Bait and Switch Political Economy

So, why are we really stuck in the Silli-quester?  The one option that was supposed to be so distinctly unpleasant and irrational that both major political parties would eschew any connection to it and thereby be inclined to adopt compromise measures?  Bait and Switch.

Why are the punditocracy chattering on about how both sides should exercise some political rationality (if that isn’t an oxymoron) and move to the discussion about serious economic needs, such as job creation (without all the inanity of trickle down hoax-isms) and debt stabilization?  Bait and Switch. Why Bait and Switch?

Beneath all the chatter are some very different world views, political ideologies, and priorities.  In an ideal world there would be less reason to discuss who is to blame for the economic mess in which we find ourselves, and more reason to sit down and talk about how we (1) encourage economic growth and (2) stabilize our indebtedness.  This obviously isn’t a perfect world.

It’s going to take some good old fashioned rational discussion in a FACT based universe to get out of this muddle.  The facts are unpleasant on both sides of the polarized political flanks, but they do need to be the main topics of conversation before we can get out of the Bait and Switch model.

The Bait

This is all about stabilizing the national debt.  Yes, and no.  Those who are truly of sound mind and reasonable thinking recognize two things: (a) We have a situation in which health care costs are driving up federal expenditures just as they are taking a larger chuck out of family finances; and (b) our tax laws need some reform — real reform — not merely another excuse to reduce taxes on the economic elite who are more inclined to indulge in speculation than in the less profitable but more productive investment in industrial and commercial development.   The third fact of life is that we engaged in not one, but two wars, an activity designed to suck the sustenance out of any consumer based economy.

The Switch

This is all about the national debt.  Is it? Or, is it cover for indulging in the enaction of Austerity economics which calls for the reduction of government spending without increasing government revenue?  Consider the vehement opposition of the Tea Party caucus of the House GOP to any suggestion that we need to enhance revenue to reduce and stabilize the national indebtedness.  If this group were truly speaking to the unsustainability of our current debt trajectory then revenue increases would be a logical portion of the debate.  However, it’s not.  The debt level becomes the bait, and the unwillingness to even consider revenue increases signals that their real object is what it has always been — an adherence to the mythology that government (even a government trying to serve the needs of 330 million people) is Too Big and needs to be restricted.  As usual, Robert Reich has summarized the problem succinctly:

“Tea Party Republicans are crowing about the “sequestration” cuts beginning today (Friday). “This will be the first significant tea party victory in that we got what we set out to do in changing Washington,” says Rep. Tim Huelskamp (Kan.), a Tea Partier who was first elected in 2010.

Sequestration is only the start. What they set out to do was not simply change Washington but eviscerate the U.S. government — “drown it in the bathtub,” in the words of their guru Grover Norquist – slashing Social Security and Medicare, ending worker protections we’ve had since the 1930s, eroding civil rights and voting rights, terminating programs that have helped the poor for generations, and making it impossible for the government to invest in our future.”

These are the people who took President Ronald Reagan’s message to heart, “The government is the problem,” and then took the philosophy further than that former President ever considered.  The radical right wing of the Republican Party has created an environment in which even the Speaker of the House can’t get legislation to the floor, or must break his own “Hastert Rule” to get anything passed.  There may be a core of rational Republican members of Congress who might give thought to compromising and indulge in some serious discussions about government spending, taxation, and infrastructure investment — BUT each one of them sits beneath the Damocletian Sword of a primary challenge from some candidate even more conservative than themselves.

Real Problems Should Have Realistic Solutions

While it would be nice to assume that social safety net programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are sustainable in the present context, that really isn’t a reasonable conclusion.  Recognition of the problems associated with maintaining an acceptable level of service to Medicare beneficiaries is essential.

The solution presented by Rep. Paul Ryan to privatize the Medicare system and transform it into a coupon-care or voucher program doesn’t solve the problems any more than calling for the program to continue without further improvements.   The real problem is the rising cost of health care delivery, and until we can address how to reduce the costs increases the programs for health care assistance will be financially unsustainable.

Those who have not yet read Steven Brill’s excellent piece in Time magazine should do so immediately.   Here’s an essential part of the reporting:

“When you look behind the bills that Sean Recchi and other patients receive, you see nothing rational — no rhyme or reason — about the costs they faced in a marketplace they enter through no choice of their own. The only constant is the sticker shock for the patients who are asked to pay.  Yet those who work in the health care industry and those who argue over health care policy seem inured to the shock. When we debate health care policy, we seem to jump right to the issue of who should pay the bills, blowing past what should be the first question: Why exactly are the bills so high?”

