Tom Janssen, Cagle Cartoons, The Netherlands —
Saturday, December 31, 2011
The Good News, People are Waking Up, And Starting To Speak Truth To Power. Next Comes Taking Power?
10 Winning Moments for the 99% in 2011
By Sarah Jaffe
December 26, 2011 |
Photo Credit: PR Watch
2011 will be remembered as the year the world woke up and began to fight back against a tiny minority that had held on to control—of money, of political power—for far too long.
Time Magazine named “The Protester” its person of the year, but the story is much deeper than that. Here in the US, the year began with despondency—a new class of Tea Party-supported legislators and governors were taking office around the country, and taking immediate steps to impose their anti-worker austerity agenda.
But the austerity class met resistance—first in Wisconsin, where Gov. Scott Walker moved to take away workers' right to collective bargaining. The people in Wisconsin responded by occupying their Capitol building, kicking off a movement which spread through Ohio and Indiana, then seemed to subside before erupting in the fall with Occupy Wall Street.
But throughout the year, organizers were working around the country, fighting the power of Wall Street, big business, and the right-wing governors who do their bidding. We asked ten of them to talk about the moments that stood out for them this year, the moments that gave them hope. Some are moments you've heard of, some might have slipped past you. But all of them were signs of long-overdue change.
Read More: Here
Another "Everybody Knows" Economic Myth Is Shone To Be Completely WRONG
San Francisco Becomes First in Nation with $10 Minimum Wage (and the Sky Isn't Going to Fall)
December 30, 2011
On January 1, the minimum wage in San Francisco will cross the psychological threshold of $10 an hour. An automatic cost-of-living adjustment built into city law will raise the wage floor 3.2 percent, from its current $9.92 to $10.24. Predictably, employers have been warning that the increase will cost jobs. In fact, a great deal of economic evidence suggests otherwise.
Last March, my CEPR colleague, David Rosnick, and I finished a detailed study of the employment impact of the first three years of the San Francisco minimum wage. Back in early 2004, San Francisco established a city-wide minimum wage of $8.50 --25 percent higher than the $6.75 California state minimum wage at the time and 65 percent higher than the prevailing federal minimum of $5.15.
We analyzed employment patterns in a range of industries with a high share of low-wage workers, including fast food and retail. We compared trends in wages and employment in San Francisco before and after the increase with trends over the same period in San Francisco's adjacent suburbs and, separately, in nearby Oakland, two areas where the minimum wage was unchanged.
To rule out statistical flukes, we looked at the impact after one year, then two years, then three years. We also examined the impact on low-wage employers, regardless of industry, and we isolated the impact on small employers (fewer than 10 employees and 10 to 24 employees).
We consistently found that the minimum-increased boosted wages, but had no discernible impact on employment. Wages rose significantly in fast food, broader food services, and in low-wage establishments (regardless of industry). Because wages in San Francisco were already relatively high in retail trade, the law had no significant impact on wages in that sector. At the same time, the new, higher minimum wage had no measurable impact --one way or the other-- on employment in these same industries and establishments.
Our findings for San Francisco were not surprising. They are consistent with the large majority of recent research on city-wide and national minimum wages. But, doesn't this contradict basic economic principles? How can raising wages have no effect on employment?
The most convincing explanation is that standard economic theory does a poor job describing the low-wage labor market. In the textbook view, labor markets are "perfectly competitive," employers and workers have perfect information about all the available job openings and the skills of all available workers.
Read More: Here
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Republicans Aided By Their Democratic Toadies Try To Turn America Into To A Modern Version Of Pottersville From The Film"Its A Wonderful Life".
Republicans Try to Impose Selfishness on American People
by: Leo Gerard, Campaign for America's Future | Op-Ed
Texas Governor Rick Perry. (Photo: Eric Thayer / The New York Times)
In the iconic Christmas film, “It’s a Wonderful Life,” an angel offers the beleaguered main character, George Bailey, the stark choice between a hometown named for a cruel banker or one created by and for the middle class.
The banker’s town, Pottersville, is filled with bars, gambling dens and despair. The people’s town of Bedford Falls is made of hope, hard working middle class families, and their homes financed by the Bailey Brothers Building & Loan.
The film’s happy ending is the people of Bedford Falls banding together to rescue George Bailey and the Bailey Brothers Building & Loan that had given so many of them a leg up over the years. Republicans seek a different conclusion. They find middle class cooperation and community intolerable. They want the banker, Henry Potter, with his “every man for himself” philosophy to triumph. In the spirit of their self-centered mentor Ayn Rand, Republicans are trying to disfigure America so she resembles Pottersville.
A building and loan association, like the Bailey Brothers’, uses the savings of its members to provide mortgages to the depositors. Members essentially pool their money to give each other the opportunity to buy cars and homes. At one point in the film, George Bailey explains this concept to frightened depositors who are trying to withdraw their savings during the panic that led to bank runs in 1929.
Bailey urges the townspeople who had crowded into the building and loan office to withdraw only what they need, not empty their accounts. “We have got to stick together,” he tells them, “We have to do this together.” A building and loan doesn’t function without trust and cooperation.
It works well for Bedford Falls. The mortgages it provides help working people move out of the Potters Field slums and into Bailey Park, where homes well kept by their owners increase in value. Despite the success, Potter condemned this practice, saying it was based on “high ideals without common sense.” He criticized the Bailey Brothers Building & Loan for granting a taxi driver a mortgage after Potter’s bank had rejected his application. Potter scoffed at such practices, asking if the building and loan was a “business or a charity ward.”
This is exactly what Republicans do. They describe beloved American programs like Medicare and Social Security as charities – using the euphemism “entitlements.” Like mortgages from the Bailey Building & Loan, Medicare and Social Security are not charities. They’re the American people depositing and pooling their money for the benefit of the American community.
