Cogitamus

Digiter-ado and Open Thread

 

"Death Defying" - Hoodoo Gurus

Hey all.  Weird weather day here in our nation's capital -- it hit 70 and I walked master Stanley while wearing shorts this morning.  And now it is raining like hell as we prepare for the temperature to drop about 30 degrees overnight.

- My favorite story of the last couple of days had to be this gaffe by Australia's "First Bloke."  One can only imagine the dressing down that Prime Minister Julia Gilliard might have administered to him.  I can only marvel though at the fact that Australia has as its prime minister a) a woman b) who has made clear that she is an atheist c) and that she did not want to have children and (d) who lives with a man to whom she is not married.  Although one can envision a woman reaching the presidency in the U.S. (hopefully in four years), one cannot really imagine that that woman could share publicly any of these other views or practices with Gilliard.  I say "good on her."  And remember, she is from the right wing of the Labor Party. One can only hope we reach this state in American politics while I still draw breath.

- While on the subject of Australian prime ministers, I learned this fun fact about the possibility that one had been devoured by a shark in the not so distant past.  This is one of those stories I have no wish to have debunked.  (And on that note I should say hi to our friend down under Emma.)

- Back to domestic concerns, I remain convinced that we will not see either gun control or immigration reform emerge from the Republican controlled House.  I would be particularly shocked if any kind of gun control passed muster with these clowns.  And I can't see Boehner ignoring the Hastert Rule on this one.  The question remains, will Harry Ried, absent action from the House, subject Landrieu, Begich, Pryor, and Hagan to a gun control vote prior to mid-terms in which all will be deeply vulnerable.  I can't imagine he will.  Meanwhile, we will continue to live in a nation of heavily armed lunatics.  A whole lot of lunatics.   It is very difficult to share the nation with people who would rather have the right to carry assault weapons more than having a right to health care coverage.  We're exceptional alright -- exceptionally stupid.   

- I was a bit shocked by the small drop in GDP last quarter.  One would think that this would be a wake up call to our austerity freaks, but I doubt it.  As much as many of us would like to see a cut in defense spending, I think it is something that needs to be done gradually over a few years, preferably in a stronger economy where other government spending fills the Keynesian vacuum.

- And here's a piece on unionism and the implications of its decline for non-union workers by Erik Loomis with which I totally agree. 

What's up with you? 

 

Labor Pains

I am a big fan of both Eric Loomis at LG & M and Laura Clawson at Daily Kos -- we union folks have to stick together.  But I want to respectfully disagree with them about their views on organizing in the construction industry and the relationship between union and employers.  Both Loomis and Clawson express distaste for the retirement of Scabby the Rat -- the large inflatable rat used as a prop in protesting against non-union construction companies -- and some rather poorly phrased words from the head of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO to the effect that Scabby is not the face that the unions want to present to employers. (Not to mention how it might make the prospective members feel.) 

Loomis has some good points in his piece about the importance of a culture of solidarity and what he deems the folly of unions attempting to appeal to CEOs.  Clawson echoes these sentiments.  Both of them see a lack of militancy undermining the future of unions. 

My experience in the industry suggests that they are wrong.  I have been involved in a few "bottom up" organizing campaigns over the years.  Non-union workers persuaded, authorization cards obtained, NLRB elections successfully held -- the entire path that advocates of the organizing model of unionism urge upon us.  I then sat down with the employers to negotiate an initial agreement and got exactly nowhere.  They had no interest in reaching agreement, but went through the motions of good faith bargaining until the point where they could declare an impasse.  And then the choice arrives for the employees -- most of whom in recent campaigns in which I have been involved have been primarily immigrants from Mexico and Central America and were simply not interested in striking.  Absent the threat of a strike, the organizing campaigns came to an end with a whimper.

