As I suggested in my last post the economic conservatives-the editorial page of WSJ, IBD as well as the Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, etc-are quite infatuated with Rick Perry. The one added bonus for Perry is he's got the other side of the conservative coin too-the social conservatives/religious Right also love him-as opposed to Romney.
He has both bases covered as far as that goes-both the social and economic conservatives love him. What he doesn't have is the blessing of the Republican party establishment which is with Romney.
I still think Romney is the likely nominee but I do think that Perry is a dark horse that liberals should watch-mostly so as to counter the specious economic arguments which have already been started in support of him. He is credited with a "Texas miracle" and remember no matter how false it is-it is false-it will be repeated in the mainstream press.
No real progs would even think of voting for him-other than maybe at Firedoglake where their candidate is "Anybody but Obama 2012." There are of course many reasons-too many to count starting with Perry's extremely reactionary and bigoted prayer breakfast-not to vote for him. However we are living in a time of extreme recession and he will be built up as a "job creator."
In Perry make no mistake about it we have a real live neanderthal. He is against a woman's right to choose has some very homophobic opinions about gays and has some very bigoted friends. I still do see him as something of a dark horse in the GOP primary and can see the case they will make for him against Obama.
They will focus on the Texas unemployment rate which at 8.1% is beneath the national rate of 9.1% and they will point out that half the jobs gained since the recovery started in March 2009 have come from Texas.
Now I'm not saying Perry deserves the credit he is taking for this but in a time of such economic hardship it is not hard to see how this might seem a palatable message to many who might say 'ok so he's a bit of a religious nut and I don't like his views on abortion but at least he's a job creator. Maybe that's a fair trade.'
This is why liberals have to be prepared for this as this will be the case they build for him. In reality he's not only just like Bush but if anything he is to the right of Bush. He is all about low taxes, low public services, and low wages, and little regulation. His is the kind of economic policy Michael Lind criticizes in "Made in Texas."
In looking at the alleged "miracle" more closely some of it is an accident of demographics. As there are so many people in Texas it's not surprising that a large amount of the new jobs have come from Texas as many jobs are needed in Texas just to keep up with population growth.
Texas as a state has certain home advantages without question: the rise in fuel prices this benefits this state in particular as does the rise in military spending from the two wars.
These kinds of benefits have nothing to do with Perry and would not be repeatable at the national level. Texas also benefited greatly from Obama's stimulus for which Perry gets even less credit for as he opposed it and the state has benefited from it over his objections-indeed he has continued to deny some of the benefits the State of Texas has a right to.
And of course many of these jobs are very low paying. Essentially the neat trick the IBD and WSJ editorial pages are trying to pull is to convince us that Bushonomics-what got us into this mess-are what is gonna get us out. As perverse as this is you got to admire their chutzpah.
Anyone got any more info about the Texas economy that refutes this Urban Legend we're all ears!
In an update see Krugman's good work for today
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html?_r=1&hp
"The Texas Unmiracle" Gotta love Krugman!
Monday, August 15, 2011
Swooning over Rick Perry
Make no mistake about it, there will be a Perry Offensive where we will hear endlessly about his “Texas Miracle.”
Indeed this very same offensive already started in Investor’s Business Daily in the Monday edition (which comes out on Saturday).
That they swooned all over him is not surprising but that they didn’t at least save it for the editorial page but rather eschewed any pretense of objectivity and lauded him on the front page as “the anti-Obama” who has created jobs and has low unemployment, etc due of course to his belief in small government, low taxes, and low regulation show just what a love affair this is gonna be.
Really we have 3 groups right now who want to decide the Republican primary: the social conservatives, the economic conservatives, and the Republican party’s operatives-from the RNC, etc.
As was clear by her blowout of the rest of the field in Iowa Saturday night, Bachman is loved by the social conservatives/religious Right. However Perry will be loved by them too now that he’s in.
The economic conservatives clearly prefer Perry who they hope if elected might give us the Ryan plan, etc. So expect the WSJ and IBD editorial pages(as we saw this weekend IBD even broke normal journalistic practice and didn’t even save it for the editorial page) to beat the drum about his “economic miracle.” Perry has an advantage then in being loved by both the social and economic conservatives no mean feat.
But thirdly there is the institional power of the GOP and they would much rather Romney as they know quite well neither Bachman or Perry is electable in the general election. Will be interesting to see who clearly has the balance of power in the GOP.
