Friday, July 22, 2011
The Best Defense 'worst president' of the 20th century contest - By Tom Ricks | The Best Defense
So it came down to a guy named 'Wilson' and a guy with 'Wilson' in his name. Interesting.
Stephen Colbert (Out of character) - It Gets Better Project
Stephen Colbert records a YouTube video (out of character) for the It Gets Better Project to combat bullying of LGBT youths:
President Obama recorded a video for the project a few months ago as well:
President Obama recorded a video for the project a few months ago as well:
Can't someone else do it?
The Fix blog has a post about how the Republicans ran the type of election in 2010 that Homer Simpson did when he ran for Garbage Commissioner in a Simpsons episode. The parallels are very interesting.
There is one more thing the article doesn't mention from the episode that is also similar to the way Republicans run for office. They claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism but do the exact opposite when they get elected, like this exchange between Marge and Homer:
Marge: How could you blow through a year's budget in just one month?
Homer: They let me sign checks with a stamp, Marge. WITH A STAMP!!
Kind of like rubber-stamping everything that the "fiscal conservative" George W. Bush did in his eight years as President.
There is one more thing the article doesn't mention from the episode that is also similar to the way Republicans run for office. They claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism but do the exact opposite when they get elected, like this exchange between Marge and Homer:
Marge: How could you blow through a year's budget in just one month?
Homer: They let me sign checks with a stamp, Marge. WITH A STAMP!!
Kind of like rubber-stamping everything that the "fiscal conservative" George W. Bush did in his eight years as President.
TheOnion.com: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined
You can always count on The Onion to get it right.
Washington's Dirty Little Secret
Ezra Klein uncovers something most people don't realize: tax expenditures and government spending are really the same thing:
"The government pays employers $700 billion to offer health insurance to their employees, which no economist would say is a good idea. We’re subsidizing select parts of the energy sector, spending almost $2 billion, for instance, to subsidize “open-loop biomass” rather than simply pricing carbon emissions and letting the market work out the details, and we’re handing $4 billion to oil and gas companies that explore for new reserves.
Midway through my excavation, however, when I was really just getting warmed up, I realized I had made a mistake. I wasn’t looking at the federal budget — I was looking at the U.S. tax code. So cutting all those costly programs wouldn’t count as cutting spending to Republicans in Washington. It would count as raising taxes.
All those programs are tucked in the tax code, classified as “tax expenditures.” Like traditional government spending, the point is to achieve specific ends by throwing money at a problem. The only difference is that the beneficiaries don’t receive checks from the government, they simply have their tax liabilities reduced. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that, in 2010 alone, tax expenditures cost the government more than $1 trillion — more than Medicaid and Medicare combined."
"The government pays employers $700 billion to offer health insurance to their employees, which no economist would say is a good idea. We’re subsidizing select parts of the energy sector, spending almost $2 billion, for instance, to subsidize “open-loop biomass” rather than simply pricing carbon emissions and letting the market work out the details, and we’re handing $4 billion to oil and gas companies that explore for new reserves.
Midway through my excavation, however, when I was really just getting warmed up, I realized I had made a mistake. I wasn’t looking at the federal budget — I was looking at the U.S. tax code. So cutting all those costly programs wouldn’t count as cutting spending to Republicans in Washington. It would count as raising taxes.
All those programs are tucked in the tax code, classified as “tax expenditures.” Like traditional government spending, the point is to achieve specific ends by throwing money at a problem. The only difference is that the beneficiaries don’t receive checks from the government, they simply have their tax liabilities reduced. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that, in 2010 alone, tax expenditures cost the government more than $1 trillion — more than Medicaid and Medicare combined."
Did you know Carlos Beltran will be traded any day now?
Jon Heyman's column in Sports Illustrated the other day makes me wonder not so much why the Mets would trade Carlos Beltran within their own division but rather, why would a division rival send a top prospect to another team within its own division when that prospect could come back to haunt them for the next 7-10 years?
