Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Republicans Are The Biggest Spenders
Economist Mark Thoma, who teaches at the University of Oregon, decided to find out just who the biggest spenders really were. The chart above shows what he found when he looked at the figures for the last forty years. It turns out that the presidents that increased spending the most were all Republicans (and a couple of the worst offenders had claimed to be conservatives).
The presidents who increased per capita spending the most were Republicans: (1) Nixon-Ford, (2) Reagan, and (3) "W" Bush. And the presidents who increased per capita spending the least were Democrats: (1) Clinton and (2) Obama. That exposes the current Republican claim of President Obama's enormous increase in government spending as an outrageous lie. Both his predecessor George W. Bush and conservative demi-god Ronald Reagan increased per capita spending far more than President Obama has.
Don't get me wrong. I personally believe President Obama should be spending much more than he is currently spending. That's because of the massive unemployment and faltering economy we are currently cursed with (and which was caused by Republican de-regulation and mismanagement). The government should be spending more to create jobs (even if it has to create government jobs) and prime the economic pump. I just want that money spent to help ordinary Americans, rather than how the Republicans spent it (on wars, military build-ups, corporate giveaways, etc.).
Now we know the truth. It is not the Democrats who are the big spenders, but the Republicans. The sad part is that the big-spending Republicans refused to spend any money on things that would actually help ordinary Americans.
Illinois Republicans Get Their Say Today
Last week's polls showed a close race between Wall Street Willie (aka Willard Mitt Romney) and Mr. Frothy (aka Rick Santorum), but two new polls just released show Romney has extended his lead to double-digits. I think Romney is probably the favorite now, but I'm not sure it is that much. Santorum has been consistently outperforming his poll numbers.
As it has been in many other states, it seems to be boiling down to a urban/suburban versus rural thing. Romney is favored in the urban areas and the suburbs, while Santorum is favored in the rural areas. Will the Chicago area rule the day, or will downstate voters call the shots? We'll know by late tonight. Meanwhile, here are the latest poll numbers:
PUBLIC POLICY POLLING (Illinois)
Mitt Romney...............45%
Rick Santorum...............30%
Newt Gingrich...............12%
Ron Paul...............10%
AMERICAN RESEARCH GROUP POLL (Illinois)
Mitt Romney...............44%
Rick Santorum...............30%
Newt Gingrich...............13%
Ron Paul...............8%
Obama Fund-Raising
The Washington Post had a headline today that I guess is supposed to worry the people supporting President Obama's re-election. It said the the president is lagging behind in big donor contributions. It noted that at this point in 2008, Obama had received 23,000 donations of $2,000 or more while this year he's only received 11,000 donations of $2,000 or more. The obvious inference was that President Obama might not have adequate campaign funds to compete with the Republican candidate in the general election.
And it's true that President Obama doesn't have the same amount of big donors as he did in 2008. The corporations and Wall Street bankers could see which way the wind was blowing that year, and they tried to buy some good will by throwing some money to Obama. They are not doing that this year. This year they are doing their best to try and get one of their Republican buddies (preferably Romney) elected.
But that doesn't mean President Obama will not have enough money to compete. That headline overlooks a couple of things. First, in 2008 Obama had to spend much of the money he'd raised by this point because he was in a tough primary fight with Hillary Clinton. He doesn't have to do that this year. All of the money he has raised can be put into the general election against whoever the Republicans nominate.
Second, President Obama is not doing too badly in his fund-raising efforts. It's just that the money is coming in from ordinary Americans who can only afford smaller donations. In January, President Obama raised about $29.1 million -- more than any of the Republican candidates raised (and more than all of them put together raised). The president did much better in February -- raising over $45 million dollars. And 98% of those donations were $250 or less (with the average donation being about $59).
How did the Republicans do in February? Romney raised about $11.5 million and Santorum raised about $9 million -- and they are spending it like water in a nasty primary campaign. I don't mean to suggest the Republicans won't be able to compete financially in the general election. While the GOP candidate probably can't hope to match the president in direct contributions to his campaign, you can bet the Wall Street and corporate money will flow freely into his super-PAC.
