Women, Workers, and The Sisterhood

Posted: March 8, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Hillary Clinton: Her Campaign for All of Us, Women's Rights, worker rights | Tags: | 13 Comments

Hillary has marked today’s 100th International Women’s Day by releasing the following op-ed. As soon as I heard the title, I knew I’d hear, “women do two-thirds, yet…”

Real life Rosie the Riveter. Operating a hand drill at Vultee-Nashville, woman is working on a “Vengeance” dive bomber, Tennessee (1943). Library of Congress, LC-USW36-295 (P&P)

March 7, 2011:

“Women’s Work-More, Earn-Less Plan Hurts“ — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

[Bloomberg headline — “I Know the Secret to Economic Growth: Hillary Rodham Clinton“]

“Throughout the world, women do two-thirds of the work, yet they earn just one-third of the income and own less than 2 percent of the land. Three billion people don’t have access to basic financial services we take for granted, like bank accounts and lines of credit; the majority of them are women. […] If we invest in women’s education and give them the opportunity to access credit or start a small business, we add fuel to a powerful engine for progress for women, their families, their communities and their countries. Women invest 80 percent of their incomes on their families and in their communities.”

Whether Hillary’s in or out of US domestic politics, Hillary is working for all women and for all workers. She’s the woman who first introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act in 2005 after all.

Over the last thirty-something years, Hill’s even gotten Bill speaking the language of women power.

September 2009:

“According to the United Nations, women do 66% — two thirds — of the world’s work, produce 50% of the world’s food — a fact which would stun people in this country given the way agriculture is organized — earn 10% of the world’s income, and own 1% of the world’s property.” –President Bill Clinton, at the Clinton Global Initiative, discussing why we need to invest in girls and women

I’m more familiar with hearing the “two-thirds work, 10% income, 1% property” set of figures. Hillary’s “two third-one third-less than 2%” is a new one on me–I wonder if it’s an update or tweak. Anyhow, another great companion piece to read with Hillary’s op-ed today is this interview at Democracy Now — “Women’s Rights are Workers’ Rights:” Kavita Ramdas on History of International Women’s Day and Challenges Women Face 100 Years Later. From the link:

“I think there is a need for us, I think, at this moment, particularly as there’s an effort to marginalize the rights of workers, as you see across many of the states, particularly Wisconsin, Indiana, an attempt to kind of roll back some of the achievements that workers have fought for so hard. You see that happening simultaneously, Amy, as you mentioned, with the attempt to sort of roll back women’s rights. And this is happening exactly at the moment that globally, the voice says, ‘Oh, you know, the way to have development and democracy is to invest in women.’ So, on one hand, you have what’s right for the rest of the world; on the other hand, you actually have a situation in which people are losing rights, in the context of the country where those rights were fought for, you know, to begin with.” –Kavita Ramdas

I’d love to hear our resident economist and blogger extraordinaire Dakinikat weigh in when she gets a chance and give us her thoughts and analysis on where women’s wage earnings stand and the road forward. In the meantime, I thought it might be interesting to revisit some of Hillary’s earlier op-eds from the last three years, to see how her current piece tackling “Work-More, Earn-Less” fits into her overall vision. I’m just going to pick the op-eds that come to mind for me and excerpt a small passage from each. I want to let Hillary do the talking here and illustrate the framework she’s been putting in place, piece by piece, with each of these editorials.

This will go backwards in time (reverse chronological order.)

November 10, 2010:

“An End to Human Trafficking” — SecState HRC

“It is especially important for governments to protect the most vulnerable – women and children – who are more likely to be victims of trafficking. They are not just the targets of sex traffickers, but also labor traffickers, and they make up a majority of those trapped in forced labor: picking cotton, mining rare earth minerals, dancing in nightclubs. The numbers may keep growing, as the global economic crisis has exposed even more women to unscrupulous recruiters.”