The GOP tries to destroy programs like these that aid the middle class, the vast majority of Americans – the 99 percent – while Republicans protect tax breaks and special perks for the rich – the one percent, the Henry Potters.
This time last year, Republicans demanded extension of tax breaks for the 1 percent, contending tax breaks stimulate the economy.
For the past three months, however, Republicans have fought extension of payroll tax cuts, contending a break benefiting 160 million middle class Americans did not stimulate the economy.
All year, Republicans have demanded an end to programs the middle class created to aid the majority, the 99 percent. The GOP wants to reverse the new banking regulations that were passed in an attempt to prevent another economic collapse caused by risky Wall Street practices. The GOP tried to to rescind the healthcare reform law that prevents insurance companies from terminating coverage when beneficiaries get sick and prohibits the practice of refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
Influential Republicans this year have called for repealing laws forbidding child labor, laws guaranteeing minimum wage and laws protecting the environment. They’ve demanded elimination of federal funding for organizations like the Public Broadcasting System that educates preschoolers, Head Start, which provides opportunity to poor children, and Planned Parenthood, which uses 97 percent of its funds to provide general, obstetrical and gynecological medical care to women, many of whom are rural and poor.
Republicans have decided to be the party of Henry Potter, the “meanest man in the county,” a man about whom George Bailey’s father said: “he's a sick man, frustrated. Sick in his mind, sick in his soul, if he has one.”
Like Potter, Republicans deride compassion and community as character defects.
In the Republican world, where greed is good, it was appropriate for Henry Potter to keep the $8,000 in Bailey Building & Loan money that George Bailey’s uncle, Billy Bailey, accidently handed him.
Republicans are attempting to impose that selfish belief system on the selfless American people, people like the citizens of Bedford Falls who rush to the rescue of neighbors.
It won’t work, just like it didn’t in “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Republicans will fail in their attempt to make America Pottersville because the 99 percent believe avarice is a sin, not a value. The GOP will fail because greed is not the American way.
Congress, Defenders Of The Wealthy, The Privileged, and Deniers Of The American Way.
Wanna Know Why Congress Doesn't Care About the 99 Percent? Because They're the 1 Percent.
The days of Sen. Jefferson Smith are sadly over. Congress is no longer the vehicle for idealistic young politicians eager to make a meaningful change. It's now designed to protect the status quo: districts are drawn to protect parties; campaigns require a ridiculous amount of money so that it becomes impossible for anyone without a whole lot of cash to even launch a credible campaign.
It wasn't always that way. We've had politicians from modest circumstances. They understood the concerns of every day Americans. But while we've seen the wealth of most Americans go down in the last twenty five years, the wealth of members of Congress has gone way, way up:
Between 1984 and 2009, the median net worth of a member of the House more than doubled, according to the analysis of financial disclosures, from $280,000 to $725,000 in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, excluding home equity.
Over the same period, the wealth of an American family has declined slightly, with the comparable median figure sliding from $20,600 to $20,500, according to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics from the University of Michigan.
The comparisons exclude home equity because it is not included in congressional reporting, and 1984 was chosen because it is the earliest year for which consistent wealth statistics are available.
The growing disparity between the representatives and the represented means that there is a greater distance between the economic experience of Americans and those of lawmakers.Unsurprisingly, this income disparity has resulted in greater and greater polarization in voting as well:
Thus, we're looking at a congress that are less our elected representatives and more representative of the one percent. This is why cutting social safety programs make sense...they can't imagine anyone like them actually needing them.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Nice Little Christmas Carol.
The 99% Choir Goes Christmas Caroling |
| By: Cynthia Kouril Tuesday December 27, 2011 7:20 pm |
OK, this is so charming, so pithy, so spot and so non-violent that even BMAZ can’t hate on this direct action {watch he’ll find something to nitpick and make a liar out of me ;-)}.
The Backbone Campaign, longtime source of witty direct action protests, partnered up with the Other 98%, the Seattle Labor Chorus and the Washington Community Action Network to produce a Christmas caroling event at Bank of America and at Wells Fargo. Donned in their Santa hats and other gay apparel, including a Ghost of Christmas Present, the 99% Choir serenaded the staff and customers at branches in Seattle area.
Enjoy those holiday classics such as “We’ll Foreclose, We’ll Foreclose, We’ll Foreclose” and “Deck the Jails with Wall Street Bankers”. If you want to get involved in something similar where you live, check out their Credit Union Community Organizer kit or their Occupy Our Homes podcast.
More of this, please.
Also, anyone who knows about some similar direct action that took place over the holidays, or who is planning one and wants to get the words out, please let everyone know in the comments thread.
The Backbone Campaign, longtime source of witty direct action protests, partnered up with the Other 98%, the Seattle Labor Chorus and the Washington Community Action Network to produce a Christmas caroling event at Bank of America and at Wells Fargo. Donned in their Santa hats and other gay apparel, including a Ghost of Christmas Present, the 99% Choir serenaded the staff and customers at branches in Seattle area.
Enjoy those holiday classics such as “We’ll Foreclose, We’ll Foreclose, We’ll Foreclose” and “Deck the Jails with Wall Street Bankers”. If you want to get involved in something similar where you live, check out their Credit Union Community Organizer kit or their Occupy Our Homes podcast.
More of this, please.
Also, anyone who knows about some similar direct action that took place over the holidays, or who is planning one and wants to get the words out, please let everyone know in the comments thread.
Boy Here 's News. When The Dems Are Not Busy Caving, They are Wasting Big Bucks On DINOs Who Weren't Going To Run Anyway. Duhhh.
