Obama's $5 trillion tax cut claim against Romney is a fiction

To contact us Click HERE
Robert Samuelson has his usual nice, even handed discussion here:

Here's Obama at one rally:"My opponent, he believes in top-down economics, thinks that if you spend another $5 trillion on a tax cut skewed towards the wealthy that prosperity will rain down on everyone else."
It's a powerful argument, marred only by the fact that the $5 trillion tax cut is a fiction. . . .
To justify its $5 trillion figure -- the estimated tax loss over a decade -- the Obama campaign had to cherry-pick Romney's proposal and the TPC analysis. It had to ignore any revenue raised by reducing tax breaks and assume that, faced with a conflict between the rich and the middle class, Romney would automatically side with the rich -- as opposed to shielding the middle class from any tax increase. On Wednesday, Romney promised to protect the middle class.
The TPC report was widely interpreted as saying Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle class. It didn't, says the TPC's Howard Gleckman. It simply pointed out that he couldn't keep all "his ambitious campaign promises." He'd have to make choices and modifications. So what else is new? . . . 

Do a Google Search on "Completely Wrong" and you get page after page of links to Mitt Romney stories

To contact us Click HERE
I did this search around 2 AM this morning.  You have to go to the third page of searches until you come to a link to something using the term "completely wrong" that has nothing to do with Romney.
I must say that searches that I did using Bing and Yahoo produced similar results.

UPDATE: Fox News has this: "Mitt Romney’s Google problem is 'completely wrong'"

A Google Images search for the phrase “completely wrong” yields page after page of photos of the presidential candidate, calling to mind Google Bombs lobbed in the past against Rick Santorum, George W. Bush, and others.
But this is no Bomb, the company said.
A Google spokeswoman told FoxNews.com that Romney’s Google problem isn’t something the company can “fix” -- labeling it instead a “natural” effect of the algorithm. After secret video was released of the candidate saying he “didn’t have to worry about” 47 percent of the population, Romney used the phrase to describe his off-the-cuff comments.
"Clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right," Romney told Fox News host Sean Hannity. "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong." . . .

Obama's lawless recess appointments

To contact us Click HERE
Hopefully the courts will invalidate all the decisions Obama's recess appointees have been making in various government agencies.  From George Will:

. . . For more than a century, it was generally accepted that recess appointments could fill only vacancies that occurred between sessions, not in recesses during sessions. Of late, however, presidents of both parties have made many recess appointments during short adjournments — as short as 10 days. To limit this, both parties when controlling Congress have adopted the practice of conducting pro forma sessions so the Senate is not in recess even while most senators are away. 

It was holding such sessions every three days when Obama abandoned the settled policy of presidents respecting this practice. He treated the Senate’s unwillingness to act on his NLRB nominations as an inability to act, and said this inability constituted a de facto recess. He disregarded the Senate’s express determinations on Jan. 3 and 6 that it was in session. And the fact that twice in 2011 the Senate, while in such pro forma sessions, passed legislation, once at Obama’s urging. 

Because the Constitution unambiguously gives the Senate the power to regulate its proceedings, Obama’s opinion that the Senate was not in session when it said it was, and his assertion that it was in recess even though it held sessions on Jan. 3 and 6, has no force or relevance. And although he is a serial scofflaw, not even he has asserted the authority to make recess appointments during adjournments of three days or fewer. . . .

Biden got 12% more words in debate than Ryan

To contact us Click HERE
Biden got 7,245 words. Ryan 6,481. Biden got 12% more words. Count them. Yet Radditz clearly interrupted Ryan much more.


You know that Biden is in trouble when the very liberal Roger Ebert thinks that Biden has gone too far.

Some others also found Biden smirks and smiles very disruptive.




CNN Poll on debate winner: Ryan 48%, Biden 44%

Some of the mistakes by Biden include:  

Claiming that he had voted against both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"What we did is, we saved $716 billion and put it back, applied it to Medicare."
This money was cut to fund the Obamacare.

"You know, I heard that death panel argument from Sarah Palin. It seems that every vice presidential debate, I hear this kind of stuff about panels." -- Seriously? Obamacare wasn't even written up at the time of the Biden v. Palin debate.

"Romney said 'No, let Detroit go bankrupt.'"

 "Well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view."

Biden's attack on the ability to cut rates and deductions but keep the overall change revenue neutral.  Biden voted for just such a change when he voted for the Reagan tax changes in 1986.

Breitbart.com has a list of eleven inaccurate statements by Biden available here.

Biden claims that deficits cause recessions? Is that why Dems are running such huge deficits?

To contact us Click HERE
From the Vice Presidential debate:

And, by the way, they talk about this Great Recession if it fell out of the sky, like, "Oh, my goodness, where did it come from?" It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there. I voted against them. I said, no, we can't afford that. . . .

Obama makes it easy for foreign and domestic donors to avoid campaign finance laws

To contact us Click HERE
How can the media avoid this?  Isn't this viewed as extremely cynical?  Is this the change that Obama was referring to?

"The Illegal-Donor Loophole" is the headline of a Daily Beast story by Peter Schweizer of the conservative Government Accountability Institute and Peter Boyer, former reporter at The New Yorker and The New York Times. 

The article tells how Obama.com, a website owned by an Obama fundraiser who lives in China but has visited the Obama White House 11 times, sends solicitations mostly to foreign email addresses and links to the Obama campaign website's donation page. 

The Obama website, unlike those of most campaigns, doesn't ask for the three- or four-digit credit card verification number. That makes it easier for donors to use fictitious names and addresses to send money in. 

Campaigns aren't allowed to accept donations from foreigners. But it looks like the Obama campaign has made it easier for them to slip money in. How much foreign money has come into the Obama campaign? Schweizer and Boyer say there's no way to know. . . . 