It will be Obama's campaign money against the Republican's super-PAC money. Frankly, I like the fact that most of Obama's money is coming from small donors. Maybe that means he will not be as beholding to Wall Street as the Republican candidate (who will virtually be owned by the rich).
Will Obama have the money to compete? Absolutely. Ordinary Americans will see to that.
Cable Coverage Of Racist Shooting
Monday, March 19, 2012
The Outrageous Truth About Oil & Gas
These are the same companies that are telling us they must have the federal government subsidies or they won't be able to survive. That is nothing less than an outrageous LIE! The above profits are without taking into account any government subsidies. The subsidies have nothing to do with their profits. They only cut drastically the amount of taxes they will have to pay on those profits.
Personally, I think if American workers are expected to pay income taxes on their paltry salaries then oil companies making from $12 billion to $40 billion a year in profits should be paying their full share of taxes also. You will hear them whine that they won't have the money to hunt for new oil resources if they have to pay their taxes, but that is another outrageous lie. The exploration for new oil is a business expense (and has already been subtracted). Once again, these are profits -- what is left after all expenses have been subtracted.
These are also the companies that keep raising the price of the gasoline we all must have for our autos. They tell us they will go broke if they don't raise those prices. Look again at the figures above, and then tell me if you believe that. They are nowhere near going broke. They just want to make even more money than the already record-breaking profits they currently make. It is not necessity, but greed that is driving up gas prices.
That brings us to one final lie being told by Big Oil (and their congressional Republican cohorts) -- that President Obama is to blame for the rising gas prices. That may be the most outrageous lie of all. Let's examine a few facts:
* No president (of either party) has any control over gas prices.
* The amount of foreign oil as a percentage of U.S. total oil consumption has fallen to a smaller percentage than in any year of the Bush administration.
* The number of drilling rigs currently operating is higher than in any year of the Bush administration.
* The number of permits for new drilling is currently higher than in any year of the Bush administration.
It is time to stop listening to the lies being spread by Big Oil (and their Republican lackeys).
Recovery Is A Myth For Most Americans
It all boils down to how the government has acted in response to it. In 1932, the country elected a huge majority of Democrats to Congress and put Democrat Franklin Roosevelt in the White House. The Democrats then went to work creating jobs. They created many jobs through government programs like the Works Project Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC), and taxed the rich to pay for it. These organizations went to work building America up, and we still enjoy many of the projects they completed.
But this also did something else besides putting some people in government jobs. It also increased the money flowing through the economy (because the people with those jobs now had money to spend). And all that new spending boosted the small businesses around the country, and as their business improved they also began to hire workers. The actions by those Democrats resulted in a rising economic tide that helped most Americans.
But Americans are not good at learning from history, so when the Great Recession struck in 2008 the country's leaders did exactly the opposite of what the government had done to cure the Great Depression. They did this because the Democrats did not have a big enough majority to override Republican obstructionism. In 2009 and 2010, the Republicans in the Senate mis-used the filibuster rule to block any efforts the Democrats made to create large numbers of jobs.
The Republicans then shrunk the economy by laying off massive amounts of government workers (on both the state and federal level), cutting social programs severely, encouraging the export of American jobs, and extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. And to their great shame, too many Democrats went along with this. This shrinking of the amount of money flowing through the economy also had the effect of hurting small businesses, so they also laid off workers.
After the 2010 elections, the Republicans had control of the House of Representatives so the obstructionism shifter from the Senate to the House. But the Republican policies (to block help for ordinary Americans while giving more to the rich) is still having the same effect it did in 2009 and 2010 -- to keep the recession going for most Americans while only the richest Americans enjoy a "recovery".
There is a solution -- vote as many Republicans out of office as possible, and replace them with progressives. The Republicans know they have no solutions for the economic recovery of most Americans -- they just don't care as long as they can keep the money flowing to their rich Wall Street and corporate buddies.
That's why they are trying to change the political venue from the economy to social issues (like abortion, contraception, immigration, race, same-sex marriage, etc.). If the Republicans are successful in changing the political agenda, then we can expect the economic pain to last many years longer for most Americans.