DSCC Wastes $1 Million in Ads on Retiring Ben Nelson |
| By: David Dayen Tuesday December 27, 2011 12:00 pm |
Sen. Ben Nelson "D"
Nelson is scheduled to hold a press conference back home in Nebraska as early as today to make his decision official, said several Democratic insiders close to the leadership.
I understand that the ad money was meant to entice Nelson into running for re-election by showing him the support he would receive from national Democrats. I don’t understand why you would spend that money. Nelson has spent the last couple years voting in lockstep with the Republican minority on dozens of key issues, particularly around spending and debt. His vote to keep Harry Reid in the majority obviously meant more to the leadership than any of his votes on substantive issues.The 70-year-old Nelson was considered one of the most endangered Democratic incumbents this cycle. GOP-affiliated outside groups have already dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into TV ads bashing Nelson, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spent over $1 million on their own ad blitz to bolster his image.
What’s more, Nelson was going to lose next year. Polling showed him consistently under 40% in Nebraska, and unlike in some other states, increased turnout from the Presidential race would not help him. Senate observers were writing this one off all ready, and any money the DSCC sunk into this race would have been as wasted as money put toward re-electing Blanche Lincoln or Rick Santorum or any other doomed incumbent.
So I guess the DSCC got its wasting of funds for Nelson out of the way early. What’s more, they used an “issues-based” SuperPAC to finance the ad and get around donation limits, degrading the campaign finance system even further and opening the way for direct coordination between candidates and unlimited SuperPACs on ads. So worth it!
Even with Nelson in the race Republicans were going to take this seat. But now that looks more like a lock, though former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey may be interested in taking a run at the race. Contrary to some reports, this doesn’t really make the Senate more likely to flip, as Nelson’s loss was already baked into the cake of most analyses. In fact, the DSCC won’t sink much more money into that bottomless pit in Nebraska, so losses will be cut.
But I’m sure they’ll wish they had that million dollars back next year.
The Grinch Was Sighted In Michigan, Or Maybe It Was Just Another 1% Republican Corporcrat.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder Continues Attacks on Unemployed
Michigan's Republican governor, Rick Snyder, continued attacking unemployed Michigan residents as the year wound down, passing new measures to limit unemployment and harm low-wage workers while giving new tax breaks for corporations. His first move was to cut unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 20 weeks maximum. Beyond that he also required many workers on unemployment to take work after 10 weeks, even if that ruined their career opportunities:
The measures require some unemployed workers to take new jobs after 10 weeks of benefits even if the available work is outside their previous experience or pays lower wages than they were making before. They also make it harder for someone to collect jobless benefits if they’re fired for cause or leave a job voluntarily.[...]
Snyder disagreed with critics who say requiring jobless workers to take a job paying 120 percent of their weekly benefit could trap them in a low-wage position by leaving them little time to look for work in their area of expertise.
“It’s to encourage people to work. It’s not to have them go backward,” Snyder said of the legislation. “It’s easiest to find a job when you’ve gotten a job.”Michigan suffers from above average unemployment at 10.6 percent and Snyder's popularity has fallen to below 20 percent. With policies like these, it's not hard to see why:
While more than 1.5 million of his constituents faced poverty, Snyder enacted a $1.7 billion tax cut for corporations, or about “$30 in corporate tax cuts for every dollar saved in welfare benefit cuts.” Indeed, Snyder pushed to cut the state’s business taxes by nearly $2 billion, or 86 percent.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
The 1% Would Like You To Believe That You Are A Scrooge If You Don't Go Into Hock To Buy Their Xmas Stuff
Holiday Classic: We Are Not Scrooges
This is my column from Dec. 21 2010. Never thought it'd be evergreen - but here we are. Note I updated the figures on poverty and unemployment to make it current.
Ever been stuck in holiday traffic fighting to be stuck in a holiday cashier’s line so you can purchase low-priced presents on your high-balance Visa listening to high-volume holiday music and think, “Why am I doing this to myself?! I don’t even really LIKE Christmas. It’s just a scheme to get me to gain more weight AND gain more debt.”
When you’re broke, there’s nothing like Christmas to make you feel bad about yourself.
Nothing shatters one’s contentment more quickly than that ever-looping commercial in which a guy buys his wife a bow-wrapped $100,000 Lexus as a “surprise.” Every time it airs I think to myself, “My husband would have to put just that bow on layaway, and I’d still KNOW.”
But if you confess this deepest of secrets – this latent loathing of holiday “cheer” and the futile materialism of these now six weeks out of the year - someone inevitably hurls the accusation: What are you…a Scrooge?
Yes, Englishman Charles Dickens penned an American Classic. His A Christmas Carol, published in 1843, is now a staple of the season. It’s been re-made, re-hashed and re-imagined more times than John McCain’s political convictions. In the story a stingy old man hates Christmas until ghosts scare him into being generous. He ends up loving the holiday and all the trimmings.
However, Dickens unknowingly created a character who is now used as propaganda to quash all voices of Christmas Present dissent.
The dreaded: You are a Scrooge.
To which I say: No, I am not. If you read the tale, Scrooge is rich.
This is a widespread yuletide misnomer. It must be stopped now. I’m not even going to comment on Christ never envisioning his birthday plagued by obligatory tchotchke acquisitions; senseless seasonal slaughter of Douglas Firs; or the pointless battle about Walmart greeters muttering “Happy Holidays” (a contraction of holy days) versus the more allegedly pious “Merry Christmas” to an indifferent public. Charles Dickens, an advocate for the poor, certainly never meant for Ebenezer Scrooge’s name to be applied to those with a paycheck the size of Bob Cratchit’s.
Bob Cratchit - Scrooge's underpaid underling - is nice to people all year round even though he’s paid hardly anything. You know, Tiny Tim’s dad. That’s who 98 percent of Americans are.
