Merely because an article has disturbing news doesn’t mean it doesn’t get consideration in the Best of the Week category — and J.P. Coolican’s article on suicide rates for Nevada veterans is such news.  “All told, of the 1,545 Nevada suicides between 2008-2010, veterans accounted for a stunning 373 of them, or nearly a quarter.”  Click on the link (Las Vegas Sun) for the entire article.  Highly Recommended.

Matt Taibbi’s enthusiastic rant in Rolling Stone deserves applause.  A taste:

“The finger-pointing game is a fun one to play, but it’s a little like drugs – you have to keep taking bigger and bigger doses in order to get the same high.  So it starts with a bunch of these people huddling together and saying to themselves, “We’re the real good Americans; our problems are caused by all those other people out there who don’t share our values.”

And when the Game described in Taibbi’s rant takes over politics the result is a failure of governance, which is insightfully analyzed by Andrew Cohen in his Atlantic magazine article “Symbolic Legislation to Nowhere.” Here’s a sample:

“America, sadly, has grown accustomed to “symbolic” legislation which is designed not to advance the public good, or even to become sustainable law, but rather to appease particular interest groups. The campaign promise becomes the pending measure; the donor’s crusade becomes the subject of public hearings. And what is squeezed out of the legislative process as a result of such pandering is the more moderate legislation, the more practical measures, which do stand a chance of passing constitutional muster and which do solve real problems in sensible ways. That’s no way to run a country — or even a state.”

Even the normally conservative columnist for the Washington Post, Fred Hiatt, noticed the drift away from reality in the Arizona GOP debate.

The best video clip of the week is from a show I actually don’t watch all that often, but this segment from MSNBC’s Hardball was memorable — Joan Walsh of Salon.Com pushing back on the Republican talking point that it’s the Democratic Party promoting the contraception argument for political gain. The 7+ minute video is posted at Crooks & Liars.

This article by Bloomberg’s writer Sarah Frier ought to have made more ripples, the title alone should have been an attention grabber,  “Cancer Scanning Curbed as Cascading U.S. Pay Cuts Take a Toll.”  This: “Every year we’ve fought one more battle against payment reduction,” Allen said. “We’ve been asked to make an apology for a very valuable tool in the health care enterprise.”

The Chart of the Week comes from the Reuters/Atlantic analysis of the national debt reduction plans coming from both sides of the political aisle, full article here.

May 9, 1960

Of all the contraceptive methods available why is The Pill the one attracting attention? Why is The Pill argued to be a form of murder in the womb? But, barrier methods, transcervical sterilization,  tubal ligation, and male vasectomies are not commonly included in the list of evils?

Racial Overtones?  Consider the following graph from the Centers For Disease Control’s 2010 study (pdf) on the use of contraception in the United States.

While The Pill is popular with all sexually experienced women during their reproductive years, it is the most popular among white women.  The disparity between racial groups may have something to do with the expenses involved if we assume that most women are spending about $240 per year or more for oral contraceptives. [DailyFinance] It is difficult to look at this graph and not see that some ultra-conservatives may perceive The Pill as an obstacle to increasing the percentage of the white population in the country. This is an interesting point to ponder because there were initial fears in the African American community centered on whites using the pill to reduce their percentage of the population back in the 1960s.  [AmEx PBS]  The fact that 78% of African American women in their child bearing years are now using oral contraceptives indicates most of  these fears have been placated.

Age Related?  The CDC study also indicated definite differences in contraceptive decisions by age.

The Pill is associated most strongly with young (15-24 yr) women.  The rationale is probably obvious.  Younger women are attempting to avoid unintended pregnancies, and not considering any permanent procedures which will affect their ability to become pregnant later on, especially after college or initial business experience.  This conclusion isn’t too hard to reach with the graph showing a drop from 48% to 35% at age 25.  The point is driven home in the next graph:

It’s possible to write a full paragraph about the contents of the chart shown above, but perhaps it would be more economical to write that by age 35 most women who select sterilization as their contraceptive of choice have simply said, “Enough.”

So, when we hear presidential candidate Santorum refer to contraception by saying, “It’s not okay, because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,” Santorum said. “They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal… but also procreative,” [TDB] the statistical context is that young white women are “doing things” that aren’t, “conjugal.”   Memo to former Senator Santorum: Since the dawn of time young people have been doing things that aren’t “conjugal.” The use of the term “license” is also provocative.

We really don’t wish to be a licentious nation.  However, neither are we a naïve one, but given the statistical context in which his statement was made it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that his concern centers on what young white women might be doing — and not on what young white men might be seeking.  Does Senator Santorum believe that it is the female who is “licentious” while the male is excused because “boys will be boys?”  Or, it is the female who is allowing the males to be “licentious?”   Is Santorum’s contention founded on the medieval perception of Eve as the Evil Temptress — conveniently forgetting that the original sin was eating from the tree of knowledge (separating ourselves from Creation by assuming judgmental authority) and not that homo sapiens suddenly discovered our sexuality?

A secondary question should be: To whom does Santorum’s message appeal? The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute released its February 22, 2012 results saying,  “Sen. Rick Santorum’s lead among Republican voters and GOP-leaning independents is built on the votes of Republican men, Tea Party supporters and white evangelical Christians,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.”  These might be the same individuals who are more likely to espouse culturally defined interpretations of Biblical sin, and perhaps be equally likely to worry about the decline of the white population as a percentage of the total U.S. population?

