Month: October 2013

Pirates! Argggggh!

by digby

Weigel:

Pictured to the right: Alex Lawson of Social Security works, crashing a public launch event for The Can Kicks Back—itself one of the manifold arms of the “Fix the Debt” movement.

It started off well enough. Nick Troiano, co-founder of the group, kicked off with short speech about the goals and dreams of the “nonpartisan millennial” group, which is concluding a tour of campuses and other places haunted by the young. Lawson and a videographer showed up earlier, finding a spot to the left of the stage and politely standing as Sens. John Thune and Tim Kaine gave short speeches about the threat of the national debt. Not until they finished did Lawson walk in front of the stage (and a small group of cameras) and start into his own speech.

“Aaar!” he said. “Fix the debt, but let me keep my corporate booty! Fix the Debt’s founders have more than $500 million in offshore corporate booty.”

He was quickly ushered away by—among others—the group’s mascot, a man in a cartoonish dented can. Then he stood at the back and heckled (in pirate patois) until he couldn’t.

What’s the greatest threat to economic growth? It’s climate change.

by David Atkins

Much as Republicans would like to pretend that Obamacare is somehow the reason why supply-side economics seems to have failed so dramatically, there is actually a looming threat to economic growth much more serious than even conservative economic theory. That threat is climate change:

Nearly a third of the world’s economic output will come from countries facing “high” to “extreme” risks from the impacts of climate change within 12 years, according to a new report.

The Climate Change Vulnerability Index, an annual report produced by UK-based risk analysis firm Maplecroft, found that climate change “may pose a serious obstacle to sustainable economic growth in the world’s most commercially important cities.”

The index ranked the vulnerability of the world’s countries, and the 50 cities deemed most economically important, to the impacts of climate change, by evaluating their risk of exposure to extreme climate events, the sensitivity of their populations to that exposure and the adaptive capacity of governments to respond to the challenge.

It said the combined GDP of the 67 countries classed as facing “high” or “extreme” risks was projected to nearly triple from $15 trillion to $44 trillion by 2025 — meaning nearly a third of the global economy would be coming under increasing threat from extreme climate-related events. It projected the population of those countries — currently estimated at more than 4.5 billion — could exceed 5 billion by 2025.

The index’s findings bore particularly bad news for Bangladesh, which topped both lists, with its capital, Dhaka, ranked the most vulnerable city due to its exposure to threats such as flooding, storm surge, cyclones and landslides, its susceptible population and weak institutional capacity to address the problem.

Along with the Bangladeshi capital, the four other cities categorized as facing “extreme risk” from climate change impacts were also located in Asia — Mumbai, Manila, Kolkata and Bangkok — and projected to be centers of high economic growth.

Yeah, that’s not 20 or 30 years down the road. We’re talking twelve years here. Like, toward the end of the Hillary Clinton/Ted Cruz Administration. That soon.

But it’s just faraway places with in Asia somewhere, right? Wrong. First of all, climate change is already having dramatic impacts on drought, hurricanes and wildfires in the United States.

Second, there’s a reason that even as the American middle class dwindles, American corporate profits and stock prices remain so high. Part of it is cheap goods manufactured overseas, and an even greater share of it is the growing middle classes of developing countries to which American companies sell a lot of products. If those economies tumble into crisis due to climate effects, that will have major ripple effects in the American economy as well, jacking up prices on manufactured goods while reducing consumer purchases of American goods abroad.

It’s a major problem. How long will big business continue to support the Republican con artists who deny man-made climate change and pretend that Obamacare is a serious threat to growth, and how long will they wait before they realize that climate is a concern that even the billionaires need to take seriously?

.

That thing where a right wing immigrant wants to send a black American “back to Africa”

by digby

Meet Ted Cruz’s daddy:

I guess no matter how much I observe the right wing I will never fully hear the dog-whistles. All my life I heard the phrase “send ’em back to Africa.” But it took me until today to see how the “Kenyan” obsession is a direct echo of that ancient American racist war cry.