Indeed this very same offensive already started in Investor’s Business Daily in the Monday edition (which comes out on Saturday).
That they swooned all over him is not surprising but that they didn’t at least save it for the editorial page but rather eschewed any pretense of objectivity and lauded him on the front page as “the anti-Obama” who has created jobs and has low unemployment, etc due of course to his belief in small government, low taxes, and low regulation show just what a love affair this is gonna be.
Really we have 3 groups right now who want to decide the Republican primary: the social conservatives, the economic conservatives, and the Republican party’s operatives-from the RNC, etc.
As was clear by her blowout of the rest of the field in Iowa Saturday night, Bachman is loved by the social conservatives/religious Right. However Perry will be loved by them too now that he’s in.
The economic conservatives clearly prefer Perry who they hope if elected might give us the Ryan plan, etc. So expect the WSJ and IBD editorial pages(as we saw this weekend IBD even broke normal journalistic practice and didn’t even save it for the editorial page) to beat the drum about his “economic miracle.” Perry has an advantage then in being loved by both the social and economic conservatives no mean feat.
But thirdly there is the institional power of the GOP and they would much rather Romney as they know quite well neither Bachman or Perry is electable in the general election. Will be interesting to see who clearly has the balance of power in the GOP.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The Bush Tax Cuts 10 Years Later
Without wanting to give in to any simplistic hyperbole, it must be said that the Bush tax cuts are the single worst piece of legislation in modern times. I should say that when I say 'worst piece of legislation" I am speaking of economic legislation and I am defining "modern times" here as since Herbert Hoover or starting with FDR-modern economic times for the US began with FDR taking the oath of office.
In this modern, enlightened age, Mr. Bush's signature tax legislation is the most regressive, reactionary legislation to be passed into law. We are still suffering the effects of this fiscal travesty 10 years later.
On some intuitive level. I have always understood this, but what has brought this up in an increased crystallized light is a book by Paul Krugman I am currently in the middle of, "The Great Unravelling." Published in 2005 it is actually a compilation of articles he wrote from as early as the late 90s-we have a few pieces by him on the Asian and Long Term Management crises of the time as well as the debate on the Internet boom/bubble- until 2004.
Right now I am reading a series of pieces he did on the Bush tax cuts. It is a must read for anyone who wants to accurately understand the Bush tax cuts and their untoward effect on our nation's finances to the present day. If you want to know why the choices currently on the table-"politics of austerity"-are so dismal, understanding Bush's tax cuts are a major part of this.
We have heard a lot of talk about "starve the beast" but Bush didn't merely talk about this, he did it. Today we have a roughly 1 trillion dollar deficit-'deficits as far as the eye can see' and Bush is who we have to thank.
To be sure there is a lot of spin here. Obama bashers try to point out that the deficit was "only" about 400 billion when Obama came to office-sometimes they further cheat by claiming it was "only" 182 billion which was actually the 2009 projection in 2008 for 2009.
The 600 billion increase under Obama was of course due to the recession and we will eliminate this when we get out of the current crisis-I know "when" is way too optimistic, really the accurate word here is "if"-providing we can ever have any policies that might make this an actual possibility.
What makes it so hard to have these policies remains the Bush tax cuts. They are what gives us deficits as far as the eye can see for the foreseeable future and they are the reason S&P is now giving for the downgrade. As I explained in my last piece I disagree with S&P's decision and there should be hearings on this but their pessimism because of the Bush tax cuts-which they doubt will expire in 2012 as they should-is quite justified.
What makes the Bush tax cuts so pernicious? Let us count the ways. As indicated above Bush has to be the favorite conservative for the Right because his tax cuts-much more even than Reagan who at the time didn't have the political ability to go as far-have made "starve the beast" more than a theory but reality.
Bush backloaded the tax cuts so that his successor would be the one to be hamstrung. This was by design-really he and his budget people have to be admired for the way they put this together.
Politically it was pure gold. They had just enough goodies in it for the middle class and the poor-expanded earned income tax credit, child tax credit, closing the "marriage penalty" and of course cutting rates of all tax brackets that
1) it seemed fair as 'everyone saw their taxes cut'
2) make it impossible politcally to ever really let them expire.
This is why the Republicans in Congress in 2010 were so against agreeing to a deal which would extend the tax cuts for the middle class and poor separately.
In other words most of the tax cuts by political necessity will never expire. Most Americans do want to the wealthy brackets go up but not anyone else, certainly not themselves.
