Survival of the Richest

In the natural world, the weakest generally don’t survive unless they are part of a highly evolved species.  The lessons of basic evolution are fairly simple, you either develop something that gives you a competitive advantage over those who wish to make a meal of you, or you and your offspring have a very brief and brutal existence.

Humankind evolved into something beyond a herd animal by developing tools and social contracts. Through trade, language, and invention, our evolutionary history has shown that competitive advantage does not have to involve size, brute force, speed, or trickery like camouflage.   Dogs evolved into a smart and numerous population by being genetically flexible.  Indeed, the more advanced beings tend towards flexibility and social interaction.  Nurturing, passing on survival skills, specializing, and adapting are all important survival skills for more highly evolved beings.  Many natural scientists now study the importance of how these species treat their youngest and the oldest, since the young are portents of the future and the elderly are the libraries of past knowledge and skills. Specialization allows creatures other than those with superior brute force to be contributors.  We wouldn’t have The David or knowledge of Gravitational Singularity if we evolved on pure brute force.  Evolutionary Biology learns a lot about a species by the way it treats its weakest, its young, and its elderly.

What amazes me most about the Cat Food Commission report is that it is so Republican that you wonder if anyone Democratic had anything to do with its inception or results. But of course, it was chartered by a Democratic President and co-chaired by a Democratic man.  For a group of Darwin denying theists,  Republicans believe and adhere to survival of the fittest in the most strict terms and this report wreaks of that view.  The winners of the moment get all the spoils, even if this is a short-sighted and factually-challenged view of reality.  Their ‘masters of the universe’ comic book world is everything that nature does not reward in the extreme long run.  It is inflexible and relies on brute force.  Their reality gives a species a very short and brutal life in the scheme of things and assigns the animal the limited roles of predator and prey. To the Cat Food Commission, the  majority of us are mere prey.

The draft from that dreadful commission came out yesterday and you can read the entire thing here at the NYT.  We knew from the moment the Simpson theatrics began that nothing good was going to come out of this effort.  Simpson put Social Security on the agenda immediately which was completely outside a deficit commission’s sphere.  President Obama did nothing to reel them back.  Simpson only got more theatrical and ill-mannered.  The commission itself could only get worse.

The draft–which is all they can achieve at the moment–suggests upending the social and political contracts made between the US government and the people in ways that I would never have thought possible.  It’s as if every third rail of politics is put to a match.  It was announced as a draft with these big bold red letters that say Do Not Cite as if there’s any hope left that we’ll join the rest of the developed and industrialized nations in realizing that we can choose our priorities differently.  It is an announcement to the rest of the world that we, the American Empire, choose to be so exceptional that we’ll do so to our extinction.  The rest of you just go ahead and cooperate and share, while we ensure the survival of the few over the existence of the many.   No one makes Spock’s choice.  We all go down with the ship and  an Ayn Rand third finger salute.

I read this draft and realize how co-opted we are by conservative ideology just as we are co-opted by religion over reason.  This is a nation that would rather believe than realize. The thing reads like a Republican manifesto.  It contains spending cuts in nearly everything imaginable while still making that fairy tale suggestion that if we overhaul the tax system and lower marginal tax cuts, the wealth will just trickle on down.

One of the major suggestions is to revisit the huge tax break given to mortgage holders on their first and second homes.   While it is worthwhile to review the usefulness of this deduction as blank check, the commission questions its entire existence.  I’ve always wondered what the deal is with giving tax breaks for a second home or a boat.  I’ve also wondered why we should give a huge tax break to people living in McMansions.  However, for ordinary people, this deduction leads to wealth building and security.  Perhaps rather than tearing down the entire thing, they should’ve given some consideration to making it something akin to local homestead exemptions?  But, this would be too compassionate and probably too collectivist for our masters of the universe.  Why can’t they just allow destructibility up to say, the average national price of a home? No, no, because their views of the world say that only corporations get get deductions.  People have to make do with making do. Masters of the Universe don’t have to compete because they are special.  Special treatment for them is something other than a handout or a hand up.

