on the rich by $1.5 trillion. That means taxes rise to 19.2 percent of GDP.
Romney meanwhile wants to cut taxes further. His plan would extend all of the Bush tax cuts and then further reduce taxes on the rich. Taxes would fall to about 17 percent of GDP.But what`s really interesting in these two plans is who would pay.

The Tax Policy Center is this great group of non-partisan wonks who look at all these policies in way more detail than I even can stand. But every so often, they emerge from their caves and they sort of blink because they
haven`t seen the sunlight forever, and they give us great estimates how much different groups of people would pay under the different plans.And they`ve looked at Obama and Romney`s plans. Turns out very different groups of people would pay.

If you are in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution, in Obama`s plan you`ll pay federal tax rate of 1.8 percent. Under Romney`s plan, you`ll pay almost double that, 3.4 percent. That`s the poorest group.

If you`re in the middle, it`s a lot closer, 15.2 percent under Obama`s plan, 15.6 percent under Romney`s plan. But if you`re in that top 1 percent, as both Romney and Obama are, the difference becomes huge. Under
Obama`s plan, you pay 36.3 percent. Under Romney`s plan, 25.9 percent.

To get that out of percents and into dollars, if you`re in the top 1 percent, under Romney, your taxes will be $160,000 lower than it will be under Obama, $160,000. Tax cuts of that size cost a lot of money, trillions of dollars. And Romney`s promised he won`t pay for that by cutting defense. He`s promised he won`t pay for it by raising taxes elsewhere and his promise to balance the budget. So, you can actually run the numbers.

To make those numbers work, to make the taxes and spending balance out, he will have to cut almost twice as deep in spending as Paul Ryan`s budget does. It means he will have to cut every single domestic program,
including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of them by 36 percent -- 36 percent.

And you know who relies on domestic programs like those? Senior citizens and the poor. Think all of the seniors voting Republican want a 36 percent cut to Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for Romney`s
tax cuts for the wealthy? I sort of doubt it.

*this one analyzes Ryan's budget: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/paul-ryans-budget-should-the-poor-pay-for-deficit-reduction/2011/08/25/gIQAxawWPS_blog.html>

*from Mike Lofgren, retired Republican Congressional staffer (28 yrs): The Republican hopefuls who want to relieve Obama of his job would not simply add two or three trillion dollars of deficits over the next decade, as the president has proposed to do. Mitt Romney, who touts his business acumen as a prime qualification to be president, makes Obama appear as tight-fisted as Grover Cleveland by comparison. Romney's initial tax plan<http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/upload/description-Romney-plan.pdf> was as follows: those making more than $1 million a year would receive an average federal income tax cut of $145,000 by 2015. This scheme would increase deficits by about $180 billion annually by 2015, according to the Tax Policy Center. But apparently that was not enough to satisfy his contributors, so at the end of February 2012, Romney added a 20 percent cut in all income tax rates and a repeal of the AMT. The Center estimated<http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3298> that the 20 percent rate cut would add an additional $150 billion to the deficit in 2015 alone. The policy group did not calculate a ten-year estimate, but it is safe to say that Romney's new and improved boondoggle would add about $3 trillion over ten years on top of Obama's pre-existing plan to increase the deficit by $2.7 trillion.

*also from same policy guy who wrote the excerpt below:  <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/05/3-conservative-myths-about-government>

*from US News: The Ryan budget aspires to cut the budget deficit (as a share of the economy) from 8.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product, known as GDP, last year to 1.2 percent in 2022. That's the same 2022 deficit that the Congressional Budget Office estimates we would reach anyway if we made no significant legislative changes affecting the budget for the next 10 years (see office's "baseline" projections here<http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/March2012Baseline.pdf>).

we have incredible fiscal problems at the city-state level also that are about to blow up.  smart people disagree about whether tax cuts have been good/bad.  but there is another record in history to consider......the record of govt centered economys.  zero successes.    there are two sides on the coin.        there is one question the right asks the left constantly......  but the left never gives a firm answer.  i believe you will..  so i will ask you.    considering state local and federal taxes...  at what percentage does it become immoral.  i say not a dime over 50% in state local and federal combined.

Yeah, the big problems are coming from the shift in the tax burden--the economy did quite well from the late 1940s through the early/mid '70s with much higher tax rates than we're paying now. The problem is that the cut in federal income tax (which is a progressive tax) is forcing local/states to go to increasing our sales tax, for example, which is a regressive tax. You and I paying more in sales tax is a bigger slice of our pie than Romney/Buffet paying the same sales tax.