We’re a nation of Bob Cratchits who are terrified of being Scrooges.
Yes, the difference between a venerable philanthropist and a charitable person – is a charitable person works for a living.
But we want the picture-perfect holiday gift-buying guidebook Christmas. So we fret, agonize and figure out a way. We create for ourselves unnecessary annual stress. And then it all goes on a credit card with interest paid perennially. All because we don’t want to be seen as a miser. We have to do Christmas, or we haven’t done something right.
Not giving on Christmas is a moral shortcoming. Or so we’re told. Not having money? A sin.
In a Dickensian reality, if we haven’t made enough money to fall in a certain tax bracket the Ghost of Christmas Past won’t even waste his time with us. Any apparitions 98 percent of us see are from the 90-proof in our eggnog. Holiday ghosts and specters – we’ll call them executive bonuses.
From Cratchit’s point of view he just worked hard, enjoyed his family and was pleasantly surprised when his boss had a change of heart.
The U.S. poverty rate is now at 15.1 percent. Our current unemployment is 8.6 percent. Our once robust middle-class is looking a little anemic. The vast majority of us are stretched thin. My point is: It’s time to lighten up…mainly on ourselves.
We are not Scrooges. We do, however, work for some (author’s note: except MY editor, of course).
Ever been stuck in holiday traffic fighting to be stuck in a holiday cashier’s line so you can purchase low-priced presents on your high-balance Visa listening to high-volume holiday music and think, “Why am I doing this to myself?! I don’t even really LIKE Christmas. It’s just a scheme to get me to gain more weight AND gain more debt.”
When you’re broke, there’s nothing like Christmas to make you feel bad about yourself.
Nothing shatters one’s contentment more quickly than that ever-looping commercial in which a guy buys his wife a bow-wrapped $100,000 Lexus as a “surprise.” Every time it airs I think to myself, “My husband would have to put just that bow on layaway, and I’d still KNOW.”
But if you confess this deepest of secrets – this latent loathing of holiday “cheer” and the futile materialism of these now six weeks out of the year - someone inevitably hurls the accusation: What are you…a Scrooge?
Yes, Englishman Charles Dickens penned an American Classic. His A Christmas Carol, published in 1843, is now a staple of the season. It’s been re-made, re-hashed and re-imagined more times than John McCain’s political convictions. In the story a stingy old man hates Christmas until ghosts scare him into being generous. He ends up loving the holiday and all the trimmings.
However, Dickens unknowingly created a character who is now used as propaganda to quash all voices of Christmas Present dissent.
The dreaded: You are a Scrooge.
To which I say: No, I am not. If you read the tale, Scrooge is rich.
This is a widespread yuletide misnomer. It must be stopped now. I’m not even going to comment on Christ never envisioning his birthday plagued by obligatory tchotchke acquisitions; senseless seasonal slaughter of Douglas Firs; or the pointless battle about Walmart greeters muttering “Happy Holidays” (a contraction of holy days) versus the more allegedly pious “Merry Christmas” to an indifferent public. Charles Dickens, an advocate for the poor, certainly never meant for Ebenezer Scrooge’s name to be applied to those with a paycheck the size of Bob Cratchit’s.
Bob Cratchit - Scrooge's underpaid underling - is nice to people all year round even though he’s paid hardly anything. You know, Tiny Tim’s dad. That’s who 98 percent of Americans are.
We’re a nation of Bob Cratchits who are terrified of being Scrooges.
Yes, the difference between a venerable philanthropist and a charitable person – is a charitable person works for a living.
But we want the picture-perfect holiday gift-buying guidebook Christmas. So we fret, agonize and figure out a way. We create for ourselves unnecessary annual stress. And then it all goes on a credit card with interest paid perennially. All because we don’t want to be seen as a miser. We have to do Christmas, or we haven’t done something right.
Not giving on Christmas is a moral shortcoming. Or so we’re told. Not having money? A sin.
In a Dickensian reality, if we haven’t made enough money to fall in a certain tax bracket the Ghost of Christmas Past won’t even waste his time with us. Any apparitions 98 percent of us see are from the 90-proof in our eggnog. Holiday ghosts and specters – we’ll call them executive bonuses.
From Cratchit’s point of view he just worked hard, enjoyed his family and was pleasantly surprised when his boss had a change of heart.
The U.S. poverty rate is now at 15.1 percent. Our current unemployment is 8.6 percent. Our once robust middle-class is looking a little anemic. The vast majority of us are stretched thin. My point is: It’s time to lighten up…mainly on ourselves.
We are not Scrooges. We do, however, work for some (author’s note: except MY editor, of course).
It Is Unbeliveable How We As Country Can Not Learn By Other Country's Mistakes. Our Belief In American Exceptialism At Work.
How Have We Become the United States of Fear?
by: Mark Karlin, Truthout | Interview
(Image: Haymarket Books)
Mark Karlin: Your last chapter in so many ways embodies what you have covered in TomDispatch, and what is at the core of our crisis of democracy today: imperial decline. When did our American empire begin to implode?
Tom Engelhardt: Well, I have no doubt that, economically speaking, we've been losing traction for quite a while on that downhill slope, but a crucial "moment" was certainly Washington's decision to follow what I call "the Soviet path." After all, in those last years of the Cold War, the Soviet Union, the far weaker of the two superpowers, threw money into its military while its deficits rose and its infrastructure crumbled - and of course it got mired in a terrible war, a "bleeding wound," in Afghanistan. It all sounds eerily familiar, no? Washington's decision, in its moment of Cold War triumph, to follow essentially the same path and the Bush administration's wild belief that it could drive U.S. military power unilaterally into the heart of the Greater Middle East and establish a Pax Americana there (the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were only supposed to be the beginning of the process) had a similar effect. Now, of course, we have soaring deficits, rotting infrastructure and unending war in Afghanistan (and elsewhere). It could give you the chills.