Here’s a song about it:

Here are some fine Americans talking about it:

*Yes, I know about Lincoln, Liberia and all the rest. But just google the phrase to see who the people are who really like to use it.

Update: Apologizing in advance to Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Martin Bashir for being so rude as to bring this up. My bad.

.

Headline ‘o the day

by digby

State Department Apologizes for Calling Unionization a Security Threat 

I don’t know why. They were just following NSA “talking points” which say that everything they do is to thwart a security threat. And why in the world would the American government support unionization? Ridiculous!

.

More nitpicking from the self-centered wimminfolkz

by digby

Oh who cares about this. There are important things to worry about:

Less than a quarter of Republicans believe that electing more women to Congress would be a good thing, according to an ABC News/Fusion poll released on Wednesday. About 60 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Americans overall said that it would be a good thing if more women were elected to Congress, the poll found. Only 23 percent of Republicans said it would be a good thing, while more than two-thirds of Republicans said it makes no difference to them. Currently, women make up slightly more than half of the U.S. population, but just 18 percent of Congress.

But Republican voters do not seem to be worried about the lack of women in Congress, for the most part, and they are not particularly concerned about women in the workplace. The ABC poll found that while 68 percent of Democrats believe women have fewer opportunities than men in the workplace, only 38 percent of Republicans agree with that statement, despite the wide and persistent wage gap.“

Hey, women may be 50% of the population but having only 18% of them in political leadership positions is plenty. Men have been taking care of the ladies for a long time and know what they’re doing. And I think we all know that it’s no big deal if women make less money. They obviously prefer it that way or they’d be making more, amirite?

And anyway, there’s no difference between the two parties on the important issues so it really doesn’t matter. Carry on.

Also too, this:

I can’t imagine why more women aren’t right wingers.
.

Well that worked out well

by digby

And what’s really awesome is that they now have us fighting over whether to cut the signature Democratic social insurance programs for decades into the future in exchange for restoring some of those cuts.

I don’t think the Republicans planned this. They aren’t that good. But they sure are lucky. Especially in their adversaries.




.

Libertarians and the hippies

by digby

The other day, Conor Friedersdorf wondered on twitter why so many liberals are hostile to civil libertarians who aren’t partisan Democrats. I, unfortunately, read too fast and engaged in a long discussion under the impression that he’d said “libertarians” rather than “civil libertarians” which isn’t quite the same thing. (It can be, but it isn’t always.)

Anyway, there is a reason why lefty civil libertarians are hostile to Libertarians, capital L. It’s because of this:

Twenty-two percent of Americans identify as libertarian or lean libertarian, according to a new poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute.

Seven percent are “consistent” libertarians, while 15 percent lean libertarian, according to the survey.

The poll found that libertarians tend to be non-Hispanic white, young and male. Ninety-four percent are non-Hispanic whites, 62 percent are below age 50 and 68 percent are men.

Libertarians also typically identify with the GOP –– 45 percent are Republicans while five percent are Democrats.

The 5 percent who call themselves Democrats are probably women in the group who think their personal freedom and liberty shouldn’t be considered silly “nitpicking over states’ rights”. But be that as it may, when you break down the issues, one would naturally assume that libertarians would split between the two parties, depending on how they prioritize their issues. But as you can see, that’s not how it lines out. Far more Libertarians identify as Republicans.

And that’s puzzling because one would certainly not suppose that Libertarians would find themselves in alliance with the Religious Right which seeks to impose its religious values on others and has traditionally seen any extension of liberty to minority populations as an affront to their prerogatives. But they are:

Only 12% of self-identified Republicans are libertarians, compared to 20% of Republicans who identify with the Tea Party, 33% who identify with the religious right or conservative Christian movement, and 37% who identify as white evangelical Protestant.

Libertarians also constitute a smaller proportion of the Tea Party movement than other core conservative groups. About one-quarter (26%) of Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement are libertarians, compared to a majority (52%) who say they are a part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement, and 35% who identify as white evangelical Protestant.