Nailed It!  And Brill goes on to explain or describe the basic issues involved, such as the inflated prices for common products, the perverse economics of medical technology, bills to match the catastrophic nature of the illness or injury, and the handcuffs on Medicare.

Tea Party Caucus radicals would have us believe there is no middle ground between transforming the Medicare program into a privatized voucher system and turning Medicaid into a parsimoniously funded block grant program and Socialized Medicine.  This is not the case.  It’s certainly not the case when we examine what happens in the health care market, when “insurance isn’t insurance” and chargemasters determine “opening bids” for costs.  Health care cost containment is the essential issue — we should be asking, as Brill suggests, not who should pay, but how much should be paid — by anyone, public or personal.

The Affordable Care Act has some features which will reduce the costs of medical services and treatment, but it is not the answer to the dilemma of how to fix a “broken market.”  Ideological squabbling over Repeal or Not To Repeal is a waste of time, and of time which would be better spent trying to solve the Gordian Knot of health care cost containment.

There are two things, often suggested, and in the past often done, which would alleviate some of the problems associated with Medicare and Medicaid funding. First, we could allow the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate prices for prescription medication. Secondly, we could get serious about regulating and rationalizing the pricing structures of hospital and medical services.

The inclusion of Social Security “reform” in the Silli-quester debate is informative,  since the program is self funding and doesn’t add to the national level of indebtedness, the only reason for incorporating it into the “entitlement” discussion is to cut it — as radical right wing adversaries have wanted to do since it was enacted during the Depression.  We could, for example increase the liability cap above the current $113,700 in income for the Social Security program. There’s a boatload of difference in the financial resources of a family with an annual income of $1,113,700 and a family with annual resources of $113,700.  Surely those in the upper 0.1% of the income pyramid could afford to pay in a bit more?

The use of the Chained CPI isn’t a popular suggestion, but the chains may not be shackles.

“While no one knows what a full elderly CPI will show, we do know that switching the COLA to a chained CPI will reduce lifetime Social Security benefits by an average of about 3 percent. This doesn’t raise a huge amount of money, but it would be a big hit to seniors, 70 percent of whom rely on Social Security for more than half of their income.” [CEPR]

The problem, of course, is that elderly people don’t purchase items that show up in the inflation calculations (cars, electronics, etc.) as often as younger people; but, they do spend on housing and health care. (See health care cost containment above).   There is nothing essentially wrong with discussing the Chained CPI if it can be done reasonably.  For example, could the index be adjusted to account for the variance in inflation associated with the consumption patterns of elderly individuals?  Or, if we can achieve some kind of stable economic growth would the reductions in benefits associated with the Chained CPI be mitigated?  Bellowing, “Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme,” or “There won’t be anything left for Junior,” isn’t the way to start a discussion about these details any more than the absolute “Don’t Touch Social Security“  in any way, shape or form is on the other hand.   Note that both the Medicare and the Social Security inflation adjustment issues are related to the bug-bear of health care cost containment?

It’s not just our population that’s aging. So are our bridges, highways, parks, and other public facilities.  We have aging public building that could lower their utility costs with upgrading, and we have aging public structures which should be replaced.   And, then there are schools:

About one-fourth (28 percent) of all public schools were built before 1950, and 45 percent of all public schools were built between 1950 and 1969 (table 1).Seventeen percent of public schools were built between 1970 and 1984, and 10 percent were built after 1985. The increase in the construction of schools between 1950 and 1969 corresponds to the years during which the Baby Boom generation was going to school. [NCES]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but after 60 years most school buildings need so much renovation that they aren’t functional and most are abandoned.

Since we probably can’t build everything at once, how about focusing on roads and bridges?  Various suggestions have been made concerning upgrading American infrastructure, and if we want to have a serious discussion about this topic we might begin with the obvious — crumbling roads and bridges.  Why not allow the U.S. Treasury to issue some long term bonds (30 year) expressly for the purpose of addressing transportation infrastructure needs?  This could be a win-win proposition.  The bondholders have a safe haven investment which is interest earning, the public gets better roads and bridges, and if we must have a “pay for” element we could consider increasing fees or use taxes by a minimal amount, again expressly for the purpose of paying off the bondholders.

These kinds of suggestions deserve more attention than they are getting, but they will not get serious consideration until ideologues stop screeching “the government can’t create jobs,” or “we can’t increase taxes any taxes any time,” as the bridge slowly crumbles beneath us.   The bond issuance idea deserves a serious moment — the public assets values increase, the bonds earn interest for the investors, and everyone’s safer.   Little wonder then that the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are both supportive of infrastructure investment.   Short term, the construction sector of the economy gets a boost; long term the investors and the public benefit from the proposal.