I don't blame them for this either, however if we did-of course we never will-allow all the tax cuts to expire our budget deficits would be gone over night. True we'd see all tax brackets go up, even the lowest income level would go from 10 to 15%. Can see the headline already right? "Democrats propose a 50% hike on the lowest income earners! Vote Republican!!"
Yet while no one wants their taxes to go up or to lose some pretty helpful tax credits, would you be willing to trade them for the starkly better economic times of the 90s?
What would be interesting would be for someone like the Tax Policy Center or the Economic Policy Institute to analyze what would be the macroeconomic effects of allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire. You might find that the person who saw their income tax go from 10 to 15% would still end up very much on the net plus side-as there would now be money for social spending, stimulus, etc. Would this person be willing to pay a higher rate in exchange for having a better economy and ultimately a higher standard of living?
Of course the question is never packaged this way.
What's also always forgotten is that US income taxes are marginal-which means that when you cut the lowest bracket from 15 to 10 and the top rate from 39.6 to 35 the person in the top rate gets both tax cuts as they pay the same lowest rate for that part of their income. So if all 5 tax brackets are cut, they actually get 5 tax cuts as opposed to just 1 for the lowest level.
It's already becoming clear how much Bush's tax cuts were skewed to the wealthy.
Then you add that, as Krugman shows, while these were income taxes, most people (4 out of 5 Americans) pay most of their taxes in payroll taxes. Payroll taxes at 16.5% is a flat tax-"flat tax" is a euphemism for regressive tax. A tax cut more friendly to the non-rich would be a payroll tax cut. Another regressive thing about the payroll tax is it has a cap at 106,800 of earnings.
As Krugman shows, one of the more surreal aspects of that debate over Bush's tax cuts was the testimony of Alan Greenspan before Congress. While he has urged fiscal discipline with Clinton he now declared in 2001 that having outsized budget surpluses was somehow a terrible risk and that these surpluses must be disposed of as soon as possible.
That these surpluses were projected-and wouldn't pan out history shows-did not give him pause. Much of the surpluses were actually in SS and Medicare. This is why Al Gore had urged in the debate with Bush in 2000, to put the SS funds in a "lock box" but Gore was portrayed as somehow "talking down" to Americans in saying this.
Ultimately then Bush stole from Obama. He also stole from future Social Security beneficiaries and all of us.
As we noted above it is politically untenable to rescind all the tax cuts-and maybe even undesirable anyway. Here is a best case scenario on what should be done, goes without saying it is far from seeing that it will be done anytime soon.
The tax cuts for the wealthy should expire as most Americans want. However the outrageous situation that capital gains are taxed at only 15% compared with 35% for income must end. The top rate should go back to 39.6 but the capital and dividend rates should also go back to that number. This would already make up a lot of our budget shortfall.
Another wrinkle we could add is to raise the marginal rates on top income earners as well. Maybe someone above a certain income level-say 1 million-should pay not just 39.6% for money above the top level but on all of it. If not that maybe a milder change where his lower marginal rates are raised but not all the way to the top rate.
Liberals are libeled as being "tax and spend" but actually I'm one liberal who would love to see a tax cut for most Americans-how about a payroll tax cut? As far as losing income, we would more than make it up by removing the cap on payroll taxes and perhaps ending the flat tax for payroll.
Krugman, on pg 254 of The Great Unravelling sums up Bush' tax cuts perfectly, "A slump in the economy in the short run was the opportunity to push a tax cut that provided very little stimulus in the short run, but will place huge demands on the budget in 2010."
He wrote this in 2002-and as he points out elsewhere, the original rationale was that the surplus needed to be dispensed with lest it be used in some nefarious way(government buying in the market, etc), once the surpluses disappeared the rationale changed- but it couldn't be more prophetic
In this modern, enlightened age, Mr. Bush's signature tax legislation is the most regressive, reactionary legislation to be passed into law. We are still suffering the effects of this fiscal travesty 10 years later.
On some intuitive level. I have always understood this, but what has brought this up in an increased crystallized light is a book by Paul Krugman I am currently in the middle of, "The Great Unravelling." Published in 2005 it is actually a compilation of articles he wrote from as early as the late 90s-we have a few pieces by him on the Asian and Long Term Management crises of the time as well as the debate on the Internet boom/bubble- until 2004.
