Encounter with a Bernie Bro

On 3/19, I posted on FaceBook an excerpt from Adam Parkemenko's daily BIG STUFF.  This led to an encounter with a Bernie Bro.

Adam Parkhomenko --

Remember when House Republicans were the worst people in Washington? Well, they’re still pretty awful, the title for worst has been claimed by Mitch and his cronies. Where to begin. Let’s start with Sen. Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intel Committee and someone who was busted in a recording obtained by NPR telling rich donors how bad the coronavirus would get even as Trump was telling Americans it was no big deal and it would just go away. Then we have Sen. John Cornyn, who used a racist diatribe to explain why calling it the Chinese Virus isn’t racist. Sen. Ron Johnson, one of the biggest scumbags of the Biden stuff, told his local paper that you just gotta keep it in perspective that a few million Americans might die. And then there’s Rand Paul. And really, ‘nuff said. Under Mitch’s leadership, or lack thereof, the U.S. Senate dragged its feet for days on the action the House took and now Mitch wants to cut Pelosi out of the negotiations. And for reasons we will never understand, there are many Democrats who want to take politics out of this current environment. These people must be new here and have never met a Republican. Like David Axelrod complaining because Democrats are running ads against Trump’s response? Seriously, Axe? Some of those first term capitulations are suddenly making a lot more sense. Trump fucked this up, and he and his party are going to be responsible for the deaths of many Americans. We sure as shit should be talking about that.

The Bernie Bro --

Just more bipartisan fuckfoolery. I'm immured to it, now. What will fall will fall.

JzB --

Both sides are not the same.

BB

They're not?

Could'a fooled me...

JzB

Sure, you can always find an example to validate a point of view. It's cherry picking, and it's not valid. You have to look at patterns of behavior, not isolated incidents. You have to look at policies and their effects.

Seriously, there are differences in any economic or social metric you can think of between when Rs and Ds are in control. And with the Ds it's always better.

Always.

Yes it's true that both parties have too much corporate interest. But that does not mean that they are equal. Frex: BHO had the backing of Wall St in '08, but they largely abandoned him in'12, because they didn't like what he was doing.

BB

Sorry [JzB}...I no longer believe this. I see them as two rival gangs in a kind of "Three families" criminal setup. The third family is the nonpartisan/bipartisan Deep State, which is actually more powerful than either gang. It allies itself with whichever gang seems most likely to continue to succeed in doing its bidding.

We've recently had a little shakeup of that system, because Trump surprised all THREE gangs and essentially took over the Ratpublicans. He is a rogue gang leader, and so far the other two gangs (and whatever parts of his own gang secretly wish him gone as well) have not been very successful in unseating him.

They DO keep trying, though.

We'll see in November...if of course there even IS an election in November. But never fear...we'll someday see who wins and who loses.

But...nothing substantive will change.

It's just the way things work.

Been that way since history began...

BEFORE it began, I'm sure.

It just didn't get written down.

JzB 

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I've studied these things. Policies have consequences for people's lives, and R vs D policies are drastically different.

My dad told me something ca. 1962, and I never forgot it. Every once in a while, if a crumb falls off the plate, the Democrats might let you keep it. The Republicans won't even do that.

Also, ponder these things -- Would President Gore have ignored the screaming warnings from the intelligence communities like Shrub did - that allowed 9/11 to happen?

Would he have launched an illegal and pointless war against an uninvolved third-party country based on invalid, cooked intelligence?

Would he have cut taxes on the rich while launching this war - something no ruler in the history of the world has ever done?

Would President HRC have ignored the impending Covid-19 situation for months, while denying the reality of it to the American people in the hopes of personal gain?

Would she have signed into law yet another tax cut that benefited only the super rich and did squat for anyone else? And that, by the way, was completely unjustifiable on any economic terms and needlessly blew up the national debt?

Look at the history of criminal indictments in R vs D administration - dozens, maybe hundreds of Rs and a small hand full of Dems.

