November 16, 2012

Republicans Endorsing The Simpson-Bowles Plan Are Asking For More Revenue Than Obama

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/15/1198311/republicans-endorsing-the-simpson-bowles-plan-are-asking-for-more-revenue-than-obama/

Since the election, many Republicans have come out in support of the Bowles-Simpson plan for deficit reduction. For instance, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, “I’m willing to say yes to Simpson-Bowles,” newly elected Minority Whip Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) called it a “roadmap,” and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said the country should use “the Simpson-Bowles approach.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) reacted to President Obama’s demand for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue by saying, “let’s be clear: an opening bid of $1.6 trillion in new tax hikes isn’t serious. It’s more than Simpson/Bowles or any other bipartisan commission has called for.”

However, new report from the Center for American Progress explains that the Bowles-Simpson plan for deficit reduction actually creates almost $500 billion more revenue than President Obama’s budget. If fully enacted, the bipartisan commission’s plan would generate $2.7 billion from tax increases by 2022:

[div style="width:auto;float:left;"]
 ' 


The oft-cited figure is that the Bowles-Simpson plan would raise $1.2 billion in new revenue. However, this misses an important piece of the puzzle: the panel assumed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would expire and create $1.5 billion in new revenue separate from the $1.2 billion found elsewhere.

The bipartisan committee that produced the report, known as The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, was created by President Obama in 2010. Its proposal never made it to Congress, though, because Republican members of the House — led by former Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan — voted it down.

– Greg Noth

November 16, 2012

Why Income Inequality has Skyrocketed in the last 30 years

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/16/1204871/why-income-inequality-has-skyrocketed-in-the-last-30-years/

American income inequality has skyrocketed over the last 30 years, as compensation for the wealthiest Americans has grown while wages have stagnated for the middle- and lower-classes. Incomes for the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans are now eight times higher than incomes for the bottom 20 percent, according to a study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute. The gap between the rich and poor has grown because incomes for the top 20 percent grew at an annual pace that exceeded the total growth of incomes for the bottom 20 percent over a 30 year period.

From the late 1970s until the 2000s, the richest 20 percent of Americans saw their incomes grow by $2,550 a year. By contrast, the bottom 20 percent saw total income growth of just $1,330 over the entire three-decade period the two organizations studied:



Pay for chief executives has risen 127 times faster than worker pay over that three-decade period, according to another recent study. Worker pay has failed to keep up with productivity gains in the workplace, and the minimum wage has failed to keep up with the buying power it once had. Low-wage jobs, meanwhile, are becoming more prevalent, pushing wages for low-income workers down even more. At the same time, tax rates for the wealthy have fallen, and while the wealthy have experienced a solid recovery from the Great Recession, middle- and low-income Americans have largely been left behind.

November 16, 2012

How think-tanks would reduce the deficit, in two charts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/16/how-think-tanks-would-reduce-the-deficit-in-two-charts/


For all the hand-wringing over the deficit, there still aren’t that many new deficit-reduction plans out there: the Ryan budget, Obama’s budget, and Simpson-Bowles remain the basic guideposts in the debate. To broaden the horizon of possibilities, the Peterson Foundation commissioned five think-tanks to come up with their own plans for reducing the deficit over 10 and 25 years: the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute on the left; the American Action Forum and the Heritage Foundation on the right; and the Bipartisan Policy Center in the middle.

Many of their solutions are radically different, going well beyond the bounds of the current debate in Congress: AAF, for instance, would replace the entire income tax with a progressive consumption tax, while the EPI wants to let all of the Bush tax cuts expire—including those for lower-income Americans—and replace them with an “enhanced work and family credit for low and middle-income taxpayers.” The BPC and EPI want a tax on sweetened beverages, while Heritage would turn the gas tax over to the states. But all of them would reduce the deficit significantly in the medium- and long-term:


(Source: Peterson Foundation)

Interestingly, the chart also reveals just how much government spending would skyrocket if we simply continue the status quo—extending all of the Bush tax cuts, turning off the sequester, and not touching entitlements (current policy)—and just how much the fiscal cliff itself would reduce the deficit if we did nothing else (current law). The changes under the fiscal cliff would, in fact, reduce the deficit more over 10 years than every think-tank’s plan except for Heritage’s, and more than EPI and BPC’s over 25 years.

You can look at a basic breakdown of the five think-tank plans here and a more detailed outline here. But here’s how these groups would construct a budget for the long-term, from the 10,000-foot perspective:

November 16, 2012

Wall Street uses Third Way to to Lead Its Assault on Social Security

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12778-wall-street-uses-the-third-way-to-lead-its-assault-on-social-security


Third Way, lobbyists for and from Wall Street who are leading the effort to enrich Wall Street by privatizing Social Security, was created by Wall Street to fool some of the people all of the time. I have written previously to expose their fictional claims to be a moderate or liberal Democratic group.
Eric Laursen documented Wall Street’s effort to become even wealthier by privatizing Social Security in articles and his recent book ("The People’s Pension: The Struggle to Defend Social Security Since Reagan" (AK Press)).

I showed that Third Way makes itself useful by providing a faux “liberal” or “moderate” “Democratic” quote machine that can be used to discredit Democrats and Democratic policies such as the safety net. I gave examples of how Third Way gave aid and comfort to the effort to defeat Elizabeth Warren and the effort to unravel the safety net. Third Way continues to prove that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

The National Journal ran an article on November 8, 2012 entitled “Left Divided over ‘Grand Bargain.’”


“Groups concerned with protecting entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare are finding themselves at odds over whether an overarching fiscal deal during Congress’s end-of-year session would help or hurt their cause.

The AFL-CIO organized a day of action on Thursday–part of a broader post-election campaign to protect entitlements–with dozens of events scheduled nationwide to urge lawmakers to avoid such a deal.

A ‘grand bargain’ to prevent the year-end onset of tax hikes and spending cuts ‘could cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, all to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans,’ the labor group argued on its organizing site. But the union campaign is being met with resistance from others on the left.

‘We, like you, are ecstatic about the reelection of President Barack Obama and what it means or American growth and prosperity,’ wrote Jim Kessler, senior vice president for policy for Third Way, a liberal think tank with a centrist approach, in an open letter to the groups involved with the day of action. ‘However, as fellow progressives, we were disappointed to learn that you will be leading an effort against the President to impede a balanced grand bargain.’

In order to protect safety-net programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, the left must embrace reform, Kessler writes.”

(more)

November 16, 2012

I have to take issue with a jury decision which was alleged by admin (?) to be 6-0 , but upon

looking at a detail of jury decision half the jury said "Leave it alone"...(see: "The Actual Jury Decision" below)


Here is the original thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101648089#post5

comment 2 directed at me, had a title of: [div class="excerpt" style="border: solid 1px #000000;"] "WTF is wrong with you?"
which I considered rather offensive and border-line censureable, but I let it pass and responded to this comment with this:
[div class="excerpt" style="border: solid 1px #000000;" ][div class="excerpt" style="border: solid 1px #000000;"] "WTF is Wrong with you"? you 'really' (sarcasm) sound intelligent. I volunteered for BO but

that doesn't mean I am not going to not criticize him when it's warranted.

Your sound like an ass, so why would I give a damn what you think?

If there is a rationale for a stronger position on tax cuts it's stupid to toss that away without fighting for that position first. Then, if you have to, you comromise. but at leaast you've got some room to maneuvre.

at the bottom of my comment a statement was added,ostensibly, accurately conveying the result of the Jury's deliberations:

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color: #DDBBBB;"]"A Jury voted 6-0 to hide this post on Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:47 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)"


THE ACTUAL JURY DECISION

NOw, TURBORAMA, who participated in the jury, was decent (and brave) enough to point out in comment no. 11. what the response message from the jury review software said. Here in part was that JUry results message:

[div class="excerpt" style="background:#DDBBBB;"]ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This person is rude and abusive.


You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:16 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I am an old lady, but I have been married for forty years to an ex-merchant seaman, so I am used to bad words. I realize that many young people use them routinely. I noticed that one of the other posters, Ellen, used an obscenity to reply. However, obcenities are distracting and may serve as triggers to painful flashbacks for abuse victims. Ellen seems to know that, as she abbreviated hers. Bullies frequently scream obscenities as they beat people up (including children). Some of us have terrifying memories which feature loud bad words paired with physical pain. Also, obscenities increase the flow of rage hormones which hamper the thinking process of the person using them. Bill USA needs to learn to control himself verbally. His other posts, without obscenities, are much more persuasive. Bill seems to me to be operating from fear, seeking emotional support without knowing how to do that effectively. Be comforted, Bill, and settle down.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Now, unless my counting skills are seriously compromised I see 3 votes to "Leave it Alone" and 3 votes to "Hide".

Am I wrong or is that entirely inconstistent with the block and the statement I assume provided by the administrator of:

[font color="red"]
"A Jury voted 6-0 to hide this post on Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:47 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)"[/font]

I find this to be very questionable action on the part of somebody. Can I get a review of this matter. Should I send a letter to Skinner or another?

BTW I think the decision of the three votes to "hide" was wrong. But I guess I am not allowed to question jurers or plead my case. If writing "you [font size="+1"]sound[/font] like an ass" was the basis of their decision their decision was wrong.


But mainly my question is about the message being blocked because of a 6-0 Jury decission which was actually 3-3.

November 16, 2012

McConnell says Obama wants more revenue than Bowles-Simpson. It’s not so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/15/mcconnell-says-obama-wants-more-revenue-than-bowles-simpson-its-not-so/



Sonafabitch! Obama is still operating the same fucking way. He starts off with a position that MAY be acceptable as a final agreement - which guarantees we end up with something LESS than that. What the fuck is he doing even mentioning a position that is less than what bipartisan commisssions have recommended?! SHIT!

November 15, 2012

URGENT: petitions to secede placed on WH petitions page. we need a petition to plead with

the President to allow red moocher states whose citizens "see themselves as victims" to secede. What a boon to our country, society and our Deficit future. Red states, in the South in particular, get much more from the rest of the country in help than they contribute in income tax revenues. Shit, you want to secede??? PUHLEEZE SECEDE AND MAKE OUR DAY!!!!!!!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/secession-50-states-_n_2131447.html

As you may have heard, residents in most of these United States have used the "We The People" online petition tool -- previously best known as the primary method that weed enthusiasts used to communicate with high-ranking members of the White House staff -- to file requests to secede from country in the wake of the presidential election, because apparently not everybody got what they wanted out of America's traditional participatory democracy.

"Didn't we try that once before?" asked South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. Indeed, yes, it was tried before, by South Carolina in December of 1860. Since that date, states opting for secession have a 100% failure rate in splitting from the Union, and that dismal record was amassed long before the United States had a fleet of aerial drone weapons that could be piloted by remote control.

Other governors, perhaps sensing the overall "non-starter-ness" of seceding from the United States, have also publicly declined to support these secession petitions. "I don’t think that’s a valid option for Tennessee," said Tennesee Gov. Bill Haslam. Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley released a long statement through a spokeswoman in which he reiterated his belief in "one nation under God" and that "states can be great laboratories of change."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry also threw a wet blanket on the secession petition plan, saying that he "believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it." If you cannot impress Rick Perry with your secession plan, then you won't impress too many people. The best response, in fact, to these secession petitions, is a petition that asks President Barack Obama to do the "Hokey-Pokey."
(more)

November 14, 2012

Ohio House Committee Votes To Defund Planned Parenthood

Election won (notwithstanding hundreds of millions of psycho billionaire dollars) but the fight against ignorance goes on....

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/14/1189291/ohio-votes-to-defund-planned-parenthood/

After a lengthy and heated hearing, an Ohio bill meant to defund Planned Parenthood cleared a House committee on Wednesday by an 11-9 vote along party lines. House Bill 298, ostensibly about re-prioritizing federal family planning money, seeks to strip $1.7 million from Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. According to Planned Parenthood Ohio CEO Stephanie Knight, nearly 100,000 Ohio women depend on the organization for health care — overwhelmingly for preventative care including cancer screenings and birth control.

Every single medical professional present testified against the bill. Dr. Grant Morrow of Nationwide Children’s Hospital decried HB 298 as the result of a “political agenda” that would have a devastating impact, primarily on poor and young women. Planned Parenthood is frequently a punching bag for many conservative politicians, despite the fact that abortions comprise only 3 percent of services provided by the women’s health organization. And as Dr. Kimberley Shepherd, a Columbus-based OB-GYN, testified during the hearing, defunding Planned Parenthood in Ohio would jeopardize cancer prevention screenings, STI care, hypertension testing, and many of the preventative measures the organization provides to low-income women.

Religious groups also sent multiple representatives to testify against HB 298. Former state representative Marian Harris of the National Council of Jewish Women argued that no one religious viewpoint should receive preferential treatment under the law, and pointed out that the legislation would gut funding for family planning clinics. Religious leaders also testified in support of Planned Parenthood, including a rabbi, a Lutheran minister, and a United Methodist minister.

And a rape survivor named Emily Shaw gave an emotional testimony about how she relied on Planned Parenthood services after she was raped at 13.
(more)

November 14, 2012

Republicans like to talk about Tax Reform - as a counter to

taking top tax rates back to Clinton era levels

.... Of course, we all know what the crafty GOPers mean when they say Tax "reform". This is their old shell game where they use the word 'reform' which to them means lowering the rates even more for the top income brackets and shoving even more of the tax burden onto the middle income people.

I hope the president reminds the GOP that inequitable distribution of wealth is the most deleterious factor affecting job creation and economic growth. And that a tax code that shifts too much of the tax burden onto the middle income people consigns us to continued Republican style poor job creation and poor economic growth (Bush on Jobs: Worst Track Record on record - WSJ). (Private Jobs Increase more with Democrats in White House - Bloomberg)

The President should hold firm to the position that any sort of tax Reform MUST recognize the importance of economic growth and that a tax code which shifts too much of the tax burden onto the middle income people will sacrifice growth for hedge fund managers and Wall Street Speculators (aka: Wall Street Banksters) enjoying even more bountiful cascades of wealth. The shocking wealth inequality presently seen in the U.S. (U.S. wealth inequity worst since the Great Depression, U.S. wealth inequity fourth worst in the OECD ) is a serious threat to economic growth and to our economic /strategic strength in the future.

We do need Tax reform but not the kind the GOP holds so dear to their dark hearts. We need to correct the dangerous wealth distribution disparity if we are to have a stable future, in terms of our society and our strategic strength. If the GOP are willing to jeopardize either of these, President Obama should let them know they are on the wrong side of history.

We can only hope President Obama is 'up to' the task.