Yes We Can!... Eventually.

President Obama, certified master of the long view (Andrew Sullivan (c) 2011), put forth his not so unequivocal support of the right of gay marriage. I've seen a lot of opinions already on this with many saying it is rank political opportunism, from both sides, and some on the left saying that he was not full-throated enough because of his support for federalism on the subject. I'm sympathetic to both views and, as always, the truth falls somewhere in the middle. I do not think that the POTUS truly believes, in his heart of hearts, that the states should be the ones to legislate on this issues, especially as a Constitutional law scholar (but, then again, what the fuck do I know about what is in his heart of hearts). His whole "I personally believe, but y'all do what you want" stance certainly seems to take some power (slash political liability) from this interview. I also believe that there is just as much risk as potential reward in coming out in support considering the disgustingly unnecessary passing of Amendment 1 in North Carolina and, in the same vein, articles like this.

But, bottom line, who the hell cares about the various calculations behind the decision or the fact that it was not perfect in everyone's minds. It was important. Momentous even. One of my great complaints about President Obama was not enough movement on Guantanamo, his absolutely ridiculous turn on his pledge regarding war on drugs/medical marijuana and support of the civil rights of the gay community. One out of three with just under 6 months to the election ain't bad. Not to mention that, by painting such a stark picture between himself and Mitt on this issue (see the Grenell fiasco) turns this election into a mini-referendum on the issue. We got to take this for what it is, be proud of this step, and appreciate the slow build that will eventually lead to real change.

And, as always, keep in mind the famous never said words of President Obama...

Donald Trump to Provide Voice to Romney Robocalls...

As reported by ABC news. I have nothing to add to that, apparently, non-joke. Paraphrasing the POTUS, good luck with that...


Image from: NY Post, via Google Images.

F@#k Yoo (and Bolton Too)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

John Yoo and John Bolton, enthusiastic torture supporters and haters of general Constitutional freedoms, wrote in aOp-ed in today's NY Times criticizing POTUS for agreeing to comply with a European code of conduct for space and thus, in their demented little minds, circumventing a Constitutional requirement that the Senate ratify any treaties. I don't even know where to begin with the hubris of it all so I will not say much. The fact that either of them are passing any judgment on Constitutionality is laughable. Even more hilarious is the fact that their analysis is borderline mentally handicapped. 

The Obama administration recently declared that America would follow, though not sign, a European Union code of conduct for outer space — a transparent end run around the constitutional requirement that the Senate ratify all treaties. This code, drafted by Europeans who do not bear America’s global responsibilities, restricts military activities in space as well as some peaceful dual-use technologies, like the multistage rockets used to launch commercial satellites.

Soooo, the President is NOT signing the treaty and agreeing to abide by its term and thus setting foreign policy? That is not in his purview since when exactly? And the fact that he is not signing, and thus committing, this course can be changed at any time. What the hell are they arguing? They attempt to address this point by baldly claiming to know the inner minds and objectives of the administration because of what some unnamed administration officials "loudly proclaimed" while in academia.

Really, an unbelievable piece of argument. My head is spinning with the stupidity. Good lord I hate them.

GOP and the Strength of (Malleable) Convictions

The GOP primary marches on as Mitt Romney wins both Arizona, by a large margin on the back of the Mormon voting bloc, and Michigan, albeit by an all to tight 3.2% margin as reported in the NY Times. The close margin in Michigan, ostensibly Romney's home turf, means that this primary will continue on with no absolutely definitive front runner for, at least, the medium term.

Part of the problem for Romney seems to be systemic problem when it comes to the Republican party in general; they have no actual convictions. As has been well documented, Mr. Romney has been on both sides of just about every issue. Honestly, as many times as he has changed direction in tune where the voting public's wind has blown (not a fart joke), his new nickname should be Weather vane (no, seriously. That's a good nickname. I'm trademarking it. (TM) No Mas Paine 2012.). Especially since his current nickname is Mitt (what's up with that? Oh, right, his actual name is Willard). This is true of almost every candidate who has run this primary though. Either they have changed their tune (Romney, Gingrich) or they never really knew exactly what their tune was to begin with slash were a joke (Bachmann, Cain, Trump). The only true core conviction that has seem to come from the GOP has come from Congressional leaders such as McConnell and Cantor (whose weaselly properties have been previously documented) in moments of candor (see what I did there) when they state that the real goal is to make the President of the United States a one term president. Not to lower the deficit or return to a smaller, better run federal government, but to defeat the current POTUS. Kind of a time limited goal that does not exactly qualify for a core conviction, dontcha think?