Taxing Issues

We do need tax reform.  What we don’t need is one more scheme to shift the burden of financing government from the economic elites to working men and women in America.  Yes, that would be the old Flat Tax canard.   In case Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner would like to find the President’s plan for revenue and budget stability it’s located in plain sight right here.  The proposal includes one tax reform that should be given some attention.

The President proposes that itemized deductions be limited to 28% for wealthy individuals.   What should be on the table in addition to this suggestion is the variance in the way we tax earnings.  As former FDIC Chr. Sheila Bair has noted, “Why does a hedge fund manager pay lower tax rates than a shoe store manager?“  Good question. Additionally, no one has yet put forth a credible argument (complete with some hard data) to sustain the idea that the investors are really “job creators,” but factory and office  managers definitely are those making staffing and hiring decisions.   We might also give some time to the issue of allowing corporations to indefinitely defer taxes on profits made overseas.

Republicans in the 2012 campaign season often spoke of closing loopholes, however vaguely those were described.  Let’s get specific.  Why are there loopholes for corporate jets? For yachts?  For highly profitable oil corporations?   Both sides of the aisle might want to talk about the possibility that if a sufficient number of these loopholes were closed then perhaps the overall rates could be reduced?

In short, if we are truly looking toward stabilizing our national debt, as opposed to merely trying to drown our government in a bath tub,  there are rational ways to do it — but in order to accomplish that we need to have some rational discussions about the route we choose.  Bait and Switch is never a good starting point, but abatement in the hyperbole and switching to a more reasonable level of civic discourse would be an excellent place to begin.

Amodei, Heck Blow Off Sandy Victims

Nevada Representatives Mark Amodei (R-NV2) and Joe Heck (R-NV3) voted against the Supplemental Appropriations bill containing relief for victims of Super Storm Sandy.  [roll call 23]  There are a couple of boilerplate GOP talking points which underpin opposition to the supplemental funding bill.  There’s the “It’s full of pork,” argument.  Pork baloney.  It’s often handy to remember that one man’s pork can easily be another man’s economic development idea, and secondly — when haven’t supplemental spending bills contained several disparate funding authorizations?  That’s what supplemental bills are — bills to provide funding for items previously unbudgeted — like, say, the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush Administration?

There’s the “let’s take our time, some of the provisions don’t kick in for two years, so what’s the rush?” argument.  Containing therein an equal measure of pork baloney.  Unlike the ATM the right wing imagines the government to be — it takes TIME to get federal appropriations.  Applications must be filed, reviewed, approved, authorized, and then the money comes.  Why all that red tape?  Because there are those who cry “Waste, Fraud, and Abuse” every time federal money is spent unwisely, and the approval and accounting measures are there to restrain the temptations for Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.

There’s the “It’s a real tragedy, but we have a Debt Crisis” argument.  More pork baloney.  The current “Debt Crisis” is a GOP manufactured for cable news phenomena, a total reversal of Vice President Dick Cheney’s 2004 comment that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”   Yes, we have too much debt, BUT it’s far from a “crisis” except in the fevered minds of those who think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance benefits are “The Problem,” and not two off the books wars, one expansion of the Medicare prescription program with no funding formula, and one massive recession.

Then there’s a point of true irony.   There was an amendment to H.R. 152 from Congressman Fleming (R-LA) ” An amendment numbered 9 printed in Part C of House Report 113-1 to cut $9,800,000 from the Fish & Wildlife Service for rebuilding seawalls and buildings on uninhabited islands in the Steward McKinney National Wildlife Refuge in Connecticut.” This, after Congress authorized spending some $71 million for wildlife refuge restoration projects in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.   Representatives Amodei and Heck voted for this amendment too.  [roll call 19]  Representatives Titus and Horsford voted no.

Another moment of madness, offered by Representative Broun of Georgia “called for An amendment numbered 4 printed in Part C of House Report 113-1 to strike $13,000,000 in funding to “accelerate the National Weather Service ground readiness project“.  (Amendment 6) Really?  In what universe is it advisable to cut funding for “ground readiness projects” in the face of potentially devastating storms and other serious weather related situations?   Once more Representatives Amodei and Heck voted in favor of this amendment.  [roll call 17]  Representatives Titus and Horsford, who must have been listening to their elders who taught them “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” voted against this ill-conceived amendment.

Perhaps the Pork Baloney arguments can find favor in the Fever Swamp that is the controlling right wing of the Republican Party, but to enthusiastically vote for wildlife and coastal projects after Katrina in 2005 when the federal debt increased by approximately $553.7 billion — and then to scream “The Debt Is Coming, The Debt Is Coming,” in 2013 is a bit hypocritical.