I am afraid that I have become a proponent of top-down organizing these days -- that is organizing in the construction industry that is dependent on attracting an employer to sign what is known as a pre-hire agreement with a union.  This entails selling the benefits of a relationship with a union directly to the employer -- maybe the employer wants the ability to hire twenty-five certified welders at one time, maybe he wants access to people with specialized training or apprentices, maybe the appeal is to be able to man up for a large job and then lay off a work force that is used to returning to a union hiring hall at the completion of a project.  Hell, some employers even want to be union because they would like their employees to have medical and pension benefits.  

Basically a building trades local union is only as successful as the contractors with whom it has relationships.  The ability of employers to win work and perform it effectively in a hideously competitive environment is the key to keeping union members employed at good wage rates.  In such an enviroment, a posture that is overly adverserial is likely to be self-defeating in a profound way.  Right now, unionized employers and unions in the building trades are allied in a fierce battle with the non-union employers, many of whom eagerly exploit undocumented workers in a manner that undermines wages and benefits in entire sectors of the construction economy.  (There is precious little enforcement of federal or state laws that would prevent this exploitation from occurring.)  It is distressing to watch companies that have been long time model employers -- yes, there is such a thing -- get eviscerated by these bottom feeders out there, something I feel like am constantly witnessing these days.

I understand the visceral appeal of militancy while we are in the midst of the new guilded age.  But most unionized construction employers are not Jaime Diamond or Bill Gates.  They are typically small to medium sized companies -- the vast majority with fewer than 100 employees -- often owned by former union members who went into business.  My experience with most of them -- and I deal with them constantly -- is that they are pretty fair people with some sense of obligation to their employees and a willingness to accept unions as their partners.  

As for the commited bottom feeders out there, I see little hope for organizing them under existing law.  It is much too easy to lay off union adherents in the construction industry when an organizing campaign is ongoing and even where an election is won, efforts to get a contract from an unwilling employer are usually futile.  The best approach to employers like this in good construction markers is "stripping" them, i.e. attracting their most skilled employees to the union and referring them to a good contractor..  During times of slack employment, we need to be able to rely on the authorities to enforce laws against phony subcontracting, failure to pay overtime, worker misclassification on prevailing wage jobs, and the use of undocumented workers, although the latter causes discomfort among a lot of folks on the left.  

Ultimately, I think being a union employer can be sold to a receptive company, but it is almost impossible to jam down the throat of a business that resists unless circumstances are exceptionally favorable.  I don't mean to sound tepid or defeatist, but 27 years of experience with the trades leads me to think I'm correct here.   

 

Sunday Random Walk and Open Thread

While I've been laid up, I've been reading Krugman and Wells' introductory economics text.   (I've been aware that there are gaps in my basic understanding of economic principles, and if I'm going to read an intro text, then why not the best, you know?) The book is wonderfully clear and well-written, and introduces a lot of key ideas pretty early in the going.

Which is a good thing, because I'm not very far in yet. But the book is already giving me a framework to think about economic issues that I didn't have before. For instance, K&W ask, "How do we know how well [a market] economy is doing?" The yardstick they give is whether that economy is using its resources efficiently: "Economists say an economy's resources are used efficiently when they are used in a way that has fully exploited all opportunities to make everyone better off. To put it another way, an economy is efficient if it takes all opportunities to make some people better off without making other people worse off." (Emphasis in original.)

Putting it like that tells you right away that our economy is doing a pretty crappy job right now: we have plenty of work that needs doing and isn't getting done (just in terms of crumbling infrastructure alone), and lots of people who have no work. We have not fully exploited all opportunities to make everyone better off - far, far from it.  The notion that our economy's doing what it should, and that it's just going to take time to work things through, is wrong - our economy is leaving massive amounts of unused resources on the table, and as a result, wasting big chunks of the lives of millions of Americans.

It would be nice if one of the two major parties still considered high unemployment to be enough of a problem to actually talk about it on a regular basis.

Yglesias asks what Americans have less of than they used to. Krugman answers, time. Glad to hear him say it, because while it's been one of my main axes to grind for maybe 15 years now, it's never been on the political radar at all, and more people read Krugman than read me. But I'll say it again: enshrine two weeks' vacation and one week's sick leave in the law. Who could disagree with that? And overtime shouldn't be a free resource for employers, excepting only workers making a few multiples of the median wage.