And despite the fact that the Republican Party is explicitly organized around the proverbial three legged stool of National Security-Low Taxes-Traditional Values, only one of which is a libertarian ideal, Libertarians not only refuse to align with progressives, many of whom agree with them on reducing the National Security state and ensuring personal privacy and civil liberties, they actively loathe them (us):

Notably, libertarians hold more negative views of Democrats than they hold positive views of Republicans. Nearly 9-in-10 (89%) libertarians have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party including nearly two-thirds (64%) who have a very unfavorable opinion of the party.

Now, I’m not going to comment on the fact that nearly all of these people are young, white males because some of my best friends are young, white males. But it is a data point that you can’t help noticing when you look at the make-up of the two political parties. One is majority white and majority male. The other is composed of a majority of people of color and women.

Setting aside any implications in that, one can assume that for all their alleged commitment to liberty and freedom, what they apparently care most about is low taxes and low regulation since that is the only policy area they have in common with the GOP. They obviously believe that government telling women what to do with their bodies on behalf of a bunch of theocrats is something they can live with but taxing millionaires to pay for public services is a betrayal of their principles.

It’s too easy to conclude from all this is that many of these fine young fellows are really just conservatives who like to smoke pot (a pastime they also share far more with the left than the right.) But it’s quite obvious that most Libertarians just don’t like lefties. And that’s their prerogative. But considering where their priorities obviously lie and who they consider to be good allies, I think you can forgive the civil libertarian left for being a little bit skeptical of their commitment.

The fact is that members of both parties suck when it comes to civil liberties.  They tend to follow the usual partisan line.  But there is just no denying that the members of one party suck a little bit harder.

This poll was taken before the Snowden revelations:

In 2007, when we were debating the fact that the Bush administration had blatantly disregarded the law and was spying on Americans without a warrant, less than 40% of Republicans gave a damn. Fast forward:

Three years later, partisan Democrats were more complacent about civil liberties. In fact, fewer members of both parties thought the government was going too far in restricting civil liberties. But a fat majority of 58% of Republicans believed the Obama administration wasn’t going far enough.

Then in 2013, when the Snowden revelations were published, you see a switch. Suddenly both parties think the government has gone too far in restricting civil liberties.

As I said earlier, both parties (and Indies too) are fickle on these  issues. But this polling shows that there is a much more substantial core of civil libertarians in  the Democratic Party who not only maintain the principle regardless of whether their party is in power, but whose numbers grew in response to the Snowden revelations which reflected badly on “their” president. Is the Democratic majority a profile in courage? No.  But it’s just a fact that there are a lot more stalwart, consistent civil libertarians on the left than there are on the right.

Having said all that, I welcome our Libertarian Republicans to the fold. (There are a number jumping on the bandwagon for a variety of motivations.) Maybe we can get something done on these issues with some bipartisan pressure.  But I also suggest that beyond valorizing Rand Paul and Justin Amash as the only Representatives who care about such things, they turn their attention to the much larger group of Democrats in the congress who’ve been slogging away on these issues for years: people like Udall, Merkeley,Wyden, Sanders, Holt, Lee, Grayson, Conyers  and others.

In fact, they might want to watch this Youtube which breaks down members of the two parties in the House by their records on civil liberties.

Here’s the spreadsheet that lays it all out.

It’s not like both parties aren’t mostly working for the military/surveillance industrial complex.  We know that. But if civil liberties and anti-imperialism is what they care about, there’s very little reason to think libertarians’ influence will be better felt in the GOP. There are a lot fewer of them there.

.

The Tea Party learns from their close friends, the Religious Right

by digby

So apparently, the sad little rump band of living conservative intellectuals are all excited over looney Tea Party Senator Mike Lee’s speech yesterday at the heritage institute.  He wasn’t slavering like a rabid dog! He likes families. He’s a man of ideas!

Here’s one of them:

The federal government also needs to open up America’s transportation system to diversity and experimentation, so that Americans can spend more time with their families in more affordable homes, and less time stuck in maddening traffic.

