Let's Try It !

I'll bet if we followed this suggestion from Pundit Kitchen the minimum wage would quickly become a very livable, even comfortable, wage.

Giffords Returns -- Votes To Raise Debt Ceiling

There was a joyous moment on the floor of the House of Representatives yesterday. As the House was voting on the agreement to raise the debt ceiling, Rep. Gabrielle "Gabby" Giffords (D-Arizona) walked in to cast her vote on the matter. It was the first time she had been back to the House floor since being shot in the head last January, and she received a standing ovation from members of both parties. Giffords, a moderately-conservative Democrat, cast her vote in favor of the debt ceiling agreement.

The agreement to raise the debt ceiling with drastic budget cuts attached passed the House rather easily. The bill was approved on a 269 to 161 vote. The bill passed with a huge majority of Republicans voting for it, which makes sense  because they are the real winners of the so-called "compromise" agreement. A total of 174 Republicans voted for the bill while only 66 Republicans voted against it. On the Democratic side of the aisle the vote was split, with 95 Democrats voting for the bill and 95 Democrats voting against the bill.

Now the bill must pass the Senate. Majority Leader Reid has scheduled a vote on it for today, and he probably has enough votes to get it passed (although he will need some fairly significant Republican support to get it done). Most congressional observers expect the bill to pass fairly easily.

I still think this is a bad bill that will do substantial damage to the American economy. It will hurt job creation efforts and will extend the recession being felt by all but the richest Americans -- and it doesn't ask the rich or the corporations to share in the sacrifices that the bill will impose on working, poor, and elderly Americans. And I'm not alone in that belief. Here is what some others are saying about this agreement:

David Van Os, respected Texas progressive, says:
What I have to say about it is that Obamocratic politics is destroying what was left of checks and balances in American politics, thus leaving all non-wealthy Americans more and more undefended against the class war perpetrated by the corporate robber barons and the gangster banksters. This president bears no resemblance to progressivism, populism, leadership, backbone, or to express Democratic Party values. I do not follow him, do not trust him, will not trust him, and will not follow him. To those who will inevitably say, “But oh my gosh, he is the only alternative to the right-wing conservative Republicans,” I say: “Give me an opponent who tells me straight up that he opposes me and doesn’t pretend otherwise. A Trojan horse pretending to my friend is the greatest danger of all because he co-opts my defenses and opens the city gates against me from the inside.” Grass roots Americans who supported this Trojan horse in the election of 2008 need to wake up to the truth about the political fraud that sucked them in.

Mohammed El-Erian, CEO of bond investment firm Pimco, says:
The potential budget agreement “does nothing to restore household and corporate confidence. So unemployment will be higher than it would have been otherwise, growth will be lower than it would be otherwise, and inequality will be worse than it would be otherwise.” [...] “We have a very weak economy, so withdrawing more spending at this stage will make it even weaker."

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist, says:

The deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond.

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

Debt Ceiling Plan

Political Cartoon is by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Plenty Of Fat In Military Budget To Cut

We've been hearing lately from the Republicans that cuts can't be made to our military -- that cutting our military budget (which is several times larger than any other country on Earth) would put our nation in danger. That's simply not true. Not only are there many unneeded programs that could be cut, but there is rampant fraud in the system.

We've already heard about $700 hammers and $30 screws, and the military promised to get rid of that kind of fraud. But now we learn that it is still going on. The U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, has released a review showing the military is still overpaying for items provided by private contractors.

A private contractor named Anham has a $3.9 billion contract with the military, and it looks like they're trying to squeeze out every dime they can from that contract by overcharging the military. The IG's review shows that company has been charging the military $900 for a control switch that can be bought for $7. They are also charging the military $3000 for a $100 circuit breaker and $80 for a plumbing item that sells for $1.41.

This company is not the first to be found overcharging the military for items or services provided in Iraq (and Afghanistan), and I'm sure they won't be the last. It's starting to look like fraud is rampant among the private contractors working for the military.