If the government needs more revenue, a financial transactions tax would be a good place to start.

Bobby Jindal wants to increase taxes on 80% of Louisiana residents in order to finance a tax cut on the rich. He won't be the GOP nominee in 2016 no matter what K-Drum thinks, more's the pity: the ads would write themselves. But to borrow a riff from Atrios, I'm old enough to remember when the GOP wanted to cut taxes for everyone (they'd cut taxes for the rich a lot more, of course, but they'd at least cut everyone's taxes to some degree). Yet over the past year or two, it seems to have hardened into GOP dogma that the moochers and takers aren't paying enough taxes and should be paying more, in addition to the continuing orthodoxy that the rich are paying too much in taxes and should be paying less.

Good luck with that message at election time, guys.

Open thread.

The Senate Is A Fundamentally Antidemocratic Institution (Shit Is Still Fucked Up and Bullshit)

People ought to be able to understand how their government works.

Only an extremely small percentage of the population understands why the Senate doesn't work.  Probably under 1% of the population, and certainly well under 5%.

Hell, I've been working for years at understanding the Senate rules, and I'm still not sure I really 'get it.'  All I can tell you is that there are far more tools for minority obstruction than I realized even a few months ago.  The filibuster is just the most visible one.  The thing I'm only starting to get my head around is that the Senate is a body that operates on the principle of unanimous consent, which provides an astounding array of opportunities for a minority of any size to throw a spanner in the works.

A government that people can't understand is a fundamentally antidemocratic government.  Sure, we've got the vote, but if half of one branch of our government is a black hole where legislation dies for no apparent reason, that only goes so far.

The Senate rules don't need to be tweaked.  The current 'reform' is better than nothing, but it doesn't touch the heart of the problem.  The current rules need to be thrown away, shredded, mulched, and replaced by a much simpler, clearer set of rules, rules that don't give 41 (or often fewer) Senators the power to bring the business of the Republic to a halt by means not comprehended by the general public.

I'll give the last word to Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist, No. 22:

The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

 

Happy 40th Roe v. Wade Day, Thoughts on Obama, Open Thread

"A Girl in Trouble is a Temporary Thing" - Romeo Void

There's a time when every girl learns, to use her head
Tears will be saved till they're better spent
There's no time for her to be afraid
So instead, she takes care of business
Keeps a cool head

Hey there -- it is damn cold here in our nation's capital.  Everyone who attended was quite lucky the inauguration was held yesterday.  The only one I know who likes this weather is Stanley, who seems positively giddy in the cold.  His human companion much less so.  I was reduced to wearing the terrorist face mask tonight, which is not really a look I prefer. 

- On this, the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Rachel Maddow had a terrific report on how highly circumscribed the right to abortion has become in large parts of the country.  She focused on Arkansas, North and South Dakota, and Mississippi, each of which is down to a single abortion provider.  In addition, those who are fortunate enough to be able to get to the single state clinic during their often truncated hours then face a barrage of obstacles (waiting periods) and indignities (forced ultra sounds, scripted untruths that providers are required to read to them before they exercise their constitutional rights).  Essentially women in these states have become second class citizens, possessors of a right in theory that has become nearly impossible to exercise.  It's an outrage.

- What did you all think of the inaugural address.  I thought both its content and delivery were quite impressive.  I am not sure that I was as impressed with its sheer rhetorical content -- I think he has given more poetic speeches -- but I thought he made a compelling argument for the theme of continuous struggle for equality and inclusiveness in American history and for the role of government (as well as activism) in helping to bring about progress in this realm.  As many have noted, the tying of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall back to the Declaration of Independence was a great thing to hear from a sitting president of the United States while on his grandest stage.  His vigorous defense of the social safety net and his pointed attack on the notion that those who make use of it are "takers" was a wonderfully pointed moment from a president who has often held fire on his opponents.  I liked it.