It seems like the commission set out to make radical suggestions.  Maybe it’s to make some of the worst portions of it more palatable if they can’t get the entire thing pushed on to some willing Congressional sponsors?   Part of the problem we have now in our struggling economy is those balanced budget amendments passed by states allowing them to spend crazily when tax revenues are coming in–when government spending should be restrained–while telling states to adopt austere budgets when their economies need a government spending boost.  What’s with these inflexible spending quotas rather than adopting rules that reflect the state of the economy?

You can see some of this worst of this obsession with strict guidelines by reading some analysis by Ezra Klein at WAPO.  I can’t imagine how they’re going to deal with caps like this if we do have a serious national threat like an invading army at our borders. Right now, we’re spending way too much money drone bombing Bedouins in caves. Talk about your spending priorities.

The co-chairs freeze 2012’s discretionary spending at 2010’s levels — and then start cutting it back further. By 2015, they project discretionary spending will be more than $200 billion less than the president’s budget currently envisions. They raise taxes, but rather unexpectedly, cap the revenues the tax system can generate at 21 percent of GDP. They also offer a number of options for tax reform, including one that eliminates all tax expenditures (including the mortgage-interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-based health care, and more) and brings the top rate down to 26 percent. Social Security comes in for both benefit cuts and tax increases — though there are substantially more of the former than the latter. There are a number of Medicare reforms. The co-chairs project that the deficit will fall to 1.6 percent of GDP by 2020 if the recommendations are implemented. The vast majority of those savings come from cuts in spending. Tax increases are a relatively minor contributor.

The commission definitely overstepped its charter in many ways.  The biggest overstep was to make suggestions on Social Security, which technically isn’t part of the general budget and is funded and governed off-budget and supposedly away from political hacks.  The recommendations for Social Security are shocking.  Again, I have to say that Social Security is not an entitlement.  It is a benefit program that we pay for through working.  To see it perpetually treated as some kind of social welfare scheme appalls me.

Here are a few blurbs from Fox News on the proposals dealing with Social Security.  They seem most interested in it because they support tearing the program to shreds.  It’s demise has been the holy grail of the right wing of Republican Party since its inception during the New Deal.  For some reason, you can buy old age benefits from a insurance brokering shitmonger and it’s just all in a day’s work.  If you let the government offer a lower cost alternative,  it’s communism in our midst.

The co-chairmen of the panel appointed by President Obama to cut the U.S. deficit recommend raising the retirement age to 68. It is currently 67 years for retirees to receive full benefits. The panel leaders also propose reducing the annual cost-of-living increases in Social Security.

The increase to age 68 would be implemented by 2050 and then would increase again to 69 by 2075. A “hardship exception” would be provided for certain occupations where older retirement would be unrealistic.

This “hardship exception” is a divide and conquer strategy if I’ve ever seen one.  It pits those of us that rely on social security for retirement against each other.  I see nothing but a series of political fights erupting over this if any one dares bring it to the legislative floor.  It is telling the dogs to fight for the scraps on the floor rather than going for the banquet on their master’s table.

There are a few other things in that are within the scope of the commission’s charter.  Some of them seem tucked in there as an after thought rather than central to a serious discussion on what should be funded and what should be defunded.

According to a source who spoke to Fox News, the 18-member panel led by former Wyoming Republican Sen. Alan Simpson and former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, also may propose reducing the base rate on corporate taxes, phasing in spending cuts over time, reducing foreign aid by $4.6 billion, freezing federal salaries for three years and banning congressional earmarks. It is unclear how the commissioners would define a congressional earmark.

The proposal would also set a tough target for curbing the growth of Medicare. And it recommends looking at eliminating popular tax breaks, such as mortgage interest deduction. The plan also calls for cuts in farm subsidies and the Pentagon’s budget.