And, yes, smart people debate the merits of tax cuts but most economists cut through the politics and tell  we can't fix it w/out bumping up the revenues. Again, even Reagan did this. I'm not sure what the magic number is, but I know if Romney/Buffet are paying only 14% in federal taxes that money is ultimately coming from you and me. When the economy did well, generally, for 30+ years, our tax rates were higher than they are now. So, it's not the "taxes kill the economy" argument can really stand up to scrutiny. The other thing to keep in mind: many in Ohio are now paying over 25% of their income for healthcare--why are we paying the middlemen (the insurance companies)? Other countries are smarter and more upfront about this and this is why they have universal healthcare--everyone pays their fair share. Imagine how stimulative it would be to the economy if small businesses didn't have to pay for helathcare--wow, how many people could they hire then? And imagine the buying power we would have if everyone chips in--Medicare for all makes a lot of sense.

I think I've gone on entirely too long--thanks for listening. As a former Republican who voted for George W. Bush in 2000, I would encourage you to challenge your party, your assumptions--I try to do this. For a while, I was entrenched entirely in Democrats good, Republicans bad but that's not overly fruitful either. Both parties are not very responsive to their constituents and both serve corporate needs over our own. Having said that, I don't recognize this Republican party at all. This is an ugly, new creation. And with all due respect, Tim, I'm not sure how folks from the middle can even get behind their self-serving and destructive policies. I don't say this to be inflammatory or to not value your opinion/position, but simply as someone looking at what the party in general is advocating, whether it be budgetary or social policy--it's a far cry from Eisenhower and even Reagan.

I think the Occupy Movement is on the right track and am hopeful that we can get our government back from the corporations. Until then, we're both probably screwed.

good talking to you--
peace
Eric

________________________________

i don't feel this is partisan.  i am unconcerned about how we got here.  that is a recipe for disaster.  have we not had enough of the blame game?  by 2015-16 we will be paying so much interest on our debt to china...  about 300 billion...that they will have their defense budget paid for by U.S. taxpayers.    by about 2021  the INTEREST on the debt will be about one trillion a year.  these are the kind of numbers we are looking at.  the bush tax cuts are about 700 billion...  OVER 10 YEARS.  70 billion a year.  not something that will make any significant  difference.    our politicians have made promises that cannot be kept.  not even close. for those under 55..  they can choose to stay with the current program...  or a voucher to choose among competing insurers.  out of pocket will be means tested.  will everyone take a hit.  YES.    will everyone take a bigger hit if we do nothing    YES.  will the poor be hurt the most if we do nothing...  absolutely.    but it is time for us to put on our big boy pants .  i would welcome a written plan from the left to compare/contrast to the ryan budget.  i am sure that there will be aspects of their plan.....  if it is ever written..  that will be helpful in the debate.  i am not advocating the ryan budget....  i am open to all suggestions.    we have incredible fiscal problems at the city-state level also that are about to blow up.  smart people disagree about whether tax cuts have been good/bad.  but there is another record in history to consider......the record of govt centered economys.  zero successes.    there are two sides on the coin.        there is one question the right asks the left constantly......  but the left never gives a firm answer.  i believe you will..  so i will ask you.    considering state local and federal taxes...  at what percentage does it become immoral.  i say not a dime over 50% in state local and federal combined.    watched the end of that tribe game last nite.  rough.  but masterson looked great.  best wishes  tim

________________________________

Dear, Mr. Met.

We should really meet over on my blog (it was help build my content) :-)

But, since you asked . . . yes, that's the basic difference between Republicans and Democrats--how to "fix" the economy--we each have our standard approaches. However, since we've had about 10 years of tax cutting as a way to stimulate the economy, I think it's fairly safe to say that it's not working as well as the R's would have us believe (the problem is that Obama, in an effort to be seen as a centrist, has neutered his best progressive plans by implementing/continuing tax cuts rather than actual stimulative efforts; i.e., spending by the Fed government.

Before I forget, you should read my post from tonight--it addresses this topic more thoroughly. But, let me say this--

1. since when did deficits become the boogy man? They're not good, by any means, but they're most definitely not  the biggest problem we face economically. (ironically, deficits grew under Reagan and Bush--and they weren't a big deal. But now we have a Democrat in the WH and it's "the sky is falling"). Now, this, of course, doesn't mean we ignore it but we ensure its full negative impact if we cut gov spending (again, see tonight's post for explanation).