Wall Street Willie Wins Puerto Rico Easily
Romney has done very well this year in Hawaii and the island territories, winning all of them fairly easily. It's just here in the continental U.S. that he is having problems. He probably would have won Puerto Rico anyway, but it didn't hurt that Santorum screwed himself during his trip there. Santorum didn't just shoot himself in the foot, he filled his feet with bullet holes by telling the residents of that island they would never become a state until they learned to speak English.
That was an incredibly stupid thing to do. It was the equivalent of telling a room full of women they don't deserve equal pay or the right to contraception, or telling a room full of African-Americans that slavery wasn't so bad. I would say it shows he's not qualified to be president, but I don't think any of the Republican candidates are qualified (including Romney). Here are the numbers for the Puerto Rico primary:
PUERTO RICO (83% reporting)
Mitt Romney...............98,375 (88.01%)
Rick Santorum...............9,524 (8.52%)
Newt Gingrich...............2,431 (2.17%)
Ron Paul...............1,452 (1.30%)
TOTAL VOTES...............111,782
Tomorrow the GOP nominating race moves on to Illinois, where there are 69 delegates at stake. The last polls available showed Wall Street Willie with a small lead over Mr. Frothy (Santorum). We'll know Tuesday night if that is true.
A Satire On The "War On Women"
She is absolutely right. Republicans seem determined to cut both rights and services for American women. They have, in essence, declared war on women -- and seem determined to put and keep women in a second-class citizenship status. Here in Texas, Republican legislators have mandated that women seeking a legal abortion must be raped by a vaginal probe and humiliated before exercising their constitutional right (which if performed by an individual would result in a well-deserved and lengthy prison sentence).
My fellow Texas blogger, John C. over at Bay Area Houston (an excellent resource on Texas politics), has written a great post. It is a very funny tongue-in-cheek satire on the Texas vaginal rape law (and the general war on women). I am reposting it here for your benefit:
Governor calls for new prostate exam procedures.
"Every life lost to prostate disease is a tragedy we all must work together to prevent, and I commend Rep. Miller and Sen. Patrick for their hard work on this significant legislation,"
Friday March 16, 2012 • Austin, Texas • Press Release
Gov. Rick Perry ceremonially announce his support for new legislation crafted by Senator Dan Patrick and Representative Sid Miller which requires men to have a modified prostate procedure to ensure he is fully informed before making any impactful decisions.The governor designated the measure an emergency item for the upcoming 2013 Legislative Session. He was joined by Sen. Dan Patrick and Rep. Sid Miller at the ceremony. "This important bill will ensure that every Texas man seeking or not seeking a prostate exam has all the facts about the procedure, and understands the devastating impact of such a life-changing decision."
The bill will require a series of hour long anal probes, performed by specialists with overly large digits, which will provide much needed information for men to determine what medical procedures would be necessary in the future. Under this legislation, a physician is required to display the results of the probe and explain the results in graphic detail.
"This bill will protect human life: the lives of men who may or may not want a prostate exam, as well as those who are faced with such a life changing decision," said Rep Sid Miller. "By providing men with a full 24-hour waiting period between these long, detailed, penetrating, pulsating, anal probes, this bill will provide men with adequate time to catch their breath and weight the impacts of their life-changing decision of taking a desk job without the use of Preparation H."
"Today is a great day for men's health in Texas," Sen. Patrick said. "This bill will greatly improve men's healthcare in Texas, provide men the information that they deserve through informed consent of a pulsating, probing, and long duration anal probe, and will undoubtedly save thousands of lives."
After the ceremony Dr. Miller joined Dr. Patrick in performing a medical procedure to remove Perry's head from his ass.
NOTE: State Senator Dan Patrick and State Representative Sid Miller are the Republicans who wrote and pushed through the Texas vaginal rape law. They would, of course, never actually write a law like the one above -- because that would subject them to the same kind of rape and humiliation they have so happily forced upon Texas women.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Religion Blew It's Chance
Missouri Results Unknown - Puerto Rico Votes Today
But we all know that's not true. Whether technically committed or not, the caucus-goers voted for delegates that promised to support a specific candidate. Why else would they fight so hard among the individual caucuses -- and fight they did (with one caucus so rowdy the police had to be called and it had to be adjourned before they even opened the session fully). But if the state party wants to keep the delegate allocations secret, there's not much us political junkies can do about it.