On a side note about Beltran, Will Leitch of New York Magazine makes an interesting observation:
"Within the next eleven days, the Mets are going to trade Carlos Beltran. When that happens, we will all write obituaries to his seven-year Mets career, the high times, the low times, the injuries, the last out of the 2006 NLCS."
Later in the same post, he writes:
"And in his first chance as closer, Jason Isringhausen, of all people, nailed down the save. Mets fans of course know Isringhausen as the onetime starting prospect burnout, but Cardinals fans know him as the agonizingly inconsistent closer whose injury allowed Adam Wainwright to become the Cardinals closer in 2006, which led to that 2006 NLCS Game 7, which leads us back to Beltran. This post just went full circle and blew your mind."
On a side note about Beltran, Will Leitch of New York Magazine makes an interesting observation:
"Within the next eleven days, the Mets are going to trade Carlos Beltran. When that happens, we will all write obituaries to his seven-year Mets career, the high times, the low times, the injuries, the last out of the 2006 NLCS."
Later in the same post, he writes:
"And in his first chance as closer, Jason Isringhausen, of all people, nailed down the save. Mets fans of course know Isringhausen as the onetime starting prospect burnout, but Cardinals fans know him as the agonizingly inconsistent closer whose injury allowed Adam Wainwright to become the Cardinals closer in 2006, which led to that 2006 NLCS Game 7, which leads us back to Beltran. This post just went full circle and blew your mind."
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
The magic 18% number and its (un)reality...
A blog post at The Incidental Economist as well as Matt Miller's column in The Washington Post both talk about how capping taxes at 18% of GDP is a pipe dream:
"...if we maintain our 40 year historical average of 18 percent of GDP raised in taxes, the we will have a deficit simply due to paying for interest, health care, social security and defense in 2021. That means that even with no FBI, FAA, NIH, NEA, Homeland Security, and nothing else but these line items–18% of GDP collected in taxes still won’t be enough to produce a balanced budget. With NO federal spending other than these categories, we will have a deficit in 10 years if our tax code brings in 18% of GDP."
Miller goes on to write about how capping federal spending at 18% is not possible in this day-and-age either:
"The “cap, cut and balance” plan passed by the House Tuesday night captures Republican denial perfectly. The plan would cap federal spending at 19.9 percent of GDP by 2018, with the goal of lowering it to18 percent over time. Similar caps have been endorsed by most of the GOP’s presidential candidates.
You’d never know from listening to Republicans that these goals are mathematically and politically unattainable.
But they are. Why? If there’s one fact you need to emblazon in your mind to make sense of the current debate, it is that Ronald Reagan ran the federal government at 22 percent of GDP back when our population was much younger. (Under President Obama, the extraordinary measures enacted to fight the recession – plus a collapse in the denominator, GDP -- have boosted spending to around 24 percent, while revenue has dropped to 15 percent from its 18-19 percent longtime average).
It is simply not plausible to argue that as we double the number of seniors on Social Security and Medicare, Uncle Sam will be able to operate at spending levels 10 to 20 percent below those over which America’s modern conservative icon presided. (Though, as [The Washington Post's] Dana Milbank notes, Reagan agreed to raise taxes 11 times.) Today there’s no question: Taxes must rise."
Read both articles. You'll be much smarter having done so.
"...if we maintain our 40 year historical average of 18 percent of GDP raised in taxes, the we will have a deficit simply due to paying for interest, health care, social security and defense in 2021. That means that even with no FBI, FAA, NIH, NEA, Homeland Security, and nothing else but these line items–18% of GDP collected in taxes still won’t be enough to produce a balanced budget. With NO federal spending other than these categories, we will have a deficit in 10 years if our tax code brings in 18% of GDP."
Miller goes on to write about how capping federal spending at 18% is not possible in this day-and-age either:
"The “cap, cut and balance” plan passed by the House Tuesday night captures Republican denial perfectly. The plan would cap federal spending at 19.9 percent of GDP by 2018, with the goal of lowering it to18 percent over time. Similar caps have been endorsed by most of the GOP’s presidential candidates.
You’d never know from listening to Republicans that these goals are mathematically and politically unattainable.