Hmm, 2002 to 2005 — that would be part of the Bush Administration’s contribution to the national debt?  Oh well, Representatives Amodei and Heck have offered us yet one more example of why their brand of government is the problem — a government that will not help its citizens in times of real crisis is problematic indeed.

Leverage?

Some members of the chatterati may have taken Archimedes a bit too literally: “Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.”  Often too much emphasis is placed on the fulcrum and not quite enough on the part about the ancient mathematician needing a place to stand.  The word of the week sounds like “leverage” in Washington, D.C. Who has it? Who doesn’t? And, so what? The So What part isn’t all that interesting.

Although the pundit class is thoroughly fascinated at the moment with how much leverage the President and the Republicans may each possess after the self inflicted Fiscal Cliff fiasco, most of their comments can be categorized as post game “analysis” of the variety which is more commonly associated with post game “analysis” of a sporting event.  It’s never quite enough to declare one team or another victorious based on the scoreboard numbers — “we” have to “know” why one team won and the other lost.  In reality, we really don’t.

So, in the parlance of political reporters emulating the post game questions of their sports writer colleagues — can the President win the next game? A game of Debt Ceiling already scheduled by the Republicans and given official status by the post game analysts.

It depends on where you stand.

There are two major elements of the federal debt that deserve serious scrutiny.  First, during the Bush Administration’s policy of credit card conservatism we racked up two wars (off the budget and supported by supplemental appropriations), a major addition to the Medicare program (Medicare Part D, also unpaid for) and one major Recession.  All were guaranteed to increase the national debt.  The first two increased spending and the latter cut into the tax base.

Secondly, we do need to reduce the national debt, but how we do it is important.  This is one of those occasions which calls for a scalpel, not a meat axe.

It is also important to stand on firm ground.

A few facts are in order.  The first part of standing on terra firma before attempting to leverage anything is to dismiss some media mythology about trends in the national budget deficits.  The following chart should provide an illustration of the inaccuracy of the Now That A Democrat Is In The White House The Deficit Is Out Of Control Myth:

The chart illustrates what happens when two wars, one major Medicare addition, and a nasty Recession contribute to national spending. It also shows the effect of Obama Administration policies mentioned earlier, a point at which we should note that the Bush Administration toted up about $5.1 trillion in expenses, while as of last June the Obama Administration’s policies resulted in about $983 billion in spending.

In short, if we are really serious about deficit reduction then we need to eschew the policies that got us into this mess in the first instance, i.e. unnecessary tax cuts, and two very expensive wars.

OK, so if we don’t get involved in more military operations, we resist the myth that tax cuts somehow cause economic growth (which they never have), and we regulate our financial markets more effectively in order to mitigate the excessive enthusiasm of traders who created the last great mess, then where do we cut?

It’s time for another reality check.

Here’s where the money goes:

Since Social Security is a self-funding program, which as President Reagan famously cautioned in 1984 doesn’t add to the federal deficit (video), we can take that 20% out of the equation right now.  Anyone who is truly serious about the single issue of Social Security solvency should be clamoring to increase the cap on earnings liable to the payroll tax, currently set at a measly $110,000. We also need to remove the mandatory spending from the discussion because what we cut will have to be from discretionary spending.

The FY 2013 budget calls for spending $666.2 billion by the Department of Defense.  Another $80.6 billion is allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services (Medicare, Medicaid), and the Department of Education (Pell Grants, Title I, student loan guarantees, etc.) is scheduled to spend or entail $67.7 billion while the 4th largest chunk of the budget goes to the Veterans Administration which has $60.4 billion in scheduled spending.

In short, we’ve budgeted for $1,510 billion in discretionary spending in FY 2013.  The Department of Defense is on track to receive 44.12% of ALL the discretionary spending in the national budget.   Yet calls to cut military spending brings on the wailing of voices, the gnashing of teeth, and the rending of garments about “making us less safe” in an uncertain world.  In spite of all the wailing, gnashing, and rending — that one single department consumes 44.12% of the entire pot of discretionary spending is something we ought to be discussing.

Medicare is another matter.  IF we are truly serious about deficit reduction then we need to have more than the simplistic discourse already in evidence.  There is a false choice being presented, as though the only options are to privatize the Medicare program (give Granny a coupon and let her go out and find her own insurance) or to create a Single Payer national health care system.  While I wouldn’t be sorry to see a Single Payer system, this is an argument for another day.  The point is that there are options between these two proposals.

