Originally Posted by KaiserD2

No, Amy. It costs $75 to have a chance to have dinner with the President--I would be part of a drawing.

I figured that out after Eric's post. I thought $75 sounded too good to be true. Especially considering these politicians hold fund raising dinners all the time where it cost $5000 a plate just to be in the same room with the President.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011...anglehold-cd2/

Amodei proved to be a lackadaisical fundraiser. Marshall out-raised him nearly 2-to-1. Democrats have a superior turnout machine in Nevada. And national Democrats expressed interest in helping Marshall.

...so much for money running politics...

"The left prefers to believe there's nothing wrong with the programme and figures when revenues and the trust fund can no longer cover benefit payments some simple accounting trick will save the day. Both views are wrong and dangerous."..."

The right really confuses the center. Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit; not yet anyway. It is ideological demagoguery to bring it up in the context of the debt debate. Revenue from Social Security taxes have been used for other things. But SS itself has received more from payroll taxes than it has spent. So any cuts now would just be robbing people from what they paid into it, it's a simple as that. Now down the road 10 or maybe 30 years, THEN we may need to do a bit more than "simple accounting tricks" to keep SS solvent; that is, bringing in more revenue than it pays out (not supporting other programs, which need to be either paid for, or eliminated). Those "tricks" may consist in raising the retirement age, raising the cap on how much income is taxed, giving less in cost-of-living increases, etc; not to mention restoring the taxes cut these days for the payroll tax "holiday."

If the right and center are talking about "cutting entitlements to reduce the deficit," then, they are talking about medical programs, which currently do not take in enough to cover what they pay out. Cutting medicare benefits however would amount to making the program useless. If there are lots of deductibles and restrictions on what it pays out, then it does not protect anyone from medical expenses. What use is it then? ZERO. You might as well gut the program. Alternative: face the facts as Obama and Clinton tried to do. The problem is the soaring cost of medical care. Someone, many people, are gouging us. It's that simple. Bring down the costs. Make drug prices competitive instead of giving US companies a monopoly. Make insurance public with single payer or a public option, or limit what insurance companies can charge. Require more verification and limits in what is paid to doctors, especially for end-of-life treatments (Sarah Palin's "death panels").

I also think that if SS becomes solvent and the cap is raised, we could afford to make the payroll tax more progressive or lower it, and then raise the Medicare tax. It is very low and does not cover the cost of the program, while the payroll SS tax does more than cover the needs of SS. Why not adjust this then?

A lot of this may eventually be done on a state level, since our federal government has been captured by crazies for the foreseeable future.

It just occurred to me that maybe Perry and the right wingers are trying to do something: make low-income workers who only pay the payroll tax, pay for the wars, drug programs, oil subsidies, and other programs the rich people want, so they can keep their tax break for themselves. People on the right can only see how things affect themselves; they have no ability to see what is fair or in the common interest.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011...anglehold-cd2/

Amodei proved to be a lackadaisical fundraiser. Marshall out-raised him nearly 2-to-1. Democrats have a superior turnout machine in Nevada. And national Democrats expressed interest in helping Marshall.

...so much for money running politics...

Rural Nevada is about as conservative as Utah outside of Salt Lake City.

A good article in the Canadian National Journal about the media's role in election of Obama. "orchstrated sychophancy" is the watchwords as he compares Obama's coverage to the Repubs, Hillary and Palin...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ous-president/

Andrew Breitbart Incites Violence Against Liberals, Says Military Will Back The Tea Party Up

Originally Posted by Odin

Andrew Breitbart Incites Violence Against Liberals, Says Military Will Back The Tea Party Up

The headline is so shocking that I at first didn't want to believe it. Alas, the words are coming right out of his mouth. He wants pitched battles between liberals and the
Hard Right with the Hard Right outgunning the liberals because the liberals don't have the guns -- and that the military would promptly side with the Hard Right. Breitbart assured his receptive audience that there wee "big names" in the Armed Forces.

This man is as ruthless as any Commie ever was.

The Republican Party controls the state government of Pennsylvania. It is thinking of changing the law so that electoral votes will be awarded per Congressional district, rather than winner-take-all. Relative to the last election, obviously, that would give the Republicans more electoral votes. (They would, however, be taking a gamble, since it's quite possible that they could win the whole state next time.)