2. fixes, you ask? do nothing . . . allow the Bush tax cuts to expire; half the deficit goes away. The other half? stop fighting our wars--voila, deficit nearly gone, and we didn't have to blame workers who serve the public good (firefighters, cops, teachers, et al.).

3. go look at unbiased assessments of the budget plans being offered by the Presidential candidates--you'll never guess whose plan does the best . . . btw, anybody who makes under 250,000 shouldn't touch that plan being offered up by Paul Ryan (coupons for Medicare? come on, Man).

we'll talk more soon--here's to the Mets and Tribe meeting in Oct.

peace
Eric

________________________________


i had a question regarding your mar 31st blog.  as i mentioned before...  i feel the poor/infirm  will be devastated if we do not stop with these trillion dollar deficits.  others will be hurt also...  but have more resources to cushion the blow.  you may not believe this...  but the right does not want to do anything but help the poor.  they just disagree with the remedies of the left.    do you have ideas on deficit reduction...  or does it just not matter.  it matters to me because i do care and want to avoid a meltdown....  which..  again....  will devastate the poor disproportionately.  respectfully    mr.met

________________________________
I'm w/ ya, Brother--I think there is a simple solution (but oh so hard to implement): money in politics, get rid of it. Right now we're not being represented, the corporations are and we the rabble are really just flotsam right now, for the most part.

And I'm w/ you specifically on the hypocrisy--if you're going to bang on Bush for wireless wire-tapping, then you better bang on Obama for Pvt. Manning, black sites, drones, and the assassination of a US citizen w/out trial (just to name a few).

good hearing from you--
be well
Eric


________________________________


the funny thing about our present polarized politics is how each side gets dramatic about about the part of the issue that they want to address    and purposely ignore the part of the issue that does not fit their template.  it is really fun to watch.  that is the fun for me in politics.  the kind of hypocracy that is slightly submerged.  you won't see it if you are not informed.  that is what they count on....  and with people so quick to cast aspersions on the other side...  it goes mostly unnoticed by the great unwashed.    but both sides...  even the fire-breathers    love america.  which makes everything even more heartbreaking.  because i fear we are in very serious trouble on many fronts.  and i am starting to lose faith in whether we will be able to fix things.  i wish we could have a referendum on firing every senator and congressperson and starting anew with new people who would need to pledge to cooperate/compromise.  it would be interesting to see if it would pass.      but today is opening day!!!!  as  i send this  the mets are tied for 1st place!!!!!  peace tw

________________________________




"The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich; the rights of workers over the maximization of profits; the preservation of the environment over uncontrolled industrial expansion; production to meet social needs over production for military purposes." Pope John Paul II


________________________________

that is the first blog i have ever read.  thanks, Tim--I appreciate that.  you seem dedicated to your positions..  a great american tradition.  do you know any informed conservatives that you have a friendly exchange with?  it is always best to test your views vs. the opposing view....  it can confirm your view...  or make you reconsider. yeah, I like give/take as much as the next guy and I think this is a good idea--USA Today carries Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel in this format/approach--truth be told, I think it's more of a secondary purpose of the blog--my main goal is to talk to people above/around mainstream media, who no longer report news but sensationalize and ultimately distort truth and fact--we saw how nearly all media mishandled the Iraq War yet they're doing it again w/ Iran. It's sorta--yeah, this is what is being said but let me tell you what it really means--although I am much more humble than that sounds.  i like the cambridge debate forum..  roberts rules of order and all.  i saw a great one from the late christopher hitchens vs ramesh ponneru..  name misspelled... on religion.  both men breathtakingly smart.  although i am christian..  i try to view intellectual argument  with an open mind.  i thought ramesh pinned him.  unfortunately for me...  i have tried this with a couple of close friends thinking it would go fine.  i ended up being sadly mistaken. you're right--most people don't want truth--they want media,et al to confirm or re-affirm what they already believe; friends of mine won't even watch Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert b/c of their "politics" i have a pretty easy going attitude about it.  to me  it is like a met fan teasing a yankee fan.  all in good fun.  the liberals i have tried to engage intellectually have resorted to saying things with the intent of being hurtful. I really tried to guard against this--its' the old adage abut religion and politics, right? don't discuss them w/ family or friends--no upside (haha).  oh well..  lessons learned.  but i have to remind you of my fear....  that i get to heaven and find out that everything i was certain of was incorrect.  i think it is good to consider.  keeps one humble.  good luck with your blog!!  i enjoyed reading it. thanks again for reading (and writing)--be well, Eric  PS--I've put up a few more posts over the weekend . . . feel free to chime in.
tim

No Smoking Allowed on School Grounds (fracking? sure.)