October 28, 2010:

“The Key to Sustainable Peace: Women” — SecState HRC and Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store

“Whether they are combatants or survivors, peace-builders or bystanders, women must play a role in the transition from war to peaceful development. And we must urge men and women to focus on changing the conditions that produced the violence in the first place. In the coming weeks and months, our governments will be pressing to ramp up meaningful implementation of Resolution 1325. As just one part of that effort, our governments are among those participating in an important international conference in Copenhagen this week, where the focus will be on the role of women in a broad range of global security issues. If we want to make progress towards settling the world’s most intractable conflicts, let’s enlist women.”

October 2009:

“A New Approach to Global Food Security and Hunger” — SecState HRC

“Food security represents the convergence of several issues: droughts and floods caused by climate change, swings in the global economy that affect food prices, and spikes in the price of oil that increase transportation costs. So food security is not only about food, but it is all about security. Chronic hunger threatens individuals, governments, societies, and borders. People who are starving or undernourished and can’t care for their families are left with feelings of hopelessness and despair, which can lead to tension, conflict, even violence. Since 2007, there have been riots over food in more than 60 countries. The failures of farming in many parts of the world also have an impact on the global economy. Farming is the only or primary source of income for more than three-quarters of the world’s poor. When so many work so hard but still can’t get ahead, the whole world is held back.”

August 2009:

“What I Saw in Goma” — SecState HRC

“There is an old Congolese proverb that says, ‘No matter how long the night, the day is sure to come.’ The day must come when the women of the eastern Congo can walk freely again, to tend their fields, play with their children and collect firewood and water without fear. They live in a region of unrivaled natural beauty and rich resources. They are strong and resilient. They could, if given the opportunity, drive economic and social progress that would make their country both peaceful and prosperous. Working together, we will banish sexual violence into the dark past, where it belongs, and help the Congolese people seize the opportunities of a new day.”

August 9, 2009:

“Women Are Drivers of Positive Change” — SecState HRC

“National Women’s Day commemorates the 20 000 South African women who marched for justice on August 9 1956. Fearless, they sang an anthem that has become a rallying cry: ‘Wathint’a bafazi, Wathint’ imbokodo’ (You Strike a Woman, You Strike a Rock). Women can be the rock on which a freer, safer and more prosperous Africa is built. They just need the opportunity.”

June 17, 2009:

“Partnering Against Trafficking“ — SecState HRC

“When I began advocating against trafficking in the 1990s, I saw firsthand what happens to its victims. In Thailand, I held 12-year-olds who had been trafficked and were dying of AIDS. In Eastern Europe, I shared the tears of women who wondered whether they’d ever see their relatives again. The challenge of trafficking demands a comprehensive approach that both brings down criminals and cares for victims. To our strategy of prosecution, protection and prevention, it’s time to add a fourth P: partnerships. The criminal networks that enslave millions of people cross borders and span continents. Our response must do the same.”

September 25, 2008:

“Let’s Keep People In Their Homes“ –– Senator HRC

“I’ve proposed a new Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), to launch a national effort to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. […] The original HOLC returned a profit to the Treasury and saved one million homes. We can save roughly three times that many today. […] If we do not take action to address the crisis facing borrowers, we’ll never solve the crisis facing lenders. These problems go hand in hand. And if we are going to take on the mortgage debt of storied Wall Street giants, we ought to extend the same help to struggling, middle-class families. […] This is a sink-or-swim moment for America. We cannot simply catch our breath. We’ve got to swim for the shores. We must address the conditions that set the stage for the turmoil unfolding on Wall Street, or we will find ourselves lurching from crisis to crisis. Just as Wall Street must once again look further than the quarterly report, our nation must as well.”