The central focus point should be that nothing which doesn’t have a bearing on health care cost containment is going to make much difference in the spending levels.   Privatization doesn’t address the cost containment issue, and a single payer system without cost containment elements is merely a recipe for increased expenses.

Now that the campaign season is over we can dismiss the Republican rhetoric about “Obama cut $716 out of Medicare,” and consign to the dust bin the notion that the Affordable Care Act somehow impinges on Medicare benefits.  Business Week explains:

From 2010 to 2019, Obamacare trims payments to providers by $196 billion. They agreed to take a cut because they will get so many new patients, thanks to the individual mandate. Another $210 billion will be generated by raising Medicare taxes on the wealthy (that’s households earning more than $250,000). Another $145 billion comes from phasing out overpayments to Medicare Advantage. About 25 percent of seniors use the program—in which private plans compete for Medicare dollars—instead of traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Under Obamacare, the government has to keep Medicare Advantage costs in line with those of traditional Medicare. More savings come from streamlining administrative costs.

Thus, if we trim payments to providers, phase out over-payments for profitable private health care policies, and put some reins on administrative costs we’ll find about $716 billion in savings for the Medicare program.  Other cost savings may also be the result of more efficient record keeping, especially in the pharmaceutical segment.  Anyone who’s dealt with the medical issues of an elderly parent knows of multiple prescriptions written from several physicians who may or may not consult with one another.  The result can be as minimal as two (or three) prescriptions for the same medication at different dosages; or, as detrimental as two prescription medications which should not be taken together.

However, the bottom line is still the bottom line — unless and until we are ready to discuss health care cost containment we’ll be immersed in the rhetoric of low bludgeon and high dudgeon without much result.

When we discuss funding for the Department of Education it’s important to note that the FY 2013 discretionary requests yield an official number, $69.8 billion — if we include Pell Grants.  Pell Grants constitute about $22.8 billion of the total, a decrease from $23.8 billion in the FY 2011 budget.  Without the Pell Grants the total discretionary spending in the FY 2013 budget is $47 billion.   There are two constituencies with major stakes in arguing about these funds.

Parents.  Unless one is amenable to the elitist argument that kids should have access to only the level of education their parents can afford (which makes social mobility a moot point) parents are going to need assistance paying for their children’s education.  Whether we like it or no, education is a labor intensive business.  We can trim educational spending by continuing what the Obama Administration has started — saving approximately $61 billion by cutting the banks out of their role as middlemen in the student loan program [NYT]– but it really doesn’t do to cut efforts to educate our young people.  It also doesn’t make economic sense since a college degree is worth money in the marketplace.

Local school districts.  Cash strapped and semi-starved local school districts rely on funds for Special Education programs, Title I services, School Lunch programs, to make up budget shortfalls.  While the level of federal involvement at the local level isn’t all that much it does cover expenses local districts would be hard pressed to meet were the monies cut.

Hostage Taking

How we fund, or de-fund, these major activities depends on who is being held hostage and by whom.   Did the President allow the Republicans to gain “leverage” by taking the tax rates off the table in the next Congressionally manufactured debt ceiling debacle. Or, are we going to change hostages?

Will the Republican stance be that all other programs must be cut in order to spare the 44.12% consumed by the Department of Defense?

Will the GOP position be that Medicare must be privatized in order to practice “sound fiscal responsibility?”

Will the GOP position be that Social Security must be “reformed” (read cut) in the interest of “fiscal accountability and deficit reduction” even though it adds not a nickel to the federal debt?

Will the Administration simply say — You manufactured this debt ceiling “crisis” live with it?  Remembering that if the national credit rating is downgraded this will likely mean that the cost of borrowing (yields paid to those who invest in Treasuries) will go up, exacerbating the problem rather than addressing it.

Will the point be made to the American people that while the credit card analogy is handy, the United States of America doesn’t have creditors it has investors.  Our federal government accesses funds by issuing bonds.   And WE own most of those bonds.

Here’s the little chart again:

42.2% of the money “borrowed” by the U.S. government is an asset for U.S. individuals and financial institutions.   Today’s yield curve doesn’t indicate a government which is having to pay all that much to get people and institutions to invest in it:

Even 30 year bonds are paying only 3.0% interest.

The amount of leverage always depends on where one stands and places the fulcrum.

Voices in their heads, money in their pockets?

“I come at this not as an elected official but as a parent,” he said. “My view is that we need to move from a culture of violence to a culture of safety.”  [Stephen Horsford, Representative Elect, (D-NV4) LVSun] Mr. Horsford supports an assault weapons ban.  Good for him.

