Is Brexit the Beginning of the End of the UK … or of Other Countries?

So citizens of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Good or bad? Right or wrong? I’m not sure and I’m not sure that I really know enough to make an informed judgment. That being said, my instinct is to view the decision to leave the European Union as a bad decision (and the fact that both Donald Trump and Sarah Palin think that Brexit is good is almost enough reason for me to believe that it isn’t). I must admit that I find interesting the exit polling that showed apparent strong correlations between both age and education and the choice of whether to remain or leave (more education and younger voters tended to vote to stay, while older and less educated voters tended to vote to leave). But what the long term effects will be for the UK economy, for the European economy, for the global economy … I have no clue.

I do, however, have some concerns about what Brexit may mean both with regard to the stability of nation-states and to relations between them.

Let me address the latter of those two points first. One of the principal motivations for the original formation of what eventually evolved into the European Union was the notion of finding ways to avoid future conflicts within Europe and by and among European countries. The European Union has been largely successful in that ambition. But consider how things might look once the United Kingdom is fully divorced from those European nations that remain a part of the European Union. For example, what sort of hard feelings may exist by and between Britons and Europeans? If Europe’s economy stagnates and the United Kingdom’s flourishes (I have my doubts…), won’t many Europeans have a sense of … well, anger, I suppose, toward the United Kingdom? Similarly, if the UK’s economy stagnates and Europe grows, then how will Britons feel when they look across the Channel?

Perhaps more importantly, what sort of cooperation existing today might become strained or even cease? For example, think of the large migrant camps in northern France, populated by refugees and immigrants seeking to make their way to England. France has worked hard to try to keep those migrant camps stable and to help the UK keep mass waves of immigrants and refugees from making their way across the Channel. Part of the reason for that is good relations between the UK and France and part of the reason for that was the pan-European approach to dealing with immigration and refugees. But if the UK is no longer part of the European Community, what, if any, duty to does France have (let alone Italy or Spain or Greece) to help the United Kingdom deal with “unwanted” immigrants and refugees? Likely, none. Given that a motivating factor for many Britons who voted to leave the European Union was the desire to deal with immigration without interference from the European Union, then how ironic will it be if France chooses to cease its efforts to prevent immigrants and refugees from embarking on journeys across the Channel to England? (And it seems just as likely that those countries might actually opt to find ways to help immigrants transit their territory for Britain, in order to try to lessen their own refugee and immigrant burdens.)

I can also see other possibilities for European countries to sort of lash out in petty revenge against the United Kingdom if Brexit is viewed as damaging those countries. For example, I wouldn’t be surprised to see countries adopt tariffs or other fees on British goods or even travel by Britons within Europe (which could come as a real shock to Britons who have purchased vacation properties in Spain). Or, just imagine if FIFA (the world body governing soccer … er … football) were to decide that because the United Kingdom no longer views itself as being a part of Europe, that soccer clubs from the United Kingdom would not be eligible to play in the European Champions League or the UEFA Euro Cup?

Based on the last millennia or so, anything that gives one European country a reason to act in anger against another European country is … um … not good.

I also worry that the Brexit vote may, over time, begin a slide into the fracturing of stability within Europe and elsewhere.

In September 2014, Scotland voted, 55% to 45%, to remain a part of the United Kingdom. There were many factors at play in that vote, but one that appeared to play prominently was the role an independent Scotland would be able (or perhaps unable) to play within the European economy and global markets. It was pointed out that an independent Scotland would not be a part of the European Union and would, thus, not be able to avail itself of free trade and the other benefits of membership in the European Union (at least until going through the difficult and multi-year process of joining the EU). Thus is probably isn’t surprising that last week Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. Each of Scotland’s voting districts voted to remain and the results weren’t terribly close (62-38 to remain, compared to 53-47 in England). But the United Kingdom voted to leave. So where does that leave Scotland?

The leader of Scotland’s Parliament (the “First Minister”, I believe) has already called for a second Scottish referendum on independence. I suspect that such a referendum will be held and I also suspect that in a post-Brexit vote, Scots will, indeed, vote to make their own way.

Is that good or bad? I don’t know.

But if Scotland votes to leave the United Kingdom, what then of Northern Ireland? Like Scotland, Northern Ireland also voted to remain a part of the European Union (56-44 to stay). So, were Scotland to leave the United Kingdom, might Northern Ireland contemplate doing the same and, perhaps, even seeking to unify with Ireland which is a part of the European Union and with which many Irish have a closer bond that the government in London?

Those actions would, quite obviously, have a significant impact on the United Kingdom, reducing it down to just England and Wales (and who knows how long Wales would want to stick around…). But how might the democratic dissolution of the United Kingdom impact independence movements elsewhere in Europe? Consider Belgium which is essentially divided into two distinct communities (roughly dividing the country in half geographically, south and north), one French-speaking (Walloons) and the other Dutch-speaking (Flemish). The divide between the French and Flemish within Belgium has risen to near-crisis levels in the past. Query whether watching the disintegration of the United Kingdom might, once again, prompt calls for Flemish independence.

Or consider Catalonia, the northeastern part of Spain, with its capital in Barcelona. Catalans speak a different language from the rest of Spain, they don’t permit bullfighting, and, perhaps even more importantly, find themselves in a much different economic condition than the rest of the country. Might the rending of the United Kingdom give further impetus and strength to the already quite vocal and popular Catalan independence movement?

Of course if Catalonia were to become independent, that might reinvigorate the independence desires of the neighboring Basque region of Spain and France. Or, just to the southeast, perhaps the independence movements of Corsica and Sardinia (from France and Italy, respectively) would find succor in the example of Scotland.

In fact, the number of independence movements across Europe is almost too numerous to count and includes both large areas (Bavaria in Germany, South Tyrol in Italy) and tiny (Faroe Islands in Denmark, Venice in Italy); I even came across a reference to a independence movement for the Åland Islands, a tiny chain of islands between Sweden and Finland that presently belongs to Finland, but whose 28,000 inhabitants speak Swedish (but an acquaintance of mine who lives in Åland assures me that it is merely a “romantic protest”).

In any event, I think that the concern (or hope, I suppose, depending on your perspective) of the tearing asunder of European countries and the reformation into something … well … different, is worth contemplating. The goal of the European Union was a form of European unity, but that is splintering and it is quite likely the first breach of the unity of the European Union may also lead to the splintering of the United Kingdom. And as people across Europe — or even the world — watch Scotland and perhaps Northern Island pressing for independence, then it seems quite likely that independence movements will be strengthened and, quite possibly, the political structures of the world will see dramatic changes.

One commonly used phrase to describe the breaking apart of countries into smaller nations is “Balkanization” and that word is used for a reason. However, consider if you will, the history of the Balkans and whether that worked out for the best or not.

I don’t know what the results of Brexit will be for the United Kingdom, Scotland, Europe, or the world. But I have concerns that this will be the first act in a drama that may result in a period of chaos and contention.

But please, don’t get me started on the discussion of Texit (Texas exiting the United States). Just … don’t.

Keystone XL Pipeline or Let’s Make a Deal

Republicans want President Obama to authorize construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Many (though not all) Democrats and President Obama are opposed to the pipeline. Unfortunately, like most issues, reasonable debate on the merits (or lack thereof) and risks of the project have been largely drowned out by basic talking points, some of which have little or no basis in reality.

The point of this post isn’t to address the issue of whether the pipeline should be given the green light; rather, I’d like to look at an alternate way to address the politics of the issue (and of similar issues): Let’s make a deal.

Supporters of the Keystone XL Pipeline argue that it will create 20,000-40,000 jobs. Some go even further and say permanent jobs (not just construction jobs). They also say that the pipeline will be good for the American economy and that the environmental risks are minimal. Opponents argue that very few jobs will be created (and that few of those will be permanent), that the environmental risks are great, and that the economic impact to the US will be negligible. Who is right? Who cares. Rather than worry about stupid things like facts and risk analysis (which seem to be anathema to some…), let’s just take each side’s views and see what kind of deal we can make.