MK: How is the instigation of a state of national fear tied into the effort to maintain empire?
TE: I think that the real thing it's tied into is an effort over this last decade to turn what I call the "national security complex" into America's growth industry. Fear - of terrorism and nothing else - has been the "drug" that has powered the national security state to heights and a size it never reached when it had a genuine superpower enemy with a nuclear arsenal. Today, the intelligence bureaucracy dwarfs what existed in the Cold War era; the Pentagon budget is so much larger and so on. Give credit where it's due: it's been quite a feat based on remarkably little when you think about it.
Read More: Here
The Road To Normalcy Starts With Dedicated Activism Of The 99%
OCCUPY ATLANTA Saves Home of
Decorated Iraq Veteran Brigitte Walker
"After two press conferences on her lawn, a national call-in day, and direct action on Chase Bank, Occupy Atlanta did what Brigitte Walker couldn't do in years: get a loan modification. Had it not been for Occupy Atlanta's "simplistic approach" Walker would have had her American Dream auctioned off on the Fulton County Courthouse steps." – Tim Franzen and Shabnam Bashiri, OCCUPY ATLANTA
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Good Work Boehner, The 1% Thank$ You Very Much. The Check Is In The Mail.
Speaker Cuts Off C-SPAN Cameras When Dems Attempt To Bring Vote On Payroll Tax Cut
During a quick pro-forma session of the House this morning, Republicans rebuffed a Democratic attempt to force an up-or-down vote on the Senate-passed payroll tax holiday extension, which Republicans have thus far refused to allow. Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA), who was serving as the speaker pro-temp, ignored shouts of “Mr. Speaker!” from Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), quickly adjourning the House.
Hoyer continued talking undeterred, saying, “You’re walking away, just as so many Republicans have walked away from middle-class taxpayers [and] the unemployed.” “We regret, Mr. Speaker, that you have walked off the platform without addressing this issue of critical importance to this country,” Hoyer added.
Moments later, the mic appeared to cut out. A few seconds after that, the video feed switched away from the House floor to a still image of the Capitol Dome. It appears someone in House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) office cut the feed, as C-SPAN tweeted afterwards: “C-SPAN has no control over the U.S. House TV cameras – the Speaker of the House does.”
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Speaker Boehner, What A Putz
John Boehner Kills the Payroll Tax Extension Because It Was Too Popular and Would've Passed
Through a series of procedural moves, Speaker of the House John Boehner has all but killed the extension of the payroll tax holiday for 2011, meaning that taxes will go up January 1, 2012, for 160 million Americans. After months of wrangling, the plan was for the House to pass a two-month extension for the payroll tax holiday that had already passed the Senate with 89 votes. But Boehner didn't want that bill to pass. His stance seems to be that if the holiday isn't extended, that Barack Obama and Democrats will get the blame, so he's pulling out all the stops to prevent it from passing.
In a set of moves that couldn't be more convoluted if they were written by George Orwell, Boehner canceled an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill because he knew that it likely would've passed with bipartisan support. He couldn't get enough Republicans to hold the line against the bill, with enough of his caucus either realizing that passing the extension was either the right thing to do or the politically expedient thing to do. Instead he scheduled a vote that, regardless of how members voted, was a vote against the Senate bill. In order to give his members the cover of a "yes" vote on the extension, the bill that came to a vote was very complicated. A "yes" vote called on a conference committee to be established while rejecting the Senate bill. A "no" vote would reject both the Senate bill and the conference committee. In a 229-193, the measure passed. But Boehner knew that the Senate had already concluded business for the year. Harry Reid has stood uncharacteristically firm against Boehner's ploy and said that the Senate already passed a bill and they won't be coming back this year and he won't be appointing members to a conference committee.
Boehner also had to know that the chances of a conference working anything out in the 11 days before the holiday expired would be unlikely, if not impossible. In effect, he put forth a bill that he knew almost guaranteed that nothing would happen before January and that taxes would go up. Boehner's argument is that it is the "regular order" of the Congress to send bills where there is disagreement to conference committee to hammer out the differences. While this is often true, it isn't required and, more importantly, it is a "regular order" that Boehner himself has defied when it suited his purposes, such as when he wanted to assault unions:
Read More: Here
Another Scam That Obama Will Approve "Because They Made Me Do It"
Keystone XL Will Raise Oil Prices By Moving More Oil Out Of The US
Anthony Swift at the National Resources Defense Council writes about the marketing of the Keystone XL pipeline extension, and why it's not such a good deal for Americans:One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come. Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in free trade zones where they may be exported to the international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do.
The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC. Canada's excess pipeline capacity is well known. In a Department of Energy reportevaluating Keystone XL's impacts on U.S. energy supply over the next twenty years, the agency found that it will take decades for Canada to produce enough oil to fill existing pipelines. On page 90, the report concludes that the United States will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 whether or not Keystone XL is built.
Monday, December 19, 2011
NewsCorp and Hollywood CEO's Push Congress For Censorship Control Of The Internet With SOPA. Can You Say Good By Open Internet, Hello Just Five Giant Sites, News Corp(FOX) ABC, NBC, CBS, And Disney
While the entertainment industry cries poor and insists that the Stop Online Piracy Act be passed to protect the artists (and politicians like Chris Dodd and Lamar Smith lobby behind the scenes), this fascinating information comes to light. Via Raw Story:
Movie industry lobbyists like to say that online piracy costs their clients billions of dollars every year, and it’s getting worse — but that’s doesn’t quite seem to be the case, according to data released this week by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS).
The CRS report (embedded below) shows that the movie industry is doing very well, earning record profits and paying executives more than ever, even as it hires fewer workers than it did just a decade ago.
