George Washingon on Political Parties

From George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796

On political parties:

"Let me... warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party...

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But... in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

While it is true that both of the major parties are playing fast and loos with the truth, the fact is that the Republican Party isn't merely exaggerating, or mis-stating, facts.  It's making stuff up out of whole cloth.  And lying isn't something any of us should support.

But whatever your opinions on the matter, they do not matter if you do not vote.  Be sure to cast your vote this election day.

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.

Miami City Commissioners Wield Their Ignorance

Let me posit a situation to you;  you want to create a highly specialized facility to lure a highly specialized industry to town.  You want members of this industry to choose you over all other possible locations on the planet.

Do you:

• Find the person most qualified on the planet to create your facility, someone with a proven track record of success and a sterling reputation for serving the industry you're attracting.

OR

• Hire your neighbor, who has absolutely no experience or reputation in this highly specialized field, and is completely unknown to this industry.

Well, if you're the Miami City Commission, you go for your neighbor.  After all, they know absolutely nothing about the highly specialized needs of the highly specialized industry.

In this case, we're talking about the film industry.  The CRA has been tasked with building a soundstage with production support facilities to lure film and television production to the area.  It's a good plan.  But lousy execution.

Film and TV production not only have very specific needs, those needs must be addressed in a certain fashion.  For example, it's not enough to know how to wire a building; it's not enough to know that it needs a lot more power than you think it should, you also have to understand how that power needs to be distributed so that the various uses of that power don't conflict with one another.  These are things not addressed by the building codes; they are learned through experience.

Miami Today News reports that the commission has decided to exercise their dismal ignorance and rejected a surprisingly well conceived selection made by the Community Redevelopment Agency.

Citing their wish to give preference to local companies, directors of Miami's Community Redevelopment Agency have rejected a selection committee's recommendation to hire California-based Bastien & Associates Inc. to evaluate the possibilities for the Miami Entertainment Center...

Since you're probably not in the film industry, you may not know who Bastien & Associates are.

"Bastien & Associates is No. 1 in the world for this type of thing," said Mike A. Shehadeh, senior vice president and chief operating officer of CES Consultants Inc., which would have been the local partner to Bastien & Associates. "They have built more than 150 sound stages and they have 90% direct client contact. They have the experience and relationships with producers and operators of studios and can bring them to Miami."

Now, if you're a smart person, this sounds like just the kind of company we need.  Production companies will know that any project B&A is associated with will meet the industry standards they need.  That's because they've built a lot of the best studios on the planet, for most of the major film and television production companies.

Sadly, we don't have smart people on the commission.

"There's a strong feeling that we should have local preference," said Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones.

Right.  Because when you think "world-class film production facilities," your first thought is "Miami."  Well, of course, that's only if you're a commissioner in Miami with utterly no background in film production.  Well, at least Spence-Jones was cleared of that ethics charge.

"Part of a CRA is to promote local businesses," said Commissioner Francis Suarez. "If it's not a local firm, who's going to be checking?"

So let's not go with a company that will inspire confidence in the film industry.  Let's go with someone with very little experience.  Good plan - if you want the project to fail.

But "Bastien is not here today," said Willy Bermello, a principal of Bermello Ajamil & Partners, an award-winning Miami company that has landed such high-profile projects as a Port Miami makeover. The company's projects in the entertainment sphere include the Univision Network offices, television and radio broadcasting studios for the Spanish Broadcasting System in Miami, and the G-Star School of the Arts in West Palm Beach, the largest motion picture sound stage in South Florida.

And why am I not impressed? 

First, the Port of Miami has fuck-all to do with film and television production.  Second, the actual production facilities they have done don't exactly stand out.  G-Star School of the Arts?  Really?  I mean, it's a decent enough facility, especially since it's really currently the only one in Florida.  But it's one sound stage.  And a couple of broadcast stages, which are not remotely considered sound stages, FYI. 