Look at the Rethug Senators who dumped millions in stocks just before the crash, while publicly saying Covid-19 was no big deal and we'd all be fine. The one from GA even made a huge investment in a tech company that might profit from people working from home. And her husband is Chairman of he New York Stock Exchange.

These are off the top of my head. Policies matter - to you and to me and to the rest of the world. 

Many of the things I listed were earth shaking.

Imagine how different it all would be without 9/11, ISIS, the disaster in Syria . . . Needless wars and ghastly foreign policy blunders have drained us of blood and treasure, and thoroughly destabilized an already fragile middle east.

And Trump and his cronies have gotten richer by many, many millions. To our detriment.

Ignoring these things for the sake of believing in a fictional both-sides-do-it duality might be satisfying in some way that I can't wrap my head around, but it is not an accurate depiction of the world we live in.

Think it over.

BB

You write: "Every once in a while, if a crumb falls off the plate, the Democrats might let you keep it. The Republicans won't even do that."

This in the biggest bakery of all time!!!

And you claim that they are "different?"

Not much more to say. I think that your father's statement pretty well sums up the difference between the two parties.

Minuscule.

Crumbs.

I could argue against every point that you make here.

You are as convinced as are the Trumpsters.

I will say this, though.

Don't worry. You have a lot of company.

JzB

It's pretty damned lame to dismissively hand wave away a long list of actual facts. In case you didn't notice, I put a lot of thought and careful planning into my response. Did you even read past the anecdote? I do commentary like this all the time, because I value the truth. You're welcome.

You could argue - but you don't. That says a lot, right there.

And, btw, comparing me to Trumpers is a blatant insult, because I actually fucking think things through; and I deeply resent it. You haven't done anything to earn the right to an attitude quite that superior.

If I'm convinced of something, it's because I've done the leg work to uncover actual facts and data. Years of technical training, along with my natural inclinations, lead me to make data-driven decisions. I have 463 posts on my blog with the tag "economics" and have actually put a bit of serious thought into some of them, with real graphs and detailed analysis.

What IS similar to Trumpers - and right wingers more generally - is a casual disregard for facts and data, with no attempt at rational discourse. I've experienced this hundreds of times. It's depressing as hell.

My posts are public on purpose. I welcome disagreement.

Note that it moves the discussion along in a more constructive way when the disagreement actually makes some sort of sense.

Prove to me that I'm wrong, and you will have done me a favor. The operative word here is PROVE.

But do it tomorrow. You've kept me up unit midnight, and I'm gong to bed

Think it over. Seriously.

BB

I am not going to even TRY to "prove" what I am saying to you.

The proof will be in the pudding.

We'll see what happens if Biden is elected with a majority in both houses. Or without.

Or if Trump remains.

Or...if some other outcome happens.

Gore?

HRC?

Bill Clinton?

Bush II?

Obama?

ALL willing supporters of the Permanent War state that has decimated this country on all levels and has simultaneously been the single most polluting environmental set of events of the last 30+ years. And all complicit in the selling of the country's industrial strength to the highest bidders, a sale that has totally wrecked the economies of the working class/middle class.

Biden?

Just another tool of the globalist corporate system for his entire career.

And yes, I did read your posts.

All of them.

I will read them no more.

Save your energy.

And at that point, he blocked me.  There was no attempt to engage any of my points, just spouting an extended sequence of naked assertions.

I'll concede that the Dems are far too close to big business and especially big finance.  And, to be sure, the history of humanity in a nutshell - always and everywhere - is the exploitation of the many by a small wealthy, privileged elite. But the mere fact that there are disturbing similarities between the two parties does not mean that there aren't also deeply significant differences. Our own history over that last hundred years, and especially the most recent decades, demonstrates that dramatically.

A Historical Look at Electoral Maps

When I was a kid, "The Solid South" used to mean that the southern states from Texas through The Carolinas could be counted on to support the Democratic presidential candidate.  This had been true since 1880, and was a manifestation of southern resentment against Republican northern profiteers, known as carpet baggers, who had gotten fat on the post war reconstruction.

