Republicans Were Wrong Again

One of the campaign planks the Republican Party has been standing on is that President Obama's economic polices are a disaster, that he doesn't understand business, and that he's doing more harm than good.

An example of this is the bailout of the US automotive industry.  Key Republicans told us that this was a terrible plan, one that might well end capitalism as we know it.

In case you've forgotten their opinions at the time,  ThinkProgress gathered a number of quotes from GOP leaders on the issue; here's a sample:

• Rep. John Boehner (R-OH): “Does anyone really believe that politicians and bureaucrats in Washington can successfully steer a multi-national corporation to economic viability?”
• Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): “Now the government has forced taxpayers to buy these failing companies without any plausible plan for profitability. Does anyone think the same government that plans to double the national debt in five years will turn GM around in the same time?”
• Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ): When government gets involved in a company, “the disaster that follows is predictable.”

And who can forget this declaration from Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican candidate for President?:

"If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed."

-- Mitt Romney, New York Times, November 18, 2008

Read that bit again: "its demise will be virtually guaranteed."  Strong words.  But as the GOP will tell you, Romney is an expert in business.  So he should know, right?

And lo, four years later, his prophecy is born out...

GM adds third shift at Texas plant, 800 jobs

General Motors announced plans Friday to add a third shift at its SUV plant in Arlington, Texas, as the company continues to ramp up production after deep cuts during the financial crisis.

The additional shift will keep the facility running around the clock, and will generate roughly 800 additional jobs...

Now, with auto demand coming back, "lots of companies across the board are adding shifts and adding third shifts," Dziczek said.
-- CNN Money, June 22, 2012

Hey, wait a minute.  That's exactly the opposite of what Mr. Romney said would happen.  In fact, General Motors, whose demise was "virtually guaranteed," has added a third shift because they need to meet the demand for new cars.

I wonder what could be driving demand?  Maybe that's in the headlines, too -

Gas prices drop 14 cents in two weeks

Gasoline prices have fallen rapidly, dropping 48.9 cents from a high of $3.967 on April 6, survey editor Trilby Lundberg said on Sunday.

-- Chicago Tribune, June 24, 2012

Gas prices are down.  But according to "experienced businessman" Mitt Romney, Obama's been dead set on making gasoline more expensive:

Last week Mitt Romney told Fox News that Obama "has done everything in his power to make it harder for us to get oil and natural gas in this country, driving up the price of those commodities in the case of gasoline."

-- TIME, March 20, 2012

That's two strikes for Mitt.  I guess that magic underwear doesn't make him a prophet.

Of course, he's not as wrong as Newt Gingrich was:

"...the American people will know the President is still committed to his radical ideology, which wants to artificially raise the cost of energy."

-- TIME, March 20, 2012

Of course, the truth is that the President of the United States has very little ability to affect the price of gasoline, as reported by Fox News in 2008. 

The GOP has a history of being wrong about gasoline prices and the automotive industry.  While it's important to recognize that the GOP was wrong on this issue, we must also realize that had we followed their advice, it would have cost this country tens of thousands of jobs.

According to the Center for Automotive Research, “if the government had not invested in the automotive industry, up to 80,000 automotive jobs would have been lost, and General Motors alone would have lost one million units of sales in 2009. Once Chrysler and GM emerged from their ‘orderly’ bankruptcies, the growth of automotive sector employment has been strong, with 52,900 workers added since July 2009. Had GM and Chrysler not successfully emerged, those jobs would have been permanently lost.”

-- thinkprogress.org

Had the GOP had its way, we'd have lost all those jobs, the sales, and manufacturing capacity. Again and again, the GOP keeps claiming that it knows better than everyone else, and and time and time again, events prove that they are decisively wrong.

Miamians Duped by Casino's Siren Call

I was reading the Miami Herald's article about how Miami-Dade voters are split evenly on both sides of the casino issue.

In a survey of 400 registered voters in Miami-Dade, voters split almost equally over the idea of large-scale casinos. The electorate is similarly divided over putting a destination resort and casino in downtown Miami on The Miami Herald's waterfront property.