Let me just say this, foreign aid is less than 1 percent of our total budget outlay. It’s a pittance.  These kinds of things can only be seen in conservative dog whistle terms.  It makes me wonder exactly how far these folks are asking congress to go to appease Republicans because this can only be described as a plan tailor made for Republican talking points.

Again, I worry that something wasn’t done to narrow the scope of this motley crew way before this report came due.  It says something about the man in charge.  I’ll leave it to you to decide exactly what because my plan at this moment is to go further into the details and ferret out what remains of our country’s future.

And, just where are the Democratic politicians?  If you want some suggestions on this, just go read Black Agenda Report. Editor Bruce Dixon has his own theory.

The masters of corporate media proclaim that their raid on social security, is a done deal. “Entitlements,” their code word for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, will be cut in the lame duck session of Congress, with Democratic president Barack Obama taking the lead. Though the outlines of this raid have been clear for months, what passes for black America’s political leadership class have been silent. As far as we know, they have not been ordered to shut up. They have silenced themselves, in abject deference to the corporate black Democrat in the White House.

It took a Republican Richard Nixon to open relations with China in the seventies. It took Democrat Bill Clinton to impose draconian cuts in welfare and end college courses for prisoners in the nineties. And today, only a black Democratic president can sufficiently disarm Democrats, only a black Democrat can demobilize the black polity completely enough for the raid on “entitlements” to be successful.


Who is Really Running the Obama White House?

Who is really running the country anyway?

UPDATE: Axelrod does a switcheroo, tells National Journal he didn’t really mean what he said yesterday. Oopsie! Did Obama get wind of the overwhelmingly negative reaction, or did Axe actually exceed his authority?

Time will tell…In the meantime, I think we can assume the story is still valid, so let’s get back to ripping Axe a new one.

Zaladonis posted a link to this story in the comments on the morning post: David Axelrod has announced that President Obama will go along with Republicans on an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the superrich. Axelrod’s supposed “boss” is still out of the country, so who is really making the decisions for this administration?

From the Huffpo piece by Howard (ugh) Fineman and Sam Stein:

President Barack Obama’s top adviser suggested to The Huffington Post late Wednesday that the administration is ready to accept an across-the-board, temporary continuation of steep Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers.

That appears to be the only way, said David Axelrod, that middle-class taxpayers can keep their tax cuts, given the legislative and political realities facing Obama in the aftermath of last week’s electoral defeat.

“We have to deal with the world as we find it,” Axelrod said during an unusually candid and reflective 90-minute interview in his office, steps away from the Oval Office. “The world of what it takes to get this done.”

“There are concerns,” he added, that Congress will continue to kick the can down the road in the future by passing temporary extensions for the wealthy time and time again. “But I don’t want to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that point.”

Security for the MIDDLE CLASS? WTF?!! Give me a break!

This is all about trying to buy back the Wall Street whiners who have been donating to Republicans instead of Obama’s 2012 campaign. And it is just plain nauseating.

Emptywheel on Axelrod’s “quaint idea of “security” for the middle class:

Axe is defining “security for the middle class” as tax cuts. Not “jobs.” Not “access to health care, not just insurance.” Not “a guarantee a bankster can’t just foreclose on their house with a trumped up piece of paper.” Not “some basic safety net for retirement.” But “tax cuts.”

According to Axe, we have to shovel even more money on the already rich so as to ensure the “security” of the middle class by giving them a tax cut.

And while I agree that raising middle class tax cuts at this point would be bad for the economy, it’s not the worst thing that could happen to the economy.

In fact, the worst thing that could happen to this economy may well be passing legislation that continues to hollow out of the middle class and with it increasing the massive income inequality that continues to subject the American people to the craven demands of a few very rich people. That is, precisely what Axe and Obama have now agreed to do.

Michael Tomasky is only “slightly surprised”:

The slightly surprising element is that Axelrod appears to reject the idea of a temporary-only extension for households above $250,000. This has been the “compromise” under discussion here and there: make the Bush rates permanent for those under the 250 mark, and temporary for those above. [….]

