SquareState - Congress

The 47% I'm worried about...

Zappatero — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:46:21 GMT

47% of Congress Members Millionaires - a Status Shared by Only 1% of Americans

47% of Congress is in the 1% of America's wealthiest citizens. No wonder they act the way they do...

UPDATE: Instead of 1%-er Congressmen and Senators taking care of them and theirs, how about a balanced approach to the economy as proposed by Elizabeth Warren, soon to be a peer of Senators Bennet and Udall?

1. End the war in Afghanistan that costs $2 Billion a week.
2. Tax Billionaires at a rate at least as much as their secretaries.
3. Make targeted cuts in defense and end subsidies for the most profitable corporations in America.

Like a Swiss Watch: Stupidest Republican of the Day is TRENT FRANKS

Zappatero — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:33:33 GMT

BAM!

President Obama wants to "criminalize" free speech, according to a leading GOP congressmen.
Rep.
Trent Franks (R-AZ) (Dang, I was going to guess Texas - Z) discussed the President's response after an anti-Muslim video provoked widespread riots in Libya and elsewhere, telling radio host Mike Huckabee that Obama "has a general trend of subordinating the constitutional rights." Obama had released a statement the morning after the violence that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens saying, "While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."
Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaffirmed the importance of free speech in their responses to the violence.
Franks went on to argue that Obama is taking aim at the First Amendment: "I really believe that this administration is moving towards being willing to criminalize certain things that we hold as free speech in America."
FRANKS: I believe that there is ubiquitous evidence that this administration has a general trend of subordinating the constitutional rights that we hold very dearly as Americans to placate sometimes our enemies who have nothing but derision toward us, and I'm convinced that it is playing out even in the events of recent days. I really believe that this administration is moving towards being willing to criminalize certain things that we hold as free speech in America. [...] When we begin to say that we're going to potentially criminalize people criticizing a religion, then we are stepping away from the First Amendment and one of the foundations that made America the greatest country in the world.

First, I don't think ubiquitous means what this guy thinks it means. Maybe he's just proud he can pronounce it. Second, criticizing Islam is okey-dokee with these guys, so there goes that point. Third, it would actually have to be the morons in congress who pass a law against free speech, and the politicians on the Supreme Court to uphold it.

Both are now firmly in the grasp of Republicans like Trent Franks.

I may have to start grading these this, this was hardly an impressive lie.

UPDATE: Second Stupidest Republican of the Day

Zappatero — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:12:02 GMT

OK, if any of my friends out there see me slipping into a stupor or drooling on myself, let me know and I'll quit. But until then, or the election, I give you the Stupid Republican of the Day, Tim Huelskamp of our friendly neighbor state Kansas:

"Like the pro-slavery forces who invaded Kansas, the pro-abortion forces in Washington and elsewhere want us to believe that abortion is not murder -- that being born is worse than death, that the unborn baby is property, not a person.
"I am incensed that this president pays money to an entity that was created for the sole purpose of killing children that look like mine -- a racist organization, and it continues specifically to target minorities for abortion destruction. Shame on this president and shame on that party."

The number of lies in that thing is hard to count. The amount of stupidity might be able to be measured.

The source is as usual: An Elected Republican pandering to its Tea Party base.

Republican Mike Coffman questions Liberal Arts degree, has word "liberal" in it or something

Zappatero — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 05:08:43 GMT

Republicans seem to be either exposing the depths of their own stupidity or testing the limits of voters' gullibility each and every day. (Google "louie gomert" or "rand paul schooled" if you're not sure.)

Either way they just keep espousing more outrageous ideas as November's election gets nearer.

Now it's Republican Congressman Mike Coffman's turn in his latest newsletter, courtesy of Westword:

When I meet with young people, who are just out of college, attending these fairs, I always ask them what they majored in. Far too often, it is a four-year degree that doesn't give them the technical skills that directly leads them to employment.
Now, they not only can't find a job from their four-year degree, but often burdened with debt from their student loans.
I think it is time to question whether a significant number of the majors taught at undergraduate institutions are a good investment.
This relates to the taxpayers, who subsidize the cost of higher education by either bearing part of the cost at public institutions, or by subsidizing loan programs at private ones.
Graduates, with liberal arts degrees, often find entry level jobs that are little better than what they would have gotten had they never attended college in the first place.

ColoradoPols points out some truth regarding liberal arts degrees:

"There has been data to suggest that even though liberal arts graduates in an entry-level position tend to earn less than their counterparts who have very career-focused [degrees], within 10 to 20 years they tend to outpace their counterparts in terms of income," she says.

The holy grail of higher income should have been enough to shut Coffman up about the value of a well-rounded education and the critical need for a modern economy to invest in its ~~citizens~~ workers. Part of America's exceptionalism is the fact that educating its people was a fundamental principle held by most of our Founders. And this is a guy who complained President Obama didn't understand that very principle.

Maybe he skipped class that day.

But I don't think Coffman's goal was to question a liberal arts degree or the value of higher education. His bottom line, in line with modern Republican dogma, is that the government shouldn't educate its citizens to the highest standards of learning, even though that idea is key to our prosperity and a founding principle of our republic.

Coffman's unspoken point was that education should privatized, charterized, profitized, and left to the vagaries of the free market. If someone so happened to end up educated it was because they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps with a philisophical "huzzah" from Ayn Rand. And if they don't have an education, so be it and why should we care?

All these deep thoughts come from someone making $170,000+ Tax Dollars a year, with a sweet Military/Guard pension, and the best health care plan that our tax money can buy. He was able to laugh off his own broken ankle by receiving world class health care, but he still pledges to eliminate even the most basic health care coverage of his constituents and fellow American citizens.

That's not too exceptional.

I can hardly think of a more selfish, self-centered and ignorant congressman from Colorado than Mike Coffman. It's quite obvious a liberal arts education would have done him much good. If he had one, we'd be represented by someone with a little more smarts in their head, concern for the common welfare of his fellow citizens, and committed to educating all Americans to be the best thinkers and doers in the world.

But then, of course, he'd probably be a Democrat.....

Republican Austerity à la Graph

Zappatero — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:41:04 GMT

The red line is you, me, our neighbors and friends as we are currently being subjected to the economic austerity plan inflicted on us by Congressional Republicans who are determined to make Barack Obama fail - no matter the cost to their fellow American citizens.

That must be the "American Exceptionalism" that Mike Coffman talks about.

(h/t and graph theft via Atrios.)

Cook, Rothenberg: Miklosi Can Win

peacemonger — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 03:34:30 GMT

"This is Democrats' best opportunity to pick up a seat in the entire Mountain West." - The Cook Political Report

Both Cook and Rothenberg Political Reports believe Joe Miklosi has a good chance of beating incumbent Mike Coffman in CD6. In today's Cook Report, it states Colorado Democrats "scored a huge coup" from the state judge who redrew Congressional boundaries, and acknowledges that Coffman and Tipton's continuous controversies are making those districts increasingly winnable for Democrats. The article also reminds readers that under the new lines drawn for CD6, Obama won by fify-four percent in 2008.

The Cook article continues on to review Coffman's unpatriotic comment about the President at the Elbert County fundraiser, and his embarrassing string of foot-in-mouth moments trying to do damage control. In their words, Coffman "demonstrated that he hasn't adjusted to life as a swing district candidate".

The Cook Article goes on to say this:

Through mid-June, however, Miklosi has raised $641,000 and should be able to stockpile all of it for November since he's facing only token opposition in the primary. This is Democrats' best opportunity to pick up a seat in the entire Mountain West.

The Rothenberg Report lists the Miklosi v. Coffman race as a "pure toss-up". Earlier, they had written another article titled, "New Colorado Map Puts Coffman in Peril".

