Amodei, tired of drama, introduces his own theatricality

Nevada’s entrant in the Karl Rove Look Alike Contest, Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) has some Rovian rhetoric for readers of the Elko Daily Free Press:

“The Republican Party is making some changes, both internally and externally, following the re-election of President Barack  Obama, according to Nevada GOP leaders at the Elko County Lincoln Day Dinner Friday night.

“I am tired of the drama,” U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei told an audience in the Red Lion Inn & Casino. “I’m full up on drama. Drama doesn’t get anything done.”

The recent adoption of the “No Budget, No Pay” Act by the U.S. House of Representatives is an example of progressing Republican action, he said.

“This was a good start of demonstrating to the president, to the people in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi that the Republicans are capable of putting together 218-plus votes to play some serious ball on getting things started to turn the budget around.”

Where to begin?  Why not start with the Republican Party is making changes statement? Really?  So, what bills were introduced by Republicans in the U.S. Congress as the 113th session begins which might lead us to believe anything has changed, or is changing?

The Return of the Culture Warriors

Representative Paul Ryan (R-Palinistan) introduced a Fetus-Personhood bill.  The bill would give full citizenship rights to one celled human embryos, before they are even planted securely in the uterus. Nothing says change like introducing 8 anti-abortion bills co-sponsored by Rep. Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin (R-MO) in the 112th Congress, and then stepping right back into the ranks for the next round of the War on Women.  Nor is Representative Ryan alone.

Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced H.R. 23, the Sanctity of Human Life Act, in which life begins at “fertilization,” and Representatives Diane Black (R-TX) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have H.R. 217 and H.R. 61 respectively forbidding women’s health grants to any organization which provides abortions — take that Planned Parenthood, 3% of whose funds assist in pregnancy termination.l [GovTrack]  The Party which was interested in 44 bills on abortion in the 112th Congress hasn’t stopped participating in the Culture Wars even though the topic of is great interest to only 18% of the American public.  [Pew]

The Repealer’s Redux

Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) was pleased to introduce the first bill for the 113th — yet another bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  There were 33 votes in the House of Representatives to repeal the ACA after the Supreme Court affirmed its constitutionality; and, here they go again.  A chart from last summer  illustrates how the 112th spent its time –

The Debt Debaclers

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that: “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.”   True enough, the deficit didn’t matter to the electorate in 2004 — in large part because it wasn’t presented as an all consuming terrifying hideously large totally unacceptable DEBT to the voters.   It’s interesting that the deficit/debt wasn’t a huge ongoing issue because the trends in deficit spending (related to two wars + one nasty recession) by 2008/2013 look like this when graphed out:

Thus we have the ironic situation in which the party which controlled the White House while the deficit spending was trending upward is vilifying the party controlling the White House while the deficit spending trend is headed downward.   Representative Amodei has evidently joined the Debt Debaclers.

If Representative Amodei is really serious about “turning the budget around,” then is he asking for a return to the Bush Administration’s policies which saw an increase in deficit spending trends? Surely not.

Smoke, Mirrors, Tricks, and Gimmicks

“The recent adoption of the “No Budget, No Pay” Act by the U.S. House of Representatives is an example of progressing Republican action, he said.”  The 285-144 vote on H.R. 325 to which Rep. Amodei is referring, doesn’t indicate much of anything — especially a consistent GOP intention to “progressing Republican action” — because a quick look at the roll call vote informs us that such disparate Representatives as Wasserman-Schultz and Joe Heck (NV) both voted against it.  While Rep. Amodei voted in favor of the bill along side Rep. Langevin (D-RI).  Meanwhile, back at the Constitution, there’s this little problem noted by the folks at the Christian Science Monitor about the 27th Amendment:

“Congressional pay is the 27th’s subject. Among other things, it says, “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of the Representatives shall have intervened.”

Oops! We understand that the amendment was intended to prevent fat self provided pay increases, but the language of the amendment applies to pay cuts as well.  “Varying the compensation” means changing the compensation, and that includes Down as well as Up.   If Representative Amodei tires of “drama” then this piece of theatricality should draw boos rather than his applause.

The MRA

However, Representative Amodei is not above a bit of theater himself, like “returning” $155,000 in unspent office funds to the Treasury to help reduce the debt.  [EDFP]  This is a nice gesture, but that’s all it is.  If all 435 members of Congress returned $155,000 the Treasury would garner some $67,425,000.  This assumes that all members of Congress have 10% of their office budgets unspent.  These numbers, presumably apply to what is known in Washington-Speak as the MRA, or Member’s Representational Allowance.

Representative Amodei’s gesture would look better had not the MRA been declining already.