The GOP likes to fashion itself as the party of strength against the effete liberal elites on the other side. Strong on national security. Strong on family values. Strong on protecting religious freedom (if you are a Christian or Israel loving Jew). On all point, however, the party tends to go overboard. Statements declaring that Iran needs to be blown off the map, before any provocation or proof of possession of nuclear weapons, in order to protect the sanctity of Israel, where there is not such thing as Palestinians by the way, seems to belie an insecurity present in the Grand Old Party. It has shades of one walking around with a chip on their shoulder and going out of their way to prove their mettle. This also, along with the shift of focus to social issues, helps explain Santorum's surge (seriously, editor's choice in re: Santorum headlines have to be on purpose). Santorum may be extreme and an enemy of personal liberty who is not nearly as electable as Romney in the general, but at least he says what he believes (unlike Romney who only convinces himself to believe what he says). People can viscerally feel who is forthright and Romney does not fit the bill.

I do not think the Democratic Party, as a whole, is much different. One of the many reasons that I think the duopoly of political parties, which the founding fathers argued against from the beginning, is no bueno. In contrast to all this noise, however, President Obama (the head cheese) stands alone. He pisses off nearly everyone on the Right and a whole lot on the left, but he is who he said he is. Repeatedly. And clearly. He's a center left democrat who has come through on a ton of the promises he made during his initial campaign. He's cerebral and thinks things through before acting, but he's plenty fiery when he needs to be. Long story short, aside from the hot mess that is the Republican party, I think we are going to see four more years because the POTUS is nothing if not mostly consistent.

Cheers to that.


Image: From Boston Globe (via Google Images)

Keeping the Church Separate from the State... and Out of Our G*#damn Bedrooms

The latest uproar coming from the crazypants tag team of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and the evangelical right has honed in on the Obama administrations requirement that religiously affiliated hospitals and colleges have to cover birth control in insurance plans they offer. Bishops, backed up by evangelical foot soldiers, screamed about the imposition caused by this attack on religious freedoms. Despite the fact that very few of the Catholic fold support the Church's position on contraception (or masturbation, or sex for pleasure, et al.), the ruckus was enough to get the administration to walk back from their position, but not enough to satisfy the Church hierarchy. This is not at all surprising considering that this is a battle that U.S. Bishops have been planning on for awhile.

Some commentators, such as Andrew Sullivan, believe that the U.S. Bishops, with the evangelical right hanging on to their cassock tails, have committed a great overreach. Much of the right, including some of the establishment, vehemently disagree and continue to screech about attacks on religion; I, however, fall wholeheartedly in Sully's camp surprise surprise. First and foremost, the Church cites moral authority when bringing down their ecumenical hammer on the use of contraception, or any type of sexual activity not for procreation. Call me crazy, but I do not think the Church has much capital when it comes to the boudoir. Let me know when the Church makes a full throated apology, that resounds from Pope Benedict on down, about the worldwide sexual abuse of the least powerful of their flock. That is just step 1. Second, the position they have chosen has almost no support. The fact that this is coming during the GOP primaries means that the Church is, probably quite literally, preaching to the choir. The party most likely to be against such moves, single white women, is a likely independent group that either party will need to win over to win. Smooth move on that one evangelical right.

The enormity of the miscalculation is playing out right now. Despite what some on the right are deluding themselves into believing, Rick Santorum is very much not electable. At least not in the general election. Due to that fact, however, he shouldn't be the current leader of the GOP primaries unless they are desperate to lose. However, the contraception issue, and the highlight of social issues over economic that it has caused, has propelled Santorum to heights that he would not previously have dreamed of just a month ago. And, in Michigan, the joke is quite literally on them yet they don't seem to realize it. The Daily Kos has asked Michigan Democrats, who are allowed to vote in the Republican primary, to vote for Santorum to help him win and help take Romney out. Further, and much more hilariously, Santorum has embraced this move; respectability be damned! According to Talking Points Memo:

It’s a controversial tactic. Bill Ballenger, a longtime Michigan politico and the editor of Inside Michigan Politics, spoke with TPM about the call earlier in the day. He said the call piqued his interest because it sounded like it could have come from a union targeting Romney ahead of the Feb. 28 primary. The call focuses on Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout and calls on Democrats to vote for Santorum Tuesday because of it.

“It went on and on like this and I kept listening because I kind of smelled a rat,” Ballenger said. “And finally at the very end, in a tagline it says, ‘this call was paid for by the Santorum for president committee.’