There shouldn't be any such problems from the Puerto Rico primary being held today, or the Illinois primary being held next Tuesday. The results (and delegate allocation) from those states should be known on the night of their primaries. Puerto Rico has 23 delegates and Illinois has 69 delegates to offer. And the way the GOP nomination race has been going, every single delegate is a valuable commodity this year -- as a brokered convention is still a real possibility.
There have been rumors in the last few days of an effort to avoid a brokered convention. It is said that Ron Paul has put out discreet feelers to the Romney campaign -- an opening gambit to arrange for a deal where Paul throws his delegate support to Romney. Paul will wind up in fourth place in delegate totals most likely, but he could well have enough delegates to put Romney over the top.
What would Paul get in return? There are two possibilities. First would be a promise to support some of Paul's nutty ideas if he is elected. I don't see that happening. Those ideas are anathema to Wall Street (and Romney), and I doubt the teabaggers and libertarians would trust Romney enough to think he would follow through on any promise he made. He has just done too much flip-flopping.
But there's another possibility -- an even scarier one. That would be for Romney to give the vice-presidential slot to Rand Paul (Ron's son). Rand Paul wants to run for president in 2016, and running this year as a vice-presidential candidate would get him a lot of exposure . The move is also likely to win the support of the teabaggers and libertarians in the party base -- two groups Romney has been unable to win over so far. The scary part for the rest of us is that it would be similar to McCain's choosing of Palin in 2008 (an effort to get votes by putting an unqualified person only a heartbeat away from the White House).
This just makes it more important than ever to re-elect President Obama this year.
Hoping For Resignation - Not Love
Dem's Failure An Opportunity For Greens
For example, consider the District 13 seat for the United States Congress -- currently held by right-wing Republican Mac Thornberry. This district covers all of the Panhandle and a good part of North Texas (a very large district over 300 miles long). In 2010 the Democratic Party did not even field a candidate for that seat, and they have failed to do so again in 2012.
This is not really surprising since the state Democratic Party leadership has virtually written off West Texas and the Panhandle, and is not willing to invest any money in any races there. Just like in the past, they are concentrating only on the urban areas of Texas and South Texas (where Democrats already hold seats). It's a plan destined to make sure Democrats remain a minority party in Texas, but it's what the leadership has done for years now (and a primary reason why Democrats hold NO statewide elected offices).
But the gutless timidity of the Democratic Party has presented an opportunity for the Green Party. Even though there is no Democratic candidate in Congressional District 13, it will be a three-way race -- and there will be a progressive running for the seat. The Green Party is fielding a candidate for the District 13 seat -- Keith F. Houston of Randall County.
I have no illusions about Mr. Houston's chances of winning -- he's a long shot at best. But strange things happen in politics. If Democrats turn out in large numbers and vote for Houston because there's no Democrat on the ballot, if Libertarians eschew the Republican and vote for their own candidate, and if too many Republicans stay home because they can't stomach the eventual Republican presidential candidate, then a political miracle could happen.
And District 13 is not the only race where Democrats have failed to enter a candidate. There are at least five statewide offices where there are no Democrats running against the Republican incumbent. In two of those races there are Green Party candidates. That should be good enough to get the Green Party enough votes (a minimum of 5%) to stay on the ballot for 2014. My friend and fellow blogger Perry over at Brains and Eggs has written an excellent post on this, and I urge you to read it.
Komen Still Hurting From Their Foray Into Right-Wing Politics
They eventually apologized, and said they would consider giving grants to Planned Parenthood in the future -- although they made no promise to do so. I think they thought that would make everything OK. But personally, I no longer trust the Komen Foundation now that I know the nasty political leanings of the founder and the board of directors. And it looks like I'm not the only one who no longer trusts them.