Bastien and associates has built over 150 sound stages.  They include:

• Los Angeles Center Studios, California ( 2 sound stages and support facilities)
• Manhattan Beach Studios, California (2 sound stages, production support buildings, commissary, and administrations office building)
• Dubai Studio City, United Arab Emirates (14 sound stages, production, admin, and so on)
• Viacom Broadcast Center, California (newsrooms, broadcast stages, and support spaces)
• CBS Studio Center, California (three sound stages, four story production support building)
• Paramount Pictures, California (2 sound stages and facility renovations)
• Dreamworks SKG, California (8 sound stages and production support buildings)

And these are just the ones I could find in a quick Google search.  There are dozens of articles about the studios and stages they've built, the master plans drawn up for facility growth and enhancement.

And see those names?  Major production companies: CBS, Viacom, Paramount, Dreamworks.  These are the companies we want filming here in Miami.  Which do you think will give them more confidence; coming to film in a sound stage built by the same company that built their own studio, or some firm that's won awards for parking garages and toll plazas, and, oh yes, they built a sound stage for some school in the sticks, once.

Yes, the CRA is there to create opportunities for our local businesses; but to do that, you have to bring in the experts that will equip our local businesses for that success.  And that's not some local company that commissioners have received kickbacks from a relationship with, but a world-class firm that's actually creating the standards with the industry we're trying to attract.

The Miami Commission is making an incredibly stupid and irresponsible decision.  It's past time to clear these morons out of office.

The House Attacks Our Rights

First, let's be clear about the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The official story of H.R. 347 is that Congress wants to make it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House.  This is in response to several cases in recent years where some citizen decided they wanted to make a point to the President in person.  Currently, it's not clear that it's illegal for citizens to enter White House grounds to protest something; after all, it's not private property; taxpaying citizens pay for it. It might be illegal, but it's a gray area.  So Congress is doing what Congress does, it's passing a law to clarify the matter.

But it may be doing more than simply making the White House more secure.

Let's look at H.R. 347, introduced by Representative Thomas J. Rooney, (R-Fla Dist. 16), which was passed in the House of Representatives 388-3, to see what the fuss is about

(a) Whoever--

• (1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
• (2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
• (3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
• (4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

Well, disrupting the status quo has long been part and parcel of large protests, going back to The Boston Tea Party. Sure, we don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry urinating on the White House porch to show their disdain of the President.  But the law doesn't stop at simply keeping people off the White House lawn without permission:

(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--

• (A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;
• (B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
• (C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance...
  

"Special event of national significance?"  Like an Independence Day celebration?  Or a Thanksgiving Day Parade?  This is awfully vague.  Consider:

Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

What this bill seems to say is that if a group of citizens gathers in a crowd outside someplace the President is at - the White House, Congress, a high school auditorium, whatever - with the intent of making sure that he sees them and hears their message, that they will be arrested if that protest hampers him in any way.  I can see Richard M. Nixon being delighted with this kind of law.

The way I read it, if protestors are outside the Capital building and chanting "Give Peace A Chance" loud enough that Congress can't ignore them, they could be arrested.

And the punishment is no slap on the wrist; if the citizen is exercising their second amendment right to bear arms, as many Tea Party attendees have done in the past, they could face up to ten years in prison.  And even if they aren't armed, they could do a year in jail.

Tom Rooney seems to be turning his back on our Founding Fathers, and trampling all over the Constitution; the First Amendment is intended to allow protest,  LOUD protest.  What good is having the freedom to say what you want when you can't say it loudly enough not to be ignored without being thrown in jail?

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...

When you can be thrown in jail for speaking loudly enough that Congress has to stop to listen, Freedom of Speech has clearly been abridged.

This is a bad law.

Forbes' Bogus DeBunker

Forbes' Paul Roderick Gregory can beat the shit out of a strawman.  But when it comes to "debunking" the "myth" that there's anything wrong with the tax code, he falls short of the mark.

In case you missed what  Shah Limb Guru referred to "Obama's disgusting use of Warren Buffett's secretary,"  Mr. Gregory's article is being used to refute Buffett's - and Obama's - assertion that the differences between what Buffet is taxed versus what his personal assistant, Debbie Bosanek, is being taxed, demonstrates a problem with our tax code.