If I was a Republican, I'd probably be crying into my Vatican approved Wheaties and doing some Opus Dei style self-flagellation right now. I style myself a moderate, was feeling Huntsman a bit, but the state of the GOP since I came of voting age has prevented me from having any sane choice rather than the Dems.

#Team Obama. (with a Sully hat tip).

The Prodigal Son Returns... Yada Yada Yada, Clever Segue into Syria's Assad

Look, I've been regrettably absent for just about a month so kindly excuse my weak sauce title. My wholehearted apologies to my legions of four readers but the past month or two have been somewhat busier than anticipated. However (!), I hope to be more attentive in the coming months.

Meanwhile, during my absence, the decidedly unapologetic Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (see the even weaker tie in there?) has continued to indiscriminately shell and murder his own people. Although he is truly terrible person to whom human being shouldn't even be applied, I understand his motives to a degree. After what happened to Gaddafi, it would not be completely surprising that al-Assad might think he is not only fighting for his grip on power, but also his life (this, mind you, in no way excuses his actions. He and his supporters are despicable subhuman beings). In his fear, he is retreating to the methods of his father, which were effective at the time. This, however. is not 1982. The general Arab spring (and fall and winter) has shown the people that their continued rebellion can win in the long run and the fear and despair of an earlier time has seemingly dissipated. The people are emboldened and although, especially in Syria, the revolution has not been televised, it will also not be so easily tamped out.

Less understandable, even from a purely rational viewpoint, is the stance being taken by Russia and China. Sure neither want "the western world" nosing their way into the sovereign business of either nation, especially in regards to either human rights violations (both, but China really) or election fraud/lack of actual democratic processes (Russia). Sure Syria hosts Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean region and buys large amounts of ruskie weapons. The intervention into Libya that led to the death of Gaddafi clearly freaked both nations out. But are these reasons really enough for these two nations to force themselves to stand apart from the rest of the world and back someone who is clearly killing scores of his own people to maintain an increasingly tenuous grip on power? As the positions of the opposition harden, even in the face of near constant shelling, abduction, torture, and death, it becomes increasingly unlikely that al-Assad will ever be able to peaceably hold power again. What could Russia and China possibly get by standing on the wrong side of history and with a murderer? Yet, there are still quotes like this:

At a news conference in Moscow, Sergey V. Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, said he regretted that the Friends of Syria conference in Tunisia last week had failed to foster the conditions that would encourage all Syrians to engage in political dialogue, according to an official transcript.

“It’s not realistic to demand that the government end its action against militants and keep the militants free of any obligations whatsoever,” Mr. Lavrov said. He lauded the Syrian referendum as “movement toward democracy.”

 And this:

In Beijing, the official People’s Daily newspaper said the United States had no right to criticize Chinese and Russian policy. The Obama administration, the newspaper said, “has not considered how to allow the Syrian people to put an early end to this disaster at minimal cost.”

These Russian and Chinese officials are either completely divorced from reality or are simply sipping the al-Assad regime's kool-aid* despite all the evidence to the contrary. The situation in Syria is not something developing into a political discussion; it is a burgeoning civil war that is going to get much worse before it gets any better. The tragedy here is that if two of the four BRIC nations were not being obstinate in the name of a foreign policy power play, both could actually be power players by leading a transition of power that deposed al-Assad. Further, especially for Russia, this could be in their self-interest as they would, seemingly, be looked upon more favorably by whatever government replaced al-Assad.

This will be looked upon as a tragic situation that reflects poorly on the leaders of Russia and China and makes a  21st Century mass murderer of al-Assad.

* Does the name of this delicious drink strike anyone else as weird? Like it somehow aids you in being cool while forcing you to misspell? Anyway, I do not know where that came from and I clealry I digress...

How Stupid is Grover Norquist (a.k.a., Has a Republican Ever Actually Looked at the Constitution?)

So apparently the latest bit of insane inanity out of Grover Norquist's multiple chin topping mouth involves impeaching President Obama if he is elected to a second term and allows the Bush tax cuts to expire. And I regretfully quote:

NORQUIST Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach. The last year, he’s gone into this huddle where he does everything by executive order. He’s made no effort to work with Congress.