Well, this is not surprising but it’s depressing all the same to see this little dog scurry over to the corner of the room and whimper like this.

Tomasky argues that $250K isn’t really “rich.” Really? Here are the stats for median income for a family of four, by state. The average is about $63,000. Regardless of what Tomasky says, $250,000 is in top 2% of incomes in the U.S. In my opinion, we need a more progressively graduated income tax structure, but that is a separate issue.

This decision is every bit as horrendous as the decision to escalate in Afghanistan. As Dakinikat suggested recently, why don’t these people just switch parties and be done with it?


Thursday Reads

Good Morning!! Today is Veterans Day.

The big news of the day is the draft report of the co-chairs President’s Catfood Commission, which is not going over too well even with the other members of the commission. Below are a few more reactions to yesterday’s announcement by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles–beyond the ones in Dakinikat’s post yesterday.

BTW, have you ever seen men who looked more dead inside than those two? As you would expect from such soulless men, they didn’t hesitate to advocate cuts to veterans’ benefits along with their attacks on the middle class, the poor, and old people.

So, on to those reactions.

At Huffpo, Dan Froomkin lists “Ten Flash Points In The Fiscal Commission Chairmen’s Proposal”

…taken as a whole, the plan authored by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson would have devastating effects on the government and its ability to help the most vulnerable in our society, and it would put the squeeze on the middle class, veterans, the elderly and the sick – all in the name of an abstract goal that ultimately only a bond-trader could love.

For a summary of the attack on veterans, Froomkin links to David Dayen at FDL:

They want to add co-pays to the Veterans’ Administration and TRICARE, as well as pushing individuals covered by TRICARE into an employer policy. They also want to freeze noncombat military pay for three years. And, they want to end schools for families on military bases, instead reintegrating soldier’s kids into the public school system (because that’s so easy for a military family that moves every other year).

The attack on old people and future retirement benefits for everyone:

Deficit Comm. Chairs’ Social Security Cuts Mean Seniors Pay for Wall Street Instead of Their Own Retirement, Says Bob Weiner, Ex-House Aging Committee Chief of Staff

The Deficit Commission “Chairmen’s Mark” proposal today for Social Security cuts, including raising the retirement age and reducing the cost of living, means that “Seniors will be paying for Wall Street instead of their own retirement, will be forced to work longer, and will be squeezed into poverty, despite the fact that the Social Security system has no debt for 30+ years based on what seniors have paid into it,” says former House Aging Committee Chief of Staff Robert Weiner.

“Social Security adds not a dime to the national debt for at least 30 years. What is really happening is cuts advocates are using the Social Security funds literally paid for by seniors to reverse other federal programs that do have deficits or are unpaid, and to pay for the tax breaks for the wealthy,” Weiner continues.

Michael Hiltzik: The deficit commission chairs’ lies about Social Security

Look out — the enemies of Social Security are locked and loaded for a renewed attack on the program.

The new volley comes from the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the so-called deficit commission ginned up by the White House as a sop to conservatives. The co-chairs are the profoundly clownish former Sen. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, a Democrat with his feet firmly implanted on Wall Street….

The co-chairs propose to gut Social Security under the guise of “saving” it, eliminate federal funding for services and programs that heavily benefit the middle- and working classes, and — surprise — steer even more income tax cuts to the wealthy.

The cuts to Social Security are subtle, and for that reason worthy of close scrutiny. The co-chairs’ key proposal is to raise the regular retirement age to as high as 69, and raise the minimum retirement age to 64. This imposes disproportionate harm on lower-income workers, whose working lives tend to be shorter than others’. They also want to reduce relative benefits for better-paid workers, and change the formula for cost-of-living increases to one that looks like it would customarily produce lower COLAs.