House-hunting middle-class families today often face a Catch-22.

They can stretch their finances to near bankruptcy to afford a home close to work.

Or they can choose a home in a more affordable neighborhood so far away from work that they miss soccer games, piano recitals, and family dinner while stuck in gridlocked traffic.

The solution is not more government-subsidized mortgages or housing programs. A real solution involves building more roads.

More roads, bridges, lanes, and mass-transit systems. Properly planned and located, these projects would help create new jobs, new communities, more affordable homes, shorter commuting times, and greater opportunity for businesses and families.

Transportation infrastructure is one of the things government is supposed to do — and conservatives should make sure it is done exceptionally well.

Unfortunately, since completing the Interstate Highway System decades ago, the federal government has gotten pretty bad at maintaining and improving our nation’s transportation infrastructure.

Today, the federal highway program is funded by a gasoline tax of 18.4 cents on every gallon sold at the pump. That money is supposed to be going into steel, concrete, and asphalt in the ground. Instead, too much of it is being siphoned off by bureaucrats and special interests in Washington.

And so Congressman Tom Graves and I are going to introduce the Transportation Empowerment Act.

Under our bill, the federal gas tax would be phased down over five years from 18.4 cents per gallon to 3.7 cents. And highway authority would be transferred proportionately from the federal government to the states.

Under our new system, Americans would no longer have to send significant gas-tax revenue to Washington, where sticky-fingered politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists take their cut before sending it back with strings attached. Instead, states and cities could plan, finance, and build better-designed and more affordable projects.

Some communities could choose to build more roads, while others might prefer to repair old ones. Some might build highways, others light rail. And all would be free to experiment with innovative green technologies, and new ways to finance their projects, like congestion pricing and smart tolls.

But the point is that all states and localities should finally have the flexibility to develop the kind of transportation system they want, for less money, without politicians and special interests from other parts of the country telling them how, when, what, and where they should build.

If only we can get the federal government to stop taxing us to pay for roads and bridges., every small town in America will step up to do the job. So its citizens can travel far away to go to work. If it wants to. I think. (And it’s a darned good thing there’s no such thing as climate change or all that driving with cheap gas might not be such a hot idea.)

Here’s another pro-plutocrat cloaked family values idea they just love:

Another struggle facing working families is the constant challenge of work-life balance. Parents today need to juggle work, home, kids, and community. For many families, especially with young children, their most precious commodity is time.

But today, federal labor laws restrict the way moms and dads and everyone else can use their time. That’s because many of those laws were written decades ago, when most women didn’t work outside the home.

Because of these laws, an hourly employee who works overtime is not allowed to take comp time or flex time. Even if she prefers it, her boss can’t even offer it.

Today, if a working mom or dad stays late at the office on Monday and Tuesday, and instead of receiving extra pay wants to get compensated by leaving early on Friday to spend the afternoon with the kids, that could be violating federal law.

That sounds unfair, especially to parents. But how do we know for sure? Because Congress gave a special exemption from that law for government employees.

This is unacceptable. The same work-life options available to government bureaucrats should be available to the citizens they serve.

In May, the House of Representatives passed the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013, sponsored by Representative Martha Roby of Alabama, to equalize flex-time rules for all workers.

And this week I am introducing companion legislation in the Senate

I’m going to take a guess that government employees are “exempt” from overtime because people like Mike Lee don’t want to pay overtime to government employees, not because the government employees were just dying for the opportunity to work more for less pay.

Funny story. Many years ago, when I was a young person trying to come up through the pink collar ghetto in the corporate world, I was given a promotion. It would have a new title and I’d get invited to the monthly management meeting (where I served coffee.) I’d also get to go to the company retreat. My job responsibilities would remain the same as would my wages, but I was assured it was a big stepping stone. They were making me a junior executive. I was very excited. But when I got my first check it was substantially lower than it had been and I was told that it was because I was now an “exempt” employee, meaning that I was exempt from overtime. The 50 to 60 hours a week I had always claimed on my time card (and what the job required) would now only be compensated at the base salary. I was an executive now, dontcha know.