Now there's plenty of precedent for this and in fact Nebraska and Maine do it already. But now that a major state is doing it, it occurs to me that this is a catastrophic hole in the Constitution (there are several of them in the 12th Amendment.) Obviously, particularly with such a regionally divided country as we have now (and have had for most of our history), this decision ought to be made one way or another in the Constitution. Otherwise, it will be a continuous fight in many states with parties jockeying for position depending on their expectations.

I happen to think we are better of with a variant of the electoral college. We should do away with electoral votes for Senators, which produces an unfair balance in favor of small states. (Gore would have won in 2000 on that basis.) I would keep winner-take-all so that we only have to count 50 states instead of 435 districts. I would eliminate the electors as people--states would submit their vote, based upon the popular vote. Any of this would require a constitutional amendment and is quite unlikely. In the current climate the Republican Party has proven again and again that it will do anything to win.

Here is my suggestion (and my creation!), one that comes closer to passing Constitutional muster than anything than what the states offer:

This looks like a reasonably-neutral way in which to allocate electoral votes with respect to both the state entities and in proportion to the rest of the state's electoral votes. This would apply (it is arbitrary on my part) to states with ten or more electoral votes. It's the more populous states that could gerrymander districts to fit the agenda of a political party that might have an ephemeral success in a year ending in zero. States with small populations can't gerrymander districts as blatantly as can those with large populations.

two to the winner of the state overall

none to those who get less than 5% of the vote in such a state under any circumstances

the remaining popular votes allocated in proportion to the total of relevant votes, but incomplete shares going to the winner of the plurality.

Example -- Texas 2008:


John S. McCain, III Sarah Palin Republican 4,479,328 55.39%
Barack H. Obama Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Democratic 3,528,633 43.63%


Neither Bob Barr nor any other nominee won more than 5% of the vote, so their votes are dropped from consideration.

McCain wins both of the at-large electoral votes. President Obama could then get a whole number of votes up to his proportion of relevant popular votes (which turns out to be roughly 44.0%) of the remaining 32, but only up to a whole number, which would be the whole number short of 14.1, or 14. McCain would get the rest. Thus Texas would have given John McCain 20 electoral votes and Barack Obama 14.

No gerrymandering could game the system.

So how would it have worked in Pennsylvania in 2008?


Barack H. Obama Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Democratic 3,276,363 54.47% 21
John S. McCain, III Sarah Palin Republican 2,655,885 44.15% 0


Neither Nader, Barr, nor anyone else got so much as 5% of the popular vote, so their votes are dropped from consideration.

President Obama gets the two at-large votes of Pennsylvania.

John McCain gets the whole number closest to, but not exceeding, his proportion of popular votes as a share of electoral votes in Pennsylvania. That is roughly 44.7% of the other 19 electoral votes, which would be 8.50 before it is rounded down. McCain would have gotten 8 electoral votes in Pennsylvania and Obama would have gotten 11.

No gerrymandering could game the system.

Someone could argue whether fractions should be rounded up for fractions above .50; such is a matter of taste. The mathematics of such an exercise is simple, and the system could not be gamed through gerrymandering. There would be advantages for nominees to seek out minority votes, and areas that vote "wrong" (like San Antonio in Texas or the Orange County in California) would matter. States would be relevant, as there would be 100 electoral votes distributed at large among the States.

Results would be far closer to the popular vote.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/ind...608#msg3022608

...I would now reduce the threshold to six electoral votes, and I would amend "Orange County in California" to Pennsylvania outside of Greater Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to fit the use of Pennsylvania and Texas in 2008 as models.

Benefits

1. It would reflect the reality of over 200 years that the states really elect the President, and the people don't. This is a Constitutional issue so that the State of Wyoming (and in the process energy interests that dominate state politics) can't litigate in the Supreme Court that its sovereignty is violated with the consequence of overturning a Presidential election in the Supreme Court, which would be a political disaster.

2. It makes large minority groups and parts of states that consistently "vote wrong" with respect to their states as a whole relevant to the vote. So it is with some highly-populated areas (San Antonio, the San Joaquin Valley, or usually Grand Rapids and Indianapolis) and large minority groups that effectively get the shaft in Presidential elections (southern blacks, Native Americans on Reservations, maybe religious minorities) and even splits based on gender. People should not be rendered irrelevant because of some geographic fluke that results from an arbitrary decision made when States were established years ago.