Warren Buffett’s Secretary Likely Makes Between $200,000 And $500,000/Year
Warren Buffet’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, served as a stage prop for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. She was the President’s chief display of the alleged unfairness of our tax system – a little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss.

Bosanek’s prominent role in Obama’s “fairness” campaign piqued my curiosity, and I imagine the curiosity of others. How much does her boss pay this downtrodden woman?

Did you see it?  No?  Let's go a little further...

....we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do.

The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffet’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffet must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.

Do you see it yet?

I have nothing against Debbie Bosanke earning a half million or even more. Buffet is a major player in the world economy. His secretary deserves good compensation. At her income, however, she is scarcely the symbol of injustice that Obama wishes her to project.

OMG!  She possibly earns over $200,000 but no more than half a million a year! 

Isn't it cute how he slipped that higher figure in like it was cold hard fact?  He boosted her from making "over $200,000" to "over a half million" in the blink of an eye; I wish I got raises that quickly!

Here's the big lie Mr. Gregory is feeding you; that anyone is arguing that Warren Buffet is underpaying his secretary. 

This isn't about what she's paid. Her salary isn't the issue being argued. It's about the percentage of her income that gets taxed.  Bosanek is taxed 35.8% of her salary, while Buffett pays only 17.4%.  To put it in other words, his tax rate is less than half of her tax rate.

Buffett thinks that it's ridiculous that he is taxed at a lower rate than she is.  Gregory's counter-argument, picked up by the witless Right, is that she makes a lot of money, therefore Buffett is wrong.

By the Numbers

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that she really does make a half million a year to be Buffett's personal assistant.  It's not unreasonable, considering what her boss makes.

She makes a great living, no doubt.

But Warren Buffett makes a fucking gi-normous wage.

Let's compare their incomes, shall we?  Buffett reported his income to Huffington Post last year, so we can compare his income to what Mr. Gregory has decided Ms. Bosanek probably makes.

Warren Buffett's total income:             $62,855,038.
Debbie Bosanek's maximum income: $     500,000.

A couple of other ways to look at it:

• Every month, Buffet makes more than ten times what his secretary makes in a year. 
• Every week, Buffet makes more than twice what she makes in a year.

And his tax rate is less than half of hers. 

That's not to say that he doesn't pay a shitload of money in taxes; he does.  But this isn't about the numbers; it's about the percentages.  The GOP would love nothing more than for you to believe this latest line of bullshit they're spreading. But it's simply bullshit.

The bottom line is that anyone who thinks that Paul Roderick Gregory has refuted anything in this argument is simply wrong.  His arguments lack the substance of the strawman he pounded on today.

Scott Isn't Increasing Education Budget.

If you're following the story in the news, you might believe that Governor Rick Scott is increasing the education budget by a whopping one billion dollars.  And there's a reason you might believe that; it's what The Miami Herald is reporting:

TALLAHASSEE -- Gov. Rick Scott opened the annual legislative session Tuesday with a State of the State address punctuated by a vow to not sign a new budget unless it increases school spending by $1 billion next year.

But in fact, he's not increasing spending.  He's only restoring most - but not all - of the money he cut away from the education budget last year.  And in fact, The Herald does include this information, but sort of blows past it as it re-affirms the fictional increase:

Scott last spring signed a budget that cut school spending by $1.3 billion. But in a series of meetings with parents across the state, he said they resoundingly favored more money for schools...

Are you doing the math?  Just in case you can't slip your shoes off to count your toes, if the legislature gives Scott what he wants, he will have reduced the education budget by 300 million dollars since he's taken office.

The Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel did a better job of reporting the matter:

With anti-Scott protestors crowding the Capitol halls, the Republican governor used his 34-minute State of the State speech to a joint session of the Legislature to reiterate his demand that lawmakers boost classroom spending by roughly $1 billion – after cutting $1.35 billion last year.

Makes it a little easier to see the chicanery in action, doesn't it?  And look, they didn't round down an additional $50 million like The Herald did.

The bottom line is that Rick Scott is spending $350 million less on education than his predecessor did.