Some other Nevada Representatives appear to be on “radio silence.”  Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2), he of the “NV2 Channel on You Tube” has posted nothing on the subject of banning assault rifles.  Representative Joe Heck (R-NV3) has nothing new on his copious video collection either.   Republican Representatives seem to be more comfortable with those Telephone Town Halls, wherein the questioners are faceless friends who ask questions to which the recipient may drone on at length for the  session.  This guarantees the constituents will (1) probably not get a question answered during the session but will received a written response later, and (2) never have to face up to organized criticism of their policy positions.

We do have Representative  Amodei’s acceptance statement when the NRA endorsed him:

“Mark Amodei is a steadfast supporter of freedom. He earned the NRA-PVF endorsement because of his demonstrated support for our rights, including improvements to Nevada’s right-to-carry law; preventing gun confiscations during states of emergency; and protecting firearm manufacturers and dealers from bogus lawsuits,” said Chris W. Cox, chairman of NRA-PVF. “His proven commitment to our Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage make Amodei the best choice for Nevada gun owners in this special election in Nevada’s 2nd congressional district.”

So we can be reasonably assured that Representative Amodei will not be voting to repeal the shield law for gun manufacturers which was enacted in October 2005, “aimed at ending a spate of lawsuits by individuals and municipalities, including New York City, seeking to hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for negligence when their weapons are used in crimes.” [NYT]

Among the 283 members of Congress voting in favor of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, were Representative James Gibbons (R-NV2), and Representative Jon Porter (R-NV3).   The law they voted for contained an exception, but one with an interesting twist.

“While it bars such suits, the measure contains an exception allowing certain cases involving defective weapons or criminal behavior by a gun maker or dealer, such as knowingly selling a weapon to someone who has failed a criminal background check.” [NYT]  “Knowingly” is a high legal standard.  Further, there’s a Catch 22 involved.  If we have a significant Gun Show loophole, and about 40% of all gun sales are conducted without a background check, then no gun manufacturer can be held liable for any use of a firearm resulting in death or injury where no background check was conducted.

The NRA contributed $4,000 to Representative Amodei’s campaign in 2012.

Congressman Joe Heck (R-NV3) touts his 92% rating from the National Rifle Association, and his 83% rating from the Gun Owners of America.  It’s difficult to imagine his support for an expansion of gun registration, a ban on assault rifles, and comprehensive background checks for prospective gun buyers.

Heck’s rating from the Gun Owners of America indicates an appreciation for the GOA’s position:

“Larry Pratt. According to Pratt, the best way to protect people from mass shootings is to make sure more guns are allowed in more places. “Gun-free zones are like magnets for the monsters in our society,” Pratt told Mike Huckabee during a radio interview Monday. More guns, he argued, equal more safety.”  [HuffPo]

And then there was this response from the GOA  to the Newtown tragedy, issued on December 19, 2012:

“While the nation witnessed a real tragedy last week, the media continues to ignore the far greater number of kids who die by other means—like in cars or pools. Sadly, I know about this personally, as one of my children drowned a few years ago.

But just as I’m not going on a nation-wide campaign to ban access to pools, neither should Congress deny access to the very instruments that help good people stop violent thugs from killing children.”

In other words, the answer to gun violence is to put more guns on the streets, in the malls, on the highways, on the airplanes?  This, from an organization which posted this conspiracy theory on its website:

“A top communist defector is warning of an unprecedented “alliance” between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party, reflected in the CPUSA’s endorsement of Barack Obama for president in 2008 and the party’s continued support for Democratic Party policies. But is this warning going to be too hot to handle for the media? And the Republicans?

Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking official ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc, says in an article for PJMedia that any doubt that the Democratic and the Communist parties had secretly joined forces was erased in 2009, “when Van Jones, part of a left fringe of declared communists, became the White House’s green jobs czar.”

Obama aide Valerie Jarrett had disclosed at a left-wing bloggers convention that “we,” apparently referring to herself and President Obama, had hired Jones for the job. However, Jones was fired when an outcry developed over his communist background, and the media quickly dropped any probes into Jones’ White House contacts.”

OK, it doesn’t get much Looney Tunes wackier than this, but this organization did give Representative Heck an 83% rating.   Rep. Heck also accepted $2,500 from the National Rifle Association.

The grand prize winner for NRA contributions in Nevada is Senator Dean Heller, who accepted $6,950 from the organization, making him the 10th highest recipient of the NRA’s largess.  He also accepted $2,500 from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and $7,000 from the “canned hunt” crowd at the Safari Club.  Senator Heller thus accepted a total of $16,450 from gun related organizations.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation website is still playing possum on the issues related to the massacre at Newtown, on behalf of the Firearms Industry Trade Association:

“We listened with careful attention to President Obama’s statement from the White House today. Being one of the “stakeholders” he discussed, we would welcome the opportunity at the appropriate time to become part of a full national conversation with all policy makers that has as its goal the improved protection of our children and our communities from future violence.”