August 6, 2008:

“No Crisis Is Immune From Exploitation Under Bush“ — Senator HRC

“The examples of the waste, fraud and abuse are legion — from KBR performing shoddy electrical work in Iraq that has resulted in the electrocution of our military personnel according to Pentagon and Congressional investigators, to the firing of an Army official who dared to refuse a $1 billion payout for questionable charges to the same company. In another scam, the Pentagon awarded a $300 million contract to AEY, Inc., a company run by a 22-year-old who fulfilled an ammunition deal in Afghanistan by supplying rotting Chinese-made munitions to our allies. But the fraud and waste are not limited to the war. In the weeks after Hurricane Katrina, for example, FEMA awarded a contract worth more than $500 million for trailers to serve as temporary housing. The contractor, Gulf Stream, collected all of its money even though they knew at the time that its trailers were contaminated with formaldehyde. […] If we’re going to get serious about putting our nation’s fiscal house in order, let’s talk about putting an end to billions in no-bid contract awards to unaccountable contractors. Let’s talk about the number of lucrative contracts and bonuses being paid for duties never performed, promises never fulfilled, and contracts falsely described as complete. And let’s talk about reforming the federal contracting system so that we can take on the real waste, fraud and abuse in our federal government.”

Are you detecting a pattern yet?

Disaster capitalism… No Profit Left Behind…. Mortgage Crisis… Modern-Day Slavery… Opportunities for Women… Banishing Sexual Violence… Global Food Security and Hunger… Women’s Progress as the Key to Sustainable Peace… Enlisting Women… Investing in Women’s Education and Economic Security…

These are just a few of the challenges and objectives outlined, and the above is hardly an exhaustive compilation.

When I think of Barack Obama’s op-ed writing, I think of his ode to deregulation at the start of this year. When I think of Sarah Palin’s, I remember this summer of 2009 anti-cap and trade diatribe that never even mentioned global warming (or climate change). Two Reagan-wannabe peas-in-a-pod.

Hillary stands out as presidential–a champion for every man, woman, and child to have a level playing field in this world from which to rise. But, as our own commenter paperdoll says, “1600 PA Ave. isn’t big enough for Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.”

And, that’s because Hillary’s work is bigger than her and belongs to all of us.

On this International Women’s Day, I’d like to leave you with the photo below. Because when it comes to Hillary and her work, it’s not about her being likeable, and it’s not about paternalism and rescuing damsels in distress who are incapable of freeing and governing themselves–it’s about all of us supporting these young women, and for that matter one another, so we can each lift ourselves up to our God-given potential.

When Hillary gave her speech at the DNC in 2008, she asked “Were you in this campaign just for me?”

Hillary, I’m still in the campaign for all of us, and I’m in it for the sisterhood:

A group of girls reach in to hug Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during a tour of the Siem Reap Center, a shelter that provides rehabilitation, vocational training, and social reintegration for sex trafficking victims, in Siem Reap.

 

Wrong! Wrong! Very Wrong!

Posted: March 8, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Baby Boomers, Domestic Policy, Federal Budget, John Birch Society in Charge, Psychopaths in charge, right wing hate grouups, Social Security, The Media SUCKS, the villagers | Tags: , , , , | 22 Comments

I almost never read Robert J. Samuelson because he is basically one of those people that seems to read a few things then moves himself to expert status.   He’s one of many writers who seems to derive a livelihood by achieving intellectual dilletante status.  I couldn’t get pass this headline at his WAPO column: ‘Why Social Security is welfare’.  Why journalistic poseurs are allowed column space to promote so much wrong information is beyond me.

We don’t call Social Security “welfare” because it’s a pejorative term, and politicians don’t want to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social Security as something else when it isn’t. Here is how I define a welfare program: First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it’s pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people’s own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.

Samuelson is obviously confused. I wonder if he feels this way about every annuity investment sold by every insurance broker and bank in the country?  Social Security is a benefit that every worker pays for that is basically an insurance annuity set up to pay you back when you hit the stated conditions of the contract.  It has elements of insurance in it that is comparable to the government-sponsored flood insurance plan.  It has elements of a life annuity which is a similar contract that you can buy from any insurance broker.  You pay now and it pays you benefits in the future, again, when you meet the conditions of the annuity. It’s a form of longevity insurance.

Additionally, it is not means tested which means that receiving the annuity has nothing to do with your income.  It has to do with you joining the plan and paying the premiums as you work or as your parents or spouse works.  It is not a transfer payment which is the traditional form ‘welfare’ or safety net program. Transfer payments go to a beneficiary simply upon meeting certain criteria without ever having paid into the program directly.  Usually, transfer payments are means-tested which means they pay only to low income citizens. Transfer payments direct payments or services to people that don’t involve any exchange of goods and services for the benefit.  They are a one-way transfer of benefits and their main purpose is for income redistribution.  Social Security does not fall under this category at all.  If you or a qualifying family member don’t contribute to the program, you will not get your benefits.  Your benefits are also eventually based on what you contributed and not what your income says you need.  This is a huge difference.

You can read two other economics/finance writers who explain this in similar ways.  First, Economics professor Mark Thoma on Economist’s View explains the bad logic involved with this argument.  He also explains why Social Security is an insurance annuity and not a transfer payment in a similar way.

Social Security is no different, it is an insurance program against economic risk as I explain in this Op-Ed piece. Some people will live long lives and collect more than they contribute in premiums, some will die young and collect less. Some children will lose their parents and collect more than their parents paid into the system, others will not. But this does not make it welfare.

Is gambling welfare? Gambling transfers income from one person to another. Does that make it welfare? Loaning money transfers income when the loan is paid back with interest. Are people who receive interest income on welfare?

There is an important distinction between needing insurance ex-ante and needing it ex-post. Insurance does redistribute income ex-post, but that doesn’t imply that it was a bad deal ex-ante (i.e., when people start their work lives).

Angry Bear has made the same argument. (Both of these quotes are pretty old btw since Samuleson keeps rehashing this canard over and over and over.)  There is an example there of the basic insurance problem taught in finance classes in risk theory.  It shows why people basically buy insurance.  It also discusses the benefits of having insurance provided by the government when the private sector fails to provide the service.  Flood insurance and Longevity insurance make sure that people who have experienced those conditions do not become a burden on society and get shoved into the welfare system.  They pay premiums on each pay check–just as each of us do–to make sure that we don’t either outlive our incomes and wealth.

What does all of this have to do with Social Security? Those who are hard-working, fortunate, and not too profligate will have a large nest egg at retirement and Social Security will account for only a small portion of their retirement portfolio. This is tantamount to paying for insurance and then not needing it. This happens all the time — every year someone fails to get sick or injured and, while surely happy in their good health, would have been better off not buying insurance. That’s the nature of insurance: if you don’t need it, then you’ll always wish you hadn’t purchased it. Only in the context of retirement insurance is this considered a crisis.

On the other hand, those with bad luck or insufficient income will not have a nest egg at retirement. Because of Social Security, instead of facing the risk of zero income at retirement, they are guaranteed income sufficient to subsist.

This is precisely like the insurance example I worked through above: people with good outcomes will wish they hadn’t paid into the insurance fund; those with bad outcomes will be glad they did. Ex-ante, everyone benefits from the insurance. Overall, society is better off because risk is reduced; because people are risk-averse, the gains are quite large.

Additionally, Samuelson tries to force the Social Security program back into the federal deficit column when it is and was designed as a stand alone program. He also uses the current downturn–with its high and sustained rate of unemployment and hence, people NOT paying into social security at the moment–as an excuse to call the trust fund insolvent.  This is another canard.

Contrary to the Obama administration’s posture, Social Security does affect our larger budget problem. Annual benefits already exceed payroll taxes. The gap will grow. The trust fund holds Treasury bonds; when these are redeemed, the needed cash can be raised only by borrowing, taxing or cutting other programs. The connection between Social Security and the rest of the budget is brutally direct. The arcane accounting of the trust fund obscures what’s happening. Just as important, how we treat Social Security will affect how we treat Medicare and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid.

Dean Baker also calls Samuelson “inaccurate and misleading”. (h/t BostonBoomer)

It seems that for some reason he has a hard time understanding the idea of a pension. This shouldn’t be that hard, many people have them.

The basic principle is that you pay money in during your working years and then you get money back after you retiree. Social Security is a pension that is run through the government. Therefore Samuelson wants to call it “welfare.”

It is not clear exactly what his logic is. The federal government runs a flood insurance program. Are the payments made to flood victims under this program “welfare?” How about the people who buy government bonds. Are they getting “welfare” when they get the interest on their bonds? If there is any logic to Mr. Samuelson’s singling out Social Security as a source of welfare, he didn’t waste any space sharing it with readers.

There are a few other points that deserve comment. He claims that the trillions of dollars of surplus built up by the trust fund over the last three decades were an “accident.” Actually, this surplus was predicted by the projections available at the time. If anyone did not expect a large surplus to arise from the tax increases and benefit cuts put in place in 1983 then their judgement and arithmetic skills have to be seriously questioned.

In terms of the program and the deficit, under the law it can only spend money that came from its designated tax or the interest on the bonds held by the trust fund. It has no legal authority to spend one dime beyond this sum. In that sense it cannot contribute to the deficit. Mr. Samuelson apparently wants to use Social Security taxes to pay for defense and other spending.

Social Security coffers will see increased funding as long as people have jobs that pay more. Judging the cash inflows at a time when unemployment is unusually high and sustained is analysis aimed at pushing a political agenda.  It’s not a realistic view of the future stream of revenues.  The pot will replenish at a rate better than today simply by getting rid of the high unemployment rate and getting people into jobs with incomes that actually improve.  Consistently increasing the cap level by the rate of inflation would also provide an additional and reasonable source of funds.

I’ve written more than a few posts explaining the basics of social security.  It gets old when you have to repeat the same arguments to the same boneheads–like Samuelson–over and over.  I really don’t understand why some news outlets just seem to tolerate deliberate misinformation as ‘opinion’.  I certainly hope that some one with a similar sized readership will challenge Samuelson on his facts.  He plays fast and loose with them all the time.

Tuesday Reads

Posted: March 8, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Barack Obama, Catfood Commission, collective bargaining, Foreign Affairs, Libya, Middle East, morning reads, Psychopaths in charge, Social Security, Team Obama, U.S. Economy, U.S. Military, U.S. Politics, worker rights | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

Good Morning!! There is a lot of news breaking this morning about Libya. The Guardian just posted this story: Barack Obama raises pressure on Gaddafi as no-fly zone gains support

Barack Obama has stepped up pressure on Colonel Gaddafi, saying the US and Nato allies were considering a military response to violence in Libya, with the list of options including arming the rebels.

Obama’s remarks came as Britain and France made progress in drafting a resolution at the UN calling for a no-fly zone triggered by specific conditions, rather than timelines. Downing Street is hopeful that a resolution with clear triggers such as the bombing of civilians would not be subject to a Russian veto at the security council.

The foreign secretary, William Hague, told the Commons a no-fly zone would have to be supported by north African countries and rebel leaders and would also need an appropriate legal basis.

There is concern by Western governments that Gadhafi may succeed in defeating the opposition forces if they don’t get more international support soon. Obama is getting pressure from Senator John Kerry who has been pushing for the no-fly zone for some time now.

Kerry, chairman of the foreign relations committee, argued at the weekend that a no-fly zone would not amount to military intervention, adding: “One could crater the airports and the runways and leave them incapable of using them for a period of time.” ….Obama is believed to oppose US military intervention in Libya, partly because it could boost Gaddafi’s standing. But if civilian deaths mount and the humanitarian crisis worsens, his hand may be forced.