Yesterday, we discussed how casinos are bad for business; how they suck in all the tourists, and keep those tourism dollars inside the casino.  Casinos have their own five-star restaurants, so the hungry gambler can dine like a king and return to the gaming floor. Casinos will bring drinks right to you, wherever you are on the gaming floor, so you don't have to stumble out for a drink.  They have beds, so you don't need to find a hotel.  They have gift shops, so you don't need to go hunting souvenirs for the folks back home.

We mentioned that there was a 40% reduction in restaurants, and that they essentially wiped out most of the other businesses, from 3,500 the year the first casino opened, to under 1,400 at the turn of the century.

But for some reason, people are still supportive of casino gambling in Miami.

Let's examine their opinions, shall we?

It brings the tourists here. It gives them something to do besides sitting on the beach, said Barry Haber, a gambling supporter from Kendall.
- The Miami Herald, Jan 23, 2012

Well, Barry is right about casinos bringing in more tourists.  He's also right that a casino will get people off the beach.  And out of the restaurants, and out of the hotels, and away from other local attractions.

Yes, casinos brought in droves of gamblers to Atlantic City.  They clog the streets and airport.  And they spend almost every dime in the casinos.  Great for the tax base, to be sure.  But 2,100 closed  businesses testify that those dollars won't help keep local businesses open.

Well, some businesses managed to hang on.

You can't see a movie in Atlantic City.  You can't even buy gasoline anymore - you have to cross the bridge into Absecon or Pleasantville to do that now.  Want groceries?  You're leaving town again, to Absecon on the mainland, or Ventnor Heights, on a neighboring island. (I'll bet you forgot that Atlantic City is on an island).

Actually, one industry, besides the casinos, has increased in Atlantic City since 1977.  Pawnshops multiplied ten fold in the first ten years.

There's usually one within a block of each casino.

Reading the comments  attached to the article, it seems that most of those supporting the casino bill believe that it will bring jobs to Florida.

Cubanogm:

Anybody if they bring jobs.Miami unemployment is in the double digit numbers. Miami needs the jobs and once a miamian has a job who cares who hired him or her.This is a win,win situation.More jobs,more tourists that will bring more taxes and jobs.

MarkGarcia wrote:

Miami you need to get a reality check.  You need jobs or you can close the city and turn off the lights.  Miami needs to entice every business possible regardless of what it does, to come here, hire the 30% of unemployed workers that we have, raise wages and create benefits for all the underpayed and underemployed workers of this Banana Republic.

It sounds like Mr. Garcia needs a reality check.  "Regardless of what it does?"  Really?  So, if it's a factory that spews waste that kills everything for miles, we should jump on it?  It seems to me that jobs at ANY cost is a pretty stupid philosophy.

Fred Mariner:

Give us a chance to vote on this and it will pass overwhelmingly.  Theres too much at stake to let the elitist jobkillers steal our chance to create thousands of jobs for South Florida.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/22/v-fullstory/2602584/poll-miami-dade-voters-evenly.html#storylink=cpy

Here's the thing; if casinos create lots of jobs, then places with lots of casinos should have low unemployment rates, right?

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Unemployment Rates for Metropolitan Areas
Monthly Rankings
Nov. 2011
286     Miami  FL Metropolitan Statistical Area              9.4
354     Atlantic City NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area    12.4

Well, so much for THAT idea.

StopBraman:

It seems to me that all the nay-sayers prefer to have empty buildings full of drug users, prostitutes, and vagrants versus tearing them down and giving life to an area that badly needs it.  There is no way that a Destination Resort can increase the crime that already exists in the area.  Have any of you tried walking around that area at night?  Definitely not safe.  Nothing like going to the Adrienne Arsht Center for a show, in your finest clothes and looking across the street at hoodlums and vagabonds.  Not exactly the optimal theater experience.

As long time readers know, I'm not exactly a Norman Braman fan.  He got us to waste millions to recall a mayor with barely a year left on his term.  He killed a much needed expansion of mass transit.

But there's "no way" that a "destination resort" can "increase crime that already exists in the area?"  That's a whoppingly stupid statement.  If there's no work, there's no money, there's nothing to steal.  Anytime  you increase jobs, you increase money, and crime increases because now there's stuff to steal.  Theft is always higher in the rich neighborhoods.

So to StopBraman, I have to issue the challenge to walk around Atlantic City at night.  Specifically, I challenge him (or her) to walk from the Taj Mahal to the Golden Nugget, straight across the city.  Almost impossible to get lost;

   
It's only 1.8 miles through the worst neighborhood on the island.