And how is Governor Scott getting this $1 billion dollars, since he's slashed taxes and other sources of revenue  in order to give tax breaks to corporations and a thousand or so of the wealthiest Floridians?

He's taking it from the poor.

Scott's budget calls for cutting $1.9 billion from the $21 billion Medicaid program that treats nearly 3 million poor, sick and elderly.

I guess the ran the company that committed the largest Medicare fraud in history figures that if you're poor, sick, and dying, what's a little more pain and suffering matter?  Or perhaps this is a clever attempt to lower the unemployment rate; dead people don't show up as unemployed!

Nah, I'm sure that's just a happily opportunistic coincidence.

At least some Democrats are paying attention:

"To say we're adding money is disingenuous," said Senate Minority Leader Nan Rich, a Weston Democrat who complained cutting health care to fund schools was a bait-and-switch. "The same people are ending up paying the cost of what he's asking for."   - The Sun-Sentinel

So under Rick Scott's plan, Dick and Jane might still be able to go to school, but Mom and Dad might be too sick to help them with their homework, and might even die. 

Maybe then Dick and Jane can get into foster care!  They might not be among the thousands of children who are abused and neglected, and there hasn't been a case of foster parents killing their wards in months!

Oh, wait, Govenor Scott gutted THAT agency, too.  He fired 14% of the DCF workforce in order to create more jobs.  So how is an agency that was already overwhelmed supposed to improve?

“I believe in the protective power and prayer and hope,” Governor Rick Scott’s Department of Children and Families Secretary David Wilkins said at a stop in Miami last week. - CBS4 Miami

Dick and Jane are so boned.

And we have Frank Paruas to thank.

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.

Hemorhoids Get a Bum Rap

Last month, you may recall that The Orlando Sentinel declared that only hemorrhoids are more unpopular than Florida Governor Rick Scott:

The first-time governor — less than a year into his term, typically a honeymoon period for newly electeds — now has an approval rating of 27 percent.

That makes him one of the least popular politicians in the United States and only slightly more popular than a hemorrhoid.

I though that this might be a bit of hyperbole.  So I polled my readers to see if there was any truth to this at all.  After all, I'm always going on about how important it is to be honest, to report the facts, and to avoid pointless rhetoric.  Time to practice what I preach.

And of course, there isn't any truth to it at all.

As you can see here, hemorrhoids are actually more than twice as popular as Governor Rick Scott, or Libya's ruthless dictator, Mohamar Ghadafi.

People would rather have hemorrhoids than Carrot Top, but Carrot Top is preferred over the company of either Ghadafi or Scott. 

This makes perfect sense: in choosing between painful rectal itching and the comedy stylings of Carrot Top, one must factor in the fact that there's a cream for hemorrhoids. 

In fact, it turns out that only Rev. Fred Phelps, bigot-in-chief of the hate group Westboro Baptist Church is less popular than Florida Governor Rick Scott.

So I'm afraid we have to label Scott Maxwell's claim that "Rick Scott is only slightly more popular than hemorrhoids" as false.

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.

Amendment 4 - the "Case Study"

Opponents of Amendment 4 cite St. Pete Beach as a "case study" into "the evils of Amendment 4."  They say that the 10,000 person community became mired in endless litigation, just a small taste of what would happen with a statewide mandate.

The St. Petersburgh Times sums up the background for us:

In 2005, St. Pete Beach's five-member City Commission was considering changing its development plan, the comprehensive plan. The commission was debating incentives to lure additional hotels that could increase the density of a development and change the allowed uses.

The talk of change didn't sit well with many residents, who collected petitions to get a series of charter amendments on the city ballot that would require voter approval for height increases and other changes to land use plans.

From there it got contentious. The city sued to stop the vote, saying the proposed charter amendments violated state land use law. A developer also sued, saying the petition process was costing him money.

The city lost its case on appeal, and in November 2006, voters narrowly approved most of the changes to the City Charter. The results: St. Pete Beach became the first town in Florida where residents directly controlled development decisions. Voters also elected two members of Citizens for Responsible Growth to the City Commission, giving them a majority.