This all changed in the 1960's, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law.   He said at the time that the Democrats had lost the south for a generation. What a failure of imagination!  Here we are, more than 50 years later, and the South is still lost, and probably will remain so for a few more decades.

Heres' s a link to historical electoral maps.

In 1964, the effect was immediate.  For the first time in history, the Republicans took LA, MS, AL, GA and SC, while suffering an epic national loss of of 486 to 52 electoral votes.  As an aside, it's also notable that in the first half of this century, the Democratic party was a welcome home to southern racists.  After 1964, they ran to the Rethugs, who welcomed them with open arms, as evidenced by the Nixon-Reagan southern strategy.

The south revealed its other characteristic factor in the '64 election - voting for its native son.  The Dems carried Texas in '64, and again in '68, when LBJ decided not to run again, and Humphrey stepped up to get stomped by the vile Richard Nixon.  Despite the even worse George Wallace draining off 5 southern states and their 46 electoral votes, Nixon beat Humphrey by 110.

The only anomaly occurred in 1976, when Democrat Jimmy Carter of Georgia swept the south and beat Michigan's Jerry Ford by 57 EV.  The south gave the presidency to its native son. Except for the first two elections of the 2000's that were stolen by GWB, that was the closest EV margin since 1884.

In '92 and '96 Clinton won his home state of AR, along with a couple other southern states each time, beating his rivals by sizable EV margins.

Florida has gone blue in the last two elections, but the rest of the south remained solidly behind McCain and Romney.

What will happen now?  The black guy has been replaced by a woman who has been vilified by the right wing for 25 years.  More recently, the Rethug controlled congress has wasted huge quantities of both time and money chasing bogus scandals to further discredit her.

HRC is very unlikely to win any southern state beside FLA, which has a large contingent of displaced northerners.

It's up to the rest of the country to keep the dumb con man, who has deep and serious emotional problems, and might actually be insane, out of the White House.

What a god damned night mare.

BIG EVIL, little evil

Quote of the day, relating to alleged kin-slayer Big Walder Frey:

Choosing the lesser evil isn’t a sad half-measure, not in a world where the greater evils are the likes of Ramsay, Gregor, Craster, Rorge…or the Others, above them all.

            -- poorquentyn

Funny, he didn't mention Euron Greyjoy.

Or Donald Trump.

.

The Next Clinton Presidency

Hillary will be the Democratic nominee, because that was pre-ordained, and the Party will make sure it happens, as it has throughout this primary season.  Given that, I’m glad Bernie ran and is staying in the fray until the convention.  Everyone saying he should drop out; is hurting the party; or is hurting Hillary can go to hell.

I also expect she will win the presidency, though I am far from certain.   Trump is putting out a populist message addressing jobs, infrastructure and trade agreements that plays directly into the the fears and expectations of desperate white working class people.  Of course it’s all bull shit, right from The Art of the Deal.   But if enough people fall for it, he has a chance to win.

I see the general election playing out one of two ways: either Trump wins a squeaky close election - by 1-2 % of the popular vote and a single swing state in the electoral college; or Hillary wins by a historic landslide - >15 % of the popular vote and 100 to 150 electoral votes.

People talk about her progressive credentials, but I see a corporatist neoliberal hawk.  These are things I will judge her presidency on —

Fracking

Support for alternative energy development

Wall street Regulation

TPP and other trade agreements

Minimum Wage

The Future of Social Security and Medicare

Universal Health Care

The Student Loan crisis and college costs in general

Citizens United and election finance in general

Relations with Native Americans and other minorities

Pipeline Issues [like Keystone XL] as they arise

Other environmental concerns vis-a-vis corporate concerns

Climate change vis-a-vis the political power of big oil

Tax policy

Future of the National Parks 

Eagerness to go to war, foreign policy aggressiveness in general 

Specifically, military involvement in the Middle East and regarding other Muslin nations.