For example, supporters believe that the pipeline will create jobs. OK. We should all be thrilled if the pipeline were to, indeed, create those jobs. But what if the jobs don’t materialize or don’t materialize to the extent promised by supporters? So here is my idea: Opponents of the pipeline should agree to construction of the pipeline but with caveats. Come up with a standard by which jobs will be measured; if the jobs are created and meet that standard, then things are good. But if not enough jobs are created, then the minimum wage automatically increases by 25%. If supporters of the pipeline are so sure that the jobs will be created, then this should be an easy deal to make, right? And opponents, who are equally sure that the jobs won’t be created, will be getting something that they want when those jobs don’t materialize, right? Win win, no?

Similarly, opponents could suggest that the authorization law include a provision that automatically increases EPA funding or imposes some sort of strict liability and penalty in the event of a spill from the pipeline. Again, if supporters are so sure that the environmental risks of a spill are so low, then they should be willing to jump on this sort of deal, right?

And this sort of model could be applied to all manner of different issues. For example, think about proposed bans on fracking in certain locales. Would supporters of fracking be willing to accept the right to obtain their oil (which they say doesn’t lead to environmental issues) if, in exchange for drilling rights, the CEO and board of directors of the drilling companies had to agree to drink water taken from wells in and around where the fracking is being done? If fracking really is so safe, then there shouldn’t be any harm in drinking water from those wells, right? Similarly, would supporters of fracking be willing to waive being shielded from personal liability by the corporate shield if fracking is demonstrated to be a cause of earthquakes?

What about school vouchers? I suspect that we could devise standards to measure whether students making use of the vouchers are being well-served. If so, then great. But if not, then perhaps more money could be allocated to public schools.

I’m not sure that this model for legislation is really how our system is supposed to work. But right now, our system isn’t working. So maybe a high-risk game of “let’s make a deal” would be a way forward, at least temporarily. And, if one side isn’t willing to make a deal, then that might prompt voters to look at the facts behind that side’s assertions and ask whether the assertions might be unsupported by facts.

Oh, and if you want to know my thoughts about the Keystone XL Pipeline: I’m opposed for several reasons. First, I don’t think it will create that many jobs. The numbers that I’ve seen (sorry, but I don’t have the time to find links right now…) suggest a far lower number of jobs and that few of them will be permanent. When you compare that to the potential risk of building a massive pipeline over wilderness and above aquifers, then I don’t see the gain as being worthwhile. Furthermore, why does the pipeline need to cross the US at all? This is for a Canadian company selling Canadian oil. Why can’t the pipeline go to Vancouver or the Canadian east coast (or even north toward the Arctic Circle)? If the oil was to be used in the US, I might agree, but it’s my understanding that the oil will be refined in the US but be exported for sale abroad. How exactly does that help our economy? And how does that offset the risk of environmental catastrophe (remember that the sort of oil we’re talking about is widely considered to be the “dirtiest” form of oil)? But if supporters wanted to make a deal to get my support in exchange for something that I favor…

Todd Rokita: Yet More Stupid (Who Knew That Was Even Possible?)

During the government shutdown, I’ve had cause to be extremely critical of Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Indiana). I’ve criticized Rep. Rokita for his condescending behavior toward CNN anchor Carol Costello, his use of his own child’s illness as a political ploy to reopen certain healthcare elements of the government at the same time that he tries to eliminate healthcare for others, and for both his claim that Obamacare is “one of the most insidious laws known to man” and his ludicrous and deceitful (insidious even…) attempt to defend that statement. So last night, in my despair over the miserable performance by the Colts in their game against the Chargers, I was more than a bit incredulous to see that Rep. Rokita found yet another way to show just how stupid he is:

U.S. Rep. Todd Rokita suggested Monday that not raising the debt ceiling could become a good tool for curbing federal spending, despite chances the government would default on its loans.

Rokita, an Indiana Republican, argued that the nation would not default if it prioritized paying off debt over paying for daily operations.

Even with Republicans and Democrats at odds over how to solve the ongoing budget stalemate, Rokita is one of just a few lawmakers who have publicly suggested the debt ceiling shouldn’t be raised at all. Many economists have warned the economic consequences could be catastrophic if the federal government defaults.

“We have the cash flow to meet our debt, now what we don’t have, necessarily, is the cash flow to pay our debt and then all the things that we want,” he said on WIBC-FM Monday.

Rokita added that he understood there may be some immediate pain, in the form of mass government layoffs and economic contraction, but suggested that would improve with an “explosion” in private-side spending.

“I certainly acknowledge there would be immediate pain. But again, are we living for us in the here and now, or are we living for the children of tomorrow?” he said.

“The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart lampooned Rokita earlier this month for calling a female CNN anchor “beautiful” and describing the health care law as “insidious.” But Rokita defended himself Monday, saying Stewart should look up what the term means.

Seriously. Rep. Rokita, the former Secretary of State of Indiana, thinks that failure to raise the debt limit wouldn’t be a default and would be a “good tool” to reduce federal spending. I won’t bother to ask what federal spending he wants to cut. I’m sure he wants to cut Medicaid and Social Security, probably welfare programs (like TANF, SNAP, and SCHIP), maybe even Medicare; you know, programs that those least able to help themselves need. But I doubt that he’d be voting to reduce farm subsidies or subsidies to big oil, raise taxes on wealthy Americans, cut other programs that help his corporate overlords. No.

But that’s not why his statement is so, so very stupid.

First, let’s look at default. If we reach the debt limit and run out of money, we default on our obligations, not just on loans to creditors. Rep. Rokita suggests that we prioritize (more on that in a minute) payments to pay off the debt over “daily operations”. Hmm. What might those daily operations consist of? Payments to seniors on Social Security. Payments to our soldiers serving overseas. Payments to the police who guard Rep. Rokita in the Capitol. Payment of Rep. Rokita’s salary. Payment of our customs agents and border patrol. Payment of … well, of everything that the federal government has pledge or is obligated by law to pay. (Oh, and by the way… those laws that obligate the federal government to pay for things were passed by Congress.) And as the article notes “[m]any economists have warned the economic consequences could be catastrophic if the federal government defaults” (emphasis added).

Catastrophic.

But Rep. Rokita apparently looks at things like Social Security, Medicare, and military salaries as just “things we want”.

So let’s look at it another way, with an analogy. Let’s compare the federal government to a family (which is a very inapt analogy, but it’s one that Republicans like to use when they tell us that the federal government should operate “within its means” or whatever other cliché they choose). For the purpose of the analogy, think of China and those to whom the United States owes debt obligations (bond holders) as the bank that holds the mortgage on the family’s house. (By the way, much of that debt is held, not just by China, but by American citizens via their investments and their pensions and so forth.) Anyway, let’s use Rep. Rokita’s idea of prioritizing payments to the holders of the family’s debt. So, the mortgage gets paid and thus it isn’t in default. Yeah! Um, but guess what? Because the family used the little money that it had, it couldn’t pay all of its utility bills. Or pay for a child’s visit to the doctor. Or for food. So while the good news is that the family’s house isn’t in foreclosure, the bad news is that there aren’t any lights or heat and there isn’t any food on the table. Oh, and junior’s broken arm will go untreated. Too bad, so sorry, get a job, kid.

But you see, the government isn’t like a family. First, the family can choose not to have heat or to allow junior to just suffer in pain. But the federal government has already promised to pay soldiers and retirees and deadbeat, dumb as shit Congressmen. Second, it’s likely that the family found itself in those precarious straights because of hard times, not because dad said that if mom didn’t stop taking her diabetes medications, he would quit his job and stop earning any money for the family. That’s where the House Republicans are right now. They’re the dad and they want to become a deadbeat. Moreover, unlike the family that has to fight and scrape for its money (or seek loans from highly reluctant lenders), the world wants to give loans to America because the world  knows that we’ll honor our obligations. Or it least we’ve honored our obligations in the past; before the Tea Party came to Washington intent on burning everything down.

So when Rep. Rokita suggests that if we prioritize our payments we won’t be in default, he is only speaking about defaulting on our debt obligations, not on all of our other obligations.

As to this whole idea of prioritizing payments, there are several issues. First, the Treasury Department says that it doesn’t have the Congressional authorization to decide which payments to prioritize or which payments to skip. Moreover, the Treasury Department also says that even if it did have that authority, the current government shutdown means that those individuals that might have the ability to help re-program the computers to prioritize payments are currently on furlough.