3. It anticipates any Supreme Court ruling that might declare that winner-for-all could violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act which can be interpreted as the legal pretext of the enforcement of the clause:

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

within the 13th, 14th, and 15th and some subsequent amendments.

3. It ensures that gerrymandering to game the Presidential election can't operate as is done in arranging Congressional legislation.

4. It does nothing to thwart winner-take-all in small states or division of the votes by district as in Maine and Nebraska. The smallest states can't gerrymander to disenfranchise voters or distort the popular result.

Of course it isn't perfect -- but some of the 'perfect' solutions require the difficult process of Constitutional amendment that would run afoul of special interests and be stopped. It might not have stopped George W. Disaster from becoming President -- not when a State governor and political hacks have inordinate power to control the reporting of a vote (which creates the potential for electoral fraud).

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Rural Nevada is about as conservative as Utah outside of Salt Lake City.

Well, the best statement I ever came across concerning rural Nevada vs Las Vegas & Reno was in an animated cartoon sold for the kiddie market, in which a little chameleon from the big city finds himself thrown into the old west....

(P.S. Check out the scene where the outlaw mole clan calls in their air support. Two very popular movies quoted in one scene. I laughed so loud the cat got off my lap.)

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com...-from-boehner/

[b]Today’s unpatriotic comment, from Boehner[/b[

Speaker Boehner speaks:

Washington Post, 9/15/11: Boehner insisted that the path to creating jobs is to cut spending.

“If the supercommittee can rein in federal spending, the economy will rebound. The joint committee is a jobs committee.”

If anyone can demonstrate how cutting federal spending stimulates the economy and creates jobs, please let us know. Also, please give me your address; I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

While Boehner relies on Americans being ignorant of economics, I suspect he himself knows exactly what he is doing. His focus is on the 2012 election, and to hell with struggling Americans. I suspect he knows full well that cutting federal spending will push the nation back down into recession, just in time for the Republicans to claim that President Obama caused the problem.

For this comment, Boehner is awarded three traitor flags for putting party politics ahead of America’s future

I don't buy into the traitor bit, but certainly the utter ignorance of how a fiat currency system actually works will have Boehner viewed by history as just another idiot that helped strangle the American Dream.

More good insight from Ezra Klein -

Why the White House changed course


President Obama’s deficit-reduction plan (pdf) is most interesting for what’s not in it. It does not cut Social Security by “chaining” the program’s cost-of-living increases. It does not raise the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. Nor does it include any other major concessions to Republicans. Rather, the major compromise it makes is with political reality — a reality that the White House would prefer not to have had to acknowledge.

Since the election, the Obama administration’s working theory has been that the first-best outcome is striking a deal with Speaker John Boehner and, if that fails, the second-best outcome is showing that they genuinely, honestly wanted to strike a deal with Speaker John Boehner.
That was the thinking that led the White House to reward the GOP’s debt-ceiling brinksmanship by offering Boehner a “grand bargain” that cut Social Security, raised the Medicare age, and included less new revenue than even the bipartisan Gang of Six had called for. It was also a theory that happened to fit Obama’s brand as a postpartisan uniter and his personal preferences for campaigning on achievements rather than against his opponents. But though it came close to happening, the “grand bargain” ultimately fell apart. Twice.

The collapse of that deal taught them two things: Boehner doesn’t have the internal support in his caucus to strike a grand bargain with them, and the American people don’t give points for effort.

The administration was initially pleased to see press reports detailing their willingness to compromise and surveys showing the American people thought the GOP far more intransigent. In their theory of politics, that meant they were winning. But they soon learned that voters aren’t interested in compromises that don’t lead to results. Obama looked like a nice guy, and that kept him personally popular. But he looked like an ineffectual leader, and that led his job approval to dip below 40 percent in some polls.

Perhaps the final and most conclusive evidence that the strategy had failed came last week, when Democrats lost special elections in Nevada and New York. Both seats were winnable for the Democrats. Both were lost to candidates who focused most of their fire on the president. It was a far cry from the special election in May, when Democrat Kathy Hochul picked up a Republican-leaning seat by hammering her opponent’s support for Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare-slashing budget.

The White House could have been hammering that message since the day the House Republican Conference passed Ryan’s budget. They didn’t. The truth is, they didn’t want to. The president doesn’t think of himself as that kind of Democrat. He believes that there are sensible cuts that can be made to both Medicare and Social Security. He would like to win by governing effectively, by cutting deals with the other party, by making Washington work. He doesn’t want to run a generic Democratic campaign hammering Republicans for being willing to cut Medicare even as they cut taxes on the rich.

And for the last few months, he gave what Sarah Palin might call “the hopey-changey thing” a shot. But it failed. The choice, it turned out, wasn’t between winning by making tough choices and hard compromises and winning by running as a populist. It was between losing because he was unable to get Washington to make tough choices and hard compromises and trying something else. So now the White House is trying something else.

The new theory goes something like this: The first-best outcome is still striking a grand bargain with the Republicans, and it’s more likely to happen if the Republicans worry that Democrats have found a clear, popular message that might win them the election. The better Obama looks in the polls, the more interested Republicans will become in a compromise that takes some of the Democrats’ most potent attacks off the table.

But the second-best outcome isn’t necessarily looking like the most reasonable guy in the room. It’s looking like the strongest leader in the room. That’s why Obama, somewhat unusually for him, attached a veto threat to his deficit plan: If the supercommittee sends him a package that cuts benefits for Medicare beneficiaries but leaves the rich untouched, he says he’ll kick the plan back to Congress. Rather than emphasizing his willingness to meet Boehner’s bottom lines, which was the communications strategy during the debt ceiling showdown, he’s emphasizing his unwillingness to bend on his bottom lines.

That isn’t how the White House would prefer to govern. It’s not how they would prefer to campaign. It is, let’s admit it, politics-as-usual. It’s the triumph of the old way of doing things, an admission that Washington proved too hard to change. But it’s also the only option they have left

Obama certainly sounded like a different man today. I was encouraged, but he'll have to do it a lot more.

For those who missed the speech, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=bVjzsVi9Rc0

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Obama certainly sounded like a different man today. I was encouraged, but he'll have to do it a lot more.

I think he has to mention the extreme inequality and low social mobility in this country that has been caused by 30 years of the policies he is opposing.

"Men fight best on death ground," said Sun Tzu, the Chinese military theorist of ancient times. It's a good rule, and one sees it in operation in many walks of life, such as sports.

President Obama is pretty near death ground politically, and he finally has come out fighting with something I can feel enthusiastic about. No, it will never pass, but it's what we need. It is genuinely Trumanesque. I hope it is the start of something.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

"Men fight best on death ground," said Sun Tzu, the Chinese military theorist of ancient times. It's a good rule, and one sees it in operation in many walks of life, such as sports.

President Obama is pretty near death ground politically, and he finally has come out fighting with something I can feel enthusiastic about. No, it will never pass, but it's what we need. It is genuinely Trumanesque. I hope it is the start of something.

Me too. I was expecting that nothing short of a crash and burn would be enough to get the attention of the American people (and that still may be true). The continuing weak response by the Obama team was simply baffling. Capitulation without reward only made the case that the Right was right and Left was pathetic. Maybe we've broken that pattern ... finally.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

"Men fight best on death ground," said Sun Tzu, the Chinese military theorist of ancient times. It's a good rule, and one sees it in operation in many walks of life, such as sports.

President Obama is pretty near death ground politically, and he finally has come out fighting with something I can feel enthusiastic about. No, it will never pass, but it's what we need. It is genuinely Trumanesque. I hope it is the start of something.

I had this conversation with my husband this weekend. Obama is very Sun Tzu. He spent the first two years figuring out his enemy. Since the 2010 elections he has waited for the right time to move. My guess is that he will campaign against Congress and not the Republican nominee similarly to how he campaigned against Bush and not McCain.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I had this conversation with my husband this weekend. Obama is very Sun Tzu. He spent the first two years figuring out his enemy. Since the 2010 elections he has waited for the right time to move. My guess is that he will campaign against Congress and not the Republican nominee similarly to how he campaigned against Bush and not McCain.

I hope your guess is right; it is essential for him to do that if he wants his presidency to have any chance to mean something in its last years.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I hope your guess is right; it is essential for him to do that if he wants his presidency to have any chance to mean something in its last years.

