This tells us that our current chief executive took less time off during his first year as president than all of his Republican predecessors (I have no information on time off during his second year).
Every time I think the ruinous 112th Congress can’t possibly sink any lower, they manage to do so.
"The secret of the long climb after 1982 was the economic plunge that preceded it. By the end of 1982 the U.S. economy was deeply depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. So there was plenty of room to grow before the economy returned to anything like full employment," said left-wing economist, Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in 2004. Oh.It would have been nice if Elder had bothered to include the paragraph from Krugman’s column that preceded his excerpt above, which is as follows…
An economy that is "deeply depressed," Krugman insists, or at least he did seven years ago, naturally comes back strong. To what principal factor did Krugman point to in calling the 1982 economy "deeply depressed"? Unemployment. It peaked in the early '80s at 10.8 percent, even higher than during "The Great Recession" (aka the economy "inherited" by President Barack Obama). In 2010, the unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent, which means the early '80s still holds the record for the "worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression."
…according to a recent article in The Washington Times, Ronald Reagan ''crushed inflation along with left-wing Keynesian economics and launched the longest economic expansion in U.S. history.'' Actually, the 1982-90 economic expansion ranks third, after 1991-2001 and 1961-69 -- but even that comparison overstates the degree of real economic success.And Krugman also tells us the following from 2004…
Inflation did come down sharply on Mr. Reagan's watch: it was running at 12 percent when he took office, but was only 4.5 percent when he left. But this victory came at a heavy price. For much of the Reagan era, the economy suffered from very high unemployment. Despite the rapid growth of 1983 and 1984, over the whole of the Reagan administration the unemployment rate averaged a very uncomfortable 7.5 percent.Elder also says, when Obama was elected, “Out went policies like reductions in income taxes,” ignoring once more that the “stim” contained the largest middle class tax cut in history (here).
In other words, it all played out just as ''left-wing Keynesian economics'' predicted.
And as noted from here…
…Investors made out during the 1980s, while workers lost out. After seeing their investments lose value during the 1970s, shareholders enjoyed real returns (i.e., adjusted for inflation) in the 1980s that rivaled those of the next decade's stock market bubble and far outdistanced the returns of the 1960s. Real weekly wages for nonsupervisory workers, on the other hand, took a beating, declining even more quickly than they had during the 1970s. Today, the average real earnings of nonsupervisory workers remain far below those of 30 years ago, despite healthy wage gains in the second half of the 1990s expansion, when unemployment rates dropped toward 4%.Also, Elder’s line about Obama being responsible for “billions of dollars” in regulation is pretty funny when you consider this.
Nor did Reagan era growth do much to alleviate poverty. The poverty rate in 1989 at the end of Reagan's two terms was still 12.8%. That was just one percentage point lower than at beginning of his administration. In contrast, the 1990s boom knocked three percentage points off the nation's poverty rate, while the 1960s boom nearly cut it in half.
Reagan administration economic policies did not result in a 1960s-style prosperity, when workers' real wages went up in tandem with the value of stock holdings-just the opposite. Since 1980, the gains from U.S. economic growth have gone overwhelmingly to the well-to-do, and economic inequality has steadily worsened. By 2000, the ratio of the family income of the top 5% to that of the bottom 20% stood at 19.1, a dramatic rise over the 1979 ratio of 11.4. Reagan's economic policies ushered in the return of levels of inequality unseen since the eve of the Great Depression.
HouseOn the one hand, common sense congressional oversight of whatever it is exactly that we’re doing in Libya is a good thing. However, the phrase “common sense” really doesn’t apply to much of anything that goes on in the U.S. House these days with the Repugs in charge, does it (more like, “let’s find new ways to tie the hands of that Kenyan Marxist socialist in charge”).
Libya funds cutoff. Voting 180-238, the House Friday defeated a bill (H.R. 2278) to cut off funding for the direct military aspects of U.S. involvement in the NATO-led air war over Libya. The resolution sought to permit continued U.S. participation in the international coalition providing support for Libyan rebels against Moammar Gadhafi's regime, but would limit the involvement to search-and-rescue operations, aerial refueling, operational planning and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance activities.
A yes vote was to cut off military funding.
Voting yes: John Carney (D., Del.), Michael Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Pat Meehan (R., Pa.), and Jon Runyan (R., N.J.).
Voting no: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).
Libya war authorization. Voting 123-295, the House Friday defeated a resolution (H.J. Res 68) under which Congress would formally authorize for one year U.S. participation in the NATO-led coalition providing support to rebel forces in Libya's civil war. The measure barred deployment of U.S. ground forces except if necessary to rescue U.S. diplomatic personnel or troops from other countries in the NATO coalition.
A yes vote was to authorize the Libyan action for one year.
Voting yes: Brady, Dent, Fattah, Holden, and Schwartz.
Voting no: Andrews, Carney, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.
Patent-law overhaul. Voting 304-117, the House Thursday approved the first overhaul of U.S. patent law since 1952, a bill (H.R. 1249) that would help the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reduce its backlog of 700,000 applications. The bill switches from a "first to invent" to a "first to file" rule for giving priority to competing patent applications. The bill must now be reconciled with a similar measure passed by the Senate.This article from 2004 tells us of the issues faced by the U.S. Patent Office, including outdated (or lack of) technology, lack of examiners, and the following…
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Carney, Dent, Fattah, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Runyan, Schwartz, and Smith.
Voting no: Andrews and Brady.
Not voting: Holden and Pitts.
In 1991, the financial burden of granting patents was shifted from taxpayers to patent applicants through the establishment of so-called user fees. But over time, those fees became a politically attractive source of funds to help balance the federal budget without raising taxes. So Congress began raiding the patent office piggy bank; as of last year, more than $650 million had been siphoned off to pay bills for other government functions.And that story is seven years old. Imagine the problems that have gone unaddressed since then, including the following (some of which predate the prior story)…
Meanwhile, the volume of patent applications mushroomed. At the patent office, they call it “technology creep” — the explosion of new technologies, many of which didn’t exist 20 years ago, when most patent applications were evenly divided among electrical, chemical and mechanical inventions. Today, far more complex fields like semiconductors, biotechnology and, increasingly, entirely new areas like nanotechnology make up a much a bigger share of the agency’s workload. And the number of new applications continues to set records every year.
“The fact of the matter is that innovation is increasing,” said Harry Roman, an inventor who for many years ran the New Jersey Inventors Hall of Fame.
In 2001 President George W. Bush appointed James Rogan, who had no experience in patents, trademarks or intellectual property in general. As a congressman, he had been one of 13 U.S. House managers in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, and in the 2000 elections, his Los Angeles County constituency showed their disapproval at the polls. Bush picked him up.
After a little more than two years, Rogan resigned and went into private practice. He now is a California state court judge. He was succeeded by Dudas, who also came from Capitol Hill in 2002 to be the agency’s No. 2 appointee. Dudas had worked on intellectual property matters as a congressional staffer, but otherwise had no background in patent or trademark law.
In 2007, a San Francisco lawyer and patent activist, Gregory Aharonian, along with several others, sued for the removal of a political appointee in a high-level position at the PTO, saying she was not qualified under the provisions of the 1999 statute. The suit claimed Margaret Peterlin’s only qualification was that she’d served as a senior aide to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who resigned in late 2007 not long after her appointment.
Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case in December 2007, finding no congressional intent for a private cause of action. But in his opinion, Robertson wrote that even if he couldn’t order it, it would be good if Peterlin acknowledged her deficiencies and asked various PTO constituencies for help.
“Besides holding out the prospect of actually addressing the real problems besetting the office,” he wrote, “any such behavior from Ms. Peterlin would be a refreshing change from the hostility and adversarial stance taken in recent times by patent office management.”
The point was made. Peterlin resigned eight months later, in August 2008.
Once more, thank you, Former President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History.Election Assistance Commission. Voting 235-187, the House Wednesday failed to garner a two-thirds majority needed to pass a bill (H.R. 672) abolishing the Election Assistance Commission. Congress established the commission in 2002 in response to vote-counting debacles in the 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential election. It is charged with helping states and localities adopt modern technology and other "best practices" for running elections.I responded earlier to the stupidity of this vote here (second bullet).
A yes vote was to abolish the commission.
Voting yes: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.
Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, Holden, and Schwartz.
Arctic-drilling environmental rules. Voting 253-166, the House Wednesday passed a bill (H.R. 2021) making it easier for energy companies to obtain permits for exploratory drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf off Alaska. It requires the Environmental Protection Agency to act within six months on applications for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic. It removes the Environmental Appeals Board from the permitting process. The bill is aimed primarily at advancing a long-stalled Shell Oil Co. project in the Arctic.As noted here, “current response capabilities aren’t adequate to contain and clean up a major spill in the area,” aside from the fact that it would probably take 10 years to set up the wells and 20 years before they reached capacity, and all the while making pretty much no difference concerning the pump price (here).
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.
Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, and Schwartz.
Oil-industry subsidies. Voting 183-238, the House Wednesday defeated an amendment to H.R. 2021 (above) requiring that oil and gas companies seeking federal offshore-drilling permits publicly disclose in their applications detailed information on the taxpayer subsidies they receive.Just remember this vote the next time you hear a Repug complaining about how the Dems are the only ones who do sleazy backroom deals out of view of taxpayers (and kudos to LoBiondo and Smith for doing the right thing).
A yes vote backed the amendment.
Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, Holden, LoBiondo, Schwartz, and Smith.
Voting no: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, Meehan, Pitts, and Runyan.
SenateOh, and on the subject of Obama and “czars,” I give you this.
Executive branch czars. Voting 47-51, the Senate Thursday defeated an amendment to block funding of any "czar" positions that presidents establish to circumvent the advice and consent of the Senate. The amendment was proposed to a bill (S 679), still in debate, that would reduce by nearly 20 percent the number of presidential appointees subject to Senate confirmation.
A yes vote backed the amendment.
Voting yes: Pat Toomey (R., Pa.).
Voting no: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Chris Coons (D., Del.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.).
Economic-development dispute. Voting 49-51, the Senate Tuesday refused to take up a bill (S 782) to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration through 2015 at funding levels of up to $500 million a year. Established in 1965, the EDA provides grants and loans to boost economic development in distressed urban and rural areas.I thought Chris Coons had some good stuff to say about this ridiculous development here (and Pat Toomey remains an utter joke with both of these awful votes to add to his notorious collection – I keep recalling how the Bucks County Courier Times supported him over Admiral Joe because the latter was supposedly long-winded, or something).
A yes vote was to advance the bill.
Voting yes: Carper, Casey, Coons, Lautenberg, and Menendez.
Voting no: Toomey.
Panetta confirmation. Voting 100-0, the Senate Tuesday confirmed CIA Director Leon E. Panetta as the nation's 23d secretary of defense. Panetta served from California in the U.S. House from 1977 to 1993, was federal budget director from 1993 to 1995, and was chief of staff to President Bill Clinton from 1995 to 1997.And with that, the House decided to call it a day, while the Senate stayed in session.
A yes vote was to confirm Panetta.
All Philadelphia-area senators voted yes.
The New York Times headline from May could not have been more compelling: "Failing grades on civics exam called a 'crisis.'" The accompanying story reported bleak news from the latest National Assessment of Student Progress (widely known as the "nation's report card"). Among our present crop of high school seniors, only one in four scored at least "proficient" in knowledge of U. S. citizenship. Of all the academic subjects tested, civics and the closely linked subject of history came in last: "a smaller proportion of fourth and eighth graders demonstrated proficiency in civics than in any other subject the federal government has tested since 2005, except history, American students' worst subject."Duuuh!
What else do you expect when conservatives spend decades waging an ideological war against “liberal academia” and calling for budget cuts in favor of math and science (yes, the latter two fields are crucial, but a well-rounded background in the arts is important also).
This tells us about the budget trouble the “We The People” program in Bakersfield, CA faced (and if you’ll note, the program was supported by Dem U.S. House Rep Jim Costa, while Repug Rep Kevin McCarthy remained on the proverbial fence…no word if he eventually supported program funding or not). Also, this tells us how the Rhode Island legislature decided to terminate the only civics education specialist in the entire state.
Also, what else do you expect when our 40th president manufactures an entire career out of claiming that government is supposedly the problem instead of the solution (and I think this post goes a long way towards explaining this country’s natural antipathy to studying government also, an abominable ignorance that we cultivate at our peril).
And by the way, speaking of civics, government and history, I thought I’d offer the following excerpt from here as a timely reminder for the upcoming holiday…
John Adams, founding father and second president of the U.S., wrote many letters to his wife. He wrote about his work, politics, gossip, their farm, and much more. Adams even wrote directions for celebrating Independence Day. If you're looking for the best way to celebrate the Fourth this summer, follow John Adams' direction for an authentic Fourth of July.Sounds like we have our marching orders, people :-).
Adams had strong feelings about Independence Day, as well he might. He and the others who signed the Declaration of Independence on July 2, 1776 risked everything to do it; in the words of the Declaration, they pledged to each other "... our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." They became traitors, risking death itself, to create a new nation, governed by laws, not kings. And we all enjoy the fruits of their sacrifice today. Why not honor them by celebrating their way?
Here's what John Adams thought we ought to do on Independence Day: "...It ought to be commemorated as a day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bell, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other..."
So line up the kids and get ready to party like a founding father. First, teach them that the 4th of July is Independence Day. Sometimes that fact gets lost in the shuffle. Tell them the story about the colonists, about their desire to be free of the king and their wild notion that everyone, not just one guy, had rights. Then follow John Adams' directions…
No comments:
Post a Comment