- Which leads me to another thought -- do you get the sense that Obama feels extremely liberated by having won reelection?  One gets the sense that without the prospect of facing reelection, he feels like he can draw some lines in the sand in a way he has not in the past.

- One last thing on Obama -- the notion that he has been stymied from time to time due to his unwillingness to socialize with Republicans or because he lacks "executive management skills" is just laughable.  Why is it that these critics cannot understand or accept that the ideological gulf that separates the President from Republicans is real and that Republicans will not give him a break because of this -- not because he won't have them over for movie night and not because he hasn't properly delegated authority to his cabinet.  It's not that I don't have criticisms of how Obama conducted his first term -- the failure to pursue immigration reform early on, the passivity in the face of the Gang of Six highjacking health care reform for months, the lack of urgency regarding judicial appointments, and the fundamental misjudgment about the nature of his opposition were all significant mistakes.  But they were mistakes of political judgment, not the result of being socially aloof or not having served in an executive capacity,

- Read Roy's review of Lincoln.  It's a thing of beauty.

- Speaking of movies, I finally saw Zero Dark Thirty yesterday.  It's an impressive bit of film making, taut and compelling.  I was disturbed by the apparent apologia for torture and the suggestion that it was the key to finding bin Laden, but I found the film to be impeccably made and acted.  Hopefully Roy will review this too and give you a little more than I have. 

Alright, the floor is open.

Weekend Open Thread

 

"Forest Whitaker" - Bad Books (A lovely live acoustic version of the song.)

Coming up for air here after another full week -- continuing to pay the price for a bit of fun in the sun.

- Contrary to what I suggested in my last post, it appears that the House Republicans -- or at least their leadership -- are not completely committed to crashing the economy or at least not immediately.  A bit of realism seems to have crept into the equation in recent weeks.  If that is the case, it will have the double virtue of backing down the crazies a bit while also reinforcing Obama's sense of resolve.  I like that combination.  But I remain skeptical -- I think the 90 day extension of the debt ceiling being floated by Republicans is more of a tactical move to give them a chance to unite around another unpalatable position.   

- In the words of a TPM commenter, Darwin smiled.

- I enjoyed this Jonathan Chait piece on David Brooks.  Brooks inadvertently lays out a rather good approach for the Democrats to further marginalize the Republicans and take back the House. 

- I wish I could get a better sense of what actually transpired during this Algerian hostage taking.  One gets the feeling that the Algerians were less meticulous in this matter than we might have liked.  Maybe the crudity of the response will ultimately discourage this sort of thing.  Or so I hope. Otherwise, it just seems exceedingly grim. 

Update:  Sorry about the comments.  Christ, that drives me crazy.  I will see what I can do. 

What's on your minds?

1000 Gun Deaths Since Newtown

The carnage never stops.  (We passed that particular milestone four days ago, actually.)

James Fallows passes on the following comment from a reader:

This panel, and the rest of the media nearly always misses two points that are critical.  

      - Daily gun deaths [not the big massacres] are the real killer.  

      - The shooters are most likely to be either pissed off and jealous or perfectly rational with a heavily distorted value system, not mentally ill.  And mental health experts state whenever they can that it is very hard to determine which patients will become violent. Most will not, and that is certain.

This is absolutely true.  The massacres may get our attention, and this last one seems to have finally got us moving on this issue again.  But it's the day-to-day killings that really add up: we've had the equivalent of 37 Newtowns since Newtown.  In other words, every day's another Newtown.

Banning high-capacity magazines will help with the massacres, but not with the everyday shootings.  It's really hard to say what will help with those.  But I think it wouldn't hurt to try Sir Charles' idea for a free-market solution: require gun owners to carry liability insurance, and let the insurance industry sort out the risks.  That would also put a well-financed lobby on the right side of the issue, for once.  And maybe we'd get lucky, and the ongoing cost of insurance would cause a few malcontents to throw in the towel and sell off their guns.