But they are. Why? If there’s one fact you need to emblazon in your mind to make sense of the current debate, it is that Ronald Reagan ran the federal government at 22 percent of GDP back when our population was much younger. (Under President Obama, the extraordinary measures enacted to fight the recession – plus a collapse in the denominator, GDP -- have boosted spending to around 24 percent, while revenue has dropped to 15 percent from its 18-19 percent longtime average).
It is simply not plausible to argue that as we double the number of seniors on Social Security and Medicare, Uncle Sam will be able to operate at spending levels 10 to 20 percent below those over which America’s modern conservative icon presided. (Though, as [The Washington Post's] Dana Milbank notes, Reagan agreed to raise taxes 11 times.) Today there’s no question: Taxes must rise."
Read both articles. You'll be much smarter having done so.
Friday, July 15, 2011
What Americans support (and don't support) in cutting the deficit
Check out the entire list. Here are the top five:
-- Placing a surtax on federal income taxes for people earning over $1 million a year: 81% acceptable
-- Eliminating spending on so-called earmarks for special projects and specific areas of the country: 78% acceptable
-- Eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says are not necessary: 76% acceptable
-- Eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries: 74% acceptable
-- Phasing out the Bush tax cuts for families earning $250,000 or more per year: 68% acceptable
-- Placing a surtax on federal income taxes for people earning over $1 million a year: 81% acceptable
-- Eliminating spending on so-called earmarks for special projects and specific areas of the country: 78% acceptable
-- Eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says are not necessary: 76% acceptable
-- Eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries: 74% acceptable
-- Phasing out the Bush tax cuts for families earning $250,000 or more per year: 68% acceptable
Sam Borden - SI.com: The New York Mets have no choice but to trade Jose Reyes
What bothers me isn't that this guy suggested the Mets trade Jose Reyes. What bothers me is some of his points actually make sense.
Joel Sherman, NYPOST.com: Time for Reyes, Wright to show Mets why team should keep them together
Joel Sherman quotes an AL team staffer in explaining why Reyes and Wright need to step up these next few weeks:
"“There is a shallow talent pool at both positions (shortstop and third),” an AL personnel man said. “And it is not like they have a Starlin Castro-like prospect at either position ready to no doubt take over. They are both in their prime and both have shown the ability to be top five at their position, maybe even top three. You have to keep an open mind about keeping both.”"
"“There is a shallow talent pool at both positions (shortstop and third),” an AL personnel man said. “And it is not like they have a Starlin Castro-like prospect at either position ready to no doubt take over. They are both in their prime and both have shown the ability to be top five at their position, maybe even top three. You have to keep an open mind about keeping both.”"
Thursday, July 14, 2011
VP Biden Op-Ed: Delivering the accountable government that taxpayers deserve | McClatchy
Check out this op-ed today from Vice President Joe Biden.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Factcheck.org: Sen. Jeff Sessions Wrong on Bush Tax Cuts
I still don't get what these guys are smoking to still believe this?
"Sen. Jeff Sessions wrongly claimed that federal revenues "went up every single year" after the Bush tax cuts were "put in." Actually, federal revenues declined for three straight years after the first tax cut was signed in 2001."
"We pointed out these figures to the senator's spokesman, Stephen Miller, who blamed the revenue declines of 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the 2001 recession. But that recession ended in November 2001, and federal revenues continued to go down for the next two years. And, as we noted, CBO determined that both income tax revenues and total overall revenues would have increased in 2001, if not for the tax cuts."
"Sen. Jeff Sessions wrongly claimed that federal revenues "went up every single year" after the Bush tax cuts were "put in." Actually, federal revenues declined for three straight years after the first tax cut was signed in 2001."
"We pointed out these figures to the senator's spokesman, Stephen Miller, who blamed the revenue declines of 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the 2001 recession. But that recession ended in November 2001, and federal revenues continued to go down for the next two years. And, as we noted, CBO determined that both income tax revenues and total overall revenues would have increased in 2001, if not for the tax cuts."