This started when George Bush and Dick Cheney decided that private contractors, being businessmen, could provide services and supplies in a more cost-effective way than the military could. But it hasn't worked out that way. Instead of tapping into good cost-effective business practices, the government has tapped into old-fashioned corporate greed. These private contractors are using Iraq and Afghanistan as their golden key to the United States Treasury.

There are just some things that should be done by government rather than private business (such as police, fire protection, prisons, etc.), and one of those things is supplying and supporting the military in time of war. If we had used private contractors in World War II the way we use then in Iraq and Afghanistan, we'd still be paying today for the fraud and overcharging.

Just eliminating the fraud and overcharging by private contractors would cut an enormous amount off the military budget. Then eliminating unneeded weapons systems, duplicative systems, and pie-in-the-sky experimental systems would cut another huge chunk out of that budget. I think the military budget could be cut severely without touching soldiers' pay and benefits or the weapons they need to do their job efficiently.

By treating the military budget as a sacred cow and giving more of the load to private contractors, we have let the budget get way out of control. It's time to change the way things are done. We simply can't afford the inefficiency and fraud anymore.

Driver's Seat

Political Cartoon is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Older Women Are Hot Too !

I'm going to depart from the usual brand of politics I normally discuss on this blog to discuss something else. I guess you could call it sexual politics. And the question of the day is this -- can an older woman look as hot as a younger woman?

The lady in the picture above is British actress Helen Mirren. Recently an L.A. Fitness gym chain commissioned a survey to find out who had the best body, and 66 year-old Mirren won the title for Female Body of the Year. She received 17.65% of the vote to give her the first place finish by a significant margin. Elle MacPherson finished in second place with 10.6% of the 2000 people surveyed. Here are the top ten females:

1. Helen Mirren..........17.65%
2. Elle MacPherson..........10.6%
3. Kelly Brook..........8.35%
4. Jennifer Lopez..........6.6%
5. Cheryl Cole..........5.35%
6. Myleene Klass..........4.2%
7. Holly Willoughby..........4.1%
8. Pippa Middleton..........4.0%
9. Kate Winslet..........3.9%
10. Nicole Scherzinger..........3.8%

I like the results of this poll, but then I'm probably prejudiced. I've always thought Helen Mirren was a beautiful and talented woman. And as an older person myself, I like the idea of a woman in her mid-sixties being considered to have the hottest body.

I'd be interested to know what you readers think. Can an older woman have the hottest body, or is that something only reserved for young women?

Ceilings

Political Cartoon is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Palin Movie Goes Down In Flames

If you've been reading this blog for the last couple of weeks then you'll know that I've been keeping track of the Palin propaganda movie and how it's failing at the box office. The movie, mis-titled The Undefeated, opened weakly the first weekend and then dropped precipitously in the second weekend. It's third weekend would have to be called a disaster. Here are the numbers for the three weekends:

July 15th thru 17th -- $65,132 on 10 screens ($6513 per screen)

July 22nd thru 24th -- $24,664 on 14 screens ($1762 per screen)

July 29th thru 31st -- $5200 on 4 screens ($1300 per screen)

Since its opening the movie has grossed only $112,200.

Turn the oven off. This turkey is done.

Food For Thought

Here's a little food for thought from the blog Newshoggers.

Have Dems Knuckled Under To GOP Again ?

President Obama has announced that a "compromise" agreement has been reached between the White House and the leaders of both parties in the U.S. Congress to raise the debt ceiling. He said, "There are still some very important votes to be taken by members of Congress, but I want to announce that the leaders of both parties in both chambers have reached an agreement that will reduce the deficit and avoid default."

But while it may be an agreement, it is certainly no compromise. A compromise requires both sides to give some and get some of what they wanted. This agreement does not do that. The Republicans get most of what they were demanding, while the Democrats get nothing they wanted. It really looks like the Democrats have once again demonstrated their total lack of a backbone and completely caved in to the Republicans. Here is what the agreement is believed to include:

* There will be about one trillion dollars in immediate cuts. The Republicans wanted this because they care nothing about hurting Americans. The fact is that a cut like this will cause the economy to contract, inhibit job creation, and extend the recession for Main Street for a much longer time.

