uggabugga





Sunday, February 28, 2010

Shorter David Broder:
Watch me as a write my most judgment-free and shallow column this year! This one is about the impasse on health care legislation and I won't advocate any position, nor will I examine in detail the claims of Republicans or Democrats. I'll cite numbers from a Republican pollster, completely dismiss the 2008 elections, and say that "the voters" will decide the issue this November. Why? Because I'm the Dean of Washington journalism, that's why!


0 comments

Jay Leno to have Sarah Palin as a guest his first week re-hosting the Tonight Show:

According to the promos on NBC. That's a strange way to try and heal the breach with viewers, many who dislike Palin intensely.



3 comments


Saturday, February 27, 2010

Light blogging for the next few days:

Reason:

1) To fully prepare to view Meet the Press this Sunday.
2) Watch the EXCLUSIVE interview on MTP with John McCain.
3) After the interview, take the time to digest the wisdom imparted by the Arizona senator.



1 comments


Friday, February 26, 2010

As long as you claim it's "independent", it's ethical:

In the news:
The House ethics committee ruled Friday that seven lawmakers who steered hundreds of millions of dollars in largely no-bid contracts to clients of a lobbying firm had not violated any rules or laws by also collecting large campaign donations from those contractors.

In a 305-page report, the ethics committee declared that lawmakers are free to raise campaign money from the very companies they are benefiting so long as the deciding factors in granting those "earmarks" are "criteria independent" of the contributions.
And you can always find a meritorious criteria that's "independent". So it's now clearly established that money is what governs the nation. Not that it wasn't before, but these days it's becoming harder to pretend otherwise.

I wonder what James Madison would say about this. He studied various historical forms of government before helping craft the Constitution. But was money a factor in those days of old?



2 comments

Hobo logic:

Over at the American Prospect, Mori Dinauer writes:
Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) says he believes "there should be a federal safety net" yet also asks rhetorically whether extending unemployment insurance is the equivalent of the government "creating hobos." In attempting to reconcile these two sentiments, I have to ask: at which point do our unemployed on government assistance officially become hobos? After one year? Two?
Let's consult the final arbiter on these issues, Wikipedia:
Unlike tramps, who worked only when they were forced to, and bums, who didn't work at all, hobos were workers who wandered.
To clarify:
  • HOBO - worker who wanders
  • TRAMP - works only when forced to
  • BUM - not working at all
Clearly, Representative Heller has it wrong. All those on unemployment insurance are BUMS. He should issue a statement to that effect, directed at the 15 million bums currently residing in the United States.

Also, he should submit legislation preventing the unemployed from owning a bindle since that's only supposed to be used by hobos. Bums should not be allowed the luxury of possessing a bindle.



0 comments

"majority vote is tyranny of the minority"

- Mary Matalin

I shall remember this remarkable statement. It captures the Republican mindset perfectly. That this whole representative democracy experiment has been a mistake. As we've seen, Republicans prefer narrative to facts. They assert that "The American People" want this or that policy, which amazingly always furthers the Republican agenda of cosseting the rich folks. Sort of like when in a monarchy, the king was said to be the embodiment of the peoples' will and therefore everyone else should shut up (or face the consequences).



0 comments


Wednesday, February 24, 2010

You'd think one was enough:
Whale kills trainer as horrified spectators watch

ORLANDO, Fla. – A SeaWorld killer whale snatched a trainer from a poolside platform Wednesday in its jaws and thrashed the woman around underwater, killing her in front of a horrified audience. It marked the third time the animal had been involved in a human death.

Trainer Dawn Brancheau, 40, was rubbing Tilikum after a noontime show when the 12,000-pound whale grabbed her and pulled her in ...

A SeaWorld spokesman said Tilikum was one of three orcas blamed for killing a trainer in 1991 after the woman lost her balance and fell in the pool at Sealand of the Pacific near Victoria, British Columbia.

Tilikum was also involved in a 1999 death, when the body of a man who had sneaked by SeaWorld security was found draped over him. The man either jumped, fell or was pulled into the frigid water and died of hypothermia, though he was also bruised and scratched by Tilikum.