I wouldn't do it alone.  And I'd tape your insurance card to your body, because you probably won't get to keep the wallet all the way across.

...and through the second worst neighborhood, too.

I also have to point out that when the Kravis Center was built, you wouldn't have wanted to walk over to Roxy's after a show. I know - I lived there at the time.  Same for the Broward Center.  Of course, now you can walk from these beautiful venues to any number of excellent restaurants or bars, because there are any number of excellent restaurants and bars to be walked to. 

Arts and cultural centers have a track record for attracting complimentary businesses.  Check out Actors' Playhouse in the Miracle Theater.  Of course, Miracle Mile wasn't quite blighted, but it was home to wedding supply shops that shut down at 5pm.  It was dead down there at night.  Now, Miracle Mile is a destination in and of itself; fine dining, clubs, galleries: it's a thriving business district.

Kids trick-or-treating along Miracle Mile in Coral Gables.

Build a casino, and that will be the only thing around for miles. And it will still be unsafe to walk there from the Arsht Center or the Museum, just as it's unsafe to stray from Atlantic City's boardwalk at night.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/22/v-fullstory/2602584/poll-miami-dade-voters-evenly.html#storylink=cpy

miami631:

Miami needs more of everything and anything if it is to become a REAL city and not just a playground to visit. A convention center focused hotel casino would be good for business.

As noted, not so much. A convention center - yes!  We desperately need a new convention center.  But without a casino; we have lots of great things to see and do, that need more people seeing and doing them.

todd scott:

Miami could become a world class city and attract even more tourist with a well constructed high end casino.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/22/v-fullstory/2602584/poll-miami-dade-voters-evenly.html#storylink=cpy

You mean, like Atlantic City is a world class city?  It's got over a dozen high-end casinos, including the Borgata.  I think you should be able to buy groceries in a world-class city, don't you?

Several people pointed out that most of the long-term jobs at the new casino will likely be low paying, menial jobs. 

Here's how Bultproofsol put it:

The jobs the Genting would create will be mostly service industry jobs... custodial, bars and restaurants, retail, hotel, and other menial paying jobs. Construction jobs are temporary.

Manny Rodriguez responds to Buletproofsol:

So you're saying that bartenders are going to build the most futuristic project on the planet?

You, sir, are an imbecile

No, Manny, he's saying that construction workers will build the most futuristic project on the planet - for a year or two. Then they'll be unemployed again.  We have a pretty good idea who's actually the imbecile, here.

John Balzer seems to be sharing a brain cell with Manny:

The notion that a world class resort can be run with "menial" jobs is ludicrous. While there will likely be a spectrum of jobs, is there anything wrong with having them? Right now, there are many people are out of work in Miami and they are eager to get employed. The Genting Group has a reputation for paying the highest salaries in the industry.

John, nobody is insinuating that a world-class resort can be run with menial jobs.  The suggestion that anyone is claiming this is idiotic.

As you point out, Genting pays top wages.  And they pay top wages to attract the best people.  What's really ludicrous is the notion that the best people to run this new world-class casino are hanging around Miami waiting for this casino to open. World Class employees don't sit around collecting unemployment.  They get hired, because they're, well, World-Class.

Any world-class resort would want to staff itself with the best people from around the planet; you don't want the former night-desk manager from the Sinbad Motel on Biscayne Boulevard running the place.

Contrary to popular belief, they don't have hourly rates.  Anymore.

And last I checked, we didn't have hundreds of experienced dealers in the neighborhood.  Unless they get hired away from the Seminoles and Miccosukees. And if that happened, then they'd have to bring in dealers from Vegas, Atlantic City, Hong Kong, Macau, and any place else that has exquisite, world-class casinos.

So, since it's likely that they'll be hiring resort management from the top resorts on the planet, and they'll be bringing in dealers from the most exquisite casinos in the world, what does that leave?  Bellhops, maintenance staff, waiters and waitresses, and all sorts of other menial, minimum wage positions.

I left out security.  Who would you hire locally to protect your assets?  Miami cops?  TSA agents?  Hey, let's hire a bunch of folks who've been unemployed in South Florida for the last couple of years, stuck with mortgages ten times the value of their homes!  They wouldn't be tempted to skim. Much.