In other words, “we listened,” now “we’re going to be very quiet until the waves of grief subside, and then we’ll lobby with a vengeance to make sure no meaningful legislation is enacted which might curtail any of our sales?”

Safety First?

Yes, I’d like to discuss ultra-violent video games — but those games are available on every continent.  Why is it our children must be protected from violent video games but not from individuals who purchase assault rifles without undergoing a thorough background check?

Yes, I do believe the broadcast media all too often glamorizes violence. However, these broadcasts are also nothing new on this planet, or exclusive to our society.  Why is it that only our children seem to be at risk?

Yes, I do think we definitely need to take better care of our citizens who suffer from mental illnesses.  Lord knows we need to apply more resources to research, diagnosis, and treatment of mental health problems.  However, this isn’t exclusive to this country either.   So what makes our schools such as Columbine, Platt County High School, Virginia Tech University, and Sandy Hook the object of attack?  And, no, it’s not the “magnetization of gun free zone.”

It is simply the easy access to guns which are too powerful to be used by anyone other than military personnel or law enforcement officers.  We have 5% of the world’s population and 50% of the world’s guns. That’s a recipe for more, not less, disasters.

A reasonable approach would be to ban assault weapons, require comprehensive background checks for all gun sales, and encourage more scientific research on the subject of gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control.  In short, I am a gun owner BUT the NRA doesn’t speak for me. Nor do Representatives Heck, Amodei, and Senator Heller on this subject.

Legislation to Save Lives

When might it be an appropriate time to discuss these proposals rationally?  When the financial sector collapsed in an avalanche of mismanagement we didn’t worry about “politicizing” the issues. We enacted new laws to protect our money.  Might we not take equal action to protect our children?

In the wake of 9/11 we didn’t “politicize” the issues; we enacted a Terrorist Watch List.  We reorganized the government to create the Department of Homeland Security.  We instituted increased security at airports. Why can’t we reorganize our government priorities to protect kids?

After the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis  we beefed up our  bridge safety protocols demanding better inspection, evaluation, and maintenance of gusset plates on truss bridges.  Why should we take substantive action which our kids aren’t traveling over bridges…but sitting in their classrooms?

NOW is the time to discuss school safety, but we’ll have a much more productive conversation if the voices we hear aren’t the voices in the heads of delusional radicals who have decided that in the event of some fictitious government takeover they are going to reenact the fantasies of their favorite cartoon action figures.

If our politicians are listening to these voices — we have an even larger problems.

A Quick Lesson In Chart Reading: Boehner’s Graph

Read the original article here.

The Campaign for the Middle Class Isn’t Over

The candidates are no longer running ads, the campaigns have been shut down, BUT the campaign for the American Middle Class continues.  The next phase comes as the Congress debates how to reduce the national debt — brought to us by two wars fought “off the books,” ill considered tax rate reductions, and a nasty recession.  If the American Middle Class is to avoid the detonation of the Austerity Bomb (aka the Fiscal Cliff) then we need to:

(1) Let our Senators and Representatives know that without an increase in the tax rates for millionaires and billionaires the ARITHMETIC necessary to reduce the national debt doesn’t add up.

(2) Remind our Senators and Representatives that federal discretionary spending has already been cut by $840 billion to $916 billion over the next ten years [QS] in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

(3) Let our Senators and Representatives know that we understand merely closing a few loopholes in the tax code isn’t nearly enough to make a serious dent in the national debt.  If they are serious about debt reduction then “increasing revenues” can’t be a code phrase for “tinkering with deductions and loopholes.”

If millionaires and billionaires don’t want a national debt passed along to their children and grandchildren — it just might behoove them to help pay off some of it.

 

 

Nevada Roundup and other matters with bonus charts

It’s been too long since the last roundup of Nevada blogs and commentary.  There are some good items and pearls of wisdom to be had from the following posts.  See Nevada Progressive for a description of the New And Improved Bi-Partisan Senator Dean Heller — lest we believe that the Senator is “evolving.”  There’s also a cogent bit of election analysis available from The Gleaner.  Steve Sebelius recounts the Heartbreakers.   Blue Lyon adds a pertinent note on the Senatorial race.  Buzzlzarwnd  adds some more information on the 2012 results.