Universal gun registration would be a necessary precondition of such a step, and unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be part of President Obama's proposal.  It's unfortunate - if there were ever a time to press for it, now would be the time.

Open thread.

Tuesday Trivia and Open Thread

"Romans 10:9" - Mountain Goats

On the train heading back to DC from the City of Brotherly Love.  Sorry for the dearth of posting, but the schedule has just been crammed during the day and, for some reason, I have had the semblance of a busy social life for the last week.  This too shall no doubt pass.

- I am convinced that the chance of any gun control legislation getting through Congress is virtually nil for the simple reason that the GOP House majority is batshit crazy.  Nothing, however minimal or reasonable, will get passed by them.  Kudos to New York though for passing a far reaching bill.

- Similarly, this batshit craziness could well lead to a default on the debt.  I think Obama is actually going to stick to his guns.  Indeed, believe it is essential that he do so.  But I cannot believe that a majority of the GOP House caucus will permit him a victory on this issue.  And I don't think Boehner will be willing to forgo the "Hastert Rule" so soon after doing so on the "fiscal cliff" issue.  As a result, really bad shit is likely to ensue on the debt ceiling front.

- Except that Boehner had to ignore the Hastert Rule again today in order to get the Sandy relief bill through.  I don't know if that means he really can't do this on the debt ceiling or that he absolutely will need to do this on the debt ceiling.

- This pleases me on a day in which I had to pay my quarterly (and rather substantial) homage to the federal government despite being permitted no representation whatsoever in Congress.

- David Broder is dead but his spirit lives on.

- My predicted Denver - Green Bay Super Bowl seems to have failed to materialize.  Indeed, the only game I picked correctly in last weekend's NFL playoffs was the win by personal favorites the Patriots.  I am now predicting a New England - San Francisco Super Bowl, which will be known as the Elitist, Bi-coastal, Un-American Bowl.

What is capturing your attention?

Just When You Thought Rick Scott Could Not Be More Loathsome

Stanley looking sad and bewildered upon learning that Rick Scott returned his rescue dog, Reagan, who appears to have been used as a campaign prop. 

I did not really think my opinion of America's super villain governor could get lower, but should have remembered that he always exceeds negative expectations.

(It should be noted that Stanley had the pleasure of meeting our friend big bad wolf on Sunday and had the dog equivalent of a smile on his face as he jumped on him repeatedly -- hey you can't really expect a dog this cute to be well trained too.)

Weekend Open Thread

I'll be heading up to the Appalachians near Harper's Ferry with the five year old.  He's pretty stoked about it, and I'm looking forward to it too. Y'all have a good weekend!

I Hate To Call Out Kevin Drum, But It's Gotta Be Done

 

In the discussion over the $1 trillion platinum coin, Kevin says:

If you really want to stop debt ceiling hostage taking in the future, the way to do it is to make Republicans pay a political price for it. That will stop them.

True.  But you know what?  Most of us lefties don't want an economic collapse that everyone agrees is the GOP's fault, for which they pay a terrible price at the polls. Rather, we don't want an economic collapse at all. 

If the platinum coin will forestall a GOP-induced economic calamity, then I'm all for it.  We can figure out political winners and losers later. 

[Why this video?  Because the GOP is trying to take the economy hostage, along with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.  The platinum coin (and other workarounds) deprive the GOP of its hostage.  And as John Goodman's character says (at about the 0:50 mark), "Without a hostage, there is no ransom.  That's what 'ransom' is.  Those are the fucking rules."  'Nuff said.]

Last Day in Paradise and Open Thread

Lovely Mead's Bay in Anquilla, where I have been hanging out for the last week.  Sadly, a travel day tomorrow and then reality on Tuesday -- 9:00 Am meeting in Richmond, followed by depositions on Thursday, collective bargaining on Friday, and up to Philly on the following Tuesday.  My beach glow should be faded by then.  Ah, but at least Stanley returns on Tuesday.