I don't even know where to start with this one. First off, let's concentrate on the "tax [cuts] lapse." So impeachment is a valid response to letting the sunset provisions of Bush's original tax bill kick in? Which would basically be the executive executing a previously enacted law. This is wrong, how? Secondly, and more importantly, what exact charges would be used in these impeachment proceedings? Guilty of not letting jowly gargoyle Grover Norquist get his policy way? Here is when the Constitution (y'know that thing all the Tea Parties drone on about) says it is appropriate to impeach in Article II, Section 4:

Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I mean unless it is another ridiculous GOP implicit charge of treason or he's saying POTUS would be guilty of NOT bribing the top tax brackets with cuts, where exactly would sunsetting the Bush tax cuts fit in there. Such statements make a mockery of the U.S. Constitution, as well as of our general political process, and I truly hope that Norquist crawl back into whatever mole man hole he came out of. I mean, seriously, your name is Grover. GRRROOOOVVVEEERRRR (and, actually, the linked picture is a perfect description of Norquist too. Freakin' nerd monster).

(Image: Google Images)

Are the GOP Primaries Acting as an Early Policy Referendum by Accident?

No, Santorum does not count. As the State of the Union Address is tonight, I could venture a guess at each candidates odds agains President Obama or just pull some Nate Silver ish about who I think might win; but, as it is really Obama v. the Economy for who'll win this fall, it doesn't really matter.

The interesting part of the GOP nomination contests, for me at least, is that they are bringing to the fore issues that you wouldn't expect until the general election; namely, super PACs in the post-Citizen United world and, in a roundabout way focusing on Mitt Romney's reluctance to release his tax returns, the appropriateness of the 15% capital gains tax rate (especially as it is applied private equity shops). These are focal points you would expect to see from President Obama's team but not from internecine fighting between republican candidates. Romney and Gingrich have been going back and forth biatching about each other's super PACs. Super PACs that have already spent $30 million so far amongst the Republicans. Just today, Dr. Miriam Adelson, wife of casino magnate and super Israel supporter Sheldon Adelson, donated $5 million to Gingrich's super PAC. Between the husband and wife, team Gingrich has pulled in $10 million for negative adds in the past month. Despite the claim in Citizens United that the money is just speech and would have a negligible influence on politicians, quite the opposite seems to be true as I could've told you the second that opinion came out. As Barrett seems to point out, Gingrich's 90 degree rightward shift on Israeli/Palestinian issue could be from any number of reasons, including the general rightward shift in the GOP recently due to the Tea Party and the partisan shift that comes during a nominating process. However, it is hard to deny that it stinks to high heaven. As the NY Times points out,

The Adelsons’ contributions on Mr. Gingrich’s behalf illustrate how rapidly a new era of unlimited political money is reshaping the rules of presidential politics and empowering individual donors to a degree unseen since before the Watergate scandals.

The wealth of a single couple has now leveled the playing field in two critical primary states for Mr. Gingrich, a candidate who ended September more than $1 million in debt, finished out of the running in Iowa and New Hampshire and, unlike Mr. Romney, has yet to attract the broad network of hard-money donors and bundlers that traditionally propel presidential campaigns.

It boggles the mind.

Meanwhile, the very attacks on Romney that Gingrich's super PAC has financed have recently (in South Carolina at least) concentrated on his time at Bain Capital and how it affected the working man. The long and short of it being how the cold-hearted, Gordon Gekko-like, Romney acquired a vast fortune off the plight of the workers laid off by companies that had to fold after Bain Capital saddled them with too much debt in leveraged buyouts (LBOs). The companies suffered, but Bain prospered after using some of the debt to pay off their investment and management fees. This led to a further attack on how Romney refused to release his tax returns, an attack which he failed to respond to effectively, forcing him to release his returns for the past two years today. They show that he pays a rate of 13.9% as most of his income is seen as capital gains. Though most of the Republicans on the stage want either that rate or even lower, this talk is undoubtedly going to illuminate this country's income inequity and call into question whether a lower capital gains rate is good policy (especially for those in private equity). At the very least, this is certainly going to come up in tonight's State of the Union Address. Hopefully, as Andrew Sullivan has called for, it comes in a larger talk about the need to reform our tax code in general. Debt has been incentivized for too long in this country and it has caused a myriad problems. Talking about it tonight would be a good first step.

Though the GOP candidates, and their talking head puppetmasters on Fox News, will undoubtedly end up labeling him a socialist tomorrow, it is important to remember the words of the proto-capitalist Adam Smith. And I quote:

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

BONUS POINTS- State of the Union Prediction Edition: Obama uses today to launch some sort of tax reform initiative. In the midst of this, especially with the presence of Obama's secretary and with the release of Romney's tax returns, he takes the opportunity to throw out some derivation of the following line: "It is not right that people of means like Warren Buffett, with billions of dollars, are paying the same rate as his secretary, who is here today. I know that it is called the Buffett rule because of this but perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it the Romney rule, as he pays even less." Obama is probably too classy to go explicitly at Romney like that, but BELEE dat the above sentiment will be implied.

