Everybody’s Scratching Somebody’s Back

Some of the mes­sage com­ing from var­i­ous Repub­li­cans late­ly is that the pub­lic employ­ee unions give the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty an edge since the Democ­rats are sup­pos­ed­ly hap­py to give the unions what­ev­er they want and then the unions pro­vide the dol­lars and the votes to elect the Democ­rats. A fine cir­cle of back scratching.

In the first place, if this was such an effec­tive dynam­ic, how did a Repub­li­can get elect­ed to the Wis­con­sin gov­er­nor­ship? Why are there any Repub­li­can office hold­ers any­where? And, why is it that

over the last fif­teen years the pay of pub­lic-sec­tor work­ers, includ­ing teach­ers, has dropped rel­a­tive to pri­vate-sec­tor employ­ees with the same lev­el of edu­ca­tion — even includ­ing health and retire­ment benefits.

(Yes, I just used that a cou­ple of posts previously…)

I sup­pose it is all hunky dory that big busi­ness and the wealthy give loads of cash to Repub­li­cans who vote to give them tax deduc­tions and tax cuts, and to ease the reg­u­la­to­ry bur­den. It is so much eas­i­er to make mon­ey when one is free to pol­lute the envi­ron­ment, treat employ­ees as expend­able assets, and cus­tomers as peo­ple to swindle.


GOP Misdirection

Claim­ing to be con­cerned about the deficit, the GOP pro­pos­es 61 bil­lion in cuts in this year’s spend­ing. These cuts will like­ly lead to the loss of one mil­lion jobs and slow the growth of the econ­o­my by 1.5 to 2 per­cent­age points in the sec­ond and third quar­ters of 2011.

There are two things that are absolute­ly nec­es­sary for there to be any hope of a bal­anced bud­get. One of those is a strong econ­o­my. In the over­all scheme of the US bud­get deficit, sav­ing $61 bil­lion this year is noth­ing. Risk­ing a strong eco­nom­ic recov­ery is a lot.

The Repub­li­cans either do not real­ly care about the deficit, or they sim­ply do not under­stand the sit­u­a­tion. The ques­tion is, is the GOP mis­di­rect­ing us or themselves?

The Class War

What? Amer­i­ca is a class­less soci­ety? Ide­al­ly, yes. In real­i­ty, no.

Sure, in Amer­i­ca any­one is able to climb the social class lad­der through hard work, ini­tia­tive, etc., etc. But this is not as true as some would have you believe.

Gen­er­al­ly, the rich get rich­er and the poor get poor­er. The lat­est reces­sion is telling. Lots of bailouts for the wealthy who are today again receiv­ing their cus­tom­ary fat bonus checks. How are you doing?

The Repub­li­cans take the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives and, under the guise of bal­anc­ing the bud­get, attempt to slash spend­ing that ben­e­fits the low­er and mid­dle income pop­u­la­tion. Spend­ing stim­u­lus bills are now ver­boten (though tax cuts, espe­cial­ly for the wealthy, are always wel­come), so the states can­not receive any extra sup­port to bal­ance their bud­gets from the feds.

The Repub­li­cans in the states use the (sup­posed) state bud­get crises to destroy pub­lic employ­ee unions. Despite the fact that

over the last fif­teen years the pay of pub­lic-sec­tor work­ers, includ­ing teach­ers, has dropped rel­a­tive to pri­vate-sec­tor employ­ees with the same lev­el of edu­ca­tion — even includ­ing health and retire­ment benefits.

I do not have the num­bers, but I would bet that the pri­vate sec­tor employ­ees have not exact­ly done all that great over the past fif­teen years. Based on the Win­ners Take All graphs (scroll down just a bit) at Moth­er Jones, it does­n’t look too good.

James Taran­to opines at The Wall Street Journal:

Actu­al mid­dle-class Amer­i­cans don’t feel put upon by “cor­po­rate pow­er” or “the busi­ness com­mu­ni­ty,” because by and large, they own the means of pro­duc­tion: They run busi­ness­es; they hold shares in cor­po­ra­tions through their invest­ment and retire­ment accounts.

I would love to see the polling on that.

I actu­al­ly qual­i­fy as some­one who holds shares in cor­po­ra­tions through a retire­ment account. Odd­ly, I do find myself put upon by cor­po­rate pow­er. My expe­ri­ence is that big busi­ness will screw me over every chance it gets.