The MRA is funded in the House “Salaries and Expenses” account in the annual legislative branch appropriations bills. This account has decreased in recent years, from $660.0 million in FY2010, to $573.9 million in FY2012.  The total amount of each Member’s 2012 Representational Allowance is 88.92% of the amount  authorized in 2010. This is in accordance with a 5% reduction to the 2010 authorization  mandated in House Resolution 22, agreed to on January 6, 2011, and a 6.4% reduction to the 2011 authorization as reflected in H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012. The 2012 allowances range from $1,270,129 to $1,564,613, with an average of $1,353,205.  [CBO pdf]

A person might also be less skeptical if it were know why Rep. Amodei’s office expenses were 10% lower than the estimated MRA?

“The MRA may be used for official expenses including, for example, staff, travel, mail, office equipment, district office rental, stationery, and other office supplies.”  [CBO pdf]

Representative Amodei could have been a “job creator” with that unspent 10%.  A constituent services assistant earns about $32,000 per year, a constituent services representative about $40,000.   A Congressional staff assistant generally earns about $30,000 annually.  However, if Representative Amodei isn’t convinced that beefing up constituency services is necessary, then it’s probably a good thing to return the money.

In the mean time, if Representative Amodei is tired of the Drama in D.C. then it might be a good thing if such staff has he has hired would look seriously at the spending trends in the federal government over the past four years.  Further, he could be taking a more analytical look at the components of the current level of indebtedness and seek to reduce Defense Department spending (some 40% of all discretionary spending)  for non-essential items and to calculate the additional revenue which might accrue from passage of the American Jobs Act?

That wouldn’t be as histrionic, but it might indeed be more helpful.

Bits and Pieces

From the Sinecure Foundation for the Advancement of Easy Jobs:  “The Republican leader (John Boehner) said during a speech at the Ripon Society Tuesday that after listening to the president’s inaugural address, there was no doubt in his mind that in order to get his full agenda accomplished before he leaves office, Obama will be trying to “annihilate the Republican Party.” [Media-ite]   This from the party of Self-Deportation, Gerrymandered Congressional Districts, Electoral College Manipulation, Carry Your Rapist’s Child to Term, Cut Medicare, Privatize Social Security, Start a Lovely War with Iran, Only Sluts Take Contraceptives, Hillary Clinton Cries on Cue, Guns Have More Rights Than People, Corporations Are People My Friend, Only Black People Are On Welfare, and We Have To Cut Social Security Benefits to Protect The Income of Uber Wealthy Americans…. to which one might say, “Please Proceed.”

From The Myopic Vision Division of the Stunt and Special Effects Department:  Nevada Senator Dean Heller evidently can’t discern the difference between an unconstitutional publicity stunt and the stuff of which budget and policy are made.  See more at Nevada Progressive.

From the Real World With Numbers In It:  The U.S. Department of Labor reports that unemployment insurance initial claims are the lowest they’ve been for the last five years.   The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports: “An offender was armed with a gun, knife, or other object used as a weapon in an estimated 22% of all incidents of violent crime.” And, “Firearms (28%) were the most common weapons used in robberies.” Contrary to the amount of press and media coverage given, violent crime doesn’t lead the statistics.  The most common crime in the U.S. is good old fashioned theft.  Of the 20,057,180 crimes reported in the country as of 2009 — 11,709,830 were thefts, (pdf) which dropped by 6% from the previous reporting period in 2008.  Violent crimes were down 11.2%, assaults were down by 10.8%.  So, if crime rates are trending down, and only 22% of crimes involved an offender armed with “something,” then explain to me why my House Must Be A Fortress?

From the Department of the Do-Able: “The deal will address the filibuster on the motion to proceed by changing the amount of debate time that would follow a cloture vote from 30 hours to four, speeding up Senate business and allowing more legislation to reach the floor. But the deal still requires Democrats to muscle 60 votes to invoke cloture on that motion, despite Reid’s earlier suggestion that he would bar a filibuster on that motion entirely. [full story Huffington Post]  OK, I’m not thrilled with this, but it’s do-able, and cutting the time from 30 hours to 4 hours after a motion to proceed, does make it possible for things to….proceed.  And there is this:

“First, senators who wish to object or threaten a filibuster must actually come to the floor to do so. And second, the two leaders will make sure that debate time post-cloture is actually used in debate. If senators seeking to slow down business simply put in quorum calls to delay action, the Senate will go live, force votes to produce a quorum, and otherwise work to make sure senators actually show up and debate.”  (emphasis added)

The Fiscal Bluff and GOP Politics As Usual

Vegas Jessie posts a timely letter from a small business owner to Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV) along with a predictable response from the Congressman, which just as predictably doesn’t directly address the issues raised by the correspondent.  Heck, as Vegas Jessie observes “presented nothing new or nothing of any practical application…”

No one should be surprised.  The Republican Party — in all its glorious disarray in Nevada — hasn’t had a new idea since St. Ronald de Reagan opened his presidential campaign at the Neshoba (Mississippi) County Fair.  The current incarnation of Republicanism is as obvious as it has been since the Days of Lee Atwater and Company.  The name of the game is still the same; GOP support for the wealthy and their agenda, including privatizing, voucherizing, and shredding the social safety net.  Their first major tactic is simply obscurative, the second is obstructionist.

