An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President:

In all honesty, I have no idea how to start one of these things. Do I go fawning and describe how I was an insta-supporter after the 2004 DNC and that the support only strengthened throughout your eventual Presidential campaign/election? Do I mention my recent disappointment, not Andrew Sullivan-like but there nonetheless, at the first debate and the related tightening of the polls? I guess I go lazy and lead with those questions (what hackery!). I was not, however, one of those was most angered by your seeming malaise in the debate but was rather incensed at how easily Mitt Romney lied, obfuscated and changed tack throughout. I suppose he should have been called out, but the shamelessness of it all was almost unbelievable. Even sadder, the American people bought it and, at the very least, Mr. Romney is basically tied with you in the national polls and is right on the bumper in many swing state polls. Some say you should be as pugnacious as Vice President Smokin' Joe Biden, but I, for whatever that is worth, would pledge caution. Call Mr. Romney out, certainly, but do so calmly and civilly. This should not be your concentration, however, as the real reason Americans fell for Mr. Romney's schtick is because they believed it as a viable new course for America that would set them back on the path to prosperity (despite the fact that that path was actually lined with heaps and heaps of cow patties).

With that in mind, why not reframe the debate and bring your own vision for the future to the fore. For instance, the 47% Mr. Romney so easily dismissed are not too lazy or too downtrodden to find work that they must rely on the government dole, many jobs they would have been taking no longer exist because of productivity gains or because corporations looking to pad their already overstuffed earnings have shifted them abroad. Instead of counting them out or writing them off, let's empower them. They do not need redistributive "handouts," they need training for the post-recession new normal. How about we redistribute the money that we have, for far too long, pledged in corporate welfare? Oil companies making billions do not need billions more in subsidies and favorable tax treatment. The banks that have been the beneficiaries of the public's largess derived from our tax dollars are sitting on that money rather than making loans or lowering mortgage rates. They say they are in the business of making profits, not public welfare; I say the American public is no longer in the business of helping them do so. Mr. President, any Wall Street money you were getting is probably already in so there's no holding back now. Mitt Romney is the ultimate plutocrat, so why no embrace the populist within you? Instead of practicing corporate welfare, that money is going to be "earmarked" (let's take that word back too!) for education. And not just improving education in pre-K and kindergarten, areas where it is proven to have the most impact, but also job training to help those out of work land more highly skilled jobs. Lets create more of these jobs by encouraging the modernization of our grid and the retrofitting of buildings that will not only lead to more jobs but will have the added benefit of eliminating wasted in providing heating and electricity for our homes. It even has a tailor-made tagline: "It's not about welfare for people suckling at the public teat, it is removing the already fattened corporations from the teat so our middle class can start the American comeback." Or something. I'm sure your election team can work on that...

Once you've laid that out, ask Mr. Romney was his plan is. Specifically. Ask him how those that have been looking but cannot find a job are going to be helped by the Romney/Ryan plan. Ask him if we are REALLY just hoping for the magic tax cut bean to spur growth once again? How are the policies currently espoused any different from the previous Bush plan? Shouldn't the fact that R.Glenn Hubbard, main Conservative tax cut cheerleader for decades, is the chief economist and seeming architect of economic plans belie the fact that a Romney administration will just be repeating recent history rather than learning from it?

And if Mr. Romney brings up a plan to privatize social security, whooo boy! It could not be easier to point out that the only benefit such a plan would bring would be to Mitt's buddies on Wall Street who would be chomping at the bit to get their hands on that money. They could then charge hundreds of millions of dollars of management fees for the possibility to mismanage the American public's money as bad as the banks did before the Great Depression. Doesn't that sound great?!?

How about immigration? If it doesn't get brought up, bring it up. I think the vast majority of people who are against the DREAM Act were probably not voting for your re-election anyway Mr. President. Ask Mr. Romney where he stands and, if he changes his tune, why he is standing to the left of the spot he stood two months ago. Stress the importance of the need to keep highly educated and highly immigrants, especially those who came to this country for that education, in the country. These are the drivers of innovation and growth that we so desperately need.

I cannot even be bothered to go into the social issues as I've already run too long and I think almost everyone knows where Romney/Ryan stand on that anyway (aside from abortion; where do they stand on that? Okay, maybe bring up abortion after Ryan's VP debate performance). Do not run on the past, except where you need to emphasize that Romney/Ryan will be repeating past mistakes. President Bill Clinton already made the case for you record, it is time for you to make the case for why you are the man to look to for the next 4 years. The refrain from the DNC and from numerous commercials has been about "moving forward," so how about you show the American people where you will be driving us. Many of your supporters are already in the tank and are confident you are to lead us on the right path. It is high time to show the rest of America. You rode into office on the inspirational wave of the change you would bring and you need to inspire Americans to their better natures again.

Thank you for your time Mr. President. The American people are counting on you.

With the utmost sincerity,


NoMas Paine

The REAL Mittens: An Addendum

I am sure I am not the first to write about this and it this case has been written more eloquently elsewhere, most likely by Ta-Nehisi Coates, but it fits in so nicely with what I wrote yesterday. The above depicts a familiar talking point for those who've been following the 2012 Presidential race. Or even before, actually. Conservatives, once they got tired demanding his birth certificate, have been loudly demanding the release of President Obama's various school transcripts. As shown above, we all know Mittens is BAWSE because he graduated BYU with high honors and HBS/HLS in the top 5% but how do we know that President Obama really DESERVED to be the first black Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review (because, y'know, they probably just give that away). The clear implication, though never expressly stated, is that we do not know if President Obama has deserved any of this because blahblahblah affirmative action. Up to and including the Presidency; which is nicely exhibited by the "in over his head" comments on the President.

On the other side, of COURSE Governor Romney has worked hard for/deserved everything he has achieved. And I'm sure he as (just like President Obama). But both Governor Romney himself and, seemingly, the right-wing talking heads discount all the built in advantages that he enjoyed throughout his life. Prep school. A stock portfolio bequeathment that he and his wife lived off of while in school. And I'm sure it probably does not hurt that your father was the CEO of American Motors and the Governor of Michigan. It seems, and I could very well be wrong, that in Mittens' mind, this was all predestined. He earned ALL of it, with no help whatsoever, and he DESERVES the Presidency.

In my mind, the Romneys' green paper was/is a lot more advantageous than Barack Obama's black skin. It'd be nice if some people would step back and realize that from time to time.


IMAGE: some moron from http://polination.files.wordpress.com.

Time to be Sane Adults on Taxing and Spending

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a non-partisan organization that basically does audits and analyses for Congress, recently released a report that stated, in essence, that hard choices on taxing and spending need to be made sooner rather than later to prevent a contraction that could harm the very very very slowly rebounding economy. As reported by USA Today, at the end of this year the "Bush tax cuts" are set to expire after they were extended when the original sunset clause kicked in and $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, agreed to in last summer's debt ceiling negotiations, will be triggered. In our current economic climate, as seen in Europe, such austerity measures could have a significant impact on the country's precarious recovery. The CBO's prescription, which many economists (and this non-economist) agree with is:

Or, if policymakers wanted to minimize the short-run costs of narrowing the deficit very quickly while also minimizing the longer-run costs of allowing large deficits to persist, they could enact a combination of policies: changes in taxes and spending that would widen the deficit in 2013 relative to what would occur under current law but that would reduce deficits later in the decade relative to what would occur if current policies were extended for a prolonged period.

Hopefully our elected officials can act like adults long enough to make something happen for the good of the country. And, not to get too melodramatic, the world considering how interconnected the global economy now is. Let's just say, with this being an election year and all, I'm not exactly holding my breath.


Image: By Carolyn Kaster, AP by way of USA Today.