But John Balzer isn't done being stupid, yet:

This argument doesn't stand up because it implies that it would be better to have NO jobs.

News flash for you, Johnny: saying that casinos are the wrong industry to bring into South Florida doesn't imply anything of the sort.  We definitely need jobs.  But we need them in an industry that's not going to put other businesses out of existence, as casinos have a track record of doing.

We could build a convention center; South Florida's convention centers are dire pieces of shit.  And I say that with all due respect.  They don't meet the needs of the convention industry; they lack mission-critical amenities, and I don't mean slot-machines.  A hotel with a convention center, equipped with all the latest technology; it's clean, it creates jobs, attracts visitors, and it compliments the existing infrastructure.

Wendy Frish:

I voted in the poll and I votes YES on casinos in Florida.  I need a job and so do all of my friends.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/22/v-fullstory/2602584/poll-miami-dade-voters-evenly.html#storylink=cpy

Enjoy making those beds, Wendy!  Unless you've been dealing baccarat someplace.

Can you even spell 'baccarat', Wendy?

In which case, they'll probably still pass you over because any baccarat dealer worth anything wouldn't be lollygagging in Florida.  You'd be working.  If not at one of the Seminole or Miccosukee places, then on a cruise ship.  And if you were serious about pursuing casino work, you'd be part of the 12.4 unemployment rate in Atlantic City instead of the 9.4 unemployment rate down here.

Joe7911:

The people funding this opposition and negative lies are coming from the ones that will loose the most, The indian casinos, Cruise to nowhere Casinos and the Islands Casinos. None of them contribute to our taxes and if this passes we will get a big income in taxes as well as employment.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/22/v-fullstory/2602584/poll-miami-dade-voters-evenly.html#storylink=cpy

Joe, you left out the biggest constituency of all; those of us who aren't idiots.  I do not work for a casino, or a cruise line, or indians (native americans.)   I'm a guy who's lived through this. I watched as the casinos sucked the life out of Atlantic City  I know what casinos do for a city; they put local businesses out of business.

But Joe7911 has more to say:

WE are already filled with prostitution, and petty thief's, Major casinos will bring the money for better and more police presence, The crimes would be better controlled and much of eliminated. It would be a Major windfall for south Florida.

"Crimes would be better controlled?"  Interesting approach.  Why reduce it when you could control it?  Maybe the Mafia will come in, and give us a piece of the action when they run the criminals.  Let's just quit pretending, and give in to wholesale corruption.  Great idea, Joe.

Since, as you say, we already have prostitution, why don't we skip the casinos and license some good old fashioned brothels?  Talk about 'Miami Vice!'

Huntsman's Jobless "Jobs Plan"

CNN reports that the Wall Street Journal loves Jon Huntsman's jobs plan.

The paper described Huntsman's proposals, which he laid out Wednesday in a speech in New Hampshire,"as impressive as any to date in the GOP presidential field, and certainly better than what we've seen from the front-runners."

Wow!  That must be some great jobs plan, I thought, because so far, the one thing the Republicans have been leaving out of their jobs plans were the actual jobs themselves.  All they've offered is less tax, and less spending.

Sadly, Mr. Huntsman's "jobs" plan also fails to include a single job.

Huntsman's plan:

1. Tax Reform

• less taxes for citizens
• less taxes for rich citizens
• less taxes for corporations
• and less taxes. 

2. Regulatory Reform

• Get rid of regulations (and the Healthcare act, too)
• Gut the EPA (which is already underfunded)
• Kill the NLRB
• Gut the FDA
• Give Patents away like lollipops
• Privatize Fannie MAE and Freddie MAC

3. Energy Independence

• Smack OPEC upside the head and drill, baby, drill!
• Create a market for alternative fuels.

4. Free Trade

• Let's repeat the success of NAFTA (which cost the US 879,280 jobs) with South Korea, Columbia and Panama, and what the heck, throw in Japan, India and Taiwan.
  

Why Huntsman's Jobs Plan Fails as a Jobs Plan

In short, it doesn't create any jobs.

Lowering Taxes Doesn't Create Jobs.
Well, the first section, lowering/reducing/simplyfying taxes.  Hey, wouldn't it be great if it was easier to prepare our taxes?  I wouldn't need an accountant to figure it out for me - which, of course, means that a lot of tax preparers are going to be totally boned, and likely will go out of business.  Which I, for one, am not factoring in to this, because this thing stinks enough without pointing out how many people this plan puts out of work.