The Politics of Distraction

The Benghazi Blitz: So, will someone explain, cogently and rationally, why any sentient human being would be passionately concerned about Ambassador Susan Rice’s preliminary information about the attack on the Benghazi consulate?  There isn’t one. Ambassador Rice could secure the imprimatur of the Pope and it wouldn’t suffice to satisfy Senator John McCain’s need to have a topic at hand for his weekly appearance on some Sunday Villager Shows.  If Ambassador Rice explains that the talking points were prepared by the intelligence agencies, then McCain complains that the intelligence community was at some unspecified fault AND that Ambassador Rice should have “asked better or more questions.”  If she had released NO information regarding the Benghazi attack then McClain would clamor about the lack of commentary.  In short, there’s no way to win — this is simply a distraction from larger issues, as well as a way for a Senator facing a term limit on his committee assignments to remain “relevant.”  The issue does make for a nice side show for the Chattering Classes, but accomplishes  nothing to advance political issues of any import.  It’s also an effort to “Create-A-Problem.”

Create-A-Problem Politics

The current Debt Crisis provides an excellent example of “Create-A-Problem” politics.  The process of setting a “debt ceiling” has been around since 1917 when it was an initial step toward financing the costs associated with World War I.  The debt ceiling has been raised without much controversy 74 times since 1962, including 10 times since 2001. [CNN] However, the Congress — imbued with an abundance of Tea Party enthusiasm and plutocrat campaign money — decided to transform the Debt Ceiling to a Debt Crisis in 2011.

Combining the national debt issue (run up by the Bush administration’s tax policies + two wars kept off the books + a nasty recession), with the Republican raison d’etre, repealing the New Deal and the Great Society, gave the GOP its talking points: We ‘must reform entitlements’ (privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare) and bring down the debt along with other government activities associated with serving the needs of those American people who aren’t ensconced in corner offices.

That privatizing Social Security and voucherizing Medicare are wildly unpopular doesn’t faze the average Republican servant of power.  Thus, cutting these programs must be carefully couched in a climate of fear.

The GOP would have us all a-tremor as if Annie Wilkes, Baby Jane Hudson, Leatherface, Norman Bates, and the Riddler were at the doorstep.   “Social Security… is going broke…has been raided…is going bankrupt…won’t be there for our grandchildren….”  None of this is true, but that doesn’t stop the GOP from using the talking points.

Since this line of attack didn’t work in 2004, 2008, and 2012, there’s a back up plan.  Encapsulated as, “We have to ‘reform’ Social Security and Medicare because we’re going broke.”  Here’s where the manufactured Debt Crisis comes into play.

The outcome of the Big Budget Manufactured Crisis of 2011 was the Budget Control Act, a complicated piece of legislation which gave the White House what it wanted — an extension of unemployment benefits and a second stimulus package in exchange for allowing the Corner Office denizens to continue enjoying their Bush Era tax cuts.  [Corn, MJ]  The Obama Administration (contrary to the Villager Narrative) didn’t get played:

“At a postelection meeting with labor leaders and progressive activists, several of whom were itching for a tax cut fight with the Republicans, White House aides were blunt. To win these stimulative shots, Summers told them, we’re going to have to give up on killing the tax cuts for the rich. “Getting more for our people is more important than getting less for their people,” he said at the meeting.” [Corn, MJ]

The Obama Administration won the first round, and if anything could be more convincing that the Republicans are driven by the need to protect the income of the top 1% the Budget Control Act then someone missed the memo in which the GOP agreed to two things which would have been unconscionable for them under ‘normal’ circumstances  (unemployment benefit extensions & a second stimulus) in order to preserve the lower tax rates for the Upper Uppers.

Distractions and the Creation of the Fiscal Bluff

The Budget Control Act of 2011 sowed the seeds of its own destruction.  The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (Super Committee) included in the legislation was supposed to ‘solve’ the deficit reduction problem admitted failure in November 2011:

“After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline.”

It might be interesting to find out how many people thought the Super Committee had any chance, however remote, to succeed in the first place.  The posturing, positioning, and palaver of 2011 gave the Administration what it wanted, and kicked the tax issue into the 2012 elections.