That prompted a pro-developer group to start its own petition drive and propose its own amendments to the city's comprehensive plan. The city's elected officials — who had gone from being largely pro-development to anti-development — tried to stop them.

It got even more contentious. There were more lawsuits.

Then, another election, another change of power, and eventually, another referendum. This time, the pro-development side won.

The upshot — four years after city voters decided they wanted control over land use decisions, the entire process has been sidetracked and stymied by lawsuits and politics, petition drives and egos.

Right off the bat, something jumps out at me; voters introduced the referenda, and not the local governments.   Amendment 4 stipulates that local governments put up the referenda, not politicial action committees or concerned citizens.

Here are the relevant St. Pete Beach laws:

Section 3.15: Voter approval required for approval of comprehensive land use plan or comprehensive land use plan amendment. 
A comprehensive plan (“Plan”) or comprehensive plan amendment (“Plan Amendment”) (both as defined in Florida Statutes Chapter 163) shall not be adopted by the City Commission until such proposed Plan or Plan Amendment is approved by the electors in a referendum as provided by Florida Statute Sec-
tion 166.031 or by the City Charter or as otherwise provided by law. Elector approval shall not be required for any Plan or Plan Amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land or as otherwise prohibited by Florida Statutes including but not limited to Florida Statutes Section 163.3167.

Section 3.16: Voter approval required for approval of or effectiveness of community redevelopment plan. 
A community redevelopment plan as defined in Florida Statutes Section 163 shall not be adopted by the City Commission until such proposed community redevelopment plan is submitted to a vote of the electors by referendum as provided by Florida Statute Section 166.031 or by the City Charter.

Section 3.18: Voter approval required for increase in allowable height of structure. 
No amendment to the City’s Land Development Code providing for an increase in the allowable height (as defined by the Land Development Code) of any structure (as defined by the Land Development Code) shall be adopted by the City Commission until such amendment is submitted to a vote of the electors by referendum as provided by Florida Statutes Section 166.031 or by the City Charter.

The article actually identifies the key difference between what St Pete Beach had, and what Amendment 4 is:

Blackner walked PolitiFact Florida through how she says the new process would work.

Say a developer proposes an amendment to the comprehensive plan to build a condo high-rise in the middle of town. Currently, an application would be submitted to the local government that has jurisdiction; the local government would follow its approval process — two public hearings, etc.; and then the state Department of Community Affairs would be asked to sign off on the amendment. None of that would change.

But if the developer gets his approvals, Amendment 4 would add one more step. Voters would either ratify or veto the developer's plans at the next regularly scheduled election.

What's critical to note in St. Pete Beach's case is that citizens themselves proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan — an end-run of the process established by state law.

In other words, what happened in St. Pete Beach was that citizens introduced referenda before there was actually a change of plan created by the local government, a situation that Amendment 4 does not create.

So what really happened in St. Pete Beach? Here's the basic narrative:

Back in 2007, Save Our Little Village (SOLV), a politcal action committee, submitted 6 ordinances by initiative.  This led to SOLV filing suit to compel the city to submit these measures to voters. 

But SOLV's victory in getting its initiatives on the ballot led to a lawsuit; in Pyle vs. the City of St. Pete Beach, a citizen claimed that four of the six ballot summaries were "false, misleading, and deceptive."  But by the time the suit was filed, the election was technically under way (absentee ballots had already been distributed) so the Court left the items on the ballot.  The Court pointed out that voters could reject the items having inaccurate summaries on that merit, or for any other reason.

That led to the next lawsuit, on the same issue, when voters approved the four initiatives in question.  A fourth lawsuit was filed, stating that the 4 ordinances (one created a countywide land use plan, the other three amended Land Development Regulations)  did not comply with the existing comprehensive plan.  A fifth lawsuit was filed, claiming that sections 3.15, 3.16 and 3.18 created an additional arm of the government, while a sixth lawsuit challenged the validity of the current comprehensive land use plan.

Now, Citizens for Lower Taxes is correct when they say St. Pete Beach was mired in lawsuits. The city was sued - but none of these suits are the results of anything mandated by Amendment 4.