* There will be a panel selected to find another $1.4 to $2 trillion dollars in cuts over the next ten years (further contracting the economy and extending the recession). Among the cuts the panel is to consider are cuts to Social Security and Medicare. If this panel cannot agree on cuts Congress would approve (which is very likely), then automatic across-the-board cuts will kick in -- and this will include cuts in Medicare (which the Republicans want and the Democrats promised would not happen).

* There will be a vote in both houses of Congress over approving and submitting to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is extremely doubtful that this ridiculous and unworkable idea can get the two-thirds approval it needs, but it will allow the Republicans to pose as being fiscally-responsible in the next election (when in actuality the Republicans are the biggest spenders of all -- remember, it was Republicans who got us in this mess in the first place).

* The debt ceiling will be raised in two steps. The second step is automatic if the president wants it (even though Congress can vote to stop it with large majorities). This will allow the Republicans to vote against the second raise of the debt ceiling, and after it happens blame the president and Democrats for doing it. (And maybe they'll deserve that blame for knuckling under and signing on to this outrageous agreement.)

* The agreement contains no provision for raising new revenue by raising taxes on the rich (which is approved of by at least 64% of the population). It also leaves in place the huge tax subsidies for the giant oil companies and other corporations. The corporations and the rich get off scott-free while the rest of America suffers deep cuts, no job creation, and a continuing recession. Where is the "shared sacrifice"?

There will be those who say the Democrats had to give in and agree to the Republican demands to keep the nation from going into default and seriously damaging the U.S. economy (and the world economy). That's just not true. The Democrats not only had the moral high ground, but were in a position of strength. They just didn't have the political courage to exploit it.

The biggest money supporters of the Republican Party is Wall Street and the giant corporations -- and these entities made it clear they did not want the government to go into default. They wanted the debt ceiling raised and they were making that clear to the congressional Republicans.

The Republicans could not refuse to raise the debt ceiling (throwing the nation into default) and continue to receive the big money from Wall Street. They would have had to give in (probably at the last minute) and raise the debt ceiling -- even if they got nothing for doing it.

And in the very unlikely event that the Republicans were willing to forgo the Wall Street money and throw the nation into default, the president did have another option -- the so-called 14th Amendment option. This amendment makes it unconstitutional for the U.S. government to fail to pay its bills.

The president could have unilaterally raised the debt ceiling and continued to raise the money needed for the government to pay its bills. While this would have insured a Supreme Court case (which could have gone either way considering the make-up of the court), it would also have painted the president as a man of strength and courage (something voters like).

But the Democrats, at least their leadership, didn't have the courage to roll the dice and play political hardball. Instead, they caved-in and gave the Republicans nearly everything they wanted (just like they did on health care reform and Wall Street reform and Guantanamo Bay and the two foreign wars).

There is still a small chance that the progressives in Congress, in combination with the congressional teabaggers (who oppose anything the president agrees to), can stop this very bad agreement. But that is unlikely. It would require a backbone -- something they haven't yet shown they have.

What Scandal ?

Political Cartoon is by David Fitzsimmons in the Arizona Daily Star.

School Board Bans Literary Masterpiece

I must admit that I have never understood why anyone would ever want to ban or burn a book -- any kind of book. The simple act of banning or burning a book shows fear -- a fear of the ideas that book contains. It also shows a lack of faith in human beings to be exposed to an idea, and either follow or reject that idea based upon its merit.

The very concept of a democracy is that the people are intelligent enough to rule themselves, if educated and made aware of all the facts. This is why the Founding Fathers added the First Amendment to the Constitution. They believed in the free flow of information and ideas, and the judgement of an educated people. And they understood that the survival of our democracy depended upon this belief.