Right now I am reading a series of pieces he did on the Bush tax cuts. It is a must read for anyone who wants to accurately understand the Bush tax cuts and their untoward effect on our nation's finances to the present day. If you want to know why the choices currently on the table-"politics of austerity"-are so dismal, understanding Bush's tax cuts are a major part of this.
We have heard a lot of talk about "starve the beast" but Bush didn't merely talk about this, he did it. Today we have a roughly 1 trillion dollar deficit-'deficits as far as the eye can see' and Bush is who we have to thank.
To be sure there is a lot of spin here. Obama bashers try to point out that the deficit was "only" about 400 billion when Obama came to office-sometimes they further cheat by claiming it was "only" 182 billion which was actually the 2009 projection in 2008 for 2009.
The 600 billion increase under Obama was of course due to the recession and we will eliminate this when we get out of the current crisis-I know "when" is way too optimistic, really the accurate word here is "if"-providing we can ever have any policies that might make this an actual possibility.
What makes it so hard to have these policies remains the Bush tax cuts. They are what gives us deficits as far as the eye can see for the foreseeable future and they are the reason S&P is now giving for the downgrade. As I explained in my last piece I disagree with S&P's decision and there should be hearings on this but their pessimism because of the Bush tax cuts-which they doubt will expire in 2012 as they should-is quite justified.
What makes the Bush tax cuts so pernicious? Let us count the ways. As indicated above Bush has to be the favorite conservative for the Right because his tax cuts-much more even than Reagan who at the time didn't have the political ability to go as far-have made "starve the beast" more than a theory but reality.
Bush backloaded the tax cuts so that his successor would be the one to be hamstrung. This was by design-really he and his budget people have to be admired for the way they put this together.
Politically it was pure gold. They had just enough goodies in it for the middle class and the poor-expanded earned income tax credit, child tax credit, closing the "marriage penalty" and of course cutting rates of all tax brackets that
1) it seemed fair as 'everyone saw their taxes cut'
2) make it impossible politcally to ever really let them expire.
This is why the Republicans in Congress in 2010 were so against agreeing to a deal which would extend the tax cuts for the middle class and poor separately.
In other words most of the tax cuts by political necessity will never expire. Most Americans do want to the wealthy brackets go up but not anyone else, certainly not themselves.
I don't blame them for this either, however if we did-of course we never will-allow all the tax cuts to expire our budget deficits would be gone over night. True we'd see all tax brackets go up, even the lowest income level would go from 10 to 15%. Can see the headline already right? "Democrats propose a 50% hike on the lowest income earners! Vote Republican!!"
Yet while no one wants their taxes to go up or to lose some pretty helpful tax credits, would you be willing to trade them for the starkly better economic times of the 90s?
What would be interesting would be for someone like the Tax Policy Center or the Economic Policy Institute to analyze what would be the macroeconomic effects of allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire. You might find that the person who saw their income tax go from 10 to 15% would still end up very much on the net plus side-as there would now be money for social spending, stimulus, etc. Would this person be willing to pay a higher rate in exchange for having a better economy and ultimately a higher standard of living?
Of course the question is never packaged this way.
What's also always forgotten is that US income taxes are marginal-which means that when you cut the lowest bracket from 15 to 10 and the top rate from 39.6 to 35 the person in the top rate gets both tax cuts as they pay the same lowest rate for that part of their income. So if all 5 tax brackets are cut, they actually get 5 tax cuts as opposed to just 1 for the lowest level.
It's already becoming clear how much Bush's tax cuts were skewed to the wealthy.
Then you add that, as Krugman shows, while these were income taxes, most people (4 out of 5 Americans) pay most of their taxes in payroll taxes. Payroll taxes at 16.5% is a flat tax-"flat tax" is a euphemism for regressive tax. A tax cut more friendly to the non-rich would be a payroll tax cut. Another regressive thing about the payroll tax is it has a cap at 106,800 of earnings.
As Krugman shows, one of the more surreal aspects of that debate over Bush's tax cuts was the testimony of Alan Greenspan before Congress. While he has urged fiscal discipline with Clinton he now declared in 2001 that having outsized budget surpluses was somehow a terrible risk and that these surpluses must be disposed of as soon as possible.
That these surpluses were projected-and wouldn't pan out history shows-did not give him pause. Much of the surpluses were actually in SS and Medicare. This is why Al Gore had urged in the debate with Bush in 2000, to put the SS funds in a "lock box" but Gore was portrayed as somehow "talking down" to Americans in saying this.