Time To Take Your Licks, POTUS

A lot of time is spent on this blog snarkily sniping at the GOP; rightfully in MHO, as they continue to come across as an entirely unserious political party ("It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man," says my progenitor). One should not take the disdain for one party as unabashed celebration of the other, however. President Obama, no matter where exactly you ascribe the blame, has failed to live up to the immense promise exhibited during his 2008 triumph. Perhaps part of that blame falls upon his supporters, myself included, who expected far too much of the man and thought far too little of the institutions in place. There is, however, one specific failure that is definitively attributable to the man and his administration and that is the failure to move ahead with pushing the proposals from the Simpson-Bowles Commission. This failure presaged numerous future problems that came up and, I believe, continues to hurt America today.

Although hardly news as it has been harped on brought up repeatedly by Andrew Sullivan and recently by the Republican National Committee in a helpful research briefing, it has yet to gain traction with the larger public. I know we are unofficially in election mode now, but it would be nice, as others have advocated, if the POTUS showed leadership by jumping back into the business of governing by reviving Simpson-Bowles. How effective would the picture he is painting of a do-nothing GOP Congress be if, a month and change after the RNC advocated the move, Simpson-Bowles proposals were shut down or hijacked with unnecessary additions. Or, even better, how excellent would it be if the proposals went through and Obama's spinmeisters got to work highlighting his leadership on the matter?

Regardless, promises were made about how this man was a post-partisan who was about what was good for the country rather than what was good for the campaign for re-election. Though there is no one on the other side who I would consider voting for (outside of Capt. Haughty-pants Huntsmann, who has no shot at being the nominee), it would be nice if President Obama was, well, presidential and completely solidified my faith in my vote. I don't want to be threatened into it again...

*** UPDATE ***
A persuasive, and conservative, argument of why it is imperative to trim our military spending. I could not agree more and can only hope that the cuts are very significant. Much like the belief that taxes should rise to around Clinton era levels, I think our military spending should fall, at the least, to pre-9/11 levels. In the balanced checkbook view of our economy, decreased spending AND increased revenue is the only way to bring down the US deficit.

Addington, Yoo Have To Be Sharting Me

Look upon the above visages if you dare, as they are they are the physical manifestation of pure evil (he said with only a bit of hyperbole...). Recently, President Obama used recess appointments to appoint a new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and two new members to the National Labor Relations Board. Appointments that were being blocked from a vote by Congressional machinations that would've shut down both agencies. Some Constitutional Law experts at Harvard, believe that the President acted well within the scope of his Constitutional powers in doing so. David Addington, he of the unitary executive theory, and John Yoo, the rationalizer of torture, however, are all up in arms about the appointments calling it "chilling" that the President is making such "sweeping claim[s]."

Keep in mind, these are two men who, during the presidency of George W. Bush, did everything they could to expand executive power. This includes institutionalizing torture during their administration and claiming that the President could do virtually whatever he wanted as long as it was during "times of war." But it is completely out of bounds that President Obama is using recess appointments? As recess appointments have along history dating back to the beginning of our country where a President would keep the work of government going by making appointments during a Congressional recess, a new method to prevent appointments has been utilize where only one Senator would show up for "pro forma" sessions of the Senate. The idea is that while there is an actual recess going on, recess appointments cannot be made because these pro forma appearances mean that the Senate is in session. It is a cheap way to make sure that there never has to be an up and down vote on Presidential appointments. Considering what those two ass clowns above instituted during the previous administration, they have some real brass balls to come forward with these asinine objections now. I almost respect it if I didn't think they are up there among the most evil, motherless rat bastards on this Earth...

That Power-Hungry Little Weasel Eric...

I am, of course, talking about Eric Cantor (though the Billy Madison allusion is particularly apt...). Cantor has always been a little weasel and he stepped it up another notch recently on an appearance on "60 Minutes". At one point during the interview, Lesley Stahl brought up Ronald Reagan, obviously a hero of the GOP generally and Cantor in particular, and how his ability to compromise, including on the raising of taxes. This is simply a matter of fact and is repeatedly pointed out by Bruce Bartlett, who helped work on tax and banking policies for both Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Cantor hems and haws for a moment before his press secretary swoops in off camera and calls Mr. Stahl a liar.