At this point the Fiscal Cliff becomes the Fiscal Bluff.  The Bush Tax Cuts are due to expire with the last toot of the last manufactured-in-China paper New Year’s horn.   There are new cards on the table, but the GOP is still playing with a very used deck.

McConnell’s old card, propose the discredited Romney unspecified loophole plan, cut corporate taxes, and tax lower income people (GOP code is “broaden the tax base”) It’s no accident the Bowles-Simpson Commission earned the sobriquet “Cat Food Commission.”

“Well, I don’t think it’s a secret that for our part, Republicans have shown a clear willingness to make tough choices in order to find a solution to the trillion-dollar deficits of the last four years. “We’ve been open to revenue by closing loopholes, as long as it’s tied to spending cuts and pro-growth tax reform that broadens the base and lowers rates. This is the model laid out by the Bowles-Simpson commission, and it’s a model both parties should step forward and embrace.”  [RCP]

McConnell went a bit further, playing an even older card, and  putting social safety net programs up for grabs on the GOP side of the table:

“McConnell said Republicans want any agreement to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” to include adjustments to eligibility and benefits in the Social Security and Medicare programs.”  [LCJ]

Cantor’s old card, put the Affordable Care Act ‘on the table’ as a bargaining chip in deficit reduction talks.  By Cantor’s lights it’s a bloated entitlement.

“During an appearance on Fox News on Monday, House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) asserted that Obamacare “ought to be on the table” for cuts during ongoing budget and deficit-reduction negotiations between President Obama and Congressional leaders.” [Times24/7]

That the Affordable Care Act actually reduces the federal deficit by $143 billion in the next decade appears of little concern to Representative Cantor.  The Republicans, and their health insurance corporate allies, don’t like the provisions of Obamacare, ergo they’ll throw it out as a possible chip — which has about as much chance of success as promoting  a Dachshund High Jump Contest.

House Speaker John Boehner’s old card is the same as Cantor’s, put Obamacare on the table.

“The president’s health care law adds a massive, expensive, unworkable government program at a time when our national debt already exceeds the size of our country’s entire economy. We can’t afford it, and we can’t afford to leave it intact. That’s why I’ve been clear that the law has to stay on the table as both parties discuss ways to solve our nation’s massive debt challenge.” [Cin.Com]

What’s expensive about a program that decreases the deficit by $143 billion over the next ten years?    Speaker Boehner’s tactical argument is little more than a repetition of the 33 ceremonial House votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act.   [LAT]

The Affordable Care Act repeal suggestions are pure bluff — what politician could possibly believe that the President wouldn’t veto a bill repealing his signature piece of legislation?

The American public must then be left with the unmistakable conclusion that it is more important for the Republicans to protect the income of the Richer Rich than to secure  Social Security, Medicare, and Affordable Care Act for the middle class, as they play all the old games bluffing their way toward the Fiscal Cliff of their own devising.

GOP: Getting Back to Base-ics?

Now, would someone in the corporate media care to discuss “Republicans in Disarray?”  Heaven knows it’s been a hallmark of coverage about issues within the Democratic Party.  As a former adherent of the GOP, and now as a complete outsider, I’ve had some rambling notions about what’s been happening since the 1980′s.  Here they are.

Ancestor Worship

The election of President Ronald Reagan was a significant one for the Republicans, and the popularization of the Southern Strategy by GOP activist Kevin Phillips continued into the decade.  The Republicans offered a home for the Dixiecrats, the gun lobby, and the “God, Guns, and Gays” wedge issue proponents who found succor within Republican realms.  His was the “Southern Strategy Fulfilled.”  All of this made it far easier for the beknighted President to advance an agenda that was blatantly anti-union, persistently pro-banking, and generally pro-corporate.   He was, however, not the consistent opponent of the New Deal some conservative would like to remember.

“Reagan increased payroll taxes in 1983. History records that, alarmed by spiraling deficits, he signed tax increases during six of his eight years in office. Even so, his administration tripled the national debt, to almost $3 trillion.” [Salon]

He pulled U.S. forces out of Lebanon after the Beirut Barracks bombing. He gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants.  He did not privatize Social Security, instead he raised the payroll taxes.   What he did do was to popularize some right wing ideas which advanced the corporate agenda (to break the social compact between citizens and their government) such as the “welfare queen.”  Reagan’s world was “Leave it to Beaver” without the unionized employees who made the show possible.  It was “Ozzie and Harriet” without any African American neighbors.  It was “See The USA In Your Chevrolet” without acknowledging the Eisenhower Administration’s grand public works project — the Interstate Highway system.  Reagan, instead, paved the route for the Bush and Rove show.