Obama's lawless recess appointments

To contact us Click HERE
Hopefully the courts will invalidate all the decisions Obama's recess appointees have been making in various government agencies.  From George Will:

. . . For more than a century, it was generally accepted that recess appointments could fill only vacancies that occurred between sessions, not in recesses during sessions. Of late, however, presidents of both parties have made many recess appointments during short adjournments — as short as 10 days. To limit this, both parties when controlling Congress have adopted the practice of conducting pro forma sessions so the Senate is not in recess even while most senators are away. 

It was holding such sessions every three days when Obama abandoned the settled policy of presidents respecting this practice. He treated the Senate’s unwillingness to act on his NLRB nominations as an inability to act, and said this inability constituted a de facto recess. He disregarded the Senate’s express determinations on Jan. 3 and 6 that it was in session. And the fact that twice in 2011 the Senate, while in such pro forma sessions, passed legislation, once at Obama’s urging. 

Because the Constitution unambiguously gives the Senate the power to regulate its proceedings, Obama’s opinion that the Senate was not in session when it said it was, and his assertion that it was in recess even though it held sessions on Jan. 3 and 6, has no force or relevance. And although he is a serial scofflaw, not even he has asserted the authority to make recess appointments during adjournments of three days or fewer. . . .

Obama administration fires BATF whistle-blower

To contact us Click HERE
Well, possibly the Obama administration thought that they had cover given that one of their political appointees has finally just resigned.  From Fox News:

A well-known whistle-blower in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives confirmed to FoxNews.com that he was fired this week, and he claims his complaints about Operation Fast and Furious played a role in his dismissal.  

Vince Cefalu said he was served his termination papers Tuesday in a Denny's parking lot in South Lake Tahoe, Calif. But he doesn't plan to go quietly. 

"It will be challenged," he said.  

Cefalu, who's served as an ATF special agent for 25 years, was first notified of the plan to fire him more than a year ago but had been on administrative leave until now. He said officials told him he was being canned for "lack of candor," in reference to a handful of statements he made in testimony in a separate court case.  

However, Cefalu has been outspoken against ATF practices for years and told FoxNews.com that his whistle-blowing on Fast and Furious "was the final straw." . . .

Obama adm and Media Bias on initial filings of unemployment claims

To contact us Click HERE
The numbers on Thursday seemed amazingly good.  From the Politico:

The number of Americans seeking unemployment aid plummeted last week to seasonally adjusted 339,000, the lowest level in more than four years. The sharp drop offered a hopeful sign that the job market could pick up.
The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly applications fell by 30,000 to the fewest since February 2008. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, dropped by 11,500 to 364,000, a six-month low. . . .

The problem is that one large state didn't report their numbers.  The Obama administration wouldn't say what state.  Much of the media coverage, such as that in the Politico, just ignored this very important point.

Ken Rogoff, the Nobel prize, political biases, and elections

To contact us Click HERE
Ken Rogoff is a nice guy and very bright guy.  Someone who I got to know some when we were both at Hoover at the same time.  There is a drumbeat to give Ken Rogoff the Nobel prize.  If he gets it, like Krugman 08, Nobel committee will again interfering in US election.  The media will use this to conclude that Obama is not responsible for the poor economy.

But on the issue of financial crises I think that he is wrong.  There are multiple papers and books that take issue with Rogoff's claim that economic recoveries after recessions are particularly weak.  Regarding time series data for the US, Gerald P. Dwyer and James R. Lothian have a piece available here and Michael D. Bordo and Joseph G. Haubrich have something available here.  Regarding some slightly earlier published cross-country international evidence you can see a popular discussion available here, but the graphs and more detailed discussion are in my book with Grover Norquist available here.

You can see the argument in today's New York Times when Paul Krugman writes:

About that misplaced optimism: In a now-notorious January 2009 forecast, economists working for the incoming administration predicted that by now most of the effects of the 2008 financial crisis would be behind us, and the unemployment rate would be below 6 percent. Obviously, that didn’t happen.  

Why did the administration get it wrong? It wasn’t exaggerated faith in the power of its stimulus plan; the report predicted a fairly rapid recovery even without stimulus. Instead, President Obama’s people failed to appreciate something that is now common wisdom among economic analysts: severe financial crises inflict sustained economic damage, and it takes a long time to recover. . . .

(crash) landing

To contact us Click HERE

So we have several developments thatwe'll make a point of putting the pen to paper to share with you soon. But, fornow, I offer a post to announce that all eight of us are again breathing thefree American air. In an ironic end to all the bonding we did, starting in May,we were forced to arrive home in three different groups. A certain American airlineup-and-cancelled a flight from Dubai to Dulles, which we only learned when wearrived in UAE late at night. The only possible way to get home was by whateverconnections had open seats. Hours later, EDGE had travelers in Frankfurt,Amsterdam and Istanbul before they continued on to O'Hare. I'm fortunate to beable to give you this symbolic photo of the group; neither, the River Nile, nor UnitedAirlines hesitated to leave us to the wild current of their being.

 We'll be pushing to havetravelers give you their perspectives on the trip in the coming weeks, while itis fresh. I hope that gives a more complete understanding of ouraccomplishments and tribulations, but be in touch as you have questions.
Paul

Eric's Poetic Probing #2

To contact us Click HERE

Precedingthe numerous stories and perspectives we each intend to post in the comingweeks, I’ve taken the liberty to post one of the many poems I wrote while inUganda. Enjoy.
Eric

Untitled #1
Wood boats long line
the muddy shore,Each bow pointing regally
towards horizonless Lake Victoria.
Men called kinyamas for their strength,
in uniform blue,
carrying women and children
to and from each boat.
Even a suited businessman,
riding a kinyama’s shoulders, avoids walkingthrough the mud.But for a traveler like me,
who wouldn’t want a piece of Victoria
fastened to their feet?