But ask yourself this: Who gets to decide which payments to prioritize? Remember that the Treasury Department is part of the Executive Branch. So what if Treasury decided to pay debt first, then Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, followed by food stamps and other welfare programs and salaries for our soldiers, but also decided to skip payments of farm subsidies, Congressional salaries, or other programs that Republicans like? Or, what if Treasury said that we’re going to prioritize federal construction or other projects (including, for example, military procurements) to districts with members of Congress who didn’t try to shutdown the government or force the country into default? Maybe we’ll only pay Social Security for people in “blue” districts of in the districts of members of Congress who voted to raise the debt limit. Would Rep. Rokita find fault with that sort of prioritization?

And Rep. Rokita doesn’t seem to be troubled by “immediate pain” like “mass government layoffs and economic contraction” because, he thinks there would be an “explosion” of private spending. Really? Like the “explosion” of private spending when the economy cratered in 2008? Oh, wait. Remember that economics think that default would be “catastrophic”. And why does Rep. Rokita think that the layoffs would be limited to the government? How many private employers rely upon government business? Think about defense contractors or those building highways, for a moment. How many people in those industries might find themselves out of work. How many teachers might be put out of work and what would be the impact on our children as class sizes swelled to unfathomable teacher-to-student ratios? (Of course destroying public education is also part of the Republican end game…) Or consider the fate of people who rely upon the government for assistance, whether disabled veterans, retirees, or the very poor. What do you suppose will happen to them? (I’d suggest watching Les Misérables…) I know that Republicans will likely tell the poor to “just get a job” while ignoring the difficulty getting jobs and the fact that many of those jobs don’t pay a living wage. And just look around you know. Banks and many large corporations are flush with cash. But they’re not engaged in an “explosion” of spending … and they’re telling Congress not to allow the debt ceiling to be breached.

Moreover, if we were to default, even if we keep paying interest on the bonds, eventually we have to actually pay off the bonds themselves. Are we going to have the money to pay for them? And what happens if we do need to borrow (for example, if we decide to wage another war)? Our cost to borrow will increase (i.e., the interest on the bonds will be higher) because of concern that we might default again. It’s also worth noting that following a debt default, there is a serious risk that the US Dollar might be abandoned as the world’s reserve currency. And to paraphrase my favorite line from Ghostbusters: “It would be bad.”

OK. I think this particular horse is dead.

Rep. Rokita has joined a faction of far right Republicans who are so obsessed with “debt” and “deficits” (well, other than debt and deficits related to things that they like or which help constituents or corporate overlords that they care about) that they’re willing to play chicken with and even collapse the world’s economy. Moreover, just as with their views on subjects like climate change, abortion, evolution, and other topics, actual things like empirical evidence, social science, and simple logic don’t hold sway. They’ve been drinking the Tea Party’s poisoned Kool-Aid (think Jim Jones…) for far too long and now, in their fevered delusional world, they’re willing to take the rest of us down with them. They’ve become economic terrorists who believe so firmly in their own cause, that they’re willing to detonate their device and to hell with the collateral damage they may cause. Because it would be good for the “children of tomorrow”.

And these very stupid people are governing our country.

Abolish the IRS? Seriously? Do These People Even Think Before Speaking?

Once again, we’re hearing voices from the right suggesting that we “abolish the IRS”. Seriously. For example, this weekend, in an interview on Fox News, Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) said:

“I think we ought to abolish the IRS and instead move to a simple flat tax where the average American can fill out taxes on postcard,” he explained in a Fox News interview over the weekend. “Put down how much you earn, put down a deduction for charitable contributions, home mortgage and how much you owe. It ought to be a simple one-page postcard, and take the agents, the bureaucracy out of Washington and limit the power of government.”

It’s worth noting that Sen. Cruz didn’t simply “misspeak” or use “inarticulate language” in the interview. No. That’s really what he meant. How do we know? Well, here’s a video that Sen. Cruz made (and note the title of the video: “Abolish the IRS Now”).

Apparently, he meant what he said. Did I mention that he’s a Harvard grad? That august university must be so proud. Of course, he also said that Harvard Law School had twelve communists (his word) on the faculty “who believed in the overthrow of the U.S. Government”. Again, seriously. And to think people take this guy seriously or think of him as a viable candidate for President in 2016. I suspect that I’ll have much to write about Sen. Cruz in the coming years.

Anyway, back to the main thread…

But it’s not just Sen. Cruz calling for the abolition of the IRS. Ron Paul has been calling for the abolition of the IRS since at least 2009. Mike Huckabee has supported similar proposals. Soon-to-be-former (thankfully) Rep. Michele Bachmann (TP-MN) has specifically called for the IRS to be abolished (while lying). The Daily Caller (you know, the pinnacle of journalistic integrity) recently ran an editorial entitled simply “Abolish the IRS”. The Senate Conservatives Fund has set up a website AbolishIRSNow.com. There’s a Facebook page with 51,671 likes (as of the time that I wrote this). Not surprisingly, there is a Twitter hashtag #AbolishtheIRS (and a review of that hashtag for just this morning’s tweets will reveal observations such as “IRS shreds Constitution”, “IRS has turned the American citizenry into subjects”, and “It's either this or Banana Republic time”). Popular thriller writer (and occasional Glenn Beck host) Brad Thor has chimed in on Twitter to advocate for abolishing the IRS (he has also called for people to “rise up in civil disobedience against the IRS”). And the Tea Party News Network is running an online poll asking readers whether the IRS should be abolished.* There are more examples. Many, many more.

How stupid are these people?

The point of this post isn’t to debate what reforms, if any, we need in our tax code and taxation policy. No, I want to focus just on the shorthand attack that is gaining Tea Party (mostly) momentum: Abolishing the IRS.

So let’s go back and look at Sen. Cruz’s proposal again:

I think we ought to abolish the IRS and instead move to a simple flat tax where the average American can fill out taxes on postcard… Put down how much you earn, put down a deduction for charitable contributions, home mortgage and how much you owe. It ought to be a simple one-page postcard, and take the agents, the bureaucracy out of Washington and limit the power of government.

See any problems? Let’s start simple: To whom do I mail my postcard? Congress? The President? Some giant Post Office Box in Washington? Presuming that the giant PO Box exists, I’m supposed to take this postcard and write down how much I earn. I presume that based on that I’m going to pay an amount in taxes, right? I’ll gloss over who I make the check payable to; we’ll assume that the payee is The United States of America. But let’s say that I’m not really a big fan of paying taxes. You know, like if I was a Tea Party kinda guy… What’s to keep me from, you know, lying? Hmm. How much did I earn? It was a tough year, so I’ll just say that I earned $178.35. I should be safe doing so (even if I might feel a bit guilty); after all, who is going to check to see if I lied? The same thing goes for writing down my charitable contributions and my mortgage. Hmm. I seem to recall giving just over a million (or was it three million?) to the charity my wife and I established to pay for our vacations to Disney. Seems fair, no? And again, who is going to check to see if I lied? For that matter, who will check to see if I even sent in my tax postcard? Or paid my taxes?

Starting to see the problem?

How are we going to determine what qualifies as a charity? And who should investigate whether a charity is real or a sham? Who is going to help promulgate regulations setting forth what qualifies as income? What qualifies as a tax-deductible expense? Who will ensure that everyone pays what they’re supposed to and chase those who don’t? Who will make sure that those who can afford to “hide” their income are compelled to pay their fair share?

And even if the eventual decision is to switch away from an income tax and toward a national sales tax, just who is going to collect those funds? Who will make sure that all retailers collect taxes and forward them to the government? Who will prosecute retailers who fail to collect the taxes or who pocket a portion of what they collect?

Wait a minute. I know! I have the answer! We can form a new governmental agency tasked with helping to write and enforce the tax laws. We can be sure that the agency has a staff to check the tax postcards that people mail in to be sure that they are correct and that people aren’t cheating. We can have that agency examine entities that think that they should be classified as charitable or tax exempt to be sure that they’re not violating the law and are, in fact, charitable or deserving of tax exempt status. And the staff of this new agency could be charged with prosecuting citizens who don’t pay their taxes. Isn’t that a great…

Er…

Oh, wait.

Never mind.