What Have You Done With My Supreme Court?

The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin is, by leaps and bounds, one of the best chroniclers of the Supreme Court that we have or have had for awhile. His latest piece in the May 21, 2012 issue of the New Yorker is a fascinating recounting of the intrigues surrounding the precedent upending Citizens United ruling, which once again allowed unfettered corporate money to stream into elections. As Toobin mentions at the end of the piece, there is a direct line from Citizens United to the one billionaire backing one candidate (Adelson/Gingrich; Friess/Santorum) GOP primary we just witnessed.

I am planning two much longer posts on Citizens United, once I finish reading the decision (and you are welcome faithful readers... it's a doozy), and on how the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate decision should go IMHO, but suffice it to say that I agree with a lot of what Toobin states in the article. I know it's a long one but please do yourself a favor and read it. I try to stay up with the doings of the Supreme Court as much as possible but Mr. Toobin enlightened me. Be similarly enlightened. DO IT NOW. You woonnn'tttt.

Image: The New Yorker

Nobody Likes The Color Purple Anymore, And We Ain't Talking Oprah

Dick Lugar, a six-term Republican Senator from Indiana, just recently lost a primary battle to new Tea Party (side note: I thought that whole thing had run it's course...) darling Richard Mourdock. Many supporters of this move, as Teabaggers are wont to do, state that Lugar has simply been part of the Washington establishment too long, is in the District more than he is in Indiana, and has lost touch with his constituents. Certainly, there is more than a small kernel of truth to this. However, the responses of many more, not least of which was Mr. Mourdock, lent credence to the idea that Lugar actually lost because he was not properly awash in the glorious flames of ideological purity and had the audacity to reach his hand across the aisle to attempt to deal with the other party. According to Mr. Mourdock, the opposite day definition of bi-partisanship, and the only way that he would be involved, was when Dems had the good sense to come to whatever crazy ass position he decided to grab a hold of. Additionally, as Jonathan Chait points out in the above linked article, one of Lugar's sins was voting for the very qualified Justices Sotomayor and Kagan after President Obama nominated them. As Chait points out that, outside of extreme circumstances, the practice of voting for the other party's Supreme Court nomination, much like votes to raise the debt ceiling, was quite commonplace until very recently. 

This primary, however, is just a symptom of a much larger and a much scarier ailment that is oft discussed, but without any serious worry about the future repercussions... the increasing partisanship acrimony between the parties. Lugar's end is one of many recent examples of relatively more moderate (cannot stress relatively more) Republican Senators getting labeled Republicans In Name Only, or RINOs, and then getting attacked by the fringier parts of the GOP. In fairness, there are also the pols formerly known as Blue Dog Dems Democrats In Name Only, or DINOs (RINOs and DINOs... totes cute, amiriight?), who are also getting weeded out, but to a much lesser degree. This level of polarization will increasingly become a problem if it continues. During the debt ceiling debates, the US' credit rating was threatened because people around the world are starting to think our political process is too dysfunctional to get anything done. And they are not far off. This whole development, which seems unique to the aughts in my mind, makes me more and more worried about the future each time it rears its ugly head. One can almost picture a post-apocalyptic political future where there are literally two America's with the Red team having a firm grip on the amber waves of grain, the Blue team holding it down from sea to shining "whatever demarcates the end of each coast," and not a majestic purple mountain to be seen because, as everyone knows, red and blue don't mix.

Such a future makes me sick to my stomach so I can only hope that those representing us wise the hell up and realize that the only litmus test that truly matters is if they are doing what is best for their country. Though many who hold similar political beliefs as me gripe about President Obama being too moderate or even GASP a bit conservative for a Democrat, I hope he continues to let his Purple freak flag fly. Pretty soon he might be the only one left.

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.

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)

Daily Show's Stewardipity

A new segment where we just let Jon Stewart gets his Stew Beef on. Here he blasts Fox News for blatantly following the Republican National Convention's talking points and accidentally revealing that they are doing so.

Normally I'd just post the video up to but, as Comedy Central's website seems to be down for maintenance, here is a link to the video on Mediaite.

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).

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.

From the Annals of Common Sense- The Sense Strikes Back...

An article in the New York Times detailed how, despite raucous clamoring from various corners for reduced corporate taxes, 280 of the biggest publicly traded firms paid about half of the official corporate tax rate. In full disclosure, the study is based on a report from the liberal leaning Citizens for Tax Justice but it is still clear that many corporations use any loophole they can find to limit their tax exposure. A money quote from the article:

American corporations are paying a smaller share of taxes than in previous decades. They paid a total of $191 billion in federal income taxes in 2010, the Internal Revenue Service said, representing about 1.3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. That is down from about 6 percent during the 1950s (although some of the decline is because a smaller percentage of businesses now file as corporations).

It seems, considering the facts from this article and the GOP reluctance to raise taxes, the easy solution would be to lower the corporate tax rate, say by 10% to a total of 25%, and close the loopholes. Thus, you would not have some corporations paying 10% (or 0%) and some corporations paying 35% (the actual rate) for an average 18.5% corporate tax rate. Instead, everyone pays a lower rate of 25%, which actually brings up revenue by 6.5%. And, as an added bonus, all corporations are treated fairly with none getting screwed for creative accounting. Seems fair, no? And would satisfy both political parties, no? Getting to the meat and potatoes of the matter...

But the Citizens for Tax Justice study found that two-thirds of  the American companies with significant profits overseas actually paid more in taxes to foreign governments than they did in the United States. Rather than lowering the corporate rate more, the study said, the federal government should end the subsidies and shelters that favor companies that game the system. 

“Closing the loopholes will have real benefits, including a fairer tax system, reduced federal budget deficits and more resources to improve our roads, bridges and school — things that are really important for economic development here in the United States," the report said.

Worrrdddd. Again, I do not understand why this is even an argument. You cut taxes (and give Grover Norquist a boner) while raising revenues. What's not to love? Yo, POTUS... I'm ready to head the Council of Economic Advisers. Or you can slap me into that supposed Super Committee. Whenever you're ready. Just for the record, I play ball (in terrible shape, but decent court vision... classic PG) and recently gave up cigarettes (and we can cheat together. I'll never tell. I'm like a lock box). We can do this sir. YES WE CAN!

(Image from rally requesting NoMas Paine for C.E.A. Or a random Google Images pic. None of us have any way of knowing...)

Surprise, Surprise... The Joint Deficit Reduction Committee Ain't That Super

The (self-proclaimed) non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (it's level of partisanship has been debated), released a study the other day on the proposals presented by the democratic and republican members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that was put together in the crisis averting, debt ceiling raising deal this past August. Not all that surprisingly, the republicans on the committee still stick to the formula that it is all about spending cuts, with no additional revenue. Y'know, the Jack and the Beanstalk economic plan... plant the magic beans, wait for growth and then get your golden eggs (and much like Jack and the Beanstalk, it's a goddamn fairy tale). They also go rogue on the baseline for their estimates bu assuming that the Bush tax cuts continue (y'know those tax cuts that have been around for almost a decade but have yet to lead to one iota of economic growth) while every other estimate supposes that they expire. This is in clear contrast to Senator Max Baucus' plan, which proposes some revenue increases but that also requires significant spending cuts; including deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Of course, that plan was quickly rejected by the republican members of the "Super Committee."

If the POTUS cannot take advantage of republican intransigence and differentiate between the fairy tales offered by the GOP with the compromise offered by the democrats, I don't know what to say. I guess that would prove, once and for all, that BOTH parties are completely incompetent.

EDITORS NOTE: I use y'know faarrrr too much. Don't worry, I'm working on it. Just so y'know.

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...

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!