Ultimately then Bush stole from Obama. He also stole from future Social Security beneficiaries and all of us.
As we noted above it is politically untenable to rescind all the tax cuts-and maybe even undesirable anyway. Here is a best case scenario on what should be done, goes without saying it is far from seeing that it will be done anytime soon.
The tax cuts for the wealthy should expire as most Americans want. However the outrageous situation that capital gains are taxed at only 15% compared with 35% for income must end. The top rate should go back to 39.6 but the capital and dividend rates should also go back to that number. This would already make up a lot of our budget shortfall.
Another wrinkle we could add is to raise the marginal rates on top income earners as well. Maybe someone above a certain income level-say 1 million-should pay not just 39.6% for money above the top level but on all of it. If not that maybe a milder change where his lower marginal rates are raised but not all the way to the top rate.
Liberals are libeled as being "tax and spend" but actually I'm one liberal who would love to see a tax cut for most Americans-how about a payroll tax cut? As far as losing income, we would more than make it up by removing the cap on payroll taxes and perhaps ending the flat tax for payroll.
Krugman, on pg 254 of The Great Unravelling sums up Bush' tax cuts perfectly, "A slump in the economy in the short run was the opportunity to push a tax cut that provided very little stimulus in the short run, but will place huge demands on the budget in 2010."
He wrote this in 2002-and as he points out elsewhere, the original rationale was that the surplus needed to be dispensed with lest it be used in some nefarious way(government buying in the market, etc), once the surpluses disappeared the rationale changed- but it couldn't be more prophetic
The Week that was: Aug 8-12
Well Obamabots we are at the end of another week! In retrospect, what is the prognosis for this week that was?
Well there was some good: the recalls in Wisconsin where two Repugs were knocked off, and though much less sung, in NH the Democrats had their 2nd successful recall this year.
There was the bad: the S&P downgrade of are credit rating and then our bonds set the table for an ugly week on Wall Street where equities lost 450 points.
Then there was the just plain ugly, namely, Kathy Nickolaus deciding another election for the Wisconsin GOP.
Certainly we should not be hanging our heads with the successful recalls-and more on the way. Anytime you see a headline that "wonders" whether or not we're going to go on with the recall effort against Walker you know this is just spin-the idea that we "lost" despite getting an unprecedented 6 GOP state senators and defeating two of them let alone what went wholly undiscussed on NH.
Still, there should be a few investigations. For one thing a real investigation is needed for S&P to figure out just what was it's rationale-the bond market "despite" the downgrade had it's best week since 2008.
Some have even declared there should be arrests. Whether or not that's necessary there should be a real investigation and not just a debate society where S&P understands that it's very place in the financial system is threatened if it doesn't give ready answers.
The question remains what rationale the rating agencies have at all; S&P most of all as unlike Moody and Fitch, went out on a limb and downgraded US debt for the first time in the modern-post WWII-era.
Moody's on the other hand deserves credit at least for arguing that we don;t need the debt limit at all that all it does is inject chronic uncertainty into the market.
I'll say this for S&P: as much as they need to give us answers part of their rationale for cutting the rating at least makes sense. They argue that after the Republicans were able to play such a successful game of debt ceiling chicken, in the future there is more uncertainty if we have to go through this ever time we need to raise our debt.
In addition, they went as far as saying that if the Bush tax cuts were ended they'd return the triple AAA rating,. The Bush tax cuts are the single worst piece of legislation in modern (economic) times(modern defined as post Hoover).
http://ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2011/08/sp_report_cites_bush_tax_cuts.php
Until you fully appreciate how (radically) bad they were you won't being to grasp why we are currently in such dismal fiscal shape. I have always understood this on some level, but reading Paul Krugman's "The Great Unravelling" has crystallized this point and helped me better understand how true this really is. Krugman does yeoman's work here.
For this reason when I finish of this weekly summation I am gonna put together a piece on the Bush tax cuts. I don't agree with S&P's solution but some of what they have said are right: that if the bush tax cuts are not allowed to expire(and S&P assumes they won't which is a major reason for downgrade) our fiscal house will not be a pretty picture for the foreseeable future.
In summation it was a week of the bad and the ugly-S&P downgrade was the bad, Kathy Nickolaus getting to announce a GOP win yet again was the ugly.