The fact of the matter is that lowering taxes doesn't create jobs.  It's a pretty idea.  And that's all it is. 

Most businesses are, well, in business.  And when you find you're making more money without having to do anything, you don't suddenly decide to hire a bunch of people, you pay it out in dividends. Free profit, baby!

Current Regulations Aren't Killing Jobs
Huntsman specifically cites EPA pollution regulations in his plan:

While the nation struggles to recover from economic turmoil, EPA has imposed vast new rules on the nation's energy producers, crippling one of the most critically important components of economic recovery: energy
supply.

The problem is that this isn't actually happening.  The Washington Post rebuts:

An Aug. 8 review by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) refuted much of the criticism of the EPA’s regulatory push. Fears of disruption to the power sector are overblown, the CRS said: Newer coal power plants already have pollution controls, and many older ones are set to shut down anyway, in part because burning cleaner natural gas is now so cheap.

Furthermore:

....studies that many critics continue to rely on in their forecasts of expensive regulatory disaster assume stringent provisions that the Obama administration never proposed. A note from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, cited by many critics, admits that its analysis is “inadequate to use as a basis for decision-making, given that it used information and assumptions that have changed.”

In other words, at some point, the GOP assumed that President Obama would push for more regulation, and he didn't.  But they're still using the same false assumptions even though the facts contradict them. 

Economist Jared Bernstein weighs in:

Second, and this creates an upward bias to both X and e, you can’t only count the costs of regulations, you have to consider the benefits as well.  Again, from the WaPo editorial:

 “Reasonable people can disagree on how much economic cost is worth bearing for how much environmental benefit. But the Republican critique seems to deny that such a trade-off even exists.”

Suppose an allegedly “job-killing” regulation led to the improvement in public health, thus decreasing health costs or lost work days.  To ignore these factors is to inflate both X and e.

But that's just what analysis shows us; what do business owners say about regulations harming their business?  Well, funny you should ask; McClatchy Newspapers went out and asked them.

"Government regulations are not 'choking' our business, the hospitality business," Bernard Wolfson, the president of Hospitality Operations in Miami, told The Miami Herald. "In order to do business in today's environment, government regulations are necessary and we must deal with them. The health and safety of our guests depend on regulations. It is the government regulations that help keep things in order."

The answer from Rick Douglas — the owner of Minit Maids, a cleaning service with 17 employees in Charlotte, N.C. — was more blunt.

"I think the rich have to be taxed, sorry," Douglas said. He added that he isn't facing a sea of new regulations but that he does struggle with an old issue, workers' compensation claims.

Then there's Rip Daniels. He owns four businesses in Gulfport, Miss.: real estate ventures, a radio station and a boutique hotel/bistro. He said his problem wasn't regulation.

"Absolutely, positively not. What is choking my business is insurance. What's choking all business is insurance. You cannot go into business, any business — small business or large business — unless you can afford insurance," he told Biloxi's Sun Herald.

The article does mention that the US Chamber of Commerce points to the elements mentioned in Huntsman's plan, but noted that those complaints seem to come from the largest corporations, and not from the far more numerous locally owned business that offer the bulk of our nation's employment.

Energy Independence... Fine.  Where are the jobs?
Part 1: drill, baby, DRILL!

Part 2. "eliminate the subsidies and regulations that support foreign oil and inhibit domestic alternatives such as compressed natural gas (CNG), electricity, biofuels, and coal-to-liquids, which are not price-controlled by OPEC."

It should be noted that the inhibition is basically that alternative fuels cost more than foreign fuel.  So this plan is really "let's drive up the price of gasoline and oil for the consumer."    Just  want to make sure we understand the plan; he was kind of vague about it.

This plan is impractical if we're not also investing in mass transit so that we're sharing the cost of $10 a gallon gasoline amongst a large number of commuters.  The best way to shake off dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our consumption by driving a lot less, and making better use of the fuel we do use. 

But this is a jobs plan.  Will this create jobs? I don't see it.  Remember, he's already reduced revenue with the tax reform, which means much steeper cuts than we've seen to date.  Traditionally, alternative fuel research has been subsidized by the government because the return on the investment has been too steep.