As sincere as Senator Santorum’s beliefs may be, they are far from the mainstream of American thinking.  It’s hard not to agree with the Democratic pollster who opined: “I don’t know where the they think the electoral advantage is on this. These are things that have been decided a long time ago.” [TPM] And, thus we have the spectacle in which yet another Republican debate audience added “contraception” to the list of things to be booed, joining uninsured people in ill health, gay members of the Armed Forces, while cheering for the death penalty. [C&L]

I have to agree with the pollster, I simply do not understand “where they think the electoral advantage is on this.”  Any of this.

However, if we look at a full year, the results are a bit different.

And there’s a different perspective if we go back six years:

Please climb back down from the barricades?   Yes, speculation in oil prices contributes to price increases.  However, as Ezra Klein explains in his Washington Post column, this may not be the entire picture — no matter how tidy the graphs.  Klein urges us to remember that the oil prices are a matter of supply (Saudi Arabia) and demand (China).  And, it’s hard to get a grip right now on the scale of the demand.

There’s this prediction from Reuters: “The China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Federation estimated that apparent crude consumption will increase 5.3 percent year on year to 480 million tonnes in 2012, or 9.6 million barrels per day, compared with its forecast of a rise of around 3.5 percent in 2011.” (January 2012)

And then there’s this prediction from Reuters:

China’s implied oil demand is likely to grow by a less-than-average 5 percent this year to 9.9 million barrels per day, an industry research group said on Thursday, as a slowdown in economic growth caps fuel consumption.

China is the world’s second largest oil consumer and the Institute of Economics and Technology, the research arm of top state energy group CNPC, said average implied oil demand over the last decade was 7.1 percent.

The institute also forecast net imports of crude oil to amount to 266 million tonnes this year, or 5.3 million bpd, the institute said, which would be an increase of 5.9 percent over the official 2011 import figure. (February 2012)

We can’t leave ourselves out of the picture because as the following graph indicates, the U.S. is the world’s top consumer of oil.

Either way these reports are read, there will be an increase in the demand for oil in China.  The question appears to be the level of that demand, and how their demand clashes with our demand.  On the supply side things are even less clear.

JODI graphs the production:

Saudi Arabia has 1/5th of the entire planet’s proven oil reserves, and has the world’s largest production capacity.  [USEI]  So, three days ago Bloomberg News reports that the Saudis have reduced crude oil production:

“The country reduced output by 237,000 barrels a day or 2.4 percent to 9.81 million barrels a day of crude compared with 10.047 million in November, statistics posted today on JODI’s website show. The kingdom’s exports were cut 7.36 million barrels a day from 7.8 million barrels, according to the figures, which include condensates and exclude natural-gas liquids.”

To make matters all that more confusing, the Saudi numbers don’t appear to be “adding up,” as explained by the Wall Street Journal:

Recent oil production figures from Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, simply don’t add up.

“There are competing explanations for this inconsistency. Some analysts claim that the increase in oil production Saudi officials promised in late February to compensate for lost Libyan supplies was fictitious. Statements from the Saudis themselves imply that the kingdom cut its production several weeks later much more sharply than reported. But either scenario contradicts previous statements from Saudi officials.”

Climbing demand and decreased production (spiced with some confusion) usually do cause price increases.  Granted that speculation isn’t helpful, but it may not be the sole cause of the current Pump Pain we are now experiencing.   So, what if we Drill Baby Drilled? Would that yield enough barrels of oil to bring down the prices?

Independence in FantasyLand  It was 1973 and President Richard M. Nixon was telling us that we could be “energy independent,” a term used and misused by nearly every administration since Carly Simon was singing “You’re So Vain.”  And, it is theoretically possible for the U.S and Canada to double their production — however some of that drilling would require technology we do not yet possess.   Would it be possible for us to double our production and sing “Take Your Oil And Shove It” to the Saudis?  Sadly, no.

“…let’s not be realistic for a moment. Let’s assume the U.S. and Canada did manage to drill enough oil that we could tell Saudi Arabia to take it’s light sweet crude and shove it. What then? Well, we’d still be exposed to all the ugliness of the global oil market. American and Canadian crude would be priced just like everywhere else — based on what the world’s highest bidders are willing to pay for it. Americans would continue to pain at the pump whenever there was another war in the Middle East or African militants blew up a pipeline.”  [Atlantic] (emphasis added)

And if those “world’s highest bidders” happened to be from China, Japan, India, Korea, Canada, and Brazil… our prices would still be UP.  We’d drill and drill and drill and drill and the price of oil would still be determined by the global market.

President Obama is no more in control of what OPEC, the Saudis, the Russians, and the Iranians decide to pump into the global oil market than yours truly and my next door neighbors.  No more than former President George W. Bush was empowered when gasoline prices soared in the summer of 2008.  The oil will go to the highest bidder, wherever that bidder might be. That’s the way oil markets work.

There are some things we can do, but they would require some fundamental changes in the way we perceive our infrastructure.