Years later I was in a compensation meeting (at a different company) in which our chief executive joked with other men in the meeting that we didn’t need to give women raises because they’d always settle for an empty title and a better office. Hahahaha! Yeah, he said that while I was sitting there. And yeah, I laughed too. At my own foolishness. The 80s were fun like that. The same guy said that any employee who asked for comp time would go nowhere in his organization. It showed a lack of commitment; people who care about doing a good job don’t complain when they have to work a few extra hours. And he needed people to be there when he needed them, not when they were “available.”

The reason the 40 hour work week was established was because many employers exploited their workers. I know it’s hard for Mike Lee and his ilk to fathom that the vaunted job creators of today might not really give a damn about the “family needs” of their employees and just want to pay them less for doing more work. (That’s one way to get more “productivity”!)

All the extra hours in the world won’t buy groceries or put a roof over your kids’ heads. But I guess you’ll feel all warm inside knowing that someday, possibly, your boss might approve you to take a couple of those extra hours you’ve earned in comp time to forage for food with your family. So it’s all good.

Read Lee’s whole speech. The Tea Party is taking a page from their allies in the Religious Right — give sermons laden with lugubrious concern for the plight of the common man and offer up Randian gobbledygook as the answer to their concerns. Same as it ever was.

.

How much longer are we going to keep doing this?

by David Atkins

Most people haven’t seen this color footage of World War I. It’s amazing.

World War I is often forgotten and overlooked. Outside of an assassinated Archduke, unraveling treaties and an eagerness to test new weapons, most people couldn’t tell you why it was even fought.

Yet it cost an astonishing 37 million people their lives. And for what?

At some point the people of the world are going to have to figure out that we’re all in this thing together.

The global jet setting rich won’t be content until they own everything and there’s no middle class left anywhere. Many multinational corporations are now more powerful than most governments. The climate is warming out of control with no coherent plan to stop it. Nuclear weapons are proliferating such that it’s only a matter of time before someone uses them again. We have resource shortages of all kind, from oil to water to minor but necessary metals. We are overfishing the seas and committing a genocide of extinction to the world’s biodiversity. Developed nations have crises of aging populations and social insurance shortfalls, while developing nations have overpopulation problems. Fundamentalism of various kinds threatens global stability.

War isn’t the answer. It will never be the answer. But then, neither is libertarianism. It, too, is the enemy of a stable future.

The global labor force is going to have to hang together to survive what’s coming, or it will surely hang separately.

.

Baby steps

by digby

This is a step in the right direction. Via Huffpost Hill:

In what counts as a loss for the owners of Congress, a bill from Rep. Jim Himes (D-Hedgefundistan) garnered a ton more opposition this afternoon than its backers had expected. It sailed through committee 53-6 this spring, but since then liberals have organized against it.

Himes, who has been beefing with HuffPost over our coverage of his swaps deregulation, lamented the state of affairs on the floor. After noting how easily the bill passed last year, he said, “This year, exactly the same bill comes before us and we’ve ginned up the press, we’ve ginned up the bloggers. This has become a ‘gift to Wall Street.’ What is different? What is different from what passed happily in a bipartisan fashion last Congress?” Himes wondered. “What has changed is we no longer do the hard work of finding finely balanced regulation like we do on water or on air. In financial services, in Dodd-Frank today, we have a morality play.”

If it was a morality play, the forces of darkness still triumphed, 292-122, but a majority of Democrats voted no.

Cold comfort, but at least most of the Dems got the word. That wouldn’t have happened a year or so ago.

I don’t know how long it’s going to take to get a true progressive faction in the House that can operate with the same cohesion and effectiveness that the Tea Partiers have in the GOP. But it’s clear we need one. And they do seem to be learning.

*And no this does not mean we don’t need to be organizing outside the political system. But you simply cannot leave the state in the hands of the conservatives in both parties. Huge mistake.

.