2 comments


Saturday, February 20, 2010

I got my answer:

Two days ago, I posted this:
The question that should be asked of all deficit panel/commission/hawks is:
Do you advocate defaulting on the special Treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust?
It dispenses with the smoke and mirrors of CPI angst, detaches Social Security from Medicare/Medicaid, and basically asks if people who paid into a retirement-insurance program should get their money back.
Instapundit yesterday:
SO HERE’S A QUESTION: Would a default on Treasuries accomplish what the Balanced Budget Amendment was supposed to achieve, by forcing the government to spend no more than it takes in? With more collateral damage, of course. . . .
Reynolds is speaking about more than just the special Treasuries held by the Social Security Trust. He's contemplating defaulting on all treasuries.

Glenn Reynolds is a very moral man and Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee.

Of course, he might scale back from a radical "default on all treasuries" to a more sensible - and David Broder approved - "default on Social Security treasuries". That way the Chinese don't get upset and make life difficult for corporate business seeking to expand in that country. As for seniors, well, they can go back to work.



8 comments

Maybe something was possible?

Last week, I wrote the following post:
World Trade Center pictures from above.

Here.

One thing I've never read about is why, before the towers collapsed, didn't someone try and land a helicopter on the roof? (...)
And in the comments section was told that it was too risky to get a helicopter on the roof because of the fires.

But on NPR's Talk of the Nation this Wednesday there was an interview with the guy who took those pictures. Here's part of that interview:(emp add)
NIEL CONAN (host): It's been more than eight years since the indelible day when hijackers flew airplanes into the World Trade Center in New York City. Last week, though, we got to see what happened from a different angle, striking aerial photos of the Twin Towers on fire, then collapsing ...

The pictures were ... taken from a New York City Police Department helicopter by detective Greg Semendinger. (...)

Mr. SEMENDINGER: Myself and my partner, Jim Cicone(ph), we jumped into the helicopter because we were assigned a patrol helicopter that day, and we responded up there. We there in about seven minutes. And primarily our job was to look to see if anybody made it to the roofs. We're doing a pattern back and forth, trying to stay out of the smoke, but also have a good view of the North Tower. The South Tower was completely engulfed in smoke. And if anybody was up there, we never saw them. We could never see the South Tower. But the North Tower, if anybody made it, we would've called in one of the bigger helicopters and they would have tried to, in effect, to rescue.

Mr. SEMENDINGER: Well, the whole time that I was there, which was a total of about three hours, it was mainly to try and see people if they made it to the roof. You know, you're constantly hoping that somebody makes it up there, and then I would call in the other helicopter. But, sadly to say it, it didn't happen.
There's a problem here. WIkipedia has this:
Some of the occupants of each tower above its point of impact made their way upward toward the roof in hope of helicopter rescue, but the roof access doors were locked. No plan existed for helicopter rescues, and on September 11, the thick smoke and intense heat would have prevented helicopters from conducting rescues.
We have a contradiction here. NYPD dective in a helicopter on the day of the attack, saying this week that he was part of a plan to rescue people from the roof. And Wikipedia saying that none existed.

Who can resolve this mystery?

I still maintain that there is a peculiar silence about this aspect of 9/11. It took hours before the towers collapsed. There were times when the fires were less intense. There was a helicopter in the area and now we hear that a rescue would have been enacted if anyone got to the roof. Access to the roof was blocked for ordinary tower occupants, so why wasn't a crack team dispatched to allow access to the roof?

NOTE: I'm not a 9/11 Truther in any way. The attacks were by Al Qaeda and the planes caused all the damage, including tower 7's demise. But I am intrigued by this "roof rescue" aspect, and don't understand why anybody else out there cares.



11 comments


Friday, February 19, 2010

Bullshit:

Krauthammer
:
Reagan collaborated with Tip O'Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century.
The way Krauthammer writes it, it's as if that's all the commission did - keep the system solvent (until about now). What it did was build up a huge reserve that's designed to keep the system solvent for another 30 years.