Why do these reports matter? Both the Cook Report and the Rothenberg Political Report influence potential donors who hope to score political points by donating to the candidate with the best chance of winning. Until 2012, that man was always Mike Coffman in CD6. Look for Miklosi's fundraising -- and odds -- to improve as big donors balance their bets on both candidates.

A Call To Arms: With Underwear

peacemonger — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:53:10 GMT

Dear Women of Colorado (And The Men Who Love Them),

While you've been busy raising your children, going to work, and caring for everyone around you, Tea Party crazies have been trying to take away women's rights and plunge us back into a previous century.

In 2010, Tea Party extremists gained power in Washington DC, and in many parts of this country. They've presented more than 1100 separate legislative provisions aimed at making women second-class citizens, of which, more than 135 have been passed. These are the kinds of things they've been trying to do:

* Defund Planned Parenthood, an organization which offers cancer screenings, mammograms, well-woman visits, contraception, treatment of STDs and family planning services.
* Slash Medicaid for 21 million poor women, so women cannot have health care.
* Prevent access to birth control and cancer screenings.
* Repeal ObamaCare, which was the single biggest advancement in women's health in generations. ObamaCare prevents discrimination based on gender, and makes sure insurance companies pay for the things woman deserve, like contraception, pregnancy services, etc.
* Make women wait days or weeks to have abortions. (Sometimes even, when waiting could cause injury to the woman.)
* Force trans-vaginal ultrasounds on women who do not need them (government sanctioned-rape).
* Make women get permission from their husbands or boyfriends in order to get abortions. (What are women and girls who are raped supposed to do?)

Republicans on the radio continue to use the airwaves to insult women, degrade women, and abuse women. Remember Rush Limbaugh who called college student Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute eleven times, simply because she had premarital sex with her fiance? How about the conservative radio talk show host who told a father he should have a friend rape his daughter to make sure she didn't turn out to be a lesbian?

Colorado women and the men who love them will not stand for this lack of respect for women anymore. Join us in a revolt.

Show up to their offices, and make them talk to you. Send them your (clean) underwear to remind them you exist, you vote, and (over your dead body) will they continue to abuse, degrade, mock and insult women in Colorado. Bring your daughters, and granddaughters, and their girlfriends with you.

Picket outside their office with signs, banners, and underwear flags. Call them, fax them, email them, show up to meetings, and generally hound them, until they get the message that they need to go back where they came from.

Raise money for the candidates who seek to replace them (the good guys).
The Bad Guys

These are the bad guys who are at the top of the Republican party in Colorado, all of whom have ties to the Tea Party:

US Congressman Mike Coffman (Republican)
US Congressman Scott Tipton (Republican)
US Congressman Doug Lamborn (Republican)

Coffman, Tipton, and Lamborn are the crazy Tea Party wingnut men who need to answer to you, face to face. Here is where you can find them (taken from their own websites):

Mike Coffman

Congressman Mike Coffman
Coffman's district office is at:
9220 Kimmer Drive; Suite 220
Lone Tree, CO 80124
Phone: (720) 283-9772
Fax: (720) 283-9776

Campaign Offices
5950 S. Willow Drive, Suite 306
Greenwood Village, CO 80111

9249 South Broadway, #200-501
Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
Phone: 303-791-6453

Scott Tipton

Scott Tipton has five offices, for your convenience.
609 Main St., #105 Box 11
Alamosa, CO 81101
Phone: (719) 587-5105
Fax: (719) 587-5137

#10 West Main Street, Suite 107
Cortez, CO 81321
Phone: (970) 565-7383
Fax: (970) 259-1563

835 E. Second Avenue, Suite 230
Durango, CO 81301
Phone: (970) 259-1490
Fax: (970) 259-1563

225 North 5th St., Suite 702
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Phone: (970) 241-2499
Fax: (970) 241-3053

503 N. Main Street, Suite 658
Pueblo, CO 81003
Phone: (719) 542-1073
Fax: (719) 542-1127

Doug Lamborn

Doug Lamborn has two offices for your convenience.
1271 Kelly Johnson Blvd. Suite 110
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
Phone: (719) 520-0055
Fax: (719) 520-0840

415 Main Street
Buena Vista, CO 81211
Phone: (719) 520-0055
Fax: (719) 520-0840
(no mail delivery)

The Colorado Springs District Office is serviced by the Colorado Springs Metro Bus System. The Purple Line Stop is a short walk from the office.

Raise money for the candidates who seek to replace them (the good guys).

The Good Guys

Here are the good guys, men who treat women with the respect they deserve. Please do everything you can to help them get elected.

Candidate Joe Miklosi (Democrat)
Candidate Sal Pace (Democrat)
Candidate Dave Anderson (Independent)

Register to vote. Make sure every woman you know is also registered to vote. Then, make sure every woman you know does vote. Your life, your daughter's life, and your granddaughter's lives depend on it.

Copy this letter and hand one to every woman you know.

Thank you,
Nancy Cronk
Daughter, Sister, Wife, Mother and (hopefully someday), future Grandmother

Polis no Communist, DeGette no Progressive, Sherry no Reporter

Zappatero — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:09:15 GMT

Republican Tea Party Congressman Allen West made headlines the other day calling out the 78-81 members of Congress who are Communists. Jared Polis is in the Congressional Progressive Caucus (At least his name is on the Members page.) He's certainly no Communist, nor Socialist. The Blog that Must Not be Named points out there aren't very many Communists outside Russia worth $100+ Million.

Diana DeGette gave a half-hearted response to West's spurious claim and high, hanging curveball thrown at Progressives. According to the Denver Post, DeGette isn't even Progressive*:

DeGette is not a member of the Progressive Caucus.

I imagine she's keeping her powder dry - as Democrats are wont to do. I say see should go ahead and join.

And the Denver Post reporter, Allison Sherry, lazily makes this a he-said, she-said story with almost no facts or reporting. Ho-hum.

My take: Democrats were handed a golden opportunity to dispute Republican ignorance about the economy and their inability to govern. More importantly, they let the direct and implied criticism of West remain by not reacting forcefully enough. This affects all Progressives, Democrats, and most especially the President, who is attacked every day with these same lies and charges. As idiotic as they are, they almost always go unanswered, and rarely are corrected by Stenographers in major media like The Post.

In this, Democrats like Jared Polis, Diana DeGette, Ed Perlmutter, and our two Senatorial Mutes are in a constant state of failure when Republicans and Conservatives are in a constant state of attack against progressive ideas and principles.

And that's worse than being called "Communist" by an ignorant Republican like Allen West.

HUAC Chair Allen West (R, Fla) cites Congresspersons of Interest

Zappatero — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:13:48 GMT

When Republicans (I'm talking elected to national office, paid for with US Treasury checks, not little ol' bloggers like Zappatero) get away with lie after lie day after day, stuff like this shouldn't surprise anyone: Congressman Allen West proves they'll keep saying this shit until Democrats call them out:

Rep. Allen West (R-FL), responded to a question about the number of congressional Democrats who were card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA by allowing as how it was a "really good question," and that he's heard there are "70 to 80" of the dirty Reds.

This is in the same rhetorical category as "Obama the socialist", "Obama the muslim", "Obama the anti-Christian". House Dems know West is stupid and his talk is dangerous, but they'll let this one go like all the others.

Renouncing their colleague officially and in public should be the only response from each and every member of our congressional delegation worthy of their paychecks who profess to be Democrats.

Sal Pace labors under Dewy Haze of unrequited Bipartisanship

Zappatero — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:39:00 GMT

Sal Pace is running for the House seat in CD3 against the generally incompetent Scott Tipton:

Tipton has also been dogged with a campaign violation, revelation that a "sham front group" gave him an award, an investigation and apology to a House ethics committee and accusations that he selectively informed Republicans and mining industry interests about a public meeting over a wilderness proposal in the San Juans while excluding others.

Pace has had a couple of good fundraising quarters:

In the most recent fundraising quarter, Pace raised over $280,000 and a spokesman says he will report over $520,000 in cash on hand, "demonstrating his ability to compete this November." For the quarter, Pace had over 1,400 individual donors, with 90 percent of those contributions coming from in state.
"Our fundraising shows that people are fed up with the partisan politics that have gridlocked Washington..."

Does their fundraising really show that people are fed up with partisan politics? Even the campaign admits otherwise:

After Tipton voted to cut Medicare benefits "to pay for a special interest tax break for multimillionaires," contributions began pouring in to Pace's campaign, according to his spokesman.

People are fed up with Republican partisanship in Washington and are horrified when Republicans implement policies which had been unspoken - except in ALEC legislation memos - prior to their election. That's what the spokesman should know and should have said.

Democrats like Pace need to understand this and take the appropriate steps to 1) make sure voters know that both sides don't act the same way towards enacting common-sense policies, 2) Republicans will not allow - under any circumstances - even the slighest tax increase on the most elite workers to help fund vital programs and pay down the nation's debt, and 3) the delays and obfuscation over what's needed to fix the economy have mostly come from Republicans.

Paul Krugman put the phony bipartisanship and "both sides do it" b.s. in perspective recently:

These are people whose whole pose is one of standing between the extremes of both parties, and calling for a bipartisan solution. The problem they face is how to maintain this pose when the reality is that a quite moderate Democratic party -- one that is content to leave tax rates on the rich far below those that prevailed for most of the past 70 years, that has embraced a Republican health care plan -- faces a radical-reactionary GOP.

You don't have to be a fire-breathing blogger, or a falsely accused socialist, to make the case for more fair taxation and a more progressive budget. John Salazar played the "independent" card, tried to pretend he wasn't a Democrat and got promptly kicked out of office. Sal shouldn't use the same failed tactics and shopworn desire for a phony and counter-productive bipartisanship that cost Salazar and Betsy Markey their jobs and persistently hobbles both our Democratic Senators.

The voters don't want it, Republicans won't allow it, and the urgent and necessary goals of our current policies can't survive it. The Krug-man reiterates for the hard of hearing:

The truth, which is obvious from every day's news, is that there is nothing, nothing at all, that Obama could offer - other than switching parties - that would get him any GOP cooperation.

Former CD6 Candidate Hank Eng Breaks His Silence On Coffman, Farber, Miklosi

peacemonger — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:15:28 GMT

Those who know Former CD6 Candidate Hank Eng, know he is a man of integrity and few words. Hank rarely grabs the media spotlight for himself. Last night, Hank sent this message to me, and gave me permission to distribute it. The letters in bold are my emphasis. ~ NC

Friendship and Conscience - By Hank Eng, Former Congressional Candidate CD6

Friends and friendship are things we cherish and nurture. This is a normal part of being human. We will do anything for a friend, right? Well almost anything. This is where another human trait enters the picture; that is conscience. As human beings we all have one. As much as we may want to suppress a conscience, it is what tells us right from wrong, good from bad and helps us navigate our behavior throughout life.

By now many of you have read the Denver Post article reporting that Steve Farber, a well-known Denver attorney and registered Democrat will co-host a fundraiser for 6th Congressional District Republican incumbent U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman. Fundraisers are not unusual. It is that political season once again. What is a bit of a shock is the fundraiser is being co-hosted by a Democrat for a Republican, and hence this commentary.
Steve Farber is an unquestionable leader in our community and commands a great deal of respect including mine. Although Steve has never held public office, he has been in public service. He has been appointed to numerous public commissions by both Democratic and Republican Governors. He could always be expected to conduct his work in an ethical and non-partisan manner.

He has hosted or co-hosted many fundraisers for the community at large. I have attended some of these fundraisers in part because I wanted to learn more about causes being championed by a community leader and in part because these were causes I believed in too. And so we come to this particular cause.

Representative Coffman has served two terms in Congress. In 2008, he did not bother to campaign taking for granted his electorate and the election. In 2010 he again counted on a district that was still highly tilted in favor of a Republican in a year in which anti-administration sentiment fostered by faux grass-roots (AstroTurf) groups and general disappointment by Independents and Democrats with the pace of economic recovery slowed by a Republican more interested in culture wars than creating job. Now facing an election is a highly competitive district due to redistricting, Representative Coffman is calling on friends for help.

Mike Coffman voted for the Ryan plan which would end Social Security as we know it. In fact he has voted along party lines over 90% of the time he has been in Congress. He supports the Republican agenda to roll back affordable healthcare, defund Planned Parenthood, declare war on women health, and cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle class. He may not have voiced outright support for this agenda, but he has not voiced opposition either. Campaigning on job creation, he has joined the majority in culture wars. Rather than cherishing the right to vote, he has made it more difficult for Americans to do so. He has voted for the narrow interest of the reactionary right against the better interest of all his constituents, which brings many of us to the dilemma we face.

Usually when a community leader such as Steve Farber calls for a fundraising event, we heed his call. This is the respect he commands. However, this is not a non-partisan event for a friend. It is a Republican fundraiser pure and simple for someone who already has the backing of powerful interest in Washington whose unlimited funding due to Citizens United, can buy an election. You've seen the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ad that spread the Republican talking points on behalf of Congressman Coffman. Undoubtedly we will see more of these disinformation ads come out as we move into this election cycle. So how do we reconcile attending a fundraiser co-hosted by a community leader we respect and the cause for which Democrats and many Independents cannot support?

If conscience plays a part in your decision, you can show your support as a Democrat by contributing the $500 minimum to attend Steve Farber's fundraiser to the campaign of Joe Miklosi. Of course any amount contributed, large or small will be welcomed if we are to counterbalance the advantage an incumbent always holds. For Independents and Democrats you have more options. One is to contribute to Joe Miklosi's campaign if you believe we must take back our country from those wanting to destroy the middle class. Another is to make a contribution to Planned Parenthood. Both organizations are in need of your support.

2012 will be an important election year. There is much at stake. We can see what issues are front and center for the Republican. It is playing out in news story after news story. It is culture wars that divide us as a nation and not job creation that will bring us together. In fact, there really is no dilemma. I know where my conscience will lead me.

Representative Joe Miklosi: Best Match for CD-6

peacemonger — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:32:44 GMT

Rumor has it CO Senator Brandon Shaffer, current candidate for CD4, will be deciding this week whether or not to jump into the CD6 race, abandoning his campaign in CD4. My guess is, he's waiting for CO Representative Joe Miklosi's numbers to come out from the last quarter. For those who have not been paying close attention, Colorado's CD4 became less easily winnable as a result of recent Congressional redistricting.

I respect and admire Brandon Shaffer; he is literally one of my political heroes. Not just that - I am indebted to him. I've even made calls for his race in CD4 very recently.

Loyal readers on Colorado Pols may remember Senator Shaffer's unwavering support of Michael Bennet in the 2010 Senate Race. Not only was Senator Shaffer one of just a few legislators who believed in Michael Bennet from the beginning (add State Representatives Karen Middleton and Daniel Kagan, as well as Congressman Jared Polis to that list), but he also took a lot of grief for Bennet at the Boulder Convention and Assembly. I stood by Senator Shaffer then, and always will.

Senator Shaffer courageously sponsored a controversial anti-human trafficking bill written by my friend Beth Klein, as well. Always a diplomat and a statesman, Senator Shaffer had to answer to opponents on both sides of the aisle to defend the bill. I am grateful to him for his courage and strong sense of justice; he acted to protect young street girls and boys who would otherwise have no political voice, and who certainly were in no position to benefit his office financially or politically.

Yet, I support Joe Miklosi for Congress in CD6. Joe has laid the groundwork since the beginning for a successful campaign to oust tea-party darling, Congressman Mike Coffman. An expensive primary in CD6 will not help win the seat for a Democrat. Because of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, unprecedented amounts of dirty corporate money will be pumped into this Congressional race (You thought you were sick of Bennet/Buck ads in '10? Just wait!). We need every dime from every Democrat we can scrape together to defeat corporate loyalist Coffman.

My friends and I are deeply invested in this race. While working for MoveOn in 2008, my team and I registered many thousands of new voters across the state, most of whom turned out to elect President Barack Obama. Staffers of then Secretary of State Mike Coffman instructed voter registrars to register voters one way, then Coffman said they did it incorrectly, prompting him to try to throw out more than ten thousand of the registrations. It took a federal investigation to get him to stop.

Coffman's office has also turned away left-leaning and independent constitutents who have tried to meet with Coffman, telling them, "Congressman Coffman represents those who voted for him". Add to that the time Coffman's staffers flat-out lied and told television reporters the crowd of 1000+ pro-health care reform activists we gathered outside his office were in fact, anti-reform tea partiers.

Democrats and Independents alike in CD6 want Republican extremist Mike Coffman out of office as soon as possible. The Colorado Democratic Party could not justify helping us much in 2010; CD6 was considered a lost cause. This year is different; the numbers are in our favor. Winning in CD6 depends on two huge variables: getting out the vote in Aurora, and Mike Coffman's friend, Secretary of State Scott Gessler, doing his job with integrity. The first variable is within our control. The second takes faith in our political system.

Why Representative Joe Miklosi?

Joe identified CD6 as his next goal long ago - long before Congressional redistricting made CD6 a competitive seat. Joe cares about Veterans, and knows Coffman has failed them. Joe believes in listening to his constituents and working across the aisle when necessary, and Coffman's record is abysmal at both of those things. Joe cares about the many diverse interest groups in Aurora, and wants to protect their interests; Joe has a solid record in the state legislature to prove it. Joe understands suburban and rural voter's issues, and has learned the political landscape of our district. He's met many of us, and we've signed on to his campaign.

Joe Miklosi won me over as a supporter a couple years ago when I saw his extraordinary skills as a mediator and consensus builder. At the time, progressive radio talk-show host Mario Solis-Marich was raking Democratic State Senator Morgan Carroll over the coals ruthlessly for her "no" vote on tuition equity; he literally aired slanderous commercials on his radio station at every break. As a friend and supporter of Morgan's who understood her rational while wishing she would vote "yes", I was outraged. Those who know Morgan know she is a legal genius - if Morgan says a bill is not written well and violates the State or U.S. Constitution, you can bet your house keys that she's right. Senator Carroll wanted a bill that was better written and would hold up in court, and was willing to work together as a team to draft a better bill - one that would not only win, but stand.

I called a group of Latina/Latino friends and asked them to meet with Senator Carroll and myself over dinner to talk about what happened on tuition equity and try to rebuild together for another round of legislation. The first meeting was great. The second meeting, with an expanded circle of invitees, was very heated and tense. In stepped Representative Miklosi, someone who cares deeply about the issue and wanted what was best for Colorado, and helped to diffuse the tension and clarify mutual goals. It was at that moment I saw an extraordinary statesman in Joe Miklosi -not your average Joe.

I recently asked my network of 2500 facebook contacts (most of whom are progressive activists in Colorado) if they think Senator Shaffer should primary Representative Miklosi, and those who responded were overwhelmingly against the idea. Those in CD4 said they would feel betrayed, and would ask for their contributions back. Those in CD6 said they were already supporting Joe Miklosi, who has worked long hours since Day One to build relationships, going to many house and senate district meetings and special events.

Money may have started trickling in slowly at first (CD6 residents have a version of learned helplessness, I think), but pundits will discover the pace picked up remarkably in the fourth quarter of 2011. CD6 residents are starting to believe in the political process again, and they... we... are finding our hope in Joe Miklosi. Joe Miklosi has also won the support of many labor unions and nearly every Democratic state legislator in the area.

The 2012 election cycle will see an unprecendented amount of PAC money dumped into Colorado, but the latest incarnation of the eggmendment and the marijuana legalization initiative will get out left-leaning and independent voters in large numbers. Under those circumstances, Democrats tend to do well. I trust Senator Shaffer (and his very capable campaign manager, RBI's Craig Hughes) will see the wisdom in staying in the CD4 race and giving it all they've got. We need to win both Congressional seats in CD4 and CD6, and in 2012, it's possible to do so. Why? Senator Brandon Shaffer is a class act, and Representative Joe Miklosi is not your average Joe.

Please send Congressional candidate Joe Miklosi as much money as you can if you want a strong new leader in Congress.

Still To Come Very Soon: "Who is Joe Miklosi?"

On The Question Of Virginity, Or, "Starter? I Can't Make Her Stop!"

fake consultant — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 09:19:39 GMT

I got a weird little story about my friend Blitz Krieger to bring to you today.

He's had a crazy car problem, he has, and over the past few months he thought he had found a solution - in fact, he thought he had found the solution of his dreams - but in the end, he's discovered that the things you dream about often don't go according to plan.

The way it's worked out for him so far, it's been a lot of anticipation followed by a sudden wave of frustration, but I feel like he's a lot better off having his particular problem with his car...because if he'd had cancer instead, he'd surely be dead by now.

The community is always embarrassed by the drag queens because straight society says, "A faggot always dresses in drag, or he's effeminate." But you got to be who you are. Passing for straight is like a light-skinned woman or man passing for white. I refuse to pass. I couldn't have passed, not in this lifetime.
--Sylvia Rivera, describing the founding of Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR), quoted in the book "Becoming Visible: An Illustrated History of Lesbian and Gay Life in Twentieth-Century America"

So here's what happened to Blitz: he waited forever to buy his first car because he wanted, more than anything else in life, to drive his "perfect" car: a 1982 American Motors Eagle SX/4.

It's a wild car: it was designed as a small hatchback...with a V-8 engine...and "switchable" 4WD...which allowed it to travel easily in snow in a way that virtually no other passenger car at the time could manage.

So he waited all this time, and two years ago, in California, he literally found a little old lady from Pasadena who sold him his "Dream Car", which, ironically, was the same brown color as Al Bundy's Dodge.

It drove great for about six months, but it's been suffering from a strange malady that presents as a horrible grinding noise when he tries to start the car. He has no idea what to do - and standing in the way of a solution is an obsession that I find a bit strange:

He is absolutely determined that he is not going to go to just any mechanic.

Instead, Blitz told me that since it's the first time the Dream Car needs to be repaired, he intends to go to a mechanic who has never worked on any car before his - and he says he wants to do this because he feels the experience of having the work done this way will make it more "special" for the both of them.

It took him almost a year to find someone, but when he did, it was truly perfect: he met a woman named Jenna Talia who wanted more than anything to be a mechanic.

She'd been studying through one of those "learn at home" programs, and, amazingly, she had an attitude similar to my friend Blitz's: she knew about how to fix a car from what she'd read in a book, but she refused to actually repair one until she got the chance to work on her Dream Car - and even more amazingly, her Dream Car...was a 1982 American Motors Eagle SX/4.

They actually met on the bus (Blitz, naturally, refused to drive any other car except the Dream Car), and after a few months of knowing each other, Blitz proposed that Jenna might work on his car in his garage, and she agreed.

Fun Fact I Just Made Up: In a recent poll, 32% of voters thought the Iowa Caucuses were a country located near the former Soviet Georgia.

So we're going out last Saturday night, and I get a call from Blitz asking if I could come by and pick 'em both up there at his house, and I'm OK with that, because with two drinks in a night being a big evening for me I'm more or less a permanent designated driver.

I was wondering how it was going with the car, and what I saw was stunning: the upper half of the engine was sitting in the living room, entirely disassembled. There were rockers and rods and all kinds of stuff there, neatly arranged for easy reassembly, and it looked like they had really put a lot of effort into the thing, but it was clear that they just couldn't get it quite figured out...which isn't surprising, considering it was the first time for both of them.

And you could see, in just that first second, that the two of them were some kind of frustrated. But it gets worse: Blitz told me that this was her third "diagnosis", and that, now that she was actually face-to-face with a real car, she seemed to be entirely confused about exactly what to do.

Apparently things had gone so bad that Jenna wouldn't even leave his house at night to go home until she could get things figured out...and, from what he's telling me, he's ready to throw her out, buy a different car, and get that car fixed by a mechanic who's been there and done that - a lot.

To put it another way, he's ready to dump his virgin mechanic...for a slut.

Now here's the really crazy part of the story: I've had a bit of experience with cars breaking down over time, and I knew what was wrong from the beginning, as many of you probably did, too: the starter was bad - and that's located on the very bottom of the engine, not the top, which means everything they'd been doing was pretty much pointless.

But I couldn't tell them that in the beginning...because, again, it would've just spoiled the experience...and I sure wasn't gonna say "I told you so" now...so even though I could have offered them both useful advice about how ignorance ain't bliss, they surely didn't want to hear it.

So look, folks, we could have a lot more fun following out this comic premise, but there's a bigger point: I don't want a virgin mechanic, and surely not a virgin doctor - and they don't even allow virgin pilots to carry passengers.

What is it about sex (and politics, for that matter) that makes people think they'll be able to simply "get it" with no experience at all? What is it that makes them think that celebrating their own ignorance is the best way to show they're ready to take on something that, frankly, requires a bit of trial...and error...before you really get it right?

I don't know the answer, but the next time someone tells you how their ignorance makes them a lot smarter about something, do me a favor and think about Blitz and Jenna and the Dream Car - and the living room full of engine parts - and if that person's running for office, run the other way. Quickly.

I'd appreciate it; so will you - and if I know Blitz, he will, too.

On Protecting The Innocent, Or, Is There A Death Penalty Compromise?

fake consultant — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:45:00 GMT

I don't feel very good about this country this morning, and as so many of us are I'm thinking of how Troy Davis was hustled off this mortal coil by the State of Georgia without a lot of thought of what it means to execute the innocent.

And given the choice, I'd rather see us abandon the death penalty altogether, for reasons that must, at this moment, seem self-evident; that said, it's my suspicion that a lot of states are not going to be in any hurry to abandon their death penalties anytime soon now that they know the Supreme Court will allow the innocent to be murdered.

So what if there was a way to create a compromise that balanced the absolute need to protect the innocent with the feeling among many Americans that, for some crimes, we absolutely have to impose the death penalty?

Considering the circumstances, it's not going to be an easy subject, but let's give it a try, and see what we can do.

Let's Fix An Error Dept.: Apologies are in order, because in our last story we identified The Riverside Church in Manhattan as the place where George Carlin learned to be Catholic - and that could not have been more incorrect. Bad research was the culprit here, and it's something that we'll obviously be working to improve. So, once again: sorry, and my bad.

Now if all the states want to limit the imposition of the death penalty to just the guilty (and after what we just saw in Georgia, that's no longer 100% certain), one way you could do it would be to make it a lot harder to prove guilt - and that's what we have in mind for today's proposal.

As you may recall, we convict today with a "burden of proof" that is described as "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"; as we now know, it is possible to prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, even when there's a whole lot of reasonable doubt to be found.

In Davis' case, he was given a chance on appeal to prove his innocence, and despite this conclusion from the Judge hearing the case...

"Ultimately, while Mr. Davis's new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors..."

...Davis was still executed.

So the way I would get at this problem would be to change the burden of proof in these cases: if you want to execute someone who is facing an aggravated murder or other capital charge, instead of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", I would require "guilt beyond all doubt".

If you can't get to guilt beyond all doubt, but you can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then you could impose no sentence harsher than life without parole.

If this proposal had been in effect in Davis' case, there could have been no execution after he argued that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, because that would have erased "all doubt"; after that he would have had the rest of his life to demonstrate that he was wrongly convicted.

There are going to be a few reasons people might not like this proposal, and I'll try to address some of them briefly:

Right off the bat, many will complain that because of the new burden of proof it will be virtually impossible to have executions at all; I would tell those folks that if that were to occur...then the system is working. The entire purpose of this plan is to make executions an extraordinarily rare occurrence and to move just about everyone on Death Rows nationwide to a "life without parole" future.

Beyond that, many will say that capital punishment is morally unacceptable under any circumstances, and to those folks I would respond that y'all make a pretty good point...but at the moment there are a lot of Americans who do not hold that moral position - and they have strong feelings too - and unless we can move them to a different point of view, then the best chance we have to prevent the innocent from being executed is to find some sort of compromise like this one.

(Don't believe me about that "strong feelings" thing? How many of the readers here would be OK with the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden, if he were proved "beyond all doubt" to have been the person behind 9/11?)

A similar line of thought is expressed in the idea that we are seeing more and more voters who do oppose capital punishment, and with a bit of patience, this problem will go away.

After what happened to Troy Davis, I think there's more urgency now than there was in times past, and that's because we now see that at least one State will quickly kill a prisoner in order to "clear the case", suggesting to me that patience is not as good an option as it was before.

Finally, I suspect many will feel that the effort to pass a proposal like this one would distract from the effort to end the death penalty, which is, again, a pretty good argument.

To those folks I would respond that we may get some states to end the death penalty today, but there are a lot of other states that are not going to want to give up the death penalty for some time to come (remember the people who cheered Rick Perry's execution record?), and if we aren't going to be able to end the death penalty completely, then I think we have to offer some sort of compromise; a compromise based on the concepts of "killing the innocent isn't The American Way" or "you could still execute Osama" could appeal to voters who simply won't give up on the death penalty altogether.

So that's what we have for you today: even though I personally would prefer that we end the death penalty and just go to life without parole for all these crimes, I don't think we're going to achieve that in a lot of states; with that in mind I'm proposing a compromise that would protect the innocent by ending virtually all executions, even as it allows an extraordinarily difficult to reach exception that could satisfy those who absolutely do not want to see the application of the death penalty come to an end.

It's an imperfect compromise, I'll admit - but in a big ol' swath of America that runs from roughly Florida to Idaho, it may be the best compromise we can make right now, and right now, in those places, that might have to be good enough.

Entirely Off The Subject Dept.: We are still trying to get signatures for the petition to change the name of Manhattan's W 121st St (one block from Seminary Row) to George Carlin Street, and we need your help; you can sign right here. The goal is to reach 10,000 signatures by Monday, so...get to it.

On Bilking The Sophisticated, Or, Check It Out: We're Suing Banks!

fake consultant — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:14:50 GMT

I took a break to enjoy the holiday, as I'm sure many of you did, but my inbox kept busy, and on Friday came a doozy, courtesy of the Washington Post.

You remember that little bit of a banking crisis we had a couple of years back, where banks around the world might have possibly, maybe, just a little, conspired in a giant scheme to package toxic mortgage loans into Grade A, investment-ready securities instruments, which then blew up in everyone's faces to the tune of a whole lot of taxpayer bailouts?

Well all of a sudden, it looks like an agency of the Federal Government is looking to do something about it, in a real big way.

Last Friday the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced they're suing 17 firms (I'll give you a list, bit it's pretty much all the usual suspects); depending on who you ask the Feds are seeking an amount as high as $200 billion.

As Joe Biden would say, it's a big...well, it's a big deal, anyway, and that's why we're starting the new week with this one.

"An artist is only answerable to himself. He promises nothing to the centuries to come save his own works. He stands caution only for himself. He dies childless. He has been his own king, his own priest, and his own god."
--Charles Baudelaire, as quoted in the book "Cezanné and Beyond", edited by Joseph J Rishel and Katherine Sachs

So what do we know?