U.S. attitude toward and treatment of Palestinians

State of the Union

President Obama's final State of the Union address has received generally high marks - at least from people who think with their brains and not the nether reaches of their alimentary canals.  But there were a couple things in it that troubled me.

One was his enthusiasm for the TPP.  Undoubtedly, it has some good features.  But it's features were kept secret far too long; and it was never adequately explained to the American people.   Especially troubling is the prospect of foreign corporations being able to sue the U.S. for lost profits due to our internal decisions and rule making.  TransCanada is already using NAFTA provision to sue us for lost profits due to our refusal to let the Keystone XL pipeline go through.   Who knows how much more liability we might face under TPP, and what types of courts or tribunals might make those decisions

Do the proposed benefits of TPP outweigh the potential downsides, which might include direct challenges to U. S. sovereignty? Does TPP benefit U. S. workers, or trans-national mega-corporations? How can anyone decide these question intelligently?

The second was his moment of abject humility over his alleged failure to bridge the partisan gap with the Republicans - as if they hadn't met on the night of his first inauguration and mapped out a strategy to make him fail.  This crystalized for me as I listened to Thom Hartmann while driving home last night. Obama has spoken repeatedly about Dolores Kearns Goodwin's book 'Team of Rivals," which tells the story of the opposition members Lincoln installed in his cabinet. This seems to have influenced him since he said that a greater president, like Lincoln or FDR, would have been able to unite the differing parties.

This is not only false, it is so wrong it makes me sad.  Evidently Obama is still operating under the delusion that the Republicans will work with him to achieve anything.  They've already been blocking the appointment of new ambassadors for well over a year, have slow-walked judicial nominations for as long as they've had the majority, and now will approve no more during Obama's term in office.

When Obama spoke those words on Tuesday, I turned to my lovely wife and said, "For the thousandth time Obama extends an olive branch across the aisle, and for the thousandth time it's dashed to the ground and stomped into splinters."

Lincoln might have worked with members of the opposition, but it was an outspoken opposition sympathizer and anti-abolitionist who murdered him.

FDR, on the other hand, had no regard for bipartisanship.  In a 1936 campaign speech he famously said, "I welcome their hatred."  Then he went on about his business.




I don't know what Obama was thinking.  Maybe this is one more move in his game of 11 dimensional chess.  Certainly he is savvy and far more intelligent than the Republicans who oppose him.

But it looks to me that the time for conciliation is several years past its expiration date; and Obama needs to start educating the American people who their real enemies are.

That would make him a whole lot more like FDR.

The Chronicle of Death

Here it is from the Guardian - 994 mass shootings in 1004 days.

This includes all incidents in which 4 or more people were shot, irrespective of whether there were any fatalities.

The link.

Quote of the Day

Jesus was a homeless brown-skinned liberal who gave out free health care and free food and spoke no English. Which is why Donald Trump would have proposed a wall between Judea and Galilee to keep people like Jesus out.

                                          ---  Badtux the Snarky Penguin

Religion in the Modern World

This morning I had a tiny epiphany regarding the IOKIYAR [It’s OK if you're a Republican] cliche.  Of course, this is just tribalism - that much has always been obvious.  What struck me today is the connection of Tea Party Rethuglianism to Christian religious fundamentalism.

The basic concept of Christian fundamentalism is that once you accept Jesus as your personal savior, you’re in - you’re saved, you’re going to heaven: end of story.  They way in which you live your life - your sins vis-vis your good works - becomes irrelevant.

Implicit in this concept is the notion that Jesus will inform your life in such a way that you will then live it according to the ideals that Jesus preached constantly and exemplified continuously in his own life: love one another, take care of those in need, forgive, and don’t judge.

But we all know how that works out.  

Of course, the antitheses of all of these is greed and hatred. What I see among self-righteous, self-professing Christians in the pubic sphere is boundless greed, hatred on steroids, utter contempt for those in need, and harsh - indeed merciless - judgement for those who do not meet their approval, for whatever reason.