The Komen Foundation has scheduled its Run For The Cure race in Fort Worth for April 14th. At this point last year, the early registration total for the race stood at 4,178 and eventually around 14,000 participated in the race. But this year the early registrations have been far less, only 2,125 have signed up so far. Race organizers say they're not sure the lag in registration is because of the Planned Parenthood debacle, and hope the registrations will pick up after summer vacation.
I think they are engaging in some wishful thinking. There are a whole lot of people who are still angry about the Komen Foundation entering right-wing political waters. Komen broke their trust, and trust is not something that can be cured in a short period of time with a half-hearted apology.
If I were in the Komen Foundation, I would be very worried. Texas is an ultra-conservative state, and if Komen support is down by 50% here you can imagine how badly they have been hurt in other areas.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Scarred For Life
Missouri GOP Caucuses Today
This could be another big day for Rick Santorum. That's because he took 55% of the vote in the MIssouri primary to only 25% for Romney and 12% for Paul (Gingrich was not on the ballot). But a primary and a caucus are vastly different things. Lots of people will take a few minutes to vote in a primary, but won't take the opportunity to attend a caucus where the procedures can be very time-consuming (and infuriating).
Will Gingrich steal some of the Santorum supporters from the primary? Will Paul do well, or underperform as he has been doing recently? Can Santorum pull off another big victory in Missouri? Or will the Romney supporters turn out in bigger numbers? Late tonight we'll have the answers to all of those questions -- and have a better idea of how the 52 Missouri delegates will be apportioned.
Then tomorrow (Sunday) the territory of Puerto Rico will hold their primary. I haven't seen any polls of the race there, but I have to believe Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) has a very good chance of winning. That's because Santorum tried to commit political suicide when he visited there a few days ago. He told the Puerto Ricans that they would never become a state until they learned to speak English -- not the smartest thing to say on that Spanish-speaking island.
Next Tuesday, only three days from now, the people of Illinois will get their chance to make their choice known in the GOP primary. There are 69 delegates at stake, and recent polls have shown Wall Street Willie (Romney) with a slight lead over Mr. Frothy (Santorum). It's turning out to be a battle between Chicago and the rest of Illinois. Romney is leading in Chicago, while Santorum leads in the rest of Illinois. I wouldn't count Santorum out yet, because he has been doing better than his polling shows. Here are the numbers in the latest polls:
RASMUSSEN POLL (Illinois)
Mitt Romney...............41%
Rick Santorum...............32%
Newt Gingrich...............14%
Ron Paul...............7%
ASK AMERICA POLL (Illinois)
Mitt Romney...............37%
Rick Santorum...............31%
Newt Gingrich...............14%
Ron Paul...............10%
If money was the only thing that mattered, then Wall Street Willie would be assured of winning -- because he has vastly outspent Mr. Frothy in Illinois. The Romney campaign and the Romney super-PAC have together spent over $3.6 million in Illinois so far. The Santorum campaign and the Santorum super-PAC have only spent a little over $700,000.
Can Romney buy himself another state? He was able to do so in Florida, but a 3 to 1 spending advantage in Alabama and Mississippi bought him only a third place finish. We'll have to wait until Tuesday to see what his spending in Illinois has accomplished. This graph shows what the Illinois spending looks like:
Minimum Wage Is A "Slave" Wage
An Atheist Pig ?
There is a new blog that's only been going for a couple of months now. It's called The Atheist Pig, and it puts forward the atheist viewpoint with humor. I like it a lot. If you're an atheist, or just interested in what the "other side" thinks, I recommend you give it a try. Here's a sample of what you'll find there:
When I was a Christian, I remember being in bible study one night, and we were all encouraged to give testimonies about how the lord had been working in our lives.
I’ll never forget that one person said that the washing machine wasn’t working, and she prayed to Jesus, and lo and behold, it started working again.
I found this strange for several reasons.
One: Jesus was supposed to have been a carpenter, not a washing machine repair man.
Two: There were people in the world who were suffering terribly, many of whom would die that very day while Jesus ignored them to fix a washing machine. Priorities man.
Anyway, I know not all Christians treat their god as some kind of magician. This cartoon, however, is directed at those who do.
Also I’d like to say that I think the woman in this comic is pretty hot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)