*this first piece appeared in The Canton Repository late last summer; the second piece (after the 2nd jump) is more recent and addresses the local school BOE's decision to, in fact, allow fracking beneath the school.  I passed the story along to The Rachel Maddow Show but haven't gotten a response yet  . . .

(update: the school district is located here in NE Ohio; the Superintendent referenced recently retired)

* * * * *

So, is this what the new economic austerity model looks like?  Schools forced to strip themselves bare for operating dollars as the governor repeals the estate tax so the rich can pass on all their wealth just like they used to do in the Old Country (how’s that for meritocracy?)

It sure seems like a shortsighted and desperate way to close a budget gap, but I can understand why the leaders at a local school are doing what they’re doing—revenue streams are drying up and we need money to run schools.  But what a perfect symbol of the times.  In case you missed it in the Sunday paper, Marlington will be selling off its lumber and allowing companies to drill for oil and natural gas beneath school property (taking care to assure its citizenry that the drill pad won’t be on school property—just the horizontal fracturing with its millions of gallons of “secret” fracking fluid).  That should calm concerned parents who are up at night worrying whether those chemicals from fracking really can leach into the water supply or not. 

Recently, the House voted to strip power from the Federal EPA, allowing states to be responsible for enforcing certain clean water regulations.  How confident are you that will happen?  We can’t even fund our schools.  Everything keeps getting shifted from the federal level to the state to the local level in some crazy shell game.  At some point, somebody has to pay the piper—we need roads repaired, we need police and firefighters, we need high quality educators. And, we still need to run our public schools.  At what point do we decide to stop this slide toward third-world solutions and stop serving the interests of the few elites and actually do something that benefits the common good?  

Our total tax burden is at its lowest since Eisenhower—when do we step up and pay our share?  Every single person reading this letter has benefited in some way from the collective good of others, whether it was attending a quality public school or having a fire truck nearby to put out a house fire—we have all benefited at one time or another from the support of our community. But you wouldn’t know it from what Marlington is being forced to do.     

Shame on the politicians for allowing this to happen here and shame on those of you who don’t support your schools.  And shame on all of us for allowing this to happen in Ohio. In America. It’s disgraceful.   

Hang on to that firewood, Superintendent Nicodemo, you just may need it to heat the place before all is said and done.

* * * * *

You’ve got to be kidding—that was my response to the small piece tucked inside Friday’s Rep re Marlington Local Schools and their decision to allow Chesapeake Energy to place horizontal wells beneath school property. Ohio, which Kasich has been running like America’s biggest yard sale, even has instituted a stay on fracking in the Youngstown area while we figure what else besides earthquakes are unintended consequences of hydraulic fracturing. But Marlington says “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!” (yes, the drill pads are off school property so as not to be a visual reminder of what lurks below). Going to school will be sorta like going on vacation to Mexico—you don’t drink the water.

And, yes, I read about the money. Big haul. I do wish though I could have been a fly on the wall during closed-door discussions—Do we have any science that demonstrates its safety? Nope, but the Governor and the ODNR, with its staff of 24* well inspectors for the entire state and who are funded primarily by the permit fees by the gas and oil industry they supposedly regulate, insist that it’s safe. Must have been good enough for school officials and the parents of Marlington schoolchildren.

Maybe they were convinced by local officials from other communities who salivate at the prospect of their own little yard sale leading to a boomtown. The problem is that people seem to forget what a boomtown actually is—they swell up real fast and then collapse into ruin once the land has been sucked dry.

I’ll admit that I held out a glimmer of hope for reason and caution as I read one board member dissented, but, alas, it was because she thought they could have gotten more money from Chesapeake. Can someone tell me when did we become a third-world society? 