Although a recent National Crime Prevention Council ad campaign tries to make the point that piracy kills jobs, the CRS found that total gross revenues and box office receipts have doubled in the last 15 years. Grosses went from $52.8 billion in 1995 to $104.4 billion in 2009, while box office receipts went from $5.3 billion in 1995 to $10.6 billion in 2010 — yet hiring still went down.
One thing that has gone up, higher than ever, is executive pay. The CRS report noted that News Corporation paid CEO Rupert Murdoch $33,292,753 in 2011; Viacom gave CEO Philippe Dauman made $84,515,308; Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes took home $26,303,071; while Disney CEO Robert A. Lger earned $29,617,964. Sony CEO Howard Stringer was at the bottom of the bunch at $4.3 million, having taken a 14 percent pay cut due to losses.
Those salaries are quite hefty compared to the top earners just a decade and a half ago. At Disney, former CEO Michael Eisner’s total compensation was $10 million in 1994, while Time Warner was compensating former CEO Gerald M. Levin $5 million, the CRS reported. Historical data for the other executives was not included.
Read More: Here
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Santa Goes Shopping
Saturday, December 17, 2011
The Washington Criminal Class Has Found Another Poor Victim, And Best Of All, One Fifth Of The Victims Are In The Military.
Congress Cuts Winter Heating Aid For The Poor While Boosting The Defense Budget
Poverty in America is only getting worse, with data showing rising income inequality and the startling fact that half of all Americans are now either in poverty or considered low-income. Were it not for the government programs that comprise the social safety net, those numbers would be even worse. More than a quarter would live in poverty without the safety net, according to one study, and Social Security alone kept 14 million out of poverty last year. Despite that, Congress — and particularly Republicans in Congress — have made cuts to various programs meant to aid the poorest Americans.
Congress reached a deal Thursday to avert a shutdown that would have begun at midnight tonight, and in doing so, Republicans found another low-income program to target, cutting funding for subsidies that help the poor stay warm during the winter by nearly 25 percent. At the same time, however, the Pentagon’s budget is getting a 1 percent boost, as the Associated Press noted:
Highlights of the $1 trillion-plus 2012 spending legislation in Congress:The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) has become increasingly vital for American families affected by the recession, and it is utilized more and more by military families. One of every five families using LIHEAP is a military family, a 156 percent increase from 2008. Congress, however, decided to cut that program to give a boost to a budget that already makes up 20 percent of the country’s total budget and has been spared in multiple spending agreements this year (the super committee trigger a notable exception).
—$518 billion for the Pentagon’s core budget, a 1 percent boost, excluding military operations overseas. [...]
—$3.5 billion for low-income heating and utility subsidies, a cut of about 25 percent.
Plenty of evidence exists that Congress should be focused on investing into programs that boost economic growth and job creation, rather than chasing fiscal austerity toward another recession. If it insists on cutting spending to deal with the deficit now, however, the least it could do is not take the knife to each and every program that helps the poor.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Living in Middle Earth
Why Americans should love Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings – we live there
13 DECEMBER 2011
An excerpt...
We too live in Middle Earth, a nation with great and powerful wizards who can accomplish deeds beyond the imagination of lesser folks. Celebrities who live out their hedonistic fantasies, unrestrained by our laws and moral codes. Politicians to whom we give our hearts — such as Obama, Ron Paul. Wealthy businessnessmen who rape our economy, operating above our laws.
We too live in Middle Earth, a nation with great and powerful wizards who can accomplish deeds beyond the imagination of lesser folks. Celebrities who live out their hedonistic fantasies, unrestrained by our laws and moral codes. Politicians to whom we give our hearts — such as Obama, Ron Paul. Wealthy businessnessmen who rape our economy, operating above our laws.
These people own our government. Charities are determined by their priorities. Their hired hands write our laws, pass judgement in our courts. Their police suppress protests. The great Wall Street banks are engines shaping society to their design. The news media tell their narrative explaining events (as in thisop-ed by suck-up expert David Brooks). The major think-tanks create stories justifying their plans for America.
American politics is little but jousts among factions of the rich. Republican presidential candidates compete to see who can tax the rich the least, shift the most of the tax burden to the middle class, and slash the largest amount of benefits to the poor. Success comes to those who most skillfully pander to their pretenses and most successfully advance their interests.
Like Bill Gates, a next-gen American prince. Here we see his version of Rivendell, built on a hillside overlooking Lake Washington in Medina, Washington. 66,000 square feet on 5.15 acres; assessed value $200 million.
Don't You Just Love Those Spineless Little Obamacrats Scurrying Around Trying To Curry Favor With Republicans.
Quisling While You Work | |
| By: TBogg Thursday December 15, 2011 | |
Quite the banner day for Democrats…
Despite polls showing that the public is overwhelmingly on board with raising taxes on millionaires, they promptly rolled over on their backs and piddled on their bellies when push came to shove.
Meanwhile Democratic Senator Ron Wyden has decided to apply for the position of wingman in granny-snuffing sociopath Paul Ryan’s fiscal slasher posse:In what would be a major concession, President Obama and Senate Democrats will drop their insistence that a surtax on millionaires pay for extending the payroll tax cut, a Democratic source tells CNN. This would be part of a new Democratic offer.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who has been castigated by Democrats and hailed by Republicans for his plan to privatize Medicare, will on Thursday unveil a new approach that would preserve the 46-year-old federal health program.
Working with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the Wisconsin Republican is developing a framework that would offer traditional, government-run Medicare as an option for future retirees along with a variety of private plans.