But don't take my word for it; Ed Ruddencutter, former vice-Mayor St. Pete Beach, wrote in a letter to current vice-Mayor and Amendment 4 opponent Jim Parent:

St. Pete Beach has NEVER had a serious ballot issue in accordance with what you call our, "our mini-amendment 4 experiment here in SPB", also known as City Charter Section 3.15. The SOLV comprehensive plan vote was a citizen initiative petition, in accordance with City Charter Section 7.02, and had nothing to do with our requirement for a vote on Comprehensive Plan amendments. There has never been a Section 3.15 vote on a plan change that affected serious changes on land use, height, density or intensity. The lawsuits were as a result of a Section 7.02 vote only.

Amendment 4 does not state that citizens can change the local land use code by referendum; it only mandates that once a land use change has gone through its process - which dictates that in fact the measures are drafted and reviewed by City officials - the voters have the final say on whether or not those measures can take effect.

The Florida Supreme Court described it in 2005:

...the proposed amendment at issue in this case alters only one step in an already established process.  It does not give the public the power to establish policy, collect funds, administer those funds, or adjudicate liability. - SC04-1134

Interestingly, this is the exact document linked by the Say No To 4 website, only they conclude that the court finding indicated that it adds all kinds of complexity to the process.

The "case study" cited by Citizens for Lower Taxes does not, in fact, stand up under close scrutiny. 

Bobby Jindal: Out of the mouth of Booby.

LooseScrew Louisiana Governor Bobby 'Booby' Jindal made so many stupid statements in his "rebuttal" of President Obama's state of the union address, it's hard to know where to begin. But since he's a rabid radical idjit Republican, we'll start with tax cuts.

... Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families, cutting taxes for small businesses, strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers, and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for home-buyers. These plans would cost less and create more jobs.

Wow, this is stupid on several levels:

1. "Lowering income taxes" does nothing to "create more jobs." Creating more jobs creates more jobs.
2. If you are unemployed, you are not paying income tax because you have no income to tax. So lowering the income tax does nothing for those on unemployment.
   
3. Simply lowering taxes on business does not insure that the business will hire new workers or that it will re-invest in new equipment, especially if no one is buying products.
   
4. Creating a new tax credit for home-buyers won't help people afford homes if they have no jobs to finance the homes. All it does is increase the size of our national debt by decreasing revenue.
   
5. Creating a new tax credit for home-buyers also doesn't create more jobs. At the very best, it may help some realtors stay in business - IF they can find people who suddenly can pay for homes while unemployed.

And of course, immediately on the parrot-cries of "cut taxes!" he follows up with a familiar whine:

Instead of trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money...

Well, thanks to Bush et. al, a lot of us DID make decisions with our own money; we invested it. And we've all of lost buckets of money. Millions of Americans suddenly face bankruptcy and foreclosure. And those are the lucky ones. The ones who haven't lost their jobs.

And then Jindal starts chewing on his own foot:

$300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring." Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.

Let's break this down, shall we?

$300 million to buy new cars for the government

Why would the government spend 300 million dollars to buy new cars? Could it be because, I dunno, our automotive industry is about to collapse?

"Shares of General Motors are trading at prices last seen in the 1950s, their value cut in half in just eight weeks. Ford and Chrysler are in even worse shape, analysts say." - CS Monitor, July 2, 2008

Who else can buy enough cars to make a difference, Booby? Or maybe you think that putting millions of Americans out of work really is a good thing? I guess there are no automobile dealerships in Lousiana.

The government buys $300 million worth of cars, and they sell off the exisiting fleet to Americans for a good price: everyone benefits. But I guess that's just logical. The government should drive cars into the ground, so that we spend that $300 million on towing and repairs, and then toss in the costs of workers unable to perform their tasks because they are either stranded in their broken-down vehicles, or can't accomplish the task because the vehicle is in the shop.

I guess we could rent them a car until their old decrepit car is fixed.

And we might have to; remember, we're letting the Big Three collapse: no dealership to repair anything, and when the automakers went down, they took their parts suppliers with them.