But I digress. Mem­ber­ship in unions has dropped a lot over the past few decades. In 1977 26.9% of non-agri­cul­tur­al work­ers were cov­ered by a col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment. In 2009, this num­ber is 13.7%.

And over the past few decades, inequal­i­ty has increased. Note that the share of income after tax­es has declined for the bot­tom 80%.

Yes, the rich have done very well for them­selves over the past few decades. But it is not enough it would seem. Class war has been declared by the 20% against the 80%. It is a sad fact that many of the 80% are sup­port­ing the 20% in the war.

Apocalypse

Looks like sev­en­teen days until the end of life as we know it.

March 4 is the day the US fed­er­al gov­ern­ment shuts down if the politi­cians can not find a mid­dle ground.

March 4 is also the day the cur­rent NFL col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment expires. Play­ers and own­ers need to find a mid­dle ground.

I’m not hold­ing my breath on either sit­u­a­tion. I am more con­cerned about the for­mer than the latter…politicians must play their games.

The Pendulum Gets Shoved

Back in June of 2009, I post­ed about the “death” of the Repub­li­can Par­ty and who would save it. Today, as pre­dict­ed, the Repub­li­can Par­ty is resur­gent and I read sto­ries of how the repub­li­cans are going to threat­en demo­c­ra­t­ic con­trol of the sen­ate and the pres­i­den­cy. Who will save the Democrats??

The Repub­li­cans!!! With the last elec­tion results being dri­ven most­ly by the econ­o­my, unem­ploy­ment specif­i­cal­ly, the repub­li­can con­trolled House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives has not yet done a thing to address that issue.

With the nation­al debt stand­ing as one of the impor­tant issues of our time, the Repub­li­cans are con­tent with address­ing it by slash­ing domes­tic non-secu­ri­ty dis­cre­tionary spend­ing, i.e., spend­ing they do not like. In oth­er words, they do not care about the deficit (there is not enough mon­ey in domes­tic non-secu­ri­ty dis­cre­tionary spend­ing to do much for the deficit), they are just hap­py to use the cri­sis as an oppor­tu­ni­ty to cut spend­ing they do not like. (Remem­ber how unhap­py they were when Oba­ma talked about crises pre­sent­ing opportunity?)

Of course, Amer­i­cans like the spend­ing and are still unhap­py with the unem­ploy­ment sit­u­a­tion. If this keeps up, I expect the Democ­rats to win big.

You People”

When I was a senior at Indi­ana Uni­ver­si­ty (read: when I had my head up my hard ass), I worked part time as a super­vi­sor in the MRC dorm cafe­te­ria. There was a time when I was hav­ing a dif­fi­cul­ty with three stu­dents. I have no idea what the dis­pute was but at one point one of them said some­thing that I found par­tic­u­lar­ly exas­per­at­ing and I said “You people!”

My choice of words was unfor­tu­nate, the three indi­vid­u­als involved were African-Amer­i­cans. They imme­di­ate­ly took excep­tion (and I can hard­ly blame them). There were two threads of con­ver­sa­tion that took place simul­ta­ne­ous­ly from that point.

One was:

You peo­ple, what do you mean, you people?!”

Stu­dents” I believe this was paired with a “duh” but not the kind of “duh” that was once hip and now passe. Just an invol­un­tary syllable.

The sec­ond was:

What are you doing, bring­ing race into this?”

I did­n’t bring race up. You are the one’s who brought race up!”

Although I had my head up my hard ass, I was hard­ly capa­ble of deceit and they prompt­ly per­ceived that I was com­plete­ly sin­cere when I said I meant stu­dents. The event end­ed uneventfully.

The new­ly elect­ed gov­er­nor of Ohio, John Kasich, recent­ly had a sim­i­lar expe­ri­ence. It seems Kasich is the first Ohio gov­er­nor in fifty years to put togeth­er a cab­i­net com­prised entire­ly of white peo­ple. When the Ohio Leg­isla­tive Black Cau­cus offered Kasich assis­tance in

find­ing qual­i­fied minor­i­ty appli­cants, Kasich told Turn­er, “I don’t need your peo­ple.

The gov­er­nor’s spokesperson:

What he meant was, “Your peo­ple are Democ­rats, we don’t need them on our cabinet”

Part of me says I have to give Kasich the ben­e­fit of the doubt giv­en my own expe­ri­ence. Part of me says “Yeah, riiiiight!”