10 comments


Thursday, February 18, 2010

Rod Dreher's bad news:

Conservative blogger and devout Christian Rod Dreher is writing about a searing experience that will challenge him this year.

Start here.

He's frank on a number of topics that you might not expect from him.



3 comments

The question that should be asked of all deficit panel/commission/hawks is:
Do you advocate defaulting on the special Treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust?
It dispenses with the smoke and mirrors of CPI angst, detaches Social Security from Medicare/Medicaid, and basically asks if people who paid into a retirement-insurance program should get their money back.



1 comments

Apparently Google is unfamiliar with the concept of BCC (Blind Carbon Copy):

You know, when you mail something to a group of people but don't want to put all the emails on the To: line where they could be seen by everyone.

Because it's good manners not to disclose email addresses when not warranted. But Google Buzz doesn't care about that and has decided to expose your email address book to all and sundry. Apparently, this feature passed some sort of evaluation at a Google-fest, which calls into question the sanity of Google-fans. E.g.:
Google Buzz auto generates your network–this is MUCH better process than Facebook’s.
Also, Google has apparently redefined the word "follow" to now include people with whom you have email contact. That's not how I use the word. I "follow", in the sense of visit for-public-viewing websites: news outlets, twitter accounts, and similar places. Google considers reading email to be equivalent to following a public site. I do not.

Google Buzz was supposed to be an improved social-networking approach. Personally, I don't see the merit in that sort of thing, but perhaps others do. For a tight-knit group of four people, having a common message exchange platform can be useful, but when the number of individuals approach twenty or more, complications are sure to ensue.



0 comments


Wednesday, February 17, 2010

NBC story lets Republicans off the hook, Media Research Center complains:

From tonight's NBC Nightly News: (excerpts, emp add)
LISA MYERS: Today the President said that the much-maligned stimulus package staved off economic catastrophe.

MYERS: Many economists agree that the $787 billion package of infrastructure spending, tax cuts and aid to states has created jobs and helped pull the economy out of a deep recession. Three economic research firms estimate that 1.6 to 1.8 million jobs have been created so far, with more gains projected this year. And painful job losses have slowed dramatically. Last January the economy was hemorrhaging jobs at a rate of 780,000 a month. That slowed to 20,000 last month. Economist Mark Zandi, who advises both Republicans and Democrats, says the stimulus was absolutely vital, but not perfect.

MARK ZANDI, MOODY'S ECONOMY.COM: The stimulus was effective. It helped the economy. We are out of recession into recovery, but it wasn't as effective as it could have been. The bang for the buck was not as large as it should have been.

MYERS: The White House had forecast the stimulus would keep unemployment from going above 8 percent. Instead, the jobless rate soared to 10.2 percent last fall and stood at 9.7 percent last month. Economist Kevin Hassett says the costly package actually hurts in the long run.

KEVIN HASSETT, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: The administration decided to give us a sugar high last year rather than to fix something that was broken. The problem is that we still have to fix the broken things and now we don't have any money.
The stimulus wasn't as effective as it could have been because about half was composed of Repubican-demanded tax cuts.

And for a critique, Myers presents Kevin Hassett, author of DOW 36,000 and a thoroughly mendacious figure.

But the conservatives at the Media Research Center aren't satisfied with that and, instead, complain about reports on NBC (and CBS, ABC) that said the stimulus bill helped the economy:
On the one-year anniversary of the Obama administration's “stimulus” spending bill, ABC, CBS and NBC all eagerly corroborated the White House's claims about how it “saved or created” many jobs and staved off economic disaster, though they all offered a range of numbers and definitions ...
And appear to be irritated by this from CBS:
Though “many independent economists put the number of jobs saved or created at about 1.8 million,” [CBS' Chip] Reid relayed that “to the great frustration of the White House, most Americans simply refuse to believe it. In a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, a mere 6 percent said the stimulus has created jobs.” Reid's culprit: “That skepticism due in part to a relentless campaign by Republicans who say the stimulus is a bloated, big-government failure.”