A New York Yankee fan explains why "It Stinks To Be A Yankees Fan"
Great column today from a Yankee fan that travelled to a number of Major League ballparks around the country and realized that what is missing from the Yankee universe is the innocence that the game is supposed to bring to its fans:
"What’s my point, you ask? Yankees fans need to seriously reflect here. Ask yourselves, do you really enjoy making the playoffs every year?
Is it an accomplishment that is really celebrated, or something expected that finally and inevitably comes to pass? Be honest. It’s the latter and it’s a shame. A division championship or a postseason birth is something that should be valued and appreciated, not viewed as a divine right.
I’m sure fans of other teams reading this right about now are asking themselves: “So what’s the problem? I’d want to make the playoffs every year. It’s awesome.” Think again.
As a kid waking up on Christmas morning, there was nothing cooler than seeing a brand new bike wheeled out after all the presents were opened as some kind of uber-surprise. Even though you realized something was up (since there weren’t really any gifts under the tree for you), it was still the thrill of a lifetime. Even though the ground was blanketed with snow and it was just 25 degrees outside, you would get on that bike and ride it until your face froze. It was the best.
Do you think it would feel that way if every single Christmas morning you got a new bike? Nope. Soon it would become an expectation, to the point if you didn’t get the bike, no matter the substitute, it would be a disappointment that would dwarf any feeling of joy. You’d become spoiled and entitled. It’s bad for the person receiving the gift and the person giving it.
The Yankees fan is the kid that gets a new bike every Christmas — and their parents can’t figure out a way to top it."
"What’s my point, you ask? Yankees fans need to seriously reflect here. Ask yourselves, do you really enjoy making the playoffs every year?
Is it an accomplishment that is really celebrated, or something expected that finally and inevitably comes to pass? Be honest. It’s the latter and it’s a shame. A division championship or a postseason birth is something that should be valued and appreciated, not viewed as a divine right.
I’m sure fans of other teams reading this right about now are asking themselves: “So what’s the problem? I’d want to make the playoffs every year. It’s awesome.” Think again.
As a kid waking up on Christmas morning, there was nothing cooler than seeing a brand new bike wheeled out after all the presents were opened as some kind of uber-surprise. Even though you realized something was up (since there weren’t really any gifts under the tree for you), it was still the thrill of a lifetime. Even though the ground was blanketed with snow and it was just 25 degrees outside, you would get on that bike and ride it until your face froze. It was the best.
Do you think it would feel that way if every single Christmas morning you got a new bike? Nope. Soon it would become an expectation, to the point if you didn’t get the bike, no matter the substitute, it would be a disappointment that would dwarf any feeling of joy. You’d become spoiled and entitled. It’s bad for the person receiving the gift and the person giving it.
The Yankees fan is the kid that gets a new bike every Christmas — and their parents can’t figure out a way to top it."
Monday, July 11, 2011
The 2011 MLB All-Star Game, Live from the "Papers Please" state
Roberto Clemente, Jr. wonders why the proposed boycott of this year's All-Star Game fizzled after Arizona passed the "Papers Please" law. It's really sad because I remember the Phoenix Suns making their protest in a very unique way. Hopefully, one of the 21 Latinos playing in this year's All-Star Game will remind us of this issue in his own unique way. Or at least one can hope so.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Baseball Prospectus | Baseball ProGUESTus: The Real Realignment Solution
This was an unusual column to read for no other reason than the fact that its tongue-in-cheek nature doesn't really come across until you start reading the proposed realigned leagues and divisions. It is a very interesting read nonetheless. As far as realignment goes though, I'm still sticking with my idea from June 2009.
A Brilliant Piece on Behavioral Psychology
David Brooks has a brilliant column today about research into behavioral psychology. I highly recommend reading this because it is really fascinating:
"Let’s say you want to reduce poverty. We have two traditional understandings of poverty. The first presumes people are rational. They are pursuing their goals effectively and don’t need much help in changing their behavior. The second presumes that the poor are afflicted by cultural or psychological dysfunctions that sometimes lead them to behave in shortsighted ways. Neither of these theories has produced much in the way of effective policies.
Eldar Shafir of Princeton and Sendhil Mullainathan of Harvard have recently, with federal help, been exploring a third theory, that scarcity produces its own cognitive traits.
