Rick Scott Is a Major Scandal But Barely a Blip On The National Radar

It's been months, and it's barely been covered by anything resembling the national media, but recently Salon.com posted an article on the ongoing scandals of Rick "No Ethics" Scott here in Florida (an article which quickly slid under the radar with all the more current craziness dominating the news).

Comparing Scott's woes to the fall of another governor, Oregon's John Kitzhaber, writer David Dayen tries to point out why criminal Scott won't be leaving office the way Kitzhaber did:

In any normal political environment, the charges would lead to calls for resignation or impeachment proceedings. But Scott appears insulated by the very expectation of his corruption. In idealistic Oregon, Democrats controlled every level of government, and forced out a member of their own party. In Florida, the governor is supposed to be a scoundrel...

Dayen covers three of the ongoing scandals pursuing Scott: the more public disaster that has been Bailey-Gate, the questionable firing of a well-liked FDLE department chief over what seems to be Bailey's refusal to play Scott's partisanship games; a lawsuit over a disputed land use proposal to expand the governor's mansion that led to the revelation that Scott has been - and might still be using - illegal private emails in violation of Florida's Sunshine laws; and another lawsuit from political opponent George Sheldon over Scott's differing financial disclosures to both the federal Securities Exchange Commission and the state's ethics board.

Scott's refusal to play by the rules of ethics - both over the secret emails and over his financial chicanery - ought to be major strikes against him:

This is critical because public officials in Florida are subject to the release of emails from their official accounts, like those former Gov. Jeb Bush released last week. The use of private email accounts to conduct state business violates the law, especially if they aren’t turned over when asked for. Andrews got a judge to allow him to amend his complaint to say that the governor knowingly violated public records requests, an impeachable offense in Florida. The administration continues to fight to get the suit tossed...

It'd be nice to think that under normal circumstances Scott would be facing impeachment over his misconduct.  He's earned that much from his scornful performance.  Other governors - Blagojevich, remember him? McDonnell.  Now Kitzhaber - have gotten charged, impeached, driven from office for similar unethical conduct.  But this isn't a normal circumstance here in Florida.

Here in Florida the f-cking game is rigged.  Regarding Sheldon's ethics case, for example:

Sheldon believes that Scott has maneuvered money through a network of trust accounts to hide it from public scrutiny. Scott has refused to deliver information on the trusts, calling the lawsuit a “frivolous partisan attack” and claiming that the discrepancies with the SEC documents have to do with Scott’s wife Ann’s money. Scott’s lawyers want to move the case out of court and into the state ethics commission, currently chaired by a Republican appointed by the governor.

Yup. Scott wants his case reviewed by a political ally.  Oh, of course, don't be too surprised when the ally turns a blind eye or dismisses the charges or even gives Rick "What Part of Medicare Fraud Did You Voters Ignore" Scott a gold medal for being "a sweet little angel". (insert choking noise here)

We're not going to see the state government do anything about Rick Scott's ethical failures because the agencies that are best positioned to do something about it - the state legislature in particular - are in no rush to rock the boat or turn against one of their own partisan hacks.

We're talking about a state legislature that is so firmly entrenched with Republicans in power that the state House and Senate plan ahead who their legislative leaders - House Speaker, Senate President - will be (due to a term-limit law at the state level, there's a cap on how long a legislator serves as Speaker).

The only other method to confront Scott over these scandals is the court system... and Scott has enough money and lawyers on payroll to game the courts long enough to avoid answering for his sins well until he leaves office in 2018.

It'd be nice to think the federal government could step in, force a more serious and more public investigation - in particular, Scott's questionable filings with the SEC should be sending up the right red flags - that could embarrass the state Republicans to abandon Scott.  But that doesn't seem like it's going to happen.  And outside of this one Salon article, it doesn't look like the national media is willing to pay attention long enough for the state party to feel any shame or pressure to change their tune.

We're pretty much at the point where Rick "HE'S A CROOK VOTERS, WHAT THE HELL" Scott can knock over a string of liquor stores between Orlando and Miami and still never answer for anything.

Thanks a lot, Republican voters who VOTED FOR AN UNETHICAL MEDICARE FRAUD.  Thanks a lot, Democratic voters who REFUSED TO SHOW UP TO VOTE FOR CRIST BECAUSE HE WASN'T PURE ENOUGH FOR YA.  /headdesk

Read more ...

If This Doesn't Make You Angry Enough, You're Willfully Allowing The Death of the Middle Class To Continue...

There's another chart or three detailing just how f-cked a majority of Americans are right now in this ongoing - yes, this ain't over kids - recession.

Here, take a look at this (via the Washington Post):

The dark blue line represents what we'd consider the Middle AND Lower Class here in the U.S.  Essentially the botton 90 percentile of families based on real average wealth (with wealth defined by income, equity, et al).  Starting off at the post-WWII spot of 1945, you'll see the three tiers of income - Bottom 90, Top 10, Top 1 Percent - all going upward during the 1950s and even improving for the Bottom 90 in the late 1980s and 1990s (when Reagan's income tax reforms kicked in, property values went up, new technology jobs started).

Up until about 2005-06, near about the start of the Great Recession that we're still in.

Everybody dropped.  Every market got hit - stock market, commodities, property market - and there was a massive downturn.  It looks like the downturn took a two-year, three-year dive before flattening out for the three years following... except for the 1 Percenter track.  Where the Bottom 90 AND the Top 10 Percenters flattened, the 1 Percenters went up, and went up sharp.

What the hell happened there?  Referring to that Washington Post article:

...The problem was that middle class doesn't own that much in stocks, but went into debt to buy lots of housing. So the housing crash turned their biggest financial asset into an albatross, wiping out their equity but not their debt. And the housing recovery hasn't done much to fix this, since it's struggled to move beyond the "nascent" stage.

Stocks, meanwhile, collapsed during the crisis, but came back soon thereafter. The middle class, in other words, missed out on the big bull market in stocks, but not on the even bigger bear one in housing. That's why the recovery has restored so little of the wealth that the recession destroyed. In fact, the bottom 90 percent have actually kept losing net worth the past few years, in large part, due to rising student loan debt...

Not all recoveries were made equal: the stock market flourished, the investment population flourished, the rest of us got screwed with debt up to our ears.

One thing I keep seeing from the hate-the-poor tweeters and Facebook posters on the Intertubes is how it's the poor people's fault they don't invest in the obviously-successful, will-always-go-up stock markets.  I keep replying when I can to let them know that not everyone can play the market: even a MENSA member like me can't make heads or tails of stock profiles and investment surveys.  Every poor person simply can't afford to pay into stock ownership, no matter how smart they are, because stocks themselves get expensive.  And most middle-class Americans didn't have much free money on hand to dabble either.  If the middle class invested in anything, it was in something tangible and focused: their homes, and they left the stock market stuff to their pension plans and 401(k)s.  For the 1980s and 1990s, the system worked after all: property values increased, and most Americans thought themselves well-off regardless of how much wealth they really controlled.

Which leads to the second chart from that Post article:

The Bottom 90 Percenters - 90 percent of ALL Americans - saw their percentage of the nation's overall wealth drop from over a 1/3 (37 percent) of everything down to less than a 1/4 (23 percent) of everything.  We never really had all that much, but we had enough to spread around and feel secure.  Now 90 percent of us aren't getting as much of the pie as we used to get.

Meanwhile, look at the Top 10 Percenters.  Sure, the 10-to-1 Percenters dropped as well, but not as sharp as the Bottom 90.  And the Top 10-to-1 holds 35 percent of the share.  Add that to the Top 1-to-.1 Percenters who hold 20 percent, and add again to the .1-to-.01 Percent (the REALLY rich) also 11-12 percent and then add the .01 Percenters themselves (the UBER rich) at 11 percent share and you've got 77 PERCENT of total wealth held by the Top 10 Percenters.  The Top .1 Percenters at roughly 42 percent - nearly double of 90 PERCENT OF ALL AMERICANS - of all total wealth.

We haven't seen income disparity like this since the days of the Great Depression, when the poor were REALLY poor and the rich were REALLY rich.

And this recession - where wages for the middle classes and the poor have stagnated for years, even more than a decade by now - isn't over yet.  Debt for lower-income families- for even what we'd still consider the middle class - remains crushing and getting worse.  We've taken some of the debt woes from healthcare finances out of the equation but not by much, and we're looking at increased debt woes from higher education costs.  Piling on-top of that is the fact our housing industry hasn't improved and the foreclosure problems - with banks still bad-faith actors - remain a threat.

So what if anything are we doing as a nation about the massive personal debts - mortgages, college costs, other costs - we have threatening what's left of our middle class?

Nothing.  Not a goddamn thing.

Angry yet?

Read more ...

The Game Is Rigged

If Citizens United weakened campaign laws into a mass lump of jelly, the current McCutcheon decision from the Supreme Court pretty much kills off the rules altogether.

The remarkable story of how we have come to privatize political corruption in this country reached another milestone today as the Supreme Court, John Roberts presiding, handed down its decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, effectively demolishing the aggregate, two-year limit on contributions by individuals, and taking a big chunk out of Buckley v. Valeo, the misbegotten 1976 decision that got the ball rolling in the first place. It was a 5-4 vote, with the court split exactly as it had in the Citizens United case...

...Roberts writes: Significant First Amendment interests are implicated here. Contributing money to a candidate is an exercise of an individual's right to participate in the electoral process through both political expression and political association... The Government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse... The aggregate limits do not further the permissible governmental interest in preventing Quid Pro Quo corruption or its appearance...

The thinking from Roberts and his fellow conservative Justices (the vote split 5-4 between Republican-chosen Justices and Democratic ones) seems to be that since they don't see any specific instances of Quid Pro Quo (Latin for I Scratch Your Back If You Scratch Mine) then there's no corruption at play here, ergo campaign money is not bribery.  They WANT to think money (which isn't free) is equal to free speech (which you shouldn't pay for).

But here's what happens in the real world now: a billionaire can cough up a sizable amount of money - say, $10 million, which is freaking pocket change to a billionaire - and put a lot of that into a SuperPAC... and now a good amount of those millions towards direct contributions that the political candidate for office needs to run an election campaign.  That billionaire is coughing up that $10 million with the expectation that the person(s) the billionaire is(are) backing will win... and will represent that billionaire's interests when the time comes to vote on key legislation.  The politicians know who it was that brought 'em to the dance floor, so they'll play ball and make their vote count for that billionaire... despite the possibility that vote goes against the interests of the 150,000 people from their district or the 18 million people from their own state.

It's one of the reasons why West Virginia is so f-cked up with its waters getting polluted by the coal industry owners: the politicians (both Republican and Democrat) are so beholden to those company owners that they've deregulated every safety guideline in the books... and ended up with polluted drinking water that's STILL making thousands of residents sick.  With long-term effects - cancer especially - still a huge factor.

As Pierce notes in his Esquire article: Four days after almost every Republican candidate danced the hootchie-koo in Vegas to try and gain the support of a single, skeevy casino gazillionnaire, the (SCOTUS) majority tells us that there is no "appearance of corruption" in this unless somebody gets caught putting a slot machine in the Lincoln Bedroom on behalf of Sheldon Adelson.

Sheldon Adelson has about a hundred politicians knocking at his door and sucking up to his political wants.  He's got billions of dollars.  Me?  There is no one knocking at my door and listening to my political wants (a jobs stimulus bill and fair wages, plus cheaper and faster Internet), because I'm making under $35,000.00 a year.  The most I get is the constant emails from Obama's OFA begging for another round of $50.00 I try to pass on every other year (and something that I can't even afford to donate right now).  See the difference, Justice Roberts?  I may have the free-speech ability to say what I want here on this blog and elsewhere on Facebook and on Ta-Nehisi Coates' open threads, but nobody in Congress even knows I'm here because I'm not waving a $20,000.00 check at their campaign handler.  This isn't fair or equal.  What's my $50 compared to Adelson's $10 million?

Molly Ivins kept warning us "It's not what's illegal that's the problem, it's what legal that should scare you."  She quoted that line once discussing how it was common in her Texas legislature (it might STILL BE) for businessmen to walk on the floor during a vote handing out blank checks to legislators voting on something those businessmen wanted.  What the Supreme Court has done has been to make it legal for the rich - the billionaire trust-funders, the megacorporations - to pay for easier access to the elected officials on the floor of the US House and Senate who will be indebted to the ones who paid their way.  And that easy access dictates how the government addresses its issues.  If a billionaire wants the politicians he gave money to promoting the cutting of taxes on the uber-rich, we're gonna see those politicians promoting the cutting of taxes on the uber-rich despite the majority of voters from those politicians' districts screaming "hey, we NEED you to tax the rich.  They're the only ones who can afford it anymore."

The Supreme Court is not seeing any corruptive Quid Pro Quo because they're not using goddamn common sense to see it.  Roberts and his Right-leaning cohorts are sticking to a narrow definition of corruption that doesn't apply to what's really going on. They can't see that Congress isn't focusing on the issues that the voters want - JOBS AND MORE JOBS AT BETTER WAGES - and they can't see that Congress is focusing on what the uber-rich want - TAX CUTS AND DEREGULATIONS that we've seen over the last 20 years don't effing work.

Elections are not a non-partisan, democratic process anymore in the United States.  Elections now are a billion-dollar industry, lacking any regulation or protection from corruption.  It's become legalized bribery all because the Supreme Court majority doesn't want to see it.

The only thing that can save us now is voting out the politicians most likely in the pocket of the uber-rich (hint: they tend to have an R bracketed between their name and their district/state).  But with gerrymandering and voter restriction attempts, that's not likely.  And with dismal Democratic voter turnouts in midterms... well...

This is why I keep screaming at you Dems to GET THE DAMN VOTE OUT.  And I'm not the only one screaming, I know.  So will you, Democrats?  WILL YOU FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GET THE DAMN VOTE OUT?  It is the only way to defeat the Roberts Court's intent to make this nation a kleptocracy.

Read more ...

Anniversary: I Have a Dream And What It Means Today

Today is the 50th anniversary of the March On Washington For Jobs and Freedom that took place back in 1963 (seven years before I was born).  One of the largest protests formed in American history - with roughly 200,000 to 300,000 in attendance - it was a combination of two major issues: civil rights and economic rights.  .

When Reverend Martin Luther King Jr spoke, it wasn't immediately recognized in the papers even though the television coverage gave it a lot of attention.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today! 

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. 

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning: 

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride, From every mountainside, let freedom ring! 

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true...

And so where are we 50 years later?

In terms of social equality across the board, we're not there yet.

In terms of economic equality, given the Great Recession we're in, we as a whole nation - white, black, Hispanic, Asian, native, man, woman - are royally screwed if we're not in the upper 1 Percent bracket.

In terms of electoral equality, we as a nation and blacks and Hispanics and the college-age and a lot of women are well and truly screwed.  The Supreme Court just defanged the Voting Rights Act and a good number of states - North Carolina, Texas, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina and even Pennsylvania now for God's sake - where the social conservatives (aka Far Right Republicans) hold all the power are going out of their way to make it harder for people to vote using arguments about voting fraud that have no evidence.

In terms of day-to-day, the crime of Walking While Black has led to Fourth Amendment violations and in some cases open hunting season.

In terms of America becoming the great nation it keeps telling itself it can be, we're still stuck where we were 50 years ago.  Electing a black man to the Presidency seems like another country now, doesn't it.

We can be better than this if we as a nation can give up the hate and fear that's driving a lot of the wingnut bullsh-t.  We're living a dream that's all wrong, more nightmare than hope.  We as a nation have got to wake up from that.  It doesn't have to be a dream: it has to be just freaking common sense and decency.

Read more ...

My Two Cents On Syria

1) It's a mess no matter what Obama does.  Refuse to go in, and we're still dealing with a massive humanitarian disaster with thousands millions of refugees/civilians caught in the firefight.  Going in, we're basically opening up a third battlefront, stretching our military resources and our diplomatic resources ever thinner (dealing with yet another military engagement with Afghanistan still a quagmire and us still not 100 percent disengaged from Iraq, not to mention the diplomatic nightmares of straightening out Lybia, Egypt and other Middle East nations undergoing rough transitions).
2) Obama better go in with eyes wide open: the rebels we're arming are NOT white hats.  We're facing a situation where we may end up forging another wingnut group like the Taliban that took over Afghanistan after we supplied them with weapons to repulse the Soviets.  If we're going to go in to buy this war, we better be prepared to own it.
3) Mission Creep.  When you go in without a clear set of goals, when you go in without a planned exit or alternative solutions when your primary goal gets f-cked in the fog of war, you get mission creep where you keep re-justifying just what the hell you're doing when you're out of options.
This was what happened with Vietnam: our objectives kept changing, our "needs" (actually our political leaders' fear of losing) kept growing, until we got a war we didn't really want or need.  This was Lebanon: we went in thinking just our military presence would calm thing down, it didn't, Marines died and Reagan got us the hell out.  This was Somalia: we went in for humanitarian reasons to end a famine, it changed into trying to stop the in-fighting between factions, got into a firefight we couldn't control, Clinton ended up bugging out (Somalia's still a war-torn mess).  Afghanistan was a response to 9/11 and in a way had to happen, but we went in without a clear objective or defining endgame, and we then piled a second war - the Iraq Invasion/Occupation - on top of it.  And speaking of the Second Persian Gulf War, we went in with an objective - get rid of Saddam - but didn't have a smart plan in place for getting out (the plan for getting out was putting a puppet Chalabi on the throne: when the Iraqis refused him, we got stuck without a Plan B).
When we had clear goals and authority to do so - the first Persian Gulf War is as close to an example we can get in the modern era - we had some success: we went in, we got out.
If Obama's track record is any indication, we can hope (barely) that Mission Creep won't happen: his handling of Libya - minimal ground support, air support to enforce a no-fly zone - showed keen focus on objectives and sticking to them.  And aside from the Benghazi attack - done by insurgents threatening the more open Libyan nation already - the gameplan seemed to work.
Right now, Obama is just arming rebels.  What happens when the means for "victory" requires U.S. air support to enforce a no-fly zone over a more dangerous airspace than Libya's?  What happens if Assad gets outside support (unlikely, but possible)?  We face the real danger of Mission Creep...

Of great concern is that Obama is doing this without taking it to Congress: the whole argument behind the War Powers Act was to stop military adventures without oversight or responsibility.  It'd be nice to think Obama could take this to Congress... except given the GOP's gameplan of obstructing Obama at every turn, I'd worry Congressional Republicans would use it as either 1) a way to attack Obama or 2) a bargaining chip to force Obama to accept a Far Right agenda (tax cuts for the rich) on the economy (or even worse a repeal of Obamacare, just so they could stick the dagger in).

For myself, I trust Obama on this: he didn't overplay his hand on Libya the way Bush the Lesser and Cheney did over Iraq.  I'm just worried about the ongoing precedents of executive adventurism...

Read more ...

Budget Brinkmanship

While the GOOD news of the government NOT getting shutdown this past Friday evening is that, well, the entire country is not collapsing, it's overshadowing the facts that there are still a lot of BAD news this nation has to deal with.  And it's not even about the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are gonna get hurt by the fact there's $80 billion of social services and aid no longer out there...

For starters, this game of brinkmanship with the nation's economy is not over.  We still have two other key budget issues ahead: the annual (or possibly bi-monthly) need for Congress to vote itself the power to raise the debt ceiling; and the looming fight over Paul Ryan's psychotic budget proposal for 2012 AKA Death To The Social Safety Net And Everlasting Life To Perpetual National Debt.

The immediate crisis is over the debt ceiling.  It's ostensibly supposed to mark the amount that the government can't borrow money.  In practice it keeps getting raised because the government needs the flexibility of borrowing money in order to pay the bills.  A good reason for that is because the government is less eager to find other revenue sources (SUCH AS TAXES) to be able to, you know, PAY FOR SH-T.

The first part of the problem is that the debt ceiling keeps going up.  Government can't trust itself to rein in its own spending - even the massive slash of $80 billion from the spending budget won't dent it - and so they keep finding themselves pushing the cap higher.  This becomes an even bigger problem because the Small Government Libertarians and (and their Teabagger poseurs who ride on the reputation of "fiscal responsibility") view it as Big Government excess.  And they want to vote against raising the debt ceiling again... which has to be done before July of this year.

And here's the biggest problem of all: if the libertarian/Teabagger contingent in Congress has their way - and it's possible - and they vote to stop raising the debt ceiling by July... that next sound you hear will be THE ENTIRE GLOBAL ECONOMY CRASHING TO A HALT.

This is serious.  If the debt ceiling is capped, it forces the creditors that have been lending the U.S. any money to start calling in their loans... their ENTIRE loans, not just monthly payments or something.  This means multinational banks, foreign governments, and others I haven't thought of for this list can declare the U.S. in default.  If that happens, things like Treasury bonds would lose value I think...  The next thing that could happen is that the U.S., in order to raise funds to pay those bills, would call in OUR loans to other nations borrowing from us, and cause the same financial crisis in their governments.  It would be a cascade effect: every nation scrambling to get their financial houses in order... and a lot of them CAN'T because they've been massively borrowing money as well.  And this isn't even going into how this would affect the private sectors: commodities markets will freak out; trade could get affected by sudden tariff increases or with governments unable to purchase goods; and global stock markets would crash as the faith in governments to maintain fiscal stability disappears, as things like government bonds lose value, etc.  (NOTE: I am not an economist, I am not entirely sure what WILL happen if this occurs.  All I do know is, based on how the economists dread this, it's Explode-The-Planet-BAD).

Now, this is the worst-case-scenario.  The good news about this is, even the Republicans are not this batshit crazy to pull that stunt... mostly.  The party leadership surely isn't: Boehner openly opposes the cap effort; Republican Senators clearly oppose it, and the Far Right media have mostly spoken against any move to cap the debt ceiling.

The bad news to that is, there may be enough Republican House representatives who ARE batshit crazy enough to go against their own party leadership on this one.  Because they are true Teabaggers who are clearly upset with the whole idea of Big Government and who think this is a way to bring it all down.  Or worse...

We're now in an era of Budget Brinkmanship: the idea that one side (say, Republicans) has to force things to the edge of a cliff of impending doom in order to get what they want.  It works especially well when the opposing party (The Democrats) genuinely believe in compromise in order to get things done, and who also fear being on the wrong side of anything (say, being on the side for tax increases, because Democrats really believe Mondale got creamed in the 1984 elections because of the tax issue... instead of Mondale being a weak campaigner going against a populist President...).  You saw it here with the shutdown crisis: rather than risk the calamity of an economic disaster of a gov't shutdown, Obama and Reid were willing to give up tons of spending for social services while the Republicans "promised" not to go after particular hot-topic services like Planned Parenthood.

What could well happen with the debt ceiling debate that's impending is that the Far Right in the House will push for an extremist position in exchange for their vote on letting the debt ceiling go up.  The extremist stuff could be another attempt to push a pro-life agenda on a nation that's not even interested in the abortion debate anymore.  Or it could be something else that would be disastrous for a majority of Americans, something the Democrats could abide parting with if it meant saving the global economy.  The Democrats, after a show in public of being outraged, would well concede the matter in the belief that 1) it will save the world and 2) the voters will forgive the Dems on the matter and blame the Republicans for their bullshit agenda come the next election cycle.  And the Far Right could well win another serious conflict, much to the chagrin of the American public.

But there's only so many times you can push someone to the brink.  At some point, the Democrats are going to have to wake up to the fact that there's little left they can surrender to the Republicans.  The debt ceiling debate could be one bridge too far: Obama, Reid, and the other Democratic leaders may figure to themselves "Screw it.  The Republicans are threatening to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, unless we give them EVERYTHING they want?  They wouldn't do it.  They wouldn't DARE push the shiny red button of global destruction like that.  If the vote came up, there's every chance they'll waver.  So let's not give them anything THIS TIME.  Let's see if the Republicans REALLY ARE crazy enough to kill the economy..."

On something as deadly serious as the debt ceiling (even considering how singularly small the vote looks on paper), the Democrats could grow a spine.  They could say, "Let's vote," and then have the Dems all vote quickly FOR the debt ceiling to go up, and let the Republicans stew as they start realizing that if enough of them vote AGAINST the debt ceiling going up it will be all on the Republicans' heads...

It's a tricky game, isn't it, of "Let's Blow Up The World."  At some point, the only winning move is not to play...

Read more ...

Five Things To Remember About the Impending Federal Shutdown

1) That no matter what Fox-Not-News and the Republican leadership claim, this shutdown is all the fault of Republicans.

Which of the two parties has a wingnut base insisting on a shutdown, just to prove their hatred of "Big Government?"  That would be the Republicans.  The last two times we had a shutdown, it was because of a Republican Congress at odds with a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) that they just happened to despise on a personal level.  Every other time - a Republican President with Republican Congress, and a Republican President with a Democratic Congress, and a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress - we've never had a shutdown.  It's only in this combination - Democratic President vs. Republican-controlled Congress (even with half of Congress with the House counts) - that we've had this conflict.

2) This impending shutdown was avoidable IF the Republicans were more willing to compromise, instead of their insisting on all the compromises be done by the Democrats.

The Democrats offered compromises each time this impending shutdown loomed over the last few months, and indeed have been offering compromises to the Republicans ever since the Obama era began.  Yet each time, the Republicans refused to budge on any key points that they are so eager to protect: for example, any rollback, even a modest one, on the hard Bush-era tax cuts of 2001-03.  One of the biggest causes of the current deficit crisis we've got is that Bush-era Tax Cut.  And yet every argument about how to fix the deficit doesn't even go anywhere near discussing a tax hike to, you know, ACTUALLY PAY FOR SH-T that needs to get paid now.

Even now, the Republicans are offering an extension for another week while they "debate" the issue further.  But that extension includes more budget cuts that Obama and the Democrats are not entirely willing to discuss yet.  Especially as those cuts hit social services like Planned Parenthood that would get a majority of Democratic voters in an uproar.  And the extension will certainly not resolve the main sticking point: that the Republicans really want ALL of their budget cuts and even MORE tax cuts, and that the Republicans are trying to demolish the Democrats cut by cut, extension by extension.  At some point, even the Democrats can't compromise anymore...

3) The shutdown will make a huge hit on the economy. 

Lack of spending money for public workers and for people receiving benefits will affect the private sector, especially places like retail, services and repair, etc.  And again, this is what Republicans want.  Because the Republicans are convinced they can enrage the public against DEMOCRATS who refused to roll over and beg for mercy to accept the Republicans' killing off half the social services that government provides.

4) Republicans are convinced this fight is Win-Win.

Either they get a government shutdown that cripples the economy and destroys peoples' lives... or they get their massive budget cuts to social services, Medicare and Medicaid, schools and education, which cripples the economy and destroys peoples' lives anyway. 

In the possibility that Obama and the Democrats grow a spine, and they decide to hold out on the shutdown to force the Republicans to concede, the Far Right that's pushing for this fight is convinced that will serve their purposes.  Because the Republicans are convinced at this moment that they will never concede anything, and that by 2012 if the shutdown lasts that long they can rile up enough anger against Obama (and not on themselves) to win the White House.  And then they get everything they want.  Like I said, in their minds it's Win-Win.

5) If there's a method of forcing the Republicans to the negotiating tables for good-faith efforts to compromise on a budget bill, I've yet to see it.

Lawsuits could be a means of pushing the matter to a solution... but can the Courts intervene in this matter?  What legal action can be taken to compel Congress to do what needs to be done?  And who would have standing to force the issue?

As it stands right now, we're screwed.  I don't see the Republicans giving an inch to resolve this matter, and they seem eager to fulfill their wingnut agenda of killing of New Deal-era social services once and for all.

The best thing I can hope for now is that enough Americans are aware enough that this is truly all the fault of the Republicans and that the vast majority of this nation rises up to protest what the GOP wingnuts are doing to us.

Read more ...

Caveat Emptor: Florida Has Crooks

One of the biggest reasons I snarl in the general direction of any self-anointed Libertarian is that Libertarians have this huge desire to deregulate everything in their path.

It's all part of their disdain for bureaucracy, you see.  Especially government bureaucracy.  Regulation of a business or service means rules.  Rules to remember, rules to follow, agencies to oversight you, agencies you answer to.  Taxes to pay for agencies and oversight.  Fines to pay when the oversight finds something fishy.

Libertarians hate that.  All of that.  So their big idea of Small Government is that you CAN deregulate.  Leave the controls and the decision-making to the masters of industry and the makers of things.  They believe that "enlightened-self-interest" will drive the deregulated businesses to behave, lest the free market turn their business to other more honest providers of services and supplies.  The "Invisible Hand" of the Free Market will be all the regulation we will need.

There's a huge gaping problem with that.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST.  If people think no one is watching and they think can get away with it, they (at least a solid majority of "They") will doing something we could consider criminal.  And the longer they act like that, the more brazen in their behavior they will get.  The phrase "everybody does it" will become common and more of those working in that environment will fall sway to that idea.  A perfect example is Bernie Madoff: he did what he did for so long and with so many other supposedly enlightened people because most of his victims believed Madoff was openly gaming the system... and they wanted in on his trickery as a means of making easy money.

There is a reason regulations exist in the first place: TO PROTECT PEOPLE.  Ever read The Jungle?  Anyone clue you in that this year is the 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire?  What do you think happened in 1929 to 1933 that forced Congress to pass the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933?  And did anyone notice what happened when Glass-Steagall got shredded in 1999, considering the economic catastrophes that followed?

And yet, the Far Right has taken this Libertarian zeal for deregulation for all they can (because such deregulation helps make big businesses get even bigger and wealthier).  Especially here in Republican-controlled Florida (article link to Howard Troxler):

In 1995, the operator of a Pasco County dance studio was sentenced to prison after scamming more than $1 million from lonely, confused elderly customers.  When he got out... he simply went to a new dance studio...

Investigators found 30 customers who had been talked into signing 328 separate, deliberately confusing contracts worth $3.5 million... A studio operator defended all this by saying customers had voluntarily made "an adult decision."  As for any complaints, he said: "Maybe some of the students went on these trips and didn't get laid."  He got 30 years in prison.

Why am I dredging up this ancient history?  Because dance studios are one of 20 professions about to be deregulated entirely by the state Legislature.  Maybe they should be.  Maybe there will always be crooks, and victims to give them their money.  But the effects of House Bill 5005 will be felt by a lot of Floridians in daily life. Among other things, the bill repeals regulation of:
Auto mechanics.
In-state moving companies.
Charities, real or fake.
And a lot more...

...State law now makes it illegal for a charity to use "deception, false pretense, misrepresentation or false promise" to get a contribution. That will be repealed...

...This is, after all, about "creating jobs." If some of those new "jobs" in Florida involving bilking widows, running shady auto-repair shops or hijacking people's furniture — who cares?

Deregulation facing this state on an epic scale.

There is an aspect of human nature called GREED.  Every economic model - Mercantilism, Feudalism, Socialism, Communism and even Capitalism - has that problem of GREED.  The trick has been to clamp down on GREED as best as possible.

Florida is home to a truckload of elderly people.  Retirees, most of them flush (and not so flush) with retirement money and pensions.  One of our biggest problems in this state are the numbers of unlicensed businesses that try to scam or trick their way into getting people to pay for services they don't deliver or provide on the cheap and half-assed.

This effort of deregulation is going to make it a lot easier for these con artists to ply their "trade".  To trick residents into coughing up money for services never provided.  To trick them into signing up for things they don't need.  Even honest businesses may find it more tempting to squeeze more money out of services than usual.  Dishonest businesses are going to find it easier, and get worse.

This problem of GREED and its progeny SHODDINESS and RUIN, it's been going on for years, and it's been taking a lot of time and effort by the agencies we did have for consumer protection to keep up with the con artists and shady businesses.  But coming soon, without those regulations in place, those protection agencies might as well raise the white flag and go home.  The agencies won't have rules to enforce.  And the people won't have anyone protecting them or their homes.

Until the next hurricane blows in and all the homes get blown or washed out to sea.

Welcome to Florida.  Home of the Con Artist.  Keep both hands on your wallet and keys at all times.

Read more ...

Because It's April Fools Day, You Get This

Because it takes 2 years to really run a Presidential campaign, now is about the time you start seeing the candidates for the President of the United States lining up for the next election.  For 2012, it means the Republicans have a serious primary to find some poor sucker to run against Barack Obama (being the current incumbent, will only face meager Democratic opposition from grandstanding idiots who think they can either embarrass Obama or God Help Us actually unseat him).

The list is in alphabetic order, and lists their highest or best-known political position (or job title).  It is incomplete as there are some who might put their hat in the ring that haven't done so, and there are some who have been named by others (in a "Draftee" way like Chris Christie) but have publicly refused (so far).  This is the list that I know wants to run or could consider a run.

Please do not laugh, cry, or scream in terror until the ride is over.

Michelle Bachmann - Congresswoman, Minnesota
Positives: Has a long career in the House as an incumbent.  She speaks to the base of the party and energizes them like few other candidates can.  Is openly combative and telegenic.  Has an advantage over her immediate rival Sarah Palin as the woman candidate - Bachmann never quit halfway through her job the way Palin did.
Negatives: She's batshit crazy.  Even if she believes a tenth of the crap she spews out into the media.
Bachmann represents the Teabagger wing of the GOP as the standard bearer and go-to person for Fox-Not-News when they want a wingnut rebuttal to something that Obama (or worse, that Speaker Boehner) has done.  And while Bachmann energizes the base of the GOP, she'll scare off every moderate and sane (there are a few left) Republican over to the Democratic ticket.
Chances: To win the primaries?  In a prolonged campaign against other, more reasonable-sounding candidates, Bachmann could flake out early and scare off those who would otherwise worship at her crazy ass.  But if she wins big in the early wingnut states (which is possible), she becomes the candidate.  But the party backers have to know if she wins, the Republicans lose (because the independent and moderate voters would flee to the more reasonable Obama) and could well drag the whole ticket down.

John Bolton - ex-Ambassador to the U.N., Maryland
Positives: Seriously.  None.
Negatives: Is one of the better-known figures from the Bush The Lesser administration... known for his neoconservative extremism, back-stabbing interoffice politicking, and ability to offend everyone who's not a Fox-Not-News Talking Head.
Chances: Laughable.  If he thinks he can run on a War On Terror ticket, he's not going to get very far.

Jeb Bush - ex-Governor, Florida
Positives: Has his backers within the national party.  Is a major player at both the state and national level.  Comes from a large state that could swing to Obama in 2012 unless there's a draw on the ticket.  He's an experienced campaigner and fund-raiser.  He's considered the "smart one" within his circle of power.  He's an instantly recognizable figure with a well-known name.  He hasn't put that name out there, but still there's a lot of well-known conservative advocates trying to draft him to run in 2012.
Negatives: That well-known name?  HE'S A BUSH.  He's Dubya's younger brother.  And the last thing the Republicans want is a reminder of how the last Bush in the White House - massive deficits, unfunded payouts to pharm companies, two mismanaged wars, weak job creation, two economic scandals, massive government ineptitude handling major hurricane Katrina, and more - performed.  The other factor is that while Bush has his supporters in Florida, that support could well be dead and gone by 2012 thanks to a state government run by a Medicare Fraud and by a Republican-led state legislature shredding every ethics reform on the books.  The agenda they're pushing is the one Jeb tried to push as governor 5 years earlier.  The anti-teacher bills just signed into law, for example, have his fingerprints all over them.  It's doubtful by 2012 Jeb could win his own state...
Chances: Jeb is supposed to be the smart one, right?  If so, he has to look at the landscape and see that this nation will not stand to see another Bush within our lifetime serving in the White House.  The first attack ad from the Democrats will be morphing a photo of Jeb into a photo of Dubya.  That's all.  And his campaign is over at that point.

Haley Barbour - Governor, Mississippi
Positives: Is a well-known player within the Republican Party and among their financial backers.  Has a solid track record of conservativism.
Negatives: Let's not even consider the possibility of the Republicans putting up a white Southern conservative from a Deep South rebel-flag-waving state against an African-American President (well, maybe just that point alone...).  Barbour presides over a state (Mississippi) that's practically dead last in a lot of categories - education, health care, job growth, income equality - and so would have to defend a record where he really didn't improve much of anything.  There's also a poor record of handling the post-Katrina crisis in his state: a national campaign would flare that all back to the forefront.  And this isn't even touching on Barbour's biggest sin: He worked as a lobbyist.
Chances: Compared to other Southern elected officials like Huckabee, Barbour's got no shot past the primaries and people know it.  If he does get the nomination through his campaigning efforts, his record compared to Obama's will hurt.

Herman Cain - CEO, Georgia
Positives: Is a player within the Republican Party, especially against the hated Health Care Reform programs.
Negatives: Has no history of elected office.  He's best known running a second-tier pizza chain.  The current history of CEOs running for office or running government (Dubya, Rick "MEDICARE FRAUD" Scott) is terrifying.  And while he's got the extremist political views to entice primary voters, in an open general election he's doomed.
Chances: There is honestly not a lot he brings to a national ticket.  He should have considered running at least for Congress to get a political resume going...

Mitch Daniels - Governor, Indiana
Positives: Known among the media elites as "sane" in an increasingly whackjob party.  As Governor, pushed for a balanced budget platform that did include some tax increases much to the chagrin of the more tax-cut obsessed crowd.  Has some modicum of popularity outside of the GOP.  During the current state-level war of GOP Governors against the labor unions, Daniels proposed dropping Indiana's union-killing efforts because "it wasn't what we campaigned on" (I.E., "it's gonna kill us in the polls"), meaning that this guy actually has his eyes open while he's driving (unlike the other Governors who are speeding into a brick wall of recall movements).  Daniels does not have his name out there (yet), but there's a Draft movement among the media elites fearful of a Bachmann, Palin, or Other Whackjob Candidate campaign.
Negatives: Worked as the budget guy under the Dubya administration, the stain of which will never wash away.  He still prefers cutting state budgets over raising tax revenues, meaning the poor and middle class families aren't going to be too fond of him come 2012.
Chances: He hasn't put his name out there.  A good reason is that Daniels, being genuinely sane, knows that the current GOP environment will either kill him in the primaries or else would force him to adopt stances that on a national level would kill him against Obama in 2012.  Word is he's smart enough to wait until 2016...

Newt Gingrich - ex-Speaker/Congressman, Georgia
Positives: National figure.  Long viewed by the Republican base as one of their big thinkers and policy creators.  Can get onto any talking head show for Sundays and get listened to seriously without any criticism.
Negatives: IS A GODDAMN HYPOCRITE.  This is a guy twice-divorced who goes up on a platform to preach "Family Values".  And the way he divorced - abandoning his first wife in a hospital bed!  having an adulterous affair WHILE PURSUING Bill Clinton for his adultery! - each time paints Newt as a disgusting human being.  His ambition is so blatant as to be crass: his recent flip-flops on Obama's handling of Libya has already made him a subject of ridicule among the media elites he hangs out with.  He's not that well-liked within his own party.  And people may remember that he lost his Speakership when his own party turned on him.
Chances: He could get some distance in a primary because he's got a national-level name.  But the mudslinging against him will be fierce.  If Newt even survives the primaries, Obama's clean-cut persona compared to Newt's will make it Obama's election to win (hell, Obama can recruit Bill Clinton to help campaign for him, and Bill will crush Newt before lunchtime).

Mike Huckabee - ex-Governor, Arkansas
Positives: was the Dark Horse candidate from 2008 whose campaigning will still have its followers.  Has a decent governing record (with a few glaring negatives...).  Has a charisma few other candidates have in this primary.  Can appeal to the social conservatism of the wingnut base without scaring off moderate and independent voters (that much).  Unlike Barbour, Huckabee is a Southern governor who could campaign against an African-American President and not make it look like a Civil Rights struggle from the Sixties all over again.  Plays well with the media elites he needs to kiss up to if he gets the nomination.  Of the candidates currently polling, Huckabee is consistently the only one to ever show that he could beat Obama.
Negatives: During his governorship, he played loose with the paroling process by freeing certain individuals who went on to commit further crimes of rape and murder (the criminals plead Christian conversion or that they were victims of Clinton conspiracies).  If Dukakis was ruined by Willie Horton, Huckabee is doomed if Maurice Clemmons becomes more of a household name.  Huckabee's other problem with his governorship is that he preached fiscal balance with tax hikes alongside spending cuts: something the Club For Greed and Grover Norquist have never forgiven him for.  Huckabee's current job - as Talking Head on Fox-Not-News - is a big negative for those who hate Fox with a passion (and that number is growing).
Chances: Once Huckabee puts his name out there (he's still working for Fox, which is a conflict of interest right now), he's a front-runner.  His past history of getting primary wins in the South and other conservative states will draw back his supporters and include new ones (most likely the ones in 2008 who backed McCain) and make him a reliable pick for the party leadership.

Gary Johnson - ex-Governor, New Mexico
Positives: He's one of those little-known elected officials who got things done and has a great resume.  Was a low-tax libertarian who walked the walk, slashing thousands of spending projects even from Republican legislators, and left office with a state surplus and a honest rep.
Negatives: He's one of those little-known elected officials who got things done and thus no one thinks he has a snowball's chance in hell.  Because getting those things done meant compromise or working against your party's self-serving interests.  There's always a guy like this in each primary.  It's sad but true.  Is also a major marijuana decriminalization advocate, something the anti-drug crowds in the conservative base doesn't agree with.  His libertarian positions may work at the state level, but his budget-slashing habits at the federal level might not work (esp. because the President does not have line-item veto powers to cut specific spending projects, and esp. because the U.S. Congress is NEVER serious even under Republican rule to rein in spending).  If Johnson is serious about budget deficits, he's going to have to address defense spending (our biggest source of spending... AND waste)... and THAT would put him in opposition to the pro-war crowd.  Johnson is also coming from a sparsely populated state with little political influence on the national stage.
Chances: Very low.  The Republican base - the Teabaggers - may talk about wanting to cut spending to cut deficits, but they are actually terrified of someone who could actually DO it.  Just remember, the Teabagger crowd over the last two years has been genuinely inconsistent about financial issues (they're more consistent on the Social issues like abortion, abortion, and abortion).  Someone who could actually do something about the budget is the LAST guy they really want...     

Roy Moore - ex-Judge, Alabama

Positives: Absolutely none.
Negatives: Was infamously impeached from the Alabama Supreme Court for his obsession over putting a 50-ton Ten Commandments paperweight in front of every government building ON THE PLANET.  Even when he ran for elected office in the state (Governor), he lost by ridiculous numbers.  He can't even win his own state!  Moore's political position is for a religious conservatism that can even rankle his fellow social conservatives within the GOP.  And the party has to know that a guy like that on the national stage is going to scare every moderate and indy voter to the Democrats in a heartbeat.
Chances: Absolutely none at all.  He's doing this for the ego, not the Commandments.

Sarah Palin - ex-Mayor, Alaska (I refuse to list her as ex-Governor because she DIDN'T FINISH THE JOB)
Positives: Is one of the biggest names on the national stage.  Has a devoted fanbase that will back her no matter what.
Negatives: Is one of the most polarizing political figures in American history.  Her unfavorable numbers keep going UP while her popularity goes down.  She is currently in no position to impress anybody: either you love her or you HATE her.  And in this political environment, you can only lose those who love you: no one who HATES you tends to change their minds...  And nearly everyone has an opinion on her now.  There are few Undecideds left.
Her track record as an elected official is poor at best.  Any reputation she had as a "reformer" went away once people took a good look and found she only ran against the Establishment because that Establishment didn't give her the jobs she wanted.  And because she QUIT her governorship before she was even halfway finished with the term, her most complete accomplishment is pretty much her term as Mayor of a small town in Alaska: it's like asking the nation to make the Mayor of Yeehaw Junction the next Leader of the Free World.  :shudder:
Palin does not impress as an intellectual at any level.  Each interview she gave as a Veep candidate - even with easy-toss questioners - made her look unprepared and ignorant.  She now revels in being pridefully ignorant, as though that's a way of sticking it to the Establishment she so desperately wants to lead.  And while American voters may recognize political leaders that aren't brainiacs, they at least know their President has to be eloquent and convincing on the global stage: that takes some level of smarts, and Palin doesn't demonstrate that.  Ever.
The polling numbers show Obama trouncing Palin by wide margins.
Chances: Maybe back in 2009 she looked like a winner to her fanbase - which included a ton of Talking Heads who were dazzled by her - but in the harsh light of the oncoming election year even her original fanboys are fleeing.  Compared to more sensible candidates like Huckabee, Palin has no chance.  Even compared to the candidates appealing to her wingnut base - Bachmann, Gingrich in particular - Palin is an unserious choice.


Ron Paul - Congressman, Texas
Positives: Has a huge fanbase among the libertarian wing of the Republicans, especially the Teabaggers who are serious about fiscal matters.  Can re-ignite the passions voters had for him back in 2008.  Is as anti-Establishment a candidate as you'll get among Republicans that can turn out a crowd and argue effectively for his cause.  Is one of the few candidates to argue consistently about out-of-control spending and government size.
Negatives: Dear God.  His economic policy (switching back to Gold standards when the rest of the world won't, for example) may look great on paper but could cause such a shock that the entire global economy could crash.
Chances: Still slim.  His base isn't big enough to swamp enough primaries to win.  The party leadership doesn't like him at all.  And not everyone is a libertarian goddammit, no matter how much the libertarians try to convince everyone otherwise.

Tim Pawlenty - ex-Governor, Minnesota
Positives: One of the few Republican governors of recent times to be relatively popular.  Has a solid if unspectacular resume.  Ran on a consistently conservative platform.  The media elites consider him a viable candidate.
Negatives: One thing trumps all: the collapse of the I-35 bridge.  The controversy over that tragedy highlighted the problems of a Republican-led state government that was failing to repair and maintain public roads and bridges.  All the Democrats have to do is flash that YouTube of it collapsing and Pawlenty's done.
Past that, Pawlenty is notoriously uncharismatic.  His record as Minnesota governor may have been consistent but not that impressive.
Chances: Pawlently is currently the front-runner but only because the other big names haven't officially started.  Once the actual campaign gets going, Pawlenty has a huge uphill climb.  It's doubtful he can impress enough base voters in other states to side with him.
 
Buddy Roemer - ex-Governor, Louisiana
Positives: Who?
Negatives: Who?
Chances: What?

Mitt Romney - ex-Governor, Massachusetts
Positives: Solid track record as a state Governor.  Has major backing within the party at the national level.  Can campaign well.  Has some charisma.
Negatives: He was the front-runner going into the 2008 election... and lost to McCain.  With all the positives he had in 2008, he still lost.
That was because Romney's ambition is so naked it's at Newt/Hilary levels.  He flip-flops at a heartbeat to whatever he thinks the base voters support.  His biggest success as governor - passage of a state health care program that you know actually works - is a success Romney refuses to acknowledge because Obama and the Democrats used that program to model their national HCR bill.  And anything Obama supports, the Teabaggers HATE.  And Romney needs those Teabagger votes.
The other thing hurting him is what hurt him most last time: his religion.  As a Mormon he may be as socially conservative and family-oriented as the social/religious conservatives, but they don't view his religion favorably (Far Right Christians view Mormonism as a cult).  Even his speech to pave over his religious views as equal to other Christians didn't help (it hurt that Obama had to speak about his religious positions as well during the Rev. Wright scandal and did a better job of it).  The odds are not good that Romney can win primaries in the Deep South or Appalachian regions.
Chances: If Romney couldn't win over voters in 2008 when it was his primary to lose, how the hell is he going to convince those same voters in 2012?  The only slim chance he has now is that more voters may consider him the safest choice among the whackjobs filling the primaries... but that's what Huckabee is going to do too, and in 2008 Huckabee still did better than Romney.

Donald Trump - Celebrity, New York
Positives: He's good for a laugh, innit he?
Negatives: He's clearly hogging for the spotlight.  His political positions are non-existent, and his going after Obama for his birth certificate quickly made Trump a national laughingstock.
Chances: He's angling for a reality TV show.  Again.

There's your list of madmen and madwomen for the GOP 2012.

Seriously?  It's Huckabee's to lose: he's gotten voters before, and he's had 4 more years to impress the base that he's acceptable.  Given that Huck has the polling numbers to show he has support among general voters, the savvier wingnuts will back him.  Romney is the fall-back option at this point.  Any of the others may be amusing at first, but the seriousness of how disastrous their campaigns could be ought to eliminate them from the primaries well before the circus rolls into South Carolina.

And if a Republican wins the Presidency in 2012?  At this point, the only way to win is a massive collapse of support for Obama, which creates the odds of a GOP House winning even more seats. And possibly the Senate switching to GOP as well.  That would mean the Republicans would regain tight control of all three branches of government again.  If that thought doesn't scare enough moderates to vote Democrat, and if that thought doesn't get enough Democrats to get out the damn vote in 2012, then we ARE WELL AND TRULY SCREWED as a nation.

Don't vote Republican.  Republicans lie.  Republicans deceive.  Republicans hate.

Just.  Don't.  Vote.  Republican.  This is your 192nd Warning.

Read more ...

Some Days The Schadenfreude Ends

Just found out about this three days ago.

Remember ole' Florida Speaker Ray Sansom?  The guy who got caught sneaking appropriation funds for an airport at a small college that would have benefited one of Sansom's buddies?

Well, the trial finally took place... but at a key moment where the prosecution was about to present a witness that could prove a conspiracy, the defense's argument against that witness was sustained by the judge... meaning the witness couldn't testify until the prosecution could prove through other means that there was a conspiracy afoot.

The prosecution couldn't.  The entire case pretty much unraveled and the charges were dropped.

Meanwhile back at the ranch in Tallahassee, our state legislature is passing "reforms" with campaign financing.  They just passed a law re-establishing something called "leadership funds":

If you are an interest group in Florida, a corporation, a lobbyist seeking favor, you go to these "leadership" funds run by lawmakers… And you pay them.  They will launder the money into local elections around the state, to keep electing more obedient followers.
This is so astonishing a corruption that it defies belief.
The bill in question is House Bill 1207, passed in the 2010 legislative session.
Then-Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed it. Last Thursday the Legislature overrode the veto.
The House vote was 81-39. The Senate vote was 30-9.
The twisted logic used in the Capitol, and what your legislator will try to tell you, is that it's better for the Legislature to be paid off directly.
See, they will write it down in a separate little report. So this is all about "informing the public" and "transparency."
If they try to give you this line, just ask this question: "So, is it legal to make unlimited payoffs to 'leadership funds' that are operated directly by the leaders of the Legislature, or not?"
Yes.
People ask: What can I do?
You can call or e-mail. You can go to the House's website (www.myfloridahouse.com) or the Senate's (www.flsenate.gov) and find contact information for your legislator. (I beg you to be firm but civil, especially to the hard-working staff — the world is rude enough already, isn't it?)
But they (The Republicans) are counting on you not to do anything at all.
Instead, here is what they are counting on you to do:
Re-elect them...

Robert Troxler's article is heart-breaking, but it really shouldn't come as a shock anymore.

The Republican Party goes out of its way to claim that they are "fiscally responsible", that they "know business and how to get things done", that they "can create jobs", that they can destroy "the Liberal Agenda of having lazy unemployed people" feed off "our" hard-earned tax dollars.

And then when in power, the Republicans slash corporate taxes, shift the tax burden ever more onto a middle class that can't handle it, cut social services on families and kids already struggling, spend all the other money on vanity projects that don't serve a majority of people, and sign over public-run services to privatized companies run by their old college buddies that will charge more and increase the odds of waste and corruption.  All because they can lie and trick voters into fearing anyone else getting control of the government reins.

And then to make sure their party stays in power they re-write the election laws or pursue questionable practices like twisted gerrymandered districts and voter suppression efforts.

Someone just polled how our nation is becoming "more conservative."  With the Far Right conservatives screwing more and more people out of their jobs and homes and private lives, HOW THE HELL IS THAT POSSIBLE?

Read more ...

Been Trying For Days to Think of a Coherent Argument In Defense of Unions, But the Best I Got Is "Damn You To Hell, Koch Brothers"

The recent fight in Wisconsin (and now other GOP-held states) over Governor Walker's attempt to break the public unions by restricting their rights and basically eliminating unions' right to collectively bargain deserves a ton of commentary, but I can't necessarily come up with anything refined like an essay on the issues.  It's mostly sheer rage at the gall of the Republicans that they are so blatant about going after workers' unions during a jobless economic recession.

So here instead are some links:

Huffington Post article about how union members REALLY ARE NOT THAT OVERPAID.

A reporter faking he was "David Koch", one of the deepest pockets among the GOP financial backers, was able to bluff his way past staffers to get a one-on-one with Governor Walker, who amiably chatted about how he was gonna bust the unions and provide a role model for other GOP governors to do the same.  Jokes about using violence, and a serious discussion on hiring people to infiltrate the protesters to incite violence were part of the discussion


That Walker was planning to trick the absent Democratic senators back to the state under the pretense of negotiation... and then force a quorum to allow the legislature to push through his anti-union bill... means that if those Democrats had any goddamn brain cells in them they'd best wait on returning until Walker can get recalled out of office.  Unfortunately, that's gonna take a year at least...

A review of Walker's planned budget is being labeled a "Bait and Switch".  Meaning it's gonna screw honest people the hardest.

The fact that a guy claiming to be a deep-pocket financial backer can get a direct call to the governor, while ordinary citizens and the press get nothing but static, highlights the serious problem of access that the wealthy have to our politicians.

And the legal and ethical ramifications of what Walker said are floating about the intertubes.

One other thing: Unions don't kill state budgets.  Weak housing markets (and I can attest to that here in "right to work" non-union Florida with its' collapsed home ownership/property development market) do.

Read more ...

Damage Done: Rick Scott Kills The Rail

I'll get straight to the facts: Rick "WHAT PART OF MEDICARE FRAUD DID YOU VOTERS OVERLOOK" Scott killed the $2.4 billion high speed rail project that was set to build between Tampa and Orlando.

How big a deal is this?

This was what was called "shovel-ready": A project that had been in the planning stages long enough that the federal and state governments had set aside land to begin installing the rails.  The recent roadwork done to I-4 (the interstate connecting Tampa and Orlando) had space set aside for the trains.  It was ready to go.  All they needed was to start the bidding between private contractors to start construction.

And Scott killed it.

The high speed rail is part of Obama's push to upgrade our nation's aging infrastructure.  We haven't had new rail lines installed in ages, decades, and the old rails use old engine technology.  The newer systems are faster, cleaner, updated.  Nearly every industrialized nation uses rail, and all of them are upgrading to the high-speed rails.  Except here in the United States, where the teabagger reactionaries of the Far Right view high-speed rail as a government boondoggle of wasteful spending.  Regardless of the fact the rail projects have been paid for (via creative accounting and shuffling of stimulus funding).

So Scott, who caters to the teabagger crowd, killed it.  Because anything Obama wants the teabaggers hate, so Scott killed it.

Scott's reasoning was that the train project would suffer cost overruns.  Not true: the contract bids with the private companies insisted up front that the public will not pay for the overruns (meaning the company who gets the bid has to eat it if overruns do happen).

Scott even got it into his head that the money for the rail is now Florida's to control, and had asked the federal agency issuing the funds to see about spending the money on more roads in Florida.  And this is where he's really screwing up, because he either didn't know or didn't care to know: The money was earmarked (yes, that word) for the high-speed rail ONLY.  That if the state's governor rejected the money for the rail construction, the money gets pulled back into the federal pool and gets shipped off to another state that WILL take that money for their high speed rail plans.

Personally, I didn't care one way or another that we were getting a high speed rail between Orlando and Tampa.  I'm not in construction so the job growth potential didn't directly affect me.  I would prefer getting funding to create a light rail train system within the Tampa Bay metro to connect all major points between Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough counties.  But I understood the value the high speed rail would have for our state's tourism.  Connecting Orlando (AKA Mickeytown) and their theme park meccas of Disney, Universal, Sea World and others to the Tampa Bay metro with sports teams and some of the best beaches on the planet made tons of sense to boost our tourism trade.  This is Florida.  Tourism is our Number Two industry (illegal drug trafficking is sadly Number One).  And there was evidence from existing high speed rails that tourism gets boosted by 20 percent.

So Scott said NO to the high speed rail money, and now it's getting sent to other states.  Other states with massive unemployment who will take that money in a heartbeat to hire more construction workers and generate more jobs and improve their states economies.  States that can boost their own tourism and travel businesses while Florida suffers with traffic jams and car pileups on I-4.

Oh, and to cap this whole thing?  Scott made his decision on his own: he did not discuss the matter with legislature leaders, he did not consult the state's Transportation office, he did not set up a committee or open hearing on the matter, he did not wait for a current committee to report their findings (things he promised to do during the election, by the by).  Scott basically did this by imperial decree.

How big a deal is this?

Almost the entire state exploded in rage when word got out.  The media, already skeptical of Scott's performance his first month in office, dumped on his decision with no one defending him. (If Scott has any defenders in the media, I've yet to find it.  Then again, I don't read Weekly Standard or National Review much)

Worse for Scott, his fellow Republicans at the state legislature and federal Congressional level are openly rebelling against his move.  Normally the party would back the governor to avoid public rifts that could weaken the party's hold.  Not happening this time.  Republicans along the I-4 corridor - viewed by political hacks as a key Republican voting bloc - are reaching out to the Transportation Department to convince them to hold onto the money and wait for someone to smack some goddamn sense in Scott's bald noggin (already California and New York are asking after the $2.4 billion.  Gee, thanks Scott).  How this affects Scott's interaction with the state legislature is still open for debate, but he's got to be losing friends by the hour in Tall Hassle...

To the 2.5 million Floridians who voted Rick "I JUST KILLED JOBS" Scott to run our state.  Next time you're stuck in five hours of traffic on sixty miles of highway between Tampa and Orlando, turn your A/C off and roll the windows up and SUFFER.  And wonder why all the tourists are flocking to where they have high speed rail.  And wonder why our state's economy is still floundering at 12 percent unemployment (or worse).

P.S.  Anyone else notice how having a "CEO as President/Governor" doesn't REALLY work too well?  A CEO or head of a company may work well in a corporate setting where decisions have to be made top-down and things are viewed as "Zero Sum".  But the public sector (government and non-profits) operate toward different objectives and require more collective action.  Worse still, the CEOs who DO tend to run for office?  Not exactly the "Best of the Best" when it comes to business leadership...

P.S.S. To all fellow Floridians.  This might be of interest: Awake the State.

Read more ...

Proof Why Rick Scott Is Gonna Be A Terrible Governor

It's not the damage he's going to do to Florida's schools.  Kinda knew that he was going to destroy public education from Day One.

It's not the damage he's going to do to Florida's environment.  A fragile ecosystem like ours - the threat of drought, water toxicity, etc - was never the concern of conservatives obsessed with land development even in a market incapable of selling new (or even existing) properties.

It's not the damage he's going to do to Florida's social net - the cuts to public employee jobs, killing off service departments, forcibly privatizing services that will actually be MORE EXPENSIVE - in order to justify massive tax cuts to corporations that take everything from the state and GIVE NOTHING BACK.

No.  The proof that Rick Scott is going to be a terrible Governor is how he's ruining the lives in OTHER STATES by seeking to kill a proposed law that would regulate pharmacies by tracking prescription drugs.

Why is this a big deal?

Something called "pill mills".  Thanks to the law, any "pharmacy" in this state can open up to sell medications - pain-killers like Oxycodone - that are perfectly legal but have to be regulated as they are narcotic and deadly when overdosed.  These pill mills create a system where people can come in "claiming" they need pain-killers, get a "doctor" to sign off on a high dosage, and buy them by the hundreds.  The people can then travel to other states that tightly regulate pain-killers and sell the pills on a street corner.  It's hard to arrest a pain-killer seller as the pills ARE legal (you have to prove intent, usually if the dealer is packing tons of the pills).

Florida is currently the nation's primary source of "pill mills".  Thanks to one thing: we currently have no means of tracking prescriptions.  A law passed in 2009 but not yet implemented would do that.  Scott and his pro-business buddies in the State Lege want to kill that law before it even starts, citing it as an "Orwellian" step over our state's medical records.

The problem with allowing these "pill mills" to continue operating is obvious: those pain-killers can be lethal.   There's reportedly seven deaths A DAY in Florida alone.  People get addicted to them pretty quickly too.  And because of their legality (under regulation), pain-killers are easier to get than cocaine and heroin (and maybe even meth).

Scott's excuse that the prescription tracking is "Orwellian" flies in the face of logic.  Other medical records and other prescriptions are tracked all the time.  Considering the massive War On Drugs (with billions spent going after marijuana, one of the least deadly drugs out there), would Scott consider attempts to regulate medical marijuana usage "Orwellian" as well?  Probably not.

Here's Scott's real reason for wanting to kill this regulation:  It's a regulation.  Period.  The Far Right in this country have hate-filled obsessions, one of which is regulations (the others are taxes, Social Security, voting rights, abortion, sex ed, evolution, and freedom marches in other countries).  If there's a regulation on how a business operates, even if that regulation is there to SAVE LIVES, the Far Right wants it gone and gone yesterday.

Here's another reason: Scott's background in medical services.  Not only was he a MASSIVE MEDICARE FRAUD when he ran an HMO, he went on to establish clinics and pharmacies (like Solantic or Pharmaca) to increase his personal wealth.  He's got ties to the state's pharmaceutical industry... an industry that's profiting one way or another from having these "pill mills" stay open.  They profit: he profits.  It's that simple, and that scary.

Forty-two other states have a similar database system in place.  The state office that was supervising it had garnered private grants to begin its funding (it wasn't costing taxpayers much of anything).  There is no reason to oppose such a common-sense program that could well help Florida save millions in law enforcement costs and drug abuse treatments.

Except for one reason: Rick Scott is a greedy-ass crook.  And a terrible governor.

To the 2.5 million Floridians who voted for Scott: I hope your family members are pain-killer addicts.  It's called Karma, enjoy it.

(I know I shouldn't be mean-spirited, but how the hell else you gonna get through to the Far Right how screwed up their priorities and obsessions are?)

Read more ...

The Chart That Ought To Scare The Crap Out of Politicians... But Doesn't.

This was actually last week on Sullivan's blog, but there was a distraction or three going on...

This chart points to how long unemployed people are actually staying unemployed.
It shows that recently unemployed people have about double the chances of relocating a new job to get back into the grand economic circle of life.  But the second you get over that 27 weeks or more of unemployed... well, you're screwed.  That, by the by, is where the real problems of our current unemployment crisis is...

There's a couple of reasons for this:

• Those long-term unemployed are from sectors of the economy - construction, public works, finance, manufacturing - that have lost jobs that are NOT coming back any time soon.  The housing and foreclosure crisis has put a crimp on new housing and housing repairs, for example.  Manufacturing jobs are bleeding to overseas markets with cheaper non-union labor.  Public sector jobs - state and county and city - have been hit hard with massive deficits forcing spending cuts.  The quick rehiring of those out of work under 26 weeks involve industries that are fluctuating but not losing job openings that can be refilled.
• The other reason is psychological on the part of HR departments.  They seem reluctant to hire anyone who's been out of service for so long, as though there's a stench of failure all about a candidate who's been out of luck for 27 weeks or more.

The reason the long-term unemployed is a major problem for our government and our economy is that they will sooner rather than later become a burden on society in the worst way.  Sooner or later they drop out of the job-hunting and unemployment benefits system.  Unemployment really isn't at 9.8 percent: that's just the people still reporting for benefits.  REAL Unemployment, including the ones who've given up on benefits or no longer able to garner them (known as the 99ers for the ninty-nine weeks (and counting) they've been out of work), is actually past 10.4 percent (and might even be worse than that).  But what happens when the unemployment benefits end or the unemployed move on?  They move on over to Food Stamps, or some other form of welfare.  The burden merely shifts to another public sector that's facing cutbacks in the wake of statewide and national deficits.  Worse, they become a burden to family members or friends who may be employed (or retired living on benefits themselves) but who are incapable of paying for the needs of their out-of-work relative/friend.

Look.  Having one-tenth of your employable population out of work is NEVER good.  But there's little sign that the federal government is going to do anything about it, which sucks.  And the conservatives' solution - tax cuts that DON'T REALLY go to job creation or wage improvements - isn't going to work (all those tax cuts after 2001... and this is the shape of our job market today.  Buy a clue, Republicans: TAX CUTS DON'T WORK.  Grrrr.)

• We need laws in place to force HR departments to look at hiring the long-term unemployed first.  We're the ones at greater risk.
• We need laws in place to keep international corporations from shipping OUR jobs elsewhere.  You wanna get our tax breaks?  Give some breaks to the people who live here!
• We need a works program similar to the ones that FDR had back in the 1930s that helped us climb out of the Great Depression.  Nothing huge like the CCC, but at least something to get people back to work and stimulating the economy with their efforts and their spending.  I honestly don't get why there's this huge hate on for Keynesian policies of the 1930s that worked (nations like Japan that quickly adopted Keynesian economic models were the ones that survived the global economic meltdown).  I know that Keynesianism was choking on itself by the 1970s, but that was when our government and economy could operate without it... but today, dammit...

So an open call to all unemployed persons across the nation.  To all my fellow 99ers, this is pretty much the only solution left to us.  Run for office.  Run at the county level, state level, federal level, whatever it takes.  Go to your party if you've registered with one and sign up to run for any openings in the coming election cycle.  Trust me, you gotta start looking into the paperwork on that stuff before it gets too late... and the deadlines come up on the calendar faster than you realize.

Run for office, unemployed people.  We need more elected officials who have a damn good idea just how bad the job market is out here in the Real World.

Wartenberg in 2012.  I Need The Work.

(this has been edited for some grammar errors and to highlight additional thoughts)

Read more ...