Then what I see among the Christian community at large [with the notable exception of the current Pope and his minions - but the fundamentalists don’t believe Catholics are real Christians anyway, so that doesn’t count for much] and most notably the Christian right, is agreement with and approval for every bit of this. But since they’re saved, it’s all good.  

So here’s the connection: when you’re in the tribe, whether it be the Christian or the Rethug Tea Party variety, anything you do is OK, because - well, just because.  And, to a large extent, these two tribes are really just one.

So now you see Donald Trump making stupidly outrageous comments on a wide variety of topics, and surging in the polls.  Because he is not only a Rethug, but playing to the ignorance and prejudice of a base which is largely the religious right.

The hypocrisy - it burns.

Republicans: All Wrong, All the Time, Pt. 12 - Taxes and Revenues

While mucking around in the archives, I somehow made this old post from 2/25/10 inaccessible.

So, I'm reposting it now, because it has important information.

________________________________________


 The liars at the Heritage Foundation will tell you that lowering taxes increases federal Revenues.

A New York Times article, Deficit Spending Can Help Republicans, by Daniel Altman, shows that old, wrong assumptions die hard. The article reports that:

"From the beginning of 2001 through the third quarter of 2002, the federal government leapt from a surplus (including Social Security) amounting to 2.3 percent of gross domestic product to a deficit of the same size. By itself, the current deficit is not terribly threatening. Indeed, running a modest deficit during an economic downturn can be useful, as long as the policies behind the deficit — lower taxes and higher spending — benefit consumers and businesses."

The article then claims that the 1980s Reagan tax cuts failed to increase tax revenues;

"The White House says lower tax rates will lead consumers to work more and businesses to expand, resulting in higher tax revenues and eventually closing the budget gap. That notion, chided as "voodoo economics" by critics, turned out to be false when it was last in vogue, during the 1980's."

However, the numbers, crunched by Heritage's Brian Riedl, show otherwise (see chart below). In 1980, the last year before the tax cuts, tax revenues were $956 billion (in constant 1996 dollars).
Revenues exceeded that 1980 level in eight of the next 10 years. Annual revenues over the next decade averaged $102 billion above their 1980 level (in constant 1996 dollars).

They even offer this chart as proof!  (Click the link, expressed in constant 1996 dollars.)  But the real Voodoo is in achieving an actual reduction in revenues, as they did according to the Heritage Foundation figures in 1982 and (quire dramatically) 1983, in the context of an economy that has achieved 3.7% annual growth for 200 years!

And that is key.  Every year the population grows.  Almost every year the economy grows.  There is inflation in the background, most of the time.  In fact, the compounded annual growth rate of federal tax revenues from 1970 through 2008 was just slightly over 7%.   (Current dollars, not inflation adjusted.)

Here is reality, presented in non-inflation adjusted dollars   Data from the Congressional Budget Office.

Actual revenues are shown on the broken red and blue line, with segments color-coded to indicate the party of the White House occupant.  The purple curved line is the 7% growth line, starting in 1970.   The pink line is the best-fitting straight line.  Each President's term has also been overlayed with a best fitting straight line. In retrospect, these straight lines don't tell us much of anything. 

One interesting facet of this display is that most of it lies well above the 7% growth curve.  This is entirely due to increases during the Carter and Clinton administrations, as a visual inspection reveals, and we will also prove mathematically.

Here is the compounded  annual growth rate of tax revenues, by President, over the 1970 to 2008 period.

Well, Nixon and Ford managed to top the long period average by a slight margin, but they were not under the thrall of Voodoo Economists.  Neither was Clinton.  Bush I wasn't either, but he inherited Reagan's vultures.  Look at Reagan's revenue growth rate: 5.35%.  Consider that average inflation over Reagan's years was 4.56%, and GDP growth averaged 3.4%.  Under those circumstances, revenue growth should have been at least 7.96%, not a paltry 5.35%.  The average compounded growth in constant 1996 dollars, using the Heritage Foundation table is 2.38%.  This is more than a full percentage point below real GDP growth. 