# We could, for example, improve our electricity production and use  such that we aren’t losing 60 units in inefficient generation and waste heat, plus the 10 units we lose in transmission, and the next 10 units we lose because of inefficient grounding in our own homes. Of the 100 units in the fossil fuels we’re actually utilizing about 20.  [FERC]

# Developing the infrastructure to support hybrid automobiles could reduce our need for some 6.5 million barrels of oil per day. [FERC]

# Industry adoption of federal standards for vehicles sold from now until 2016 could save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the cars and trucks. [CCES]

# We could also continue to support more fuel efficient public transportation. Ask any commuter from San Francisco to St. Louis to Washington D.C. if they’d rather drive into work or take the Park ‘n Ride Route?

However, when all is said and said and said what would be most useful for us  to reduce the Pain at the Pump by taking a wider view of our circumstances, and seeing our transportation needs as part of a comprehensive picture of how we move ourselves and our goods in a network that promotes the most efficient use of energy resources.

“Instead of focusing on job creation and getting our economy back on track, Washington Republicans like Dean Heller are spending their time pushing a radical social agenda that restricts access to basic women’s preventative health services,” said Berkley.  “Voters will have a clear choice this election between my commitment to putting Nevadans back to work and Dean Heller’s attacks on women’s healthcare and pro-Wall Street agenda.”  [WashoeDems]

Big Pharma  The only quibble with Berkley’s assessment might be that it isn’t just women’s health care that’s gotten short shrift from Senator Heller.  Climbing into the Not-So-Wayback-Machine to January 12, 2007 we find then Representative Heller voting against H.R. 4, a bill which would have allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate for prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical corporations.   It really doesn’t do to decry “out of control government spending” on one hand, and then vote against measures which would decrease spending on the other.  Representative Berkley (D-NV1) voted in favor of the cost reduction measure. [PVS]

Picking Up The SCHIPS  Senator Heller’s opposition to  SCHIP shouldn’t be forgotten either.  Heller voted against H.R. 3162 on August 1, 2007, a bill to reauthorize the popular children’s health care program.   When the topic came up again on September 25, 2007 (H.R. 976) then Representative Heller voted against it one more time.   Heller found it acceptable to vote against a federal contribution of $2.10 for every dollar Nevada appropriated for its Check Up and Medicaid programs, and against $373 million for children’s health care coverage in a five year period. This might not have been problematic except that in 2007 Nevada had 106,244 uninsured children, 2/3rds of whom would have been eligible for the program.  [Families USA pdf] Representative Berkley voted in favor of reauthorizing the SCHIP program on August 1, and again on September 25th.  [PVS]  When it came time to vote to over-ride the Bush White House veto of H.R. 976 Representative Heller voted with the administration, Representative Berkley voted to over-ride the veto. [October 18, 2007]

The question of providing health care for children bounced back again on October 25, 2007 in the form of H.R. 3963, and again Representative Heller voted against it.  The bill passed the House on a 265-142 vote, with Representative Berkley voting in favor of the reauthorization.   Once again Congress reauthorized the program and one again President Bush vetoed it.  Representative Heller voted to sustain the veto on January 23, 2008.  Representative Berkley voted to over-ride.

The SCHIP subject re-emerged on January 14, 2009, again Representative Heller voted against reauthorizing the children’s health care program, and again Representative Berkley voted in favor. [H.R. 2] Representative Heller’s stalwart position against reauthorizing a program to assist families with children who have serious medical issues should be crystal clear.  Heller joined those House Republicans who argued that the SCHIP program was an unnecessary tax burden on cigarette manufacturers, and would cause families to forgo the purchase of health insurance coverage for their children.  [DB 1/2008] Representative Berkley’s support for helping a family of four (earning about $46,000 annually) with medical expenses should be equally clear.

Mental One portion of H.R. 1424 stated: “States that group health insurance plans offering mental health and substance abuse treatment must offer such coverage with financial requirements and treatment limitations that are no more restrictive than those associated with the medical and surgical coverage provided by the plan.”  In short, group health plans should cover treatment for mental health problems.  On March 5, 2008 Representative Heller voted “no” while Representative Berkley voted “yes.”

Health Care Reform  Senator Heller has made no secret of his opposition to the health care reforms enacted in the Affordable Care Act, and Representative Berkley has made no secret of her support for the following provisions:

# Health care insurance corporations must provide preventive health care services at no cost in the plans they market to customers. (Mammograms, prostate cancer screening, etc.)

# Health insurance corporations may no longer deny coverage to youngsters under the age of 19 for “pre-existing” conditions.

# Health insurance corporations may no longer rescind coverage because a person made an honest mistake on an application.

# We have the right to choose the doctor we want from our plan’s network or seek emergency care at a hospital outside of our health plan’s network.

# Health insurance corporations may no longer offer plans with lifetime limits on coverage.

# The reforms require that health care insurance corporations spend at least 80% of their premium dollars on actual health care.

# The law requires that health care insurance providers be able to justify any rate increase of more than 10%.

Representative Berkley is being entirely too kind.  Senator Heller doesn’t merely object to women’s preventative health care services — he objects to more affordable health care for the elderly taking expensive prescription drugs, for children in middle class families who have serious medical conditions, for families trying to cope with the expenses for a member with mental health concerns, for people denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, for people whose coverage was dropped when they became ill, for people who have long-term medical needs because of accident or illness.

Nevada voters may well have a choice in 2012 between accepting highly generalized complaints about “socialized medicine” (read: pro-insurance corporation positions) from Senator Heller, and specific health care measures designed to support middle class families and their health care needs as advocated by Representative Berkley.

Preface

“An incredulous Bob Schieffer began his interview with Santorum Sunday by asking, “What in the world were you talking about?”