I do too, Eric. One of the problems with the Sun Tzu style is that it is not for the lover of instant gratification. Winning the battle is not winning the war. Timing is critical. Obama is changing the discussion to what he wants to talk about to the point that some idiot Congressman yesterday was caught complaining that he "only has $400,000 left over after taxes and feeding his family". What incredible gonads does it take to say that in this economy?

Originally Posted by Aramea

I do too, Eric. One of the problems with the Sun Tzu style is that it is not for the lover of instant gratification. Winning the battle is not winning the war. Timing is critical. Obama is changing the discussion to what he wants to talk about to the point that some idiot Congressman yesterday was caught complaining that he "only has $400,000 left over after taxes and feeding his family". What incredible gonads does it take to say that in this economy?

Another possibly key Sun Tzu quote: "To win without fighting is the acme of skill." Alas, it's not always possible.

As you may know, the Congressional GOP leadership sent a letter to Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, on the eve of the Fed's monetary policy meeting -

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/...re-fed-action/

Dear Chairman Bernanke,

It is our understanding that the Board Members of the Federal Reserve will meet later this week to consider additional monetary stimulus proposals. We write to express our reservations about any such measures. Respectfully, we submit that the board should resist further extraordinary intervention in the U.S. economy
...

I think this somewhat conservative economist has got it right -

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=10915

The definition of treason

...

I think Congressmen have the right to speak out on monetary policy. As long as their advice is not politically motivated. Ask yourself the following question: Would these men be pressuring the Fed to adopt a tighter monetary policy if:

1. Unemployment were over 9%.

2. Inflation had averaged 1% over the past three years.

3. George Bush were president.

Were these men criticizing monetary policy under Bush, when inflation was higher than today? I don’t recall that happening.

Unlike Rick Perry, I don’t think it is treasonous to advocate easy money or tight money. Treason is advocating policies that you know will hurt the country, because you hope you can derive political gain from America’s misfortune. I’ll leave it to my readers to decide who should be charged with treason.

PS. This was especially ironic:

The letter expressed serious concerns that the Fed’s actions could weaken the foreign exchange value of the dollar or encourage excess borrowing by consumers who are already carrying too much debt.

Does anyone recall what happened to the dollar under Bush?

Originally Posted by playwrite

As you may know, the Congressional GOP leadership sent a letter to Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, on the eve of the Fed's monetary policy meeting -

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/...re-fed-action/



I think this somewhat conservative economist has got it right -

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=10915

"Treason is advocating policies that you know will hurt the country, because you hope you can derive political gain from America’s misfortune."

No.

The founding fathers were very familiar with the history of England and knew that "treason" had at times become a synonym for "anything I don't like," and people had been executed for it. Thus in America, treason consists of levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies, and you need two witnesses to the same overt act for a conviction. It's in the Constitution.

If Republicans believed the above definition they would have impeached Obama for treason by now. The Founding Fathers were wise men; let's keep their words in mind.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

"Treason is advocating policies that you know will hurt the country, because you hope you can derive political gain from America’s misfortune."

No.

The founding fathers were very familiar with the history of England and knew that "treason" had at times become a synonym for "anything I don't like," and people had been executed for it. Thus in America, treason consists of levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies, and you need two witnesses to the same overt act for a conviction. It's in the Constitution.

If Republicans believed the above definition they would have impeached Obama for treason by now. The Founding Fathers were wise men; let's keep their words in mind.

Purposefully trying to wreck the American economy is levying war. And, I have two witnesses - the author and me.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Purposefully trying to wreck the American economy is levying war. And, I have two witnesses - the author and me.

Mr. Kaiser is right on that one; we don't have statutes against "enemies of the people" and "wreckers of the economy". The Soviet Union did, and those statutes were among the most feared. A train operator could be shot for running trains with too little cargo... or for overloading the trains and thus wearing out the tracks faster (See Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago).

The Hard Right has their idea of what a "perfect" America would be, and that would be one in which the ruling elites have absolute power over the masses... perhaps even having the prerogative of killing people for griping or at least sending them off to a labor camp where they either learn to appreciate their masters or die. "Enemy of Prosperity" could be a death sentence.