5 comments

Do Democrats "want to win"?

From the New York Times: (excerpts, emp add)
Rules Keeper Is Dismissed By Senate, Official Says
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
Published: May 8, 2001

Republican leaders decided last week to dismiss the Senate's parliamentarian, Robert B. Dove, because of their frustration over his recent rulings on tax and budget matters, a top leadership staff assistant said today.

One of Mr. Dove's recent rulings was that only one tax bill could be considered this year under special budget rules that prevent filibusters. The final straw apparently came last week when Mr. Dove determined that a Republican plan to set aside more than $5 billion in next year's budget to cover expenses related to natural disasters could be removed from the budget unless Republicans could muster 60 votes to keep it.

Those decisions frustrated Republicans. Earlier this year, he delighted Republicans and infuriated Democrats in declaring that a tax cut could be considered under procedures that prevent filibusters on measures that reduced budget deficits.

Presiding officers in the Senate -- the vice president or senators when the vice president is not in the chair -- invariably follow the counsel of the parliamentarian on procedural questions. As a practical matter, the parliamentarian's rulings can be overturned only by a 60-vote majority, and that rarely happens.

''The stakes are very high, and when you have a 50-50 Senate, it leaves the parliamentarian who is trying to be an honest broker in an excruciating position,'' said Norman J. Ornstein, an expert on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute.

''These are guys who want to win,'' Mr. Ornstein said of Republican senators, ''and they don't want roadblocks in their way.''


1 comments

Andrew Sullivan erupts over Marc Thiessen's "Catholic" defense of torture and other rough stuff:

3,000 words
(w/ clips from an interview on a Catholic cable channel).

Sullivan has erred in the past and been inflammatory (e.g. "Fifth Column"), but on th etorture issue, he's been relentless and correct.



3 comments

Hopeless:

NYTimes: (excerpts, emp add)
... there is broad agreement among critics [that] The unwillingness of the two parties to compromise to control a national debt that is rising to dangerous heights.

... Republicans are resisting President Obama’s call for a bipartisan commission to cut the debt, although recent studies have implicated the tax cuts and spending policies of the years after 2000 when they controlled Congress and the White House.

On Thursday, administration officials say, he will sign an executive order establishing the 18-member National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. He also will name as co-chairmen Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican Senate leader from Wyoming, and Erskine Bowles, a moderate Democrat from North Carolina ...

Elected Republicans, however, are under intense pressure from their party’s conservative base to oppose any tax increases — a line in the sand that dims any prospects for bipartisan cooperation.

Privately, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and other administration officials are courting Republicans with assurances of the administration’s sincerity about bipartisanship.
So much for making a partisan/political argument about what policies have led to this absurd situation. "Bipartisanship" is a political straightjacket that dooms the country from ever implementing sound policies.



1 comments


Monday, February 15, 2010

A Republican senator announced he won't run for reelection this year:




2 comments


Sunday, February 14, 2010

2010 Winter Olympics update:

Tim Hug of Switzerland did not win a medal in the Nordic Combined (Normal Hill). He came in 35th.

Kudos to the Olympic organization for not updating their website and, instead, posting results from 2006 in Turin. They should be praised for creating a complex, minimal-information website with readable-only-on-hover link images.

They could do worse. Like NBC's Meet the Press page, where it's something like 8 point NON WHITE font (#BBBBBB which is darker than light gray) on a NEARLY black background (#1B1B1B).


gif encoded, so not exactly the NBC colors, but very close.



0 comments


Saturday, February 13, 2010

World Trade Center pictures from above.

Here.

One thing I've never read about is why, before the towers collapsed, didn't someone try and land a helicopter on the roof? (The building with the antenna may have been problematical.) I believe there were stories of people who - trapped on floors above where the planes hit - ran up the stairway only to find the door at the top locked. I've often wondered if a helicopter and crew could have allowed those to get out of the building and be ferried to safety.

NOTE: The pictures shown are of the collapse, but surely there were helicopters in the area for the time period between impact and then.

UPDATE: Good answers in comments. Thanks!