- I was struck by this piece in the Times today in which Susan Jacoby tries to argue for the comforts of atheism.  She specifically suggests that in the wake of the Newtown tragedy that atheists should not be shy about offering the blessings of non-belief.  And, as an atheist I have to ask, what exactly would those be?  To say to the parents of the dead children that what you have loved and cared about most in your life is irretrievably gone, permanently ripped from you by a meaningless act of incomprehensible violence, but hey, at least it wasn't the work of an indifferent God?  Atheism isn't about comfort, it's about the void, the finite, the capricious and the tenuous.  It accepts that there is no happily ever after, no meaning (beyond that which we create) -- that there is one precious life and it can be snuffed out at a moment's notice, while the survivors' own lives are crushed.  These seem like grim thoughts to generate here in paradise, but it drives me crazy for people to suggest solace where none exists.  If you want to own the rigors of non-belief, you have to accept where those hard truths lead you.   We "hang by a slender thread" with not even an angry God to possibly save us.  We hope for the best, try to enjoy the beauty that this indifferent universe grants us,  and strive to create a better world for those sharing this one life with us, not because of the reward of the afterlife, but because a spirit of solidarity with our fellow doomed creatures speaks to us.  There is, in short, nothing in atheism to comfort the parents of dead six year-olds -- save a respectful silence and acknowledgment of the grief that nothing can really heal. 

Well now that I have brightened up your day, what say ye? 

My View from the Cliff and Open Thread

This is the view from the place I was staying at in St. Maarten, which, amusingly enough, is called The Cliff. 

I am continuing to wile away the days in the sun and the surf for a little while longer.  It makes me think I could get used to retirement.  The three of us -- we are traveling with our son -- spend the evenings playing full contact Scrabble.  There is definitely a collective killer instinct in the family. 

- I remain really confused about what to think about the fiscal cliff deal.  I have read all kinds of contradictory analysis by people I respect -- it suggests, I guess, that ultimately the wisdom of the deal will be part of a play in multiple acts, as suggested by l-t c below.  I see at least a couple of pretty positive things -- first, the tax increase itself, even if it is not enough for the long haul.  Second, the fact that the increase was not accompanied by any agreement to cut spending or reform entitlements.  I know we are not out of the woods on either front yet, but still, getting the Republicans to agree to tax increases without any concessions on spending or entitlements has to be viewed as at least a sort term victory.

- The other thing that occurs to me is that President Obama really did not want to go off the cliff despite the urging of many on the left.  It seems to me that this reflects the President's sense that such a move would be detrimental to both market confidence and the overall economy and that it genuinely would exacerbate the likelihood of a recession.  My guess is that Obama believes that future Democratic success is going to have to be built on successful economic stewardship and that the record of his administration to date is not positive enough to assure continued public confidence.  Whatever the outcome of these discrete battles, I think the President values the overall perception of his economic legacy and the likelihood that it will be perpetuated --both for the sake of his place in history and to prevent the Republicans from taking power, something any sane person has to view with grave trepidation.

- I actually agree with several commentators -- Drum, Brooks, and Douthat come to mind (and it is rare that I ever agree with the latter two) -- who have noted that the Democrats are still afraid of the broad based across the board tax increases that are almost certainly going to be required over the next decade or two in order to maintain the existing social safety net and do some other worthwhile things.  I think that is why many of us felt that simply going over the cliff might have been the best move.  Taxes would have been raised across the board once and for all and the world would not have come to an end.  (Of course, it might well have meant a recession that would have done grave harm to both Obama and the congressional Democrats -- it's hard to evaluate the likelihood of such a scenario, but as I mentioned above, I get the sense that the WHite House was quite concerned about it.)

- The final tally for the 2012 election is in and Obama feel just short of beating Romney by 5 million votes.  The final margin was 4,967,598, with Obama garnering 65,899.557 votes to Romney's 60,931,959.  It's a very solid win.  Obama got 51.06% of the vote to Romney's 47.21%, a nearly 4% margin.  The total vote was down only 1.71% from the vote in 2008, so notions of greatly diminished enthusiasm really proved to be illusory. 