You are wel­come to draw your own conclusions.

127 Hours

A ad for the movie 127 Hours just ran on the tele­vi­sion. I was aware that a movie had been made of the sub­ject but I was unaware of the title. I have heard of the title on a few occa­sions and, based on the title alone, I was not all that inter­est­ed. Lis­ten­ing to that ad just now, I think I fig­ured out why.

127 Hours sounds like a long, long movie in a way that 48 Hours, 28 Days and Nine Months do not. Maybe because when I hear 48 hours I imme­di­ate­ly trans­late that into two days.

No major release movie is going to be of a length mea­sured in days or months. But movies mea­sured in hours are rou­tine. 127 hours is too many.

The Certainty of Uncertainty

Uncer­tain­ty seems to be one of the favorite words for repub­li­cans to pull out when they are try­ing to explain why a par­tic­u­lar sit­u­a­tion is bad. Last month they were very con­cerned about the uncer­tain­ty busi­ness had to deal with over the up in the air sta­tus of the Bush tax cuts.

The one cer­tain­ty of this uncer­tain­ty is that it is a load of crap.

In the first place, when was there ever certainty?

Fur­ther, the exten­sion of the tax cuts for two years appar­ent­ly did away with the uncer­tain­ty. Any busi­ness per­son can tell you how he or she only con­sid­ers the next two years when con­tem­plat­ing invest­ing tens of thou­sands, or hun­dreds of thou­sands, or mil­lions of dol­lars. Even if the two years was enough cer­tain­ty, that “two years of cer­tain­ty” only exist­ed for a few days. Then the two years start­ed and now it is less.

And if extend­ing the tax cuts for two years did away with uncer­tain­ty, would not have allow­ing the tax cuts to lapse have also done away with uncer­tain­ty? I did not hear any repub­li­can men­tion­ing that.

Anoth­er exam­ple is the health care reform. It passed. It is law. That is as cer­tain as it is going to get (again, not all that cer­tain, but…). Repub­li­cans have gone on and on about how they are going to undo the law with few specifics about how they would change it. Who is intro­duc­ing uncertainty?

There have been rum­blings from Repub­li­cans to not vote to raise the debt ceil­ing. What might hap­pen if the debt ceil­ing is not raised? Seems like there is plen­ty of uncer­tain­ty there.

There has been enough rhetoric on both sides to sug­gest that it is not beyond the pale that the gov­ern­ment could well be shut down some­time in the next two years if agree­ment on bud­gets can not be reached. A gov­ern­ment shut­down presents all kinds of uncertainty.

Final­ly, soon­er or lat­er, the fed­er­al debt, if allowed to con­tin­ue grow­ing at present rates (or even Bush rates!), will cause sig­nif­i­cant prob­lems for the US econ­o­my. Most agree we are still sev­er­al tril­lion dol­lars away (a few years) before such prob­lems become plau­si­ble, but no one real­ly knows. The debt is prac­ti­cal­ly the def­i­n­i­tion of uncer­tain­ty. But Repub­li­cans con­tin­ue to pre­tend that the deficit can be solved with dis­cre­tionary spend­ing cuts and tweak­ing of enti­tle­ments. It can­not be solved this way. Until the deficit is seri­ous­ly addressed, there is no end of uncertainty.

Credit Where Credit is Taken?

You may have heard that the eco­nom­ic recov­ery has con­tin­ued to strength­en. Of course, Repub­li­cans are quick to take cred­it. Real­i­ty presents a dif­fer­ent picture:

This chart* is the change in GDP by quar­ter. The red rep­re­sents the end of the Bush admin­is­tra­tion, the blue the begin­ning of the Oba­ma administration.

It would appear that the failed stim­u­lus and bailouts real­ly fouled things up!

In any event, the econ­o­my was clear­ly in growth mode before the Repub­li­cans had any chance to influ­ence it (espe­cial­ly giv­en that the Repub­li­cans have yet to do any­thing that would have an effect!!!).

But what does evi­dence mean to a par­ty that large­ly denies human caused cli­mate change (when they are not deny­ing cli­mate change itself) and most­ly does not accept evo­lu­tion as a valid the­o­ry of how life works on earth?

*Chart from The Wash­ing­ton Month­ly.