Both S&P and Kathy Nickolaus need to be investigated. S&P needs to understand that if it can't give us some real answers to explain it's actions and legitimize their function maybe they should no longer be allowed to exist or at least have the authority they currently enjoy.
Kathy Nickolaus' part in Tuesday's election needs to be examined. There should be a recount or some kind of audit to make sure her county was handled entirely above board
If anyone has any info on either of these issues they are certainly welcome to provide it.
Overall there is some hope based on what we achieved in Wisconsin.
But there is certainly work to be done. As a friend just put it, "we the ppl better start doing something fast be4 its toooo late & we dont have anything." I am quoting them here as I can't put it better myself.
Look for my next post on the Bush tax cuts-their importance in the current fiscal house of ruins we're in right now can't be overstated.
Well there was some good: the recalls in Wisconsin where two Repugs were knocked off, and though much less sung, in NH the Democrats had their 2nd successful recall this year.
There was the bad: the S&P downgrade of are credit rating and then our bonds set the table for an ugly week on Wall Street where equities lost 450 points.
Then there was the just plain ugly, namely, Kathy Nickolaus deciding another election for the Wisconsin GOP.
Certainly we should not be hanging our heads with the successful recalls-and more on the way. Anytime you see a headline that "wonders" whether or not we're going to go on with the recall effort against Walker you know this is just spin-the idea that we "lost" despite getting an unprecedented 6 GOP state senators and defeating two of them let alone what went wholly undiscussed on NH.
Still, there should be a few investigations. For one thing a real investigation is needed for S&P to figure out just what was it's rationale-the bond market "despite" the downgrade had it's best week since 2008.
Some have even declared there should be arrests. Whether or not that's necessary there should be a real investigation and not just a debate society where S&P understands that it's very place in the financial system is threatened if it doesn't give ready answers.
The question remains what rationale the rating agencies have at all; S&P most of all as unlike Moody and Fitch, went out on a limb and downgraded US debt for the first time in the modern-post WWII-era.
Moody's on the other hand deserves credit at least for arguing that we don;t need the debt limit at all that all it does is inject chronic uncertainty into the market.
I'll say this for S&P: as much as they need to give us answers part of their rationale for cutting the rating at least makes sense. They argue that after the Republicans were able to play such a successful game of debt ceiling chicken, in the future there is more uncertainty if we have to go through this ever time we need to raise our debt.
In addition, they went as far as saying that if the Bush tax cuts were ended they'd return the triple AAA rating,. The Bush tax cuts are the single worst piece of legislation in modern (economic) times(modern defined as post Hoover).
http://ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2011/08/sp_report_cites_bush_tax_cuts.php
Until you fully appreciate how (radically) bad they were you won't being to grasp why we are currently in such dismal fiscal shape. I have always understood this on some level, but reading Paul Krugman's "The Great Unravelling" has crystallized this point and helped me better understand how true this really is. Krugman does yeoman's work here.
For this reason when I finish of this weekly summation I am gonna put together a piece on the Bush tax cuts. I don't agree with S&P's solution but some of what they have said are right: that if the bush tax cuts are not allowed to expire(and S&P assumes they won't which is a major reason for downgrade) our fiscal house will not be a pretty picture for the foreseeable future.
In summation it was a week of the bad and the ugly-S&P downgrade was the bad, Kathy Nickolaus getting to announce a GOP win yet again was the ugly.
Both S&P and Kathy Nickolaus need to be investigated. S&P needs to understand that if it can't give us some real answers to explain it's actions and legitimize their function maybe they should no longer be allowed to exist or at least have the authority they currently enjoy.
Kathy Nickolaus' part in Tuesday's election needs to be examined. There should be a recount or some kind of audit to make sure her county was handled entirely above board
If anyone has any info on either of these issues they are certainly welcome to provide it.
Overall there is some hope based on what we achieved in Wisconsin.
But there is certainly work to be done. As a friend just put it, "we the ppl better start doing something fast be4 its toooo late & we dont have anything." I am quoting them here as I can't put it better myself.
Look for my next post on the Bush tax cuts-their importance in the current fiscal house of ruins we're in right now can't be overstated.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
A Restrospective of My Time at Firedoglake
Perhaps you have heard the news: I, the resident Obambot at FDL have now been banned. This was not unexpected, Hamsher had already told me a few weeks back that while she welcomes dissenting opinions that I must not misstate facts. That I had provided a link and had not made any misstatement is the rather mundane fact.