But there are many Americans today who do not seem to have this belief in the power of education and information. And some of those people are on the School Board in Republic, Missouri (a suburb of Springfield with slightly more than 14,000 inhabitants). That school board voted 4-0 to ban two books from the district's high school library -- Twenty Boy Summer by Sarah Ockler and the literary masterpiece Slaughterhouse Five by the great American novelist Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

And why were these books banned? It seems there were a few people in that community who believed the books "teach principles that are contrary to the Bible." I had thought our schools were created and sustained to provide a well-rounded education to students -- not to teach biblical principles. Religious principles should be taught in churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques -- not public schools. But evidently the people, and the school board, of Republic think differently. Making matters even more idiotic it seems that only one of the four school board members had read both books (and a third which had survived the banning).

It makes me wonder just where the fear of these books comes from. Are the nearly-adult children of these people so weak-minded that a book would cause them irreparable harm? I find that hard to believe. I cannot speak to the Ockler book because I am not familiar with it, but I bought my daughter a copy of Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle while she was in high school. She loved it and bought and read on her own all of his other books, including Slaughterhouse Five. They not only didn't harm her, but they opened her mind to new ways of thinking about the world. This was a good thing, and teaching any child to think for themselves is always a good thing.

Perhaps their fear of these books says something about their religion or faith. Is their faith or religion so weak that it can be defeated by the ideas contained in a book. If so, is it a religion worth following or a faith worth keeping? Is their god so weak he can be defeated by a mere book?

Books are not things to be feared -- even bad books with ridiculous ideas. Anyone who believes in the efficacy of democracy must also believe in the ability of people to recognize flawed or bad ideas and reject them. Democracy and freedom are threatened far more by the burning or banning of books than by allowing the reading of books with disagreeable ideas or content. And the banning of a recognized literary masterpiece makes no sense at all.

Definitely Wrong

Political Cartoon is by Kevin (Kal) Kallaugher at kaltoons.com.

Scialism, Capitalism And Job Creation

There has been a lot of talk about socialism and capitalism recently -- and how socialists kill jobs while capitalists create jobs. Neither is true. And the charge that Obama and the Democrats are socialists are also untrue, since they have acted like they are corporate-owned since returning to power. The fact is that very few Americans seem to understand exactly what socialism and capitalism are. Neither one is a form of government -- they are economic systems, and both can exist in a democracy.

Over at the website AddictingInfo.Org, a writer has written an excellent post about what socialism and capitalism are and who the real job creators are. It is right on target and should be read by everyone so I am reposting a large part of it here:

Socialism does not mean the abolition of a free market society, nor does Socialism call for a government takeover of all industry; that is Communism.  Socialists acknowledge the limitation of a free market and believes that some industries should not be run for profit.  Police protection, fire protection, prisons, education, health care, parks, electricity, water supplies, waste and sewage removal, and roadways are just a few examples of industries which should not be run for profit.  The reasoning behind this belief is when these industries are operating for profit, not only will prices rise, but corresponding services would then be reserved only for those who can afford them.  Or more succinctly, no one person should be able to profit over running services, in which everyone benefits from.  One excellent example of Socialism in action is demonstrated in our banking industry.  While most banks operate for the profits of their CEOs, credit unions are owned and operated by the people.  The profits which are not imparted upon CEOs are reflected back to the customer in higher interest rates for investments and lower interest rates for loans.  It may be important to point out that credit unions did not run the same risks as banks when our financial bubble burst, and thus did not need to request nor receive any TARP bailout money.  Nor have the credit unions contributed to the faulty foreclosures as our banks have.  Another example is found in health care.  The free market creates for-profit businesses ranging from medications, medical testing, medical treatments, medical research, to hospitals.  None of which have lowered the cost of health care through innovation or through competition.  This is because the demand of which is a basic necessity, or in other words is non-negotiable.  Like clean water, oil,  and electricity, humans cannot survive without such products or services.  The demand of which is a constant, therefore they are not subjected to the Keynes supply and demand curve.  When prices go up, demand does not lessen beyond a certain threshold.  Americans may forgo a pleasure trip to conserve on gasoline consumption, but their demand for gasoline to take them to and from work is non-negotiable.  Where the free market brings economic ups and downs which effects everyone, Socialism believes that there is a limit on the protections a free market provides.  And quite simply, some things should not be run for profit, especially at the expense of everyone else.