Because you know what would save a ton of money for the government?Seniors would still receive a set amount of money from the government to buy insurance, as they would under the Medicare proposal Ryan included in the budget blueprint that passed the House last year. But the new approach would let that subsidy, known as premium support, rise or fall along with the actual cost of the policies — creating more protection for seniors and saving potentially far less in the budget.
Allowing a third party middle-man whose business model is built upon obscene profits to collect “premium support” dollars from the government while delaying and denying treatment to the “covered” seniors on whom the clock is quickly running out.
What could possibly go wrong?
(Image courtesy of Married To The Sea)
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Time Magazine Takes Notice Of The Protesters
Time names “The Protester” as “Person Of Year”
Magazine honors Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street with its annual accolade
(Credit: TIME)
NEW YORK (AP) — “The Protester” has been named Time’s “Person of the Year” for 2011.
The selection was announced Wednesday on NBC’s “Today” show.
The magazine cited dissent across the Middle East that has spread to Europe and the United States, and says these protesters are reshaping global politics.
Last year, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg got the honor.
Time’s “Person of the Year” is the person or thing that has most influenced the culture and the news during the past year for good or for ill. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke received the honor in 2009. The 2008 winner was then-President-elect Barack Obama. Other previous winners have included Bono, President George W. Bush, and Amazon.com CEO and founder Jeff Bezos.
Time said it is recognizing protesters because they are “redefining people power” around the world.
The selection was announced Wednesday on NBC’s “Today” show.
The magazine cited dissent across the Middle East that has spread to Europe and the United States, and says these protesters are reshaping global politics.
Last year, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg got the honor.
Time’s “Person of the Year” is the person or thing that has most influenced the culture and the news during the past year for good or for ill. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke received the honor in 2009. The 2008 winner was then-President-elect Barack Obama. Other previous winners have included Bono, President George W. Bush, and Amazon.com CEO and founder Jeff Bezos.
Time said it is recognizing protesters because they are “redefining people power” around the world.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Reflections on the American Revolution
I was recently studying the American Revolution with my 4th grader and the events leading to it and to our eventual birth of a nation. For anyone who hasn't thought about this lately, this is a great time to revisit the beginnings of what was to become the United States of America. It had been a long time since I thought about our revolutionary history. Since I had recently taken our children to an Occupy protest, it was one of those few times where a history lesson actually comes to life with a large amount of relevancy.
There are those close to us, family and friends, who do not believe in the Occupy movement. Some are conservative and some are just scared. A close relative recently shouted at me in exasperation, "It is just going to get worse!" I wasn't sure if he was angry at me, the situation or the fact he has realized he will never be in the 1 %. All of these reasons are valid to be upset. He is right. It will. However, all of us on the front line know things need to change.
Critics keep asking, "What is is that THEY want? What are THEIR demands?" If you have to ask, you are either naive or in denial or in the 1%, I would venture to say. At LGMC, we recently posted a nicely written list of demands noted by Michael Moore. In sum though, it is simple. We want some semblance of normalcy with a vibrant middle class. The world feels insane right now. How can CEO's of large, corrupt banks and decision makers who knew what was happening be allowed to get away with the destruction of the American economy AND profit by it? Why are they not in jail? Why must WE all suffer? How can all of us who are struggling to provide for our families and defaulting on student loans, credit cards, mortgages all be a bunch of whiny, irresponsible, losers? Something happened in America; it was a slow course but a path we all chose to take. We, the 99% are not responsible for actually coming up with the exact solutions and policies. It is our job though, as true Americans, to protest what we feel is a "bizarro" world right now (to borrow a DC Comics concept).
Back to American Revolution. In the mid 1700's things did not seem right our ancestors; they were in their own bizarro world. They felt that being ruled by a King in a country thousands of miles away was not right anymore. In simple terms, they did not like being ruled by and paying tribute in the form of taxes to a King. There was also a lack of religious freedom and taxation without representation. The key themes were independence and justice and these are still relevant today. The topic which started me on this path is one we all know and love - the Boston Tea Party. In school my daughter was taught that that Boston Tea Party occurred due to increased taxation but there is no mention of the real culprit, the East India Company. Many of us, who consider ourselves enlightened, know or at least learned many moons ago (when real history was taught in school) that the East India Company was running rampant in the New World at that time. (Thom Hartmann wrote an excellent blog, based on fact, about this historical event you can read here.)
The East India Company was truly the large multinational corporation of its day enjoying a British-supported monopoly on the tea market due to some huge tax cuts it was granted by the Crown. The fact is, the East India Company paid no taxes at all on their tea shipments (can you say corporate greed and corporate crime?). Does any of this sound familiar? Justice was requested and refused. This tax imbalance caused colonial tea importers to go out of business because they could not compete with the East India Company; unemployment and unrest grew among the colonists. The decision was made by our ancestors to protest this immense injustice; they dumped tens of thousands of pounds of tea into the harbor to show their disagreement with this policy (a value of approx. $1.3-$3.1 million in today's dollars). As a result of this event, Great Britain closed down the port until the colonists paid back the losses which, of course, did not happen. One has to wonder what would have happened if the tax structure had been rectified? This was a turning point in the revolution. What if Britain had acquiesced on certain demands? As it stands in history, a year plus later, the port was still closed, and then came the "Shot Heard Around the World" as the war truly started.
The key point of this micro history lesson is that the true Spirit of '76 was the fact that we, as a young burgeoning nation, knew we had to fight these injustices running rampant. We could have done nothing and none of us would be here today reading this - at least not in the world we know. However, we stood up, we protested, we fought. It was not pretty. In reflecting on all the missed opportunities that the British had to placate the masses at the time, it also makes us contemplate our current situation. If our leaders would listen vs. question, and act vs. react, our path could actually change for the better, without violence. This is truly a bizarro world. Nothing is right or normal any longer. Places and people we used to trust are untrustworthy. Jobs upon which we relied are gone. Real home ownership is a "thing" of the past. Health care is unaffordable Education is sub par. This will get ugly. With luck, we can hope that our current leaders are slightly smarter that the British that ruled us in 1776. In the meantime, as true Americans, we must fight and protest all the injustices we are being served. All of us, including the 1%, will benefit from a normal world and all of us must demand change.