This is not completely surprising considering the baseness of the current GOP. As demonstrated in the debt ceiling debate, neither the truth nor what is good for the country is important if it does not fit in with the GOP and increasingly the nutso Tea Party agenda. The American people instinctively felt the dangers of the debt ceiling intransigence, but now the negative effects are being shown as the economy starts to bounce back to around where it was before that "hostage taking" (as demonstrated on this chart). I hope people actually start taking these more extreme politicians, on both sides, to task for the dangerous and increasingly prevalent move towards increased partisanship in the next Congressional election cycle. If not, I do not know when our broken government will actually get back to business of governing.

From the Annals of Common Sense- Legalize It

 

 Looking at the facts objectively, the illegality of marijuana is a failed policy. The U.S. spends roughly $8 billion dollars (BILLION) on enforcing the prohibition of marijuana with 88% of arrests coming from simple possession (See this article for more information/statistics). Despite this, the regulations are having a negligible effect on the number of people who consume marijuana. Further, since there is a federal law outlawing marijuana that supersedes any state law allowing medical marijuana, and since the DEA continues to enforce it despite the White House's proclamation they would not interfere with state medical marijuana laws, many people with serious medical issues are not able to get the significant relief that marijuana provides them with. This includes increasing comfort and hunger of those receiving radiation treatment for cancer and military veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

Not to mention the fact that prohibition of marijuana seems to come from, originally, somewhat racist motives. For example:

 Around 1915, right at the height of its popularity, cannabis was in over 100 pharmaceutical preparations and seen as a medicine extraordinaire especially for difficult to treat neuralgia. It was in the early 20th century that America discovered jazz, and jazz seems to have been born with an affinity to the good herb. Louis Armstrong, besides being one of the best Jazz musicians of all time, was a cannabis ambassador and really was the very first cannabis activist. At that time cannabis was still legal. It was available in pharmacies, of course, but also could be ordered from catalogs as Hashish Candy and was commonly passed around amongst jazz musicians as cigarettes (“muggles“).[...]

According to Dale Gieringer [2] the very first anti marijuana law was passed in California in 1913. Dr. Gieringer reports that testimony that led up to the ban included this statement from a California pharmacy official: “Within the last year we in California have been getting a large influx of Hindoos and they have in turn started quite a demand for cannabis indica; they are a very undesirable lot and the habit is growing in California very fast…”
Anti-immigrant sentiment may have started the ball rolling, but it wasn’t long until marijuana was seen as a useful weapon to put the genie of African American civil rights back into its bottle.

The policy is even more nonsensical (see what I did there?) considering the United State's current economic dire straits, since the legalization of marijuana, even if only for medical purposes at a federal level, would allow for the more careful regulation and, more importantly, taxation of marijuana. According to the Cato Institute (re-link):

The potential of the industry as a whole is frequently overlooked. Marijuana is by most estimates a more valuable commodity than corn and wheat combined, with experts estimating its annual value to be between $10 and $120 billion. The employment potential of such a market is enormous. [...] If economic stagnation continues, however, employment and tax waste will become more and more relevant in driving public support for ending Prohibition. Unfortunately, that support may have to increase dramatically before any real ground is gained.

That is a rather large spectrum that the Cato Institute is offering but, going conservative with their estimate, even if the value was only $40 billion, you would probably be looking at, roughly, a $15 billion swing to the government. This accounts for the taxes that could be established on the newly found industry as well as a little under $8 billion that would no longer have to be spent on the prohibition of marijuana (if simple possession was also decriminalized). If the government goes for full legalization (since many feel that marijuana is safer than either alcohol or cigarettes), even more could be raised with excise taxes being added on the purchase of marijuana.

Change is gonna come and the  U.S. government (C'MON Obama, we know you inhaled...) should embrace it sooner rather than later. The vast majority of Americans support medical marijuana and roughly 50% support full legalization. Why not give the people what they want and help refill the coffers/decrease unemployment? Tis a no-brainer, no? Getting ahead of public opinion policy wise (barely at that) seems much better, albeit somewhat less safe, than obstinately staying the course and allowing federalism to take its course as public opinion continues to change. Plus, everyone knows the founding fathers were all about the herb... that's just science.

How to Fail At Legislating by Really, Really Trying

This post may very well get pretty long and quite possibly convoluted, so I request your patience/forgiveness in advance. A probably (definitely) better written piece that takes on similar themes can be found here (it's Rolling Stone, but not Matt Taibbi. So back off). Feel free to jump to the last paragraph of this post for the punch line.

