Branding Women

That GOP rebranding effort is made all the more difficult by Republicans at various levels of government who are getting in their own way.  The problems are visible in economic issues, as well as social ones.

Home Economics

H.R. 377, the Paycheck Fairness Act, is currently stalled in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and there’s a discharge petition to blast it back into consideration on the House Floor.  Representative Dina Titus (D-NV1) and Representative Steven Horsford (D-NV4) have signed the petition, as have another 191 members of Congress as of Thursday, April 25, 2013.  Noticeably absent are the signatures of Nevada Representatives Heck and Amodei, both Republicans.

The bill simply states that wage rate differentials are to be based on experience, education, and training — not merely on gender.  It also provides for collecting statistics on employment and the publication of the data.   The part which usually causes groans, moans, and predictable grimaces from Republicans might be:

Revises the prohibition against employer retaliation for employee complaints. Prohibits retaliation for inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing the wages of the employee or another employee in response to a complaint or charge, or in furtherance of a sex discrimination investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action, or an investigation conducted by the employer.

Makes employers who violate sex discrimination prohibitions liable in a civil action for either compensatory or (except for the federal government) punitive damages.  [CRS]

The standard GOP response to these kinds of provisions is (1) The Trial Lawyers are Coming, The Trial Lawyers are Coming; and, (2) Onerous Government Infringements on Your Liberty! Your Freedom! Both are nonsense.

The problem isn’t anything new; consider this from 2010:

Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 — even in fields in which their numbers are overwhelming. Female secretaries, for instance, earn just 83.4% as much as male ones.

This has economic implications for 50.8% of the American population, or 49.5% of the Nevada population — women.  It also has evident connections to Nevada’s median household income ($55,553) in which the female’s contribution to household revenue is, on average, worth about 75 cents of every dollar contributed by the male partner.   IF members of the Republican Party are serious about improving the micro-economics of the average Nevada home, then insuring pay equity would be a good place to start.  The Discharge Petition needs 218 signatures to reach the floor — the ‘John Hancocks’ of Congressmen Heck and Amodei would be helpful.

Home Not-S0-Sweet-Home

Under the convenient rhetoric of “Liberty” and “Big Government,” lie some inconvenient attitudes on display from various levels of Republican leadership.

It’s Big Government if gender pay equity solutions are under discussion. However, it’s perfectly acceptable to allow government intrusion into private family decisions like contraception and birth control.  Heaven Forefend, a family should debate abortion options in private!   The Republican Party seems to have no problems at all when it comes to calling in the Big Government to prohibit abortion procedures.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a Fetal Personhood Bill, S. 583, on March 14, 2013, under the terms of which a fetus would have 14th Amendment rights.  As noted previously, could a fetus decide that the economic circumstances of the family to which it was about to be born were insufficient for its grand plans and sue for emancipation?  Personally, I would like to see a fetus challenge Citizens United.

Anti-Choice bills have also been introduced by Representative Diane Black (R-TN) HR 940 and HR 217;  by Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) HR 447;  Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) HR 732; Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) HR 61; Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) HR 1091; Senator David Vitter (R-LA) S. 138;  Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) HR 1122;  Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) HR 23; Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK) S. 154; Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) S. 356;  and the list goes on.

Anyone operating on the comforting delusion that the newly formed 113th Congress will be less focused on anti-choice legislation and more intent on JOBS and bills to improve the economic situation of American families will be sorely disappointed.

The GOP still hasn’t quite found its footing on Women’s Issues.  Perhaps this could be because it hasn’t quieted those voices within it ranks for whom women are variously mobile wombs, ranting radicals, or irresponsible sows at the public trough.

Leading GOP spokesperson Rush Limbaugh’s memorable misogynistic rants in regard to Sandra Fluke’s testimony on behalf of women who need contraceptive medication to avoid complications of ovarian disorders are echoed by an Albuquerque Republican who called a minimum wage increase advocate “names” on social media — and who later said (a lá Limbaugh) he was “just joking.” [ABJ] [TP]

Opposed to sexual violence, and want to “Take Back The Night?” Then expect some moron, such as the notable example in Arizona, who preaches that “Women Are Asking For It.” [TP] At Dartmouth sexual assault protesters were threatened with rape.  [TP] Or, call for police assistance too often to report domestic violence?  You could be facing a police department pressuring your landlord to evict you.  [TP]  Had enough of hearing about Steubenville, OH? There’s a new example from Michigan. [TP]  There’s a thread running through all these unfortunate incidents.

Women are undeserving of full consideration as human beings.  They are responsible for the exercise of male transgressions.  They are prey for the predators and it’s the woman’s fault if…if almost anything.  It’s a woman’s fault if a man is unsatisfied…in nearly all realms of human endeavor.   Can’t establish a meaningful long term relationship with the fair sex? Blame the Femi-Nazis?  Can’t get and hold a job? Blame the radical feminists for demanding employment?  Can’t understand the point a person is making about medical conditions or employment situations?  Call names! Like, “Radical Bitch.”  Want a simplistic solution to the complex personal issues involved in family planning? Just rail about abortion.

So long as Congress turns its attention to abortion more often than it does to women’s health, as long as radio ranters validate the misogyny of the disgruntled, so long as corporate interests can insert their anti-labor message into the parlance of economic discussions of wage rate equity — we will have trouble addressing the problems facing American families.  The GOP is still branding women, instead of rebranding their own party.

Amodei votes for GOP version of VAWA

Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) was the sole member of the Nevada Congressional delegation to vote in favor of the McMorris-Rodgers substitute for the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act. [Roll Call 54] In doing so, Amodei was the only Nevadan to vote in favor of removing protections for Native American women, and extending protection to persons in gay or lesbian relationships.   Other Nevada Representatives, Horsford, Heck, Titus, voted against the GOP version of the bill.

Representative Amodei changed his vote to ‘yes’ on the second vote of the day, Roll Call 55, to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act. (Senate Version)  However, any attempt by Representative Amodei to later claim “I voted For VAWA,” should be tempered by the knowledge that his initial vote was squarely in line with the Tenther, or radical portion of the GOP which couldn’t find it necessary to extend the protection of the act to ALL individuals in the U.S. in domestic relationships.

Mark Amodei, A National Debt Primer – With Charts and Pictures

Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2): “As a fiscal conservative, I believe that our nation’s deficit is out of control. We now borrow 42 cents for every dollar we spend. The bloated federal government spends some of that money on frivolous projects that benefit only a select group of special interests and other needless expenses. A significant portion of revenue also goes to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security — programs that are headed towards insolvency and need significant reform to become financially viable.”

Not. So. Fast.

#1.  I believe that our nation’s deficit is out of control. We now borrow 42 cents for every dollar we spend.   Really?  Easy there Lone Ranger, there’s something breathless about this that doesn’t reflect historical reality.  For example, as of 2009 the federal deficit stood at 10.1% of the U.S. economy. However, during World War II our debt stood at 30.3% — and the nation didn’t collapse, and we won the war.  In FY 2012 we’re looking at a deficit of some 7.6%, not a happy number, but nowhere near the historical high; and, before we become even mildly hysterical about the figure we should note that March 2012 budget projections (pdf) from the Congressional Budget Office the projection should decline to 6.3% in FY 2013, and drop to 5.8% in FY 2014. [MJ]

How is something “out of control” when it’s actually declining?

#2.  From whence comes the borrowing?  Of the current (March 2012) totals,  $15,885.5B debt, $6,397.2B is owned by the Federal Reserve and Intergovernmental holdings, another $9,185.1B is privately held.  $184.8B is in the form of U.S. Savings Bonds.  State and Local governments hold $436B of our national indebtedness, while foreign investors hold $$5136.0B of it. [Treas.doc]  If the Debt is a monstrous, heinous, horrible problem — we should ask again — why hasn’t the yield curve moved? As we can see from the chart for today’s yield curve, it’s costing us less that 1% to “sell” American debt for most securities.

Further,  if we look at the trends in interest rates for U.S. securities, the trend is generally downward.

One doesn’t need to be an academically trained economist to observe that someone (indeed, lots of people) think U.S. securities are a good investment.  If the DEBT was a horrible, heinous, terrible, icky thing this would not be the case.

#3. “The bloated federal government spends some of that money on frivolous projects that benefit only a select group of special interests and other needless expenses.”   What, pray tell, is a frivolous project?  Would it be the TARP disbursements to our national banking system in the wake of the Crash of 2007-2008?

Of course, we could have let the financial system collapse in a messy heap and launched another Great Depression…

How about wasted taxpayer dollars in the Pentagon?  The New York Times offers a person the chance to figure out how to save money in the Defense Department, in order to meet the “cuts” deemed necessary above the current savings proposed by the Obama Administration.  By the way, good luck with this exercise!

OK, what about the inevitable Solyndra talking point/question?  Return with us now to the Jon Stewart Show (video) , which pointed out that the private sector rate for investing in eventually bankrupt companies as exemplified by Bain was a generous 22%, while the number of Department of Energy’s record is a more reasonable 8% bankruptcy rate.  (October 25, 2012)

#4. “A significant portion of revenue also goes to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security — programs that are headed towards insolvency and need significant reform to become financially viable.”

Here comes the “we gotta reform entitlements” argument.  In a reality based world we “don’t gotta do much reforming.”  And, we certainly don’t need to hand the Wall Street Wizards the coffers of the Social Security Administration.  As has been discussed numerous times on this blog, Social Security is NOT going bankrupt.  In 2011 Social Security ended the year with a $2.7 TRILLION surplus.

“So why all the talk about Social Security “going broke?” That theme filled the news after release of the latest annual report of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, as Social Security is formally called.

The reason is that the people who want to kill Social Security have for years worked hard to persuade the young that the Social Security taxes they pay to support today’s gray hairs will do nothing for them when their own hair turns gray.

That narrative has become the conventional wisdom because it is easily reduced to a headline or sound bite. The facts, which require more nuance and detail, show that, with a few fixes, Social Security can be safe for as long as we want.”  [Johnson, Reuters]

Medicare and Medicaid are another matter.  We DO need to do something to reduce health care costs.  And, if we’re serious about adding resources to the trust funds which support Medicare and Social Security we could increase the capped rate of $110,100 in earnings.   There is no question of Social Security viability.  We do have some work to do to make the savings in the health care segments — there will be some savings with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act — the infamous $716B cut — which turned out to be $716B in savings in part from reducing the taxpayer subsidization of profitable private Medicare Advantage plans.

Before Representative Amodei, and his Republican cohorts, take the jump off the fiscal cliff, which they created, (pdf) they might want to attend to the FACTS concerning entitlements — those programs to which we are entitled because we paid for them — and to consider the proposition that it is not a good thing to balance the federal budget on the backs of the elderly, the ill, and the disabled.

Energy and Amodei

** Thus much for all the “Doom Despair and Agony On Me Deep Dark Depression and Excessive Misery“– Nevada’s unemployment rate has dropped to 11.8%.  [LVSun]  Not too shabby for a state that got caught in the midst of the Wall Street Casino generated Housing Bubble.

** There is an economic sector in which Nevada could do quite well:  “Nevada is rich in renewable energy potential but has few fossil energy resources. Nevada leads the Nation in geothermal power potential and much of the State is suitable for wind power development. The Colorado River, which forms Nevada’s southern border, is a powerful hydroelectric power resource.” [Eredux]  What could we be doing to create more jobs in the energy sector?

Wind Energy: “Over 24 million acres of land in Nevada within 10 miles of an existing transmission line is classified as ‘good’ to ‘outstanding’ for wind energy development. Nevada has the potential to generate 63 million megawatt/hours — 280% of the State’s current consumption.”

Solar Energy: “Nevada has the highest solar energy potential in the nation and is already the number one state in per capita solar energy production. The DOE estimates that 100 square miles of Nevada land could supply all U.S. electricity needs with current (~10%) commercial efficiency rates. With over 250 days of sunshine a year, Nevada is looking forward to a bright solar future.”

Geothermal Energy: “1500 MW of geothermal capacity that could come on line in Nevada by 2015. With 340 MW of geothermal power currently in operation and hundreds more coming on line in the next couple of years, Nevada is poised to become a world leader in geothermal power generation.”

UNR “Nevada’s Renewable Resources” Click for interactive maps and pdf reports.

**  The energy resources available for development in Nevada aren’t merely a matter of tree-huggin’ environmental interest — rural counties which need to diversify their economies are prime locations for energy development projects.   This ought to be a bi-partisan, if not non-partisan, issue.  Communities based on mining are all too familiar with the Boom and Bust phenomena — witness Hamilton,Belmont, or Bullfrog, and other ghosts of booms past.  Agriculture is a solid but geographically limited contributor to local rural economies.  Manufacturing clusters are developing, but face staffing challenges when competing with mining corporations for highly skilled employees.  Energy development is a sector which could contribute to rural economic development — the installations require construction (which would help in the short term), maintenance and staffing; better still they can’t be out-sourced to another country.

Instead of dismissing alternative energy development as a “passing fad,” which economists assure us isn’t the Chinese or German conclusion, or pretending that support for energy development is a futile exercise in picking winners and losers — could we guess that the Oil Giants believe they might be losers? — we should be looking at alternative energy development as a way to help diversify the economy in rural Nevada.

** And then there’s the short term vision of Nevada’s Second Congressional District incumbent.  Representative Mark Amodei’s view is remarkably foreshortened — as in limited to the next utility bill.

“If federal money is going to be spent on research and development to make wind, solar and geothermal energy more competitive that’s one issue, Amodei said.  “But if those, when they get done, go to sell into the grid and that increases rates, especially right now when things are they way they are in Nevada, and competition for sustainable living wage jobs is what it is in the Inter-mountain West, I think that’s the wrong energy policy,” he said. [NNB]

Somewhere in that word salad there’s a point which might be translated as  alternative energy development is OK if it is to make the projects competitive, and if there’s no increase in electricity bills.   The ultra-conservative NPRI chimes in with a misleading comment presented as if it proves alternative energy development doesn’t create jobs, and if it does it’s too expensive.  The NPRI took the total $1.3 billion investment in alternative energy since 2009, and divided it by the number of permanent full time jobs and came up with an astronomical price for each job created.

First, no one ever said alternative energy was going to create jobs for everyone in the country. Secondly, the NPRI’s complaint ignores the fact that the projects may also support those who are already employed in the industry — thus relieving downsizing pressures.  Third, construction jobs DO count.  Even though construction and installation jobs are by their very nature temporary, they do feed into the local economy, especially if local contractors and subcontractors are hired to do the work.

Economic diversification could be enhanced by including alternative energy projects, IF Representative Amodei were willing to take a longer view of the potential and less persistent in his opposition to anything that might require start up assistance.   It would be better for his rural constituents if he could even see past the envelop containing his power bill.

Chalkboard Talk: Heck, Amodei and the Ryan Budget

Specifics and explanations are available here.

Amodei, Heck: Fire, Ready, Aim on TANF Waivers

Don’t look now, but Nevada Representatives Amodei (R-NV2) and Heck (R-NV3) just voted to usurp the power of governors in our 50 states to implement ‘welfare to work’ programs designed to  increase the number of persons finding employment who are now receiving public assistance.  [vote 589]  Voting against new programs to move more people from welfare to work doesn’t sound like a traditional GOP position — However, that’s what happens when guns are jumped and propaganda replaces position papers.

Here’s what the House Republicans passed:

HJRes 118  Providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of HHS relating to waiver and expenditure authority under the Social Security Act with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program…

Here’s what the Department of Health and Human Services actually said:

“HHS is encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment.  Therefore, HHS is issuing this information memorandum to notify states of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.“  (emphasis added)

Note: The states only get the waiver on the work rules IF their new policies Improve Employment Outcomes — translation — IF more people are moved form the welfare rolls to the employment rosters.

Who requested the waivers?  Nevada and Utah, both with Republican Governors.

“Nevada is very interested in working with your staff to explore program waivers that have the potential to encourage more cooperative relationships among the state agencies engaged in economic stimulus through job creation, employment skill attainment and gainful employment activities. Nevada is also interested in exploring performance measures that ensure program accountability and also increase the probability of families becoming self-sufficient by providing meaningful data as to the services or combination of services with the best outcomes. [Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, 8/2/11, via The Huffington Post]” (emphasis added)

So, congratulations Representatives Amodei and Heck, you’ve both voted in favor of less program accountability, and against innovations that might increase the probability families in Nevada currently receiving public assistance could become self sufficient.

An unsolicited suggestion — next time turn off the cable TV broadcast and read the relevant statutes  before voting?  Just Sayin’

Amodei Joins Fire, Ready, Aim Brigade

Nevada’s own Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) has unfortunately joined the ranks of those not-quite-ready-for-prime-time players in foreign relations.  “The fact that the host countries have mildly reacted to the attacks of the past 48 hours makes it abundantly clear that this administration’s support for their rise to power is another example of a failure in policy.” [RGJ] Really?

As the Gazette-Journal correctly points out, should our policy have been to provide continued support for “a murderous dictator in Libya who, by all accounts, was directly responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988, in which 270 men and women died, including 11 on the ground in Lockerbie, Scotland. Why? Apparently because there are extremist Muslims in Libya, and they can’t handle freedom?“

The last sentence is particularly insightful, because the internal politics of those nations which have cast off particularly egregious police-state regimes are only beginning to address re-organizing their political institutions, and minority right wing fundamentalist extremism in those countries isn’t helping.   Nor can all the difficulties in each of the nations be swept neatly into one pile of conveniently categorized political groups.

The Libyan Example: Oil and Guns

As noted previously, the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was launched by heavily armed militia members in an area of well known radical right wing activity.  One group in Libya may be responsible for the attack on the consulate.  Ansar Al Sharia rejects the validity of the current Libyan constitution and government, as does an affiliated group in neighboring Tunisia.   Two  major parties, the moderate National Forces Alliance and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction Party (JCP) current hold the reins, but as one expert explains:

As a political force, Ansar al-Sharia hold some sway in the political arena. For the country’s major parties – both the moderate National Forces Alliance and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction Party (JCP) – a small group like Ansar al-Sharia can be make-or-break when it comes to decision making. “Each of these small parties is an important force because everything hangs on just a few voices,” explained Mathieu Guidère. [France24]

A few voices are attempting to hold a fragile coalition government together in a nation awash in firearms and materiél.  Libya is also a country with limited economic development.  95% of the nation’s exports are hydrocarbon (fuel), contributing 65% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, and about 80% of the government revenue.  The CIA analysis of the Libyan economy is cautiously optimistic:

“Libya faces a long road ahead in liberalizing its primarily socialist economy, but the revolution probably increases the opportunity for entrepreneurial activity and the evolution of a more market-based economy. The service and construction sectors, which account for roughly 20% of GDP, expanded over the past five years and could become a larger share of GDP after political volatility subsides. Climatic conditions and poor soils severely limit agricultural output, and Libya imports about 75% of its food.”

The complications are obvious.  The old regime was pleased to receive the oil revenues, and happy to purchase arms from willing sellers in the U.S. and Europe.  [HuffPo] [DailyMailUK] U.S. policy changed in 2009 allowing only “non-lethal” military equipment sales, supposedly aircraft parts, but items which some observers suggested could be transformed into crude munitions. [HuffPo]  Precious little of the revenues from oil exports under Gaddafi trickled down into the Libyan economy.  The unemployment rate, last estimated under the Gaddafi regime, was approximately 30% in 2004.

U.S. policy positions in regard to Libya

Developing a stable moderate-to-conservative coalition government, in a political climate in which few voices are commanding most of the attention, and in an economy previously artificially constricted by a dictatorial regime, is seriously problematic, but not intractable.   There are some policy objectives which ought to be crystal clear.

It is in the best interests of the United States to assist in the economic development of Libyan commercial expansion and economic diversification. How they accomplish this is, putting it bluntly, their problem. However, a nation that must feed its people by importing at least 75% of the food required has to find a way to keep famine from the doors.  The Libyans must also find a way toward developing public  infrastructure, and assist the nascent construction sector, by moving from a focus on military installations and palaces.

Thus far U.S. aid to Libya has been based on identified needs in a nation which still has extremely high unemployment and suffers from the aftermath of a civil war:

“Since February 2011, the United States has provided $170 million in assistance, mostly in response to urgent humanitarian and security challenges in the immediate aftermath of the beginning of the conflict. We have also focused on supporting capacity building efforts within government institutions, developing civil society, and facilitating free and fair elections. All programs advance key U.S. interests by filling critical capacity gaps within U.S.-Libya identified transition priorities. All projects are being coordinated with the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL).” [Dept of State]

The projects so far include U.S. participation in constitutional development, election management and monitoring, developing an independent news and broadcast media, disarmament and demobilization, forensic and mass grave technical assistance, technical assistance for public infrastructure projects,  assistance with financial management, and  entrepreneurial assistance, among other efforts.  [Dept of State]  Sounds rational doesn’t it.

Here’s an example of irrational: “A group of House conservatives is calling for foreign aid to Libya and Egypt to be stripped from a six-month federal funding bill set for a vote on Thursday.”  [The Hill] Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed.

Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ) demonstrated the inadequacy of his understanding of our relations with Libya, saying: “Why is it that the United States is bankrolling some of these countries?” he asked. “Why do we continue to bankroll them at the level that we are? We’re waiting for that discussion from the administration.” [The Hill]

Perhaps Representative Garrett would care to explain why he would object to the Obama Administration’s policy in regard to Libra, and why he objects to the expenditure of funds for (1) constitutional development, (2) election management and monitoring, (3) developing an independent news and broadcast media, (4) disarmament and demobilization, (5) forensic and mass grave identification technical assistance, (6) technical assistance for public infrastructure projects, (7)  assistance with financial management, and  (8) entrepreneurial assistance?

What Have You Done For US lately?

Representative Amodei seems to have missed the same news as might have been un-noticed by Representative Jeff Landry (R-LA3):

“What is the government doing to prevent it? What is the government doing to arrest these people? What was the government doing to quell those protesters? If someone were to come and invade the embassies of Libya and Egypt here, what do you think would happen? What would our government reaction be? Why can’t we expect the same amount of reciprocity from other governments that we would give them here?” he asked.” [Politico]

First, as the Tea Party Caucus member from Louisiana must have missed, there are TWO governments involved in the identification, capture, and arrest of the people who assaulted the Benghazi consulate — the U.S. and Libya, and the Libyans are cooperating, and have been since immediately after  the event –

“President Magariaf of Libya expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.”  [TDS]  What’s unclear about this statement?

What should surprise (and please) Representatives Amodei and Landry is that a country still struggling to retrain its police force, up to its ears in well armed militias, and slowing piecing together its civil institutions managed to arrest 4 of of the alleged attackers by September 14th!. [Reuters] One might think that the Tea Party Caucus members would want to express their thanks for the rapid arrests, and support further development of the Libyan law enforcement efforts.

What policy failures are illuminated by the prompt promise of full cooperation by the Libyan government and the arrest of four members of the group which assaulted the consulate — all within a matter of a few days?

In each of the countries in which American, German, and British diplomatic facilities have been assaulted recently there are internal political, economic, and social forces at play which may be generalized accurately under the rubric of disaffected fundamentalists, but which  should also be carefully scrutinized as evidence of internal issues unresolved as those governments emerge from dictatorships to democracies.

Let’s Have The Discussion

Which is better for the maintenance of long term American interests in predominantly Muslim nations — that we support dictatorial regimes as those of Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad, and others — or that we support international efforts to develop democratic institutions and more open and transparent economic systems?

Which is better for the maintenance of long term American interests in predominantly Muslim nations — that we offer economic and humanitarian aid to fledgling democracies in the Middle East and northern Africa or that we leave the field in a fit of pique and thus invite other nations to fill the void?

How might Representative Amodei,  or Representative Landry and other members of the Tea Party Caucus respond?

Pretty Simple, Pretty Snappy: Paul Ryan in Sparks, NV

Representative Paul Ryan attended a rally in Sparks, NV long enough for his fellow Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) to insert his foot in his mouth.  “We want to start with kind of a uniquely Republican thing, we want to start with the pledge of allegiance,” Amodei said.” [LV Sun] Well, starting a campaign event would be a “uniquely Republican thing,” except that the Democrats did it — with former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords leading it on Thursday night.  [HuffPo]   Unsolicited advice: If one’s foot has to go into one’s mouth, at least make it for doing or saying something original?

Remember former President Bill Clinton saying, “In Tampa … the Republican argument against the president’s re-election was pretty simple, pretty snappy,” Clinton said. “‘We left him a total mess, he hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.’” [MST]  Prescient, given Rep. Ryan’s talking point to the 2,500 gathered in Sparks: “Are we going to have a country in debt, in doubt, in decline? Or are we going to do what we need to do to get people back to work, to fix the mess in Washington, and to get this country back on the right track.” [NNB]

Senator by appointment only™  Dean Heller (R-NV)  chimed in with this contribution:

“Paul Ryan is the vice presidential pick who can lead this country in a substantive discussion about the most pressing issues of the day,” he said. “When many in Washington wanted to play politics and preserve their own political ambitions, Paul Ryan faced head-on the enormous challenge of bringing our nation’s fiscal house in order. This conversation is long overdue, and I look forward to more of Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney’s leadership moving forward.” [NNB] (emphasis added)

Let us parse.  About that “substantive discussion,” indeed we would all benefit from a substantive discussion of fiscal policy — IF the Republicans would like to bring something substantive to the party.   First, they offer us a tax plan which would cut taxes for the top 1%, increase taxation on middle income families, and these cuts would be paid for by closing tax loopholes they refuse to identify.   Secondly, the Ryan budget numbers don’t add up, and former Governor Romney’s already stated that his taxation plan can’t be scored by the Congressional Budget Office.   If the CBO can’t score “it” and the numbers don’t add up — now what was it former President Clinton said about Arithmetic?

We could talk of putting the country’s “fiscal house in order,”  except that the Congressional GOP has made that rather difficult.

“A budget plan introduced by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would add more to the deficit over 10 years than if Congress kept the status quo, undermining claims of its fiscal impact.  Ryan’s blueprint, “The Path to Prosperity,” would add $3.127 trillion to the deficit during the decade spanning 2013 to 2022, according to a table on page 88 of the plan.” [The Hill] (emphasis added)

The non-partisan CBO number crunchers did score the so-called Path to Prosperity, and determined it would add MORE to the deficit than if we did absolutely nothing.  This hardly sounds like putting the fiscal house in order, it sounds rather more like throwing out the old furniture and putting a truck load of new furnishings on the credit card.  I think we’ve seen this movie before.

Arithmetic: If there were 2,500 attending the Ryan rally in Sparks, and one African American there was Secret Service agent (photograph) and there was one African American photographed in the crowd,  what percentage of those photographed attending the Ryan rally were African American?  Including the Secret Service agent? Not including the Secret Service Agent?  Make the former President proud — do your own arithmetic.  Showing your work is not required.  Mostly Democrats read this blog — so I’m assuming a high proficiency in arithmetic.

Shall We Aggregate By The Linear Freshwater Channel?

Few things in life are so readily identifiable as the confusion created by human beings who are trapped in conflicting versions of their own proposals.  However, when ideas fail one can always chant.  Witness the Heller-Rubio-Amodei entertainment in Nevada — as described by the Miami Herald:

Heller and Rubio also campaigned Thursday in Reno. Obama’s ideas are “the same ideas that have kept people in poverty for centuries,” Rubio told the crowd of more than 300 at a nightclub a few doors from Washoe County GOP headquarters.

“Our rights didn’t come from government, they came from God,’” he (Heller) said to the loudest cheers.

Republican Congressman Mark Amodei predicted Washoe County would help the Romney-Ryan ticket carry Nevada, and Heller led chants of “Where are the jobs?” before introducing Rubio.

There are a couple of obvious themes to be explored here.  The reference to keeping people in poverty is a variation on the Government Creates Dependency theme currently popular among right wing supporters.

Ruggedly Individualistic

A real stretch is required to describe the flow of U.S. history as borne by the Rugged Individualists of the Golden Past.   The European settlers were all parts of military and religious imperialist policy (Spanish), or associated with religious organizations spawned from the English reformation (Plymouth, Boston), or members of joint stock companies seeking to establish commerce in precious metals, natural resources, and agricultural products (Virginia).   While right wing ideology requires that a sneer or hissing sound must be associated with the word “collective,” all colonies were the result of collective religious, commercial, or governmental action.

Right wing radicals may be loathe to admit it, but the entire reason for Paul Revere’s ride to Lexington and Concord was to prevent the British army from confiscating a cache of arms and ammunition stored for collective use by the Massachusetts rebels.   We were, and are, the nation of community barn raisings and quilting bees.  Of school pot luck suppers, and town board meetings, and sheriff’s posses.  For better or worse, the nation of committee meetings and councils.   Government as “the enemy” is a relatively recent concept.

Government as the perpetrator of individual dependency is an artificial construction in the service of the economic elite.   Government programs, it is a alleged by the servants of power, keep people “dependent.”   In order to make this argument work, the servants of the corporations such as Rubio, Heller, and Amodei must conveniently ignore the traditions of American civic spirit and focus on the narrow interests of the economically successful while stripping the landscape of some basic geographic realities.

For example, when Boston’s population stood at 24,973 in 1800 private charity for the preservation of the poor was already considered inadequate and each town was required by law to sustain ‘paupers’ for up to three months regardless of their official residence.  [Carr]  The transition from “the poor will always be with us,” to poverty as a form of criminal behavior is a holdover from Victorian times in which the powers that be proclaimed the Iron Law of Wages and the notion that Work Houses should be deliberately made so onerous that they would serve as a deterrent to being “poor.”

In short, the philosophy extended by Rubio, Heller, and Amodei comes not from the civic spirit of communal post-colonial America but from the Victorian era’s Malthus, Ricardo, and Bentham.