Senator Sanders Starts The Movement In The Senate To End Corprate Personhood, This Will Also End Corporate Super Citizenship Rights.
Sen. Bernie Sanders: Corporations Are Not People and They Shouldn't Be Allowed to Buy Our Elections
December 9, 2011 |
The Constitution of this country has served us well, but when the Supreme Court says that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, our democracy is in grave danger. That is why I have introduced a resolution in the
Senate calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I did not do this lightly. In fact, I had never done it before. The U.S. constitution is an extraordinary document. In my view, it should not be amended often. In light of the Supreme Court's infamous 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case, however, I saw no alternative.
I strongly disagree with the ruling. In my view, a corporation is not a person. A corporation does not have First Amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign.
Read More: Here
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Here Is A Nice Little Inspirational Video From The L.A. City Council. And So It Starts In California.
LA shows courage in bucking the Obamacrats and the Corporatist (Republican) party by declaring that the city of Los Angeles will no longer support the corporate agenda that corporations are persons and super citizens with far more rights than human beings. GOOD FOR THEM!
Enjoy
Who Watches Fox News, I Guess Those That Don't Require Reality In Their "News"
Math Fail: Fox News Says 8.6 Percent Unemployment Is Greater Than 8.8 And Equal To 9
For Fox News, math is tricky. After all, the subject does require a working knowledge of fractions, percentages, and knowing that 9 is greater than 8. Today, Fox took a stab at those concepts in a chart tracking unemployment rates over the past year. As Media Matters noted, Fox determined that the 8.6 percent unemployment rate in November is higher than the 8.8 percent rate from March and equal to the 9 percent rate from April:
The actual chart of 2011 unemployment looks like this:
Seven polls have found that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed. Seven is also the integer between 6 and 8.
" Are there no prisons, ....workhouses - are they still in operation?....I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it " Scrooge From "A Christmas Carol"
Illinois Debtors Thrown In Jail: Lisa Madigan Working To Stop Debt Collector Arrest Warrants
Some Illinois residents struggling to pay off their debt have yet another thing to worry about: getting thrown in jail.
As WBEZ reports, creditors in the state have figured out ways around laws that prevent them from putting debtors in jail, and the number of people being issued arrest warrants linked to unpaid bills is growing. Collection agencies can reportedly file a lawsuit requiring a court appearance, and if the defendant doesn't show up for their hearing, an arrest warrant can be issued.
The practice has been happening more often in a stagnant economy, and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan wants to do something about it.
"We can no longer allow debt collectors to pervert the courts," Madigan told the Wall Street Journal, adding that some victims of this practice were thrown in jail without knowing that they were being sued due to misleading or sloppy paperwork submitted to the court by debt collectors.
NPR spoke to one Illinois woman who was shocked to learn that a warrant was out for her arrest:
Take, for example, what happened to Robin Sanders in Illinois. She was driving home when an officer pulled her over for having a loud muffler. But instead of sending her off with a warning, the officer arrested Sanders, and she was taken right to jail.
"That's when I found out [that] I had a warrant for failure to appear in Macoupin County. And I didn't know what it was about."
Sanders owed $730 on a medical bill. She says she didn't even know a collection agency had filed a lawsuit against her.
Read More: Here
Protecting Consumers is "Stalinistic"? Excuse me? WTF?
Consumer bureau 'Stalinistic' - Republican senator
@CNNMoney December 12, 2011
WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham defended his vote to block confirmation of a director to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by comparing it to something out of the reign of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.
In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Graham accused the bureau of being "something out of a Stalinist era," because it has no board monitoring it and it doesn't have to go through the congressional appropriation process.
"The reason Republicans don't want to vote for it is we want a board, not one person, making all the regulatory decisions, and there's no oversight under this person," said Graham of South Carolina. "He gets a check from the Federal Reserve -- we want it under the Congress so we can oversee the overseer."
When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created, as a popular part of the Wall Street reforms, Democrats specifically intended the consumer bureau to be an independent agency. That way, the agency wouldn't have to ask Congress for money every year or butt heads with other banking regulators, who spent the years leading up to the financial crisis ignoring consumer complaints.
At the time, three Senate Republicans agreed and voted for it. Now Republicans maintain the bureau is too powerful and refuse to confirm a nominee. Democrats say the bureau has the same checks and balances as other banking regulators who don't have to ask Congress for money.
READ ENTIRE POST HERE
WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham defended his vote to block confirmation of a director to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by comparing it to something out of the reign of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.
In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Graham accused the bureau of being "something out of a Stalinist era," because it has no board monitoring it and it doesn't have to go through the congressional appropriation process.
"The reason Republicans don't want to vote for it is we want a board, not one person, making all the regulatory decisions, and there's no oversight under this person," said Graham of South Carolina. "He gets a check from the Federal Reserve -- we want it under the Congress so we can oversee the overseer."
When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created, as a popular part of the Wall Street reforms, Democrats specifically intended the consumer bureau to be an independent agency. That way, the agency wouldn't have to ask Congress for money every year or butt heads with other banking regulators, who spent the years leading up to the financial crisis ignoring consumer complaints.
At the time, three Senate Republicans agreed and voted for it. Now Republicans maintain the bureau is too powerful and refuse to confirm a nominee. Democrats say the bureau has the same checks and balances as other banking regulators who don't have to ask Congress for money.
READ ENTIRE POST HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)