$8 billion for high-speed rail projects

And why is this a bad idea, exactly? High Speed rail is something that every other reasonably advanced country in the world has. That the US lacks this basic mode of transportation is beyond pathetic; it makes us a laughing stock. We need high-speed rails. This exactly the kind of project the government should be doing to stimulate the economy; building it creates jobs, running it creates jobs, and its existence spawns new business opportunities, and no one else can afford to do it.

Every tried flying from Fort Lauderdale to Tallahassee on business? It's about $900 for a direct flight, but you can knock it down to $600 if you make connections - through Pittsburgh!!! So we drive it; it's only about six hours each way. Gas, plus mileage (it's a business trip, remember!) and the hotel room (maybe you can commute 12 hours and get a day's work in there too, but most of us are only human.)

And remember 9-11, and how all the airplanes were grounded? No one is taking a train off-course, Booby. It will always be on the tracks.

$140 million for something called "volcano monitoring."

They call it that because they monitor these potential hazards to life and limb we call volcanoes. Now you don't have any in the mucky cesspool that you are responsible for, but we have over 150 volcanoes in the United States, and many of them are near major population centers. I remember when Mount Saint Helens blew off one third of its mass and killed 57 people; we were lucky that it was the side facing away from the major population centers. Alaska alone has over 80 volcanic sites; and many of those could affect millions of people living around the Pacific by creating a tsunami if they erupt.

But Booby has more foot to chew:

Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt.

Unlike the Bush Adminstration, which grew the goverment, increased our taxes, and saddled future generations with debt. Or the Reagan Adminstration, which grew the government, increased our taxes, and saddled future generations with debt. Oh, and that's both Bush administrations, by the way, although the most recent Bush saddled us with more debt than his father and Reagan combined. The Republican congress of the Bush 42 era spent money like drunken sailors on a stolen Amex Platinum card, unimpeded by InCurious George.

Republicans shrink government and cut taxes? Not since Nixon!

On to health care. I used to work in the Health Care industry. I know quite a lot about it, as a result. So what's the GOP Boy Blunder's take?

To strengthen our economy, we also need to address the crisis in healthcare. Republicans believe in a simple principle: No American should have to worry about losing their health coverage -- period. We stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage. What we oppose is universal government-run health care. Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not by government bureaucrats.

You know who else shouldn't be making health car decisions? Accountants and stockholders, that's who. Our health care is overpriced for only one reason: we gave it to middle-men; the insurance industry. Any health care transaction should consist of exactly two parties: the patient, and the health-care provider. You want to reduce health care costs? Eliminate everything but catastrophic care coverage.

Funny, that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in his speech.

Ooh, next up is education; let's see what he has to say:

To strengthen our economy, we also need to make sure every child in America gets the best possible education. After Katrina, we reinvented the New Orleans school system, opening dozens of new charter schools, and creating a new scholarship program that is giving parents the chance to send their children to private or parochial schools of their choice.

[sniff sniff] Smells like vouchers to me.

Louisiana is still at the bottom of education rankings.

All voucher systems are inherently and fatally flawed; first, they pull money out of already cash-strapped public schools. Second, private schools, as privately-owned businesses, are under no legal obligation to accept students using vouchers to pay for all or part of the tuition. Third, schools do not have to keep under-acheiving children. Fourth, because they are private, they are not bound to the same systems of measurements as public schools; in other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that private schools actually do a better job of teaching; their success is more likely due to the fact that they only accept students who are already academic acheivers. All a voucher system really does is insure that those students who can't get into private schools will be stuck in schools that have been stripped of any chance at excellence.

Oh, but Booby is far from finished parading his idiocy!

To strengthen our economy, we must promote confidence in America by ensuring ours is the most ethical and transparent system in the world. In my home state, there used to be saying: At any given time, half of Louisiana was said to be half under water, and the other half is under indictment. No one says that anymore.

Not since Katrina actually put half the state underwater, destroyed a lot of homes and left thousands dead, anyway.

Last year, we passed some of the strongest ethics laws in the nation and today, Louisiana has turned her back on the corruption of the past.

The corruption of...last year. This is supposed to impress anyone? "We've been honest for six months?" You are boasting about this?