A quick question: What is the starting taxi fare in your city? If you are like most upper-middle-class people, you don’t know. If you are like many struggling people, you do know. Poorer people have to think hard about a million things that affluent people don’t. They have to make complicated trade-offs when buying a carton of milk: If I buy milk, I can’t afford orange juice. They have to decide which utility not to pay.
These questions impose enormous cognitive demands. The brain has limited capacities. If you increase demands on one sort of question, it performs less well on other sorts of questions.
Shafir and Mullainathan gave batteries of tests to Indian sugar farmers. After they sell their harvest, they live in relative prosperity. During this season, the farmers do well on the I.Q. and other tests. But before the harvest, they live amid scarcity and have to think hard about a thousand daily decisions. During these seasons, these same farmers do much worse on the tests. They appear to have lower I.Q.’s. They have more trouble controlling their attention. They are more shortsighted. Scarcity creates its own psychology."
Read the whole column. It is well worth the time and effort.
"Let’s say you want to reduce poverty. We have two traditional understandings of poverty. The first presumes people are rational. They are pursuing their goals effectively and don’t need much help in changing their behavior. The second presumes that the poor are afflicted by cultural or psychological dysfunctions that sometimes lead them to behave in shortsighted ways. Neither of these theories has produced much in the way of effective policies.
Eldar Shafir of Princeton and Sendhil Mullainathan of Harvard have recently, with federal help, been exploring a third theory, that scarcity produces its own cognitive traits.
A quick question: What is the starting taxi fare in your city? If you are like most upper-middle-class people, you don’t know. If you are like many struggling people, you do know. Poorer people have to think hard about a million things that affluent people don’t. They have to make complicated trade-offs when buying a carton of milk: If I buy milk, I can’t afford orange juice. They have to decide which utility not to pay.
These questions impose enormous cognitive demands. The brain has limited capacities. If you increase demands on one sort of question, it performs less well on other sorts of questions.
Shafir and Mullainathan gave batteries of tests to Indian sugar farmers. After they sell their harvest, they live in relative prosperity. During this season, the farmers do well on the I.Q. and other tests. But before the harvest, they live amid scarcity and have to think hard about a thousand daily decisions. During these seasons, these same farmers do much worse on the tests. They appear to have lower I.Q.’s. They have more trouble controlling their attention. They are more shortsighted. Scarcity creates its own psychology."
Read the whole column. It is well worth the time and effort.
NJ Senate president almost struck by lightning during TV interview
This is pretty scary:
I haven't been following New Jersey politics as closely as I should be but the general consensus among Democrats is State Senate President Steve Sweeney betrayed Democrats for cutting a deal with Republican Governor Chris Christie. So for many on the Left, this seems like poetic justice. But it's still a dangerous and scary thing to happen to someone regardless of their politics.
Lightning Almost Hits Christie Foe On TV: MyFoxPHILLY.com
I haven't been following New Jersey politics as closely as I should be but the general consensus among Democrats is State Senate President Steve Sweeney betrayed Democrats for cutting a deal with Republican Governor Chris Christie. So for many on the Left, this seems like poetic justice. But it's still a dangerous and scary thing to happen to someone regardless of their politics.
Carlos Beltran: A Solution to the Mariners Problems?
I have to admit, I don't know enough about the Mariners to know whether or not this is a viable option. However, I am intrigued by what the Mets would get back in a deal and the thought of Ichiro and Beltran in the same lineup.
New York Giants --> San Francisco Giants --> Toronto Giants?
MLB.com has an article today about Al Michaels and Bob Costas calling tonight's Giants-Mets game for MLB Network. The game is blacked out in the New York and San Francisco markets but not to worry. Michaels and Costas will call the 4th and 5th innings for SNY and the 6th and 7th innings for ComCast SportsNet Bay Area.
In talking about Michaels as a baseball announcer, MLB.com shares this interesting nugget:
"Many listeners might not have known just how good Michaels was when he called Giants games. Each San Francisco team he was associated with finished under .500 and drew less than 650,000 to Candlestick Park for the season. Michaels recalled keeping a parka in the broadcast booth to cope with the elements, naming the people in the sparsely populated stands one night instead of announcing the paid attendance and seeing the franchise nearly move to Toronto before the 1976 season. "It was all pretty negative," Michaels said."