Bush II's revenue growth rate was 3.01%.  But inflation averaged 2.84% and GDP growth averaged an anemic 2.16.  Together they total 5.0%.  So, Republican tax revenue growth cannot even match the inflation adjusted level of growth in the economy.


Many years ago, my dad told me that figures don't lie, but liars sure know how to figure.  The bullshit you get from the Heritage Foundation is exactly what he was talking about.  It's another example of the conservative ploy of willfully denying reality.

Which is just one more reason why WE ARE SO SCREWED.
.

The Traffic Trap

Commenter OwenKL writes a bit of poetry most days to compliment the theme of the L.A. Times Crossword Puzzle.

Today's was a typically clever example. 

But I thought of a different Christie, and came up with this.

The Traffic Trap

Chris Christie writes cover-up scenes
Of denial re: that bridge west of Queens.
Why would it be
He put the screws to Fort Lee?
Just to vent his too partisan spleens!

What the Hell?!? Friday - Bifocal Hell Edition

Good Lord - I misread this as KENYAN economics.

Paul Krugman is wrong; Obama DOES need to discuss Keynesian economics in his State of the Union address. Here’s why.

---Beverly Mann

Read all about it, and a whole lot more at Angry Bear.

BTW, unless Beverly has a different Krugman source, I think she's misrepresenting what he said. 

“What do you want to hear in the State of the Union?” Hayes asked Paul Krugman, the New York Times economic columnist and Nobel prize winner.

“What I’d like to hear, I’m not going to hear. I’d like to hear a full-throated endorsement of more stimulus.”

He explained instead what he did not want to hear: “This whole business with the sequester, all of this is, this is not the time for any of this, and the less he says about the deficit, the better. I mean I was really gratified by the second inaugural, because he said almost nothing about the deficit. He finally broke out of that beltway obsession with the deficit. So if he talks about other things, the middle class, inequality, climate, and not about what we need to balance the budget, that’s what I’m mostly hoping for.”

 A full-throated endorsement of stimulus sounds pretty Keynesian to me, irrespective of deficits.

Same As it Ever Was

Source

Going Nuclear

This post at LGM reminded me of my "Party of No" post from almost 4 years ago.

I've updated the graph, and maybe made it a little easier to read.

From Congresses 65 [1917-18] through 91 [1969-70] there were never more than 7 cloture votes in any two-year session.  The line rising up from the bottom left of the graph shows what has happened to votes per session since.  It's color coded by the party with the minority in the senate, Red for Rep, Blue for Dem.  The yellow dot shows the 44 cloture votes to date for the current 113th congress. 

 Filibusters use is down from the 112 cloture votes of the 110th congress.  But the 73 votes of the 112th congress is still above the pre-Obama high of 61 in the 107th congress.  With more than a year left in the current 113th session, it was on a pace to exceed the total of the 112th.  However, that will probably now not come to fruition.

Dems have used the filibuster, but typically about as often as the current norm.  Reps have been responsible for the vast majority of the increased filibuster use over time.  The squiggly red and blue lines [same color code, right scale] indicate the number of senators per party at a given time, counting independents who caucused with the party as being of that party.

It's pretty clear that abusing the filibuster has not been a problem over the entire span of the last century.  It clearly has become one now.  Filibuster use more than doubled as soon as BHO became president.  Using it to block appointments has been particularly egregious, prompting the current change in senate rules.

For additional context, he alternating blue-red line at the top of the graph shows the sitting president's party affiliation.

I see Kevin Drum at Mother Jones has covered this subject as well.

Money quote:

The last straw came when Republicans announced their intention to filibuster all of Obama's nominees to the DC circuit court simply because they didn't want a Democratic president to be able to fill any more vacancies.

Cloture vote counts and make up of the Senate from Senate.gov.

Quote of the Day

... The single most effective way of avoiding another financial crisis is to reduce the political influence of the banking sector.
--------  Simon Wren-Lewis

via Mark Thoma

 Exactly so.