On Tues evening, August 9, I put a comment up after reading two front page posts by Jane claiming that the Obama campaign-Axelord in particular-were engaged in anti-Mormon baiting and labeling Romney "weird."
I went over the whole episode in a previous post. I just felt like with all the things going on in the world not 1 but 2 pieces defending Mitt Romney against alleged anti-Mormon bashing was too much. Talk about heavy weather over small beer.
So I answered that basically he was a little weird-joking about a waitress grabbing his ass, that "I know what it's like to be unemployed" etc. Also that Mormonism is a kind of strange and misogynistic religion. Sure they should not be discriminated against but I can't blame someone for having pause over Romney's Mormon faith-in the context of women's rights, etc.
For this I was banned. Still it was some good times. Many people tell me they can't imagine doing what I did, posting on the central headquarters of "I hope Obama fails." How did I do it? Well I like to think of myself as in the mold of Eric Boehlert-who wrote a great book about the liberal blogosphere by the way-"Blogging on the Bus" a must read I think for today's plugged in blogging liberal.
I guess the circle is rounded for me, already being banned-the first day at KOS-to now be banned at FDL. Overall, I have a feeling, like many liberals I've spoken with, that we need something more. That we deserve better.
13 years ago, was a dark age for liberals-Right-wing talk radio was the only game in town. All you heard all day was Lewinsky-baiting. 13 years later we are in much better shape due (very) largely to the Internet-thank you Al Gore(really, he didn't "invent" it but he did sponsor it). Yet sometimes it seems like something of a double-edged sword.
Too many of the sites have become cliquish.; FDL is just an endless Obama-hating snarkfest. But KOS is in many ways a popularity though it has some good work as well. It seems that the primary of 2008 started a lot of bad blood on KOS between the Obama supporters and the Hillary supporters and since then they have had many nasty wars in the comments section and are now a little to quick to ban.
On FDL there's a litmus test: you either bash Obama and never disagree with any criticism of Obama or you're a "troll" or "Obamabot."
For this reason many liberals now want a different kind of blog which might actually contribute to a meaningful dialogue where you actually learn something and get ideas of how to move forward with building a liberal/prog future than just razzing trolls all day.
You may already read these, but a few of them are ExtremeLiberal, Liberal Lampost, and Blue Blogger-particularly right now as we follow the events in Wisconsin since Blue Blogger is from the badger state.
My hope is Diary of a Republican Hater is another such blog.
On Tues evening, August 9, I put a comment up after reading two front page posts by Jane claiming that the Obama campaign-Axelord in particular-were engaged in anti-Mormon baiting and labeling Romney "weird."
I went over the whole episode in a previous post. I just felt like with all the things going on in the world not 1 but 2 pieces defending Mitt Romney against alleged anti-Mormon bashing was too much. Talk about heavy weather over small beer.
So I answered that basically he was a little weird-joking about a waitress grabbing his ass, that "I know what it's like to be unemployed" etc. Also that Mormonism is a kind of strange and misogynistic religion. Sure they should not be discriminated against but I can't blame someone for having pause over Romney's Mormon faith-in the context of women's rights, etc.
For this I was banned. Still it was some good times. Many people tell me they can't imagine doing what I did, posting on the central headquarters of "I hope Obama fails." How did I do it? Well I like to think of myself as in the mold of Eric Boehlert-who wrote a great book about the liberal blogosphere by the way-"Blogging on the Bus" a must read I think for today's plugged in blogging liberal.
I guess the circle is rounded for me, already being banned-the first day at KOS-to now be banned at FDL. Overall, I have a feeling, like many liberals I've spoken with, that we need something more. That we deserve better.
13 years ago, was a dark age for liberals-Right-wing talk radio was the only game in town. All you heard all day was Lewinsky-baiting. 13 years later we are in much better shape due (very) largely to the Internet-thank you Al Gore(really, he didn't "invent" it but he did sponsor it). Yet sometimes it seems like something of a double-edged sword.
Too many of the sites have become cliquish.; FDL is just an endless Obama-hating snarkfest. But KOS is in many ways a popularity though it has some good work as well. It seems that the primary of 2008 started a lot of bad blood on KOS between the Obama supporters and the Hillary supporters and since then they have had many nasty wars in the comments section and are now a little to quick to ban.
On FDL there's a litmus test: you either bash Obama and never disagree with any criticism of Obama or you're a "troll" or "Obamabot."