4 comments


Friday, February 12, 2010

Debra Medina, Republican candidate for governor of Texas:

Negatives:Positives:


1 comments


Thursday, February 11, 2010

This is how you move the Overton Window:

So that a far-right guy like Texas governor Rick Perry comes off a sensible:
Texas gov. candidate questions any US role in 9/11

AUSTIN, Texas – A Republican gubernatorial candidate said Thursday she has questions about whether the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — a statement she swiftly backed away from and one that drew immediate criticism from her better-known rivals in the race.

Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison dismissed the comments made by Debra Medina on the Glenn Beck Show that there were "some very good arguments" that the U.S. was involved in bringing down the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

"I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn," Medina said. "I think some very good questions have been raised. In that regard there's some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there." (...)

Medina, Perry and Hutchison are battling for the GOP nomination. In recent weeks, Medina has surprised political observers by surging in public opinion polls and raising her profile in two televised debates.


2 comments


Wednesday, February 10, 2010

BREAKING: David Broder is impressed by Sarah Palin:

From his essay:
  • Take Sarah Palin seriously.

  • Her lengthy Saturday night keynote address to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville and her debut on the Sunday morning talk show circuit with Fox News' Chris Wallace showed off a public figure at the top of her game ...

  • This was not the first time that Palin has impressed me.

  • Palin used the Tea Party gathering and coverage on the cable networks to display the full repertoire she possesses, touching on national security, economics, fiscal and social policy ...

  • What stood out in the eyes of TV-watching pols of both parties was the skill with which she drew a self-portrait that fit ... the mood of a significant slice of the broader electorate.

  • Palin's final answer to Wallace showed how perfectly she has come to inhabit that part [of the outsider]. When he asked her what role she wants to play in the country's future, she said:
    "... I do want to be a voice for some common-sense solutions. I'm never going to pretend like I know more than the next person. I'm not going to pretend to be an elitist. In fact, I'm going to fight the elitist ..."
    This is a pitch-perfect recital of the populist message that has worked in campaigns past.

  • The lady is good.
This probably marks the apex of Broder's work. Congratulations to the Dean of the Washington press corps!

And kudos to Fred Hiatt and the Washington Post for celebrating a prominent right-wing populist without bothering us with pesky details about what she'd do beyond "common-sense solutions", or warning readers that a president that doesn't "know more than the next persion" could be a disaster.



4 comments

The White House rapid response team saves the day!

NEWS
: (emp add)
... in an interview with Bloomberg Business Week, Obama made it sound like he doesn’t “begrudge” the multi-million dollar bonuses collected by JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon or Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

Asked directly whether bonus payouts of $17 million to Dimon and $9 million to Blankfein were acceptable, Obama replied by praising both men as “savvy businessmen.” He went on to say, “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”

Recognizing how damaging the comments could be, the White House press team launched a full-fledged pushback, saying that Bloomberg took the remarks out of context. They also posted an entry on the White House blog to clarify the remarks, saying Obama doesn’t agree with the big bonuses and has been saying the same thing dating back to the 2008 campaign.
These guys are really on the ball.



3 comments

Why tax the rich when you can target a minority?

In the news: (emp add)
Adding a $1 per pack tax to cigarettes could raise more than $9 billion a year for states, health advocates said on Wednesday, and a poll released with the study shows Americans would support such a tax.

The poll, conducted by International Communications Research, found 60 percent of voters would support the tax to help struggling states and would prefer it over other tax increases or budget cuts. (...)

The survey, with a margin of error of three points, found that 72 percent of voters opposed increases in [general] state sales [taxes] and 80 percent rejected higher gasoline taxes.
Cigarette smokers have been taxed enough. Why not an alternate group? For starters, people with tint on their vehicles that's so dark you can't see in (or through).



5 comments

Shorter Barack Obama:
Shareholders have a real impact on how companies are run.


1 comments

Mainstreaming torture:

U.S. soldier 'waterboarded his own daughter, 4, because she couldn't recite alphabet'
A soldier waterboarded his four-year-old daughter because she was unable to recite her alphabet.