Inequality

Last night, Rachel Maddow showed a graphic similar to what is seen early in the video presented below.  It indicated what the vast majority of Americans think the ideal wealth distribution should be, and what they perceive the actual distribution to be - a considerably more skewed condition.  It also shows the reality, a condition far, far removed from the perception

The data Rachel presented is a stacked horizontal bar chart, essentially a one-dimensional representation.  The video shows this, and then follows up by presenting the data in another way, which is much more dramatic and effective.  Have a look.  It's well worth 6 1/2 minutes of your time.




This makes me wonder again how we compare in A. D. 2013 with the stratification of society in, say, A. D. 1213.   Now, the bottom 40% have essentially zero wealth.  That might have been true then, as well, and perhaps reaching for a couple more quintiles - for in those days the middle class had not yet been invented.  But at the top now, the distribution is so skewed that the 99th percentile have vastly more than the 98th percentile who have vastly more than the 97th.    

Don't get me wrong, those in the 97th percentile are doing very well, indeed.  But the top percent, and the top tenth of a percent in particular really have amassed wealth beyond the dreams of avarice.

Back in A.D 1213, could there possibly have been orders of magnitude differences among fine divisions of the top couple of percent?  In a time when wealth was measure in land, cows and gold chalices, that's very hard for me to believe.

I believe the corrective actions are very clear, and simultaneously politically impossible to implement.

1 Steeply progressive income tax structure
2 Steeply progressive inheritance tax structure
3 Stringent regulation, most especially of the finance industry
4 Break up the to-big-to-fail banks
5 Limit banks along State borders
6 Tax capital at a higher, not lower rate than labor
7 Increase the minimum wage to something livable
8 Increase earned income tax credits
9 Simplify the tax code in ways that encourage keeping jobs here
10 Create strong disincentives for off-shoring
11 Repeal Taft-Hartley and strengthen labor unions
12 Break up monopolies

Feel free to expand the list in comments.

If this looks a lot like the New Deal, that's not much of a coincidence.  The only time we ever had a robust middle class was in the years when New Deal policies were followed.  The systematic dismantling of the New Deal [call it the Raw Deal if you wish] has resulted in the erosion of the middle class, further impoverishment of the poor, and the vast enrichment of the already very wealthy, at everyone else's espense.

H/T to nanute who pointed me to this article where I found the video.

Quote of the Day

In comments to this must-read Johnathon Chait article * on the thoroughly despicable Jeff Sessions, reader HATCHAX  offers this gem.  No extra charge for the quote within the quote.

Reminds of when I worked for the DSCC when Howell Heflin was retiring & Sessions was running for his seat: his staff told me Sen. Heflin was proud to keep Sessions off the federal bench because "At the risk of offending every rock in the world, that boy's dumber than one." After Sessions' eleciton, I heard Heflin say something along the lines he wasn't too upset Jeff Sessions replaced him, for after all, being a judge was one thing but intelligence was not something the Senate had in any abundance.

That is some high quality snark.

Now go read the Chait article.

Really.

H/T to Scott Lemieux at LGM

* UPDATE: 6/25/17:  Sadly, this is now a dead link.  It looks like DeLong preserved the article content, but, as near as I can tell, the original comment stream is now lost.

Dos Amigos: Fil y Buster

Harry Reid learns the hard way what happens when you make a gentlemen's agreement with unprincipled lying repugnant thugs.

But, in his defense, who could ever have seen this coming?

Quote of the Day

"There are some people in politics and in the press who can't be confused by the facts. They just will not live in an evidence-based world. And that's regrettable. It's regrettable for our political system and for the people who serve our government in very dangerous, difficult circumstances."

--  Hillary Rodham Clinton

Another look at Spending and Revenues

How many times have you heard Boehner, McConnell, Ryan or one of the legion of right-wing talking heads say, "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem?"  I refuted that lie repeatedly in this AB post and at the included links.   But this is one of those zombie ideas that simply will not stay in the grave.  

Therefore, some prominent voices have found it necessary to sing out again against the lie. I will add my humble quavery baritone to the chorus.