Bloomberg summarized a range of reactions: U.S. Debt Proposal Would Cut Social Security, Taxes, Medicare A few quotes:
Read the rest of this entry »


The Cat Food Commission Weighs In

I’m going to read more about this in the next few days and I’ll write what I can glean from it when I do.  Both of my daughters are visiting today so I’m not able to sit down and look things over.

Just wanted to pass on some links and comments coming from the President’s Panel on Spending.  It looks like a mixed bag on the surface.  Here’s some details from the NYT. Surprise! Surprise!  Social Security is ON the table and cuts are suggested.

The plan would reduce projected Social Security benefits to most retirees in later decades — low-income people would get higher benefits — and slowly raise the retirement age for full benefits to 69 from 67, with a “hardship exemption” for people who physically cannot work past 62. And it would subject higher levels of income to payroll taxes, to ensure Social Security’s solvency for the next 75 years.

The plan would reduce Social Security benefits to most future retirees — low-income people would get a higher benefit — and it would subject higher levels of income to payroll taxes to ensure Social Security’s solvency for at least the next 75 years.

But the plan would not count any savings from Social Security toward meeting the overall deficit-reduction goal set by Mr. Obama, reflecting the chairmen’s sensitivity to liberal critics who have complained that Social Security should be fixed only for its own sake, not to balance the nation’s books.

Most appalling is the plan calls for taxes cuts. Here’s Krugman’s take on that.

OK, let’s say goodbye to the deficit commission. If you’re sincerely worried about the US fiscal future — and there’s good reason to be — you don’t propose a plan that involves large cuts in income taxes. Even if those cuts are offset by supposed elimination of tax breaks elsewhere, balancing the budget is hard enough without giving out a lot of goodies — goodies that fairly obviously, even without having the details, would go largely to the very affluent.

I mean, what’s this about? There is no — zero — evidence that income taxes at current rates are an important drag on growth.

The more I read, the more I can’t believe that this was a commission put together by a Democratic President.  It’s horrid!  Mankiw (Bush economist) thinks it’s great.  DeLong joins Krugman with a big thumbs down.  DeLong’s headline says it all:   Yes, the Entitlement Commission Was an Unforced Error by the Obama Administration.  Here’s some random comments as he kept reading the abomination.

At the time I asked why you would take a budget arsonist like Alan Simpson and give him a Fire Chief hat. I never got a good answer.

Oh my God! Ration city, here we come!

What clowns vetted this thing?

A 23% top marginal tax rate?

Hoo boy!

TPM-DC calls their presser “eye popping”.

Their recommendations are more or less a list of the third-rail issues of American politics, including cuts in the number of federal workers; increasing the costs of participating in veterans and military health care systems; increasing the age of Social Security eligibility; and major cuts in defense and foreign policy spending. They also encompass a range of tax system reforms that have been floated by many in Washington for years to little effect, including funding tax rates reductions by eliminating many beloved credits and deductions.

We don’t have a two party system any more.  We have Republicans and Theocratic Republicans.

Who can come along and save us from people like these?

I’ve got some more updates from the currency wars and this thing to plow through.  I’ll start more things tomorrow!!! Promise!!!

——————————————————————————————

Boston Boomer here with some more reactions to the Catfood Commission proposals:

Jane Hamsher has a quote from Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO:

The chairmen of the Deficit Commission just told working Americans to ‘Drop Dead.’ Especially in these tough economic times, it is unconscionable to be proposing cuts to the critical economic lifelines for working people, Social Security and Medicare.

Some people are saying this is plan is just a “starting point.” Let me be clear, it is not.

This deficit talk reeks of rank hypocrisy: The very people who want to slash Social Security and Medicare spent this week clamoring for more unpaid Bush tax cuts for millionaires.

What we need to be focusing on now is the jobs deficit. Working families already paid for Wall Street’s party that tanked our economy. If we actually want to address our economic problems, we need to end tax breaks that send American jobs overseas and invest in creating jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and green technologies.