The near move to Toronto was something I never knew about. Oddly, diehard baseball fans (especially fans like me that wanted to grow up to be play-by-play announcers someday) will share a memory of Michaels as a baseball announcer that has nothing to do with baseball. I will always remember Michaels being in the broadcast booth before Game 3 of the 1989 World Series between the Oakland A's and San Francisco Giants when the big earthquake hit right before game time.
Having grown up in San Francisco, Michaels had intimate knowledge of everything being shown on TV and was, for a few hours that night, pretty much the entire ABC News and ABC Sports broadcast crew in one. I had just visited San Francisco in February of that year on a family vacation when I was 16 years old so it felt strange to me that even though I only spent a few days in the Bay Area I had just been to many of the places that were being shown on TV with fires and unspeakable damage.
So as a baseball fan, I'm looking forward to the 4th and 5th innings of tonight's game for no other reason than having a memory of Al Michaels calling a baseball game rather than calling earthquake rescue efforts in lieu of a baseball game.
And not to take away anything from Bob Costas, but my fondest memory of him doing baseball comes 10 years later, in Game 6 of the 1999 NLCS. He said something to the effect of 'the Braves have brought in John Smoltz in the top of the 7th to shut the door on the Mets', only to watch Mike Piazza hit a 2-run home run as part of a 4-run inning where the Mets took a 7-3 Braves lead and tied it 7-7. Then Kenny Rogers happened in the bottom of the 11th and I try to forget what ensued thereafter.
In talking about Michaels as a baseball announcer, MLB.com shares this interesting nugget:
"Many listeners might not have known just how good Michaels was when he called Giants games. Each San Francisco team he was associated with finished under .500 and drew less than 650,000 to Candlestick Park for the season. Michaels recalled keeping a parka in the broadcast booth to cope with the elements, naming the people in the sparsely populated stands one night instead of announcing the paid attendance and seeing the franchise nearly move to Toronto before the 1976 season. "It was all pretty negative," Michaels said."
The near move to Toronto was something I never knew about. Oddly, diehard baseball fans (especially fans like me that wanted to grow up to be play-by-play announcers someday) will share a memory of Michaels as a baseball announcer that has nothing to do with baseball. I will always remember Michaels being in the broadcast booth before Game 3 of the 1989 World Series between the Oakland A's and San Francisco Giants when the big earthquake hit right before game time.
Having grown up in San Francisco, Michaels had intimate knowledge of everything being shown on TV and was, for a few hours that night, pretty much the entire ABC News and ABC Sports broadcast crew in one. I had just visited San Francisco in February of that year on a family vacation when I was 16 years old so it felt strange to me that even though I only spent a few days in the Bay Area I had just been to many of the places that were being shown on TV with fires and unspeakable damage.
So as a baseball fan, I'm looking forward to the 4th and 5th innings of tonight's game for no other reason than having a memory of Al Michaels calling a baseball game rather than calling earthquake rescue efforts in lieu of a baseball game.
And not to take away anything from Bob Costas, but my fondest memory of him doing baseball comes 10 years later, in Game 6 of the 1999 NLCS. He said something to the effect of 'the Braves have brought in John Smoltz in the top of the 7th to shut the door on the Mets', only to watch Mike Piazza hit a 2-run home run as part of a 4-run inning where the Mets took a 7-3 Braves lead and tied it 7-7. Then Kenny Rogers happened in the bottom of the 11th and I try to forget what ensued thereafter.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Mets are laying down the claw - NYPOST.com
The Mets with another big win without Jose Reyes last night, thanks in part to ... THE CLAW!!
"Oh no... run ITS THE CLAW! NOTHING CAN STOP THE CLAWWWW!"
"Oh no... run ITS THE CLAW! NOTHING CAN STOP THE CLAWWWW!"