Speaking of things Congressional, The Nevada View offers an explanation of the components of the national debt in a short video.  More on the Fiscal Cliff (or gentle slope) from Vegas Jessie.  This would be a good time to review a previous post from On My Blotter about the arguments for extending tax cuts for middle class Americans.   There’s a highly recommended read on using the GDP as an indicator of economic health from the Nevada Rural Democratic Caucus blog.   And, there’s a timely reminder that the Congressional Republicans are holding tax cuts from middle income families hostage in order to secure tax cut extensions for millionaires and billionaires from The Gavel.

Click on the chart to go to the President’s address on extending middle class tax cuts.  (Video)

The CBPP provides another perspective on this subject, illustrated by this chart indicating that tax cuts for the very wealthiest among us are NOT a way to economic recovery.

Oh, and by the way — the tax issue Wall Street doesn’t want to talk about (carried interest) is coming to the fore, read more at Business Insider.

Fiscal Cliff or Stairway to Heaven?

As the Nevada Progressive points out, the looming “fiscal cliff” is a meaningful moment for the Republicans in the U.S. Congress.   The somewhat sordid history of this “cliff” which in actuality could be more like a slight slope is summarized as:

“The United States fiscal cliff refers to the effect of a series of recent laws which, if unchanged, will result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the budget deficit beginning in 2013.  These laws include tax increases due to the expiration of the so-called Bush tax cuts and across-the-board spending cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011.” [link]

At this point, even the well informed may need a reminder that the term ‘fiscal cliff’ was coined by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who was concerned that the impact of the failure of the Super Committee to reach an agreement would depress the economy:

“For the record, although the explanation wasn’t reported or repeated as much as the catchphrase itself, Bernanke actually said the fiscal cliff was about the large spending cuts and tax increases already scheduled to occur being far too big for the current U.S. economy to handle at one time. “I hope that Congress will look at [the spending cuts and revenue increases] and figure out ways to achieve the same long-run fiscal improvement without having it all happen at one date,” he told the committee.

In other words, “fiscal cliff” means the big deficit reductions that have been both inadvertently and intentionally scheduled to go into effect at the turn of the year are the absolutely wrong fiscal policy at that time and that the economy will be damaged if they are not changed.” [OF.org]  (emphasis added)

For those likely to hit the panic button — some programs are exempted from the budget cuts: Social Security, federal pensions, and veteran’s benefits.  Social Security is properly called an entitlement program, because the beneficiaries have paid into it, and it is supported by payroll taxes and its own trust funds.  No one, repeat NO ONE, has “spent” money earmarked for the Social Security Trust Funds.  [SSA]

For those likely to run screaming into the sage brush about THE DEFICIT, we should note that reductions in military operations in Afghanistan will reduce that beast, and we should remember that the Affordable Care Act also has some deficit reduction benefits.  Cherry-picking selective think tank and editorial board musings notwithstanding, the  “CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation—H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal—would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010–2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenues.” [WH.gov]

The central question about the ‘fiscal cliff’ is whether or not  it becomes a stairway to heaven for the American middle class.  It’s a cliff if the Republican controlled Congress obstructs the negotiation process such that ALL tax breaks enacted during the Bush Administration expire — including those for those earning less than $250,000 annually.  It’s a stairway to heaven, if the Congress can agree to allow the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires to expire, and retain the tax breaks for middle class families.

It’s a cliff if the Congress demands that automatic economic stabilizers like unemployment insurance support, nutrition programs, and other means by which we prevent highly volatile economic swings are cut in order to prevent the upper 1% of American income earners from having to pay any increased taxation.  It’s a stairway if the economic stabilizers can be themselves stabilized, perhaps even if in slightly reduced forms.

It’s a cliff if the tax breaks for 97% of American small businesses are lost in the interest of sparing the top 0.01% of American income earners any tax increases.  It’s a stairway if tax breaks for 97% of American small business owners are maintained, and the deficit is reduced by encouraging economic growth, and by taxing the top 1% more fairly.

The newly re-elected President had some words about this choice:

“President Obama said he refuses to accept any approach that isn’t balanced. “I’m not going to ask students and seniors and the middle class to pay down the entire deficit,” while higher earners get tax cuts, he said.

The President said he will ask Congress to pass a bill that will continue the tax cuts for the middle class, which he says will eliminate much of the uncertainty in the nation. After that point, he said, he and Congressional leaders can work on a compromise for the remaining tax cuts.” [CSPAN]

The President’s own words, on video (not yet embeddable) from CSPAN.

 

Blinded by Science

Your 112th Congress in One Chart

The chart from The Nation requires no explanation.

Add that information to this: