Showing posts with label Fiscal cliff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fiscal cliff. Show all posts

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Guest Article: 'The Soul Of America': Sen. Bernie Sanders

Despite such terminology as "fiscal cliff" and "debt ceiling," the great debate taking place in Washington now has relatively little to do with financial issues. It is all about ideology. It is all about economic winners and losers in American society. It is all about the power of Big Money. It is all about the soul of America.


In America today, we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth, and more inequality than at any time period since 1928. The top 1 percent owns 42 percent of the financial wealth of the nation, while, incredibly, the bottom 60 percent own only 2.3 percent. One family, the Walton family of Wal-Mart, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans. In terms of income distribution in 2010, the last study done on this issue, the top 1 percent earned 93 percent of all new income while the bottom 99 percent shared the remaining 7 percent.


Despite the reality that the rich are becoming much richer while the middle class collapses and the number of Americans living in poverty is at an all-time high, the Republicans and their billionaire backers want more, more, and more. The class warfare continues.

My Republican colleagues say that the deficits are a spending problem, not a revenue problem. What these deficit-hawk hypocrites won't talk about is their spending. They won't discuss what they did to dig the country into this $1 trillion deep deficit hole. They waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without paying for them. They gave away huge tax breaks for the rich. They squandered taxpayer dollars on the pharmaceutical industry by making it illegal to let Medicare bargain for lower drug prices. They also rescinded financial regulations that enabled Wall Street to operate like a gambling casino, leading to a severe recession that eroded tax revenue and left more than 14 percent of American workers unemployed or underemployed.


Now, despite the deficits their policies helped to create and despite the enormous suffering which exists in our society, the Republicans want to cut Social Security, veterans' programs, Medicare, Medicaid, education, nutrition programs, and virtually every program which benefits low- and moderate-income Americans. They choose to turn their backs on the economic reality facing a significant part of our population: high unemployment, reduced wages, 50 million without health insurance, college graduates saddled with enormous student debt and elderly people living in desperation. And they have tried to slam the door on any further discussion about how to raise revenue by ending tax loopholes and unfair tax breaks.


Republicans like Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who say the revenue debate is over don't want you to consider these facts:

• Federal revenue today, at 15.8 percent of GDP, is lower today than it was 60 years ago. During the last year of the Clinton administration, when we had a significant federal surplus, federal revenue was 20.6 percent of GDP.

• Today corporate profits are at an all-time high, while corporate income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low.

• In 2011, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP was just 1.2 percent -- lower than any other major country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Norway, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and Iceland.

• In 2011, corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest since 1972.

• In 2005, one out of four large corporations paid no income taxes at all while they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue over that one-year period.

We know where the Republicans are coming from. What about the Democrats? Will President Obama fulfill his campaign pledge to "protect the middle class" or will he surrender to right-wing blackmail? Will Democrats in the House and Senate stand with the vast majority of our citizens and such organizations as AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the AFL-CIO, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and every other veterans' organization in the fight against cuts to Social Security and veterans' programs, or will they agree to a disastrous corporate-backed "chained CPI" concept which makes major benefit cuts to those programs and raises taxes on low-income workers?

The simple truth is there are relatively easy ways to deal with the deficit crisis -- without attacking the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor.

For example, we have got to eliminate loopholes in the tax code that allow large corporations and the wealthy to avoid more than $100 billion in taxes every year by setting up offshore tax shelters in places like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the Bahamas. This situation has become so absurd that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is now the "home" to more than 18,000 corporations.

Further, we must also end tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas. Today, the United State government continues to reward companies that move American manufacturing jobs abroad, despite the fact that millions of American jobs have been outsourced to China, Mexico, and other low wage countries over the past decade. The Joint Committee on Taxation (the official revenue scorekeeper in Congress) has estimated that we could raise more than $582 billion in revenue over the next decade by eliminating these offshore tax loopholes.

We must also recognize that Wall Street recklessness caused the economic crisis, and it has a responsibility to reduce the deficit. Establishing a 0.03 percent Wall Street speculation fee, similar to what we had from 1914-1966, would dampen the dangerous level of speculation and gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy and reduce the deficit by more than $350 billion over 10 years.

We are entering a pivotal moment in the modern history of our country. Do the elected officials in Washington stand with ordinary Americans -- working families, children, the elderly, the poor -- or will the extraordinary power of billionaire campaign contributors and Big Money prevail? The American people, by the millions, must send Congress the answer to that question.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Caribbean Rum Producers Get Shafted In A Special 'Cliff' Provision

As more news about the special "fiscal cliff" deal manifests we're starting to see the first victims emerge, some of whom aren't even U.S. citizens. (We shall have to wait for the debt ceiling negotiations to see how many U.S. citizens- mainly of the middle and working classes, get screwed.) Anyway, under the headline '10 Curious Provisions in the 'Fiscal Cliff' Bill (Denver Post, p. 7A, today) one finds this at No. 2:

"Congress will levy an excise tax of $13,50 per gallon on rum imported to the United States. Most of the money is to be transferred to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to support THEIR (emphasis mine) rum industries. In 2009, this raised about $547 million"

Now this is just plain WRONG! Indeed, this is a blasted domestic rum subsidy that needs to be taken (by the non-U.S. protectorate Caribbean rum -producers) to the World Trade Organization.  Because what it does is flouts all the rules and principles of fair trade!

It is, in fact, an amped up continuation of the U.S. Government's selective application of a cover-over program which repatriates 98 percent of all rum excise duties (raised on rums sold in the U.S.) back to the producing U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the  U.S. Virgin Islands.   Estimates from 2010 put this unfair repatriation at $450 m, as reported in the Barbadian press. These offhand deals, made by the respective neo-colonial governments (of Puerto Rico and the USVI) and condoned by a whacky U.S. congress, have been struck with the likes of Bacardi and Serrales. It is galling to Caribbean governments which derive no similar special deals based on repatriating duties. (Hmmm......maybe they should! Cockspur rum is better than Bacardi anyway!)

Barbados Advocate News columnist David Jessop has pointed out, the U.S. congress has enabled the USVI and Puerto Rican development programs "to divert hundreds of millions of dollars to primarily provide a development program for the largest distilled spirits companies in the world". In Jessop's world:

"the U.S. - maybe wittingly, maybe unwittingly - is damaging one of the few competitive industries that Cariforum nations have and  which helps underpin the economic viability of small and vulnerable Caribbean states".

The issue is even more close to the hearts of Caribbean folk, since as Jessop has noted :


"Unlike the product of large, multinational distilling groups, the success of Cariforum producers does not result from artificial tax breaks, transfer pricing or subsidy. Instead it is an industry dominated by small local distillers whose product is export-oriented, brings much needed foreign exchange and adds value to primary agriculture.while providing signficant levels of tax revenues to governments struggling to deliver social programs"

Which is very true, since we know the Cariforum nations have one of the most progressive tax systems in the hemisphere, and unlike the faux democrats in the US of A, none of them would ever approve any form of unbalanced tax cuts, or any tax cuts, period.

In his piece from 7 1/2 months ago, Jessop concluded:

"This is why rum has always been a product worth fighting for as Europe knows to its cost and the U.S. is soon to discover".

Maybe now is the time to move beyond rhetoric and for the Cariforum nations to drag the big bully domestic run subsidizer to the WTO. After all, turnabout is fair play! (The U.S. dragged Caribbean banana producers in front of the WTO in 1998 for encroaching on United Fruit's profits!)

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Guest Blog: "I HATE this deal!" - Joshua Holland

Joshua Holland's pictureSo, we have a a modest deal in place to avert the contrived crisis known as the fiscal cliff. Washington is celebrating the fact that Congress averted the disaster that it created out of thin air last year.

Some say that it's not a bad deal on its merits, but we'll have to await final judgment until we see what happens with the debt ceiling, which has to be raised in the next two months. If the White House stands firm on its refusal to negotiate over the debt ceiling again, and doesn't give any more concessions, then we can look back at this deal as a pretty good one, on balance.

I suspect this will become the center-left conventional wisdom, and only dirty hippies will be bitching. So pass the patchouli, because I hate this deal.

It's simply a hostage exchange. The Republicans gave up the fiscal cliff, and will now take the debt limit, the federal budget and automatic across-the-board cuts to discretionary spending (the sequester), and have another standoff in 2-3 months time. The deal wouldn't have gotten 85 GOP votes in the House without the leadership giving right-wingers ironclad guarantees that they'll have another hostage soon.


What leverage will the White House have at that point? They've already rejected the "constitutional option" to avoid the debt ceiling -- and won't mint  a big platinum coin. The Bush tax cuts on high earners will be off the table. That leaves cuts to defense -- which Republicans hate -- and public opinion, to which the GOP doesn't seem terribly responsive when its base is screaming murder and threatening primaries (which is always). That's pretty thin gruel given that the "austerity caucus" thinks it has a good shot at cutting Social Security and Medicare as part of a "grand bargain" with Obama.

Other than that, we'll only have the Democrats' legendary iron back-bone on which to rely. Nobody's ever gotten rich betting on that.
After the bill's passage, Obama swore he wouldn't negotiate over the debt ceiling again. That's an important principle to establish for the years ahead, but it's irrelevant to the deal at hand. Because the debt ceiling needs to be renewed at about the same time that the stop-gap measure funding the government runs out and the sequester kicks in, we'll have another hostage situation very soon.

So while progressives are celebrating Grover Norquist's ugly black eye, the can has only been kicked a short way down the road. Dems will have a poorer hand to play in the months to come. If cuts to popular retirement benefits end up in the mix of a budget deal, then this deal would have paved the way for a bad outcome.


Perhaps I'll be proven a pessimist. I certainly hope so. But I don't quite get the value of evaluating this deal in a vacuum, as if a showdown over the debt ceiling or a potential government shutdown isn't all but assured.

And someday you'll be able to tell your kids that you remember a time when Congress didn't need a phony crisis to pass laws.

See also:  http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/biggest_fiscal_cliff_lessons/

Sunday, December 30, 2012

"Spending Cuts?" REPUKES Need to Make 'Em!


As noted in multiple prior blogs, despite all the palaver over the national debt, and $16 trillion deficits, it has really been the GOP, aka the Repukes, that created it over the past 11 years. The charts shown illustrate the primary contributors to the massive debt, and where we'd really be minus the "wars" (actually prolonged occupations) and Bush tax cuts. And yet, the obscene narrative promoted by Neoliberal stooges and hacks in the Beltway is that it's been "entitlements" such as Social Security that have caused the massive deficit, and debt. Not by a frickin' longshot!

Looking at the left side chart we see that (current)  debt without the tax cuts and the wars would have been about 40% of GDP.  Without the tax cuts, wars plus the 2009 stimulus the debt would've been around 37% of GDP. I have always argued that the stimulus was needed, to help us escape another Great Depression, so I don't deem that factor as useless like the other ones. (Military types might argue that the "wars"-occupations were not useless additions to the debt but my point is they ought to have been paid for by higher taxes as all other wars have. Real wars, that is!)

On Friday, I wanted to punch Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) right in the face for saying on national TV (MSNBC, Rachel Maddow show with Ezra Klein standing in) that the debt was now "160% of GDP" thereby arguing for major entitlement cuts. The truth is disclosed by the chart at the right, which shows in fact the total of all contributors to be roughly 68% of GDP at 2012 - with two of the contributors (again tax cuts and "wars") unjustified. Factoring in the stimulus, which was justified, one arrives at debt at about 42% of GDP. Add in Medicare ongoing over -expenses, and it rises to about 50% of GDP. (Over -expenses means the money Medicare must shell out over and above what the beneficiaries themselves pay for treatments, etc. Much of this arises from the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act and introduction of Medicare Advantage plans which yearly runs higher imbalances than standard Medicare.)

See also:http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/47383/deficits-were-on-purpose-to-cause-this-crisis


All of the above discloses that the hair-on fire screeching of the Repukes to cut "entitlements" is so much PR codswallop fueled by the shameless Neoliberal media and politicos. It is not entitlements - other than the misbegotten "Medicare Modernization Act" of 2003 (which essentially sought to privatize Medicare and increase premium costs on standard beneficiaries) that have contributed to the massive debt load but rather unpaid for wars and military expenditures- many of which have actually siphoned off Social Security monies to try to make deficits appear smaller.

Let's also recall here that the end-of-decade $5.6 trillion surplus forecast by the Congressional Budget Office in 2000 was more than eviscerated by the two unfunded "wars",  plus two indefensible rounds of Bush tax cuts, and the unpaid for Medicare prescription drug benefit along with the TARP bank bailout. By all standards of reason, NO tax cuts ought to have been implemented once two invasions and occupations had been planned, as we now know ad been the case even before Bush Jr. entered the WH.

Lastly, please recall that in order to accommodate those "spend and not tax" (e.g. massive credit increase) policies, Bush and his GOP allies in Congress voted seven times to raise the U.S. debt ceiling. As it turns out, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) voted for all of it. And yet now, the Repukes - dastardly vermin that they are - plan to use the debt ceiling to take the country hostage as they did last year. Refusing to raise it unless Obama and the Dems give in to them! (Which is why I say this time Obama must cease showing them any "respect", or treating them as rational equals, thus invoking the 14 th amendment to raise it on his own. Thereby for once acknowledging his Reepo opposition in the House as economic terrorists!)

Given this, it makes sense that a last ditch effort by these shameless Reep-turds to interject Social Security cuts into a late, limited "fiscal cliff" deal  (via the chained CPI)was shot down by the Dems.

At least it shows they have some cojones. As I've said before, if a terrible deal is on the table, it's better to dive over that cliff one time and let all the tax rates rise - since there's no way the Repukes would ever have willingly voted for them with Norquist holding a phoney no-tax pledge gun to their heads.

Brace yourselves people, and be ready for whatever comes next!

Friday, December 21, 2012

Boehner's Reepo Party Revealed as Rogues and Jackals

House Republican leaders yesterday evening canceled a vote on a bill aimed at partially averting the so-called fiscal cliff as it became apparent they didn’t have enough Republican votes to pass it. John Boehner in a brief speech basically admitted that his hands were tied, and given he didn't have the votes - on account of being held hostage by Tea Party Nutsos, there was no choice other than to mothball his "Plan B".

Even so, his "plan" was more bollocks and BS than substance. It ignores the wishes of 66% of the American people (in recent polls) who have demanded the richest pay their fair share in taxes and that means starting at the income level of $250k a year, not $400k as Obama and the Dems have offered.

Meanwhile, this morning, one of the cretins in his caucus - from Louisiana- bleated that he refused to support Boehner's Plan B because "there weren't enough in spending cuts"! This fool either is mentally deficient or unable to read, otherwise he'd have seen that HIS party lost the Nov. 6 election and therefore isn't in any position to make demands on spending cuts. As for Boehner's "tax rate increase" offer, it's a joke and a half! You're going to only allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making OVER $1 million! Are you NUTS! That's the top 0.5%!  And you expected the winner of the election, Barack Obama, to give up to $800 million more in spending cuts when he's already put Social Security on the table (using the device of Chained CPI to the cost of living adjustment) and Medicare.

This is totally insane, but it shows how totally deranged this party is, and as even Eugene Robinson pointed out this morning on MSNBC, likely going the way of the Whigs. (Please let it happen fast!)

As Sen. Bernie Sanders has noted,  Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus, can pay all benefits owed to all eligible Americans for the next 21 years and, because it is funded independently, has not contributed one penny to the deficit. Not one! So why is it even on the table? Because Obama's advisors told him it could be used as leverage with the public opinion gate keepers to show HE was serious in any bargaining with Boehner. It would show people that he would even go so far as to put liberal "sacred cows" out there to toss the Reepos as bones, just to show the lengths Obama was willing to go to escape the "fiscal cliff". The cost, of course, is that his approval ratings are already going down (latest to 49% from 52%) as many progressives are livid at this latest concession, especially after he made "iron clad" promises before the election win to keep the $250k/yr level as the minimum tax cut threshold and not to cede Social Security and Medicare as part of any "bargains".

 Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders agrees with AARP, the National Coalition to Preserve Social Security and Medicare,  and virtually all seniors’ organizations that Social Security should not be part of any deficit reduction negotiations. From its original mention, Sen. Sanders has opposed the so-called chained CPI, which would lower benefits for the typical Social Security recipient who retires at age 65 by $653 a year at age 75 and by $1,139 a year at age 85.

Further, Sen. Sanders like all right thinking and genuine liberals, has made it abundantly clear he will vigorously oppose Republicans and President Obama and anyone else who wants to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the infirm or disabled. This is NOT what a decent, respectable nation does, only what a vile, scoundrel nation does -  the one that the Reepos and their Tea Party Terrorists seem to want (especially as they have also inveighed against plans or initiative to deal with control of automatic weapons). The Reeps have, for six years, not even permitted a true Chief of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the branch of government that regulates weapons.  As I said, terrorists!

The fact that so many in Boehner's House caucus showed they wouldn't even accept a deal that left taxes unchanged for all but the top 0.5%, while demanding even more spending cuts from the WINNER of the election shows they aren't serious, and indeed, are likely a pack of deranged jackals or "rabid ferrets" as columnist Gail Collins referred to them today.

If nothing else, it also shows Obama that the only way to deal with these rogues is NOT to deal! If they will not voluntarily raise the tax rates on the richest, then there is NO choice - we must JUMP over that fucking fiscal cliff. Once and for all! By simply not doing anything all the tax rates will increase automatically and as Gail Collins pointed out, we will automatically get a $ 4 trillion deal good for ten years. Enough to keep the entitlement -cutting  Neoliberal scolds and wolves off our backs, for a relatively small bit of sacrifice.

Now step up there boldly, don't look back, do not whimper or cry....just JUMP!

See also:  http://www.salon.com/2012/12/21/john_boehner_failure/

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

NO! To Any Cuts in Social Benefits as Part of Any ”Fiscal Cliff” Deal

As time goes on and the pundits and politicos understand that a deal must be reached well before Dec. 21 in order to avoid the dreaded (and much hyped)  “fiscal cliff”, we are likely seeing the stage set for yet another pusillanimous copout by the Dems. These are the same ones that – last I checked- won the Nov. 6th election. So why the hell are they ready now to capitulate once again to the Reptiles, now that the latter have declared they will use the debt ceiling gimmick to again hold this country hostage.

Recall last time the 'pukes pulled this BS, last year, Obama punted and gave the bastards $1.6 trillion in cuts – thereby reinforcing the pattern for the next hostage taking by these REEP TERRORISTS. Instead of being ballsy, and invoking the 14th amendment to head off the deranged reepos, Obama gave in. If it had been JFK, I guaran-damn-tee you the 14th would have been used to increase the debt ceiling without congress- and devil take the hindmost. JFK wouldn’t have tolerated this nonsense!


Before anyone flips out at this, let us understand the debt ceiling approval is NOT some magic vote to increase spending limits – analogous to a credit card company raising a person’s credit card limit. No, it is a pro forma agreement to pay money already spent! Since the President is afforded the power to ensure ALL debts are paid (under the 14th, Secs. 4,5) then it behooves him to use it if his opposition threatens default and destruction of the nation’s credit rating. It’s as simple as that. Adopt the attitude of the 'pukes and shout  "BRING IT ON!" instead of running from the fight!


But to cave in and leave out the 14th each time the Reepos pull this shit, because you want to avoid confrontation, is to betray wimp-hood and your base – who helped pour its heart and soul into ensuring your 2nd term.


Here’s my beef: According to people (such as WaPo’s Ezra Klein) in the know and with ears much closer to the ground than mine, the White House is seeking a “grand deal” to avoid the cliff and also incorporate the debt ceiling as part of it – effectively removing it as leverage for the Reeps in the near future. This alleged “grand deal” – get this – would raise the tax rates by barely 2 percent (to 37%) on the richest 2% in exchange for raising the Medicare eligible age to 67 and for substituting the “chained CPI” as a new COLA for Social Security.


This is NUTSO! What did we go to bat for Obama for only to get ambushed like this? As Joan Walsh said yesterday morning on ‘The Cycle’ – she cannot believe Obama would even passingly entertain such a cruel idea in his head. Meanwhile, David Cay Johnston was even more blunt on the Ed Schulz show: “It’s not just wrong,  it’s evil. We should be LOWERING the Medicare eligible age to 55, not raising it!”


Bernie Sanders (Socialist, VT) quoted in the WSJ (p. A4) day before yesterday said:

“The proposal to use a different inflation measure (for Social Security CPI) is a very devious and underhanded way to continue the class warfare being waged against the middle class and working families”.


He was equally blunt about the proposal to raise the Medicare age, which some looney tune “liberals” actually seem to believe might be a good idea because of “Obamacare” taking care of those oldsters caught out. Those liberals want their butts kicked. Or maybe their brains re-adjusted! And that includes any in Obama’s cabinet and among his advisers.


The fact is Obamacare, i.e. the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will be no use to any 65-67 yr. old senior in a state which forgoes exchanges, or nullifies the law altogether. In such states, all the seniors in that open age group will be screwed, or at the mercy of private insurers – who will either gouge them senseless or ignore them totally, say if they have pre-existing conditions, like my prostate cancer.


It is better, MUCH better, to go OVER this fiscal cliff than to cop to a bad deal such as the one Obama’s administration seems to be considering. As for the debt ceiling, Obama – if he has the balls – can stop that one time by using the 14th amendment and staring the Reeps down. Constitutional crisis? Bring it on! Let’s have this showdown face off once and for all.


To Obama: We got you elected, now we expect you to FIGHT and not back down! Please do not take "advice" from wimpish Demo wussies in your inner circle,  and instead make your own decision on this one, understanding that each time you toss "a bone" to the 'pukes they will use it against you next time.

There's an easy solution to them always grabbing the debt ceiling for "leverage": take it away from them, not by capitulation but via executive FORCE, and the 14th amendment. Do NOT "take it off the table"!

Friday, November 30, 2012

Is Obama Starting to Get Weak-Kneed over the 'Fiscal Cliff'?

Today's three- inch blaring headlines in The Denver Post embodied the media hysteria behind the fiscal cliff bunkum:

IF WE GO OVER THE CLIFF…..


The article then proceeds to expatiate on all the perceived and projected major and minor disasters that may be expected to transpire, from defense contractors losing their money and jobs lost (no biggie - you need to find jobs that don't depend on war-making and weaponry - like $0.3 billion each F-35s that are of little use in asymmetric warfare anyhow),  to middle class folks having to suck up $2200 and more in extra taxes.  Again, no biggie - assuming you want your "entitlements" intact down the road. I.e. take the hit now, or take it when you're a geezer- via eviscerated benefits -  and no one will hire you. You can't have your 'cake' (tax cuts) and 'eat it' (future benefits). Look on higher taxes as a "gift" or at least practical device to support your future retirement, something like a 401k outlay!

In respect of the last, The New York Times today had a feature story wherein we learned that, contrary to all the hype, blather and mock consternation, that Americans have paid less in taxes than a generation ago. According to The Times, after quoting a sorehead who expressed the conviction that he wasn't getting ahead and merely "financing an expansion of government":

"“But in fact, most Americans in 2010 paid far less in total taxes — federal, state and local — than they would have paid 30 years ago. According to an analysis by The New York Times, the combination of all income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes took a smaller share of their income than it took from households with the same inflation-adjusted income in 1980.


Households earning more than $200,000 benefited from the largest percentage declines in total taxation as a share of income. Middle-income households benefited, too. More than 85 percent of households with earnings above $25,000 paid less in total taxes than comparable households in 1980. "


The Times notes that if a deal is not struck by year’s end, "a wide range of federal tax cuts passed since 2000 will expire and taxes will rise for roughly 90 percent of Americans".  But as I noted before, THIS is what the average classes must not fear - indeed, they must embrace the fiscal cliff, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/fear-not-fiscal-cliff-embrace-it.html    The true fact, is that it's the Romney-backing plutocrats - the very ones who lost the election and now want to prevail by the back door-  who are terrified - because their free lunch Bush era tax cuts will finally end.

What this means to me, as an old class warrior,  is that WE - among the putative 98%- must take this temporary fiscal pain on in order to let the plutocrats PAY....their fair share in perpetuity. We cannot and must not allow ourselves to be used as willing pawns to trade fleeting protection from current minor tax increases for major sacrifice of future social benefits, especially Medicare (without which I'd have been dead or in the poor house now) .

We must face the fact, harsh though it might be, that the Repukes will never EVER of their own agree to the minor hike in tax rates that Obama and the Dems have proposed (merely going back to the Clinton era rates.)  We see this intransigence played out day after day, with ever more diminishing "optimism" - according to the blow dried. Newsflash: I NEVER had any such faux optimism anyway because I knew that despite all the early back slapping between Obama and Boehner that he'd never agree to a real tax rate hike. Only the phoney -baloney nonsense of closing loopholes and deductions, and then - with no enforcement provisions. And in return for which, WE - the side that won- would be expected to undergo major entitlement reform!

Fortunately, many ordinary citizens do get it, such as a commentator in the New York Times, following the tax article, who wrote:

"The idea that you trade-off Social Security and Medicare to get a small tax increase on the wealthy and super wealthy should be treated as a sick joke. Here's the problem, however: somewhere in the bowels of right wing sponsored "think tanks", it was discovered that you can make any demand, repeat it endlessly and sooner or later it gets treated as a reasonable idea. Why? Because the Democrats went intellectually bankrupt several decades ago. They lost their way, forgot their purpose and failed to articulate an updated version of why they exist. Into this vacuum, spurious ideas fly like the 50,000 bats out from underneath the Congress.

One basic tenet of American fairness should be better pay for all workers. "Because you, plutocrats, don't pay the workers for their contribution, we, Democrats, insist that you not touch Social Security. Got it?".
-  St. bridge in Austin.

 These are sentiments I share 100% but now many begin to wonder if Obama does, or if he's starting to crack under the media fiscal cliff hysteria. Many are saying "It's deja vu all over again". According to the Wall Street Journal (which got the information from GOP leaders), the President’s opening bid to Republicans is:


— $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenues over the next decade, from limiting tax deductions on the wealthy and raising tax rates on incomes over $250,000 (although those rates don’t have to rise as high as the top marginal rates under Bill Clinton)

— $50 billion in added economic stimulus next year

— A one-year postponement of pending spending cuts in defense and domestic programs

— $400 billion in savings over the decade from Medicare and other entitlement programs (the same number contained in the President’s 2013 budget proposal, submitted before the election).

Here's where the bear sits with the buckwheat:  The Obama administration, by signaling its willingness not to raise top rates as high as they were under Clinton  (which was not that much anyway - 39.6%) and to cut some $400 billion from projected increases in Medicare and other entitlement spending,  has ceded important ground. In fact, instead of hanging tough it's sent up the first hint of a white flag of surrender - or at least it's been interpreted by the Repukes that way, which is why they're more dug in than ever! (And as Richard Wolfe noted on Ed Schultz last night, those Medicare cuts WILL inflict pain and on ordinary beneficiaries. It means greater costs will be passed on by insurers, and fewer conditions will be covered)

Given this hint of white flag, Republicans now obviously want much, much more.

Most of us on the extreme Left  (which was moderate-Left  45 years ago) were afraid of Obama getting weak-kneed as the media pressure continued. We saw how he collapsed with the debt ceiling war last year and it left us sick to our guts. But we believed in him enough to get him re-elected hoping a solid win would introduce much needed testosterone into his system and turn him into a true class warrior, a fighter, as opposed to a squeamish Centrist wimp. We do hope that he concedes no more to the Reep imps and stands his ground. Elections do have consequences, besides which 60% of citizens in a recent poll want taxes increased on the highest earners, vs. 37% who don't. Meanwhile, only 44% approve of the Reeps phoney revenue increases by closing off deductions, loopholes. So why go the route of offending the majority? Let the 'pukes do that!

Let me quote Paul Krugman from his piece in today's NY Times:

"The point is that the class war is still on, this time with an added dose of deception. And this, in turn, means that you need to look very closely at any proposals coming from the usual suspects, even — or rather especially — if the proposal is being represented as a bipartisan, common-sense solution. In particular, whenever some deficit-scold group talks about “shared sacrifice,” you need to ask, sacrifice relative to what? "


I totally agree, and do hope most readers do as well. Meanwhile, Obama needs to understand we didn't go "all in" with him just to see him cave once more to the Repuke turds! Those of us who were "all in" during the election, are now ALL IN again for the class war and going OVER the fiscal cliff if the Reeps don't come to their senses. We'd rather THAT than a bad, half-assed deal not in the interest of the middle class, or the working class!

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Yes! The Repubs' 'Fiscal Cliff' Position is Based on the Pareto!

"Assume a collectivity made up of a wolf and a sheep. The happiness of the wolf consists in eating the sheep, that of the sheep in not being eaten. How is this collectivity to be made happy?"
- Vilfredo Pareto


I've been asked repeatedly lately what over-arching paradigm might underpin the Republican position in regards to the dealing over the "fiscal cliff". To bring readers up to speed (especially after the DOW dumped nearly 90 points yesterday) let me summarize:
The Repukes have proclaimed that they are still interested in "raising revenues" as part of a "Grand Bargain". After teasing Obama with the possibility of real increases in tax RATES - as opposed to closing ambiguous loopholes, the Reeps are now dug in and maintain that "revenues would be raised through later tax reform" - and this, btw, is with NO 'trigger' in place to enforce it. And in return for that vague, ambiguous promise of fiscal rectitude they demand:

- The upcoming defense sequestration be cancelled, i.e. no cuts for the Big D

- The age for Medicare eligibility increase to 67, or 68

- And changes be made to Social Security, namely by way of re-calculating its benefits via a lower COLA - to cut them.

Are they fuckin' nuts? Or haven't they seen the results of the just finished election? Do they not see they were the LOSERS? So how can they insinuate that THEIR plans to carve out social insurance benefits are the ones the voters chose?

As a separate issue, these fuckers want to address the debt ceiling issue separately, or translation: they want to have the power - as they did last year- to send this country hurtling over a REAL cliff of default! This time, however, Obama appears to possess the stones to not let these knuckle-dragging morons roll him in a back alley - like he did last year. Sometimes it takes time for Dems to grow a spine, what can I say?

Okay, now where does this come from? Some may say partly from adhering to Grover Norquist's no tax increase "pledge" and they may be right. But a more fundamental basis is to impose the Pareto Distribution of resources across the land. To refresh readers' minds, Vilfredo Pareto is the one who basically put forward the Pareto distribution, and also the form of economic efficiency known as Pareto efficiency.

The basic insights may be derived from the Cumulative form of the Pareto distribution which is shown in the graphic. Basically, we are graphing "utils" or nominal units of "utility" on the vertical axis, vs. value of dollars used or consumed along the horizontal. The curves are displayed for two populations, one "rich" (say earning in the top 1% or $340,000/yr.) and the other "poor" (earning about $14,000/yr.). The key aspect to note is the width corresponding to the "delta x" portion of the gradient (delta U over delta x) which translates into the net dollar's worth for each population. As readers can see from inspection, the width of $1 for the rich is significantly longer than the one for the poor. This translates into the argument that the buck is worth more to the rich man, and hence, any transfer from the rich to the poor hurts the rich more than it helps the poor (especially as the 'utils' for the poor man is also rather smaller by comparison).


Thus, by Pareto's original example (in quotes): Allowing the wolf in the wolf-sheep collective to EAT the sheep expresses less overall "hurt" or pain on it than permitting the sheep to remain unscathed, thereby merrily prancing away eating its grass while the poor wolf starves. Of course, let me hasten to add here, that nowhere is Pareto's original quote on the wolf-sheep combo given in any standard university economics texts. God forbid any students draw the wrong conclusion and infer that modern economics is consigning the poor to be sheep for the rich wolves. But, as a matter of fact, that's fairly close to the truth!

To sum things up in a crude nutshell: Applying the Pareto model for efficiency ensures that money will be circulated and spent by the highest quality producers and generators. This was subsequently imbibed by Arch Capitalist Milton Friedman of the "Chicago School" of economics as Naomi Klein notes in her book, The Shock Doctrine. As she notes (p. 68), Friedman asserted (in his book  ‘Capitalism and Freedom’ ) that "everything went wrong with the New Deal".

To Friedman all government social protections that were unearned, either from speculation in the markets or protracted hard work, had to be negated. Also, any gov't based medical programs like Medicare needed to be outsourced to corporations or the private sector. No one could have any "handouts" ...whatsoever, and oh, by the way, the minimum wage had to be abolished as well! (Workers could then individually compete for the best wages based on innate talents) As Klein further noted (p. 70): Friedman's tracts "though cloaked in the language of math and science" were in fact being passed on from multinationals and corporate interests with a lot at stake. Hello, serfs, meet the new Overlords!

Social Security payments? They pour more money into the economy, but not via real time productive labor or market indices, returns. People receive their checks merely by existing and breathing day to day, and having paid into the system with FICA deductions. Even then, they receive far more in benefits than actually paid in, making a total mess of "utils" earned. In a way, the Social security recipient (in the eyes of this Pareto-riguer bunch) are like the rent subsidized couple with their "consumer surplus". Worse, the S.S. COLAs increase the non-productive payments each year, one reason why – back in 1997 –  Alan Greenspan demanded an artificially much lower COLA increase than had originally been proposed.


No surprise that this COLA is exactly what the Reeps are proposing now. It is also fueled by propaganda put out by assheads and morons like Lloyd Blankfein, who on CSB news recently made the remark we "can't afford people living off of entitlements for 30 plus years." This slimey bankster rat lied and fortunately Ed Schultz corrected the slimeball on a subsequent show, noting the average American worker lives roughly 16.3 years depending on Social Security!  This during a period when medical costs are likely to explode, as well as the likelihood of being in a nursing home.

So what alternative does the Pareto Distribution demand and which Repukes are secretly pushing? Easy! Removing the money allotted from Social Security will force oldsters to gamble in a risky stock market casino in which we now know flash trading and fractional stock taking dominates (subject of a future blog) and the little guy suffers. Even as Boehner and McConnell wheel and deal, Maul Street's unscrupulous money managers salivate like Pavlovian dogs over reaping major rewards for themselves via deceptive fees. With a growing population of elderly Americans afflicted by Alzheimer’s, the fine-print artists peddling deceptive retirement products will have a field day. THIS is what the Reeps are bargaining for!

Make no mistake here that though the well-funded campaign to partly privatize Social Security under George W. Bush (in 2005)  failed, the same forces are at it again using the "fiscal cliff" BS as a leverage point. Now, they want to achieve the same result indirectly, by getting Obama and enough conservative Democrats in Congress (kowns as DINOS) , along with the GOP, to cut Social Security. Their manifest objective is to comply with every Fed Chairman's wet dream and compel Americans to try to make up the losses in public benefits by gambling more with their savings in mutual funds ( from which hefty profits will be skimmed by overpaid money managers.)  Wall Street will then become even richer than it now is relative to Main Street, as the Pareto Pirates gloat.

This we cannot allow! Every sensate being in the nation needs to keep on his reps' butts and make sure they do the right thing. If you have a weakling or wavering wimp, be sure to tell it like it is and assert that (far from cutting anything) we need to expand the stable, efficient, low-overhead public part of America’s retirement security system — Social Security. 

Meanwhile, we pare back on the risky alternatives like 401ks wherein workers must fend for themselves. (The other alternative is to provide a government "match" - for every dollar saved, i.e. in a money market or fixed income fund,  and not lost in a 401k via speculating).

Meanwhile, any reinforcements or added steps we do have to make to Social Security and Medicare, to ensure their integrity,  can be made independently next year. This would be after the fiscal cliff hysteria has passed and the Reepos can no longer exploit it for their own ends. Let us not be held hostage to the Reeps' alleged guns now, as we were last year with their disreputable debt ceiling brinksmanship!

One last point: I disagree with Obama barnstorming around the country and asking the Middle class to complain to reps about losing up to $2200 a year or more if the fiscal cliff is hit without Repups cooperating. To me this plays into the Reeps' hands and uses unnecessary scare-mongering. Hence, I agree with Robert Reich's take in salon.com today:

"So rather than stoking middle-class fears about this, the White House ought to be doing the opposite – reassuring most Americans they can survive the fall. In fact, to use his trump card effectively, Obama needs to convince Republicans that the middle class is willing to jump over the cliff."

Indeed, and for my money, the fact Americans could afford to splurge to the tune of some $55 BILLION on 'Black Friday' and "Cyber Monday" shows me they have disposable income to survive the "fall". In addition, the scare mongering sets liberals nerves on edge because it implies Obama & Co. might teeter over if the standoff is protracted. Keep the stiff upper lip, Mr. Prez. And understand that if going over this "cliff" is what we must do to finally get actual tax rate hikes on the rich, they we do it. And we LOVE doing it! Why? Because it'll make the Repukes (and that turd Grover Norquist) puke!







Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Obama Must Not Make Nice with This Rat-Faced Cheeseater!

After Obama's press conference today, I am more than ever convinced he must adopt a warrior mentality to go to combat with the 'pukes. Nicey, bipartisan ain't gonna cut it. After McCain and Lindsey Graham spit on the potential nomination of Susan Rice at State, he needs to admit these bastards aren't worth dog shit - and as far as making any "deals" - grand bargains or other, fuck 'em!

The latest incident which shows these ungrateful turds for what they are is Mitt Romney, aka Willard 'The Ratface' Mitt', attributing his election loss to “gifts” President Barack Obama gave to important constituencies like young and African American voters. This is what The Los Angeles Times   reported

According to The Times:

"Obama, Romney argued, had been “very generous” to blacks, Hispanics and young voters. He cited as motivating factors to young voters the administration’s plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest and the extension of health coverage for students on their parents’ insurance plans well into their 20s. Free contraception coverage under Obama’s healthcare plan, he added, gave an extra incentive to college-aged women to back the president."


This is an extension of the insidious load of rot Bill O'Reilly has been recycling about Obama voters just wanting 'stuff". This was in conjunction with a whacko rant about the need to go back to "Traditional America". You know the one, where white business men assholes ruled the roost and everyone danced to their tune, and where white bigots held sway.. O'Reilly made a list of current bitches about Obama voters, including - get this: they "don't go to church every Sunday". Hey, fuck you, O'Really - we don't need your dumb shit churches or preachy, hypocritical religions to inform us about reality. We KNOW reality!

Obama needs to stop placating these imps, including via calls to meet with Mitt Romney to discuss anything. The only useful discussion with the Mittster, after he ungraciously lost, would be the best way to deliver a high colonic - through the fucker's mouth or his arse. Other than that, Obama needs to make no more appeals, directly or indirectly.   As it is, the Left base has its eye on Obama's every move, and is still distrustful they won't eventually be screwed by a Grand "Bargain" that is weighted in terms of 3:1 cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as opposed to making the high -end wealthy pay 3: 1 in revenues, over spending cuts. To see more about what I'm referring to, go to:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html  

Any bland appeals to sit down with the rat-faced Mittster makes Lefties' skin crawl, especially after this latest incident. Besides, it detracts from the warrior mentality Obama will need if he is truly to fight for the middle class against the deficit turds trying to exploit the "fiscal cliff" to swipe our hard-earned benefits!

Drop the nice guy bit, Mr. Prez. We want to see you come out continuously like a Rotweiller - evoking the way you handled the question on how Fuckface John McCain and asshole Lindsey Graham treated Susan Rice today. THAT is the guy we want to see 24/7!

Monday, November 12, 2012

Fear NOT the 'Fiscal Cliff'': Embrace It!


Ben Bernanke: Left, coined the term ‘Fiscal cliff’ in order to try to strike terror into the hearts of citizens and politicos alike, the better to support his speculator –Wall Street culture.

“Let's establish that no one in Washington actually cares about balancing the budget. If they did, they would love this so-called Fiscal Cliff. It raises taxes and cuts spending, so it would massively reduce the deficit. Isn't that what all of Washington has been pretending to care about all of this time?”- Cenk Uygur, smirkingchimp.com blog (11/13)

“the “fiscal cliff” is another classic example of what Naomi Klein called “Disaster Capitalism.” Create a panic, and then profit from it. For example, Wall Street is helping fund groups like the Third Way that are pushing hard for us to give our Social Security Trust Fund – which has over two and a half trillion dollars in it – to Goldman Sachs and Citibank so they can take care of it for us. Doesn’t that make you feel all safe, and warm-and-fuzzy?”  – Thom Hartmann, www.smirkingchimp.com, (11/15)


It's been known from time immemorial that corrupted use of language, to create lingual "mind fucks", is one of the best ways to control and master a placid, passive population. After all, George Orwell exposed the basic template in his novel '1984' -showing how normative interpretations of language were transformed into degeneracies via "Newsspeak" - thus 'war' became 'peace', and 'hate' became 'love' and so on. Fast forward to the modern era and the same has been occurring but perhaps with more subliminal language approaches: after all as one wit once put it, if you don't KNOW you're being mind-fucked, how can you combat it? You have to be able to possess the critical thinking skills to rip the debased language to shreds and expose it to others.

Thus, for example, we have already seen the use  (mainly by the warmongering Bushies) of  'the war on terror' when one cannot possibly make war on a MODE of war. One can only make war on another nation state. But never mind: the ruse worked so well that it mindfucked  (and scared) enough citizens into willingly going along with an invasion of a sovereign nation (Iraq) that had nada to do with 9/11, even as it made al Qaeda and its robed band of lunatics the equivalent of the USSR during the Cold War. No one stopped to consider that if trillions were spent on this "war" it made the opponents the equivalent of a superpower! Neither did anyone stop to ponder, in the rush to full war and more invasions, that Osama bin Laden's main plan was never simply to kill Americans - but to bait the warmongering screwballs into running up the deficits and spending this country into bankruptcy - while basic needs like infrastructure went unmet.

So now, 11 years later, something like $3.8 trillion has been pissed away via the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and much more will be added to that as veterans' future needs have to be met, both physical and psychological. Meanwhile, to indicate the magnitude of the mindfuck perpetrated by the Bushies, citizens were advised in this time of alleged "war" to go out shopping, oh and look forward to your yearly TAX CUTS! When those of us with sober and rational intellects kept telling anyone who'd listen that a REAL WAR or "wartime" would require INCREASED taxes, not tax cuts!  But few processed it.

So now, 11 years after the initial Bush tax cuts, they are still alive and continuing to cause fiscal mayhem, to the tune of nearly $3.2 trillion, including interest.

Add together the fiscal effects of the "wars" plus the tax cuts, and you get: $3.8 trillion + $3.2 trillion = $7 trillion. In other words, almost HALF of our current deficit of $16 trillion. Note also, please, that Social Security has not contributed to this deficit, but in fact been used to disguise a LOT of it! See e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/08/of-fiscal-clifs-false-narratives-and.html.  The effect has been to already have plundered nearly $1.73 trillion from Social Security, and now - using the ruse of a "fiscal cliff' - they want to CUT its benefits! Probably using a deformed cost of living adjustment known as the "chained CPI".

Consider that the "fiscal cliff" was invented by Ben Bernanke, who as Fed Chairman must first and foremost attend to the demands of the speculator class. Like the 'war on terror' it is designed to seed hysteria and a panic response, which also by definition means an unthinking reaction. Like the "war on terror" which isn't at all about real war, the "fiscal cliff" isn't at all about any genuine fiscal cliff - but a political doom and gloom Mcguffin.  People have a hard time accepting this temperate view because - hey! - the stock market keeps plummeting, and LOOK! The headlines are blaring it all over and the politicos are hand wringing.

But don't buy it, not for one second. Try to grab a cold one, sit down, chill out and put on your thinking cap. Get your higher cortical centers engaged, as opposed to allowing your reptilian brain (reticular formation) and amygdala, to run amuck.

To give you a perspective here, allowing all the high end Bush tax cuts to expire would amount to a barely noticeable 0.003% contraction of the U.S. economy according to Moody’s, and it would raise tens of billions of dollars in desperately-needed tax revenue next year. That’s no small thing when you consider that federal revenue has fallen to its lowest point in more than half a century. Ending these tax cuts for the wealthy would bring in cash to reduce deficits or increase funding for cash-starved priorities like higher education.

Now, if all the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire (as they really ought to be, if Middle class folks wish to see future Social Security-Medicare benefits later) the contraction would be barely 0.01% - certainly higher but still tolerable. Meanwhile, the paydown on the national deficit would be roughly $3.7 trillion over 10 years, or nearly equal to the 'Grand Bargain' $4 trillion deal Obama's seeking with the Reeps, but will likely never come close in terms of revenues. And most importantly, unlike the so-called "Grand Bargain" no future cuts to Social Security and Medicare will have to be played, only people having to live on a bit less in terms of net income. What would you rather:  THAT,  or cat food and kibbles in your elder years coupled with higher medical expenses and limited access to care?

The most noteable immediate effect of the lessened income, would mean pulling back on indiscriminate consumption, which - btw, has been ramping up with the savings rate diving again. It is the savings rate which adds quality to our nation's fiscal health, as it benefits far more people than millions wantonly spending on crap they don't need. (See, e.g. 'The Indebted Society', the chapter 'Let Them Eat Cake')

As for the apocalyptic dive in growth as forecast by the CBO, I don't buy it. Not for one nanosecond. I do not buy that there'll be 2%-4%  or more retrenchment, or that a 9.1% unemployment rate will greet us at the end of next year. That is only fanning the hysteria. Let's also grasp that the GDP itself is a very imperfect economic indicator.

Univ. of Maryland Economics Professor Hermann Daly addressed the American "GDP" idiom in a lecture he delivered, in April, 1999. This was at Trinity College in Ireland, where his topic was "Uneconomic Growth: in Theory and in Fact". Focusing on the U.S., he laid out the work of Nordhaus and Tobin which seemed to suggest that as long ago as the late 1960’s the welfare costs of growth had exceeded the marginal benefit. He also proposed that the use GDP as a measure of welfare was not efficient and so suggested the use of the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW).

Daly criticized the fact that when it comes to "counting all the beans in the United States the only cookbook that matters is the Gross Domestic Product or GDP". If the Gross Domestic Product is going up, people say the economy is growing. And if the GDP is falling, they say we're in a recession. Daly showed if the ISEW measure is used instead, most forecast recessions vanish. The GDP is supposed to measure the total production and consumption of goods and services in the United States. But the numbers that make up the Gross Domestic Product by and large only capture the monetary transactions we can put a dollar value on. Almost everything else is left out. And that's why some economists have a problem with this influential accounting system.

Ignoring these "externalities" leads us into a fool's paradise where we come to believe things are much better than the GDP numbers show. For example:

We look at utility bills, but don't recognize that unlisted in them is the damage to our water, forests, air etc. Those externalities again. How much of a cost to put on forests (which absorb CO2), or clean air? Who knows, but some guestimate is needed.

We look at nursing homes and the number there, and those paid to care for them. But we blithely ignore the more than 33 million people that are cared for by their own families, without remuneration! Many of these people - caregivers rely on gov't benefits which, if cut - say as appeasement to repukes for trimming a few tax loopholes, they can no longer do the job and shift the responsibility to government.

We behold productivity increasing but don't realize that has nada to do with work, or labor - but rather corporations reducing their costs (increasing "efficiency") by moving jobs to cheaper places offshore, like Bangalore.

We focus on tax cuts at the "supply side" but forget that there has never been any proof that tax cuts cause job growth. (See, 'The Tyranny of Bad Ideas') And even if they did, the degenerate effects are ignored - e.g. continued collapse of the infrastructure because no tax dollars are going to maintain it.

We fret also about the mythical jobs lost if those tax cuts aren't extended, but seem to forget or dismiss that corporations are still sitting on more than $1.8 trillion in cash, which - if infused into the economy - would instantly surpass the lost growth that the fiscal cliff hysterics project.

We also forget, as we are mesmerized by the DOW, that our infrastructural capital is of real value, not merely paper or virtual value. When all our water mains have burst, along with the sewer lines, and bridges -roads collapse, will the public works effort finally get onto the GDP radar? Doubtful!

All of these factors can skew the GDP to artificially higher values, once ignored. And conversely, can project much lower values of real growth if over-emphasized while externalities are cloaked.


Prof. Daly noted that the concept of the GDP was developed to help steer the US economy out of the Great Depression, and through World War Two. It was for another time and place, and is no longer relevant to this time and place. It needs to be dunned and ditched in favor of the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare.

To summarize, GDP is an inadequate barometer because of a number of fundamental problems: we don't measure unpaid work or services that may benefit society, we treat expenses as income, and we often fail to value natural resources.

Lastly, as all the nervous nellies in the media wet themselves over the sequester and the coming "Pentagon cuts" they also need to take a deep breath and understand these are not absolute cuts at all. but merely slight decelerations in the RATES of growth! There is a vast difference there, and this is what our fellow citizens need to process. See also: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/07/muricans-need-to-wake-up-about-military.html

Further, while the 'bought and paid' for Office of Management and Budget can soon be expected to recycle the baloney that the military budget is "small relatively as a percentage of GDP", the true fact is that it has more than doubled since 2000, from 2.4 % of GDP to nearly 4.9%. This uptick in GDP percent (which translates to twice the rate in terms of ISEW, owing to lost finite resources for weaponry)   led former Pentagon Analyst Chuck Spinney (the same person who exposed the unaccounted for $1.2 trillion) to remark that the increase was nothing less than "a war on domestic programs, including Social Security and Medicare".  

Understand then that the fiscal "cliff" is all about political manipulation by the Neoliberal Elites and nothing to do with reality. It is a political "mind fuck" pure and simple. Do not let yourselves be mind-fucked or bamboozled by the inevitable fear talk, Wall Street spin and doom and gloom likely to ramp up in weeks leading to the "cliff date" of Jan. 1. Further, President Obama and the Dems must not let themselves be turned into weak wussies again, but dare the pukes to go over the cliff.

To quote Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman:

"the president is in a far stronger position than in previous confrontations. I don’t place much stock in talk of “mandates,” but Mr. Obama did win re-election with a populist campaign, so he can plausibly claim that Republicans are defying the will of the American people. And he just won his big election and is, therefore, far better placed than before to weather any political blowback from economic troubles — especially when it would be so obvious that these troubles were being deliberately inflicted by the G.O.P. in a last-ditch attempt to defend the privileges of the 1 percent".

I couldn't have stated it better!

Lastly, and most importantly, the recent special TIME election issue article ('A Subtle Message Abnout Things to Come May', p.46, Nov. 19) is totally mistaken when the authors claim about Obama:

"The signature accomplishment of his second term, if he can pull it off, will not be an expansion of entitlements but a reduction of them."


In fact, such an unwise move in view of the capital his voters have invested, would mark the end of the line for the Democratic brand, which will then be irreparably damaged. The authors of the piece, obviously Neo-liberal elites, fail to grasp - or prefer not to - that the solution to "entitlements" is not cutting them, but making simple basic changes, such as increasing the payroll taxes threshold beyond the current level, to at encompass at least $1 million income, and increasing Medicare's share of the FICA contributions to the same 6.2% as Social security. Oh wait,....but that would mean raising taxes on the rich! We can't do that now, can we? Better to have oldsters sitting in their apartments eating cat food and with no heat, than for millionaires and billionaries to make do with one less 200' Yacht.









Thursday, November 8, 2012

Elections HAVE Consequences: Time to Bring Repukes to Heel!





“So, let's get this straight: A Republican President is reelected in 2004 with 284 electoral votes and the pundits say he has the "political capital" to push an extreme right-wing mandate. A Democratic President gets reelected in 2012 with 303 electoral votes, and they're telling us he needs to "unite a divided country."


Nonsense.This election was a clear and unequivocal victory for the populist positions the president took on the campaign trail”. – Richard Eskow, www.Smirkingchimp.com blog
------

Listening to newly re-elected Prez Barack Obama a couple nights ago, one could forgive him for flighty, over-generous, fantasy rhetoric in the wake of his resounding electoral victory – which now lo0ks like it will conform with Nate Silver’s forecast of 332 electoral votes to 206 for Mittens. That is why we need to take with a grain of salt his oratory about “working with Mitt Romney” or any of the other Gooper Fiends who, if they’d won would have had THEIR way and all of us eating out of bird feeders and dumpsters. So, let’s drop the bipartisan bull shit one time. Those fuckers would not give one nanoscale crumb to us had they achieved the same result, and we owe them nothing!

While the rarefied rhetoric can be accepted – temporarily – it must not be the basis of any policy decisions, and certainly not in any pandering to the ‘pukes for any “Grand Bargain” of the odious form floated two years ago. With the Reptiles yielding maybe one fourth in revenues, with the other THREE-fourths in egregious spending cuts – including to Medicare and Social Security, i.e. the “entitlements” the ‘pukes have had a boner to cut since the year dot.

Boehner’s plea yesterday for “fiscal cliff compromise” based on yielding a wee bit of revenue in the form of closing some tax loopholes must therefore be spat upon, with large globs and laughed at – howler style. People in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere didn’t stand in line for eight hours – sometimes barely making it to the ballot casting – for the sake of bald appeasement and give away to these ass- suckers. No –they stood in those lines, wherever the lines were – despite the Repuke efforts to suppress votes- because they believed Obama’s campaign speeches were based on genuine populism - not cynical political manipulation which in the end would sacrifice the very self-interest the 60 odd million Obama supporters cast ballots for!

This is why – especially after the nasty lessons of the debt ceiling crisis of 2010, Obama must not give ONE inch to these turds! Let them sink or swim, or suck shit. That’s putting it as nicely as I can. (And, oh btw, I’m in a good mood today after seeing a hilarious video on one idiot Wingnut blogger’s website – which compensated for having to get dental work done!)

Let’s understand a few things here, which I hope Obama does: Boehner, McConnell and the rest of their Klan have nothing to stand on – no room to maneuver. THEY are the ones who most desperately want to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” because it will mean automatic repeal of all the tax cuts – including those for their millionaire beneficiaries. THEY are the ones that have the most to lose and are in the worst bargaining position, so it makes more sense to adopt Sen. Patty Murray’s “cliff diver” paradigm and go over!

If the asinine repukes don’t want that then let THEM cede the most – by which I mean at LEAST HALF in new revenues from pure marginal tax INCREASES, not just pissant loophole closings or “simplifications”. Then, Obama can reasonably consider a judicious spending cuts aspect. But…..let’s make this clear once and for all:  the ¼ tax hikes and ¾ spending cuts formula is now passé. That was last time and 'pukes passed on it. THIS time the formula changes to ½ spending cuts and ½ pure tax hikes and at the marginal rates (at least) of the Clinton years – when, btw, 20 million new jobs were created.

There can be NO other deal and if Whiny Boehner and his Tea party crew don’t like it let them all take a long long walk on short pier.

As for the sequestration coming on Jan. 2, and the fear instilled in McConnell, Boehner and the other boneheads because of the imminent $600 b in military cuts – TOUGH SHIT! They brought it on by the failure of their members on the Supercommittee to deal, or compromise with the Dems. Now they must live with the fiscal consequences, humble as they are (the $600b is actually spread over ten years and merely reduces the rate of growth for the Pentagon, not in any sense an absolute cut in funding!)

As for the “fiscal cliff” itself, as Ezra Klein of the WaPo noted, it’s more a fiscal “bump”. All this hysteria is merely fomented by the corporate blow dried bimbos and himbos to try to frighten the policy makers into taking precipitous action. Meanwhile, the Wall Street sharks are using DOW nosedives as blackmail to try to get favorable action, i.e. extending ALL Bush tax cuts.

Sorry! This we cannot afford, if debt-deficit gurus like David Walker, Ernest Bowles, Alan Simpson and others are to be taken at their word. Yes, on average, the typical American Middle class family earning $60,000 will see a net increase of $2,200 in their bills to the IRS. But this is a small sacrifice to make compared to seeing their future Medicare cut in half, with premiums raised 100% or more and Social Security sliced by using a new COLA formula – with seniors losing up to $900 a year, every ten years. This would be catastrophic given that up to 55% of seniors are already living on only $21,000 a year and this is mostly coming from Social Security.

As for the Right’s warmongers, they also will be doing a full court press for Obama to attack Iran, prodded on by bellicose Israelis, but this he cannot do. For one, it will truly wreck the economy (unlike the mythical “fiscal cliff”) sending oil prices up over $250 a barrel. For another, the Russians will not sit back passively and watch as their investments go up in smoke and flames. To give in to the warmonger punks would therefore be the most colossal stupid thing ever done.

Once more the election delivered at least massive political capital to Obama. He needs to have the cojones to use it, not squander it by pussyfooting around with his sworn enemies, trying to make nicey-nice.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Obama, but we ARE divided by Red and Blue states! (One reason that secession of the 'Reds" may be the only sane and ultimate solution.) The sooner you acknowledge that fact and accept it,  the sooner you will be the proud PARTISAN you ought to have been in your first term, and pave the way for being a genuine leader…..as opposed to a Wuss.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Obama Haters Need to Grow Up! AND 10 Takeaways from Election Night


Images on a Right whacko's blog.  (TOP: After the election was called for Obama, BOTTOM - just before). He is going into mental meltdown mode after Obama's win last night. Maybe he needs some MJ cookies.

As readers can see from the attached images, the Obama hating assholes haven’t relented despite a decisive electoral win over the lying, job-dismantling, petulant in defeat,  former BAIN CEO Mittens Romney. Can Obama expect cooperation from these fools? Don’t bet on it! The same blogger that posted the attached top and bottom images also had the temerity to scrawl on his blog:


“I wonder if Obummer really "won." Reports are coming in that (biased?) pollworkers in several states were giving ballots to individuals with no photo IDs. Which is why the Left has always opposed them. And...I wonder how many of those who voted (with no IDs) were even in this country legally!

No matter. "...be sure your sin will find you out" ( Numbers 32:23). As an evangelical Christian, I have personally seen and experienced much tragedy, hate, etc., and, although I may not understand at the time why things sometimes go the way they do, I put my faith in God, as opposed to confidence in man. In other words, I "walk by faith, not by sight" ( 2 Cor. 5:7 )."

  The last line was especially amusing as he had total faith the Mittster would win – and in a LANDSLIDE! How much dumbass faith is that? Maybe what we need to do is to get this hater into a nice video – DANCING with Obama – instead of hating on him.

But in my takeaways I will show why this nut is off his rocker. If ANY votes were “stolen” it was by the other side – likely in VA, FL and OH – making those states much closer by electronically switching votes (see two blogs ago – the link showing a machine vote switch in action)

The TEN Takeaways:


1- Nate Silver (538 blog) is a freaking pollster GURU! With a 90 % probability he basically nailed the result for Obama electorally – while taking all kinds of venom from Mittens’ Repuke Goon Gallery. The latter, as I noted before, simply couldn’t tolerate the nature of statistical reality and opted to diss it rather than accept it.

2- Willard Mitt was in the end his own worst enemy, as even assorted earlier defenders acknowledge this morning. No one in the end knew where this shapeshifter stood – he was a hard core Tea Bagger puppet in the REEP debates then morphed into a wannabe “moderate” during the presidential debates. In the end most intelligent people couldn’t reconcile his changes to who he really was,  or accept that what he said truly mattered to him - or to them!

3- Superstorm Sandy was indeed the ‘black Swan’ embodiment I noted earlier in a previous blog, and showed that indeed people need government when the going gets tough – while showing (with images of Gov. Chris Christie) Obama could work across the aisle and was indeed the grown up here.

4- The White Evangelical Cracker votes Mittens and his campaign kept insisting would arrive with “passion” (defeating or denying the polls like Nate Silver’s) didn’t emerge. The total white vote proportion was 72% and needed to be at least 74% for the Mittster to have a chance. The white cracker votes were at least cancelled out in Florida and Colorado by a 70%+ Hispanic turnout in those states. THAT turnout plausibly neutralized electronic vote thefts in those states. (Making the election close enough to toss to Willard Mitt, but now - thanks to the huge Puerto Rican Dem turnout in the I-94 central Florida corridor that state will likely have its 29 electoral votes for Obama.)

5- Obama took the Rust Belt states of Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin by finally giving a full throated defense of the auto bailout that people in those states could understand, especially using the ‘spokes on a bicycle wheel’ analogy of how jobs spread from Detroit outwards to other states which manufacture tires, auto parts, etc. This ensured large union turnout and likely neutralized the effort to electronically steal (switch) votes using a recently installed, uncertified electronic computer “patch”. (Union households went 60% to 38% for Obama, according to a CBS News poll this morning).

6- Virginia and Ohio going for Obama was also helped by a large women’s vote, for example in Ohio going to Obama by 56% to 40%. In Virginia women in Loudon County were appalled at their governor’s efforts to demand invasive ultrasound probes before allowing an abortion. Threats against contraception and hence increased health costs also caused women in Ohio to vote for Obama far more than their non-unon working class hubbies.

7- “The War on Women” coming to the fore, compliments of firebrand Christian idiots like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, assured at least six Senate seats going to the Dems including Clare McCaskill’s in Missouri and Joe Donnelly’s in Indiana. As even conservo Joe Scarborough observed this morning, this issue was one of idiocy,  not conservative identity.


8- The Youth vote in Colorado, coming out by nearly 60%-38% for Obama also hinged on the vote for Amendment 64 to make marijuana in small amounts legal for recreational use for all citizens 21 yrs. and older. This is another reason, as I will show below, Obama needs to get control of his agency – the DEA- to get them to back off State’s prerogatives as reflected in citizen initiatives. The alternative is to stir anti-government sentiment among youth in key states (like Colorado and Washington) which could be catastrophic for Dems.

9- The demographic reflected in the election disclosed whites no longer “control” the nation’s electoral map. Whites have continually been hard-assed against Obama in this cycle from the get go, with white men going for Mittens by nearly 66% to 34% and white women not much better at 56% to 38%. This racial split is deplorable and leads the impartial observer to at least suspect some racial motivation.


10. Obama Earned at least Political Capital He Can USE:

Obama will be told by the Extreme Reepos (like Mitch McConnell who delivered a most ungracious response last night) that he has no “mandate” because of the close popular vote, about 50%-49%, but by a large electoral win (likely with 332 final) he has at least political capital. How to use it?


A) GO OVER THE FISCAL CLIFF!

The “fiscal cliff” as I have pointed out before, is largely a confection invented by a certain Washington Neoliberal Elite to justify severe “entitlement” cuts down the road. They figure if they can get the Bush tax cuts to be retained for all now – yelping about a “massive recession” if we don’t- that they can use that as leverage to cut domestic benefits programs later. This is all so much HORSE SHIT! There is no fiscal cliff, and in fact DIVING over it is the best way to solve an otherwise intractable deficit problem (as even fiscal hawk David Walker would agree).

According to William Gale, an economist at the Brookings Institute and former adviser to George H.W. Bush:

“It will be much easier to negotiate a budget deal going over the cliff. It seems to be the only way we can boost revenues.”

Adds Matt McAlvanah, a spokesman for Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the fourth-ranking Democrat:

“The willingness to go over the cliff is a means to force a deal,”

This is the point! The Repukes and Mitch McConnell, Eric Kantor and Weepy eyed Johnno Boehner, will make no “grand deal” on their own that includes ANY significant revenues no matter how much Obama may want them. Why would they? Their agenda now is to deny the Prez a Legacy, as opposed to being a one –termer.

The best means to attain deficit control and sobriety is therefore to go OVER the alleged “cliff” and in the process solve the problem without any need for Reepo cooperation or agreement to higher revenues. The revenues come automatically! By merely passively allowing ALL tax cuts to expire – the payroll tax cuts (which never should have been there in the first place since they FUND Social Security which the Reeps want to cut) as well as the Bush tax cuts for all classes, enormous deficit reduction is attained – without the bullshit and rigamorole to pander to the Reepos.

In fact, $500b would be saved the next fiscal year, and $3.7 trillion over ten years – with NO Bush tax cuts. The supposed consequences would not be catastrophic at all but only incrementally crimp some wanton consumption. (Most people never even noticed the payroll tax cuts coming into their pay packets each week!) . In large measure, the fantasy of the horrendous results of "diving" are based on the myth that tax cuts energize the economy and create jobs. But the opposite is true, as a Financial Times analysis of the Bush tax cuts showed (FT, 9/15/10) People – the Middle class- meanwhile, can then be told that this is a small price to pay to retain their government benefits which otherwise would require draconian cuts down the line.


B) Get Control of your Agencies and DEMAND the Reepos Finally Complete the Remaining Federal Office Picks from Last Term

Both are important and run in tandem. The REEPS must be made to understand that they cannot continue to hold up key picks for federal agencies, offices – and need to pay a price if they do. One method is a tack used several times by JFK, cut defense spending, contracts in their districts if they fail to cooperate.

It is also important Obama gain control of his federal agencies overall, instead of “letting the inmates run the asylum”, so to speak. A case in point is the DEA, which has been running amuck with raids on medical marijuana (MJ) dispensaries in CA, CO the last two years, despite Obama stating clearly in 2009 this sort of thing would not be a priority. Then WHY are they doing it?

According to author Rob Kampia (‘Legalize It!’, Playboy, November, p. 56):

“The federal attacks on medical marijuana aren’t driven by calculated politics ….Rather the attacks are the result of Obama being a bad manager. ….

In 2009 and 2010 the Department of Justice followed the president’s lead – just as any staff with a new boss would – and let medical marijuana flourish across the country. Unfortunately, over time the staff noticed that Obama, his Chief of Staff and other White House bosses weren’t holding the DOJ accountable. DOJ staffers started doing what most other unsupervised employees would do: They followed their own agendas.”

Obama, now that two states (WA, CO) have legalized pot for recreational use, needs to respect citizen voter rights for those amendments to constitutions in those states and tell the DEA hotshots to back off. Order them to follow his lead, not engage in their own freelancing. If not, and the feds continue intervening and impeding, this could cost the Dems the MJ states in future elections – and this may be critical in tight future elections (See also my takeaway #8)


C) Pull out of Afghanistan SOONER, instead of waiting until 2014. You will be able to save at least $550 b more in squandered treasure, not to mention dozens more American lives, and you don’t need to put on the bravado military posture any more to show voters how tough you are. In other words, you will now finally earn your Nobel Peace Prize in the eyes of many!

D) Don’t appease the Reepos or believe they will make nicey now with you. These are the same jackwads that obstructed everything in your first term. Make them come to you…..don’t offer any peace pipes to them! This is the least your voters expect after waiting in line for hours – for many of them – in key battleground states.

There! 'Nuff Said!

As for the asshole blogger that thinks Obama is an “Evil King” – take a look at your own side for once, friend, and maybe pull yourself away from the computer and help out the less fortunate instead of pissing on them all the time.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Why The Fed's New Foray Won't Work





The Federal Reserve has embarked on yet another financial foray to attempt to juice the economy, in this case, into spurring employment. It has adopted an open-ended policy (as contrasted with its previous fixed term quantitative easing) of purchasing mortgage-backed securities, roughly $40b per month, to further push down long term interest rates. Economist and fed monitors suggest Bernanke and Co. are aiming for a "7% unemployment rate."

Well, 'Gentle Ben' may have his heart in the right place, but not his policy. That policy, to be sure, assists only a tiny coterie of the populace, mainly Wall Street stock holders and speculators, and home buyers.

According to Paul Dickey, president of INS Capital Management in Denver (The Denver Post, Sept. 15, p. 12A):

"The Fed's move has set the stage for the S&P 500 to hit new highs by the start of the year."

Indeed, in the wake of Bernanke's announcement the Dow posted its 4th straight day of gains, finishing at close to 13, 593.37 a five year high. This is monumental for stock watchers and 401k holders, and as ABC News displayed two nights ago, a 401k portfolio with $100,000 in it ca. 2008, would now - all things being equal- be up to $208,000. For this reason the nattering nabobs who focus on unemployment rate in relation to this election (i.e. no president has ever been re-elected with a rate over 7%) need to appraise themselves of the OTHER election stat: That at no time in the history of this Republic, and going back over 150 yrs., has an incumbent lost when the Stock market posted major highs of 10% or more! In other words, by THIS reckoning Obama is in very good shape. People - voters will look at their 401k gains and say 'Pfaww! Fuggit unemployment stats! I'm votin' the guy for whom the market is in uptick mode!"

Well, there is a downside, and that is one must be cognizant of a speculative bubble. We saw this story unfold before when the Fed - under Greenspan - held interest rates way too low from 2003 to 2005, thereby setting the stage for the meltdown and financial implosion that followed. The abundance of cheap money fueled the creation of high risk derivatives by quants, mainly burrowed deeply into collateral debt obligations or CDOs. The bonds created were than mislabeled AAA when they actually carried 'junk' - in the credit default swaps buried within - and should have been no higher than AA, if that.

Investors then bought up these triple -A bonds in good faith, while the low interest rates fed the housing bubble as people who ordinarily wouldn't bave bought homes stuck their necks out - and alas were taken in by unscrupulous sub-prime lenders. When that housing bubble burst it then led to the freezing of the credit markets, banks halting lending, businesses unable to get loans for payroll shuttering their doors, and millions then laid off. We ended up with the worst recession and marginal depression, since 1930-31.

The workers owning 401ks are the ones that got shellacked with nearly $5 trillion of American wealth estimated lost. In other words, that increase in 401k balance since 2008 has barely brought 401k owners past the break even point. The ones who escaped, or more accurately escaped the most pain, were the wealthiest stock owners for whom the losses were no great worry. Their nest eggs didn't depend on their investments, in other words. It is estimated that 75% of all stock owners, investors fall in this category.

These are precisely the ones that will be most helped by Bernanke and the Fed's new policy. The 401k owners, workers, again - are the ones most likely to feel the hurt if the bubble bursts again.

As one Boulder, CO management banker put it (ibid.):

"The Great Recession crushed household balance sheets and assets must rise in value for the economy to grow and survive the inevitable fiscal discipline ahead."

Meanwhile, the other beneficiaries of Bernanke's new juicing policy are those who can borrow money at low rates and invest in inflating assets. Alas, these comprise a tiny segment of the population.

So, between the two 2 or 3% wealthy invested in stocks, and the low interest rate borrowers, perhaps 5% of the population will benefit from the Fed's new policies.

Unfortunately, this is simply insufficient to boost aggregate demand to the point of increasing employment to the levels the Fed is seeking.

This is why, as I had proposed earlier, the solution to the balance sheet recession is NOT more juicing as the Fed plans, which favors the speculator-borrower set - but raising interest rates which favors savers and national SAVING overall. As the savings balances then increase, more than 44 million will feel it's ok to spend, most of them seniors. This larger portion of the populace, perhaps 20%, is the driver for more employment as they spend more.

They are now hunkered down, and living on measly savings owing to Scrooge- level interest rates of barely 0.25%. They have no other choice, and certainly aren't about to go into the stock market and risk all especially as their Medicare expenses may well grow next year no matter who gets elected. Thus, they are tightening their purse strings.

Other people, not necessarily seniors but workers who saw their earlier investments lashed in the stock market meltdown of '08, have now re-aggregated their money in fixed income CDs, money market accounts, and money market funds. They also have no inclination to splurge, again, because the earnings on interest are pitiful. With scant disposable income, they have no latitude for consumption ....of the sort that'd fuel employment.

One can thereby estimate up to 40% of the potential consumer population is pulling in their purse strings because of lack of money. THEY are the ones who hold the Main St. economy in their hands. They are the ones Bernanke and the Fed are ignoring in favor of a 4-5% minority.

Another aspect overlooked by the Fed, and which justifies an increase in interest rates, at least to 1%, is the fact that there IS inflation! The Fed simply isn't measuring it! It's using an indicator which conveniently ignores grocery price inflation, as well as the pain at the pump - those increases, and those for medicines, medical treatments. THAT IS A LOT of INFLATION!

Only by living in a Fairy land can the Fed justify its continued absurdly low interest rates, which really only feed the speculators.

Finally, and as I said before, we need to go OVER the "fiscal cliff" big time! We need those tax revenues automatically installed (i.e. Bush tax cuts and payroll tax cuts sunset) by our legislators passively doing nothing. We need it because there's no other way we can amass those revenues, since the Repubs will never agree to do it on their own as part of any "deal". One hopes Obama has at least learned that lesson. Boehner's already made it clear that Repugs intend to keep on keeping on with the Norquist monkey wrench (no -tax pledge) even if Obama is re-elected. As he told Bob Woodward for his new book, if they can't make Obama a 1-termer they will torpedo his legacy. Well, then let ALL the BUSH TAX CUTS sunset! Middle class, so -called and for the wealthy. You get the latter into the mix by ceding the former and we need ALL that revenue anyway!

Make no mistake that speculative juicing as Bernanke plans carries risks. People who've seen their 401ks amp back up can relax and smile for the time being, but they better keep a wary eye.

Meanwhile, the rest of us not in stocks and holding only pass book savings or CDs, are getting set to tighten our belts and purses even more.

At least until Ben eases up in the real sense, and gives us higher interest rates on which we can live.