- With those final figures in, I went back and looked at the results of the last six presidential elections and found that since the election of 1992, Democratic presidential candidates have received 26,058,492 more votes than the Republicans, meaning a margin in the average election of over 4.3 million votes.  In that 20 year period, the Republicans took the popular vote only once, in 2004, when Bush got 3 million more votes than Kerry.  Clinton and Obama both won twice by substantial margins, with each of them totaling more than 14 million votes more than their two opponents.  Al Gore, of course, beat Bush by about 500,000 votes in the bitter 2000 contest.  One wonders when the moment finally occurs that people realize that the center-right nation bullshit is just that. 

- In the wake of the President's compromise placing the higher tax rates on family income above 450,000 rather than 250,000 there was a lot of complaining in the lefty blogosphere about the failure by many in the media to characterize people who fall in that range as rich.  I think that this has a lot to do with media people being surrounded by a lot of couples in the DC and NYC areas who fall into this range -- two successful professionals who are wage earners and vastly better off than, well, 98% of their countryman, but are nevertheless pretty much wage earners.  In other words, people who can't and don't rely on investment income and who if they lost their jobs would be in some considerable degree of difficulty.  Another thing that may prevent such people from being objective about their own wealth -- I often hear peers characterize themselves as "upper middle class" when in fact, they are in the top 2 to 5% of wage earners in the country -- is something I am seeing on this vacation trip of mine.  Now we are ludicrously privileged to be able to take such a trip, I truly understand this.  But one of the things you see when traveling in places like this is the incredible way in which the elite rich travel and it is mind boggling.  This part of the Caribbean is just filled with private jets and super yachts, each seemingly more lavish than the next.  So a couple of days ago at lunch in St. Maarten, I saw this 205 foot yacht (which you can charter for a mere $350,000 per week) and then this 317 foot yacht.  The latter struck me as about as lavish as one could imagine, but then tonight driving back from the beach, I saw this 557 foot behemouth (complete with two helicopters, anti-missile defense system, and mini sub -- you think I kid, but no really) owned by Russian tycoon Roman Abramovich (who is best known for owning the English football team Chelsea FC). You see enough of this sort of thing and you think you're roughing it in your rented Hyundai and your crowded seat in coach.  

[Update:  I wanted to make the point, lost in my boyish enthusiasm for the large toys, that although I think that the $250,000 to $450,000 in income would ideally be subject to higher tax rates, I also believe that it is absurd that this should be the highest rate.  I would like to see both a 44% and a 49% rate for income over $1 million and $2.5 million respectively and for capital gains and dividends to go up to at least 28% for those with more than $250,000 of that kind of income.  And for the carried interest fiction to be eliminated entirely.

P.S. Went out to the beach early this morning and Eclipse was offshore and Abramovitch's minions were setting up chairs and umbrellas on the shore -- and raking the already pristine Anguilla sand around the chairs.  An Italian beach goer advised me that yesterday said mionions were building the sand castles for the children "just like Russian Czar."  I believe that feudalism has a beautiful future ahead of it.   

I fear my return to January weather in a few days is going to be a deep shock to the system.

What's on your minds? 

Schedule of Upcoming Artificial Crises/Extortion Moments, 2013 Q1

Here's the list of approaching moments where the GOP will put a gun to the head of the American economy and say, "give us what we want, or else."

1. The sequester, February 28, 2013.  You already know about this one because of my previous post.

2. The debt ceiling, probably sometime in March 2013.  That's been in the news too.  If the Republicans in the House won't raise the debt ceiling, then the government can't borrow more money to do the spending that Congress has already authorized.  Government spending would have to shrink to the level funded by current receipts.

3. The Continuing Resolution (CR) passed by Congress last September Expires on March 27, 2013.  If this doesn't get extended before then, we'd get a government shutdown.