The Bush-Rove Bargain

The Show was abetted by the advance of right wing talk radio in the AM revival after the fairness doctrine was eliminated during the Reagan Administration in 1987.   The Reaganesque mythology of welfare queens was translated to the John Birch Society – Randian free market mythology, and further transmogrified into Compassionate Conservatism, proving  once and for all times that a snappy slogan exempts the speaker from having to provide any specific, cogent, or rational policy proposals on any given subject.  The spins, the twists, and the dog whistling created an environment in which the Oil Barons, the Bankers, and the CEO’s were the Blesséd Among Us, while the rest of the nation’s population would have to demonstrate their worthiness to receive the charity of the country.  If this is sounding a bit familiar, it should.

The Truth Tellers

One of the well documented features of the Romney-Ryan election efforts was the casual association their campaign had with the truth.  Nor did their campaign suffer from a surfeit of consistency.   Indeed, one of the highlights came when this quotation was captured: “I’m not familiar precisely with what I said, but I’ll stand by what I said, whatever it was,” Romney responded.” [RS]  How on Earth could a candidate get away with this?  Even worse, there was this comment from the Romney camp: “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said at a panel organized by ABC News.” [HP]  The answer may well be that Governor Romney assumed that the Mythology of Reagan, the focus group centered conservatism of Bush, the fulfillment of the Southern Strategy, and the cynicism toward information from the media created by the GOP-Fox-Right Wing radio Echo Chamber, would all culminate in a successful election effort.

What Went Wrong?

Policy Matters.  Those corporate friendly policies of the Bush Administration which tended toward de-regulation, capital flight, and “creative” products to enhance investment revenues collapsed in a staggering heap circa 2007 and 2008.  We went from “Greed Is Good,” back to “Greed Is One Of The Seven Deadly Sins.”

Item – The vaunted and well publicized Supply Side Theory of economics proved illusory, in all probability because it was a hoax in the first place.  It may take the American public some time to understand the facts, but as of 2008 they were inescapable — low taxation did not, and never had, create economic growth in the real economy. No amount of spinning, theorizing, generalizing, or rationalizing can make this ideological theory whole again. Yet the Romney campaign persisted, enabled by the plutocrats on the Rove donor lists, the Club for Growth, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the bankers.

Item – The Republicans themselves, at least in the form of former House Speaker New Gingrich, recognized that they had a Financialist candidate in a race wherein the electorate was still reeling from the effects of financialist excesses.   American voters rejected the Supply Siders, in favor of a candidate whose economic policies emphasize growth not European style austerity, which seems to have done precious little for the Eurozone economic growth rate.

Item – the conservative complaints about immigrants being a curse upon the civil state were strident enough to cause Hispanic voters to express their opinions in the polling that mattered.  Opposition to the DREAM Act, calls for self-deportation, “papers please” legislation,” and charges that the Hispanic community was basically “unAmerican,” didn’t help expand the numbers for the Republican Party.

Item – That “rape thing” in combination with wholesale assaults on the Affordable Care Act, attached to radio ranting about “sluts” who take birth control pills, and associated with the most extreme anti-abortion rhetoric wasn’t good for Republicans either.  Only 15% to 20% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in all instances. [PR]  Proposing to adopt policies supported by 20% of the population doesn’t seem to be a constructive way to attract votes from the 46.2% of American women who are registered to vote. [Census]

Leadership 

Leadership matters.   Those not self identified members of the Republican Party have marveled at the importance attached to the opinions of the right wing radio ranters in GOP politics.  There have been several instances in which members of Congress, for example, sought to distance themselves from or disagree with radio commentator Rush Limbaugh — only to walk back their criticism almost immediately. Unfortunately for Republican politicians, Mr. Limbaugh’s misogynistic, racist, and otherwise radical offerings are associated with the fringe right not the moderate middle.

It is handy to have one’s own television network, but Fox News however helpful it seeks to be has done a poor job of informing its viewers.  Studies from the University of Maryland and Fairleigh Dickinson University both demonstrated that Fox viewers were the least well informed, and were often willing to accept obviously inaccurate information.  [HP] Fox’s response was to attack the Universities, not to deny the results of the studies.  The Republicans could be certain to count as theirs the votes among the Fox viewers, but while Fox draws about 604,000 per day [TV] it should be recalled that there are 112,806,642 people in the country between the ages of 18-44, another 81,489,445 aged 45-64, and some 40,267,984 over 65.   In slightly more stark terms, Fox is reaching 604,000 daily viewers out of 234,564,071 of those eligible to vote.