Joshua Tabor admitted to police he had used the CIA torture technique because he was so angry.

As his daughter 'squirmed' to get away, Tabor said he submerged her face three or four times until the water was lapping around her forehead and jawline.

Tabor, 27, who had won custody of his daughter only four weeks earlier, admitted choosing the punishment because the girl was terrified of water.


0 comments


Tuesday, February 09, 2010

A break from politics:

This Old Spice commercial is sharply written, cleverly filmed, and fairly amusing.



Isaiah Mustafa
Played in the NFL from 1997 to 2000 for four different teams. (Tennessee Titans, Oakland Raiders, Cleveland Browns and Seattle Seahawks).




1 comments

Why have a democracy?

Josh Marshall, writing about the 2010 elections:
... press failure to report the policies the Republicans are actually running on can pretty much be assumed. It's happening now.
If people don't know anything beyond slogans, what kind of results do elections produce? Random, "intuitive", non-rational policies are a sure result. No wonder some people, watching the process, are disinclined to vote.



3 comments


Sunday, February 07, 2010

The sentimental favorite won:

Congratulations to the New Orleans Saints. While they were the underdog going into the game, there were numerous statements by the sportscasters to the effect that after hurricane Katrina, it would be nice if the city could celebrate a Super Bowl win. And they did.

The half-time show of The Who was something to behold. The best parts were when nobody was singing. They can play their instruments well, but the voices and the energy in the voices, weren't impressive at all. There sure have been a lot of fairly old musicians in the half-time show recently. Probably because by that time, they are total professionals who won't embarrass the league. I wonder when that will change.

Best Super Bowl ad: That one that takes place at the Asteroid Alert Station. When disaster looks immanent, the staff of the observatory conclude that all is lost, shrug their shoulders, break out the Bud Light beer, and party. Especially like the scene where a lab-coated astronomer yanks the rings off of a model of Saturn and gleefully hurls it like a Frisbee.



On the other hand, that ad was considered one of the worst shown.



1 comments

Give it up:
Obama invites GOP to health-care summit

President Obama made a dramatic attempt to jump-start the stalled health care debate Sunday, inviting Republicans in Congress to a half-day summit on the subject to be televised live later this month.

Obama challenged Republicans to come to the discussion armed with their best ideas for how to cover more Americans and fix the health insurance system.

"I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues," Obama told Couric. "What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table... I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward.

(...)

In a statement, House Republican leader John Boehner said that he is looking forward to the discussion and is "pleased that the White House finally seems interested in a real, bipartisan conversation on health care. The American people have overwhelmingly rejected both of the job-killing trillion-dollar government takeover of health care bills passed by the House and Senate. The problem with the Democrats' health care bills is not that the American people don't understand them; the American people do understand them, and they don't like them."

Boehner added that "The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access.""
Let's see what kind of progress Obama can make with Boehner. Probably a lot, huh?



5 comments

Alan Greenspan wants to dishonor the special Treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund:

No other way to interpret what he said on Meet the Press. Note that he's talking about Social Security, not Medicare or other programs that are paid out of the general fund.
MR. GREENSPAN: Well, I, you know, I, I agree with what Hank is saying. I think the thing that disturbed me most in the last week or two was when the discussion was involved in, I believe, in the Senate on the issue of forming a commission--a congressionally-authorized commission, as I read it, there was a 97-to-nothing vote to exclude Social Security from the deliberations of that commission. That said to me that we have gotten to the point in this country where spending is untouchable. I have no doubts that we have to raise taxes in order to close this huge deficit. But we cannot do it wholly on the tax side because that would significantly erode the rate of growth in the economy and the tax base, and the revenues that would be achieved would be far less than anybody'd expect. We have to recognize the fact that one of the things that we have to do, as tough as it's going to be, is that benefits are going to have to be paired in conjunction with tax increases to resolve this very serious long-term budget problem.
Of course, David Gregory had no follow up question to those remarks.

It was the 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka Greenspan Commission) that increased payroll taxes which went towards purchasing the special Treasury bonds that the Trust now holds.



6 comments


Saturday, February 06, 2010

AP photo of Palin at Tea Party Convention:



Wow.



7 comments


Friday, February 05, 2010

ABC's "he said, she said" reporting:

Here's the story: (emp add)
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: Minutes after he was sworn in by Vice President Biden, newly minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) says the stimulus “hasn’t created one new job.”

The comments came at Brown’s first press conference as a U.S. Senator when I asked him if he is willing to work with Democrats on a jobs bill. Based on his response, that seems unlikely.

“The last stimulus bill didn’t create one new job and in some states the money that was actually released hasn’t even been used yet,” Brown said.

“It didn’t create one new job?” I asked.

“That’s correct. We lost another 85,000 jobs again, give or take last month,” he responded. “And in Massachusetts, it hasn’t created one new job and throughout the country as well. It may have retained some but it hasn’t created any new jobs. I need to see the bill.”

Brown’s comments are at odds with the analysis of the Congressional Budget Office, which says the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, aka “stimulus”, saved or created 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs in the third quarter of 2009. The White House’s Recovery Act website, recovery.gov, says stimulus grant recipients reported creating 9,261 jobs in Massachusetts during the fourth quarter of 2009.

The Obama Administration says Brown’s got his facts wrong.

Economists of all political points of view, including those from the non-partisan CBO, estimate that the Recovery Act has created or saved between 1.5 - 2.4 million jobs across America,” said Jay Carney, spokesman for Vice President Joe Biden, the administration’s top Recovery Act booster and watchdog.
To review:
  • "Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) says"
  • "the Congressional Budget Office ... says" (see who vouches for its non-partisanship at the end of this list)
  • "The White House’s Recovery Act website, recovery.gov says"
  • "The Obama Administration says"
  • "Economists of all political points of view, including those from the non-partisan CBO ... said Jay Carney, spokesman for Vice President Joe Biden"
Nowhere in that report is a clearly identified unbiased judge of the situation. The CBO? That's proclaimed to be non-partisan by a partisan.

Jonathan Karl couldn't be bothered to seek out a non-partisan assessment (or declare that the CBO is non-partisan - which he may feel is not his role as a reporter). This is a fine example of terrible reporting.



1 comments

The unemployment rate would plummet ...

if people would simply stop looking for work.

Get with it, America!



0 comments


Thursday, February 04, 2010

Question:

Why is that Tea Party Convention, the one Palin is expected to speak at, being held the day before the Super Bowl? It doesn't seem like particularly good planning. Potential convention attendees are almost surely mega Super Bowl fans, and who is going to fly into Nashville on a Saturday and then be able to relax on Sunday for the big game?

They should have scheduled it the day before the Oscars.



7 comments

Paul Ryan's Medicare plan = Senate health care bill

Guest blogging at Kevin Drum's blog, Baumann writes:
"The biggest problem with Ryan's plan is that it doesn't actually control health care costs. It simply shifts the burden of paying for them from the public sector to individuals. ... Medical costs will rise much faster than the value of the voucher will."
The Senate bill, with the excise tax that is indexed to CPI, eventually limits what will be PAID for medical services, with the individual becoming more "sensitive" to health care costs (and will presumably therefore limit 'unnecessary' treatment).

But Kevin, Ezra, Benen, Sullivan, et al, are all for the existing Senate bill. So what's so bad about Ryan's plan? It's functionally equivalent (with the caveat that Ryan's is for Medicare, the Senate for employer-provided health care.)

I oppose the Senate bill for the reasons that Baumann opposes Ryan's proposal - it shifts the burden of paying to individuals. But where is the opposition to the Senate bill?

UPDATE: Give Ezra Klein credit, he writes: (emp add)
Take Rep. Paul Ryan's health-care plan ... as the conservative pole on this issue. Then take single-payer and place it on the other side of the spectrum. Where does the Senate bill fall?

[The Senate bill is] closer to Ryan's plan than to single-payer. A lot closer, in fact.