More on the schism between 'Conservative' and 'Republican'
I blogged yesterday about David Brooks' column in The New York Times criticizing the Republicans' handling of the debt ceiling negotiations. The Economist also weighs in on the Brooks column:
"In all probability, America won't default; it's still difficult to imagine that it cold come to that. The bigger danger, I think, is that the Republican strategy will either lead Democrats to accept short-term cuts large enough to endanger recovery or will result in a short period of "prioritisation", in which spending is suddenly and dramatically cut back to prevent a default once the money runs out (on or about August 2nd). America may make it through this episode with its credit rating intact and still sustain significant economic damage."
"In all probability, America won't default; it's still difficult to imagine that it cold come to that. The bigger danger, I think, is that the Republican strategy will either lead Democrats to accept short-term cuts large enough to endanger recovery or will result in a short period of "prioritisation", in which spending is suddenly and dramatically cut back to prevent a default once the money runs out (on or about August 2nd). America may make it through this episode with its credit rating intact and still sustain significant economic damage."
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The Progressive Ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution
Have you ever read the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution? It goes like this:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I find it odd that so many Tea Party activists refer to the Constitution and Founding Fathers in their issues around big government when the very first part of the document they crafted refers to things like "more perfect Union", "common defence", and "general Welfare".
E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post must have had the same thought rattling around in his head because he penned an excellent column about the progressive ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence:
"In the long list of “abuses and usurpations” the Declaration documents, taxes don’t come up until the 17th item, and that item is neither a complaint about tax rates nor an objection to the idea of taxation. Our Founders remonstrated against the British crown “for imposing taxes on us without our consent.” They were concerned about “consent,” i.e. popular rule, not taxes.
The very first item on their list condemned the king because he “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of “the public good,” not about individuals or “the private sector.” They knew that it takes public action — including effective and responsive government — to secure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Their second grievance reinforced the first, accusing the king of having “forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance.” Again, our forebears wanted to enact laws; they were not anti-government zealots.
Abuses three through nine also referred in some way to how laws were passed or justice was administered. The document doesn’t really get to anything that looks like Big Government oppression (“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance”) until grievance No. 10."
Of course, keep in mind the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, hardly the staunch advocate for a big central government.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I find it odd that so many Tea Party activists refer to the Constitution and Founding Fathers in their issues around big government when the very first part of the document they crafted refers to things like "more perfect Union", "common defence", and "general Welfare".
E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post must have had the same thought rattling around in his head because he penned an excellent column about the progressive ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence:
"In the long list of “abuses and usurpations” the Declaration documents, taxes don’t come up until the 17th item, and that item is neither a complaint about tax rates nor an objection to the idea of taxation. Our Founders remonstrated against the British crown “for imposing taxes on us without our consent.” They were concerned about “consent,” i.e. popular rule, not taxes.
The very first item on their list condemned the king because he “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of “the public good,” not about individuals or “the private sector.” They knew that it takes public action — including effective and responsive government — to secure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Their second grievance reinforced the first, accusing the king of having “forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance.” Again, our forebears wanted to enact laws; they were not anti-government zealots.
Abuses three through nine also referred in some way to how laws were passed or justice was administered. The document doesn’t really get to anything that looks like Big Government oppression (“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance”) until grievance No. 10."
Of course, keep in mind the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, hardly the staunch advocate for a big central government.
“There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is.”
Great column explaining how the calamity we face today is eerily similar to the calamity faced by the American economy in the 1870's. Oddly enough, the failed solutions put forth back are eerily similar to what is being proposed by the political Right today:
"In the face of economic calamity and skyrocketing unemployment, the government did, well, nothing. No federal unemployment insurance eased families’ suffering and kept a floor on demand. No central bank existed to fight deflation. Large-scale government stimulus was a thing of the distant future.
As demand collapsed, businesses slashed payrolls and reduced wages, and a ruinous period of deflation began. By 1879, wholesale prices had declined 30 percent. The consequences were catastrophic for the nation’s many debtors and set off a vicious economic cycle. When economic growth eventually began, progress was slow, with periodic crises plaguing the economy through the end of the century."
The only thing missing today are the riots.