Item – An echo chamber can also be a trap.   From the outside it appears the Republicans can’t decide if they are a Party with its own radio and TV broadcasters, or if they are the operatives responsible for promoting the policies sought by  one television network, and a handful of broadcasters on AM radio.   The Party appears to be functioning without a national spokesperson — is the anointed one Rush Limbaugh? Senator John McCain? Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly?  Governor Mitt Romney? Senator Mitch McConnell?  What are we to think of a party that for two election cycles didn’t (or couldn’t) use the services of its most recent incumbent?

Having an incumbent in the White House is always an advantage, but President Obama is the acknowledged leader of the Democratic Party, and has secured the support of former President Bill Clinton, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Dick Durbin, Senator John Kerry, and the imprimatur of the Kennedy family.  GOP spokesperson may rail about the “Chicago” clique responsible for the Obama Campaign, but there’s no mistaking the fact that unlike the GOP there is a clear coterie of national Democratic leadership aligned with an incumbent president.

In Fine

Ancestor worship, focus group politics, and the narrowing perspective along polarized lines promoted by a self referencing media does not constitute a recipe  for long term success.  Self definition works better.  If the GOP is truly the Small Government Party, then the privacy invasive anti-abortion portion of the base will be disappointed.  If the GOP is the Party of Big Business, then eventually small business owners will come to define themselves separately from the mega-corporations and the bankers.  If the GOP is the Party of Social Conservatives then does it permanently constrain its membership to the 20% to 30% of voters for whom issues like abortion are primary considerations?

Perhaps the Party might want to look at Democratic efforts to realign itself after 1988?  There’s a template there should the GOP choose to follow it, but WARNING — it requires moderation.

Heller, GOP sustain filibuster of Cyber Security Bill

OK, thus much for the spirit of bipartisanship and negotiation — according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) the Senate of the United States of America has been working on a cyber-security bill, the rationale for which ought to be reasonably clear to anyone who’s ever Googled anything.   Or, put in nicer, fancier terms:

“National security experts say there is no issue facing this nation more pressing than the threat of a cyber attack on our critical infrastructure.  Terrorists bent on harming the United States could all too easily devastate our power grid, our banking system or our nuclear plants.  A bipartisan group of Senators has worked for three years to craft this legislation. Yet Republicans filibustered this worthy measure in July.”  (Reid 11/14/12)

Surely this should have been something about which at least a modicum of agreement might have been secured?  The Senate Majority thought so:

“It’s imperative that Democrats and Republicans work together to address what national security experts have called “the most serious challenge to our national security since the onset of the nuclear age sixty years ago.”I found it encouraging when a number of my Republican colleagues – Senators McCain of Arizona, Chambliss of Georgia, Hutchison of Texas, Kyl of Arizona, Coats of Indiana and Blunt of Missouri – recently wrote President Obama advocating legislative action on cyber security.   They wrote: “An issue as far-reaching and complicated as cyber security requires… formal consideration and approval by Congress… Only the legislative process can create the durable and collaborative public-private partnership we need to enhance cyber security.”  (Reid 11/14/12)

What did the Senate Republicans do with the Cyber-security bill? They filibustered it.   And, what did they do when the Majority Leader submitted a cloture motion to stop the filibuster?  They rejected the cloture motion on a 51-47 vote.   “They” would include newly elected Nevada Senator Dean Heller (R-NV). Who, evidently, doesn’t see the need for a “durable and collaborative public-private partnership” to “enhance cyber security.”

The running total for filibusters is now 110 filibusters, 68 cloture motions filed, and 37 successful votes to invoke cloture and stop a filibuster.

Three years of work on a piece of legislation, and work on a matter which should engage the attention of Senators (some of whom surely do  online banking), and the effort comes to a screeching halt before the GOP obstructionism in the Senate.  Memo to Senator McConnell (R-KY): The President isn’t going to be a one term office holder.

A Very Simple Illustration of Republican Fiscal Cliff Hanging

 

Simple Economics Made Complex: Capitalism vs. Financialism

The 2012 election at almost every level will be determined by turn out, and predicated on economics — micro and macro.  The problem for most voters is that we’re talking about two economies.  The economy of the financialists and the economy of the capitalists.  So far, the capitalists are winning.  Barely.

A capitalist believes that our economy works best when consumers have a choice of products from a variety of manufacturers or providers.  The economy expands as the demand for goods and services increases and providers seek to accommodate consumer needs.  A capitalist believes that capital should move from areas of surplus to areas of shortage, for small business lines of credit, for home loans, for student loans, for consumer credit, for business expansion, for commerce and marketing needs.

A financialist believes that the economy serves to accumulate wealth such that we create financial products and services which can be securitized and manipulated to create more wealth.   The financialists have been doing very well, thank you very much.  Not sure, then consider this chart:

That’s right, 93% of the increases in American income (wealth) in 2010 went to the top 1% of income owners in the U.S.  And the stock market has been doing quite well since 2009:

Of course, it’s not just stocks in which we find increased trading.  Other financial products, derivatives included, have been doing a thriving trade.

The traffic in derivatives hasn’t slowed much either.

So, while those whose income comes from the financial sector have been doing quite well, those in the “real” economy — the capitalist economy have been in something of a bind.

Note, Governor Romney’s complaint that the current economy means “stagnating” wages for middle class Americans he’s omitting a crucial bit of information:  When economic policies favor the accumulation of wealth in the coffers of the o.01%, it shouldn’t be the least bit surprising that middle class Americans aren’t seeing the increases in their bank accounts.

In short, the Financialists (and their presidential candidate Governor Mitt Romney) having secured a deregulated financial sector which rewards them disproportionately, are loathe to adopt any policy which might require them to pay more in taxes or to comply with any regulations on the financial product manipulation which constitutes their wealth accumulation strategy.

It’s up to the Capitalists in the 2012 election to secure a level playing field, or at least a more level field, one in which INVESTMENT is rewarded before SPECULATION.   One in which the economic reality of supply and demand means the supply and demand in REAL markets — not in esoteric “markets” for artificially concocted risk management products.

Let’s hope the Capitalists win.

Compounding A Disaster

There’s a place for ideology in the spectrum of political thought.  However, it’s NOT in the midst of a disaster zone.   There are people in Middlesex County, NJ who will be waiting for electricity until next Monday; friends called about an hour ago — they are OK, and counting themselves lucky the storm damage didn’t take out more than just the railings on their deck.  There are people around this part of the country who are looking at the brown and blackened remains of range fires which consumed more than a half million acres in the region in August.  We’ve something in common.  Disaster management is not best organized on the local level.   Nothing so well wipes out mythology than wind, water, and fire.

# Myth Number One:  Local government is best able to manage disasters. Wrong.  (1) Local disaster relief assets, including local government operations like the sheriff’s department, police officers, and fire departments are staffed and equipped to handle local emergencies.  A fire such as the Holloway blaze which consumed some 461,000 acres, including vast  acreage  in Humboldt County, Nevada was completely beyond the capacity of local volunteer fire departments to manage.  Nor should we imagine that the law enforcement and public safety officials in Middlesex County, New Jersey are able to cope with all the needs in their country associated with coping with the damage from Hurricane Sandy.

It should also be noted that local disaster management can only be accomplished IF the assets aren’t themselves subject to the disaster.  It doesn’t take too long a junket down memory lane to recall the situations in which the local police and fire departments found themselves during Hurricane Katrina and the related flooding.

On the best days, local disaster management and assets are part of the total response, but the idea that a local sheriff’s department or local firefighting department could “manage” all the communication, logistic, and personnel  involved in a major catastrophe is pure fantasy.  What would we think of a local Emergency Management division telling FEMA officials where to pre-position equipment and supplies?  Surely the decisions are made with local input, but having New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island all “determining” the positioning of assets and supplies is asking for chaos and not coordination in advance of Sandy’s landfall.

(2) States may coordinate some public safety needs but the idea that situations the magnitude of the Holloway Fire or Hurricane Sandy can be addressed by state and local officials is ludicrous.  (a)   Again, consider the potential for mis-allocation of resources if all the states involved in Hurricane Sandy’s path were to position them on their own, and not in coordination with their neighbors.  (b) Consider the problem of determining which state would share what with whom? And, when? (c) Consider the question of how to coordinate disaster management and relief operation if states not immediately involved are not subject to federal management plans?  FEMA can authorize the pre-clearance of power company resources for use in restoring electricity to areas affected by disasters.  Power crews from around the country will be available to the East Coast — compliments of federal coordination. Similarly, fire crews from at least five western states were available to fight the Holloway Fire — and they were ready thanks to planning by the National Interagency Fire Center which does long term forecasts and had already determined that northern Nevada, because of weather, natural vegetation growth, and drought conditions was ripe for major fires.

# Myth Number Two:  Localizing or privatizing emergency management is always better than federal government interference.  Wrong.   The “private is always better” component of the conservative ideology is a lovely ethereal academic argument.  It doesn’t work when the wind hits the beach or the fire touches dry brush.   If capitalism works, and the profit motive is the core of personal incentive toward productivity — then where is the profit in coping with emergency shelters? Firefighting? Distribution of drinking water? Patrolling devastated areas?  Coordinating the restoration of power?

There is a profit to be made if individuals are to be charged for the cost of the emergency management services.  Unthinkable.  Or, there is a profit to be made if the costs of providing these services are billed to state and local governments.  Why pay any amount above the actual cost of the services?

All that is accomplished in a billing for services system is that the taxpayers are called upon to pay not only for the emergency management services provided but also a margin of profit for the companies providing those services.  This seems like a most cynical form of corporate welfare.

And all this is why Governor Romney’s proposal to cut disaster relief is so horribly out of touch:

“We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.” [BusInsid]

He was talking about disaster relief.  He is touching upon Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) notion that any disaster relief appropriations should be offset by cuts in other non-defense discretionary spending.  It would be sad if it weren’t so silly.

For a party which continually tries to frame revenue and spending in terms of a family budget this doesn’t pass the laugh test.  According to the conservative ideology, families are supposed to plan and save for exigent circumstances.  However, when a government plans for and appropriates funding for disaster relief that’s somehow wasteful?

There’s nothing immoral about planning for natural disasters and their consequences, but there is something immoral about suggesting that it is not the place of our national government to offer protection and provide the necessities of life to our fellow citizens in times like these.

A Very Un-Average American Family: Romney and the Plutocrats

Let’s look at this graph again.   The average family income of those in the top 0.01% is $23,846,950.   The average family income for families in the top 0.10% is $2,802,020.  An average family in the top 1.0% has $1,019,089 in income.   The “recovery” has been very good to the people in these economically elite categories:  During the 2009-2010 recovery period 93% of the gains were captured by the top 1%.  That would be the three columns on the left hand side of the graph.

Of these gains 37% went to the top 0.01% — that would be the 15,000 Americans with incomes of $23.8 million annually. There are 314,583,369 people in this country.

So why would this happen?

(1) The individuals in the top 0.01% have the resources to hire battalions of accountants, and the wherewithal to utilize offshore accounts, tax havens, and to keep production and profits off shore to minimize tax obligations.  Sound familiar?  Could this be part of the reason we’ve not seen the Romney tax returns for the past 12 years?  The partial information released to date indicates the use of off shore accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, the investment in offshore industries, “gifting” of stocks in offshore companies for tax reduction purposes, and the use of “blockers” to manipulate tax liabilities.

(2) The individuals in the top 0.01% avail themselves of “carried interest” accounting treatment to reduce the tax liability on their income by calling it “capital gains.”   Former Reagan Administration adviser Bruce Bartlett remarks:

“A key reason for Mr. Romney’s low tax rate is that a very substantial amount of his income comes from capital gains – 51 percent in 2011 and 58 percent in 2010. Capital gains, no matter how large, are taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent, whereas wage income can be taxed as much as 35 percent by the income tax plus taxes for Medicare and Social Security. The latter two are not assessed on capital gains.”

The way the loophole works relates to the peculiar method in which money managers are compensated. Typically, they receive a fee of 2 percent of the gross assets under management, much of which comes from employee pension funds, plus 20 percent of any increase in value.

Thus, on $1 billion of assets the managers would automatically get $20 million that would be taxed as ordinary income. If the assets increased 10 percent to $1.1 billion, they would get another $20 million. For tax purposes, this additional $20 million would be treated as a capital gain and taxed at 15 percent.  [NYT]

Little wonder the hedge fund managers were often among the top 0.01%.   Equally, little wonder that money management corporations like Bain Capital were among the Winners.

(3) The financialist plutocrats defend their loopholes, like the carried interest loophole and the reduced rates on capital gains and dividends, quite well in the halls of Congress.   Note that the Romney Campaign is NOT calling for the restriction of these loopholes and preferential treatment.  In fact, they are calling for the maintenance of low capital gains and dividend rates, and the elimination of the estate tax.

What would a potential Romney Administration do to reduce loopholes?  There’s always the home mortgage interest deduction?  The educational expense deduction? Deductions for medical expenses?  If it were suggested these be eliminated there would be significant opposition.  So, they aren’t being suggested — however, they are the only ones “large” enough to make a dent in the federal debt.

In short, what candidate Romney is suggesting is a government of the plutocrats, by the plutocrats, and for the plutocrats.  It is a financialist’s wet dream. An average American family’s nightmare.  It is, indeed, the Bush policy on steroids: Deregulation, Globalization, and Trickle Down Supply Side Voodoo Economics.

What happened the last time we tried de-regulation of the financial markets? What happened when we tried Trickle Down economics from 1980 to 2007?

The financialist plutocrats did well — the rest of us not so much.  The 2012 election clearly delineates  the interests of the top 0.01% and the other 99.99% — Governor Romney is doing a good job of representing the interests of his cohorts in the 0.01%.  Perhaps we’d like a President for the remaining 99.99% of the U.S.

What did Romney and Ryan Store in the Republican Safe?