The Hill talked to Bernie Sanders and other liberals

“The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan is extremely disappointing and something that should be vigorously opposed by the American people,” Sanders said in a statement.

Sanders has been among a group of congressional liberals who have threatened to defeat the commission’s recommendations if it curtails Social Security benefits in any way. Sanders has said of the commission’s recommendations that Congress would “vote it down” if it touched on Social Security, and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), joined by 136 other House Democrats, has written to similarly warn the commission.

The proposals released on Wednesday, charged Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, would only favor the wealthy.

“The path this plan would set is not good for the public. Congress should be having a realistic, productive conversation right now about how to reduce our budget deficit and maintain a secure retirement system for those who have earned it,” he said in a statement. “Instead, we’re debating a proposal from a commission dedicated to cutting crucial social programs and reducing corporate and upper-income taxes at the same time. This is not a recipe for a healthier American economy.”

We need to keep in mind that the co-chairs do not have support from the rest of the commission for these shock doctrine proposals. They also have no power to enact their sick proposals unless the President and Congress support them.


Sam Alito Raising Funds for Right Wing Causes in Violation of Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges

Justice Samuel Alito

Lee Fang of Think Progress reports:

Last night, the American Spectator — a right-wing magazine known for its role in the “Arkansas Project,” a well-funded effort to invent stories with the goal of eventually impeaching President Clinton — held its annual gala fundraising event. The Spectator is more than merely an ideological outlet. Spectator publisher Al Regnery helps lead a secretive group of conservatives called the “Conservative Action Project,” formed after President Obama’s election, to help lobby for conservative legislative priorities, elect Republicans (the Conservative Action Project helped campaign against Democrat Bill Owens in NY-23), and block President Obama’s judicial appointments. The Spectator’s gala last night, with ticket prices/sponsorship levels ranging from $250 to $25,000, featured prominent Republicans like RNC chairman Michael Steele, hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer (a major donor to Republican campaign committees and attack ad groups), and U.S. Chamber of Commerce board member and former Allied Capital CEO William Walton. Among the attendees toasting Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), the keynote speaker for the event, was Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito.

Fang, who was at the event, asked Alito why he was attending a partisan fund-raising event. Alito responded, “It’s not important that I’m here.” Fang pointed out that Alito had headlined the same event in 2008 and had used his speech to ridicule now Vice President Joe Biden.

Apparently, Alito is a regular benefactor for highly political conservative fundraisers. Last year, he headlined the fundraising dinner for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) — the same corporate front that funded the rise of Republican dirty trickster James O’Keefe and anti-masturbation activist Christine O’Donnell. According to the sponsorship levels for the event, Alito helped ISI raise $70,000 or more.

Documents exposed by ThinkProgress last month revealed that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have also attended secret political fundraisers. We published a memo detailing fundraising events, organized by oil billionaires David and Charles Koch, to fund Republican campaigns, judicial elections, and groups running ads in the 2010 midterm election. The fundraisers, attended by some of the nation’s wealthiest bankers, industrialists, and other executives, help fund much of the conservative infrastructure. The memo stated the Thomas and Alito were past participants of the Koch fundraisers.

What the hell?! This kind of conduct is explicitly forbidden by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (via Raw Story), which clearly states that a “judge should refrain from political activity.” Specifically, he or she should not:

“solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.”

According to Raw Story,

In 2009, Alito also headlined a fundraising dinner for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which funded the conservative journalist James O’Keefe and Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell. Alito is reported to have helped the institute raise $70,000.

This is absolutely outrageous! Will the Obama administration or Congress respond, or are these kinds of partisan political activities on the part of Supreme Court Justices just fine with them? Keep in mind that these three justices voted in favor of “Citizens United” in the recent controversial decision that opened the doors to unlimited campaign spending by corporations. Lest we forget, “Citizens United” was originally called Citizens United Not Timid (get it?), and was formed in order to destroy Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy.

By the way, have you heard that Alito plans to skip the State of Union Address this year? This man does not belong on the Supreme Court.