*this is how many inspectors the ODNR had on staff last year when the fracking debate first broke. At a local panel discussion w/ representatives from each "side," the ODNR rep stated that the goal was to increase the number of inspectors from 24 to 36. Before any of us had heard of fracking, Ohio already had over 66,000 wells in place. Thousands of leases for hydraulic fracturing/drilling (fracking) have been signed since--those are going to be some very busy inspectors . . . 

couple pieces worth checking out (via Glenn Greenwald)

*the following piece is from the Republic Report; highlights contributors to the Chamber of Commerce, which is not your dad's Chamber . . . plus, you get a nice picture of pink slime. yum!

http://www.republicreport.org/2012/exclusive-chamber-funding-corporations/

 *from this Noam Chomsky piece: ""the era of affordable four-year public universities, heavily subsidized by the state, may be over." Chomsky always worth reading, if not a a bit uncomfortable (like Greenwald, I believe). 

http://www.alternet.org/education/154849/chomsky%3A_how_the_young_are_indoctrinated_to_obey/?page=1

The Abyss that is Austerity

Recently, as I was driving across the Hoover Bridge in North Canton, which was named for a Herbert Hoover--but not the one who was President, I got to thinking about the one who was our 31^st President and the Great Depression. 

A lot of discussion and debate has gone on over the last three and a half years about the nation’s economy and whose fault it is/was.  We’ve all heard that our economy is the weakest it’s been since the Great Depression, which, of course, takes me back to Pres. Hoover. 

Most agree by now that Hoover mishandled the economic downturn from the start; he heard the now-familiar clamor—No new taxes!  We don’t have the money!  We all have to tighten our belts!  And he listened to the noise, cutting spending and helping to plunge the country deeply into the Great Depression. It wasn’t until Pres. Roosevelt began injecting governmental money into the economy did things begin to turn around (it wasn’t WWII that did it; that was later). Yes, it seems counter-intuitive at first, but history confirms the way out of deep economic problems is not to cut, but to spend.  And most economists agree that cutting spending now—what Congress and the President want to do, despite the lessons of history—will lead to the same disastrous results that we had the last time the economy was like it is today.

Economist Robert Frank of Cornell recently offered an example of what I’m talking about: Highway 80 in Nevada is in need of repair.  To fix it now would cost the state 6 million dollars. That’s a lot of money and money that the politicians in Nevada say they can’t spare.  If they wait two years—you know, when the economy magically turns around—it will cost Nevada 30 million dollars. That’s a lot more money.  What would you do? (I’ll mention that interest rates haven’t been this low for a really, really long time and Nevada, like Ohio and other states, has many unemployed).  By repairing the roads now, the state puts people back to work, who, in turn, contribute to the economy by purchasing goods and services, paying taxes, getting off unemployment, and the state saves lots of money in the long run. Regardless of your political ideology, the highway needs fixed; it’s not an option, like say, repealing the estate tax.

I truly believe that many people are frightened by our economic future and have been led to believe that if we just tighten our belts a bit more, if we just cut a bit more here, a bit more there, that in a short time, all will be better.  How? Productivity has never been higher as profits soar and many companies, sitting on hordes of money—some would say taxpayer money—still are implicitly encouraged to ship jobs overseas. So, there is no immediate incentive for employers to expand the work force. Yeah, a job is a job, but is the state of Ohio really well served by a bunch of eight dollar an hour jobs with no benefits and no future?  I don’t get it.  And neither did Pres. Hoover.  The difference now is that we have a historical precedence to learn from—the economy worsens when the government cuts spending. The looming question remains: have we learned our lesson?  Or, like lemmings, will we follow today’s leaders with their Hoover-like fixes off the bridge and down into another economic abyss? 

a heads up (email I received earlier today from The Daily Kos)

Eric , in an attempt to keep the American people from eating shit (literally), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently inspects all chicken and turkey carcasses for things like bruises, bile and feces before they are sent to further processing.

However, the UDSA is now considering a pilot program that would eliminate that inspection and allow private poultry processing plants to do whatever they want. The USDA is holding a public commenting period on this proposed change through April 26.

Please, click here to sign our petition opposing the privatization of poultry inspection. We will submit your signatures and comments to the USDA before the April 26 deadline.

Why is the USDA considering this change? To cut government jobs and allow private companies to make millions:

In an article from early March, Food Safety News dug up a study [PDF] showing the program is projected to save FSIS up to $95 million over three years, and to give a $250 million boost to poultry companies.

And the result of this will be Americans eating shit, literally. When a privatization program like this was tried out in the 1990s, the crap that ended up in the food was gag-worthy:

The inspection category that had the highest error rate was for dressing defects such as feathers, lungs, oil glands, trachea, and bile still on the carcass. The average error rate for this category in the chicken slaughter facilities was 64 percent and 87 percent in turkey slaughter facilities.

Please, click here to tell the USDA not to allow poultry plants to regulate themselves.

Keep fighting,
Chris Bowers, Daily Kos