Of course, alternative fuels will become economically viable when gasoline costs soar; but I suspect that the sudden rise in costs will put a lot of people out of work. For example, if people stop driving cars in favor of mass transit, that's hit on the auto industry.  Arguably, that could be partially offset by people seeking to replace their current cars with far more efficient vehicles, and building more mass transit systems.  But I think at some point, people are going to start opting out of owning their own car, which means less manufacturing and less maintenance jobs.

Expanding Free Trade.
Remember NAFTA?  As mentioned above, it cost 879,280 US jobs. 78% of the net job losses under NAFTA were relatively high paying manufacturing jobs.   Sure, we eventually regained most of the lost jobs - 809,988.  But the wages dropped 13-16%.

Worse, the idea was to make U.S. products more attractive to Mexican consumers, which would increase our exports there.  But 61% of exports to Mexico are actually components for goods that are assembled in Mexico to be sold in the U.S.

Let's look at the list of Huntsman's proposed partners in trade: South Korea, Columbia, Panama, Japan, India and Taiwan.  Without a Free Trade agreement, we've already lost a lot of jobs to South Korean, India, and Taiwan.  What would be the effects of removing restrictions?  After all, workers in most of those countries make a small fraction of U.S. workers; won't this only encourage companies to move more manufacturing jobs overseas?  Sure, new jobs will eventually replace what's lost, but again, it's likely that we'll see markedly reduced wages.  No net gain, just less money for the same jobs.

Jobless Job Plan
Considering all the factors, this jobs plan doesn't really do much to create new jobs - and remember, we haven't accounted for the jobs lost as Huntsman hacks away at the size of the government.  He's talking about eliminating tens of thousands of government jobs, if not hundreds of thousands.  That will contribute to unemployment even as the few jobs this plan will create eventually appear.

Debt Crisis: It's Your Fault

So I couldn't help notice the results of a recent CNN poll:

Now, it's great that so many people took 5 seconds to click on the poll.  But if you're part of the 57% who isn't contacting your congresscritter and chewing them out, then you're part of the problem.  And if your congresscritter is already voting per your wishes, then contact his or her opponent and let them have it.

Our democracy only works if we're all participating. And if you're bitching about the results while not voting or contacting your elected representatives, you have only yourself to blame for our current woes.

Miami Commission Turns Its Back on Citizens

The Miami City Commission has lost sight of its responsibilities to its citizens - ALL of them.

Commissioner Marc Sarnoff's incredibly bad proposal is this; to combat the problem of feeding the homeless of Miami, make it illegal to feed them. Instead of helping voters and taxpayers help the less fortunate, he's chosen to punish them. And that is not the purpose of government.

The intent of the ordinance is to stop various independent charitable groups from picking random locations around the city to do what the city is failing to do itself; prevent homeless people from starving on our city streets.

From Miami Today News:

The proposed ordinance would require anyone who wants to feed the homeless to get a license, and would also mandate how the food is to be handled, that trash will be removed, and that portable bathrooms will be available.

Next month I expect the county commission to take on those frickin' Boy Scouts who help old ladies cross the street. How dare anyone try to help others! There are paramedics relying on scraping grandma off the street to earn a paycheck.

That's not to say that there isn't a problem being created by the way groups feed the homeless at random spots around the city; there is. But criminalizing good deeds is not a reasonable approach to the problem. As the New Times points out, the commission's actions reduces the status of homeless people to that of pigeons.

Who cares about human decency and hunger if it gets in the way of pretty sidewalks, right?
-- Miami New Times/ Riptide

To be fair, the city has setup some shelters; there are just not enough of them. And with a flagging economy and slashed budgets, that's not going to change anytime soon. The commission should be praising these groups for stepping up to take up the slack, not turning them into criminals.

So instead of trying to arrest people who are doing the right thing the wrong way, the city should build help them partnerships to solve the actual problems.

Obviously, there are groups willing to FEED the homeless, but this is resulting in trash, and according to Marc Sarnoff, public defecation. Let's create sites near where these activities are taking place, and put in the necessary support systems. Get someone to underwrite the costs of port-a-johns, and someone else to underwrite the costs of garbage collections. The commission needs to be PRO-active, not RE-active.