Sheesh. I wonder if he was put up as the result of a bet? "Bet you don't have the guts to put the idiot in front of the cameras!" "oh yeah? How much?"

....dangerous enemies still seek our destruction. Now is no time to dismantle the defenses that have protected this country for hundreds of years, or make deep cuts in funding for our troops.

Deep cuts? Who's calling for deep cuts? Wasn't it...Bobby Jindal? He was just calling for lower taxes and reduction in spending...so, if we're cutting taxes, but still spending billions on national defense that we don't actually have, we're passing on debt to our descendants...which Jindal was just slapping Democrats for doing. Hypocritical much, Booby?

Tonight, on behalf of our leaders in Congress and my fellow Republican governors, I say this: Our party is determined to regain your trust. We will do so by standing up for the principles that we share, the principles you elected us to fight for,

Actually, Booby, you guys lost the national election. We elected them. We chose their principles, not yours.

All that said, I do have to say that I'm not happy about the Stimulus bill. I'm frankly appalled that it was passed without anyone having had the opportunity to review the damned thing. If we're distributing so much money, I want rock-solid, understandable, and fair rules dictating how that money is going to be used. We should have created policy, not project lists.

But the fact remains that cutting taxes does not create jobs, nor does it reduce the debt that is the legacy of the Bush 42 Republican congress. It's the mantra of a party in the throes of senility, spewing forth from addled brains, punctuated with spittle and rife with dementia.

If Jindal is really the best the GOP can do, it's time they wiped the drool from their chins and admitted that the party of Lincoln is lost to us.

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.

Unclear On the Concept: The G.A.O.

Miami Herald: Broadcasts to Cuba Questioned.

Generally, I approve of the GAO (General Accounting Office). Their mission is laudable: to keep track of our government's expenditures and make sure that our money is being spent in a manner beneficial to the taxpayer. They find and eliminate waste.

Currently, they're reviewing Radio and TV Martí, the government funded news source being directed at Cuba. Why? In theory, we're using facts to undermine Castro's propaganda machine, but in practice we end up simply countering their lies and distortions with our own lies and distortions

Although the GAO report states that programming has improved and praised its management, it said broadcasts are often biased and fail to adhere to journalistic standards.

And if this was an article about journalistic integrity, I wouldn't need to write this.

No, it's the other part of the GAO report that I find questionable:

Last year, less than 1 percent of people surveyed said they had listened to Radio Martí in the past week, said the study by the Government Accountability Office, the investigating arm of Congress.

And how, you might wonder, was this survey conducted? After all, Cuba is a strict dictatorship, run by a tyrant who doesn't approve of the United States. The GAO can't hardly send over a team of pollsters to knock on doors in Havana. Nielsen has a zero presence over there.

So how did the GAO determine if anyone listens to Radio Martí? They called up 1200 people who were approved by the government of Cuba to receive telephone service, and asked these government approved people over the government-monitored telephone lines if these select Cuban citizens broke Cuban law by listening to propganda issued by Cuba's declared Enemy Number One.

Of course, you could also ask the Cubans who've just left, and yes, the GAO did that, too:

But the same report said nearly half of new Cuban arrivals to the United States said they had listened to the broadcasts in the past six months.

So just to be clear: half the people who got out from under Castro's oppression report that they had listened to Radio Martí, versus 1% of the 1200 state-approved Cuban citizens. (I suspect that the 1% were members of the Secret Police, hoping to setup some kind of sting operation).

That's not to say that Radio and TV Martí isn't wasting millions of dollars; it absolutely is. After all, there really aren't that many TVs in Cuba, and TV signals are much easier to disrupt. And while even a thirty year old transistor radio has an earplug, anyone peeking in your window can see what's playing on your TV. Stupid to be caught watching US propaganda.

And even if you decide that broadcasting TV is worth it, compare the costs to operations at WLRN, which also runs both a radio and a TV station.

But that's the subject for another post at another time; I'm just pointing out that doing a phone survey over a heavily wire-tapped line that serves only citizens approved by the state is unlikely to reveal much about Radio and TV Martí patronage.