As we said, on Friday the Washington Post and others reported that there were a series of lawsuits filed by the FHFA in their capacity as Conservator of the assets of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac against darn near everyone.

The FHFA is alleging, to make a long story short, that everyone involved misled Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac (the "Entities", in the words of the lawsuits), to some extent, and that the misleading involved making representations to the Entities about the various metrics related to what Fanny and Freddy were buying from these banks.

For example, it's alleged that when certain banks sold batches of mortgage loans to the Entities, they lied about how many of the owners were actually living in the homes; that makes a difference when you're trying to figure out how likely a borrower is to pay back a loan.

It appears that a defense the banks will offer is that Fannie and Freddy were "sophisticated investors" who should have known about the risks buried in the batches of loans they were buying (and they were sophisticated investors: they bought, literally, trillions of dollars worth of loans) - but if it can be proven that the banks were lying about what was in the loan packages, that defense might not do so well in front of a jury.

"Everyone involved" includes Bank of America (B of A), Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Countrywide (which means B of A is actually being sued twice), Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, the UK's HSBC and Barclays Banks, France's Société Générale, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Nomura Securities (representing Japan), and GE and GM (GE Capital is a surprisingly large and varied business; GM originally got in the banking business to finance auto sales, and you may today know them as Ally Bank).

Of course, Wall Street is also part of "everyone"; that's why the list also includes Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch (which means, thanks to acquisitions, that B of A is actually getting sued three times). The City of Memphis also proudly makes the list, thanks to First Horizon.

Some notable names not on the list? Key Bank and Wells Fargo, who seem to have escaped action so far; there's also UBS (Union Bank of Switzerland), who was already served with a similar lawsuit in July.

It is difficult to determine exactly how much money is involved, as various sources disagree, but we know that Deutsche Bank is being sued for about $14 billion, all by itself. (B of A is being sued, all told, for a bit over $50 billion; they've already paid out more than $12 billion this year to settle another similar claim.)

Felix Salmon, at the Seeking Alpha website, has created a chart that seeks to measure who is in the most trouble here; by his measure JP Morgan Chase is far and away at the top of the list...except that the current incarnation of B of A represents three of the top eight spots on his list, which suggests the FHFA is targeting them for the most recovery. (Salmon used the number of individual defendants, how many pages were in the lawsuit, and whether the suits seek punitive damages as his yardsticks; from there he calculated a score that makes up his rankings.)

All this had to happen right now, it appears, because a statute of limitations is in play; the WaPo reports that a failure to file the suits would have meant the FHFA would have lost the ability to recover those monies. (It's also reported that pre-lawsuit negotiations were stalling, and those negotiations will presumably continue, with a series of impending court dates to help, shall we say, sharpen the focus.)

Now that is pretty much all the story I have for you today on this one - except for a bit of a "discuss amongst yourselves" to finish things up:

It has been suggested that the FHFA is in an inherently conflicted position in all these cases. That's because the agency is acting as both the regulator of these banks and the "victim" as we seek any monies that may be due from any fraud.

So what would be a better situation?

Should the FHFA continue to regulate the banks they're suing as a victim, or should another regulator be put in place...or should another Conservator be appointed, leaving the FHFA as "just a regulator", and not a victim?

It's a question worth about $200 billion, more or less - and even in these times, that's still a lot of your money.

On Running Your Own Government, Or, Why Pay The Military?

fake consultant — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 11:15:31 GMT

I have not been talking about the insanity around the debt ceiling and debt and deficit and the efforts of Republicans to drive us all off the cliff, but I am today - and I'm going to do it by allowing you to grab ahold of this problem and see for yourself just how unbelievably bad this manufactured crisis is going to be.

You will hear a lot of conversation about the consequences from others; today, however, you are going to get the chance to be both the President and the Secretary of the Treasury, and you will get to decide for yourself exactly what bills the Federal Government should and should not pay as the cash runs out if a deal is not made by the time borrowing authority runs out.

At that point you'll be able to see what's coming for yourself - and once you do, you won't need me to tell you what ugly is going to look like.

"...no state has the right to secede unless it wishes to...[and] it is the President's duty to enforce the laws, unless somebody opposes him..."
--William H. Seward, deprecating President James Buchanan's efforts to preserve the Union, as quoted in the book "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era"

So before I go sending you off to take the reins of power, let's fill you in on a few things that you'll need to know.

If no one has explained it to you yet, the Great Big Fuss that is going on right now is set around two issues: there are those who feel that the best way to make this economy better is to ensure that the Federal Government is a smaller player in our economy and not running on a deficit; many of these folks feel the way to achieve this is to make immediate, drastic, cuts in Federal spending.

At the same time, the United States has run up against its "debt limit". That means the US will be unable to borrow money to fund ongoing government operations, and as you'll soon see, right now we borrow a lot of the money we need to run today's Government.

So if you are one of those who seeks to immediately cut Federal spending, you could force that to happen by refusing to allow the Federal Government any more borrowing authority; the fear of what could happen after that is presumably going to force the opposition to accept any deal, no matter how draconian, just to obtain that borrowing authority.

Naturally, the bigger a hostage you're holding, the more draconian of a deal you hope you can make, and holding the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States" hostage is about as big as it gets; that's why the Republicans are pushing for everything right this very second, from the end of Medicare and Medicaid to the right to mine uranium right next door to the Grand Canyon.

So with all that in mind, let's talk money.

In the month of August, the Federal Government is expected to take in $172.4 billion.

There will be a mess of bills that are coming due during the month; that amount totals $306.7 billion, and that means about 44% of the bills must go unpaid.

Where's that money go?

The Big Five are interest on current debt, which must be paid to avoid a default, payments due to defense contractors, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; the five of those, alone, will be just about $160 billion.

And that leaves $12.4 billion to fund everything else the Federal Government has to do.

That would include the remaining cost of supporting our several wars, the entire Federal law enforcement establishment (for example, the FBI, DEA, ATF, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the TSA, the Border Patrol, the Federal Marshals' Service and the Bureau of Prisons), the National Parks Service and the Forest Service, the Centers for Disease Control, the Weather Service...well, just about every single thing the Federal Government does, except the Big Five.

So that's the situation - and now it's time for you to become the boss and make the choices:

The fine folks at Bloomberg Government have created an interactive tool that allows you to point and click your way to figuring this stuff out.

You will find your spending choices, and you just click on what you want until you run out of money, which the handy bar on the left will manage for you. When the bar turns red...you're out of money.

"...Each month, I put all my bill collectors' names in a hat, reach in, and pull out a name. That's who I pay. If you keep calling here, then your name is not going in the hat next month."
--Steve Harvey, quoted in October 2003's "Vibe" magazine

OK folks, so now you know where to go, and you know what to do, so let's make something happen.

Take this tool and use it to create a conversation about just what really is at stake, and watch the look on your friends' faces when you point out that the entire Federal Government is about to go out of business if Republicans have their way.

I'd tell you the looks on their faces would be priceless - but that's not true.

Absent a debt ceiling deal, the price is actually going to be about $134 billion, which is the money we're just not going to have next month, when we're not doing things like paying for the salaries of active-duty servicemembers or food inspectors or the guards out there at the Supermax.

It should be a fun time, all the way around - unless, of course, you're one of the 300 million or so of us who are gonna get screwed over by it all.

Hitler Holds News Conference, Blames Balanced Budget Amendment For U.S. Defeat

fake consultant — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:03:01 GMT

(FNS - Washington, New Germany, April 17, 1947) America's new Führer, Adolf Hitler, announced today that his official War History would in fact acknowledge that one of the biggest contributing factors to the defeat of the Allies was the insistence of the former United States of America on sticking to its Balanced Budget Amendment, which left them unable to fund the wartime conversion of the US economy for the benefit of the Alliance.

"All those ideas Mr. Roosevelt spoke of", said Hitler, "Lend-Lease, modular shipbuilding, War Bonds, secret weapons...in the end, all of them were just words, since the Americans' Congress was never willing to allow the country to fully fund its war effort."
As has been previously disclosed, Waffen SS historians have already located caches of documents in Washington describing plans to fund a massive military expansion in the former United States by selling War Bonds.

These debt instruments would have allowed the Roosevelt Administration to spend up to 40% of the Gross Domestic Product of the former Nation in defending itself, the former United Kingdom, and other nations against the Fatherland, but for reasons that are still not well understood Conservative politicians demanded that the former US Government never "take on debt for outsiders", or, in the words of Mae Cadoodie, leader of the American Tea Party movement, "Never invite a foreign entanglement that raises our taxes".

Had the Americans been allowed to sell War Bonds, or to raise taxes to fund the War, it is estimated that they could have provided tens of thousands of aircraft, millions of military vehicles, and hundreds of ships, but the Balanced Budget Amendment prevented any of that.

This represents the end of a series of political arguments that had been taking place since the 1930s, when some American economists were suggesting that a new idea called "deficit spending" could be helpful in bringing the former USA out of the Great Depression; at that time the Roosevelt Administration was unable to establish agencies such as the Work Projects Administration, which would have built public works projects throughout the USA in an effort to revive the moribund economy.

Mae Cadoodie and others fought back successfully against these ideas, pointing out that the last thing the US economy needed in a bad economy was new taxes; they made the same arguments when the Roosevelt Administration first proposed Lend-Lease as a war emergency measure.

"We cannot inflict punishing new taxes on American industry at this fragile time in our recovery" Cadoodie said in a famous speech in 1939, "and if the market is really there for this military materiel, if it's not just some boondoggle manufactured by Roosevelt to take money out of the pockets of the American people, then I'm sure the British will be able to find the funding they need from the markets or from charitable donations".

Cadoodie was unavailable for comment, as she and most other former American politicians are still serving on the Eastern Front, and will be for the foreseeable future.

In a related story, the conversion of the remainder of the American industrial base is underway for the fight against the Russians, and millions of otherwise unemployed Americans are being drafted into the military services in preparation for the final assault.

On Hole Cards, Or, "Drill, Baby, Drill"? Why? Is Canada Out Of Sand?

fake consultant — Wed, 25 May 2011 09:35:04 GMT

In America, today, there are three kinds of drivers: those who look at the other gas pumps down at the ol' gas station and think: "Oh my God, I can't believe how much that guy's spending on gas", those who look at their own pump down at the ol' gas station and think: "Oh my God, I can't believe how much I'm spending on gas" - and those who are doing both at the same time.

Naturally, this has brought the Sarah Palins of the world back out in public, and once again the mantra of "Drill, Baby, Drill" can be heard all the way from the Florida coast to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

But what if those folks have it exactly backwards?

What if, in a world of depleting oil resources, the last thing you want to do is use yours up?

To put it another way: why isn't all our oil part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

Consider the inexorable logic of the Big Lie. If a man has a consuming love for cats and dedicates himself to the protection of cats, you have only to accuse him of killing and mistreating cats. Your lie will have the unmistakable ring of truth, whereas his outraged denials will reek of falsehood and evasion.
--From the book "Ghost of Chance", by William S. Burroughs

So here's the thing: we produce a surprising amount of our own oil right here in the USA (in fact, we're the world's third-largest oil producer), but we don't produce enough to cover our current use, and that's why we import about half of the roughly 19 million barrels of oil we use daily. The vast majority of that is used in vehicles or for heating; almost none is used to generate electricity.

Our largest suppliers of oil, despite what you might think, are not all from the Middle East: instead, it's Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela, in that order.

(Perhaps you're thinking: "Canada? Oil?" Yes. Canada and Oil. They provide us with more than twice as much as Saudi Arabia from huge "oil sand" resources, primarily in Alberta; the exploitation of those resources has created a huge environmental controversy.)

Now if you ask me, an ideal situation would be one where we decided to get out of the business of using oil altogether - and to help make my point, we have some helpful numbers from a guy that you pay every day to figure this stuff out: Mark Doms; he's the Chief Economist for the US Department of Commerce, and, to paraphrase Little Feat, he's always handy with a chart.

According to Doms, 60% of our 2010 trade deficit (about $265 billion) represents the cost of imported petroleum products, and if things continue through December as they did the first three months of this year, in 2011 every American, man, woman, and child, will pay a "tax" of about $1000 to import all that petroleum.

Do you know what we, individually, spend on gas? In March of this year, the average household spent just over $300 on that month's gasoline; 5 months ago that number was $56 lower. The way it works out, every time gas goes up 10¢ a gallon, it costs the average household another $7 a month.

And that's not all: less than half of the total cost of imported oil is paid at the pump: about 44% of imported oil is used by businesses; another 15% is used by governments across the USA, and that means almost 60% of the cost of imported petroleum is "folded into" the price of everything else.

(A quick author's note: you've seen the words "oil" and "petroleum" used liberally in this story; the exact literal reality is that in each instance we should really be referring to "petroleum products", and that's because we import and export not just crude oil, but a variety of other petroleum products. I get tired of using the phrase "petroleum products" over and over, and I'm probably using "oil" and "petroleum" more interchangeably than I should.)

So get this: if we were out of the importing oil business, we'd save about $300 billion a year - and as it turns out, over a 10-year period we could actually convert the entire US auto fleet to electric cars powered by windmills by providing $15,000 cash "buy-outs" for today's 135,000,000 gasoline cars and building the wind generation and "smart grid" we'd need to support the effort...and doing all that would cost...wait for it...about $250 billion a year.

If I get the math right, 20 years after we first started building windmills and subsidizing cars, everything would be paid off; and every year after that the US economy would generate a $300 billion "profit" on our investment - unless the price of a barrel of oil goes up. If it does, the amount of money coming back to our wallets every single year from then on, obviously, also goes up.

And if we were out of the "using oil for driving" business, once everything was paid off we could put almost $4000 a year (in today's dollars) right back in the pocketbooks of every family in this country - which, if you ask me, represents a pretty good "tax cut".

Let's also keep in mind that any new oil drilled on our public lands might not necessarily end up in the US; that's because even if oil companies were 100% free to "Drill, Baby, Drill" in our waters to their hearts' content...they'd also be perfectly free to sell as much of that same oil, anywhere in the world, to whatever entity might end up being the highest bidder - and today, our friends in places like India and China are desperate to be that high bidder.

Put all of this together, and you get back to the question I posed at the top of the story: why in the world would we be in a hurry to "Drill, Baby, Drill", when we could, instead, put all our efforts into getting out of oil, which would save us so much money that the conversion pays for itself?

Then, when oil's running $400 a barrel or so, let's use our oil to pay China back the trillion dollars we owe 'em...which, at current production rates, would only take about 400 days, assuming it were possible to divert all our production for that purpose.

To state it a bit more ironically, it may be that the smartest thing we can do right now is to conserve every possible drop of oil we have...until we don't need it any more, and it becomes a sort of Strategic Cash Reserve that can help strengthen the dollar and reduce the national debt in the years to come, both at the same time.

Or to put it another way, the next time someone tells you they want to "Drill, Baby, Drill"...you can step right up, look them square in the eye, and ask: "Why do you hate America?"

And won't that be fun?

On Redistribution, Or, "Afghanistan Peace Dividend Stimulus Lotto? OK!"

fake consultant — Thu, 12 May 2011 13:22:59 GMT

They tell us we're dropping about $10 billion a month in Afghanistan so we can catch that Bin Laden guy...but eventually, we're gonna catch him, and as soon as we do you can imagine that folks will be wondering why we're still over there - and I gotta tell ya, I'm one of those people.