In a surprise to no one, the (Not so) Super Committee on Debt Reduction failed miserably at their mandate and did not even get a proposal together that they could vote on. There are a variety of reasons for this failure but (as some may have guessed) I place the blame squarely at the feet of GOP orthodoxy (religious term usage intended) on taxes. Simply put, Republicans on the Debt Reduction Committee refused to budge on additional revenue to work in tandem with the spending cuts the Dems were offering. Specifically, the GOP was requesting that the Bush tax cuts lasted beyond 2012. Obama has pushed for the continuance of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class before, but the Republicans required that ALL of the tax cuts, including for the wealthiest in this county, are extended as well. Despite the fact that the country can no longer afford them. And despite repeatedly and vociferously preaching debt reduction. The basic argument, as far as there is one, is that taxes upon the wealthy impede growth and the economic growth is really the only way we can pay down our national debt. Classic Trickle-down economics (aka Reaganomics).

There are NUMEROUS problems with this theory, but I'll try to contain myself as much as possible. First and foremost, if this is the case then WHERE THE EFF IS THE MOTHER EFF'N GROWTH YOU GODDAMN MORONS? (Looks like my Caps Lock got stuck. Whoops.). This is not some hot new theory that Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie hatched at a slumber party being all GOP young guns and such. As the name suggests, the Bush tax cuts have been around since the presidency of, wait for it... you ready?... I don't know if you are, but here it is... George Walker Bush. Yet the growth hasn't come.  Now, I guess, the plan is to maintain the status quo and hope beyond hope that the spirit of the Gipper makes it all better? These tax cuts have taken billions from our revenue stream and, along with two unfunded wars, helped mightily in bringing the US into the situation we are now in. Despite GOP mythologizing, even President Reagan raised taxes when it was necessary to keep the US economy on an even keel. You do not stand on orthodoxy when the country is reeling; you find solutions that work (such as spending cuts + increased revenues = balance; yes, that would be Personal Finance 101- Your Checkbook).

Additionally, and lastly (thankfully for you), the current talk of tax cuts to the wealthiest and corporations spurring hiring and ACTUAL growth through capital investment, R&D, new products, et al., is just a steamy load of horse manure. As today's NY Times points out, many companies, currently sitting on enormous amounts of cash, are not reinvesting that money in ways that would ACTUALLY help the economy grow. Rather, these companies are artificially approximating growth by instituting share buy backs,which push up the earnings per share. This is accounting legerdemain being used to simulate growth. The truly sad part is that investment in research and development would, eventually, help a company ACTUALLY grow. It just requires taking the long view. And in lies the rub. The short term artificial growth helps executives hit required earnings per share/growth numbers and, thus, get performance based performances attached to those numbers. Likewise, usually top executives making these decisions hold a large amount of stock in the company and can directly benefit from these buy backs. This is, clearly, a potential conflict of interest but courts give a wide amount of latitude in business judgment. Unless there is a clear breach of fiduciary duties, the games continue. All tax cuts would do is grow the pile of money that corporations are sitting on and help those running those companies get richer while paying lower tax rates. Sounds totes fair, right?

So, in other words, shit is eff'n crazy pants to the max. I can only hope that the POTUS sticks by his promises to veto any attempt to roll back the automatic spending cut trigger and a full extension of the Bush tax cuts. It may take some brass ones but, considering our current political environment (those federalists/anti-federalists were lil schoolboys comparatively), this may be the best outcome we could have hoped for.

David Frum Flips the Script on the Euro Crisis

As noted first by Sully, David Frum has an interesting take on the benefits Germany derived from the Euro and how it had a deleterious effect on the rest of the Euro-zone. Essentially, the currency manipulation inherent in the Euro made it so that Germany became the Euro-zone's lender and many countries (Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain... sound familiar?) racked up an enormous amount of debt because interest rates were so low. On the other hand, because Germany had changed to the Euro and no longer had the Deutsche Mark, there was no currency appreciation in Germany that would have negatively affected their trade surplus, retention of corporations and unemployment. Basically. Germany was able to continue to grow on fundamentals while the rest of Europe built castles in the air supported by massive amounts of loans from Germany.

Not to take away from the foolish behavior of the other countries (the Irish built like a they were dru... nevermind, Greece's public sector and taxation was/is a bloody mess, etc.), but I think it's an interesting take on how Germany should cop to their complicity and stop playing the victim.

(Image from the Economist)

As Per Usual, I Can't Say It Better Than Sully

I'm sure he does not enjoy me calling him Sully, repeatedly (because clearly he reads this blog regularly), as if I was his best friend (I WIISSSHHH) but I have to give him props for his always on point analysis of the American political process. He has been particularly good, lately, at expressing why the POTUS hasn't been getting nearly enough credit, as outlined in this post.