“I was talking about the radical environmentalists,” Santorum said, suggesting that they believe man should protect the earth, rather than “steward its resources.” “I think that is a phony ideal. I don’t believe that’s what we’re here to do … We’re not here to serve the earth. That is not the objective, man is the objective.” [HuffPo]

Really?  We might be the “summit” of God’s creation, but the former Senator has conveniently omitted two critical parts of his own Roman Catholic Catechism, specifically items 339 and 340:

339. Each creature possesses its own particular goodness and perfection. For each one of the works of the “six days” it is said: “And God saw that it was good.” “By the very nature of creation, material being is endowed with its own stability, truth and excellence, its own order and laws.” Each of the various creatures, willed in its own being, reflects in its own way a ray of God’s infinite wisdom and goodness. Man must therefore respect the particular goodness of every creature, to avoid any disordered use of things which would be in contempt of the Creator and would bring disastrous consequences for human beings and their environment.

340. God wills the interdependence of creatures. The sun and the moon, the cedar and the little flower, the eagle and the sparrow: the spectacle of their countless diversities and inequalities tells us that no creature is self-sufficient. Creatures exist only in dependence on each other, to complete each other, in the service of each other.

If we take the Senator at his word that he was talking about “radical environmentalists,” albeit in a context that clearly referenced women’s health issues, then whose Phony Theology was he dismissing?  As we’ve seen from the Catechism it definitely wasn’t Catholic.

“And it was so done. [10] And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.” [Genesis]

Perhaps it was Presbyterian? However, that doesn’t seem to fit in light of this statement by the Presbyterian (USA) General Assembly:

“While it may seem that countries rich in natural resources may be rich. That isn’t true. The “resource curse” shows us that countries with great oil, gas and other extractive industries are often the poorest, with less economic growth and worse development outcomes than countries with far fewer resources. In fact, countries with rich natural deposits are often plagued by corruption, civil war, human rights abuses, authoritarian governments, land grabs and environmental degradation – because powerful sectors  want to control the profits.”

Now, who would have thought the Presbyterians, those descendents of the solid Kirk, to be radical environmentalists?

Perhaps Santorum might have been thinking of Episcopalians?  However, when we check their Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer we find:

We learn that there is one God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and
unseen.

What does this mean?
This means that the universe is good, that it is the work of
a single loving God who creates, sustains, and directs it.

What does this mean about our place in the universe?
It means that the world belongs to its creator; and that
we are called to enjoy it and to care for it in accordance
with God’s purposes.

Now, if we are called upon to care for “it” (“it” being God’s creation) according to HIS purposes, and not just our own, then it’s Santorum’s statement, “We’re not here to serve the Earth..” that sounds more radical than those “radical environmentalist teachings” of the Catholics, the Presbyterians, or the Episcopalians.

[31] And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day. [Genesis]

Well, perhaps Mr. Santorum was talking about some other theology, maybe that espoused by the Methodists? Here’s their statement on stewardship:

“Stewardship has to do with how we bring all of the resources at our disposal into efficient use in our participation in the saving activity of God. Environmental stewardship is one part of our work as God’s stewards. As stewards of the natural environment we are called to preserve and restore the air, water, and land on which life depends. Moreover, we are called to see that all life has a sufficient share of the resources of nature. With new hope rooted in Christ and with more obedient living as stewards of the earth, we can participate in God’s healing of creation.”

Oh my, “participate in the healing of creation?” That doesn’t sound like a theology predicated on Man as the Summit of All Things does it?   Let’s look to the ardent congregationalist  Baptists and see if they agree?

“Indeed, the Scriptures teach that at creation humanity was given responsibility toward the earth and its resources. Thus, all humanity must seek to preserve the environment and conserve its resources, but Christians especially, who claim not only to have but to understand God’s special revelation, must actively seek to exercise good stewardship over the environment though conservation and cultivation.”  [ZionBaptist.pdf]

And then there’s this statement from the Southern Baptist Convention:

“God has designed us with a dependence on the natural resources around us and has assigned us a dominion of stewardship and protection of those resources for future generations (Genesis 2:7-15); …Our God-given dominion over the creation is not unlimited, as though we were gods and not creatures, so therefore, all persons and all industries are then accountable to higher standards than to profit alone.” (pdf)

So, Santorum’s  “Phony Theology” is Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist, and Baptist?  We might move from congregations to undenominational churches like the Church of Christ to see if there is some of that Phony Theology therein.   That Church says: “Our Lord God Almighty is wonderful for He is indeed an Awesome God. Heaven and Earth cannot contain Him for He is greater than all that we see and know to be. His Majesty is glorious and His power is without measure.”  We’re not off to a good start here if “That is not the objective, man is the objective.” [Santorum 2:19]   It really doesn’t sound like the congregations of the faithful in the Church of Christ are all that into Man being The Objective.

OK, 1.7% of us in the United States are Jewish, and the members of the Union for Reform Judaism doesn’t seem to be in line with Senator Santorum’s theology either:

“The earth is full of the fruit of Thy works….In wisdom has Thou made them all,” declared the Psalmist. But America, in thoughtlessly abusing its natural resources has disregarded the Biblical injunction to conserve God’s creation for the good of all. Water and air pollution are all too common in areas of major population concentration. Our forests have been neglected and we have not reseeded fast enough to keep up with anticipated needs. Our clean, fresh water supplies and mineral resources are being exhausted by industrial and population growth.”