I mean, we're over here talking about how we're so broke that we have no choice but to cut a couple of billion from heat assistance for the poor, and a billion-and-a-half from the Social Security operations budget, and money from food stamps and childcare assistance and tornado forecasting in Alabama...but every single month, just as regular as clockwork, we seem to be able to find another $10 billion to spend in Afghanistan, even as we have an economy that could badly use another round of truly productive stimulus.

And I don't think y'all even realize just how much money $10 billion really is - but today we're gonna see if we can't fix that with a bit of a thought exercise.

Imagine if we set up a program that took that Afghanistan money and spent it right here at home for a year or two - and it was spent in the form of a lottery, where we stimulate the larger economy, help fix the mortgage crisis, and create a more energy-independent nation, all at the same time.

I got all we need except a catchy name; with that in mind let's move on to the description of how the Happy Super Fun Day Peace Lotto Stimulus Thingy works.

...In this world, the two cities - the earthly and the heavenly - are commingled; but hereafter the predestinate and the reprobate will be separated. In this life we cannot know who, even among our seeming enemies, are to be found ultimately among the elect...
--Bertrand Russell, explaining St. Augustine, in the book "A History of Western Philosophy"

So it couldn't be any simpler: what I have in mind, to illustrate our point, is a giant national lottery, and it wouldn't cost a dime to enter.

First prize would be directed toward cleaning up the mortgage crisis by either getting folks out from "under water", lowering their current monthly payments, or converting them from renters into homeowners: if you're one of the 10,000 first place winners, you get $250,000 to spend on either paying down your mortgage or to buy a house of your choice if you don't have one now.

Second prize involves "greening" America's homes; the idea being that if we cut America's heating, air conditioning, and hot water bills, we free up billions of newly productive dollars to create long-term self-sustaining consumer demand - and that means you can take some of that power bill money and go out and have a nice dinner with the kids again.

10,000 winners would each get $50,000, and with that you could easily replace a whole lot of windows with better-insulated ones...or you could get some solar panels, or put up that rooftop wind generator you've been thinking about, and you could pay for the electrical connections to get you in the business of selling power back to your utility. Don't own your house? That's OK, we'll "green" it up anyway, with the owner's permission - and if that can't be arranged, then maybe we'll have to just award you third prize instead.

The idea behind our third prize is to lower the amount of money we spend every year on imported oil; to that end we would give 50,000 third place winners $40,000 to spend on a vehicle that gets 40 MPG or better - and because we don't want to "disincentive" inexpensive green cars, if you can arrange to buy two cars for $40,000, we'll do that, too. (And hey, just to be fair: if you were "bumped down" from second place, let's make your "car credit" $50,000.)

That's 70,000 winners, folks, who could end up with a new house, or a new car, or a newly energy-efficient home - and that doesn't give a complete picture of just how much we're really spending right now blowing up Afghanistan.

You see, we're spending so much right now that we could give away all this stuff every single month of the year with all the money we're dumping "Over There" instead - and even that doesn't tell the whole story, because all that stuff...all the houses and all the cars and all the energy improvements...represents only 50% of what we're spending every month Over There.

And all that money doesn't even include what we're spending on our other wars, overt and covert, in Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, the Philippines, Yemen, Iran, Mexico, Columbia, Venezuela, and, of course, the one we fight right here in the good ol' USA: The War On Drugs.

So whaddaya think, America?

Should we continue the endless war and keep on looking for those last 100 or so Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, to the tune of $100 million a month for each guy, for the next decade or so...or would you rather do a giant lottery for a couple of years, for half the cost of what we're spending every month over there now, that creates lots and lots of jobs and permanently lowers our national energy bill?

I think I know which one you want - and that's just too bad, because we aren't gonna get it anytime soon, now are we?

Only 1 In 5 12th Graders Proficient In Civics, And We Wonder Why The Nation Is In Trouble?

Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said — Thu, 05 May 2011 13:33:47 GMT

Our system of government seems to be broken, and there is a reason, basically the people who put in the base inputs, the voters who elect governing officials, don't understand how their government works.

We live in a nation that has an increasingly dysfunctional government. We have seen it in the way that the Senate in the 111th Congress was completely broken by the unprecedented use of the filibuster and holds on legislation. More than 400 bills which passed the House never saw a vote in the Senate for this very reason.

It is even worse than that when you have a House of Representatives that votes on a bill that insists that if the Senate does not act on a bill it has already voted down, then the House bill will become and I quote "the law of the land". The fact that this bill completely flew in the face of the tripartite system of government we have did not prevent it from being brought to a vote and garnering a majority of the House, all those voting for it being Republicans.

It is the kind of thing that activists and political junkies know but don't really think about, that most Americans don't have a working grasp of how things actually work in government but a new report out today show just how bad things really are.

There is a set of tests that are given in the 4th, 8th and 12th grades. As part of these tests there are questions about civics, the basic functions of the Federal government. Only one in 5 12th graders answered well enough to be considered to have a proficient or advanced understanding of the subject.
Think about that for a minute. These are young adults, most of whom will be able to vote in the next year or so and only 2 out of 10 understand how the government they will have a voice in installing works!

I grew up in a political family, so I guess I got this stuff with my mothers milk, but I am just gobsmacked at those numbers. In the last presidential election 61% or 6 in 10 people eligible to vote actually exercised their franchise. If we assume the ones that understand how their government works all voted (based on the 12th grade numbers) there were still twice as many who voted who don't understand.

It is this kind of lack of knowledge that make candidates like Michele Bachman and Donald Trump (not that he is a real candidate) make a little more sense. If you don't know that way that government works, if you can't name a power that the Congress has or more importantly name those it does not have, then you can believe that someone like Trump could just "make things happen".

It is also how we get into trouble with things like the Bush view of the Unitary Executive. It has been pretty well established that the Executive Branch does not have the expansive level of power that was claimed and exerted by the Bush Administration. We are still having trouble walking it back, but they pushed it to a frankly illegal level. However they got away with it because for the most part the American people did not understand what those who were pitching a fit about it were talking about. The people assume that the president has far more authority than he actually does under the constitution. This lets presidents like George W. Bush abuse the power they do have and grab more.

It also muddies our political discourse. There is a commercial that I keep seeing for a "voice petition" from a group called Repeal It Now! to end the ACA which they call "Obamacare". I don't have a problem with people standing up and being heard but this commercial perpetuates a couple of myths that just make my head want to explode.

In the commercial it talks about how the peoples voice was heard by the House which voted to end "Obamacare", but the Senate has not acted. Then it tells them that they can help "break the tie" and get the Senate to vote the way they want by signing this petition.

We on the Left often say that the Republicans and the Right are lying the Americans people and tear our hair out when the people believe these snake oil salespeople. But is it really any wonder that the people buy into this crap when they don't know how the government works? Or is it any wonder that some on the Left are so chapped that we have not passed a significantly more liberal agenda than we have when there are just as surely a large number of them who don't really understand the process?

Thomas Jefferson believed that a well informed electorate would be critical to a democracy succeeding. I am confident that he did not just mean informed on the issues but also informed of the process. I agree with him completely and think that we must start talking about the process as well as the issues if we are to have an electorate that understands the breadth and limits of Congressional and Presidential power.

Not being one to point out a problem without offering a solution I am announcing that I am going to start a new series either next week or the week after. It will be called Sausage Making 101 - The actual process of Legislation. This series is going to go through all the steps in both the House and Senate for a bill to become law.

I expect that most of the folks reading this will already know the basic outlines but I am willing to bet that you and I learn things we really did not know, or are reminded of things that we had forgotten. I hope you'll join me in looking at this process in depth. After all knowing how things work in terms of the process is critically important if we are to affect the outcome.

The floor is yours