The problem isn’t the IRS. There might be a problem with the tax code. Like I said, that’s a question for another day and it’s a fair discussion to have. But the simple notion of “abolish the IRS” is just … silly. Or worse. And while I recognize that some of those calling for the abolition of the IRS understand that it’s just a shorthand way to express a desire to reform the tax code, I suspect that the vast majority of those who parrot this line don’t see any further than the expression itself. I mean, think about it. These are the people who think Obamacare was a “government takeover” of healthcare; that President Obama is a sekrit Mooslim who is allied with al-Qaeda, hates white people, and is a communist hell bent on destroying America; that the UN will force America to take away guns; that Agenda 21 is a plan to force us into a concentration camps so squirrels can live unmolested; that bike sharing is a sign of the devil; that women can’t be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies; and that the Earth is just 6,000 years old and that Abraham rode from Ur to Canaan on the back of his pet T-Rex (or was it a triceratops? I get confused).

If we want to talk about tax policy, then let’s have that discussion. But calls and surveys and petitions designed to work low information voters into a frenzy is yet another disingenuous and dangerous political ploy.

Two more quick points: Civil disobedience regarding taxes? Really? So you’re going to deprive the government of money (and commit a crime at the same time…). OK. So which things should we defund now that we’re not getting your money? The military? Your social security check? If you don’t like the tax code, work to change it. Don’t commit a crime.

Second, is the standard now that anytime we have a scandal tied to a branch of government, we should simply abolish it? So, then we should abolish the military because of the torture at Abu Ghraib, right? Abolish the CIA because of torture, right? Instead of “abolish” as a gut reaction, how about we work together to find reasonable ways to solve problems? Oh, wait. That might involve compromise. Never mind.

---

*I know that you’re curious how the Tea Party News Network framed the question for their poll, right? I mean, it’s not like how the question is framed could have any impact on the result, right?

With the most recent Obama scandal in which the IRS was used as a political weapon to intimidate and harass conservative/tea party groups, some, including Sen. Ted Cruz and TheTeaParty.net, are making the call to abolish the IRS.

Looks like a totally unbiased question to me; phrases like “political weapon” and “harass” would never lead one to a particular result.

I took the poll, just to see what the results looked like.

I presume that my “no” is included with that 0.5%.

Why Do Indiana Republicans Want to Prohibit Indiana Cities From Adopting Living Wage or Similar Employment Laws?

The Indiana General Assembly has passed a bill (Senate Bill 213) that will prevent local governments from adopting local employment ordinances that go beyond what the State of Indiana requires. So far, SB 213 has gotten a fair bit of attention due to the concern that it will invalidate county or city non-discrimination ordinances related to employment. For example, if Indianapolis has an ordinance that an employer cannot discriminate against an employee (or prospective employee) on the basis of that person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, then because SB 213 prohibits cities from enacting employment legislation, it would seem that the Indianapolis non-discrimination law would be invalid.

And I think that’s a really bad idea. Thankfully, it appears that some legislators agree. Several have been forthcoming and noted that overturning non-discrimination ordinances was not the goal of the SB 213. OK. Good to know. And several legislators have also said that if it turns out that the bill would indeed have the “unintended” consequence of overturning non-discrimination ordinances, a separate piece of correcting legislation would probably be adopted. Once gain, good to know (though “probably” isn’t all that comforting…).

So let’s put aside the question of non-discrimination ordinances and look, instead, to the real goals of the SB 213.

First, let’s review the text of the relevant section of SB 213 (the first two sections are very technical and not really important for the discussion):

Sec. 3. Unless federal or state law provides otherwise, a unit may not establish, mandate, or otherwise require an employer to provide to an employee who is employed within the jurisdiction of the unit:
        (1) a benefit;
        (2) a term of employment;
        (3) a working condition; or
        (4) an attendance or leave policy;
that exceeds the requirements of federal or state law, rules, or regulations.

(Note that a “unit” is a county, municipality, or township.)

Thus, as I read SB 213, a unit cannot require employers to provide a benefit to employees that is more than what is required by federal or state law. So, for example, Indianapolis could not require local employers to provide parking for their employees or a security guard to escort women to the cars after dark. Each of those would be a benefit that exceeds the benefits mandated by state and federal law.

SB 213 also prohibits a unit from requiring a term of employment in excess of that mandated by federal or state law. So, for example, Indianapolis couldn’t require employees who work more than 30 hours be paid overtime as if they were full time employees or prohibit employers from firing employees other than for cause. Again, each of those would be a term of employment in excess of state or federal law.

SB 213 further prohibits a unit from mandating working conditions in excess of those mandated by state or federal law. Thus, for example, Indianapolis couldn’t require outdoor workplaces to be smoke free or require working fire extinguishers or prohibit harassment on the basis of sexual orientation (oops, I know I said I was going to put that aside…). Each of those would be a working condition in excess of that mandated by state or federal law.

SB 213 also prohibits a unit from requiring an attendance or leave policy in excess of federal or state law. Thus, again by way of example, Indianapolis couldn’t require employers to give employees a 2-hour delay to get to work if the employee’s minor child attends a school that has a 2-hour snow delay or require employers to give employees leave associated with efforts to adopt a child or to vote. You know the mantra: Those requirements would be in excess of those mandated by state or federal law.

And most important, SB 213 would prevent a unit from adopting a “living wage” that requires employers to pay a minimum wage in excess of the minimum wage adopted by the state and federal governments. Wages could be identified as a benefit or a term of employment, most likely.

Now I can see where all of this makes sense to the business community. Surely a business would prefer fewer governmental restrictions on how it deals with its employees, especially when it comes to salary. And attendance. And working conditions. And so on and so forth.

But last time I checked, we’re still a country “of the people, by the people, and for the people” and not “of the business, by the business, and for the business”. Or, said differently, is the proper role of our government just to do what’s best for business or should the consideration be what is best for the people being employed by those businesses? Or maybe even a balancing act between the needs of businesses and their employees and the community at large?

Again, I understand that some may argue that local employment ordinances may convince employers to move their businesses or not to come to that locality in the first place. Maybe yes, maybe no. I can see a counter-argument that says that employers may want to bring their businesses to places where employees will want to come because of the protections and requirements afforded by law. I can even see the competition argument cutting both ways.

But here’s the real issue that I have. Why is it the business of the legislature or of legislators from Evansville or Auburn to tell Indianapolis or Bloomington what’s best for their local communities. If the voters in Indianapolis feel that an ordinance is hurting employment opportunities in Indianapolis, the voters will certainly let the City-County Council and Mayor hear about it and may vote for candidates who will change the ordinances. On the other hand, if the voters elect local representatives for the purpose of implementing local employment laws, then why shouldn’t the will of those voters be respected? If the voters in Angola or Jeffersonville don’t want to provide increased employment benefits, they don’t have to; but why should that prevent voters in West Lafayette or Sheridan from doing so?

Just think how many times you’ve heard Republicans complaining about Washington or Congress telling the states how to act; yet here, Indiana’s Republican supermajority is telling local communities how to act. It’s probably worth noting that the communities that have enacted the sort of employment ordinances that would be prohibited by SB 213 are primarily Democratic-leaning communities. But then I doubt that comes as any great surprise…

And before somebody says “but Obamacare” or “but abortion” or “but _____ [fill in your favorite right wing cause de mode]”, let’s remember that we’re talking about local efforts to extend rights to people. Perhaps I’m not articulating it well, but I see a drastic difference between the federal government (or state government) telling states (or local governments) what they must do for people as opposed to telling states or local governments what they’re not allowed to do for people. Does that make sense? There is a big difference between requiring and prohibiting (though sometimes it’s a matter of semantics, I’ll admit).

Think of it this way: The federal government has set a minimum wage; it has not prohibited states from establishing their own wage laws so long as employees are provided at least that federal minimum wage. Thus, some states have enacted minimum wage laws that require employers to pay more than the federal minimum wage. Indiana has not done so. But the federal government has not told states that they cannot require employers to pay more. States are free to decide if businesses located in their state should be required to pay the state’s citizens a wage in excess of that mandated as the minimum by Congress. Again, Indiana has not done so. But some municipalities have (or are considering doing so). For example, Bloomington has a living wage ordinance that requires certain classes of employers to pay their employees $11.85/hour (Indiana’s minimum wage is $7.25/hour or $2.13/hour for employees receiving tips). Why shouldn’t Bloomington be able to make local businesses pay employees more? If the business doesn’t want to meet that requirement, it can move elsewhere, right? And nothing says that the business can’t raise its prices to reflect the increase cost of employees.