Capitalism is an economic term for the free market system which is structured upon the accumulation of money, where the means of production are privately owned and operates for profit.  Capitalism is neither right nor wrong, it is simply an economic term.  Nor is Capitalism patriotic!  A system which encourages the accumulation of wealth does not salute a flag, nor is it loyal to a native country.  This market system crosses state and national borders in order to provide larger profits for business owners.  If labor costs are cheaper overseas, then it is capitalism which will drive businesses out of our country.  If a company finds it cheaper to produce a dangerous product than it is to produce a safe one, it is capitalism which will produce the most profitable option without consideration of customer safety.  Capitalism only seeks profits and will by nature migrate operations towards areas which promotes greater profits.  Capitalism has no allegiance to any one country as it operates in a global economy.  Again, capitalism has no allegiance with patriotism.  Where would a business find themselves most profitable?  Would they find a country with extremely lower labor costs to be more profitable for manufacturing than a country with higher labor costs?  Would they find a lower taxed area more profitable than an area with high demand for their products?  But most of all,  wouldn’t it be more patriotic for an American business to spark demand in order to operate, manufacture and sell their goods or services inside America, as opposed to overseas?

The wealthy are not necessarily the job creators.  Poor and desperate innovators have sparked many new business ventures despite their lack of wealth.  Many small businesses began out of practically nothing, but only an idea executed inside of their garages.  The fact of the matter is that neither wealth nor lower taxes create jobs; only demand creates jobs.   This little tidbit of truth is lost in translation when the wealthy are deemed as “Job Creators”.  This ploy is used to promote additional tax breaks for those who already have enough and while promoting cuts in public services on those who do not have enough.  Another tidbit of truth which is diluted in this argument is the inequality of income between the workers and the owners.  A manager typically earns 343 times more than an average employee.  And while 88% of domestic profits go to corporate bank accounts and CEO bonuses, only 1% of these profits gets applied towards labor.  The business owner shoulders no responsibility for producing any product or service.  Rather the business owner invested their money (and in most cases time) into a business which is productive.  Productivity is a result of the balance between the investors, the managers, and the workers.  It is a symbiotic relationship, which many Americans cannot conceive of.  For where would any business be without any one of these three elements?  Despite conservative talking points, even the lowest of employees is an invaluable asset to a business.  In a restaurant, an effective business owner knows that the dishwasher and busboys are just as important to their operation as their managers and customers.  If you remove the dishwasher and/or busboys from the equation, the business suffers.  Yet an effective manager can be absent from their responsibilities and the operation should not be sacrificed.  So which employee should be valued more than the other, the laborer, the manager, or the investor?  The answer is neither of the three.  For without one, the other two would not have a business operate or a job to tend to.  Yet the argument goes that only the wealthy create jobs.  Without enough demand, even these jobs won’t last very long.

We should not tax our job creators in a time of economic recession.  But we have misidentified exactly who these job creators are.  When our recession is being prolonged out of a lack of demand, it is not the business owner who can create jobs.  But rather it is the customers who spurn on demand who create jobs.  The businesses who pocketed great sums of cash during our economic catastrophe will still be there when we come out of it without the need to create more jobs.  But these businesses will find themselves with greater profits when demand picks up again, and that is what will create jobs.  So let’s not overburden our true job creators, the customers.  In order to spark higher demand, we must effect the largest target market we have at our disposal.  It’s not the wealthy who can spark this demand; they only constitute up to 2% of our populace.  Rather, we should focus our attention on the other 98% of our populace, our struggling middle class and poor.