For this reason many liberals now want a different kind of blog which might actually contribute to a meaningful dialogue where you actually learn something and get ideas of how to move forward with building a liberal/prog future than just razzing trolls all day.
You may already read these, but a few of them are ExtremeLiberal, Liberal Lampost, and Blue Blogger-particularly right now as we follow the events in Wisconsin since Blue Blogger is from the badger state.
My hope is Diary of a Republican Hater is another such blog.
Ignore the Spin: We Won in Wisconsin!
The spin in the mainstream media seems to be that liberal Democrats lost Tuesday in Wisconsin or indeed, even that Scott Walker-and GOP-won. I just don't buy this.
The idea that the Democrats "failed" seems to have wide currency among many progressives along with the media. Yet we just picked up 2 senate seats in Republican districts in special, unusual elections. Because we didn't win a third this makes it a failure?
If it was a win for Walker why is he suddenly talking about working with the minority? This doesn't sound like typical Scot Walker talk. For that matter why is the state GOP hunkering down now and fitfully trying to change recall laws if they won and there is no threat?
After the election Walker sounded-very uncharacteristic for him-conciliatory saying that he wants to "work together for jobs" with the minority, and that's what "Wisconsin wants." Either he does know there's a message to him or he has just had a lobotomy for the Scott Walker we know and don't so love never talks of working with Democrats for jobs or anything else.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/wisconsin-recall-election-results-democrats-senate_n_922902.html
And yes there should be an investigation by someone about Waukesha country clerk Kathy Nickolaus because this is not the first time she has been there to throw the vote for the GOP. She has been at this for years, dating back to 2007 at least.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x517648
Much less publicized, the two Wisconsin wins were not the only recall victories of the day for the Dems. They also won a recall in NH where "former Democratic state Rep. Bob Perry has crushed Republican Honey Puterbaugh with over 58 percent of the vote."
The "special election filled the House seat previously held by GOP Rep. Martin Harty, who resigned after telling a constituent that “the mentally ill, the retarded, people with physical disabilities and drug addictions - the defective people” should be “shipped off” to “Siberia…to freeze to death and die and clean up the population."
http://www.dlcc.org/Dem_Wins_Second_NH_Special_in_a_Row
So don't listen to anyone be they a Republican operative, the mainstream media, or some anti-Democrat firebagger tell you that this was not a win. It wasn't a grand slam but it was still a home run.
Next on the dock: recall Walker next November.
To do that please go here
http://www.unitedwisconsin.com/
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Wisconsin Sends Message
Certainly I as all progs are disappointed that we came up short of taking the state senate. Nevertheless it was a strong showing and while there are some GOP people trying to spin this as validation for Walker, et al, obviously this is far from the truth.
After all the state GOP just lost 2 state senators in an unprecedented and unusual recall. How can this be anything but a setback?
To be sure it was more than a little erie that this came down to Kathy Nickolaus again-how is it possible? How many elections has she gotten to call for the GOP? Certainly I hope that someone is going to investigate this.
Overall I don't think the take home from this is anything but positivve. With the NY 26 race and now Wisconsin I think this is shaping up to be a very nice grounswell for 2012.
In my opinion, every Dem running in 2012 ought to do what the new Congresswoman from NY 26 did and run against Paul Ryan.
This includes President Obama who some accuse of wanting to destroy Medicare: unless you honestly believe he will install the Ryan plan and make Medicare a block grant program then clearly it would be legitimate for him to run to run against Ryan too.
In the 90s you ran against Newt, today you run against Paul Ryan.
After all the state GOP just lost 2 state senators in an unprecedented and unusual recall. How can this be anything but a setback?
To be sure it was more than a little erie that this came down to Kathy Nickolaus again-how is it possible? How many elections has she gotten to call for the GOP? Certainly I hope that someone is going to investigate this.
Overall I don't think the take home from this is anything but positivve. With the NY 26 race and now Wisconsin I think this is shaping up to be a very nice grounswell for 2012.
In my opinion, every Dem running in 2012 ought to do what the new Congresswoman from NY 26 did and run against Paul Ryan.
This includes President Obama who some accuse of wanting to destroy Medicare: unless you honestly believe he will install the Ryan plan and make Medicare a block grant program then clearly it would be legitimate for him to run to run against Ryan too.
In the 90s you ran against Newt, today you run against Paul Ryan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)