Friday Mashup (4/29/11)

A lot of times, I link to a story or a post and try to refute it with another link or commentary, or both (for the benefit of anyone who hasn’t grasped that by now). However, I’m not going to do that for this story, which tells us the following…

EDINBORO — Some Pennsylvania universities should consider drilling for natural gas below campus to help solve their financial problems, Gov. Tom Corbett said today.

The Erie Times-News reported that Corbett made the suggestion during an appearance at a meeting of the Pennsylvania Association of Councils of Trustees at Edinboro University.

Corbett said six of the 14 campuses in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education are located on the Marcellus Shale formation, part of a vast region of underground natural gas deposits that are currently being explored and extracted.

The Republican governor’s proposed budget for the fiscal year that starts in July would cut $2 billion from education and reduce aid to colleges and universities by 50 percent. The newspaper said Corbett emphasized the cuts are only proposals and that funding for education could change as he negotiates the budget with state lawmakers.

I’m not going to provide another link because I think the pig-headed ignorance of PA governor “Space Cadet” Tom’s remarks are damning enough on their own (What’s next, I wonder? A return to workhouses where the college students pressed into drilling will be served cold gruel at least twice a shift? Somewhere, I’m sure Charles Dickens is saying to himself, “They’ll never learn, will they?”).

Further (and keeping with the theme of energy, I came across this mess from someone named Steven Hayward at Power Line (so much stoo-pid here, but I’ll focus on a couple of items in particular).

Hayward’s argument, such as it is, is that The Sainted Ronnie R released the price controls on the oil industry in the ‘80s, and oil prices fell. However, what he fails to point out (as noted here) is that the price controls were already being removed in phases, a process that had begun under Reagan’s predecessor Jimmy Carter (and the price controls had been instituted to begin with under another Republican president, Richard Nixon). And prices fell in large part because demand had been reduced due to Carter’s energy policies.

Hayward also decries “infinite liberal stupidity” on this issue, ending his screed with “Keep this in mind the next time a liberal says more oil production in the U.S. won't do any good.”

Well, I don’t know if the CNN Money writer here is a “stupid liberal” or not, but I’ll believe him over Hayward any day of the week (and here is something else to keep in mind about Number 44 and energy).

Next, it seems that The Orange One and his pals are continuing to play chicken with our economy (here)…

House Republicans are considering a plan to grant only incremental increases to the federal debt limit in a bid to extract more concessions on spending cuts and budgetary reform from the Obama administration.

The idea has a champion in Grover Norquist, the conservative activist and president of Americans for Tax Reform, who says he is “building allies” in the House Republican Conference to push for extending the debt limit every two months.

“My argument is, you give them two months at a time, because each time you could get something reasonable,” Norquist told The Hill in an interview this week at his downtown offices.

And just remember that our elite corporate media will forever consider Mr. “Drown Government In A Bathtub” to be “serious.”

I already got into this here (second bullet), so I won’t repeat myself. However, I would say only this to Obama and the Senate Dems: give Boehner and his pals nothing – tell them to stop screwing around and raise the damn debt ceiling already!

And by the way, Mr. Speaker (and Mikey The Beloved), where are the bleeping jobs??!!

Update 5/16/11: Even from the grave, he still bites his party in the ass (here).

And tied to that a bit, it seems that actress Patricia Arquette lobbied Repug lawmakers in favor of more funding for the arts (here)…

“I had an amazing meeting today with the RAMS,” Arquette said, referring to the Republicans Associated for Mutual Support (RAMS), a group of current and former GOP chiefs of staff. “Obviously, [Republicans] aren’t considered the party that typically supports public arts funding, but we talked about the economic impact of creative work and intellectual property, and we were all reasonable adults, so there was a lot of mutual understanding in the room.

“As the country moves beyond a manufacturing economy, one of the areas we’re going to need to stay on top of the world is the creative economy: film, movies, music and technology. After all, isn’t the iPod a work of art?”

Well, I don’t know about that, but I’ll give Arquette points for trying anyway.

Also, as noted here...

"For that billion dollars that is put into the funding of arts and culture around this country, $29 billion comes back into the Treasury. … There is no other issue, no other area of the budget, that has that kind of return on its investment," (actor and director Kevin) Spacey said. "Countries may go to war, but it's culture that unites us and teaches and makes us better as citizens."

(I know Alec Baldwin also had something to say, but on balance, I think he’s a guy who gives Democrats a bad name.)

Concluding, filmmaker Miles Mogulescu tells us the following here…

When people attend a performance or go to a museum, they often spend additional money on restaurants, nearby shopping or parking. Artists are often the pioneers of urban revitalization. First artists move into lofts in a rundown neighborhood. Then cafes and galleries start to open. Soon middle class professionals are flocking to the area, first as consumers and then to rent and buy real estate, generating tax revenue which supports city and state governments and helps pay for things like schools and police.

It’s all about ripples, people. And funding the arts is one of the ways to create them.

Continuing, some humanoid at The Daily Tucker tells us the following here…

The left-leaning Center for American Progress published a blog post Thursday blaming Republicans for the tornadoes that devastated the South earlier this week.

“The congressional delegations of these states – Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky – overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous,” wrote CAP’s Brad Johnson. “They are deliberately ignoring the warning from scientists.”

I don’t know what is more ridiculous – the fact that the genius complaining here apparently can’t tell the difference between the blog Think Progress and the Center for American Progress (though the contributors to each frequently overlap I believe) or the fact that there is no place wherever that Johnson states point blank that the Repugs are responsible for the tornadoes (I’ll let you, dear reader, check out the linked post from the DC to see what I’m talking about…an update is here).

Is the overall denial of climate change in the region impacted by these disasters something to consider for the future? Perhaps, but that is a discussion for another day – in the meantime, to help out, click here.

Finally, I must admit that I really don’t have much of a rooting interest in the whole “Kate and ‘Wills’” show that began earlier today – very early, in this time zone – but the following from Irrational Spew Online caught my attention (the writer reflects on another wedding in Britain’s royal family)…

We watched as Charles and Diana were married in St. Paul’s Cathedral. And we were struck by the beautiful wedding sermon preached by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Every couple is a king and a queen on their wedding day, said His Grace on that memorable occasion. And, he said, a marriage is strongest when it works for others.

We loved that sermon. It has shaped our own marriage. We clipped it out of the Christian Science Monitor and taped it inside our kitchen cabinet. That yellowing copy of his Lordship’s sermon made it through two or three house moves with us. Thirty years later, undimmed by fading memories, it still motivates us. We felt like a king and queen on that day, too. No amount of tragedy for those star-struck royals diminished our gratitude for that gracious wedding message.

Bill Bennett likes to quote Chekhov: “He and she is the engine that makes fiction work.” Thirty years after Charles and Diana’s wedding, he and she still has a powerful appeal. Some 2 million people lined the route of the wedding party through London’s ancient, narrow streets, and billions more watched on television.

Of course, monarchy itself is endangered in a world they constantly tell us is flat. Her Majesty’s Government — those who actually rule Britain while the royals only reign — announced this month they are giving serious thought to changing the order of succession. Henceforth, the eldest child of a royal couple — he or she — might ascend the throne.

They might also drop the 300-year ban on any Catholic becoming a king or queen of England. My late friend Joe Barrett was forever reminding anyone who would listen that the English monarchy was legally a bigoted institution, constitutionally anti-Catholic. I always reminded him of the luck of the Irish. They at least had an alibi when the London tabloids splashed stories of yet another royal scandal.

As for Bennett, I wouldn’t trust him unless he were providing a quote about “riding a hard eight” based on this (and even that much would be problematic). And for anyone who thinks Catholicism gets a bad rap in the UK, I would suggest that they familiarize themselves with the story of Queen Mary Tudor (see page 2 here), who preceded Elizabeth I to the British throne (there was a reason why she was called “Bloody Mary,” people, and it wasn’t because of the drink…hat tip to Mrs. Doomsy, a true Anglophile, for that one).

As I say, the whole “royal wedding” show really isn’t my thing, but I still wish the two of them well. The world needs all the love it can get.

Update 4/30/11: Concerning the royals and the "birther" B.S., Dan Rather is pretty much a lone voice calling out in the media wilderness, but he's absolutely right here.

Friday AM Stuff

OWWWWW!!!! TEH STUPID!!!! IT BURNS US!!!!! (here)...



...and anyone who voted for this misogynist asshat should lose his or her right to the universal franchise.

Thursday Stuff

Ladies and gentlemen, I now give you Repug U.S. House Rep from PA Lou Barletta here, ultra supreme jag off ("oooh, you filthy unkempt liberal blogger, you're not supposed to call people names.").

Well then, what would YOU call a U.S. Congressman or woman who laughs at his constituents (and yes, I realize the guy who spoke most of the time was strident, but he happened to be absolutely right). And isn't it disgusting to watch Barletta shine those pearly whites when someone speaks with whom he disagrees (and shuffles papers disinterestedly), but can suddenly try calling the crowd to order when he hears a sympathetic question (while the Fix Noise automatons try to hush the guy who actually makes sense)...



Update 5/20/11: Wow, Barletta sure is one smiling coward based on this.

…and Dem Gov. Pete Shumlin of Vermont is my new hero; Rachel Maddow explains why…



…and happy 85th birthday to Harper Lee, one of the greatest writers of all time…



…and I know Lawrence O’Donnell teed off on Orly Taitz, and good for him, but sorry, I want to deal with stuff here that’s actually important – that said, though, as long as we’re dealing with the supposed controversy over the place our president was born, let’s not forget about this also (h/t Atrios), which brings to mind this tune.

(Yes I know, Kiss last night and Van Halen tonight – I’ll return to more normal fare tomorrow.)

Thursday Mashup (4/28/11)

With all of the attention paid to the utterly ridiculous non-issue of President Obama’s birth certificate (which the Bucks County Courier Times thought merited a 72-point, all caps and bolded headline on the front page this morning), another wingnut attack on Number 44 occurred recently that was pretty much pushed out of the spotlight, and that came from Pat “Uber Alles” Buchanan of MSNBC where he said that Obama was “affirmative action all the way” regarding his education (here – to be honest, I think that’s worse than all of this “birther” crap).

As noted here, President Obama “graduat(ed) with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude[36] from Harvard in 1991.” Which, of course, proves that he received an “affirmative action” education.

Sure he did.

So, what of “Take Our Country Back” Pat, then? Well, as noted here…

Buchanan was born into a Catholic family, and attended Catholic schools, including the Jesuit-run Gonzaga College High School. As a student at Georgetown University, he was in ROTC, but did not complete the program.

OK, then…

He received a master's degree in journalism from Columbia in 1962, writing his thesis on the expanding trade between Canada and Cuba.

Commendable. Oh, and by the way…

He received his draft notice after he graduated in 1960. However, the District of Columbia draft board exempted Buchanan from military service due to reactive arthritis, classifying him as 4-F. It should be noted, however, that this has come under scrutiny. Buchanan has been an avid jogger since and there are those that have questioned the validity of his exemption from military service.

I realize this doesn’t pertain directly to educational issues, but I thought it should be noted anyway.

One final note about Obama – as noted here by his former professor Lawrence Tribe, Obama was “the most impressive all-around student I’d seen in decades.”

If that means that Obama is “affirmative action,” then the program must be working wonders.

Next, I give you the following from The Daily Tucker (here)…

When Congress was debating Obamacare, the left needed cover against those who pointed out that the bill, in many places, would lead to health care rationing. The media happily provided that cover.

Liberals needed cover because the law created the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which will be comprised of 15 “experts” who will basically decide which treatments seniors on Medicare will be allowed to get.

Oy – as noted here…

With regard to IPAB's recommendations, the law says "The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."

By the way, though I respect Cynthia Tucker, it aggravates me to no end when I see a media person generally sympathetic to Democrats using Republican code language when they write or broadcast something, referring to “death panels” of course.

One more note for Derek Hunter of Carlson’s Crayon Scribble Page – the writer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is Jay Bookman, not Booker, as referred to in the link.

Further, it looks like Sen. Mr. Elaine Chao doesn’t want the political contributions of contractors to be revealed (here).

Which is really funny when you remember that McConnell’s wife, the “Dragon Lady” herself, made it one of her missions in life when she ran the DOL (in addition to perpetuating wage theft and discriminating against workers generally) to find out everything she possibly could about union political organizing and fundraising, as noted here (more on Chao is here).

Continuing, I give you the following from Irrational Spew Online (here)…

In my experience, there are some subjects liberals don’t want to talk about very much. One is abortion. They’re happy to talk about the rights of women (as they understand those rights). But they don’t want to talk about abortion: what it is, what it does.

They don’t want to talk about Vietnam either. The war, yes; the aftermath, no. Liberals, many of them, longed for an American withdrawal, and then for a cutting off of the Saigon government. Those things came to pass. And then, hell.

I could be snarky and say that the reason most liberals supposedly don’t want to talk about Vietnam is because more of us were off fighting the war than conservatives generally (and by the way, a review of Nordlinger’s bio on Wikipedia showed no military service).

Of course, that’s if I wanted to be snarky.

The reason I’m pointing this out, though, is because Nordlinger uses this as an excuse to try and perpetuate another zombie right-wing lie; namely, that our withdrawal from Vietnam led to the rise of Pol Pot (and it tells you how disingenuous Nordlinger is that he mentions Sydney Schanberg of the New York Times in passing without giving him credit for his landmark reporting of Cambodia, aided greatly by the late photojournalist Dith Pran of course).

As noted here…

…some historians have cited the U.S. intervention and bombing campaign (spanning 1965–1973) as a significant factor leading to increased support of the Khmer Rouge among the Cambodian peasantry. Historian Ben Kiernan and Taylor Owen have used a combination of sophisticated satellite mapping, recently unclassified data about the extent of bombing activities, and peasant testimony, to argue that there was a correlation between villages targeted by U.S. bombing and recruitment of peasants by the Khmer Rouge.[15]

In his 1996 study of Pol Pot's rise to power, Kiernan argued that foreign intervention "was probably the most significant factor in Pol Pot's rise."[16]

If anyone wants to make Nordlinger’s feeble argument, then it's their right to do so, I know. But maybe the reason no Democrat/liberal/progressive/whatever wants to discuss these matters (assuming you buy Nordlinger’s argument) is because we are focused on trying to resolve our present difficulties as opposed to rearguing settled history.

Finally (speaking of protesting American foreign policy), it looks like The Man of Steel is getting ready to fly the proverbial coop (here)…

Superman is no longer an American.

In "Action Comics’" new record-breaking 900th issue, the fictional iconic super hero renounces his U.S citizenship following a clash with the federal government.

The Man of Steel, created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1938, has always been recognized as a devoted American warrior who constantly fought evil, but as of Thursday, he is no longer the country's own to claim.

No word yet if Superman will change his red and blue suit, or his longtime motto "truth, justice and the American way" -- but the landmark issue is certainly sparking controversy.

You knew that, with Obama speaking out about the “birther” nonsense, we were overdue for some new “values” issue, right?

Well, with all this in mind, I thought of the following based on this…

Woke up in the morning from a bad, bad dream
Looked in the mirror and wanted to scream
Figured some coffee would put me right
While I looked out for green Kryptonite
Then I saw the paper and the headline read
The unemployed might as well drop dead
Turned on the TV news to hear the sports
They said China’s job rate is strong of course
Cornering the industry of IT
As well as “green” technology

Why’d America fluff the rich
But for all else, do not a thing
I’ll save the planet from the U.S. and oil
So watch me fly straight to Beijing

Superman, Superman, just immigrate like Superman
Superman, Superman, just an “expat” like Superman

Yeah, I know – I’ll work on it :-).

Wednesday Stuff

Hopefully back to posting tomorrow - in the meantime, here is some big news from yesterday (he also said something about improving the quality of the show's online content - it would be hard for it to be worse than what is offered by MSNBC)...



...and I would say that "Shout It Out Loud" is something you want to do in response to K.O.'s return...a guilty pleasure, I know (and by the way, Ace Frehley is 60, believe it or not).

Tuesday Stuff

Looks like that dastardly Kenyan Marxist socialist has struck again, as a segue to The Donald (here - joke)...

The Colbert Report
Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

…and gosh, methinks it’s getting a little uncomfortable for those Repug life forms recently elected to the U.S. House here (my kingdom for a clip like this starring Mikey The Beloved)…



…and so how about those early presidential poll numbers anyway, huh?...

The Daily Show - Indecision 2012 - Premature Ecalculation
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

…and RIP Phoebe Snow.

Tuesday Mashup (4/26/11)

Somebody named Katie Gage over at The Hill opined as follows here…

“S.C. political leaders used words such as ‘frivolous,’ ‘shameful’ and ‘ludicrous’ Thursday to describe a National Labor Relations Board complaint against Boeing, which is building a $750 million aircraft assembly plant in the state.” This was the lead in the Associated Press story from North Charleston.

If there was any doubt whether or not the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under the Obama administration had declared war on job creators, it was answered the other day when the “independent,” taxpayer-funded agency decided a company did not have the right to build a facility in a right-to-work state.

As noted at the bottom of her column, Gage represents the Workforce Fairness Institute, and if you can smell the Astroturf here as well as I can, then you’re “too cool for school” or you’ve been reading this blog for a little while (if the latter is true, then you have my thanks).

As SourceWatch tells us, "The (website of the Workforce Fairness Institute) lists among its 'allied groups' the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, Rick Berman's Center for Union Facts, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business." So yes, they very definitely have an axe to grind here, as it were.

Boeing basically admitted in this story that this move to South Carolina is to prevent future strikes at its plants in Washington State; as noted here, “We have two notebooks about seven inches thick of public statements by Boeing executives that were threatening our workforce and actually also threatening the workforce in South Carolina,” according to International Association of Machinists spokesperson Connie Kelliher.

And I would say that this is a reversal on the part of Boeing management, since, as noted here (upon resolution of the 2008 strike, which cost the union members an average of $7000.00 in base pay and cost the company $100 million per day in revenue and penalties with a postponement of the delivery of aircraft)...

Scott Carson, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said “This is an outstanding offer that rewards employees for their contributions to our success while preserving our ability to compete…I thank both negotiating teams and the federal mediator for their hard work and commitment in reaching this agreement. We recognize the hardship a strike creates for everyone – our customers, suppliers, employees, community and our company – and we look forward to having our entire team back.”

Gage’s partisan hackery is the typical noise you would expect from a right-wing advocacy group that, given all that has transpired in Wisconsin under Hosni Mubarak Walker and elsewhere in this country, is trying to stab at the heart of the rights of working men and women and families just a little deeper.

Next, I happened to come across this item in BoBo’s typical mess in the New York Times today (basically, if I did nothing but gaze at my navel for an hour or so, I could probably come up with something comparable), and I thought I should say something…

Sixty-three percent of Americans oppose raising the debt ceiling; similar majorities oppose measures to make that sort of thing unnecessary.

Of course, far be it for the esteemed pundit of the Old Gray Lady to tell us that opposition to raising the debt ceiling is utter madness, as noted here (to say nothing of hypocritical as well given this...more info is here).

I suppose I should also note the cynical paradox of the “U.S.” Chamber of Commerce, which has done its part to cross-pollinate with those zany teabaggers (who of course profess to hate government spending) now calling for raising the debt ceiling here, which of course is anathema to the racist-sign-carrying-and-funny-hat-wearing bunch.

Oh, and for good measure, this tells us who is cheering on this would-be catastrophe (of course, most of them are well-kept by their corporate media puppet masters and wouldn’t feel quite the same impact of this country’s fiscal ruin as the rest of us).

In addition, I found this item at the AEI blog by someone named Kenneth P. Green (can't link directly to the post without subscribing to the AEI feed, which I do not intend to do)…

The president points to the national highway system as proof that the government can create great infrastructure, and employ people, and it did. Of course, the highway system also caused much of what vexes environmentalists and leftists today: dispersed housing; carved-up ecosystems; long-distance trucking of goods to market; greater access to what would have been land-locked natural resources; and an emphasis on driving huge RVs, or truck-towed trailers hundreds of miles for vacations. It also led to the higher rates of water pollution, soil pollution, conventional air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions that are so despised by the environmentalists today.

Aside from pointing out once more the Pavlovian antagonism of anything pertaining to any level of the public sector by conservatives generally, I wanted to highlight this web site; yes, there are some topics listed where I have disagreement, but it’s heartening to see that there are actually some sane Republicans still out there (“non-leftists” dwindling by the minute, I’m sure) who, if nothing else, get the whole “stewards of the earth” thing, as opposed to the “fear and smear” delusional bipeds in that crowd who act as if they barely have a handful of brain cells between them.

Finally, I can’t help but laugh over the criticism aimed at President Obama for his supposed antagonism towards the religious holiday we recently celebrated (here).

In response, I thought the following words were sublime (here)…

Using the kind of personal religious language that he had once shied away from in public, Obama spoke of “the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross” in an Easter prayer breakfast for about 150 guests and staff.

“And we’re reminded that in that moment, (Jesus) took on the sins of the world — past, present and future — and he extended to us that unfathomable gift of grace and salvation through his death and resurrection,” Obama said.

However, if you prefer something ridiculous for Easter instead, I give you the following (here).

Monday Stuff

Regarding the earlier post and that disgusting National Review cover, we didn't have to Photoshop Number 43 to communicate the message that he was a clueless idiot - as Paul Krugman says, most outside the Beltway don't consider Ryan to be "serious," but inside the Beltway...



...and yeah, I may "run out and get me some of these" too.

Monday Mashup (4/25/11)

Once more unto the breach, dear friends – to begin, I give you Former Laura Bush employee Andrew Malcolm (here – shocking that he’s actually taking a break from bashing President Obama for now)…

If the conventional mantra about California being on the forefront of the nation's political trends holds true, it's really bad news for America's taxpayers.

According to a new L.A. Times / USC Dornsife poll, a majority of Californians -- 52% to 38% -- are just fine with Democrat Jerry Brown's plan to fill the state's chronic budget deficit with $14 billion in new or renewed taxes along with cuts, as long as they get to vote on it.

This despite the recent history of waste, corruption and spending abuses in the most populous state's vast government.

This despite the state's continuing 12% unemployment rate, second-highest in the country.

This despite the weak 44% job approval rating for Gov. Brown.

Oh blah blah freaking blah, Malcolm (and by the way, Former President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History…your former boss’s old man…would have unilaterally invaded someone or something else for a 44 percent job approval rating).

And isn’t Malcolm’s framing here absolutely hilarious? Namely, that a tax increases poses “ominous implications” for U.S. taxpayers? And this, given the fact that, in addition to taxpayers of the Golden State who are fine with a tax increase, about 64 percent of those polled here have no problem with a tax increase on our country’s higher earners?

So, if voters favor development of clean energy, I guess that poses “ominous implications” for ExxonMobil. Or if voters think the “birther” argument is BS, that poses “ominous implications” for Donald Trump.

I’ll tell you what – as opposed to more hectoring of the L.A. Times’ journalistic mistake, I’ll merely link here once more to Professor Krugman, who rebuts Malcolm’s idiocy better than I could.

Next, Kevin Ferris of The Philadelphia Inquirer weighed in on the recent Republican candidates’ debate for the Philadelphia mayoral and city council elections (here)…

One candidate, former Democrat Karen Brown, was a no-show. Organizers said she had promised to attend but had a last-minute scheduling conflict. Given that the debate was sponsored by the Loyal Opposition, the GOP radicals who believe that political parties should try to win elections, it's not surprising that the party's candidate wouldn't show for the upstarts' event.

Ordinarily I could care less about intra-party GOP hissy fits, but it turns out that, as noted here, the so-called “Loyal Opposition” wing of the GOP is run by someone whose name should live in infamy when it comes to Repug local-area politics…

It’s a little after 8pm and Kevin Kelly is not happy. The Philadelphia Loyal Opposition leader is at the podium of last night’s Republican debate inside the German Society at 6th and Spring Garden. He says Republican City Committee-endorsed mayoral candidate Karen Brown won’t be making it, even though “she agreed to be here.” The word “cowardice” is thrown around more than once.

Kelly says he’s exchanged several phone calls and text messages with Brown. She even allegedly sent a head shot for the occasion and Kelly openly mocks someone from her campaign in attendance, sitting in a folding chair amongst the audience. “I think you got the phone information wrong,” says the Brown staffer who would leave before he could be identified.

“Don’t piss in my ear and tell me it’s raining out,” says Kelly, still from the podium. “It’s very disrespectful what you’re doing here.”

Hmmm…”cowardice,” “disrespectful”? Kind of amusing to hear this from Kelly who, as noted here, once maligned Patrick Murphy’s military service in Iraq, saying that Patrick’s claim that he risked life and limb with many, many others in our services was a “mischaracterization” (Kelly served in the Air Force in 2006, which makes his claim even more ridiculous given that Murphy served in the Army from 2003-2004).

But then again, when it comes to handicapping a political contest, it’s pretty typical of Ferris to cast his lot with a character who is almost as disreputable as he is.

That leads us to Ferris’ pundit playmate at the Inky, Smerky himself (here – the subject is the air traffic controllers nodding off)…

…what's essential is that air traffic controllers not alternate between a normal schedule and an overnight shift. Their bodies can't adjust. Better to have a dedicated night shift whose bodies can adapt to the unusual schedule.

Great idea, actually. Of course, as noted here…

The FAA budget is about to be cut again, but the only question is by how much. House Republicans have passed a bill rolling back funding to 2008 levels, while Senate Democrats have pushed through a bill that would keep funding stagnant. If recent short-term budget negotiations are an indication, the final bill will hew much more closely to Republican demands.

Like everything else in the US, air safety is subordinated to cost. That dozens of major airports across the US rely on a single air traffic controller for overnight “graveyard” shifts raises deeply troubling questions. What if this lone controller becomes physically incapacitated? What happens if an emergency arises in which one airplane must receive the full attention of the lone air traffic controller?

There is abundant evidence to suggest that sleeping on the job is the inevitable outcome of working conditions imposed on air traffic controllers.

So, Smerky, would you care to stand up to those zany teabaggers, more than a few of whom listen to your radio program and read your column I would imagine, and call for more FAA funding?

I don’t know the answer to that question of course, but the fact that our intrepid little pundit ended his column with a hosanna to The Sainted Ronnie R and what happened to the controllers under the watch of our 40th president is more than a bit of a giveaway as far as I’m concerned.

Returning to Bucks County, I wanted to highlight this recent story in the Courier Times about the negotiations between the Pennsbury School Board and the teachers in that district…

A state appointed mediator overseeing talks between the Pennsbury school board and the teachers union ended a negotiation session Thursday after two board members who had not attended previous meetings entered the room, according to district officials and a union spokesperson.

Board president Gene Dolnick called the unannounced arrival of board members Allan Weisel and Simon Campbell - who are not a part of the board's negotiation team - "disrespectful to the negotiating process and to the entire Pennsbury community."

Dolnick added "a chance to reach a settlement was derailed" by their appearance.

Campbell said that he and Weisel attended the meeting only to observe the talks and informed both parties of this intention when they arrived.

According to Lucy Walter, spokesperson for the Pennsbury Education Association, when Campbell and Weisel arrived, school board representatives asked for a caucus. At this point, she added, the PEA negotiating team left the room to accommodate the request for a caucus.

"Mr. Dolnick then asked us to leave," Campbell said Thursday. "I told him he has no legal right to ask a fellow elected official to leave the room and stop observing the process."

After meeting separately with both sides, mediator John Cairns, according PEA and district officials, announced that he was adjourning the meeting as the "structure of the bargaining session had been changed."

And timed no doubt with this result in mind, a member of Campbell’s little peanut gallery just happened to chime in with this letter to the Courier Times a day or two after the story was published.

Simon wants a strike, people. End of discussion.

Finally, I really don’t have much to say about this…

…except to note in response that it should be no surprise that I generally detest conservatives.

Happy Easter 2011

May you all have a happy and blessed Easter. If you don't observe anything, may you have a happy and blessed long weekend.

More Friday Stuff

I couldn't let the week end without noting this development, though I'm sure we haven't heard the last of John Ensign and his scandalous garbage...



...and I once linked this video to John Edwards, so I think it fits here too.

Friday Stuff

God, I wish our beloved commonwealth could make national news for something positive for a change (here)...

 

...and by the way, Happy Earth Day (and this is completely predictable, of course).

Thursday Stuff

One way to honor Tim Hetherington is to get the word out about the movie he co-directed (here - vid should play OK)...



...and I thought this was a nice little tutorial on how we end up getting screwed into paying a higher price for gas (hint: it has nothing to do with our Kenyan Marxist pre-zee-dint, who is actually trying to do something about it here...or at least not until Obama appoints someone to the CFTC)...



...and I've been hot and cold on Bill Maher this year, but even though this is a few news cycles old, I think it still bears repeating (bad word alert)...



...and I don't know if I'm going to post tomorrow or not, but I don't want to forget to extend 75th birthday wishes to Glen Campbell (here - had a bit of a tough road, but he seems OK now fortunately).

Thursday Mashup (4/21/11)

(Posting is questionable for tomorrow, by the way.)

To commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf yesterday, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a typical Obama-bashing column on energy by former Repug U.S. House Rep John Peterson (here)…

On this first anniversary of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, America's energy policy is as adrift as it was a year ago. The Obama administration has set the commendable goal of cutting oil imports by a third within a decade, but its pattern of obstruction on domestic drilling will move us in the opposite direction, toward an energy freeze of our own making.

Oh brother – as noted here, U.S. oil production last year was the highest since 2003.

Continuing…

While it's encouraging that the administration lifted a deepwater drilling moratorium last fall and has issued a handful of permits for drilling in the gulf since, scores more are languishing at the Interior Department. At least seven rigs that operated in the gulf have relocated overseas while waiting.

I believe that claim is actually true, though, as noted here, one of the seven rigs that left returned in March, and another is due to return later this year (and somehow I think that has more to do with contractual arrangements between Big Oil and its subcontractors than any moves by the Obama Administration).

Continuing…

The Energy Information Administration projects that domestic oil production will fall 240,000 barrels a day through 2012 as a result of current policies, which isn't surprising given that we get more oil from the Gulf of Mexico than from all the Persian Gulf nations combined. Even a one-year delay in development means potential losses to government revenue of about $5.5 billion, squeezing local, state, and federal budgets.

As noted here, lower crude oil production for this year was projected last October by the Institute for Energy Research. And as noted here, this country obtains oil from diverse sources all over the world (news to me too a bit, I must say; basically, if we couldn’t “drill, baby, drill” in the Gulf tomorrow for some reason, there are still other countries who will help us feed our oil addiction...and by the way, I call this trying to get to the root of the problem by President Obama).

I realize this is a column about oil and not the environmental impact of producing it, but I think it should be noted that, while in office, Peterson “received the lowest possible rating from the League of Conservation Voters in 2006,” as noted here.

Interesting that the Inky chose Peterson to write a column timed for the one-year anniversary of one of the worst oil spills in our country’s history (would have been nice to include even some passing observations about the environment). What’s next, a column about good government from “Duke” Cunningham?

Next, this story from The Hill tells us the following…

Republicans are attacking a group of Democrats who didn’t vote for any of the five budget proposals on the House floor last week, saying they “failed the most basic responsibility of governing.”

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) sent out missives with images of a blank check to the districts of 21 Democrats, many of them Blue Dogs in competitive districts.

“Mike Ross has failed the most basic responsibility of governing by failing to even vote for a budget over the last two years, let alone see one passed,” the NRCC said in one statement targeting Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the co-chairman of the conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition.

…

A spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Jesse Ferguson, responded: “House Republicans are the last people who should be lecturing about budgets after they voted to end Medicare and raise health care costs for seniors, rather than choosing to end taxpayer giveaways for Big Oil companies making record profits or tax breaks for the ultra rich.”

I find myself in a bit of an uncomfortable position here, given that I’m defending the “deficit peacock” Bush Dogs. However, it should also be noted here that, when they lost their congressional majority in 2006, the Repugs basically left 9 of 11 appropriations bills on the table for the incoming Democratic congressional majority.

The Repugs don’t care about the deficit. They never have, and they never will.

Further, I give you last week’s Area Votes in Congress from the Philadelphia Inquirer (here)…

Preventive-care fund. Voting 236-183, the House passed a bill (HR 1217) to repeal the health-care law's Prevention and Public Health Fund, which will grant nearly $18 billion over eight years to states and communities for preventive health care, or wellness, programs. Backers said that by promoting healthier lifestyles, the fund would reduce treatment costs. The bill awaits Senate action.

Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.) said that Congress should terminate "a slush fund from which the secretary [of Health and Human Services] can spend without any congressional oversight or approval."

A yes vote was to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

Voting yes: Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Michael Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Pat Meehan (R., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), Jon Runyan (R., N.J.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

Voting no: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), John Carney (D., Del.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), and Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.).

Read this to learn how utterly pathetic the charge is that the Prevention and Public Health Fund is a “slush fund” from Pancake Joe Pitts (and a good comeback by Henry Waxman is here).

Seniors' wellness fund. Voting 189-234, the House defeated a Democratic motion to HR 1217 (above) that sought to keep the new health law's Prevention and Public Health Fund in operation for the benefit of senior citizens. Pitts said the Democratic motion "guts the underlying bill and continues the runaway spending that the American people have rejected."

A yes bill was to continue the fund for seniors.

Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, Holden, and Schwartz.

Voting no: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, and Runyan.

Not voting: Smith.

Oh, and by the way, to get an idea of how serious Pitts actually is about job creation, get a load of this from his congressional web site (might be a good idea for PA-16’s waste of space to “get on the stick” here and provide a news update more current than last August…stop showing us a picture of a horse and buggy in Pennsylvania Dutch Country and show us instead some people getting hired and going back to work).

Final 2011 budget. Voting 260-167, the House sent the Senate a bill (HR 1473) to fund the government for the remaining five-plus months of fiscal 2011 at an annualized level of $1.365 trillion. The figure applies to discretionary spending but not to entitlement programs or interest payments on the national debt, which account for the remainder of the $3.7 trillion federal budget for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. The bill reflects $38 billion in cuts in domestic programs agreed upon April 8 by President Obama and congressional leaders to stave off a government closure.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Andrews, Carney, Dent, Fattah, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, Schwartz, and Smith.

Voting no: Brady.

I admire Bob Brady standing on principle here, but I suppose a yes vote is merely acknowledging what is bound to come to pass anyway.

Planned Parenthood. The House passed, 241-185, a measure (H Con Res 36) to remove funding for Planned Parenthood from the fiscal 2011 budget. This private organization provides mostly preventive health care for women at 800 clinics nationwide, with abortions accounting for 3 percent of its services.

The abortions are not federally funded, in keeping with the 1976 Hyde Amendment's ban on using taxpayer money to pay for abortions except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.

A yes vote was to defund Planned Parenthood.

Voting yes: Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.

Voting no: Brady, Carney, Dent, Fattah, Holden, and Schwartz.

Not voting: Andrews.

To truly comprehend the idiocy of this vote, I would recommend this column from Gail Collins in the New York Times today (it’s about Texas, the “breeding ground for bad government,” as The Eternal Molly Ivins once called it, but it might as well be about the whole country…kudos to Charlie Dent for acting like an adult here, which stands him apart from the rest of the fools and frauds in his party including Mikey The Beloved).

2012 Republican budget. Voting 235-193, the House approved a Republican budget (H Con Res 34) for 2012 and later years that, over time, would privatize Medicare and raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67; convert Medicaid to a block-grant program run by the states; permanently extend Bush-era tax cuts; reduce discretionary spending for domestic programs by more than 20 percent; increase the basic defense budget by 15 percent; and keep Social Security as it is. Additionally, the plan would simplify the tax code, close unspecified loopholes and end unspecified tax breaks, and use the revenue from those steps to cut the top corporate and individual tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.

Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.) said: "Medicare is a promise to American seniors that we would not abandon them even as they age, even as they need medical care - until now. The Republican budget will end Medicare as we know it, offering a limited voucher and expecting seniors to find insurance no matter how sick they are or how expensive it is."

A yes vote was to pass the budget.

Voting yes: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.

Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, Holden, and Schwartz.

If you remember no other vote from the ones listed here, remember this one. And act accordingly in November 2012 when the time comes to do something about it.

Oh, and here's a little video reminder too.

2012 Democratic budget. Voting 166-259, members defeated a budget (H Con Res 34) drafted by House Democrats for fiscal 2012 and later years. In contrast to the GOP blueprint (above), the measure would preserve Medicare and Medicaid in their existing forms; fully fund the new health law; end tax breaks for oil firms; end Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans; spend more on domestic programs and infrastructure projects; provide less defense spending, and reduce deficit-spending at slower pace. The plan would spend $3.69 trillion in fiscal 2012 and generate a deficit of $1.09 trillion.

A yes vote backed the Democratic budget.

Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Fattah, Holden, and Schwartz.

Voting no: Carney, Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.

Interesting “No” vote from “Democrat” John Carney, I must say.

Republican Study Group. Voting 119-136, members defeated the most conservative of five budget plans before the House, a measure that would prevent tax increases but reduce spending sufficiently to balance the federal budget in 10 years. In part, the plan (H Con Res 34) would cut nondefense discretionary spending nearly in half over 10 years, privatize Medicare, gradually raise Social Security's full-retirement age for people now 59 or younger; convert Medicaid to a block-grant program, and repeal the new health law.

A yes vote backed the Republican Study Group budget.

Voting no: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.

Not voting: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, Holden, and Schwartz.

This was the cute little move engineered by Steny Hoyer that had the Repugs scrambling to change their “Yes” votes to “No” lest the true face of their hostility towards everyone but the “pay no price, bear no burden” bunch be revealed for all to see in passing this particularly Dickensian budget.

Once more, every numbskull who voted to return this bunch to power in the House should be smacking themselves with an open palm in the middle of their foreheads at this moment.

Progressive Caucus. Voting 77-347, members defeated a budget proposed by the Progressive Caucus, which is made up of the House's most liberal members. This plan (H Con Res 34) would bring U.S. troops home from Afghanistan and use the savings to balance the federal budget in 10 years. Additionally, it would add a public option to the new health law, raise the gasoline tax, and increase taxes on energy firms, crack down on corporate-tax loopholes, increase spending for education and other domestic programs, and invest in infrastructure projects such as road-building to create jobs and stimulate economic growth.

A yes vote backed the Progressive Caucus budget.

Voting yes: Brady and Fattah.

Voting no: Andrews, Carney, Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, Schwartz, and Smith.

So at least we know we can count on Bob Brady and Chaka Fattah. We know what Tim Holden is, and it’s becoming more and more obvious what John Carney is also. However, Allyson Schwartz and Rob Andrews truly should know better.

And by the way, in case anyone is inclined to think “oh, there go those nutty libs again,” remember this (Update 4/22/11: And "The Economist" likes the Dem budget alternative, as noted here? They're "serious," wouldn't you say?)

Senate

Final 2011 budget. Voting 81-19, the Senate sent President Obama a bill (HR 1473, above) to fund the government through Sept. 30 at a yearly level of $1.365 trillion in discretionary spending. This bipartisan fiscal 2011 budget cuts spending by $38 billion below 2010 levels. There was no debate on the measure.

A yes vote was to give final approval to the 2011 budget.

Voting yes: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Chris Coons (D., Del.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.).

Voting no: Pat Toomey (R., Pa.).

God, Pat Toomey is turning into the Senate’s version of Joe Pitts. And if that isn’t an insult, I don’t know what is.

Health-law funding. Voting 47-53, the Senate defeated a measure (H Con Res 35) to deny funding for implementing the new health law. Although most of the law's major provisions are delayed until 2014, funding began this year for initiatives such as closing the donut hole in the Medicare prescription-drug plan; allowing youths up to 26 to enroll in their parents' health plans; restructuring Medicare Advantage; establishing a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation; subsidizing preventive services such as colorectal-cancer screening; reimbursing doctors and hospitals for Medicare treatments, and providing grants for community health networks that reach out to low-income people.

A yes vote was to defund the new health law.

Voting yes: Toomey.

Voting no: Carper, Casey, Coons, Lautenberg, and Menendez.

Given this vote, I dedicate the following video to “No Corporate Tax” Pat (might have to crank the volume a bit – maybe, if others could sponsor Nicole Lamoreaux once more, she might even be able to come to PA).



This week, Congress is in Easter-Passover recess until the week of May 2.

Finally, it seems that those life forms at The Heritage Foundation are mad at Tina Dupuy of The Atlantic for criticizing GOP “financial expert” Paul Ryan and the supposed Heritage guru behind Ryan’s flim-flam act, William Beach (here).

Here is a portion of the criticism from Heritage…

When an activity is rewarded, people engage in more of that activity. When an activity is penalized, people engage in less of it. The greater the reward or penalty, the greater will be the response. If anything in the social sciences can be universally regarded as fact, it is those preceding statements.

Uh, I would consider the rise in the price of gas to be a “penalty.” However, if I choose to “engage in less” buying of gas…well then, I don’t get to work (and neither does Mrs. Doomsy), we don’t go to the grocery store or run other errands, we don’t drive the young one to his activities, etc. Basically, when it comes to some of the items or activities we need to simply live our lives, we just have to deal with it regardless of what happens, like anyone else.

That said, I’ll allow the following argument from Heritage…

This absurd logic decimated the high-end boat-building industry in the early 1990s. In 1991 a 10 percent tax on luxury boats went into effect. Compared to 1990, the 1991 sales dropped 70 percent. The original tax projection (like those done by Citizens for Tax Justice) assumed sales would be unaffected by the tax. After a decade of losing sales to foreign producers the tax was dropped with bi-partisan support.

In response, I give you the following from about 20 years ago (here - page three)…

"The excise tax (on luxury boats) is terrible for the future of the industry, but our business was more directly affected by the war in the gulf and the recession," said Stephen Palma, owner of the New York Sailing School. "Our bookings came in late this year; the war stopped people from thinking about such things as sailing lessons.

"And those people who formerly were our best customers -- Wall Street types who wanted to learn how to sail before buying a boat -- have pretty much disappeared." A four-day learn-to-sail program in 23-foot Sonar boats costs $395.

But at the Offshore Sailing School, Tyler Pierce, director of operations, said the number of students was about the same as last year. "We did especially well selling learning-to-sail courses at discount to people who signed up for it at the Boat Show this year," Mr. Pierce said. His two-week sailing class, in Soling boats, costs $425.

And with fewer people buying boats, he said, he is offering rentals.

So when it comes to the economy, Heritage understands luxury boats. Everybody got that?

The poor? The unemployed? Women and family issues? Not so much.

Wednesday Stuff

Hopefully back to posting tomorrow, by the way...

Great news about Patrick Murphy running for PA Attorney General here; somehow, I think that will be a pretty important job given what probably will be the cascading misery from thoroughly unregulated drilling in the Marcellus Shale...all the best of course - it also generates some interesting possibilities in the matter of who will run against Mikey The Beloved next year (wonder if Andy Warren will try to become a Democrat again - hey, if it's the third week of a month with an "R" in it, which is fitting...)...



...and it looks like the budget guru of the Repugs got a taste of what people really think when his facade of moderation is ripped off here ("oh, but Paul Ryan is SERIOUS! He's a "game changer"! Yeah, go get some tea and sympathy from John Harwood or some other corporate media shill...as a commenter noted, when confronted, the GOP always falls back on the "it will hurt small business" garbage - of course, a "small business" to them is Koch Industries because of that "S-Corp" stuff - one more thing: where is Ryan getting that number about Obama wanting the top tax rate at 44 percent?)...



...and don't look now, but those zany French have more guts standing up to art that is judged to be "controversial" than we do...



...and when it comes to our corporate media infatuation with Ryan and the Repugs, I can't help but think of a song like this.

Tuesday Stuff

Here's a video dedicated to our PA-08 rep, who voted for "RyanCare" in lieu of actual Medicare for real last week along with his pals...



...and with Washington's preoccupation with deficit reduction and raiding Social Security (and a good question in that vein is posed here), I think it's important for our politicians and our media to be reminded that people are still unemployed, as noted here (and that's a bipartisan criticism, by the way - and this played no small part also)...



...of course, as far as PA governor Tom "Space Cadet" Corbett is concerned, "the jobs are there" (And isn't this charming also? Kind of goes along with the mentality of someone who refused to comply with PA’s Right to Know Law. Then, he has remained cloistered from public view, meeting only with his contributors and their friends, before imposing pretty much one-man rule over Marcellus Shale drilling matters)...



...and given the Springsteen criticism from Bucks County's big mouth earlier today, I think a number from The Boss is called for here (had it in mind for this post from awhile back).

Tuesday Mashup (4/19/11)

The next time Gary Weckselblatt or someone else from the Bucks County Courier Times decides to fluff “Mikey The Beloved” Fitzpatrick over his opposition to “Obama care,” I’d appreciate it if they’d mention this story to him. It has to do with recovering U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her plea for our soldiers who have suffered a traumatic brain injury on the battlefield to receive something approximating the care she has received while recovering from her gunshot wound to the head (it speaks volumes to me, by the way, that someone dealing with the difficulties faced by Congresswoman Giffords can find a way to advocate for others facing struggles similar to what she is facing).

As the Daily Beast story by Peter J. Boyer tells us…

Most military personnel, however, are covered by an insurance plan called TRICARE, which does not cover key elements of cognitive rehabilitation therapy. As revealed in a series of investigative reports by the non-profit news enterprise, ProPublica, TRICARE claims that the benefits of cognitive rehabilitation therapy are not well enough established to warrant providing it to troops. TRICARE bases this assertion on the findings of a study commissioned by TRICARE itself, and which ProPublica’s reporting has found to be “deeply flawed.”

…

Coverage of treatment for brain-injured patients has inevitably become a political issue. On the military side, money is an ongoing worry for the Pentagon, which is being “eaten alive,” as Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it, by health-care costs.

The case for civilians was made earlier this month by the office of (Congresswoman) Giffords, which joined in a plea to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, to include brain trauma rehabilitation among the essential benefits mandated by the health-care reform law. Immediate action seems unlikely.

“We greatly appreciate the thoughtful ideas provided by Congresswoman Giffords’ staff and will certainly take them into account as we work to develop rules describing an essential benefits package,” says Richard Sorian, HHS assistant secretary for Public Affairs. “HHS will be engaging in a public process later this year to get broad input for the process of establishing essential benefits.”

So, in the event that cognitive rehabilitation therapy was to be covered for our military, it would be provided by TRICARE. And seeking that our PA-08 rep voted against expanding TRICARE access on behalf of thousands of Reservist and National Guard members, even though 20 percent of all reservists do not have health insurance, and 40 percent of reservists aged 19 to 35 lack health coverage, as noted here...well, let’s just say that I’m not optimistic.

And by the way, I would consider the fact that the Pentagon is being “eaten alive” by health care costs as another good reason to end the damn wars and bring everybody home, wouldn’t you say?

Next, it seems that Ramesh Ponnuru of Irrational Spew Online haz a sad over those nasty Dems targeting GOP House members and their votes for “RyanCare” (here).

Well, at least the Dems would be pointing out the truth, unlike what the Repugs and their pals did in the last election, targeting Democrats for supposedly cutting Medicare, a tactic used by the thoroughly odious Ron Johnson, among others (here).

Finally, if it’s one of three days of the week, then that means that it’s time for more local pundit sludge from J.D. Mullane of the Courier Times (here – today’s subject is the abuse of New Jersey’s 1964 Farmland Assessment Act by one of Long Branch, New Jersey’s most famous sons)…

The story about "fake farmers" using the Farmland Assessment Act of 1964 to decrease their property taxes was laid out in the Asbury Park newspaper in December. In February, a TV news station in New York City revealed how Springsteen is among the fake farmers and pays a fraction of taxes on prime real estate in one of the most affluent neighborhoods in the Garden State.

Fox 5 New York found that while (Bruce) Springsteen pays $138,000 in taxes on his house on three acres, the surrounding 200 acres of buffer, owned by Springsteen through a trust, paid just $4,638.67.

That's less tax than working stiffs in blue collar Willingboro pay on their quarter-acre estates along Levitt Parkway.

Springsteen gets the tax break by having a farmer grow organic vegetables on part of the land, according to the news report.

Who knew organic arugula could taste so sweet?

Springsteen's other working class neighbor, Jon Bon Jovi, has a similar deal, Fox 5 found.

Bon Jovi pays $296,000 in taxes on his house and some of the land it's on. But he pays a mere $104 on an additional seven surrounding acres. Bon Jovi pays someone to raise honeybees on his property, triggering the lower assessment.

It must be swell to be Bruce Springsteen, living an idly rich life in horsey country, knocking around your mansion, strumming your guitar, pondering the poor.

But where do economic geniuses like The Boss think New Jersey is going to get the money to pay for social programs? Honeybees?

New Jersey has an $11 billion budget deficit - the largest of any state.

Shockingly, J.D. has stumbled into the truth regarding New Jersey’s deficit. However, as noted here, Governor Bully and his pals allowed a surcharge to expire on those making $400 grand or more anyway (more “do as I say, not as I do” Repug self-entitlement...and when it comes to Christie-related hagiography, let's not forget this).

And yes, the situation with the Farmland Assessment Act is a legitimate issue. That’s why New Jersey State Senators Stephen Sweeney (Dem) and Jennifer Beck (Repug) have promised to do something about it.

And as noted here, many others have taken advantage of the Farmland Assessment Act, including “Steve” Forbes, magnate Vernon Hill formerly of Commerce Bank, and the husband of former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.

Oh, and do you know who else takes advantage of the Farmland Assessment Act? Why, none other than Ol’ Jon Runyan, that’s who. As noted here…

(Runyan) was the owner of a 25 acre estate which legally qualified for reduced property taxes under farmland assessment. Runyan's qualification for farmland assessment amounted to four mules, and about $800 in profit selling firewood. Four mules and $800 in annual profit may sound like a poor excuse for a farm, but according to the current law it does qualify for assessment as a farm.

I have a lot less of a problem with a rock star taking advantage of a bogus law than I do with a sitting member of the U.S. Congress.

Just chalk this up to more failed punditry by J.D. (recalling Springsteen songs, I have a hard time considering which is more appropriate for Mullane, “Brilliant Disguise,” “You’re Missing,” or “I’m Goin’ Down,” but after careful consideration, I settled on “Part Man, Part Monkey”).

Monday Stuff

Actually, Representative "Puppy Dog Eyes" from Wisconsin is right, but not in the way he imagines (here)...



...and no, I don't really have a lot to say in response to this either...



...except to wonder if The Sainted Ronnie R would be good enough for his own party if he were still with us (here)...



...though I suppose, when you get down to it, this is all that matters to the former "party of Lincoln" (the name of this song, I mean...and many Dems too, I know).

More Money-Mad Monday Mikey Musings

Our PA-08 U.S. House rep doled out some king-sized helpings of “conventional wisdom” yesterday in the Bucks County Courier Times (here...glad to see the push-back Mikey is getting in the comments, by the way)…

Since Congress convened in January, no issue has dominated the national discussion and congressional debate more than spending and the deficit.

This actually might be a record of sorts for Mikey – he’s wrong from his very first sentence; I don’t know about “congressional debate,” but when it comes to “national discussion,” as noted here, jobs are the number one concern on a list of five issues (and on that list, the deficit came in last).

Continuing…

From tea party patriots to President Obama, there is now nearly unanimous agreement that government spending is out of control. The time and attention finally being paid to this issue is long overdue.

As is usually the case with Mikey, there is a substantial amount of gall in his umbrage about reducing deficits when, as a member of the dreaded 109th Congress, he helped to make the deficit substantially worse, as noted here.

Over the past three years, the United States has added $5 trillion to our national debt, bringing the total to $14.3 trillion. With nearly 42 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government being financed, we are borrowing trillions each year to feed our spending addiction. Perhaps the most sobering fact is that after July 27, every cent the government spends through the rest of the year will be borrowed.

While the debate in Washington on the size and types of cuts has been vigorous and at times tense, it has failed to focus on the harm out-of-control deficit spending has caused and will continue to cause among private sector job creators.

Get ready for the return of “the confidence fairy” (a good response to that from Professor Krugman is here)…

In order for new companies to start-up or existing companies to grow, certain elements are essential. Three of the most important are availability of capital, economic confidence and predictability of future costs. Deficit spending at the levels we have seen over the last three years has undermined all three.

I wonder if it has occurred to Mikey that cutting government spending can actually increase the deficit? Ezra Klein tells us how here…

Every dollar the Internal Revenue Service spends for audits, liens and seizing property from tax cheats brings in more than $10, a rate of return so good the Obama administration wants to boost the agency's budget.

House Republicans, seeing the heavy hand of a too-big government, beg to differ. They've already voted to cut the IRS budget by $600 million this year and want bigger cuts in 2012...IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman told the committee Tuesday that the $600 million cut in this year's budget would result in the IRS collecting $4 billion less through tax enforcement programs.

And as noted here (about halfway down the page) H.R. 1, the Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 passed in February…(included) drastic spending cuts throughout, including to the Treasury Department and IRS (and as noted here, Mikey voted Yes..."Aye" actually).

(Oh, and speaking of the IRS, get a load of this bill Mikey is sponsoring with “Moon Unit” Bachmann, the “Innocent Spouse Relief Act”; Fitzpatrick and Bachmann claim that two years isn’t enough time for an “innocent spouse” to file a return when “an abusive or manipulative spouse does not tell the other person about collection proceedings.”

Now far be it for me to oppose the rights of “innocent” spouses (determined so by a court of law, I would assume), but if two years is not enough time for such a person to file a return, then what would be an appropriate period? Five years? How much projected revenue would be lost if this bill were to be signed into law, I wonder?)

Continuing with Mikey…

Of all the elements, access to capital is the most essential. Like a car loan or student loan, when the government borrows money, it has to make regular payments or risk default. The difference is that government has someone else to pick up the tab - taxpayers.

Last year, interest payments on the national debt totaled $414 billion. This constitutes nearly 3 percent of GDP, the entire economic output of the United States.

As noted here, though, 3 percent is actually pretty low; it was actually around 14 percent in 1980, for example.

Continuing…

Massive debt also reduces the available capital because as our national debt explodes, lenders lose confidence in our ability to make interest payments on time. As Greece and Portugal learned last year, this leads to lower credit ratings, which makes loans even more expensive for U.S. taxpayers. The deficit-driven spending cycle continues.

As noted here, a big part of Greece and Portugal’s problems had to do with the fact that they both traded in their country’s currency so they could be denominated on the Euro; as a result, “to regain competitiveness, (Greece needs) massive deflation; but that deflation, in addition to involving an extended period of very high unemployment, worsens the real burden of their outstanding debt” (and more on Portugal, which faces a similar problem, is here).

Continuing…

Lenders are not the only ones losing confidence in America's fiscal health. A key economic barometer is consumer confidence. When you and I feel that our nation is on firm financial footing, we are more likely to buy a car, replace an old refrigerator or try out the newest smart phone. The same is true for employers. If we expect businesses to buy new equipment, open a new office, or most importantly hire a new employee, they must have confidence in the economy and the government's fiscal stability.

As noted here, consumer confidence is down not because of the debt, but because of “inflation creep” and climbing food and gas prices (and I don’t have a clue as to when, or if, I’ll even consider buying a “smart phone,” Mikey, regardless of the economy).

Employer confidence is linked closely with the final factor: predictability of future costs. Chief among costs are labor, taxes and regulation. Having a clear understanding of what these costs will be tomorrow allows employers to expand and hire new employees today. Rather than begin hiring, many companies are still waiting on the sidelines because of continued uncertainty about future tax rates and related costs.

Unbelievable – as noted here, tax receipts to the government are at their lowest level in 60 years (and if a business isn’t smart enough to shield itself from tax liability to the maximum extent possible with all of the myriad loopholes in our tax code big enough to drive a Cadillac Escalade through, then they don’t deserve to be in business…also, here are more depressing numbers on how the richest 400 individuals in this country have seen their income quadruple because of the disparity in our tax rates).

And speaking of business, I found this link at Fitzpatrick’s web site where he encourages anyone who views it to “share your job creating solutions.” I would be highly interested to see what kind of feedback he has received, if any.

I think it is ridiculous anyway for Fitzpatrick to act as if he is some fiscal savings guru when he has supported tax cuts for the rich, which, as noted here, have done more to explode the deficit than any of the proposed cost-cutting measures between Obama and the congressional Repugs.

What the Repugs in Congress are doing has nothing to do with trying to pay down the deficit. It is all about pursuing a course that will forever enshrine a new Gilded Age of profligate wealth for the very few and ever-more-wrenching poverty and desperation (to say nothing of ever-bleaker job prospects) for the very many.

The trick isn’t to keep this in mind now, though that is important. The trick is to remember it in November 2012 when Mikey runs for re-election, enjoying typically full-throated support from the Bucks County Courier Times and “nod-and-a-wink” approval from the Catholic Church, with their campaign placards for “pro-life” Mikey that will appear near their parishes (but not close enough to church grounds to legitimately endanger their tax-exempt status…I sometimes wonder if one of the oldest institutions on earth has the slightest idea of what it is that’s happening with our economy).

Where are the jobs, congressman?