Here in Graph 1 is Kevin Drum demonstrating how Real Government Expenditures per Capita have changed under the last three presidents.

What we have isn't a spending problem. That's under control. What we have is a problem with Republicans not wanting to pay the bills they themselves were largely responsible for running up.

 Graph 1, Real Government Expenditures per Capita

By using real [inflation adjusted] and per capita numbers, Drum has introduced a couple of denominators.  Real expenses per cap is a rational way to display the data, but not the only way. So lest someone cry out about that ol' devil denominator, let's have a different look.

Via Paul Krugman we get Graph 2 and Graph 3, from FRED, showing total Government expenditures and Federal Government expenditures, respectively, on log scales.

Graph 2. Government Total Expenditures

Graph 3, Federal Government Total Expenditures

Yes, you can argue that spending was growing too fast under Bush, although it’s funny how few deficit scolds saw fit to mention that at the time. Or you can say that you just want less spending, although as always people who say this tend to be short on specifics. But the narrative that says that spending has surged under Obama is just wrong – what we’ve actually seen is a slowdown at exactly the time when, for macroeconomic reasons, we should have been spending more.

Remember, a log scale represents constant growth as a straight line, and zero growth as a horizontal line.  So, in pure dollar numbers, spending hasn't quite declined, but it has stagnated to almost zero growth.  Hence Drum's decline in inflation adjusted, per capita terms.

In Graph 4, we get one more longer range look, using Krugman's data series, this time on a linear scale.  Also presented is the difference between the two, which is the amount of spending by state and local governments.

 Graph 4, Government Spending at Different Levels

 The red line is total spending at all levels of governemnt, the blue line is federal only, and the green line is the difference, state and local spending.  Note that the green line flattens early in the recession

To bring things full circle, Graph 5 shows Federal Government current receipts.  Look at this and tell me we don't have a revenue problem.

Graph 5, Federal Government Current Receipts

To drive this point home, Graph 6 shows Federal Receipts as a fraction of GDP.  The purpose of the ratio is to provide context, using GDP as a proxy for the size of the economy.

Graph 6, Federal Receipts as a fraction of GDP

As you can see, revenues/GDP are in a historically low range.

Conclusions:
- Federal spending is flat in nominal dollar terms.
- Federal spending is declining when adjusted for inflation and population growth.
- Federal revenues are far below trend lines based on any historical reference you chose.
- Federal revenues as a fraction of GDP are historically low.
- The Republican claim that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem is simply a lie, on both counts.
- Disproportional spending growth has only occurred under two presidents: Republicans Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. 

Why do Republicans lie?

The truth is hostile to their agenda.  PK Explains.

Hagel for Secretary of Defense

I'm actually agnostic on this choice.  The always excellent Charles Pierce makes a good case for Hagel, but why should Obama go for any Republican?  This just continues to promote the canard that Republicans are somehow stronger or more capable on defense issues than Democrats.

The irony here is that the greatest opposition is coming from Republicans, some of whom have gone so far as to call him an anti-Semite*  because he has spoken openly and honestly about the excessive influence the pro-Israel lobby has on American foreign policy.   When we consider the pros and cons of any individual for any position, we ought to do it on the basis of real qualifications and real disqualifications, not make-believe nonsense put forward by neocons and the cadre of rabid right-wingers whose policies have done such great and possibly irreparable damage to the world in this century.
 
I rarely agree with Mish on anything political, and to find myself agreeing in principle with him when he's agreeing in principle with Patrick Buchanan has my stomach turning and my head spinning. 

Vertigo, nausea and angular momentum aside, this appointment is the president's decision, and I want to see the debate precede along substantive rather than ideological, illogical or untruthful  lines.   And I most particularly don't want to see him get Riced.

Now, where do I pick up my pony?

__________________________

*  Update: On 1/07 I heard Eliot Abrams do exactly that in an NPR interview.  Abrams was an Iran-Contra cohort of Paul Wolfowitz and Oliver North.