Yes, I understand there are some fine lines between the roles of the federal, state, and local governments. I understand that those lines are (often) drawn on the basis of the applicable constitutions. But it seems to me that in this case, SB 213 is an effort by Indiana’s Republican supermajority to enact legislation favored by businesses to rollback ordinances passed by local government for the benefit of the local voting electorate, usually in Democratic-leaning cities (and, perhaps, impacting primarily democratic voters). So just what is the rational being offered by Republicans for SB 213 beyond “protecting employers”?

Unfortunately, now that SB 213 has been passed by the House and Senate, it’s on its way to Gov. Pence.

The Post Office Isn’t a Business

The United States Post Office will stop delivering mail on Saturdays beginning August 1. Why? Because the Post Office has been losing too much money and Congress (or at least one party in Congress…) doesn’t want to keep subsidizing those losses with government (i.e., taxpayer) money. Thus, the Post Office has to cut costs and has elected to do so by eliminating Saturday mail delivery.

Personally, I’m not that worked up about losing Saturday mail delivery. Other than my Time and Entertainment Weekly, I’m not sure that I get much mail on Saturday that couldn’t wait until Monday (and I’d rather get my Entertainment Weekly on Friday, anyway…); for that matter, I’m not sure how much mail I get that I really care about anyway. Junk, trash, junk, junk, bill, junk, bill.

Nevertheless, something feels wrong with the elimination of Saturday mail delivery.

You see, I think of the Post Office as being a part of the function of our government. I mean, think about it: Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution grants to Congress the power “To establish Post Offices and post Roads”. The Constitution doesn’t mention an Air Force or space agency, it doesn’t mention a national institute of health or a reserve bank, and it doesn’t mention a spy agency or national museum. But it does make specific reference to the Post Office (as well as post roads which were necessary for the movement of mail between post offices).

It seems to me that the delivery of mail from place to place is actually a core function of our government that ought not to be scaled back just because it isn’t cost effective. Think for a moment about how many people there are in our country and just how big our country really is and then contemplate the fact that you can send a letter to anyone anywhere for just 46¢. That’s really pretty remarkable. In how many other countries is that possible?

Or think about it this way: Does the Air Force turn a profit? What about NASA? Or the Veterans Administration? The Smithsonian, Holocaust Museum, or Yellowstone Park? It seems like the only governmental agency that really makes a profit is probably the Internal Revenue Service. Should we care if some of the core functions of government actually cost us something?

I can even imagine the next step, when a Republican Congress requires the Post Office to raise rates to be similar to those charged by FedEx or UPS or decides to eliminate the governmental subsidy to the Post Office entirely, thus ending the guaranty of low cost mail delivery.

I’ve also read, but have not independently researched, that one cause of the Post Office’s monetary woes is that Congress required the Post Office to pre-fund pensions for 75 years. I don’t think any other business or governmental (or even quasi-governmental) entity has been required to pre-fund pensions for 75 years. Is it really fair to require the post office to do all that it does for as low a price as it does, but also require it to make expenditures that far exceed what others are required to make, and then criticize it for not being cost efficient?

I’ve also read that the goal of forcing the Post Office to scale back is actually to weaken the postal workers union. Again, I don’t know this to be true and haven’t done any independent research. But given recent Republican attacks on unions, this wouldn’t come as a huge surprise if it were true.

Look, the Post Office isn’t a sacred cow to me. Like everyone else, I’ve certainly had my share of complaints about the Post Office. But the ability to cheaply and efficiently deliver mail from place to place seems to me to be a core function of our government, especially given that it is specifically referenced in the Constitution. It may be that Saturday delivery isn’t really a big deal. But I do question weakening the institution or the assumption that the Post Office should be treated as and compared to a for profit business.

Again, the elimination of Saturday delivery may be fine, before we force the Post Office into further reductions in the services it provides, we need to have a broader conversation about the role of the Post Office in our system and the degree to which providing those services is an essential component of our government that should be paid for, at least in part, through our tax dollars.

Things That Bring Me Down

As the election draws nigh (literary, no?), two things that I keep hearing from people are driving me crazy. The things are said by people who are normally pretty moderate in the views and who are intelligent and thoughtful in their positions. But those who are voting for Romney have offered some form of the following reasons:

• I really don’t like all those social issues that the Republicans talk about … but I don’t think that they’ll really do all those bad things; they’ll focus on the economy instead.

Or

• I really don’t know what Mitt Romney will do if he’s elected President, but I just know that he’ll do a better job because he’s a Republican and Republicans are better for the economy because Democrats are … um … unions! and … um … taxes! Yeah.

Once again, time is short, so I’ll be brief.

To those who don’t think that Republicans will try to push on their agenda of social issues, let me ask these questions:

• How do you explain the unending parade of social issue legislation that they’ve focused on in the House of Representatives over the last two years (not to mention in states like Indiana)? Just how many new jobs were created by trying to redefine “rape”?
• How do you explain the fact that Republicans in the House of Representatives haven’t taken action on jobs bills?
• How are you going to explain to your granddaughters that you prioritized lower taxes over allowing them to control their own bodies? How will you explain to your grandchildren that it was OK to discriminate against gays or people who look a little different or maybe have a different view of theology? In twenty years those kids will look back on us with the same sense of horror that we have when we think about Jim Crow and miscegenation laws. Do you really want to elect people who want to adopt social policies of the past?

For those who think on the economy that Republicans are better … just because they’re Republicans, then think about these issues:

• Has the stock market performed better under Democratic or Republican Administrations? Go ahead. Check it out. I’ll wait. Or, if you want some help, you can check out these articles from Fox News, Bloomberg, and The Economist. Seriously.
• Why is the economy in the mess it’s in now? Was it all the fault of Democrats? Or did two massive tax cuts (after President Clinton finally managed to balance the budget), an unpaid drug benefit, and two unpaid wars have maybe a little something to do with it? Oh, and don’t forget about reckless behavior on Wall Street. You’ll note who fought for and against the adoption of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
• If Republicans had tried, even just a tiny smidgen, to work with President Obama instead of blocking everything that they could, might things be just a little bit better today? Or did a still weak and anemic recovery help Republicans try to get back to power? Yes, I went there. I do think that at least some Republicans intentionally tried to slow or stop the recovery in order to hurt President Obama’s chances to be reelected.
• When you hear “unions” tossed off as if it’s they are a Democratic bogeyman, ask yourself how much influence unions really have these days, especially when compared to transnational oil companies and banks that are “too big to fail”. Remember when Romney said that “corporations are people”? Yeah, well what do you think unions are? For that matter, I’m curious: Who lobbies Congress on your behalf?
• And before you say, “Don’t raise my taxes!” make sure that you understand: (a) how marginal tax rates work (because I’ve learned over the last few years that a large, large number of people who complain about taxes don’t understand even basic concepts); and (b) what Romney’s plans will really do (oh, wait… that’s a virtual impossibility because he won’t tell us his plans!).
• I do understand both the need and desire to cut federal spending. But it’s easy to say, “Cut spending.” Tell me which programs you want to cut. More importantly, tell me how cutting those programs will effect people.
• And why oh why, if President Obama is just so bad on the economy, would he have secured endorsements from Warren Buffet, Michael Bloomberg, and The Economist?

Way back in February 2011 I asked Is This Why People Voted Republican? Do you really think a vote for Republicans today will lead to different results than what I talked about then?

For that matter, do you really think that a party with leaders that have largely rejected science and truth will be able to solve real problems? And how many new wars will they get us into while trying to solve those problems?

My guess is that they’ll realize that trying to solve problems is … um … like, hard, dude. So instead, they’ll focus their efforts on intruding into a woman’s vagina, making sure that gays are discriminated against, and furthering their goals of making us a “Christian nation”. Because social legislation is easy. It’s the tough stuff that takes thoughtfulness and care.

I’m out of time. Have a good weekend.