Rashida Manjoo women's rights lecture

To contact us Click HERE

"After the Violence: The Dream ofAnother Reality"Thursday, September 20, 6:30 pmVandeBerg Auditorium, Pyle Center, 702Langdon St.Free and open to the public
"A native of South Africa, Manjoo is an internationallyrecognized lawyer, teacher, and advocate who has worked to advance women’srights and human rights around the world. She serves as an Advocate of the HighCourt of South Africa and associate professor in the University of Cape Town’sDepartment of Public Law."
More info here:http://international.wisc.edu/blog/index.php/2012/08/24/mildred-fish-harnack-lecture-to-feature-womens-advocate-rashida-manjoo/

WEAC and DPI = Sexualization of Wisconsin's Schoolchildren

To contact us Click HERE
Time for concern.


If you are not aware of the campaign to sexualize minor children in some of Wisconsin's public schools, you might want to scroll through the items posted below such as:
1)  WEAC's $325,000 donation to Defeat the One Man-One Woman Traditional Marriage Amendment in 20062)  WEAC's support for Planned Parenthood's Sex Ed Mandate last Session3)  WEAC's opposition to the Pro-Family/Parents' Rights bill this Session to repeal Planned Parenthood's Mandate4)  Internal memos sent through the Capitol about what is happening at the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction which is headed by Tony Evers.5)  An email that was forwarded to us from a member of the American Family Association about an incident that took place in the Shawano School DistrictTaxpaying parents, are these the values you want taught to underage children with your tax dollars?

Transparency in Wisconsin's School Districts. What's YOUR District's Rating?

To contact us Click HERE
Our West Bend School District received a "D" for lack of transparency with information concerning:

• TAXES
• MEETINGS
• CONTRACT
• AUDITS
• PUBLIC RECORDS (ouch!)
• BACKGROUND CHECKS (double ouch!)

Unfortunately, this is the norm across the board. (Only four districts receiving anything higher than a D.) If our kid came home with a report card that had D's in every subject, justified it by saying it's what everyone else got, that wouldn't sit well, would it?  Same goes for this report card. We can do better.  We should do better.
What did YOUR school district get?  Click HERE to find out!

Obama's $5 trillion tax cut claim against Romney is a fiction

To contact us Click HERE
Robert Samuelson has his usual nice, even handed discussion here:

Here's Obama at one rally:"My opponent, he believes in top-down economics, thinks that if you spend another $5 trillion on a tax cut skewed towards the wealthy that prosperity will rain down on everyone else."
It's a powerful argument, marred only by the fact that the $5 trillion tax cut is a fiction. . . .
To justify its $5 trillion figure -- the estimated tax loss over a decade -- the Obama campaign had to cherry-pick Romney's proposal and the TPC analysis. It had to ignore any revenue raised by reducing tax breaks and assume that, faced with a conflict between the rich and the middle class, Romney would automatically side with the rich -- as opposed to shielding the middle class from any tax increase. On Wednesday, Romney promised to protect the middle class.
The TPC report was widely interpreted as saying Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle class. It didn't, says the TPC's Howard Gleckman. It simply pointed out that he couldn't keep all "his ambitious campaign promises." He'd have to make choices and modifications. So what else is new? . . . 

Another $150 million spent to subsidize the Volt that has gone down the drain

To contact us Click HERE
Yet another bad investment from the Obama administration.  From Fox News:

President Obama touted it in 2010 as evidence "manufacturing jobs are coming back to the United States,” but two years later, a Michigan hybrid battery plant built with $150 million in taxpayer funds is putting workers on furlough before a single battery has been produced.
Workers at the Compact Power manufacturing facilities in Holland, Mich., run by LG Chem, have been placed on rotating furloughs, working only three weeks per month based on lack of demand for lithium-ion cells. 

The facility, which was opened in July 2010 with a groundbreaking attended by Obama, has yet to produce a single battery for the Chevrolet Volt, the troubled electric car from General Motors. The plant's batteries also were intended to be used in Ford's electric Focus. 

Production of the taxpayer-subsidized Volt has been plagued by work stoppages, and the effect has trickled down to companies and plants that build parts for it -- including the batteries. . . . 

The 650,000-square-foot, $300 million facility was slated to produce 15,000 batteries per year, while creating hundreds of new jobs. But to date, only 200 workers are employed at the plant by by the South Korean company. Batteries for the Chevy Volts that have been produced have been made by an LG plant in South Korea. . . .

The Obama administration thinks that it has a cute way around the takings clause in the Constitution

To contact us Click HERE
The government is supposed to compensate people if it takes their property.  The Obama administration thinks though that they can get around this by just "temporarily" taking this property for just about ever.

The Barack Obama administration tried last week to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal government can deny landowners the use of their property for years -- decades if need be -- without ever paying compensation. 

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler advanced this remarkable proposition during oral argument in Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, a case involving the damage wrought by the Army Corps of Engineers in its operation of the Clearwater Dam in Arkansas. 

From 1993 to 2000, the Corps’s management of the dam caused regular flooding of a 23,000-acre wildlife management area, killing trees and depriving the commission of revenue from timber sales. . . .

“It would be a very curious and unsatisfactory result,” the court said in Pumpelly, if the state could evade the just compensation requirement of the Fifth Amendment simply because it had not taken property “in the narrowest sense of the word.” . . . .

Obama administration decides not to pick up illegal alien who is committing a misdemeanor and a felony

To contact us Click HERE
"Journalist and activist" Jose Antonio Vargas was caught driving in Minnesota with a canceled driver's license.  That is a crime in Minnesota.  The misdemeanor is punishable by 90 days in jail and/or up to $1,000 fine.  Apparently Vargas has also admitted to committing felonies in the past, though he has never been arrested or prosecuted for those crimes.  

. . . “Jose Antonio Vargas is a classic example of how flawed the system is,” Rep. Elton Gallegly, a California Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, told POLITICO. “He is just one of hundreds of thousands that are ignored, and what that does is, it sends a signal that we’re not serious about certain laws.” 

Gallegly’s comments came after Vargas was arrested on Friday — and later released — after allegedly committing a driving infraction in Minnesota. ICE was notified because Vargas, who went public in The New York Times Magazine last year with his status as an undocumented immigrant, provided a canceled driver’s license, according to a Minnesota state patrol spokesman. But the agency took no action, telling POLITICO in a statement Monday that ICE “prioritizes the removal of public safety threats, recent border crossers and egregious immigration law violators.” ICE declined to comment further on Tuesday. . . . 

“If you go out and you pass out $100 [counterfeit] bills, and someone from the U.S. Treasury, a federal officer, sees, you think they’re going to say, ‘That’s OK, give me the other ones and have a nice day’?” Gallegly said. “That’s what ICE has done here. By letting him go when he openly admitted to using forged documents, and that alone is a felony.” . . .

Democratic Businessman Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, again blasts Obama

To contact us Click HERE
Wynn might have been a loyal Democrat for many years, but he is holding nothing back in going after Obama (italics added).  From Real Clear Politics:

WYNN: I've created about 250,000 direct and indirect jobs according to the state of Nevada's measurement. If the number is 250,000, that's exactly 250,000 more than this president, who I'll be damned if I want to have him lecture me about small business and jobs. I'm a job creator. Guys like me are job creators and we don't like having a bulls-eye painted on our back.  

The president is trying to put himself between me and my employees. By class warfare, by deprecating and calling a group that makes money 'billionaires and millionaires who don't pay their share.' I gave 120% of my salary and bonus away last year to charities, as I do most years. I can't stand the idea of being demagogued, that is put down by a president who has never created any jobs and who doesn't even understand how the economy works. . . .

Stopping Buck McKeon-- It Takes A Village

To contact us Click HERE


Blue America has teamed up with Santa Clarita progressives at The Buck Stops Now to create a TV and radio campaign to highlight the dangers to nearly a third of the people in McKeon's congressional district posed by his stubborn and arrogant inaction on he Cemex mine. Up top is the web ad-- please send it around to your friends-- and we're working on cutting that down to both a radio spot and a TV spot. And down at the bottom is a TV spot that will be on the air any moment. If you've been around Blue America for long you probably recall when Rickie Lee Jones and the guys from the Squirrel Nut Zippers recorded that for us. We've never had it on TV before. Should be fun for the folks up in Santa Clarita, Simi Valley and the Antelope Valley.
The Cemex mind is no joking matter which is why we decided to use both TV and radio and get as many spots up in Santa Clarita as we can. Lately McKeon has gone whining to the local radio station owner and to The Signal that he's unhappy with all the coverage they've been giving his scandals, Lee Rogers' campaign and, especially, his failure to protect his own constituents from the looming Cemex catastrophe. Expect coverage to drop off precipitously. Clear Channel has already rejected our billboards and told us that they're not running anything negative against McKeon or positive in favor of Rogers. (Next week, we'll show you how we responded and thwarted them.)

Meanwhile, no one living in Santa Clarita wants their families coming down with emphysema (McKeon lives in Alexandria, Virginia and, since losing the Assembly race his wife has been living in Utah.) And no one wants the traffic that the mine is going to bring to the area. Barbara Boxer has been trying to fix the problem but McKeon has arrogantly refused to help. Everyone, regardless of party, is fed up with him. He could wind up losing his reelection bid on an issue no one in Washington has even a notion about. Rogers has been beating the hell out of him on it and the local media has embraced his arguments. In fact, McKeon is so scared that he's desperately trying to figure out a way to get out from under this without acknowledging Rogers' number one campaign issue. Last month The Signal ran a devastating OpEd by Rogers about the CEMEX mining disaster. Now it's going to be up to Blue America to make sure we keep the mine in the minds of the voters right up through November 6. If you want to help Blue America do this, here's the place.

Although Rogers, like most of the residents of the area, are most concerned about the impact on health of the mining operation, he pointed out another facet that will have a long term inpact on the quality of life for the whole Santa Clarita Valley.

The Environmental Impact Report estimates 1,200 rock trucks per day would enter and leave the mine. This added traffic along a congested Hwy 14 adds to the commuter problems of the Santa Clarita Valley and the Antelope Valley, which already has the longest average commute time of any similar sized community in the US.

These factors cannot be mitigated. The only way to prevent the impact is to stop the mine.

Nearly 120 local organizations oppose the mine and the City of Santa Clarita’s recent poll indicates a majority of citizens disapprove of it. But how do we stop it? The City and interested parties have exhausted legal options. It requires a legislative solution in Congress to cancel the mining contract. Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced S.759, which would stop the mine and all parties have agreed to it, including Cemex.

The problem is that a companion bill is needed in the House of Representatives and our Congressman, Buck McKeon, has refused to introduce the legislation. I’ve called on him numerous times to put aside politics and take care of our community. The Santa Clarita City Council sent him a clear message with a 5-0 vote asking that he work with Senator Boxer to help stop the mine. McKeon has stated he will not act during this session of Congress.

I have vowed to make this my top priority if elected to Congress. There are few things that your US Congressman can do to directly impact your life, but this is one and for our community’s sake, it must be done.

We also have an Oust Buck competition starting today. If you want to see him retire so he can sit and gamble away his days at the Venetian and stop wrecking America, you can help by creating a poster or short video, explaining your reasons for wanting to defeat him on November 6. Posters should be submitted in .jpg or .pdf format and be no larger than 5mb. Videos should not exceed two minutes in length. All submissions will be displayed at TheBuckStopsNow and the creator of the wining poster or video-- as determined by Blue America and The Buck Stops Now-- will receive $100.00 so you can buy ice cream for all your friends. Submit your artwork or the link to your video to contest@thebuckstopsnow.org. Want to hear Ricky Lee Jones and the Squirrel Nut Zippers all over the radio up in Santa Clarita, Simi Valley and the Antelope Valley? Chip in here.

Congress can too take us over the fiscal cliff if it wants to, James S!

To contact us Click HERE
[Yes, you can click to enlarge.]
"The fact that Congress was foolish enough to create the fiscal cliff doesn't mean it also has to be foolish enough to drive us off it."

-- James Surowiecki, in this week's New Yorker
Financial Page, "Cliffhangers"
by Ken

No, James, Congress doesn't have to be foolish enough to drive us off the fiscal cliff, but it can if it wantsta, nyah-nyah-nyah.

Trust Financial Pagemeister Surowiecki to find a new angle on the fiscal cliff Congress created for itself and now doesn't know how to back away from. It's the concept of "pre-commitment" now making the fashionable rounds.

The idea is simple: you set a specific goal (lose twenty pounds in six months, say), and then commit to paying a penalty if you fail. Some people rely on a friend to help them live up to their word, but now there are also pre-commitment Web sites, like stickK.com (created by two Yale professors and an M.B.A. student), that will track your progress or lack of it, and take your credit-card info to insure that you suffer if you fail. StickK.com also makes it easier for you to design a penalty that will really hurt. Republicans, for instance, can commit to donating money to a pro-Obama Super PAC if they don't follow through on their resolutions. And stickK.com's data, at least, suggest that pre-commitment works. People who make resolutions on the site but don't put money at stake and don't pick someone to monitor their behavior succeed only twenty-nine per cent of the time, but nearly three-quarters of those who agree to pay a penalty and who name a referee follow through on their vows.

This is, James says, pretty much the approach the approach Congress took last year. It "may not have signed up with stickK.com, but it, too, has tried to use pre-commitment to curb its bad habits."

A big part of the dreaded "fiscal cliff" that we keep reading about is the direct result of Congress's attempt to force itself to change its ways. Last summer, during the absurd imbroglio over the debt ceiling, House Republicans and the White House agreed to get serious about reducing the deficit. But, since they couldn't agree on how to do so, they struck a deal. Congress set up a so-called super committee that was given the job of coming up with a long-term budget solution. It stipulated that, if the super committee failed, nearly a trillion dollars of automatic spending cuts, known technically as "sequestration," would go into effect, on January 2nd. None of these cuts -- half of which would come from the defense budget and half from domestic spending -- would be things that most congressmen wanted. But that was precisely the point: like any good pre-commitment penalty, the cuts were supposed to be so intolerable that Congress would make a deal in order to avoid them.

It didn't work. The super committee quickly, and predictably, failed, and, in the months that followed, Congress did nothing. If things go on like this, the spending cuts will start going into effect with the new year, and that, in combination with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, will send us off the fiscal cliff: government and personal spending will plummet, potentially throwing the economy back into recession. No one likes this prospect. The White House says that the cuts will have "a devastating impact," and John Boehner, the House Speaker, says that the defense-budget cuts represent a "serious threat" to national security. Yet no deal seems imminent.The obvious question then, James suggests, is: "Why didn't pre-commitment work for Congress?" He first suggests some obvious structural reasons.

* Congress isn't a single entity "that can truly make a resolution." Individual congressmen all have different agendas, as do the two parties to which they belong.

* And as regards the Republicans, Democrats "expect[ed] that, when push came to shove, Republicans would vote to raise taxes," and "this was never going to happen." (The no-taxes pledge signed on to by most congressional Republicans, James suggests, "is a kind of pre-commitment device in its own right.")

* But then,

Congress's failure to reach a "grand bargain" on the deficit reflects the simple fact that, while talking about balancing the budget is easy, doing the things that you have to do to balance the budget is hard. This isn't just a problem with politicians; it's also a problem with voters, who regularly say that the deficit is a major concern, yet they also favor government spending to create jobs and oppose major cuts in most government programs. (The one program that voters are always happy to slash is "foreign aid," and that may be only because they vastly overestimate how much gets spent on it.) This is why Congress likes to outsource tough decisions to super committees and commissions, like Bowles-Simpson: it wants others to do what it can't do itself. This is also why it thought pre-commitment would be a good idea.

So what now?

Some commentators have suggested that the best course now may be to just let the sequestration cuts take effect: that'll teach Congress a lesson, the thinking goes, and, once the cuts start to be made, there'll be even more pressure to reach a deal. Though such a course of action might find favor with stickK.com's users, it would be terrible policy. After all, the cuts were designed with an eye to what would be most painful to people in both parties, rather than to what kinds of trims in government spending might make sense. It would be farcical to let cuts go through that nearly everyone on Capitol Hill thinks are misguided.

And then, I would suggest, James hauls us straight into the Twilight Zone.

Besides, the goal that sequestration was originally designed to enforce makes little sense right now. With the U.S. government able to borrow money at incredibly cheap rates and the economy still weak, slashing federal spending is the opposite of smart. The fact that Congress was foolish enough to create the fiscal cliff doesn't mean it also has to be foolish enough to drive us off it.

(1) The fact that "slashing federal spending is the opposite of smart" by no means means that the congressional spending-slashers will be any less keen to do it. And (2) like I said, just 'cause Congress doesn't have to be foolish enough to drive us off the fiscal cliff doesn't mean that it won't, or that it can't dream up something even crazier.
#

Politico Wins The Weekend's Worst Hack Job Competition

To contact us Click HERE

Sessions & Israel

I almost wrote Alex Isenstadt a note to ask him if the DCCC had written his column about potential upsets or if they just told him which candidates to include. It's embarrassing that he pasted "Here's Politico's look at five potential Democratic upsets to watch" onto a list that came directly from the DCCC. Is that reporting? Are these Politico guys aware that America is more than just a theoretical construct and they ought to get out and visit sometime and not just depend on what they're told by Steve Israel and Pete Sessions for congressional coverage? DC is a closed loop; you won't learn anything useful there other than what the party machines want you to see.

The 5 races the DCCC handed Isenstadt (with information Isenstadt didn't bother to look for or report):

• FL-02: Steve Southerland vs Al Lawson- Lawson is a very conservative former leader of the state Senate who beat the DCCC's chosen Blue Dog in the primary. He knows how to win in the quirky Panhandle district. Obama lost to McCain 45-54% but would have lost by less (47-52%) under the new boundaries, bad news for Southerland. He beat pathetic Blue Dog incumbent Allen Boyd in a year disillusioned Democrats stayed away from the polls in droves-- which is what led to the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse that swept Boyd away 54-41%. This year Democrats-- who outnumber registered Republicans 234,480 (51%) to 158-657 (34%)-- will be turning out big time and that will help Lawson. As of July 25, however, Southerland had raised $1,212,911 and Lawson had only taken in $187,376. If this is an upset, it's because Lawson is so woefully underfunded. Isenstadt mentions that the NRCC has reserved $150,000 in TV time for Southerland but doesn't mention if the DCCC is stepping up to the plate for Lawson, who like all these candidates the DCCC pushed on Isenstadt is on the Red To Blue list. Isenstadt's "analysis" of the financial disparity is a pure DCCC line: "Southerland has also struggled with fundraising, collecting just $1.2 million since he was elected-- a pittance for a sitting House member." No mention that he's a million dollars ahead of Lawson.

• FL-10: Daniel Webster vs Val Demings- This is one Beltway Dems have been touting all cycle and they would love to elect a hackish, mindless Bible thumper and corrupt New Dem like Demings who will never disobey an order from leadership. It's a new district that was carefully redrawn to favor Webster. Obama would have lost 47-52% under the new boundaries and there's virtually no chance Demings will beat him, even though he's one of the most unaccomplished and ineffectual freshmen in Congress. However, she's outraised him, outspent him and has more cash on hand. As of July 25- she had raised $1,129,614 (with $632,176 left) and he has raised $887,434 (with $577,088 left). Polls show Webster up by 5% and only Steve Israel and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, two of Washington's most clueless leaders, could really believe she can win. Wasserman Schultz is probably just hoping she turns out Democratic voters in Orlando for Obama, her only real function.

• CA-36: Mary Bono Mack vs Raul Ruiz- Ruiz is the best Democratic candidate of the lot but this is a tough district-- and redistricting made it tougher. Formerly the 45th, Obama beat McCain 52-47% in 2008 while Bono Mack beat a well-positioned, highly touted opponent Steve Pougnet 51-42%. Under the new boundaries Obama would have still beaten McCain but by 50-47%. In 2010 Bono Mack spent $2,486,844 and Pougnet spent $1,843,288. As of this year's June 30 reporting deadline, Bono Mack reported having spent $860,085 with another $848,211 on hand and Ruiz had spent $222,623 with $624,872 on hand.

• IN-08: Larry Bucshon vs Dave Crooks- A Steve Israel favorite, Crooks is a reactionary Blue Dog in the southwest of the state-- "the Bloody Eighth" which swings back and forth between conservative Democrats and more conservative Republicans. In 2008, Obama lost to McCain 47-51% and under the new boundaries would have lost 48-51%. In 2010 the seat was open and Bucshon slaughtered Blue Dog Trent Van Haaften 58-37%. Although Bucshon outraised Crooks, $844-566 to $742,605, Crooks reported more cash on hand on June 30-- $530,191 to Bucshon's $386,851.

• NY-11: Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm vs Mark Murphy- This is a weird race. Grimm, who is basically a mafioso, is about as corrupt as a congressman can be without being indicted, although that's probably coming. Only David Rivera (R-FL) and Buck McKeon (R-CA) are on a level of crookedness with Grimm. So the Democrats recruited the son of Abscam, Mark Murphy... you know, so voters wouldn't have a clear, simple shot. (Mark's pop is former Staten Island Congressman John Murphy who was defeated in 1980 after being indicted for bribery.) In 2008 Obama won the Staten Island-Brooklyn seat 55-44% but under the new boundaries would have lost it 48-51%, good news for Grimm. Also good news for Grimm is that Staten Island voters expect politicians to be corrupt and don't usually hold it against them. Grimm has raised $1,780,715 and still has a warchest of $1,297,809 (although, presumably a good part of that is going to attorneys to keep him from being indicted before election day). Murphy hasn't kept up and has only raised $372,701 and has a million dollars less than Grimm on hand.

If Isenstadt wanted to shed the hack thing with a revisit, he could talk about 5 real potential upsets, one not being followed by the DCCC (nor NRCC):

• CA-25: Buck McKeon vs Lee Rogers

• NY-23: Tom Reed vs Nate Shinagawa

• PA-16: Joe Pitts vs Aryanna Strader

• WV-01: David McKinley vs Sue Thorn

• MI-11 (the open Thaddeus McCotter seat): Syed Taj vs a reindeer rancher

And a thought to go to sleep on tonight... Obama's Better Than Romney

Reckless, Amateurish... Romney's Foreign Policy Agenda

To contact us Click HERE


Glenn Greewald made a valid point in his presidential debate coverage for The Guardian last week by pointing out that the debates give us an illusion of choice. He's determined to expose the hidden consensus behind all they agree on. "Most of what matters in American political life," he asserts, "is nowhere to be found in its national election debates. Penal policies vividly illustrate this point. ...[T]hey have no discernible differences when it comes to any of the underlying policies, including America's relentless fixation on treating drug usage as a criminal, rather than health, problem. The oppressive system that now imprisons 1.8 million Americans, and that will imprison millions more over their lifetime, is therefore completely ignored during the only process when most Americans are politically engaged."

President Obama's dramatically escalated drone attacks in numerous countries have generated massive anger in the Muslim world, continuously kill civilians, and are of dubious legality at best. His claimed right to target even American citizens for extrajudicial assassinations, without a whiff of transparency or oversight, is as radical a power as any seized by George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Yet Americans whose political perceptions are shaped by attentiveness to the presidential campaign would hardly know that such radical and consequential policies even exist. That is because here too there is absolute consensus between the two parties.

A long list of highly debatable and profoundly significant policies will be similarly excluded due to bipartisan agreement. The list includes a rapidly growing domestic surveillance state that now monitors and records even the most innocuous activities of all Americans; job-killing free trade agreements; climate change policies; and the Obama justice department's refusal to prosecute the Wall Street criminals who precipitated the 2008 financial crisis.

On still other vital issues, such as America's steadfastly loyal support for Israel and its belligerence towards Iran, the two candidates will do little other than compete over who is most aggressively embracing the same absolutist position. And this is all independent of the fact that even on the issues that are the subject of debate attention, such as healthcare policy and entitlement "reform," all but the most centrist positions are off limits.

That said, this was the top of the front page of Greenwald's daily paper in the U.K. when I woke up Monday morning, just before Romney's foreign policy speech at (ominously) a military academy in Lexington, Virginia. A lot of saber-rattling and nothing much else... it's a war between freedom and tyranny, that type of crap that the GOP base eats up. He's ready to chaaaaaarge right back into the Bush Doctrine. And Obama isn't "free trade" enough for him. He flat out lied that Obama hadn't signed any free trade agreements. I wish he hadn't but he signed three.



Serious Europeans and Brits-- both conservatives and Conservatives-- have written Romney off as a dilettante and feckless rich boy way out of his depth but brimming over with grand presidential ambitions. Foreign leaders all shudder at the thought of this bungling clown winning next month. Yesterday's speech, in which he declared we should arm the Syrian rebels-- whoever they are (something even McCain admits is a horrible idea)-- didn't help make anyone feel less apprehensive. His foreign policy is, basically, "Obama is bad." Romney said it was, for example, a mistake to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. The occupation should have continued. No doubt even Greenwald senses a clear difference between the two parties there. So did Donald Rumsfeld:



And so did former Senator Larry Pressler (R-ND), a Vietnam vet who listened to Romney and immediately endorsed President Obama. "I endorse President Barack Obama for a second term as our Commander-in-Chief," he wrote. "Candidates publicly praise our service members, veterans and their families, but President Obama supports them in word and deed, anywhere and every time... This decision is not easy for any lifelong Republican. In 2008 I voted for Barack Obama, the first time I ever voted for a Democrat, because the Republican Party was drifting toward a dangerous path that put extreme party ideology above national interest. Mitt Romney heads a party remaining on that dangerous path, proving the emptiness of their praise as they abandon our service members, veterans and military families along the way." He said what a lot of mainstream Republicans and independent voters have been thinking as they watch Romney in action.

What really set me off was Romney's reference to 47% of Americans to be written off -- including any veteran collecting disability like myself, as a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) veteran.

Behind closed doors with his donors, Romney made clear he'd write off half of America-- including service members and veterans-- because, as he said "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility for their lives." But there's no greater personal responsibility than to wear your country's uniform and defend the rights we all enjoy as Americans. We don't sow division between "us" versus "them." The Commander-in-Chief sets the bar for all to follow and fight for the entire country. Mitt Romney fails that test. As a veteran I feel written off.

Just as revealing is what Romney actually says publicly. As a former Foreign Service Officer, I find it offensive that Romney, Congressman Paul Ryan and their Republican Party are politicizing the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans who lost their lives in Libya. Being Commander-in-Chief requires a resolve and steadiness that's immune to politics and fear mongering. Mitt Romney fails that test.

And along with high-profile Republican surrogates, Romney and Ryan are pandering to election-year politics rather than focusing on pending cuts to military spending. Strategy should drive our military priorities, not party purity.

...That's the difference in this election. In word and deed anywhere and every time, President Obama never forgets that standing by those who serve is the heart, soul and core value of this country. As a life-long Republican, I stand by him as he stands by all of us, putting national allegiance ahead of party affiliation. I endorse President Obama for reelection in 2012.

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright summed up his speech by saying he's a lightweight and his ideas are trivial. "I just find him very shallow in the ideas that he has,” she said. “Shallow. The op-ed that he had in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago? I’m a professor and if one of my students turned it in they’d get a ‘C’ because he gave absolutely no specifics."

Here's a Romney spokesperson on CNN just before Romney made his speech. Soledad O'Brien questioned her about Romney's foreign policy agenda. She completely elucidated what the agenda is: attacking Obama. That's it-- nothing but that-- even if the specifics were 180 degrees away from things he's been saying (privately) to the Republican base.

Blue Dog Leonard Boswell (IA) Suing Progressive Leader For Defamation Of Character

To contact us Click HERE

Leonard Boswell (D-IA), candid

A couple days ago, an analyst for one of the more trusted DC progressive groups told me they had decided to endorse Leonard Boswell in his very tight race in Des Moines. I was flabbergasted. "He's a Blue Dog and a complete corporate whore," I asserted. She said that Boswell has told her he might leave the Blue Dog caucus and that he's moving in a more progressive direction and that he really needed the endorsement. I think they got played. According to ProgressivePunch, when it comes to crucial roll calls, Boswell has moved further right lately. His miserable lifetime voting score (59.83) is actually somewhat better than his voting score for 2011-12 (52.76). Iowa isn't some kind of backward conservative hellhole by any means, especially not his district. First of all, the state keeps reelecting on of the most progressive senators in America, Tom Harkin. And Iowa's other two Democratic congressmen, Bruce Braley (86.39) and Dave Loebsack (68.35) have considerably better, more pro-working family voting scores than Boswell. All three districts voted for Obama over McCain in 2008 A couple of weeks ago we ran a post in which Des Moines progressive icon, Ed Fallon, explained why he couldn't bring himself to vote for Boswell and why he was urging his supporters to write-in the name of Des Moines' progressive mayor, Frank Cownie. He laid out 5 reasons why progressives should let Boswell lose. The first reason, though, sent shockwaves through Des Moines' Democratic community-- and caused Boswell to initiate a law suit.

Lack of integrity. Perhaps you have your own stories. I have heard some of them. Mine include Boswell sending an aide to bribe me with the offer of an $80,000 a-year job to not run against him. The aide also told me that Boswell was so in love with power that he had "become like Gollum with the ring." The 2008 campaign itself was brutal, and it seemed there were no lies or half-truths that Boswell and his operatives would not stoop to.

This week, Fallon tell us, Boswell's lawsuit charges that "Defendant Fallon knew the statements were false and defamatory and acted in reckless disregard for the truth."

Wow! Exactly whose character is being defamed? In my work as a public servant, I have always spoken my mind, advocated for truth, and operated with fairness and civility toward everyone. I say with confidence that I have never knowingly spoken falsely in any matter relating to my public work.

I stand by what I have said. Two individuals met with me the first week of January 2008 offering me a job with Congressman Boswell's district office doing unspecified constituent service work for $80,000 per year. The first person approached me as a third-party, associated with neither campaign, and was someone I had met only recently. The second person who approached me held (or had held recently) a significant position in the Congressman's office. It seemed clear to me that these individuals would not have been able to offer such a position without Congressman Boswell's blessing.

I would have been content to let my commentary of two weeks ago be the end of the matter. But with Congressman Boswell suing me - and stating in so many words that I am a liar - I have no choice but to fight back.

So what happens next? My attorney, Joseph Glazebrook (who successfully defended me in my Occupy trial), is working with me to file an appropriate response to the lawsuit, and that should be ready later this week.

Boswell denies he ever tried to bribe Fallon and Fallon has 3 witnesses that he did. Meanwhile Boswell and Tom Latham are neck and neck in the incumbent vs incumbent race in the new 3rd congressional district. Boswell's only hope of a victory are tied up in how strong President Obama's coattails will be in Iowa.

NAACP Leader Challenges Obama Campaign Official to Boxing Match

To contact us Click HERE

David L. Lowery, Jr. (Facebook)

"I'll drop these charges if you vow to do ten rounds with me in the ring," says NAACP leader to Obama campaign official.

Oct. 5, 2012 - We know that Democrats are no strangers to dirty campaign practices, but this is a new low if true. CBS Chicago (WBBM) reported yesterday that David L. Lowery, Jr., President of the Chicago Far-South Suburban Branch of the NAACP alleges that Louis Raymond, the Illinois political director for Obama for America, tried to intimidate him because he has not supported Obama's re-election. (He's not supporting Romney, either.) HOWEVER, Chicago News Bench discovered that Mr. Lowery IS now supporting Obama, and is publicly calling on people to vote for him (see video below).

This is surely a sign of lowered support by disillusioned Black voters who are tired of Obama not giving them the support they expected, but it's also an indication of just how much the Democrats take for granted that Black will vote for them - and how ugly they can get when they don't.

Mike Krauser filed an audio report for WBBM, which broke the story yesterday. In Krauser's report, Lowery says Mr. Raymond added, “We’ve been watching you, and since you don’t support Obama, we’ll deal with you,” before hanging up. Lowery felt so strongly that he may have been threatened by Raymond that he filed a report with the Oak Forest police report, "in case something happens." See Krauser's report here.

We found this new video of Mr. Lowery, posted to YouTube on Oct. 4, which is a clip of his radio show "Let The Truth Be Told With David L. Lowery." Despite his allegation of being threatened, he is today calling on people to vote for Obama.

In the video, Mr. Lowery says (at 1:30) that he is sending out "an olive branch to Obama's team, and to Louis Raymond, who called me and threatened me. Brother, come on my show....and talk about why you feel that David Lowery, Jr. is a threat. All I'm doing is telling the truth."

Still speaking to Mr. Raymond, he continued, "I'll drop these charges if you vow to do ten rounds with me in the ring.... But if you don't, I'm going to keep pressing these charges....and now, you're gonna pay for that."

It's disturbing enough that an Obama campaign official would threaten anybody for refusing to support their man. But add to the mix the fact that Mr. Lowery, the man who was threatened, is Black and a leader in the NAACP and you've got a bizarre story.

Imagine the national outrage if a statewide political director for Romney threatened a leader of the NAACP. It would be front page coverage on every newspaper today, but this story has hardly gotten any attention yet. One cannot blame Mr. Lowery for being angry. I just hope that Mr. Raymond takes the challenge to box ten rounds with him.