There are those radical environmentalists again?  Perhaps we might find views more compatible with Senator Santorum’s among more orthodox practitioners?

“The Torah has a deep tradition for protecting the environment. Reading our sources with an eye for environmental sensitivity, we find a wealth of connections and teachings that encourage us to protect our resources, care for our health, prevent unnecessary damage to our neighbors, show concern and respect for other creatures, and avoid unnecessary waste. These teachings can help us find solutions to some of the grave environmental threats that we face today.”  [IJII]

All right, the “Man is the Objective” school of thought doesn’t seem to fit with Jews, so how about with the  0.6% of us who are Muslim?

Thus man has the freedom to do what he wills with the power invested in him through these two means. One is his closeness to God in spirit and second is his acceptance of the trust. Man’s superiority, control and power over nature and the rest of creation was thus a part of this trust. After having taken the responsibility man had to show that he was indeed worthy of keeping it. If he forgets about the responsibility of the trust and instead takes full and destructive advantage of the power conferred upon him, the other side of his  superiority takes over. Because he has the spirit of God within him, he now deems to set himself up in rivalry to God. He wishes to take control of the destiny of the world not as a trustee but as a demi god.  [IslamFI]

So, if a man were to be the Object, then he would not be a trustee but a demi-god.

When push comes to the point at which it reaches shove, the only “philosophy” that remotely offers that Man is the Object, was that presented by Ayn Rand’s novels.  “It is the individual alone that is real, objective, and the true foundation for ethics. Therefore, Rand can postulate the basic premise of her philosophy: “The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A – and Man is Man.“

The Catholic Church has an opinion about that, but it may not be one Mr. Santorum is likely to accept:

“No man,” she (Rand) emphasizes, “can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as ‘the right to enslave.’” Moreover, there are no rights of special groups, since a group is not an individual reality. As a result, she firmly denies that groups such as the “unborn,” “farmers,” “businessmen,” and so forth, have any rights whatsoever. [...]

“No philosopher ever proposed a more simple and straightforward view of life than the one Ayn Rand urges upon us. Man=Man; Existence = Existence; only individuals are real; all forms of altruism are inherently evil. There are no nuances or paradoxes. There is no wisdom. There is no depth. Complex issues divide reality into simple dichotomies. There is individualism and altruism, and nothing in between. Despite the apparent superficiality of her philosophy, Rand considered herself history’s greatest philosopher after Aristotle.”

Not exactly any form of ringing endorsement from this angle.

In actuality, the Phony Theology former Senator Santorum would like for us to adopt is the “Man is the Summit” morphed from “Man Is the Measure” pseudo-Objectivism of Randian adherents.  Where Christian, Jewish, and Muslim theologians read their holy books beyond Genesis 26 and acknowledge the relationship of man to the rest of Creation, hewing more closely to the notion expressed as “And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day,” Senator Santorum and Ayn Rand seem to be outside the mainstream of theological thought.  By their lights, Man — the Object — appears to be the only part of His Creation with which He was most pleased.

There is another bit of scriptural advice for the proponents of Rand’s dismal philosophy: “As I live, saith the Lord God, forasmuch as my flocks have been made a spoil, and my sheep are become a prey to all the beasts of the field, because there was no shepherd: for my shepherds did not seek after my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flocks…” [Ezeckiel 34:8]  The bottom line? God wasn’t happy.

The Sales Tax Deduction

It’s a popular credit in Nevada, which has the nation’s 13th-highest average sales tax rate. In an average year, an average Nevada family saves about $1,443 on their taxes, by Berkley’s estimate, through the credit — and over 316,000 Nevadans availed themselves of the credit in 2009. [LVSun]

There’s a thought provoking piece on ten statements from the Catholic Church (hint: one calls for raising the minimum wage) that ‘theologically pure’ conservatives seem to be ignoring.

The Department of Commerce launched a new website for businesses seeking information about financing, entrepreneurship, and exporting.  The site combines several previously established information sources in one much more easily accessed location.

The Department of the Treasury has information from its Treasury Notes site on both financial and budget issues.  The most recent post argues that it may not be about how much reduction in the budget deficit as the issues may revolve around who pays for the reduction.

Santorum strikes again.  “Pre-natal testing encourages abortion.”  Amninocentesis does indicate Down Syndrome, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, and hemophilia.  [C&L]  The question becomes, what is Santorum’s alternative for lower or middle income American families who may not have the financial resources to care for a child born with cyctic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, or hemophilia?  Unfortunately, what we may have here is yet another example of the ultra-conservative pro-life view that life begins at conception and ends at birth. When asked about his “phony theology” comments, Santorum tried to make it sound as though he meant “radical environmentalists.” [TPM] Nice try.

Recommended: Watergate Summer’s Why Women Matter.

In case you missed it:  NO, federal regulations are NOT make college educations more expensive.  [Washington Monthly]  And, Conservatives seem to be going both ways on health care costs. [Perrspectives]

Oh my

Someone might want to tell Senator Rubio (R-FL) that he really doesn’t get to have it both ways.  He can’t devote a full paragraph to his family’s flight from Castro’s Cuba [Rubio] in his Congressional biography, which is a little strange since his parents left in 1956* (and then attempted to return, or visited, or something in ’61),  campaign as one who  “always publicly identified with the exile community and has a strong following within it. In a campaign ad last year, he said: “As the son of exiles, I understand what it means to lose the gift of freedom,” [CSM] [WaPo] and then get touchy when Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) calls him out for stonewalling the confirmation of Mari Carmen Aponte as ambassador to El Salvador in order to pressure the Obama Administration into changing policy toward Cuba and Nicaragua. [LV Sun]  *Fidel Castro did not take over until February 16, 1959.

The Yucca Mountain Breakdown. Another slip of the tongue from Mark Amodei (R-NV2) “While nobody wants a nuclear landfill in Nevada, we probably ought to at least talk about it,” Amodei said. “Well if that is breaking ranks, then yes I did.” At which point former Nevada Governor Richard Bryan came down upon the freshman representative like a ton of toxic dirt. [full story Nevada News Bureau]  Just asking, but if nobody in Nevada wants it — what is the point of talking about it?

No matter how many Democrats jump on board, the cleverly named CPU Act is a bad idea.   The bottom line is that enactment of this legislation would cut tech workers’ pay and allow employers to cut overtime pay. [More at Economic Policy Institute]

A bankruptcy is a bankruptcy… Governor Romney is having some difficulty in Michigan with the auto bailout rhetoric.  And, then’s there’s Bain in the mix:

“The managed bankruptcies that Romney had in mind in early 2009 for the two car companies pretty clearly were liquidations that would then allow Bain Capital or other venture capital firms to buy small parts of these companies, eliminate union workers, and … I’m not sure.  A weird, incoherent ad his campaign’s been running on the local news broadcasts actually hints at the elimination-of-union-workers thing, while actually advertising that “liberals” got “Obama” to save the auto industry.  Seriously.” [Angry Bear]

Not. So. Fast.  Senator Pat Toomey (R-Club for Growth) was incensed that anyone would believe his taxation plan would require tax increases for those earning less than $200,000 annually.  Except Senator Toomey’s tax plan would require tax increases for those earning less than $200,000 annually.

“The math is irrefutable.  Senator Toomey told O’Brien that, while reducing their deductions and credits, he also would cut tax rates for people below $200,000 so that they would face no net tax increase.  But that can’t be.  If the tax plan is supposed to produce a net increase in revenues, and if it loses revenue from people making over $200,000, then it simply must raise revenue from people making less than $200,000.”  [CBPP]

Financialist Follies.  John Paulson, he of the Hedge Fund Titans who helped create the Wall Street Casino, is worried about a Greek default:

“We believe a Greek payment default could be a greater shock to the system than Lehman’s failure, immediately causing global economies to contract and markets to decline,” the hedge fund said in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by Bloomberg News. The euro is “structurally flawed and will likely eventually unravel,” it said.?  [Bloomberg]

Look carefully at Paulson’s terms.  “Shock to the system” as in a shock to the financial markets.  “Causing global economies to contract” as in investment banks particularly in France and Germany will find themselves in another bind.  “Markets to decline,” at this point Paulson isn’t talking about the market for automobiles, homes, refrigerators, or agricultural products — the only “market” in which he is interested is the Stock Market.

In short, we might want to take a deep breath and contemplate what another self-induced panic by the Wall Street wizards might mean for credit access for American consumers and businesses.   Remember: Those investment banks could have invested in plant expansion, infrastructure projects, manufacturing upgrades, or entrepreneurial enterprises — it was THEIR choice to invest in Greek debt.

Brute Force, that’s how a Citigroup whistle blower described the firm’s attempt to paper over its bad loans. [C&L]

“Instead of reporting the defects to the Federal Housing Administration, the bank saddled the agency with losses by falsely declaring the loans fit for its federal insurance program, according to a complaint filed yesterday by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan. Citigroup agreed to pay $158.3 million to settle the claims, and admitted that it certified loans for FHA backing that didn’t qualify.”  [Bloomberg]

And, how was this accomplished?

“Efforts to quash negative quality-control reports about mortgages continued into 2011, according to the complaint. That January, at a quarterly staff meeting that Hunt said 1,000 people attended, CitiMortgage managers gave a “Star Players Award” to workers who had successfully challenged negative reviews during meetings with quality-assurance workers and others, according to the complaint.”  [Bloomberg]

The press release from the Department of Justice, USAO Southern District of NY is available here for those who want more details. (pdf)

The Urban legend of those Terrible Health Care Costs.  Oops, the facts just don’t fit the narrative.

“In fact, the recent trends are mildly favorable. As J. D. Keinke of the American Enterprise Institute writes today in the Wall Street Journal, the idea of runaway health spending is a “myth” because “new data show that health spending over the past several years has been normalizing toward the rate of general inflation, rather than growing higher and higher, as had been the case almost continuously since the 1970s.” … [EconView]

Faux New tries and fails to get the author of the book on the Obama Administration to fill in the blanks with misinformation.  Find the entertaining and illuminating video here.

WalkerGate gets more interesting as investigators are probing into the possibility of real estate bid rigging in Wisconsin while Scott Walker was Milwaukee County Executive. [BlueCheddar] [MJS 1/25] Walker has asked for two more weeks for reviewing recall petitions. [MJS]  This, while a three judge federal panel excoriated Wisconsin Republican lawmakers and told them:

“…to turn over 84 documents to a group of Democrats in a blistering order that said Republicans had engaged in an “all but shameful” effort to keep its efforts hidden from the public.

The court promptly released the documents that showed, among other things, that Republicans who drew new election maps last year largely orchestrated the public testimony given in support of them.

The three federal judges – two of them appointed by Republicans – were unanimous in their decision. It came after a string of orders against the Republicans and just five days be fore the judges will preside over a trial in Milwaukee to determine whether the maps adhere to the U.S. Constitution. [MJS]

But, the saddest feature of the attacks on Wisconsin citizens and their rights is to be found in this article, including:

“Before Sunday’s sermon in many churches in Milwaukee, ministers and religious leaders will ask those sitting in the pews to pull out their photo identification as a step to make sure that their members can vote in Tuesday’s primary election.” [MJS]

“I founded Western Representation PAC at the height of the mortgage crisis and the bank and auto bailouts,” said the group’s co-founder and Chairman Dustin Stockton. “We back candidates who oppose government intrusion in the free market and we support those who provide leadership based on personal responsibility. Few leaders today embody our philosophy of helping those hit hardest by the Obama Economy without adding to government’s debt burden. I am proud to back Senator Heller’s re-election effort as we work towards building a conservative majority in the Senate.”

One might wonder if this, is indeed, the self same Dustin Stockton, who was at pains to denounce charges that the Tea Party harbored racism last April. [Video] [YouTube]  Stockton calls Tea Party Express commentary from Mark Williams “unfortunate,” but dismisses racism charges as nothing more than “campaign strategy.”   The announcement continues:

“Based in Reno, NV, Western Representation PAC is eager to help win a crucial victory in its home state. Its independent fundraising and expenditure campaign in support of Heller is already underway, and it hopes to make a donation directly to Heller’s campaign shortly. Heller joins a list of strong conservative candidates backed by Western Representation PAC, including Rep. Allen West, Martha Zoller, and Richard Mourdock.”

This would be the same Rep. Allen West whose collection of infamous quotations expands by the day.  Martha Zoller is an ultra-conservative radio talk show host based in Georgia, now running for that state’s 9th Congressional District.   Zoller urged her followers to continue the fight against Planned Parenthood in the Human Events magazine, including the following:

“So, as we have done since the passage of Roe v. Wade, we will continue to fight to protect life.  Some say social conservatives need to take a backseat to the fiscal issues in this county.  I say they are linked.  There will be days where we lose the battle, as we did on Friday.  And there will be days when we will have to take the battle to the hearts and minds of the American people.  Because we’ve suffered a setback in the debate on Planned Parenthood, do not step away from opportunities to talk about the sanctity of life, adoption, and other “planned parenthood” options with those you meet.  In the end, we will win this battle, whether it is in the halls of Congress or in the hearts of Americans.”

Zoller also employed an interesting rhetorical trick in her article, note how she repeats false information while appearing to question it:

“If it is true Planned Parenthood makes most of its money on abortion procedures, and in fact it is the largest abortion provider in America and probably in the world, then let it rework its profits from abortion to provide the other health care services for women that are so important.”

No, Planned Parenthood does NOT make most of its money on abortion procedures, and in fact only 3% of the services provided by PP are abortion related, but Zoller gets the talking points in while treading carefully away from downright lies.

Richard Mourdock is the Tea Party challenger for Senator Richard Lugar’s Indiana seat.  Mourdock is getting support from Tea Party advocates but remains far behind Lugar in fundraising.

“The Tea Party Express, a national group, recently endorsed Mourdock shortly after a group of Indiana tea partyers officially approved his campaign. The conservative FreedomWorks is also set to endorse Mourdock on Oct. 21, said a Republican aide familiar with the group’s upcoming endorsement; that aide spoke on the condition of anonymity because the aide was not allowed to speak publicly for the group.”  [HuffPo]

For a candidate who wishes his constituents to see him as “moderate” this is certainly interesting company for Heller’s candidacy.

The Big Lie. Initially, we could see this when they adopted the juvenile tactic most commonly associated with messes left on kitchen floors, the “Nobody Did It” stratagem.  The bankers lobby has pressed for “self regulation” since the enactment of financial regulation reforms using the pretext that those “onerous regulations” are unnecessary because the banks weren’t responsible for the mess left on the everyone’s kitchen table.  IT must have been “irresponsible borrowers,” but no, the borrowers had nothing to do with (1) the bankers relaxation of lending standards — they did that all by themselves, or (2) no borrower ever transformed a home mortgage into a synthetic CD — the bankers did that all by themselves.  IT must have been the SEC’s (or fill in the blank with another agency of choice) — Why? Because they didn’t regulate us properly. OK, by this reasoning the mess on the kitchen floor is there because the adult in the house failed to notice?  And, if we follow this argument then what of the current cry that regulation is a bad thing?

As if we couldn’t see through the puerile attempt at logic in the Big Lie, the bankers have more ways to protect their bottoms (lines).

Recidivist Behavior:   Just when we might have believed that we are beginning to get a handle on the derivative creations from the little Wizards on Wall Street, they’ve come up with yet another dubious product.