The Miami Commission, and Marc Sarnoff, appears to have forgotten that they are elected to serve the public, not to hinder them.

The sad part is that these kinds of ordinances are overturned with some regularity; the city could choose to provide a small amount of funding instead of spending millions defending against a civil rights suit. But I guess it's not their money, why should they be expected to spend it responsibly just because we elected them to do just that?

Jake DeSantis IS part of the problem with AIG.

The New York Times has printed a letter of resignation, attributed to Jake DeSantis,an executive vice president with AIG. He is one of the executives who recieved a bonus.

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials.

He goes on to say that he's donating the money to "those suffering from the global economic downturn." And he gives a little biography of himself, depicting himself as a family man and a decent guy, and reiterating that he and his division had nothing to do with the company's collapse.

I'm sure that will warm the heart of the woman in Long Island who's being evicted because her landlord lost the building to foreclosure. The woman had paid all her rent on time, but not only loses her home, but all the deposits she paid on it. She's a decent, warm and fuzzy family type who did everything she was supposed to, too.

Here's the thing, Mr. DeSantis: AIG is failing. Your division is part of a company that is facing the most dire emergency imaginable: its imminent demise. It's the Titanic, and it is going to take all hands with it if it sinks. You're all going down, not just the guy on the bridge who was supposed to avoid the iceberg. The wait staff doesn't get a coffee break from helping with the evacuation just because they were doing their jobs when the ship started taking on water.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised.

And so do all of AIG's customers, you gutless whining jerk. I see. You're a victim. Well shit, Jake, welcome to the club. We're having a picnic out in Sacramento, bring a can of beans with you. No, really, bring the beans: everyone's unemployed and money's tight. Maybe you can swap sob stories with those folks who had to walk away from their mortgages: mortgages that went up while their jobs disappeared. I'm sure they will be heartbroken that you didn't get your bonus while AIG was failing to cover their losses.

Jake, only a complete jackass expects to be rewarded when the business around him is in a shambles. Sure, you met all your obligations. Whoopedy do. But the rest of us whose hard-earned tax money is being used to give you money on top of your base salary didn't sign on to make sure you got your frills.

Yes, you do deserve to get paid. And once AIG is back on its feet, and taxpayers have their money back, AIG is obligated to pay you your extra money - out of its own pocket, not out of mine.

So, here's a big 'FUCK YOU' to Jake DeSantis. And I really mean that in all sincerity.

I hate to say it, but he has a point.

Yes, it's important that we take steps to turn around the economy. But it's absolutely just as important that we know what steps we're actually taking.

The View on Wall Street

Received in email, I had to share:

Back in 1929, a lot of stock brokers jumped out of their office windows when they realized the extent of the losses of their firms and their clients. A lot of people pitied those poor stock brokers.



That was then, this is now:

...and ANOTHER thing.

That "3 million dollar" figure; doesn't it strike you as odd that McCain is fine with sending 700 billion into Iraq, with spending another 500 to 700 billion dollars to bail out multi-billion dollar corporations, but he's all up at arms over 3 million dollars to study an endangered species?

Sure, 3 million is a lot to me. And I suspect it's probably a lot of money to you. But when you look at the economy, and the budget, and the budget deficit, it's literally a drop in the bucket.

And for McCain, it's also not a huge figure: he owns two condos in Phoenix that come to 4.7 million dollars. That's just TWO of his four to ten homes, depending on whose count you believe this week.

So, save the cost of a pair of condos, or some larger homes, but spend enough to give 4.4 million Americans free college educations at private institutions or 23 million Americans free college educations at public institutions on bailing out a bunch of very rich guys who each were paid much more than $3 million a year to run banks and manage stocks & bonds.

It just doesn't add up, does it? He'd have to cut 233,333 projects of that value to cover the 700 billion he's fine with spending. OR, he could end the war in Iraq. But he's not incensed about that.

For that matter, ONE PERCENT of 700 billion dollars is still 7 billion dollars; and the three million he's incensed about STILL isn't even a full percentage point of THAT.

My point isn't that we shouldn't be looking long and hard at the budget; we should. But we need to do so with a sense of proportion; a sense of proportion that John McCain no longer demonstrates.

How We All Got Screwed; A Basic Primer

A friend sent me a really cool slide show that explains the bank failure: