The Inevitable Hillary Clinton

Now about those videos I referenced...  IMHO Hall of Famer, CGP Grey has put together a series of excellent videos on various electoral systems.  These are critical of the one we use, and offer alternatives that would make for more representative voting, avoid gerrymandering and encourage a wider array of Political Parties. I highly recommend watching all of them, as they are all really well done. But if you don't have the time or patience for that, please be sure to at least watch the FIRST one, especially if you think Bernie Sanders should run as Independent, or a strong 3rd Party should be formed.

The problem with First Past the Post Voting:



The Alternative Voting System:



Gerrymandering Explained:



More on the Shortest Split Line Method:



Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Explained:



How the Electoral College Works:


The Trouble with the Electoral College:

Sorry, boys..

So... Hillary's running!

Wow. I mean... Who saw that coming, huh?

Just kidding.  Of course this was inevitable. Has been for eight years. And while I do not count myself as a "fan" of Secretary Clinton's, and will cast a largely symbolic vote for Senator Warren, should she appear on the MI Primary Ballot, I will be a strong supporter of her, and the Democrats going forward through next November and beyond.

Again... Who saw that coming, huh?

And while I say, "I'm not a fan," I want to be clear: I have NEVER, and I do mean NEVER, bought into any of the RW Conspiracy theory pseudo-scandal bullshit that has being circling around the Secretary since her earliest day as First Lady. Nor do I find her, "Divisive." Considering that trope comes from a RW media, RW Blogs and Beltway Press with a history of being hostile to Democrats in general, and Secretary Clinton in particular, I find it about as relevant, legitimate and accurate an opinion as... well, pretty much all the other verbal diarrhea these assholes vomit out on a nigh daily basis.

She's certainly not above criticism, but it's amazing how wrong her critics so often get it...

Tell me she's a Socialist? And you're an idiot.

Tell me she's too close to Wall Street? THEN you have a point.

Tell me a woman would make a weak President? And you're a sexist.

Tell me she's far too hawkish ? THEN you have a point.

IOW: Every one of her flaws are the few ways in which she is more like a Republican. That's HARDLY a reason to vote for the other guy. (The Republican.)

No, as Forward progressives put it so perfectly, the choice in November breaks down like this:

1) Do you want Hillary Clinton, someone who supports marriage equality; improving the Affordable Care Act; raising the minimum wage; equal pay for women; abortion rights; the separation of church and state; and immigration reform but might not be the perfect “liberal candidate” in all areas (though if we give her a Congress controlled by Democrats they can make her more liberal) - or -   

2) Do you want a Republican who literally opposes everything I just listed above, and will do just about everything within their power to undo any progress we've made these last six years, likely returning us to Bush-era economics and foreign policies.

...OR as another source who's name eludes me at the moment, but who I will replace her if I can find them:

It's a choice between someone who is completely fucking insane, and one who is... not.

And while they haven't even had my consideration since 2000 - and I was considering McCane, not Bush (NEVER Bush!) - given the current Republican Clown Car-like primary of Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Donald Trump and Bobby Jindal?

This will be the EASIEST vote I've ever cast.

And no amount of Whitewater/Vince Foster/Benghazi-gate bullshit is going to change that.

A Joke About Presidents...

Finally something vaguely political...

Reply to Conchobhar's vanden Heuvel article

When I first read this I hard time separating vanden Heuvel's points and opinions from Chait's. I'm blaming that on the NyQuil, so hopefully I can keep them strait this time around. And I really only want to explore one aspect of the article - the idea of party loyalty, group-think, hero-worship and unconditional support. I'm not going to defend Obama's record, but I'd feel more than a little silly bashing it at this point, seeing as how this was in reposes to a post in which I honored a website dedicated to listing out his accomplishments. (But I probably will anyway.) My opinion on Obama is fairly simple: I supported him in the primary, happily voted for him (esp. w/ Sarah Palin in the #2 spot on the other ticket!) and felt very hopeful that we would get a strong, popular, MODERATELY LIBERAL candidate... which, after eight years of living with the hard-right, seeing our civil liberties eroded away and the Supreme Court pulled solidly to the Right, SHOULD have seemed like a breath of fresh air, and a step in the right (not Right) direction. Of course, I'm as disappointed and disgusted as anyone, and Obama's judgment as a failure over all is well earned, even if the Right-leaning voters haven't the slightest clue as to WHY. Done. I will say no more about it.

BUT... I've certainly leaned pretty heavily over the years on the trope that the Republicans band together whilst the Democrats mostly bicker amongst themselves. That the Right votes (and thinks) in lockstep whilst the diversity of opinion on the Left - while idealistic and admirable - often times sabotages their ability to govern. And that's BEFORE you get someone who's as allergic to hard negotiation as Obama is.

And this article really challenges that trope. I mean, sure, me and a few of my fellow bloggers might criticize Obama (and/or Clinton) but I'm an engineer - a man of SCIENCE. Can this really be quantified? What does it say about this that idea that there are many historic examples of the OPPOSITE being true: that the Right is all disjointed and the Left are the ones that close ranks?
Well... I ain't ready to buy that just yet, but some reconciliation is obviously in order.

So I'm going to go through the examples one by one, starting with Reagan. I think that's the best place to start, because any discussion of MODERN Conservatism and Liberalism, or for that matter Democrats and Republicans really can only be traced back as far as Reagan, maybe Carter. You go back much farther and the parties just look too different form what they are today for these comparisons to be relevant. (In Nixon's day, there were still Conservative Democrats - mostly Southerners - and still some Socially Liberal, Libertarian Republicans. And while that all started to change in the 1960's with the Civil Rights Act (Johnson was right about losing the South, but he was being wildly optimistic that it would ONLY be 'for a generation!') it was finally beginning to cement itself during the Reagan Years. I would say the last nail in the coffin was 1994 and the Gingrich-led Congress, but they were certainly polishing the wood for it, so to speak, during the Reagan years.

Now Hoeft mentions how Reagan had his critics. He mentions the hard Right, because Reagan DID raise taxes several times. (Not something that's really associated with his legacy, but true all the same.) He also had his critics all over the map because of what was the first of what would eventually be twelve years of deficits that were insane in any time that wasn't a full blown World War. But in the end, as Dick Cheney so *ahem* eloquently put it: Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter. (Yeah, unless there's a Democrat in the White House, huh, Dick?) And whatever Right-Wing critics he had on tax policy, he pretty much silenced them in 1987, by lowering the top-tier tax rate to 28% - almost as low as what a median income earner was paying just the year before, while leaving the upper-middle class bracket at 33%. That's right - for three years we actually had a REGRESSIVE taxation system, for the only time in the history of the Federal Income Tax. And given Reagan's historic landslide in 1984, I would hardly say that these critics of the now iconic Republican were really all that significant. Or critical.

And besides... While Reagan might not have always enjoyed the full support of his party (though I question how often this really translated into "No" Votes) he was the one who STARTED the trend. What was his greatest legacy?

"Do not speak ill of your fellow Republican."

Party loyalty was the at very heart of the man's philosophy and is perhaps his most significant and lasting legacy. If the Right learned ANYTHING form the Reagan years (and given the Bush'43 years, I have my doubts) it was this.

So... Fast forward to 1992, and the Republican Primary and incumbent President George H.W. Bush (whom I consider to be the best or 2nd best Republican since Teddy Roosevelt) facing the music from the likes of Pat Buchanan and the Christian Coalition. Look... I don't mean to dismiss the destructive influence that this combination of bigotry and fanaticism has had on the Republican Party. Starting with Jerry Fallwell, then Pat Robertson and now James Dobson (and others) the Christian Right has been destroy the Republican Party for DECADES now. But if you are going to look at George H.W. Bush's loss in 1992, and try to figure out what happened, the elephant in the room can be summed up in two simple lines:

"It's the economy, stupid!" ~Bill Clinton

"Read my lips: No new taxes!" ~George H.W. Bush

That's it. That's all you need to know. George Bush was an INCUMBENT. Any nonsense from the likes of Buchanan or any others are inconsequential next to those two, simple lines. There was a recession. And while it's kind of stupid to blame a recession solely on the President, it's not as dumb if he just raised taxes (after basically saying he wouldn't.) As for the "read my lips" quote? Well, at least the Right is consistent, I'll give them that. Juts like Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet* Bush'41 never said he wouldn't RAISE taxes. He just wouldn't create any NEW ONES. Well... I can certainly see how that could have been misinterpreted. Al Gore's statement... not so much.*

*it's off-topic, but read the end comment.

And at the end of the day, it's not like the Christian Coalition went and voted Democrat, nor did Buchanan really represent a serious primary challenge: Bush trounced him by over three to one in the popular voter and won every single State. Buchanan represented no more than a symbolic (and possibly egotistic) challenge. So... I'm sorry. It's pure and utter bullshit to say that a lack of PARTY LOYALTY cost Bush the '92 election. He went back on a "Read my lips" pledge, and was in a recession, running against a charismatic candidate who constantly reminded people of it.

Dan Quayle didn't help matters much either.

OK, now... Fast forward again to Bill Clinton, 1998.

After six years of compiling a largely Republican record: NAFTA, DADT, DOMA, '96 Telecom Monopoly Bill, Repeal of Glass-Steagal, and a 38.6% top-tier tax rate (remember, from 1982 to 1986, under Reagan no less, it was 50%!); one could certainly make the case that Liberals were fed up with him and his "new Democrat" paradigm. Aside from Bryer and Ginsberg? I can't think of a single, bona fide Liberal thing the man did. Of course, that's not why I hated him then. I was a Conservative then, and still at a "William" level of Right Wing brainwashing, thanks in equal parts to Rush Limbaugh and growing up in the family I did and the times that I did. What can I say? As a CHILD? Reagan was my hero. (I sent him a get-well card when he got shot. He sent me back a letter. That was a pretty deal to a then seven-year old!) (Even though I know he didn't actually write it himself!) But... I'm grown up now, and so I know better. Now? I hate Clinton for the right (not the Right's) reasons.

So how does one explain how we all "rallied" around Clinton during the impeachment proceedings? Where were all his Liberal Critics then? Why didn't we join with Newt Gingrich, in the hunt for justice... Sorry... I can't even type that with a strait face. Rallying around Bill Clinton during his impeachment had NOTHING to do with Bill Clinton, and EVERYTHING to do with NEWT GINGRICH! I mean, come on... So the guy was bullshit President. That doesn't mean we're going to sit back while some Right-Wing, jack-booted, cocksucker like Newt Gingrich REMOVES A POPULARLY ELECTED PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE over something as inconsequential as a blow-job from an intern! (And before any doofuses out there tell me it was about lying about it, let me ask you something: How do you feel about the fact that Gingrich him self was having an affair at the time? And did you feel the same about incoming speaker Bob Livingston? Who that mean old Larry Flynt at Hustler magazine "forced" to resign as incoming Speaker over HIS affair? It was a bullshit impeachment, and you know it, so don't waste our time!) What was on display in 1998 was not support for Bill Clinton so much as a backlash against Gingrich and his hyper-partisan, Republican-led witch hunt of Clinton. It wasn't a defense of the DEMOCRATS so much as it was a defense of DEMOCRACY. The Republicans couldn't win fairly in '96, so they were going to ruin him.

Funny how history repeats itself, huh? You'd think Barry would have known the types of people he was dealing before he took the job. Shame that.

So fast forward again (over eight years of a President who WAS NOT popularly elected, and who the press - that's ALL of the press - cheer-led for as he exploded the deficits, startled illegal, unnecessary and unfunded wars and happily chipped away at our civil liberties) to our "savior" (the Right's words, not ours) Barack Obama. So... HOW do I explain why so many Liberals (including your's truly, for longer than most) stuck with him for SO long? Thought a health care bill that resembled Gingrich's c.1993 before the Republicans even took first crack at it. Through a stimulus bill that was trimmed down to a size that would satisfy the very people who's leader stated as his 'top ptriority' making [Obama] a one-term President. Through replacing two reliable Liberal votes on the Supreme Court with two moderates - thus moving the Court farther to the Right. WHY have we stuck with him? Why are there so many still do?

Well, I see two things, really. In the early days, say... early 2009 though about mid 2010? I think there was a lot of... confusion. Obama suddenly didn't sound a whole lot like the guy we had all voted for. That's not normally surprising, most candidates don't live up their rhetoric, but Obama was elected on a large part BECAUSE of that rhetoric! And give HUGE majorities! In BOTH HOUSES! And, pretty much just like Clinton, he took that Liberal mandate and ran right to the Center with, quite possibly overshooting the mark. And... well.. I figure a lot of people didn't even notice at first. And once they did, couldn't figure out what to make of it. And Obama had MUCH larger majorities than Clinton had. (And also squandered.)

And then there was the Right. See... I also think that a lot of the image people had of Obama as this extremely Liberal guy came from the Right. I pretty much knew I was voting for a moderate because I recognized the Right's blathering as pure horseshit and listened to what Obama had to say. The quintessential example of this was when Obama said, [PP] "If we have actionable intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, I would consider military incursions into Pakistan in order to capture him." Within a day this very rational position became "Obama wants to OVERTHROW Musharraf!" (That was our "great ally" Musharraf, BTW, who's country Bin laden WAS actually hiding in the entire time!) And within a day of THAT, I'm getting emails from my Conservative friends saying how Obama wants to NUKE Pakistan! Seriously! And they BELIEVED this! And even after PROVED to them that this was an idiotically absurd interpretation of the man's words, they're response was STILL be best summed up by my friend, Mike, who said, "Yeah, OK, but still... Strange dude."

*face palm*
*shakes head*

Now... What role does all this play? Well... Consider the average American voter. They get inspired by his lofty rhetoric, and here the Right demonize him with every epithet they can muster. He comes into office, seems to capitulate to the Right on just about every key issue, and they... KEEP ON demonizing him with every epithet they can muster. So let's go back to that relatively mild-mannered voter, and now woefully misinformed voter. Sure... there are those on the Left who say he's going too far to the Right, but... If that were true why does the Right seem madder than ever at him?

Well... simple answer: They're bat shit fucking insane, that's why!

And that's really been the trend since at least the Clinton years: As the Republicans have pulled farther and farther to the Right, the Democrats have responded by moving to the right. And as the Democrats have compromised by moving to the Right, the Republicans have responded by moving EVEN FARTHER to the Right!

And at this point? Any real Liberal who's still supporting Obama as a Candidate or the Democrats as a Party are doing so for any of the following reasons: Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, John Beohner, Mitch McConnel, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Donald Trump... The list goes on, but I think the point is clear. It not so much as the lesser of two evils, so much as voting for the person or party who would compromise with the evil and voting for the actual evil. At this point the Republicans are so far gone, that NEWT GINGRICH, one of the least popular Speakers of the House in American History, is their LEADING CANDIDATE!
And no, I DO NOT hope he gets the nom, because as much as I believe he would getter utterly TROUNCED in the general, I remember 2000 and the Rehnquist Court appointing our next President, and I will not chance that.

I hope Romney gets the nom. He's the only who's not completely insane, completely moronic or both.
And I hope there is a Primary Challenger to Obama, even if it's just a symbolic one, like Pat Buchanan in '92. If there is? They already have my vote, right now, just to send Barry a message. But I'll still vote for Obama in '12 in the general and, if he loses, I will personally kick the ass of every Liberal who stayed home. Our next President will likely named Ginsburg's successor, and possibly (remote, but still...) Scalia's or Kennedy's. Do you really want that job to be done by Newt Gingrich?!
And THAT'S why I don;t think you can measure our "loyalty" in votes. Because the alternative REALLY IS that much worse.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that my take on the whole thing. And I'm keeping my stance that the Dem's remain the Big-Tent and the Pub's the group-thinkers.

-------------------------------------------

*OK... Al Gore. The Internet. Here's EXACTLY what he said, in his interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Couple of things...

First of all, Blitzer didn't challenge him on the point. At all. He didn't seem to think this claim was all that remarkable at the time. Liberal Bias? Hardly. More like: IT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE. How did Gore do this? Well, for a start, there was the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, commonly known as the "Gore Bill." This laid the legislative groundwork for the the National Information Infrastructure, which serves as the foundation of what we now know as the Internet.

Was his statement even misleading or an exaggeration? Well, I think Snopes gives the best take on that question:

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid 1960's that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway system, we would not have seen dozens of editorial lampooning him for claiming that he "invented" the concept of highways, or implying the he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept that Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

If you believe he said it, or doubt the veracity of what was actually said, then you simply do not have a basic understanding of the facts. Because all of the guys that YOU THINK "invented" the Internet? Like pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn? Note that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication."

And making Al Gore's ACCURATE CLAIM into a joke? Makes you sound about as stupid as drawing a picture of Ike with a hard-hat and a shovel - and meaning it as mockery - would do. If you're reading this? You and I both owe a lot of that that to AL GORE. To believe anything else is to swallow the lies that Fox news, and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter told you because they KNEW that Bush would be trounced if the public ever came to grips with just how much Gore had accomplished - the FUCKING INTERNET for fuck's sake!!! - versus how little Bush had. (Trading Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines and Fred Marique?! What an idiot!!!) So clearly a different narrative had to be told. They're paid propagandists, who preach to the greedy and the gullible. Nothing more.

The Party of Fiscal Responsibility?

I've done several pieces over the past year+ showing how absurd it is to consider the REPUBLICANS "fiscally responsible."  Whether it's showing what portion of our debt they're responsible for, or going year by year and showing the trends in deficit spending or even just recognizing the fact that they have been, in fact, actively trying to bankrupt the government in order to force an end to programs that they know they could never get away with, politically, cutting or eliminating.  And that last bit, while seemingly a bit paranoid, is on full display right now in the ongoing farce about trimming the deficit. And to understand just how big a farce this is, realize that you could take ALL of Obama's proposed cuts, ALL of the Republican's proposed cuts, and none of the Republican's propsed tax cuts (yeah - they're "serious" about the deficit, and yet they're STILL proposing tax cuts! That's liek getting "serious" about your credit card debt by working fewer hours!) and even wth all of that, you wouldn't even be HALFWAY to a balanced budget!
And what do we already see will be the result of all these cuts? Hospitals closing, schools closing, tens of thousands out of their jobs, no funduing for public broadcasting (the Right has to LOVE that one!) and the list goes on, and on, and on.

And on.

And for all that pain?  We're not even HALFWAY to a balanced budget?  You gotta be fucking kidding me!

And do you know what's not on the table? RAISING TAXES. Of course.  And there cannot be one person anywhere in the world with two brain cells to bounce together who thinks you can balance the budget on spending cuts alone.  But... this was the Republican's plan all along!  And Speaker Boehner can cry "We're broke!" all he wants, that doesn't make it true.  We're not broke.  That's a bald-faced lie.  We're in the RED, yes.  And that's not good, long-term.  (Although that being the case one has to wonder why the Republicans PUT US in the red every single one of the last 20 years in a row when they held the White House!)  But see... they don't want to raise taxes for two reasons and two reasons only, and neither of them has ANYTHING to do with harming the economy, or creating jobs - botho fwhich are pretty much bullshit.  In fact the same economic model that gives their tax-cut multipliers? (That would be KEYNES.)  Demonstrates that spending changes have a larger effect! (IOW: Those spending cuts will do more harm to the economy than the same level of tax increase. So says the model that gives them the tax-cut multiplier!) And I'm not going to debate that here, but it's a bullshit, nonsense point anyway.  If you want the details, email me or take a goddamned economics course.

The two reasons they don't want to raise taxes is:

1) The American public has grown so stupid and so greedy and so so shortsighted and lacks so much perspective that we're probably to the point where the fools WOULD actually lose their jobs if they did it.  Not that I care about the Republicans losing their jobs, but the bulk of America has grown so spoiled that they just have no clue. No clue at all.  I'll get to what I'd do with taxes in a moment, but the Right has dumbed down America so much, that it probably IS the political reality that raisign taxes is political suicide.  Even though it's needed.  Kind of like... REAL LEADERHSIP.

2) (And this is the important one) Raising taxes would LITERALLY FIX EVERYTHING.  Seriously.  And... they don't want that!  They've been trying to kill these progams for DECADES and they have finally CREATED an environment where they can claim that we have to! (In some cases, IN ORDER TO SAVE THEM!  Figure THAT ONE out!)  But finally, after 30+ years of crippling our governments finances, they finally have enough people fooled into believing that these things have to go. (Persoanlly, I'd say these idiotic Republicans are the ones that have to go, but the people have spoken.) The LAST thing they want at this point is a solvent federal government!

Think about it: How many times have your heard one of these fools, Democrat or Republican, claim, "We just can't afford it anymore?"  I hear it almost every day.  And while they're right, from a certain point of view, it's utterly shocking why no one ever asked about raising taxes back to the levels they were at when the country and its finances were doing just fine!  It's not like we've had these tax rates etched in stone since time immemoriam!  GEORGE W. BUSH created the current tax table, less than a decade ago! And, at least for the past two years, Obama's lowered taxes EVEN MORE!  It's hardly like were tapped here, folks!  It's like we're dying of thirst sitting in our kitchen, and yet refuse to turn on the tap!  It's psychotic!  And if they wanted to lower taxes repsonsibly, all these many long years, they'd have cut the spending FIRST thus keeping the taxes6 cuts deficit neutral.  But since the American people would never go for that, they had to plunge us into debt, creating this artificial crisis in order to confuse the public and get them on board! (And despite being 30 years in the making, with 20 of those years under Reagan, Bush and Bush, somehow this is all OBAMA'S fault!)

Now, I would like to take a look at some of the tax tables of recent past administrations, just to show you how "painful" (hah!) this would be.  As two examples, I'm going to use a household that makes $500,000 per year and my own (approximate) household income.  I'm not going to STATE my income, but I will be honest about what it would cost or save me if we were taxed at some of these older rates.  If you can calculate my income from that information? Congratulations. You pass basic Algebra.  And I'm also assuming that I don't have to explain to any of you how a MARGINAL SYSTEM OF TAXATION works.  So if you don't know where I'm getting my figures, try wikipedia.  One last thing, you can check my tax bracket info aginst the info available at the U.S. Tax Foundation, and my inflation calculatuions HERE.  One last thing: It's worth noting that, starting in 1984, the tax brackets were adjusted each year for inflation automatically.  I happen think this is a good thing, and would automatically adjust ALL fixed numbers in the tax code - including all maximums and minimums - the same way.  So for simplicity's sake, I'm using the last year that the given rates were in effect.

The current tax table is a legacy of the Bush'43 administration:
(Sorry, these run over.  If they were any smaller, you wouldn't be able to read them!)

This is the tax table that resulted in eight years of record deficits (record at elast when compared to any that came before him) under Bush, and another under Obama, and likely another one next year.  Now you hear a lot about eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but I'm on record many times as saying that we should eliminate them accross the board!  Clinton had two budget surplues at the end of his term.  And this was the tax table that created those:

If we adjust for inflation, and move the brackets into 2011 dollars, we get:

So what would all this bed-wetting about the Bush tax cuts cost the rich? Well, that family who's pulling in $500,000 would onlyhave to kick in an extra $12,33.64 a year.  That sounds like a lot, to be sure, but think about it: $500,000 a year!  Think about what you make, what you live on, and ask yourself how hard it would be to find an extra grand or so per month in your budget if you made that many times more than you make now!  You know what I say? Boo-fucking-hoo for the rich.  What would this cost ME?  An extra $1755 a year.  Now that would affect my lifestyle and spendign decisions far more that the $12-large would affect that other familiy's, but I'll be honest with you: $147 less a month?  I could afford it.  Actually? It wouldn't change by budget at all, nor would it impact my retirement savings. I'd still even have some decent cash going into my short-termsavings account. So it really wouldn't change much of anything.  (I guess it must just be good to be me!)  But whatever.  If that's all it cost to REALLY eliminate the defict and KEEP most of our social safety nets? FUCKING DO IT ALREADY!

Now, I will admit that Boehner & Co. may have a point when it comes to tax hikes.  After all, check out the table that got George "Read My Lips" Bush voted out of office in 1992:

adjusted for inflation:

Oh, my fucking god!  His top-rate is still less than his son's!  And he got kicked out of office for that!  Apparently we've been spoiled little cry-babies about taxes longer than I thought, the Clinton years not withstanding!

Now this will illustrate why the whole flat tax thing (and the arguments about top-tier rates) are utter bullshit.  This tax table? Would cost me another $1089 over the Clinton table. (and $2845 over the current table.) That's right: Bill Clinton LOWERED my taxes! (Hint: It was those extra brackets!)  Meanwhile, in all his generosity, Bush'41would give a $13,583 CUT to that family making $500K per year as compared to the Clinton table. (And $1250 less than than what his son's table taxes them at!) Talk about "rob from the poor and give to the rich!"

But how bad was that, anyway?  Why'd he get voted out over that? Well... it was replacing this absurd tax table from Reagan's second term:

Look at that!  A top-tier rate that's actually LESS than what he's taxing the middle class at! Can you believe it!  This is the Right's great hero, folks: Rob from the poor and give to the rich, and don't even try to hide it! Adjusted for inflation, it would look like this:

OK. Under this monstrosity, I'd be paying $3004 more than I'm paying now.  (And $1249 more than the Clinton table!)  Wait... I though Reagan was this great tax-cutter?!  Well... he was, if you were rich enough to afford him:  That family of $500K? Pays $4,872 less than they do now, and $17,205 less that they would owe under Clinton!  The middle class gets soaked for 3-large, so that some making $500K can have an extra 17-GRAND?!  What. the. fuck?  I'm liking Geroge W. Buch better all the time!  At least with him there was SOMETHING in it for me!  As far as I'm concerned Reagan and Bush were a bunch of working-class-people-hating cock-munchers!

There is one thing, however, about Reagan that his current cult-following will not tell you about.  In his first term, he actually signed a top tier tax rate of 50% into law.  It was a CUT at the time but still, let me say that again: Ronald Reagn signed a 50% tax rate into law!  And it was in place until 1986.  Here's what it looked like:

Adjust for inflation and you get...

Looks complicated, no?  Well... complicated can be GOOD sometimes.  Under this table I would owe $2566 more than I owe today, and just $810 more than I would under Clinton.  And those rich folks at $500K?  Would owe $64,798 more than the do now. Wow. And that's under a RONALD WILSON REAGAN CONSTRUCTED Tax Table!  Fuck Clinton! For an extra $810 a year?  I say: let's bring back the first REAGAN tax table!  Let's bring back that $64K tax hike that this great socialist would ask of the rich!

I mentioned that this was actually a reduction, and I've gone so far recently as to call for pre-REAGAN tax rates.  This was the last table under Carter:

Adjusted for inflation:

Do you notice how that top tier rate doesn't even kick in until well after $500K? Remember that the next time someone's making fun of that 70% tax rate.  Now... I'll admit that I could be pursuaded that 70% is too high.  We can argue it.  I'd be perfectly happy with a top tier rate of 50% - with that 1982-86 Reagan Table.

But just for shits and giggles, under Carter, I'd owe $4355 more than I'd owe today.  ($2600 more than with the Clinton table, and $1789 more than with the earlier Reagan table.) That's... a bit much, actually.  I could still swing it, without changing my budget, or my retirement investments, but... there wouldn't be ANYTHIGN left for short-term savings or emergencies. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.  So... yeah, bvioulsy that would eventually impact my budget.  And thus I might just have to back off from my calls of Carter-levels of taxation, even if it would squeeze an extra $117,708 out of those rich bastards down the street, over what they'd owe now. (LOL!) As much as I'd love to seem them pay that... We're getting into T.E.A. territory for me with with what I'd owe.  So, yeah, I'll admit this is excessive.

I'll bet you never thought you'd here me say this: BRING BACK THE REAGAN TAX TABLES!

(Just remember: I mean the 1982-1986 tables, not the 1987-1989 tables!)

What do my libral readers think?  Time to revisit Reagan's great tax policy?

Some Fun Stuff...

I was getting a cup for my coffee this moring, when I came accross an old coffee cup that my wife bought just after she finished Grad School:

Hoo, boy.  What I wouldn't give to have THAT 3rd-Party Candidate in a race this year!  I don't think the TeaPublicans have a single brain cell among them and the Democrats have about as much spine as a sewing kit.

Know something crazy?  We both voted for Dole that year! Niether of us have voted for a single Republican since, and it won't be long until we're both to the Left of the Democrats, but George Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996 both had both of our votes. LOL. Crazy world we live in.

And with so many Liberals, I keep hearing the lament that the Democrats are at least the "lesser of two evils."  I suppose that's one way to go, but I'll offer you another: Cthulu.  For those who don't want to vote for the LESSER of two evils!

I'm sorry...  I know I've used that poster before.  I just really love it!

Hope you all enjoy my day off tomorrow! ;)

So... Who's REALLY responsible for all our debt?

I'd like to take one more look at the Federal Deficit and the National Debt, before going back to health care for a few posts.  I made up the follow Pie-Chart, to show which administration's contributed the most to the National Debt.  I'll explain some of my assumptions, and methodology, and then I'd like to note a few bits of information that I took away from it.

This is through the projected end to FY2010, and is in 2010 dollars. The first point that might need explaining is "FDR." Since the National Debt did not appreciably change between WWII and 1982, and as a concession to our conservtaive friends, I attributed all of the debt accumulated prior to Ronald Reagen to Franklin Roosevelt. I could just as well have said Harry Truman, or anyone else really, since this was where every President since Roosevelt decided to leave the National Debt, so whatever... We'll just call it "FDR."

So, as to my methodology... I got the overall National Debt, by year, from the Treasury Department's Website. For each year, I adjusted for inflation using E.T.'s Inflation Chart. THAT only went to 2008, so I assumed 3% inflation for 2009 and adjusted all the numbers accordingly. So, taking the overall debt in 1981 and calling it "FDR" I looked at the change from year to year and calculated the deficit or surplus (in 2010 dollars.) So the combined deficits from 1982 to 1989 were attributed to President Reagan, 1990 to 1993 to the first President Bush... you get the idea... to determine what each Administation was responsible for since Reagan took office. (And remember, since the debt level in 1981 was within 2.2% of what it was in 1947, there's no point in talking about anyone in the intervening years. Hence I've lumped it ALL into "FDR." (And then I added in, the recently projected $1.6T deficit that is being projected for Obama in 2010.)

Now... right off the bat, I'll give the newly minted Deficit Hawks on the Right one point: It is a bit disconcerting that President Obama managed to accout for 11% of of the overall nation debt in just one year. I think it's celar to EVERYONE, not the least of whom is President Obama, that we cannot continue on THAT path. But consider this:

A full 66.6% of our current National Debt is attributable to Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush. Bill Clinton accounts for a scant 4%, and even with Obama's record-breaking deficit, all Democratic contribution COMBINED account for only a third of the overall debt.
Now... to anyone who points out that the Republicans had the presidency for 20 of the 28 year prior to 2009, all I have to say is this: That only means they had more opportunities to try and FIX the problem! Bill Clinton did more in 8 years to address the budget deficit and the National Debt than the Republicans did in 28!

And the only reason I find that amusing is that all the Deficit Hakws these days seem to come from RIGHT! As I've said before, if your concerned about the deficit, whatever you do: DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN!

WHO'S the party of fiscal responsibility?!

I love it when I hear conservatives talk about exploding deficits. And I love this not only because they only seem to care about it when there’s Democrat in the White House, and/or a Democratically controlled Congress, but they scoff at the very idea that the Democrats show any fiscal restraint, or are capable at all of reining in spending, while they proudly (and stupidly) post about the fiscal credentials of the Republicans. This whole notion is laughably absurd to anyone who knows what they’re talking about, just like the “liberal media” myth is, but if you need some facts to support your arguement, here’s something that might help:

(Click for full-size)

This graph shows the National Debt, adjuster for inflation to Y2K dollars. It's a modified (only for color) version of what can be found on The National Debt Clock's FAQ. It only goes to 2007, but you KNOW the problem's only gotten worse since then. The Right Wing Media keep hammering THAT home, don't they? And it’s all Obama’s fault, right? Even though we’re only about a month into the FIRST Obama budget, and the budgets for ’08 AND ’09 were in fact singed by George W. Bush! That’s a FACT by the way, not “liberal bias” or “making excuses.” I’ll own up to the deficit from 2010 on, but I won’t take any guff from some blowhard who was silent all through the Bush years, and who thinks that even the 2009 deficit has anything AT ALL to do with President Obama.

There a couple of things about the graph that might need clarifying. First off: Red = Republican Budget, Blue = Democratic Budget. I figured I’d keep that convention. Second, you’ve got to remember that a President ELECTED in Year X, doesn’t start his term until Year X+1 and the budget he passes that year doesn’t take affect until year X+2. So President Kennedy, for example, was elected in 1960, took office in 1961 and his first budget wasn’t in effect until 1962. That’s why you don’t see the first transition to Kennedy's Blue (from Eisenhower’s Red) until ’62, even though he was elected in ’60 and took office in’61. All clear? Good! Now let’s walk through the graph…

The first thing you see is a huge spike in the later Roosevelt years. The cost of the New Deal? LOL, no. That would be the cost of World War II. And it was paid down to a sustainable, strategic debt level within a few years despite another War (Korea) waged by his successor, President Truman. For the most part Truman had a balanced budget, even despite the war, and overall the natinal debt remained constant with a very slight downward trend until his final year in office. Switch to President Eisenhower, a Republican, and you’ve got about the same thing. Pretty consistent debt levels, even a very slight downward trend – and remember: He build a National Highway system! So even given that very New deal-esque / Keynsian stimulus project, he kept his budgets balanced as well. The Kennedy/Johnson years showed much the same thing. Even with the great society progrmas, the National Debt didn’t budge in those years. So far, I’d say both sides are on the same page when it comes to budgets, taxation and spending. (Namely: Pay for what you spend!)  And they’re both showing a restrained, but clearly Keynsian approach to managing the economy. (You can point to an expensive governement "project" is every case.)

Now it starts to change a bit in the Nixon/Ford years. Starting here we see the first appreciable up-tick in the National debt since World War II. Nothing extreme, but it does look like they’re starting to feel the combined affects of not only President Johnson’s social programs, but their own taxation policy, the Vietnam War costs, and the beginning of the economic turmoil that would plague us through the 1970’s. One thing that’s really apparent is that in President Nixon’s second term (three years of which were served by President Ford) not only did we have three years in a row that we ran a Federal Budget Deficit for the first time since World War II but each of these deficits were also the largest we’d seen since the War.  (This is evident becuase at no other previous time do we see as large an increase in the National Debt.)

Now… Given what was going on in the 1970’s, I don’t mean this as a swipe against Presidents Nixon and Ford. Truth be told, I don’t think either was actually a bad President. The more I read about Richard Nixon the more I despise the man, but the more I admire the President. There’s very little you can point to policy-wise to criticize, either in terms of foreign or domestic policy. (I’m not too crazy about his Supreme Court nominees, but hey: I AM a liberal, after all!) But I seriously don’t have any problem with the fact that they ran deficits. I’m a KEYNSIAN! And if you understand Keynes, you’ll understand that running a deficit in a recession (which pretty much describes most or all of the 1970’s! LOL) is no vice. I only point it out because the only people I hear harping on the deficit are REPUBLICANS, and even then only when DEMOCRATS are in office! But up to this point, there is no evidence to support that Democrats even really RUN deficits. I know, I know: It was a long time ago. Things are different t know. Yeah, they’re a lot worse… for REPUBLICANS!

Moving on, President Carter fits the mold, both for the Democrats being the ones to show fiscal restraint, and in support of the Keynsian model of economics. His budgets were wither balanced or ran a surplus, and yet the economy still taked. What does this show you? In addition to bolstering the Democrats as the one who know how to balance a budget, it also shows that a balanced budget doesn’t give you economic success. It as Keynes predicted: In bad times you HAVE to run deficits! You increase spending to stimulate the economy, and you worry about the budget only once things are on good footing again. Cutting spending HURTS.  And it hurts even more than raising taxes does in terms of people incomes.  So President Carter had the wrong plan at the wrong time… just like the deficit hawks (meaning Tea-Bag Conservatives) do NOW. But starting in 1982, the first year that a REAGAN budget was in effect… everything goes totally cattywampus.

Why the hell do these tea-baggers hold up Ronald Wilson Reagan as their idol? If they had any clue at all they should DEPSISE THE MAN! And George Herbert Walker Bush as well! Check it out… Every single year of the Reagan-Bush administration we ran a deficit. Every. Single. Year. TWELVE YEARS IN A ROW! Recession or Boom-times... It didn’t matter! Talk about runaway spending! Talk about out-of-control government! And not only did they RUN deficits, but they ran HUGE deficits! Every year the deficit was bigger than it had been in any year between Wordl War II and when they took office! I don’t have the exact number, but judging form that graph I’d say at least TWICE as big!  Imagine that: Twelve years in a row of running a deficit that DOUBLED the previous record, adjusted for inflation, and these poeple still claim credability on fiscal matter!  Their audacity in makig that claim is surpasssed only by the ignorance of their supporters who believe it.

And I’ll reiterate: I’m not necessarily trying to take a swipe a Reagan here! I found Reagan to be an inspiring leader, even if I did find his policies lacking. And I actually really liked George Bush, the elder. I’d have voted for him twice, had I’d been registered to vote at the time. So again: This is not MY criticism. It just shows that if the National Debt is your chief concern, maybe you shouldn’t idolize the guys who brought it from just under 2 Trillion Dollars (in Y2000 dollars, remember!) in 1981 to over 5 Trillion dollars in 1993. A twelve year trend of record deficits that increased the National Debt over two and half times and yet somehow these people can still claim “fiscal restraint” with a strait face. Unbelievable.

Oh… it gets even worse for them!

Once Bill Clinton comes into office, we immendiate see a DECREASE in the deficit. IMMEDIATELY. (Notice how the increase in the Debt is about half what it was in even the best year under Reagan or Bush’41?) And even so, if you were around at the time, you’d still have heard Rush Limbaugh, back in his early days, ranting in tirades about how Clinton’s ruining the country, taxing the hell out of us, running deficits… (See? They were blithering hypocrites even back then!) And yet, we not only had eight strait years of GROWTH under President Clinton, but by the end we saw a balanced budget, followed by TWO years of budget surplus. So again… WHO’S THE PARTY THAT HAS FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY?!  (And to anyone who would ask why he could have that surplus immediately, it just goes to show how bad thjings were under Reagan/Bush.  The spendign cuts and tax increases that were needed would have destroyed the economy had they gone it all at once.  At that point we were pretty much addicted to gov't spending and had to weened off slowly.  (And HOW MANY times od we here that it's the DEMCRATS that want to make people dependant on the government?!)

Oh… it gets even worse for them!

George W. Bush. The all-time heavyweight champion of drunken-sailor-like fiscial irresponsibility. Think about it: The man was handed a budget surplus, with low interest rates and a strong economy. Allhe had to do to keep a balanced budget, a suplus, actually, and continue to pay down the national debt was... NOTHING AT ALL! And within ONE YEAR he turned a record surplus into a record deficit! And that’s before the War in Afghanistan even started, let alone Iraq! What’s more, neither war was ever actually IN his regular budgets. Even several years in, he was still funding them with “emergency spending” bills. This was a gimmick to make his budgets look better, and his deficits smaller, but the effect on the National Debt is still the same. Deficit spending is deficit spending, after all. So he’s right back on the Reagn/Bush’41 path. He didn’t even raise taxes to fight his wars! It’s absurd! EVERYONE raises taxes to fight wars! (And THAT was also before TARP, the Auto bailout, the Stimulus, etc…)

Which brings us to President Obama. And here we go again, with the Right complaining about Obama, and the deficit. The claim he’s “tripled the deficit.” This is a LIE however, because his budget INCLUDES the war finding up front, rather than playing Bush’s childish game of “hide the salami” with it. In truth, his budget deficit is up something on the order on 20-30%. A modest increase only, and certainly on par with what we saw during the Reagan/Bush’41 and Bush’43 years.  (When these same clowns were silent about it.)

Now remember… and it bears repeating… I don’t think Bush'43 was wrong to do TARP, the Auto Bailouts or the first stimulus. Nor do I think Obama was wrong to continue these policies or pass his own stimulus. I’m a keynsian, and I aced Macroeconomics in grad school, and I KNOW how these things work. These things were NECESSARY.  So again, in and of itself, I am not trying to criticise Republicans or praise Democrats here. I’ve expressed admiration for both Reagan and Bush’41 and I’ve said before that I was never really a fan of Bill Clinton's. I do despise George W. Bush, I’ve made no secret about that, but overall I don’t want this to come off as a purely partisan hit piece. That’s NOT the point here.

The point, and what need to be taken away from all this, is that if you are concerned about the National Debt, and the annual Budget Deficits, whether you are a tea-bagger or not, there is NO EVEIDENCE, at all, going back almost 40 years, that the REPUBLICANS are the ones who show fiscal responsibility, and the DEMOCRATS are the ones who spend willy-nilly. If anything this is a swipe at the ignorant tea-baggers who are so angry, but have been brain-washed by the very people who caused the problem into blaming it on the only ones who've shown any interest in fixing it! If these tea-baggers had any brains at all, they be voting for DEMOCRATS, in droves!

But hey, since when has the media ever let FACTS get in the way of promoting Right-Wing propaganda?

Coming next… WHY the Republicans keep doing this, and why they’ll NEVER stop!