Romney: The Lying Liar That Just Keeps Lying … and Wants to Cut (or Privatize) Disaster Relief

So have you heard Mitt Romney’s newest lie? It’s actually a whopper. Last week, Bloomberg ran an article about Chrysler. Depending on the reader’s interpretation, the article could be read to suggest that Chrysler, now owned by Italian auto manufacturer Fiat, would be moving production of its Jeep line to China, that is if you didn’t read all the way to the 5th paragraph where Mike Manley, COO of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia said that he was referring to adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China. Neveertheless, during a campaign rally in Ohio, Romney talked about US auto manufacturing jobs being moved to China, tying that move to the efforts by the Obama administration to keep Chrysler from being liquidated by helping arrange a sale to Fiat.

"I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state Jeep — now owned by the Italians — is thinking of moving all production to China," Romney said at a rally in Defiance, Ohio, home to a General Motors powertrain plant.

One problem: As noted by Fiat’s COO, Chrysler is not moving production to China. Instead, Chrysler is looking into adding new production capacity in China for Jeeps being sold in China. Moreover, Chrysler is actually expanding the number of jobs at its Jeep plant in Detroit. And just to be clear, a Chrysler spokesperson clarified the issue:

The Bloomberg story, though accurate, "has given birth to a number of stories making readers believe that Chrysler plans to shift all Jeep production to China from North America, and therefore idle assembly lines and U.S. work force. It is a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats," Chrysler spokesman Gualberto Ranieri said.

"Let's set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It's simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world's largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation."

Not reported in the story linked to above was the remainder of the statement from Chrysler’s spokesperson:

A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.

Now any rational person with a shred of integrity or any devotion to honesty and truth would, at best, say, “Oops, what I said was wrong,” or, at least, stop telling the lie. But this is Mitt Romney we’re talking about. Thus, it shouldn’t be a surprise that Romney didn’t admit he was wrong. Nor, for that matter, should it be a surprise that he didn’t stop telling the lie. Nope. Instead he made a new political campaign ad that uses very careful language to imply that Chrysler is moving those Jeep jobs to China … and that President Obama is to blame:

Note how carefully the ad skirts actually telling the lie. Nowhere does it say that Chrysler is moving jobs to China; rather it says that President Obama “sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China” and then tells us that “Mitt Romney will fight for every American job." But when you listen to this ad, what story are you hearing Romney tell you?

So again I ask what it tells us about a man that wants so badly to be President that he has chosen to run a campaign that has been intentionally divorced from the truth. If these sorts of tactics meet with electoral success then we truly will have entered a “post-truth” era in which the most effective candidate will the one that can dream up the biggest, yet most plausible lie, and our entire system will be rendered a shambles, resembling nothing so much as a Hollywood special effects blockbuster.

We cannot elect a serial liar to the office of President.

Oh, and one more thing: While you watch the Weather Channel as Hurricane Sandy bears down on New Jersey and the Atlantic Seaboard, just remember that during one of the Republican debates in June 2011, Romney said that federal spending for disaster relief was “immoral” and wanted to return disaster programs to the states or “even better” (his words) to the private sector. Here’s a transcript of the exchange between moderator John King (of CNN) and Romney:

KING: Governor Romney? You’ve been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I’ve been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it’s the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut — we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do? And those things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot…

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.

Do we want a President who wants to send disaster relief back to the states so that each state must, essentially, fend for itself? Hey, we here in Indiana don’t have a lot of disasters, I guess, so maybe that’s a great idea. Let New Orleans and Florida and California fend for themselves, right? Did I hear you say drought? Tornados? Er… flooding? Well, um. And what was that about a chunk of Indiana being in the New Madrid fault zone? OK. So maybe the idea of natural disasters being the sort of thing for which the federal government is there to help all of its citizens is a good idea, like maybe sorta just the thing that a federal government is for in the first place.

But just sending disaster aid back to the states isn’t enough, not for Mitt Romney. Because he wants to privatize it too. Just imagine how well that would work. If you can pay the disaster relief premium, you can get help. But if you’re poor… Do we really want disaster relief to be available for a profit?

Think about that while you watch Hurricane Sandy come ashore.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics … and Fox News

We’ve all heard the phrase (apparently popularized by Mark Twain) “lies, damn lies, and statistics”. Well, I propose a slight reformulation: “Lies, damned lies, statistics, and Fox News”.

What am I talking about? Let me offer a concrete example (hat tip to Media Matters for posting an article about this earlier today).

The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment (and unemployment) in several different ways (and each of these can be “seasonably adjusted” or not):

• U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
• U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
• U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
• U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
• U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
• U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

The “official employment rate” is the U-3 rate referenced above, which measures the “total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force.” However, the U-6 measure is also looked at by many analysts as it is more encompassing than the official unemployment rate. It is sometimes referred to as the “real unemployment rate”. Now, with that in mind, look at this screen capture from Fox News (I believe that it was from this morning, but I can’t be positive):

Notice anything? Look at that middle statistic carefully: Real unemployment rate 2009 vs now: 7.8% vs 14.7%. Wow! That’s a pretty damning statistic, isn’t it. Real unemployment nearly doubled since President Obama was inaugurated! Gee, that’s probably a good reason to vote him out of office and elect a Republican!

Um, wait a minute. I thought I heard on the news a few days ago that unemployment fell to 8.1% You don’t suppose that Fox News manipulated the statistics to make President Obama look bad, do you? Well, yes. Yes they did.

You see, Fox News picked and chose which numbers to display and how to label them. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and check out the statistics that are available on the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Choose the U-3 and U-6 rates (seasonally adjusted) and see what you get. Or, you can take my word for it (since I’ve given you the means to check my numbers). The number that Fox News sites as the “real unemployment rate” of 7.8% in 2009 is the U-3 official unemployment rate for January 2009. If Fox News was honest, had integrity, or was actually “fair and balanced” then the number used for the “now” comparison would have been the U-3 official unemployment rate for August 2012, an “apples to apples comparison”. But if you look for that number you’ll discover that it’s 8.1% not 14.7%! In other words, the U-3 rate has increased from 7.8% to 8.1% (just 0.3%); it hasn’t increased from 7.8% to 14.7%. So was Fox News just making up that 14.7% number? Nope. If you check the U-6 unemployment figures, you’ll find that the number for August 2012 is, indeed, 14.7%. But the corresponding U-6 unemployment rate for January 2009 was 14.2%.

In other words, Fox News used one measurement which, by definition, will have a lower rate to calculate the unemployment rate at the beginning of President Obama’s term and a different measurement, guaranteed to have a higher rate to measure the current rate of unemployment. It would be a bit like comparing gasoline prices using the price for standard as one measure and the price for premium as the other measure.

And, in an almost unbelievable example of irony, after seeing the misleading chart on screen, Fox News analyst contributor Laura Ingraham said: “Other than Fox News, where are you really seeing those statistics?” Where indeed?

Lies, damn lies, statistics, and Fox News.

Is it any wonder that so many people are so poorly informed? Fox News tells its viewers that it is “fair and balanced”. It has previously told viewers that it has “zero tolerance” for onscreen errors of this sort. So shouldn’t a viewer be able to presume that the information presented is accurate. Well, they should… But that would be a mistake.

It’s also worth noting what Fox News doesn’t show its viewers when discussing the unemployment rate. Here is the chart of the U-3 official unemployment rate (also generated from that same Bureau of Labor Statistics website) for the period from 2006 through 2012:

Or the chart of the U-6 rate for the same period:

Notice anything? Like, say, the enormous increase in the unemployment rate in the year leading up to President Obama’s inauguration? Or the slow but noticeable decline from the peak several months after President Obama was inaugurated but before any of his policies could actually have an impact?

No, Fox News didn’t show those charts did they?

“Ah,” I hear you say, “that was just a mistake, an aberration.” Perhaps. Or, given Fox News’ history of doing the same thing … perhaps not (again, hat tip to Media Matters for noting other examples). I’ll highlight one further example. In December 2011, Fox News displayed this graphic:

Look carefully for a moment to see if you see anything odd about how the data is presented. OK. Now take a look at the annotated version of the same chart prepared by Media Matters:

See it now? Just look at those yellow and pink lines that have been added. Hmm. Somehow, the number 8.6 is on the same line as 9.0, instead of being lower than 8.8. But if Fox News had put the 8.6% below that yellow line where it belongs, then there would be a marked decrease in the unemployment rate, wouldn’t there? And that wouldn’t advance the Fox News/GOP talking point now would it? Media Matters also provided this chart generated from the Bureau of Labor Statistics data for the same period shown in the Fox News chart:

Now maybe it’s just me, but the chart created directly from Bureau of Labor Statistics data looks vastly different from Fox News’ chart, doesn’t it? Hmm. I wonder why Fox News didn’t want to show unemployment decreasing? I mean, Fox News is fair and balanced, right?

Over the last few years, I’ve seen (and often saved) links to many other similar misleading Fox News charts. And I suppose I could take the time to try to dig them up and show them here. But it isn’t really worth the effort. I think that the two examples that I’ve provided do a decent job of highlighting the dishonesty that calls itself Fox News. And with an electorate that has been trained to believe what Fox News shows them and tells them, why should they question the accuracy or veracity of the information? Or, for that matter, why should they question the accuracy or veracity of Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan, both of whom have shown their own willingness to follow along the Fox News playbook.

I’ll say it again. We can debate policies and ideas. But we can’t have that debate when the facts upon which the policy discussion is based are not facts at all. The marketplace of ideas upon which our system is premised relies upon facts … not lies.

But people who uncritically watch Fox News see this information. They internalize what they see as “fact” and “truth”. Then they use that information when they make decisions. And that isn’t healthy for our democracy.

---

Update (September 12, 2012):

Besides Media Matters and this post, the dishonest Fox News graphic was the subject of many, many other articles and tweets. Anyway, Fox News is (I guess) to be commended for airing a correction on today’s program. But query whether this correction would have been made had it not been repeated across Twitter, Facebook, and the Internet over and over and over yesterday. Moreover, watch the video correction and decide for yourself whether this really makes up for the dishonest graphic aired the previous day. Note, for example, that Fox News does not show the misleading graphic that had been aired in order to provide full context for viewers. Nor does Fox News explain to viewers that the “real unemployment” figure that they are using is not the “official unemployment rate”. So does this clarification really fix the problem? You decide.

Will You Create Jobs With Your Tax Reduction?

I think I’ve mentioned repeatedly on this blog that I’m neither an economist nor an expert on tax policy. As anyone who reads this blog regularly will recognize, I’m driven more by social issues. But it does appear that “the economy” (whatever that may really mean) is going to be the primary issue in the upcoming election. And so I want to take a brief look at one of the ongoing memes of the current political debate: The notion that giving tax breaks to “job creators” will help to spur job growth.

You see, I don’t think that this is really true. Oh, sure, some people may decide to create jobs. But will those jobs be created because the business owner got a tax break? That’s the real question isn’t it?

Look at this way: Let’s say that you’re the owner of a widget factory and you’ve been making a few million dollars each year (your own income, not the income of your company). And now let’s say that President Romney gives you a tax break. Are you taking that money, reinvesting it in your company by hiring a new employee or three … or are you taking the family to Cabo or on a cruise? Here’s what I think: You might use that money to hire a new employee … but only if you thought that there was going to be an increased demand for widgets. Just because you get a tax break and get to put more money in your pocket doesn’t equate to the idea that more people will be buying your widgets, especially if the widget purchasers are still looking for work or paying more so that you could have your tax break. And why would you hire more widget builders if you’re not going to actually sell any more widgets?

Or think of the plastic surgeon. Will he hire more nurses to help him perform more rhinoplasties or breast enlargements because he now has more disposable income? Or will his decision to hire more people be almost entirely dependent upon whether there will be more demand for his services? I mean, why would he want to hire more nurses if he isn’t going to, you know, need them?

Certainly home builders aren’t going to hire more guys with hammers until there’s more of a demand for new homes and stores won’t hire more sales clerks until there are more people shopping.

And a law firm isn’t going to hire more lawyers unless it has work to put on their desks.

You see, just hiring people doesn’t actually create work for those new employees to do.

So just where is it that these so-called “job creators” are going to be creating new jobs?

Perhaps tax breaks for the wealthiest will lead to new jobs as first class flight attendants (or in private plane production) or at high-end hotels. I suspect that the company that makes residential car elevators will be able to thank Mitt Romney for the uptick in business. Maybe manufacturers of other high end products (Rolls Royce, Rolex, and so forth…) will need to gear up production. But will tax breaks for millionaires (or billionaires) really spur job growth in the manufacture of most consumer goods or foodstuffs? Will it have a direct impact upon the demand for new housing construction or the auto industry? Will pharmaceutical companies see a sudden surge in hiring just because their top shareholders now get to keep more of their incomes? Will the banks suddenly be willing to lend more and correspondingly need to hire more tellers and loan officers?

I don’t think so.

Try this: If you know someone who makes enough money that they would see a tax break under President Romney (or a Republican Congress), ask them precisely how many new jobs they will create because of that tax break. And then ask them why that tax break will spur them to create new jobs. Ask why a tax break is more important to job creation than demand for their goods or services. Ask if they created new jobs during the 90s when taxes were higher than they are now. Why then but not now? And ask them if they’re willing to pledge to create those new jobs with the money that they save in taxes. See how they respond to that.

Thinking just about those whom I know personally and who would benefit from a tax break, I’m not sure that any of them would create jobs just because of that tax break. Maybe I’m wrong. I’d love to hear from them and hear about the jobs that they’d create if only they didn’t have to pay so darn much. Um, right.

Finally, and most importantly, if you hear a politician tell you that it is important to give tax breaks to “job creators”, don’t just accept that claim without more. Ask the politician to explain precisely what sorts of jobs will be created and why. Ask whether those jobs will be created here in the US or in Chinese or Mexican factories. And then ask the politician for empirical evidence that supports their claim that this sort of hyper-trickle down economic theory will work. Because all of the data that I’ve seen suggests that, in fact, it doesn’t work.

I think that we need to find ways to put more money in the pockets of consumers. With more disposable income, they’ll be more interested in purchasing goods and services. And the businesses that supply those goods and services will need more employees to help produce and provide the goods and services. And those new employees will, in turn, consume goods and services themselves, and so on and so forth. Millionaires and billionaires don’t need the aid; the poor and working class families, by contrast, do.

The point is to grow the size of the pie, not grow the size of the piece of the pie enjoyed by the wealthiest.

And in the Ongoing War on Women…

Prominent Republicans like Speaker John Boehner, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. John McCain, and Republican National Committee Chair Reince Preibus tell us that there is no Republican war on women, though I’m not sure how much attention you want to pay to Preibus given that in his effort to prove that the war on women was a fiction, he chose to compare women to caterpillars. Um. OK. So I guess their claims help un-explain some of the recent events in the war on women.

For example, yesterday, the Senate voted 68-31 to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Guess what? Every Democrat voted in favor of the legislation. But you know what else? All five Republican women in the Senate also voted in favor of the reauthorization. Or, if we want to look at it a bit differently, all 38 votes against the bill were cast by Republican men. Interestingly, of the two Republican senators often mentioned as a potential vice presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) voted against reauthorization while Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) voted in favor.

The fact that there isn’t a war against women probably explains why the Republican dominated Wisconsin legislature passed — and the Republican Governor signed — a bill to eliminate Wisconsin’s equal pay law. One of the bill’s Republican supporters helpfully noted that women don’t care about money as much as men. Nope. That doesn’t sound like a shot in the war on women. Not at all.

And it is the deep concern that some Republicans have for women that must explain why Florida Gov. Rick Scott used his line item veto to strip from the state’s budget $1.5 million for rape crisis centers. He’s obviously expressing his deep concern for the women of Florida who aren’t raped by saving them a handful of tax dollars.

I’m sure that presumptive GOP candidate Mitt Romney has helped to make it clear that there isn’t a Republican war on women by choosing as his campaign’s judicial advisor none other than Judge Robert Bork who, according to this recent article in Huffington Post (internal links omitted):

hopes to wipe out not only the constitutional right to privacy, especially the right to contraception and to abortion, but decades of Equal Protection decisions handed down by what he calls a feminized Supreme Court deploying “sterile feminist logic” to guarantee equal treatment and inclusion of women. Bork is no casual chauvinist but rather a sworn enemy of feminism, a political force that he considers “totalitarian” and in which, he has concluded, “the extremists are the movement.”

So that is the judicial philosophy upon which Romney will be making decision. Noted. I’d love to hear Romney answer whether he agrees with Judge Bork’s views on feminism. Actually, I’d love to hear Ann Romney explain whether she agrees with Judge Bork’s views on feminism.

Should you happen to hear Mitt Romney claim that President Obama is conducting his own war against women, you might want to consider something provable by empirical evidence: Mitt Romney is full of BS. You see, Romney keeps claiming that President Obama’s policies have caused harm to women and, as proof, claims that 92% of jobs lost under President Obama have been women. Not so fast, say those who actually study issues like this. I won’t take the time to dive into the numbers, but it’s worth taking some time to read what FactCheck.org and Politifact.org (which rated Romney’s claim “mostly false”)have to say. But this chart is worth noting.

While I’m talking about Mitt Romney, I can’t forget his wife Ann’s comment several days ago, especially given her role in the faux controversy stirred by Hillary Rosen’s boneheaded remark about Ann Romney not working a day in her life (recall, that Rosen was really talking about working for a wage outside the home). So after telling people that Rosen’s comment was like a “birthday present” Ann Romney waded back into the issue of working women and said (emphasis added):

I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids. Thank goodness that we value those people too. And sometimes life isn’t easy for any of us.

She loves that there are women who “don’t have a choice and they must go to work”? Wait, what?

I can’t remember if I touched on this before, but women visiting Arizona need to be very careful now. Why? Well, under the new law adopted in Arizona to help further limit access to abortions, the state now considers that a pregnancy commenced “from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman”. In other words, in Arizona, a woman can be considered pregnant before she has a fertilized egg or, I suppose, without even having sex. For a bit more on the war on women on the reproductive rights front, check out the list of bills noted in this Huffington Post article.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the dismissive response of Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Illinois) about his Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth. Perhaps you will recall Rep. Walsh; I posted a video of his wife taking him to task for his unpaid child support obligations. By contrast, Duckworth, while serving in Iraq, lost the lower part of both legs and had her right arm partially destroyed when the helicopter she was co-piloting was shot down. Following her recovery, Duckworth was the Director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs and Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. So what did Rep. Walsh have to say about her? Well, in response to a statement in which he seemed to make light of her military service and failed to acknowledge her government service, Rep. Walsh, showing a classic streak of chivalry, said, “What else has she done? Female, wounded veteran … ehhh.”

Nope. Clearly there is no such thing as a war on women. Nope. Nothing to see. Move along, move along.

Oh, and remember how I mentioned that Sen. Mitch McConnell thinks that the war on women isn’t real? His specific claim was that the war on women was “manufactured issue”. In support of that proposition, Sen. McConnell said:

There is no issue. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine I think would be the first to say — and Lisa Murkowski from Alaska — “we don’t see any evidence of this.”

But guess what? Yup. You know what’s coming… Three of the five senators McConnell mentions came out, in one way or another, and essentially agreed that there is a war on women. For example, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said regarding the debate over women’s access to contraception that:

I feel like it’s a retro-debate that took place in the 1950s… It’s sort of back to the future, isn’t it? And it is surprising in the 21st century we would be revisiting this issue.

Similarly, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) talked about her support for Planned Parenthood. But best of all are the comments from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) who first expressed regret over her vote for the Blunt amendment (the amendment that would have permitted businesses to withhold contraception coverage on religious or moral grounds) and said “I have never had a vote I’ve taken where I have felt that I let down more people that believed in me”. Then, a few days later, in response to claims by Republican men — like Sen. McConnell — that here is no war on women, said:

It makes no sense to make this attack on women… If you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.

“Attack”. Her word. Not mine. Hmm. Doesn’t the use of the word “attack” sort of bring to mind … um … oh, I don’t know … maybe, um, like … a war? On women.

Stay tuned for future episodes. Same Bat Time. Same Bat Channel. (Look it up if you’re too young…)

Republicans Claim President Obama Arrogantly Circumvents American People … After Republicans Refuse to Consider Any Action Unless They Get Their Way First

Yesterday, President Obama appointed former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to be the first chair of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment was a so-called “recess appointment” made while the Senate was not in session. Not surprisingly, Republicans have been highly critical of President Obama’s decision to make the recess appointment. Their criticisms have focused on several points: First, that the Senate was not actually in recess, and second, that President Obama’s use of the recess appointment option was an arrogant, unprecedented, undemocratic abuse of power.

The requirement that the Senate consent to Presidential appointments can be found in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution:

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 3 provides:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

So, with that background out of the way, let’s look at the issues.

I don’t want to spend much time on the issue of whether the recess appointment is valid; the issue comes down to whether the pro forma sessions that Senate Republicans have been holding to prevent recess appointments are sufficient to actually prevent recess appointments. That discussion gets a bit esoteric, even for me. For the record though, here is how “recess” is defined by the Senate (emphasis added): “A temporary interruption of the Senate's proceedings, sometimes within the same day. The Senate may also recess overnight rather than adjourn at the end of the day. Recess also refers to longer breaks, such as the breaks taken during holiday periods.”

Instead, I want to look at the decision to use the recess appointment and whether it is somehow an unprecedented “undemocratic” action or an example of “Chicago-style politics at its worst” (as Mitt Romney claims). As Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) phrased it: “President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people….” Or, in the words of Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio):

This is an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama that defies centuries of practice and the legal advice of his own Justice Department… The precedent that would be set by this cavalier action would have a devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our Constitution.

So was President Obama’s decision to make a recess appointment “unprecedented”? And what about checks and balances?

Funny, but I don’t recall Republicans charging that President Bush engaged in a power grab when he used a recess appointment to name John Bolton as the US Ambassador to the United Nations. Perhaps more importantly, take a look at the following graph (from Mother Jones):

Hmm. It would appear that President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, and President George W. Bush are all more “undemocratic” (arrogant?) than both President Clinton and President Obama. So maybe Republicans protest a wee bit too much on this issue? Can anyone say “hypocrisy”? What about those stones and glass houses?

But the real issue isn’t whether President Obama was being undemocratic or arrogant or acting in an unprecedented way. Instead, we should focus on the conduct of the Republicans. Remember that the Constitution requires the advise and consent of the Senate. However, Senate Republicans have blocked consideration of Cordray’s nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Well, in this day and age, that’s not so unusual. Filibusters and other delaying tactics to prolong votes on unpopular nominees is nothing new.

But that’s not what happened to Cordray’s nomination.

The Senate didn’t reject Cordray because of his views. Republican Senator’s didn’t really object to Cordray. Instead, Republicans objected to the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They objected to the fact that, like other federal agencies, it had a chair (instead of a board of directors). And they objected to it having an budget that did not require the Bureau to come back to Congress for new funding each year. You see, Republicans refused to allow Cordray’s nomination to come to a vote unless President Obama agreed to change the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in ways that would weaken the nascent organization. As CNN noted:

[W]ithout a director, for example, the bureau can't regulate financial products from non-banks, including student loan providers, debt collectors, payday lenders and check cashers.

Without a chief, the bureau also can't regulate mortgage originators and servicers, which played a big role in the financial crisis by providing subprime mortgages to families who couldn't afford them.

Just in case you think that I’m being a bit too hyperbolic in my explanation of Republican objections, here’s what Speaker Boehner had to say:

This position had not been filled for one reason: The agency it heads is bad for jobs and bad for the economy. It’s clear the president would rather trample our system of separation of powers than work with Republicans to move the country forward.

Or there is this statement from Sen. McConnell following the recess appointment (emphasis added):

Earlier this year, 44 of my Senate Republican colleagues and I served notice that we will not confirm any nominee as director, regardless of party, until structural changes are made to make the bureau accountable to the American people — and more transparent.

You see? Nothing about Cordray at all. The objection is to the Bureau that Congress created in 2010. Republicans lost that debate but now they’re trying to hold up the President’s right to appoint a nominee, not because they object to the nominee, but because they object to the structure and purpose of the Bureau. Go back to Sen. McConnell’s claim that the recess appointment has “arrogantly circumvented the American people”. I’d argue that refusing to allow a vote, not because of any issue with the nominee, but because Republicans don’t like the nature of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the real case of “arrogantly circumvent[ing] the American people”.

Just to be clear, the organization that we’re discussing is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is designed to help protect consumers. But Republicans don’t like that, do they?