Unlike single-payer, it does not try to save money by using federal bargaining power to force down the prices of various drugs and treatments. Instead, like Ryan's plan, it works to contain costs by creating a simpler, more transparent, more competitive market for private insurance, centered around exchanges that are meant to make it easier for consumers to comparison shop.


2 comments


Tuesday, February 02, 2010

One third of self-identified Republicans are insane:

DATA. Note that these are "self-identified" and a large proportion come from the south. It does not represent all registered Republicans, but it accurately describes "the right". And they are the activists and reliable voters.



2 comments

My most important post of the decade:

Is that hyperbole? (Related: which decade are we in? The first or second of the century?)

Right now the United States has a for-profit health care system. It already costs a lot and is expected to grow even more. This puts pressure on everybody: individuals, businesses, and the government. Especially the government.

But what if this country abandoned for-profit medical services and made it like a government run (or government regulated) utility? To see how that would impact the federal budget, take a look at this Health Care Budget Deficit Calculator.

Unclick the United States - Low Health Care Costs cell, and then click on France, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, et al.

As Dean Baker says: (emp add)
Actually, the main reason for the projected increase in the deficit at the end of the decade is rising health care costs which will get passed on in higher costs for Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs. If the United States health care system were as efficient as those in other countries, the U.S. would be expecting huge budget surpluses in future decades.
All the nonsense about a deficit crisis, privatizing Social Security, increasing eligibility ages for Medicare and Social Security, and the like, evaporates if this country decides that it no longer wants a for-profit health care system.

Of course, if you want the big bucks to flow to the health care business, then you jump around calling for deficit commissions and the dismantling of social insurance programs. Which lots of people are keen to do.

NOTE: I've thought about that Budge Deficit Calculator a lot in recent days. Sure, it's speculative, and optimistic projections may be overstated. But if it's anywhere near correct, then we are fools to overlook the implications. If this country adopts a Japan/Canada/Europe system of health care, then the federal budgets will be in great shape, seniors can be well cared for, and existing programs do not have to be diminished.

That's why I call this post the most important of the decade. I don't want to hear anybody complain about budget squeezes and proposed solutions, while ignoring the incredibly huge factor of health care economics. And it's not radical. Developed countries are using it everywhere.



3 comments

The assault on Social Security has begun!

No mistake about it, the move to dishonor the Social Security bonds is on. One tactic to achieving this goal is to lie about seniors. David Brooks did that today:
... we are living in an age of reverse-generativity. Far from serving the young, the old are now taking from them. First, they are taking money. According to Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution, the federal government now spends $7 on the elderly for each $1 it spends on children.

Second, they are taking freedom. In 2009, for the first time in American history, every single penny of federal tax revenue went to pay for mandatory spending programs, according to Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute. As more money goes to pay off promises made mostly to the old, the young have less control.

Third, they are taking opportunity. For decades, federal spending has hovered around 20 percent of G.D.P. By 2019, it is forecast to be at 25 percent and rising. The higher tax rates implied by that spending will mean less growth and fewer opportunities.
  1. Brooks would have you believe that the "spending" on the elderly is all part of general revenues (e.g. income tax) and discretionary outlays. That's false.

  2. Watch closely. Brooks refers to "federal tax revenue", which includes Social Security taxes!   Brooks is, in effect, complaining that
    every single penny of taxes paid into trust funds went to pay for programs that the trust funds are designed for
  3. The bump in federal spending is largely a result of the economic troubles of recent vintage, not due to greedy seniors.


4 comments


Monday, February 01, 2010

Who wrote this?
There is almost nothing the Obama administration does regarding terrorism that makes me feel safer. Whether it is guaranteeing captured terrorists that they will not be waterboarded [or] reciting terrorists their rights ...
The Washington Post's liberal Richard Cohen.

Small point: these people, as guilty as they may seem to be, must be treated as suspects until a judgment is rendered.



1 comments

Mark your calendar:
"... the Federal Reserve and outside economists think it will take until around the middle of the decade to lower the double-digit jobless rate to a more normal 5 or 6 percent ..."


4 comments