Unnatural Rights

“Our rights didn’t come from government, they came from God,’” he (Heller) said to the loudest cheers.”   Now, we’re back to Question 94 in Aquinas’s Prima Secundae of the Summa Theologiae.   God gives divine law, divine law is a manifestation of providence, man receives natural law, and man devises therefrom the principles of  practical rationality.  The problem, of course, is that the Rubio-Heller-Amodei version omits the critical step by which the reception of natural law is transformed into practical rationality in human actions — the government.

For all their banging on about preserving the Constitution, the Trio has missed the part where the “natural laws” are rendered into practical form by the creation of the U.S. Constitution, which inconveniently for their argument creates – a government.  It is the Constitution and its created government which formulate, and then define, protect, and preserve the rights we enjoy as citizens.

Oh, Good! Let’s Talk About Jobs

Yes, where are they?  Some pretzel logic is required to first denigrate the capacity of collective action (government) to create jobs and then to immediately castigate the government for not creating them.  However, let’s focus on the “practical rationality of human actions” for a moment or two.

As a practical matter, the government has and does create jobs, and not just for politicians.  Highway department officials do not create jobs, but they do evaluate bids from construction companies and contract with firms to perform the work.   Those who aren’t sure of this should consult a history of Ryan Incorporated Central, Paul Ryan’s family business, which began by getting railroad construction projects in 1884 and then moved into highway construction including the Interstate Highway System. [TP]

The only jobs bills to come to the floor of the House of Representatives have been sponsored by Democrats, and the Republican majority has voted NO on every single  one to date. [Leader]  We can look at a few specific examples.

#1.  House Democrats sought to recommit H.Res. 38 (spending bill) to insert a provision calling for ending government contracts with corporations which ship American jobs overseas.   Representatives Heller (R-NV2) and Heck (R-NV3) voted against this. [roll call 19]

#2. Build America Bonds, a proposal endorsed by both the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, went down to defeat on vote number 38,  and twice more. [Leader]

#3.  American Jobs Matter Act – to give preference in federal contracts to U.S. manufacturers that create jobs here at home, went down on roll call vote 257.

#4. The American Jobs Act, [fact sheet] gone from the House but not forgotten, “…would cut payroll taxes for businesses, double the size of the payroll tax cut for individuals, give aid to states to prevent public sector layoffs, and increase infrastructure spending. All together, the Jobs Act would create 1.9 million jobs over the next year.”  [AmProspect]

Thus instead of offering specific proposals for putting Americans back to work, the House Republicans prefer to deliver ethereal sermons on the application of Bentham’s Philosophy, lightly gloss over the part in the discussion of Natural Law in which government provides the vehicle for translating providential  intentions into practical rationality, and then ices the entire pottage by refusing to consider jobs bills because “government can’t create jobs.”  Of course it can’t when the House of Representatives won’t enact jobs bills!

Here’s hoping the 600 who bought the $50 tickets had a good meal at the Venetian — because they certainly didn’t get anything substantial from the speakers.

What Would The Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan Mean For Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District?

This analysis shows the immediate and long-term impacts of these changes in the 2nd Congressional District in Nevada.

The Republican proposal would have adverse impacts on seniors and disabled individuals in the district who are currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:

• Increase prescription drug costs for 8,600 Medicare beneficiaries in the district who enter the Part D donut hole, forcing them to pay an extra $85 million for drugs over the next decade.

• Eliminate new preventive care benefits for 123,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district.

The Republican proposal would have even greater impacts on individuals in the district age 54 and younger who are not currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:

• Deny 610,000 individuals age 54 and younger in the district access to Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.

• Increase the out-of-pocket costs of health coverage by over $6,000 per year in 2022 and by almost $12,000 per year in 2032 for the 130,000 individuals in the district who are between the ages of 44 and 54.

• Require the 130,000 individuals in the district between the ages of 44 and 54 to save an additional $30.4 billion for their retirement – an average of $182,000 to $287,000 per individual – to pay for the increased cost of health coverage over their lifetimes. Younger residents of the district will have to save even higher amounts to cover their additional medical costs.

• Raise the Medicare eligibility age by at least one year to age 66 or more for 69,000 individuals in the district who are age 44 to 49 and by two years to age 67 for 480,000 individuals in the district who are age 43 or younger.

[Energy/Commerce House]

Perhaps Congressman Amodei would like to address these figures at some point before the election in November?