We are very similar in that we have complimentary view points and he is a much, much better blogger than I. So you should probably stop reading this and head over to the Dish now. Seriously, what are you still doing reading this? Ridiculous...

And He Pulls Another Brooks!

Ahh, David Brooks... you never cease to amuse me. He went ahead and pulled a Brooks in an opinion piece yesterday by, as he is wont to do, making some very salient and important points but washing it all away with his larger and wrongheaded take-away. CLASSIC Brooks!

Good Point: Inequality between those with and without college degrees in middle America is just as important, if not much more important, than the inequality between the top 1% and the bottom 99% that you see on the coasts. Further, those without college degrees are more likely to live unhealthily, get divorced, have children out of wedlock and not encourage their own children to go to college. This is clearly overlooked in the income inequality debates and is important to recognize and reinforce.

Wrongheaded Take-Away: Just when you think he might be killing it with important and pertinent points, he goes all Brooks on yo ass with this gem:

But the fact is that Red Inequality is much more important. The zooming wealth of the top 1 percent is a problem, but it’s not nearly as big a problem as the tens of millions of Americans who have dropped out of high school or college. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.

If your ultimate goal is to reduce inequality, then you should be furious at the doctors, bankers and C.E.O.’s. If your goal is to expand opportunity, then you have a much bigger and different agenda.

Good point David! 'Cept when, y'know, you make it an either/or decision. The point that is making so many people angry is that the GOP holds it to be self-evident that there should be no tax increases and that any attempts to balance the budget must come from cutting spending alone. Including, especially, exactly the type of spending that would help with things like those looking for a college education or those who might need some sort of social safety net behind them as they try to raise their kid as a single parent in the middle of the country. How about, instead of this false equivalence, we agree that we need some degree of SMART spending cuts while also increasing taxes on the most fortunate amongst us? Would that not both tackle the red and blue inequality? Some times things make way too much sense to ever be enacted...

I Know Obama's Not in a Band, But It's About Time for Him to Toot that Horn

I already apologize for the terrible pun above, but it is what it is. There has been a lot of discussion (primarily by Andrew Sullivan for me) about Barack Obama's perception problem. That is, not enough people seem to realize how much he has actually accomplished despite near historically bad circumstances. I am not going to rattle off them all but just a few of the greatest hits include Affordable Care Act (i.e., ObamaCare for those who've been donning your colonial Halloween concert since January), Dodd-Frank (financial reform), ending DADT, ending the war in Iraq, killing Osama Bin Laden and Anwar Al-Awlaki (constitutional questions aside... though I think it was JUST on the kosher side of the line), and the flowering of the Arab Spring and ending the Libyan regime (circumstances of Quaddafi's death aside). Ok, I rattled off a lot of them, but a pretty impressive laundry list of accomplishments if you ask me (which I assume you have since you are on my blog).

Despite all of the above, you still see quotes like this: 

But where Mr. Bush successfully cultivated an image as a decisive leader in a way that sharpened the comparison to Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dowd said, Mr. Obama could have trouble drawing as sharp a contrast.

“The value that the American public is looking for is a strong and decisive leader at a time of anxiety and challenge,” Mr. Dowd said. “In order to make the contrast, you have to have that value yourself, and Obama doesn’t have it.”

Really Matthew Dowd? Reeaaalllyyy?!? You have the POTUS whipping out some brass ones to take out OBL and Al-Awlaki but he won't be able to contrast against Mitt Romney, who might as well campaign with his finger always to the wind? (I only bring up Romney because if he can't beat Cain/Perry/Bachmann/Santorum/Paul then I do not know what to say). (I do not bring up Huntsman because he might as well be a democrat at this point. I like him too much for him to even sniff a Republican primary win). Undoubtedly, the poor economy will be thrown out as where he won't be able to contrast, but what is a man to do? He tries his best.

But I stray from my larger point. The reason why the President's accomplishments can be pooh pooh'd is because he seems almost embarrassed to stress how much good he's done in such a terrible environment. Fox News and far right bloggers/commentators have been able to hijack the conversation and mislead the public. I am far from the first to say this (again props to my boy Sully), but Obama and his people need to get a hold on their own narrative. It is starting to happen now, but it needs to happen quicker and more authoritatively. Come on Prez... I'll shit a brick worse than after a Godfather's pizza pie if Cain gets elected. Hook me up!