"In the face of economic calamity and skyrocketing unemployment, the government did, well, nothing. No federal unemployment insurance eased families’ suffering and kept a floor on demand. No central bank existed to fight deflation. Large-scale government stimulus was a thing of the distant future.
As demand collapsed, businesses slashed payrolls and reduced wages, and a ruinous period of deflation began. By 1879, wholesale prices had declined 30 percent. The consequences were catastrophic for the nation’s many debtors and set off a vicious economic cycle. When economic growth eventually began, progress was slow, with periodic crises plaguing the economy through the end of the century."
The only thing missing today are the riots.
CNN.com: Perjury trial of baseball legend Clemens begins this week
I think every Met fan wants him to be found guilty and sent to jail for beaning and throwing a piece of a bat at Mike Piazza.
The schism between 'Conservative' and 'Republican'
Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks lays out why the Republican Party is no longer a "normal political party":
"If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.
A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.
The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.
This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.
But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no."
Brooks always referred to himself as a 'Conservative' first and then a 'Republican', which is an interesting distinction because it gives some legitimacy to his ability to distance himself from the party unlike other conservative columnists. As a columnist for what is considered a left-leaning New York Times, he has jokingly called himself "The Rabbi of Mecca".
His column is believed to be a must-read for President Obama so one wonders if his audience for today's column consists of New York Times readers or just one American President?
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post echos similar sentiments, referring to the GOP as "a grand old cult".
"If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.
A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.
The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.
This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.
But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no."
Brooks always referred to himself as a 'Conservative' first and then a 'Republican', which is an interesting distinction because it gives some legitimacy to his ability to distance himself from the party unlike other conservative columnists. As a columnist for what is considered a left-leaning New York Times, he has jokingly called himself "The Rabbi of Mecca".
His column is believed to be a must-read for President Obama so one wonders if his audience for today's column consists of New York Times readers or just one American President?
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post echos similar sentiments, referring to the GOP as "a grand old cult".
Saturday, July 2, 2011
A-Rod: Jose Reyes is "the world's greatest player"
From ESPNNewYork.com:
"They have the world's greatest player playing shortstop over there, and the most exciting," Rodriguez said, referring to electrifying New York Mets leadoff hitter Jose Reyes. "I turn on the TV every time I get a chance to watch him."
The tolerant side of me thinks A-Rod is being honest and channeling his childhood as a Met fan. The cynic in me is wondering if this is a setup to try to woo Reyes to be a Yankee next season. Unfortunately we can only wait and see...
"They have the world's greatest player playing shortstop over there, and the most exciting," Rodriguez said, referring to electrifying New York Mets leadoff hitter Jose Reyes. "I turn on the TV every time I get a chance to watch him."
The tolerant side of me thinks A-Rod is being honest and channeling his childhood as a Met fan. The cynic in me is wondering if this is a setup to try to woo Reyes to be a Yankee next season. Unfortunately we can only wait and see...
Friday, July 1, 2011
Colbert Approved to Form Super PAC
The New York Times article about it has more details but I posted the related videos below. You can also go to the website for the Colbert Super Pac to sign up for the mailing list.
The raw video from AP:
The video from ABCNews.com:
Two videos from last night's Colbert Report:
The raw video from AP:
The video from ABCNews.com:
Two videos from last night's Colbert Report:
PolitiFact.com: Glenn Beck's Greatest Hits (and Misses)
Don't let the door hit you on the way out Glenn! In case you were wondering:
"Of our 23 fact-checks of Glenn Beck, here's the breakdown: True, 2; Mostly True, 1; Half True 5; Barely True, 4; False, 6, and Pants on Fire, 5."
The scary part is his 11 out of 23 'False' or 'Pants on Fire' is actually a better percentage of accuracy than Michele Bachmann (and she's running for President!)
"Of our 23 fact-checks of Glenn Beck, here's the breakdown: True, 2; Mostly True, 1; Half True 5; Barely True, 4; False, 6, and Pants on Fire, 5."
The scary part is his 11 out of 23 'False' or 'Pants on Fire' is actually a better percentage of accuracy than Michele Bachmann (and she's running for President!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)