HSBC is now marketing a derivative CD, which they hold to be guaranteed by the FDIC. HSBC “explains U.S. investors have the potential to earn “enhanced returns” over as long as seven years. A separate disclosure states that they also may earn zero, getting just their original principal back after the CD matures, while brokers may collect fees of 6 percent or more. Investors that need to get their money earlier must find a buyer for the CD, risking a loss. ” [Bloomberg](emphasis added)

Gee, what could possibly go wrong here? The bankers would like for retail investors to tie up their money from, say, 4 to 20 years, in a CD indexed to perhaps the S&P 500, or perhaps the NASDAQ, or maybe the DJIA, or possibly  Libor, or whatever “market based” index seems most profitable.

Finra has a question: “Given the increasing complexity and lengthening maturities of the investments, Finra wants to make sure they’re properly understood by investors, Maria Rabinovich, a lawyer in the watchdog’s risk division, said in a Feb. 6…” [Bloomberg]

Goldman Sachs offers a 4 year CD tied to the DJIA, and here’s how it works:

To reach the maximum yield, the Dow would have to steadily gain by at least 2 percent each month over the life of the CD, according to disclosures in an offering statement. Gains higher than 2 percent aren’t passed on to the CD investor.

The odds of making more than the minimum 0.5 percent may be as low as 22 percent and the chance of earning more than the current rate on a four-year, fixed-rate CD may be as low as 13 percent, according to more than 100 years of monthly Dow returns analyzed by Bloomberg. [Bloomberg]

So, no gains above 2% are passed on to the investor, and the odds of making more than the investor might have made on a regular fixed rate certificate of deposit could be an underwhelming 13%.

How much money is involved here? We don’t know, because the “structured” CDs aren’t registered with the Security and Exchange Commission, and the brokers who sell them aren’t required to be licensed by FINRA.*  In other words, the kids are back in the kitchen unsupervised.

*For a good outline of varying kinds of investment risks see the FINRA site.

There will be a very clear choice

Leslie, a Human Services consultant, and former Planning Administrator, who has a consistent record supporting programs for Nevada families, will take on Brower, an attorney, with an equally consistent ultra-conservative record.  The consistency of Brower’s anti-government message is highlighted by his accolades from the Nevada Policy Research Institute, which placed him 2nd in their “scoring” of candidates according to anti-taxation and anti-public education advocacy.  If Leslie doesn’t take on Brower, then there is a possibility of a challenge by state legislator Debbie Smith.  [RGJ]

Statistics on voter registration in the district are not yet available from the Secretary of State’s office, but the area has been known in previous elections as evenly divided.

This sums it up nicely.  There are two kinds of conservatives.

“I’ve always observed that there were two basic kinds of conservatives: those who disagreed with me, and perhaps thought I was a misguided, or a fool, or even in the grip of deeply destructive impulses and opinions and beliefs, but still thought I might be worth arguing with; and those who’d be perfectly happy living in a one-party state where people like me would be silenced or jailed. Review Santorum’s rhetoric in his Boise speech, and it’s pretty clear on which side of the line he falls. “  Ed Kilgore [WashMon]

If you haven’t read this yet — it ought to be required reading for the week.  Historian Garry Wills takes on the Not-So-Great-Contraception-Debate. Short version: It’s not a religious freedom argument; It’s not a contraception argument; It’s not a Church Teaching argument; and it’s not an “underlying principles” argument either.

Making this element of the Politics of Distraction even more interesting is the fact that Republican candidate Mitt Romney presided over the same policy proposed by the President as Governor of Massachusetts. “The scene illustrates the awkwardness of the GOP going guns-blazing against Obama’s birth control requirement when their likely nominee for President this year codified the same mandate — arguably a broader one — in his Massachusetts health care plan.”  [TPM]

House Republicans decided to hold a hearing on contraception.  Look at the picture here – do you see any women offering testimony?  That’s why Democratic women boycotted the hearing.

We need conference committee work done on the STOCK Act, and Jon Stewart explains why.   The GOP controlled House removed the “political intelligence” portion of the bill — which would prevent members of Congress and staff members from holding ‘seminars’ on upcoming legislation of interest to hedge funds for those self-same hedge funds — and, it needs to be reinserted in the final bill.  The “industry” is “concerned:”

“In establishing that legal duty, however, the legislation also could put lawmakers and aides in legal jeopardy if they divulge that same information to individuals who then trade on the information. “Now that Congress is covered by the insider-trading law, if a member of Congress gives a tip to a hedge fund manager, that is going to be illegal,” says Stephen Bainbridge, a securities-law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.”

But, that doesn’t mean that “political intelligence” operatives shouldn’t have to register just like lobbyists.

Still Bubbling.  Citigroup will be paying $158 million to settle U.S. civil claims it defrauded the government into insuring faulty mortgages.

“The government accused Citigroup of falsely certifying that many of its loans qualified for insurance from the Federal Housing Agency, which is part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Investigators said 9,636, or more than 30 percent, of nearly 30,000 HUD-insured mortgage loans that CitiMortgage made or underwrote since 2004 have defaulted, costing the agency nearly $200 million in insurance claims.”  [Reuters]

Things denser than Iridium.*  (1)  Chuck Woolery on why African Americans don’t need “civil rights.” (2)  Microsoft’s assertion that its donations to the ultra-right wing Heartland Institute are just “free software licenses.”  (3) Gretchen Carlson saying Dept. of Labor makes up numbers, and Sarah Palin saying President’s approval rating increases are the result of “misinformation to the American people.” [MMFA]

*Iridium: “the calculated density of iridium is 22.65 g/cm³, though the density of iridium has not been experimentally measured to exceed that of osmium.”