This was where the fun (for extremely perverse values of 'fun') started in 2011, if you recall: that year's continuing resolution expired in late February of that year, and Boehner successfully demanded $4 billion in cuts for a 2-week extension, and then an additional $6 billion in cuts for an additional 3-week extension, before they finally worked out a CR deal for the rest of the fiscal year.  Those short extensions were when we all found out how easy it was for Obama to be rolled, and set the stage for the debt ceiling negotiations that summer.

Anyhow, that's what we're looking at: three distinct opportunities for GOP extortion, probably all happening within four weeks' time of each other. And that's on top of the one we just got through.

Thank you, Republican Party, for turning our government into a continuing clown show.  You guys really do hate America, don't you?

Update, Jan. 4: just a couple of odd thoughts about the debt ceiling I'd like to throw out.

1) I'm all for the trillion-dollar platinum coin.  Sign the White House petition!  Actually, I'd like to see them mint five of them, not just one, because that would take care of the debt ceiling problem throughout the remainder of Obama's Presidency.

And I'm specifically for the deal that Josh Barro suggests at the first link, where Obama would give up his authority to mint high-denomination platinum coins in exchange for the permanent abolition of the debt limit.

2) Since my guess is that Obama isn't going to go that route, he should have the following short blurb memorized, to repeat at all appropriate occasions:

"It is up to the House of Representatives to pass a bill raising the debt ceiling.  There would be dire consequences for the nation if the debt ceiling is not raised, so they must pass a bill.

"And the bill must originate with the House, which the Republicans control.  Everyone knows what I want and expect: a clean bill that raises the debt ceiling, full stop.  If the House passes such a bill, it will undoubtedly pass the Senate, and I will sign it into law.  But if the Republicans want something different, they can use their control the House of Representatives to pass their own debt ceiling bill and send it to the Senate, and we will see what happens from there.  But the only proposal that will originate from the Executive Branch is that of a clean and unencumbered increase in the debt limit."

The key thing here is to force the Republicans to publicly own their position.  If they want spending cuts as the price of a debt ceiling increase, force them to name and vote for those cuts.  This is the grownup-in-the-room approach: tell the kids they've got to clean up their room, so get on with it already.

Happy New Year, and Can't Anybody in the White House Play This Game?

 

Well, it's Jan. 1, and while technically we were over the cliff at the time, the Senate passed a fiscal cliff deal at something like 2am today, by an overwhelming 89-8.

Hopefully House Republicans will save us by deciding they can't stand it, but I expect they'll decide it's OK.

The main reason they'll decide it's OK, in my WAG, is that the deal doesn't get rid of the sequester.  It doesn't even postpone it for a year.  It postpones it for two lousy months.

So we get to do this again at the end of February, almost simultaneously with the debt ceiling.  Hell, the GOP could even be magnaminous and pass a clean debt ceiling extension (probably not a very long one, though), and play hostage games with the sequester between now and February 28.

Not only do we get to do this again at the end of February, but we've given up all our leverage on the tax side by agreeing to a deal there.

Given that fact, the provisions of the deal itself are secondary.  And aside from the sequester, it's not a great deal; it's a debatable deal.  But having to do this all again in two months?  Terrible.

Happy new year.  Let's party like it's 2011.

Update, January 2: The House has passed the bill, mostly with Democratic votes.  I sure hope I'm wrong about the sequester.  But if the Republicans weren't planning to weaponize it, so to speak, why would they have bargained for such a short delay, rather than going along with a year's extension of the sequester deadline?

And don't bother calling your Congresscritter, nobody's there to answer the phone:

One thing that bothered me in the midst of all this is that once the shape of the deal was visible, it was virtually impossible to contact one's elected representatives to register an opinion about it.  Congress was officially closed for New Year's, even though the Senate had passed a bill in the wee small hours, and the House was busily trying to decide what to do with it.  Congresscritters' voicemail boxes were full up, and nobody was there to listen to your voicemails anyway.

And this was happening in the last hours of a lame-duck Congress that had already been re-elected, retired, or been voted out anyway.  It was the acme of unaccountability.