The New York Times says discord is growing in DC over the Libya situation.

Of most concern to the president himself, one high-level aide said, is the perception that the United States would once again be meddling in the Middle East, where it has overturned many a leader, including Saddam Hussein. Some critics of the United States in the region — as well as some leaders — have already claimed that a Western conspiracy is stoking the revolutions that have overtaken the Middle East.

“He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic,” the senior official said, quoting the president.

At the same time, there are persistent voices — in Congress and even inside the administration — arguing that Mr. Obama is moving too slowly. They contend that there is too much concern about perceptions, and that the White House is too squeamish because of Iraq.

Furthermore, they say a military caught up in two difficult wars has exaggerated the risks of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, the tactic discussed most often.

The American military is also privately skeptical of humanitarian gestures that put the lives of troops at risk for the cause of the moment, while being of only tenuous national interest.

It really makes me angry that our government had no problem going into Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein over weapons that didn’t exist, but now that we have a humanitarian crisis with people being slaughtered by a vicious tyrant, our President is dithering and the military doesn’t want to help because our own selfish interests aren’t involved. What about doing something because it’s the right thing to do? For once we actually have a chance to be the good guy. Yeah, I know that’s crazy talk…

According to Reuters, Gadhafi is “looking for [an] exit deal.”

Two Arab newspapers and al Jazeera television said on Monday Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was looking for an agreement allowing him to step down, but there was no official confirmation of the reports.

Al Jazeera said Gaddafi had proposed to Libyan rebels to hold a meeting of parliament to pave the way for him to step down with certain guarantees.

It said Gaddafi made the proposal to the interim council, which speaks for mostly eastern areas controlled by his opponents. It quoted sources in the council as saying Gaddafi wanted guarantees of personal safety for him and his family and a pledge that they not be put on trial.

Al Jazeera said sources from the council told its correspondent in Benghazi that the offer was rejected because it would have amounted to an “honourable” exit for Gaddafi and would offend his victims.

So, while Western leaders argue and Libyan rebels hold out for a better deal with the madman, Gadhafi’s forces continue to attack the ragtag opposition from the air. I think our indecisive President needs to think about how he is going to look if Gaddafi manages to crush the opposition and stay in power.

In other news, Alan Simpson is out in public making a fool of himself again.

Read the rest of this entry »

Don’t Mess with Us Lefty Women in Texas

Posted: March 7, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Women's Rights | Tags: , | 34 Comments

I can see Ann Richards smiling down on us gals in Texas who are uppity enough to think we were born with civil rights!

I included a brief link on this story in the Monday reads, but it got buried at the end and I thought this deserved it’s own spot on the frontpage anyway.

Some fun stuff went on here in Texas last Thursday in the debate over the sonogram-before-you-exercise-your-civil-rights law.

Amanda Marcotte has the scoop at RH Reality Check:

Furious at the sexist paternalism and anti-choice nuttery behind this bill—but unable to do anything to stop it—pro-choice Texas legislators instead decided to engage in a bit of performance art to draw attention to the hostility towards women and short-sightedness inherent in these ultrasound bills that condescendingly masquerade as caring.

Ah, some of that  “Feminists Behaving Badly” spirit I wrote about in December is making an appearance as the war on women continues unabated! It’s about time.

Houston state representative Harold Dutton got the most coverage for repeatedly making the point that “pro-lifers” drop all pretense of caring about life the second it can’t be used to punish sexually active women.  In rapid order, he introduced three amendments that were tabled by the majority, who really didn’t want to address the issue of the wellbeing of actual children when potential children matter so much more to them.  All three amendments addressed what should happen if a woman looks at a sonogram and decides not to have abortion.

Guess what the first, second, and third amendments were. I bet a lot of you could! We’ve got a running commentary in the comments suggesting this sort of thing all the time:

The first amendment would have required the state to pay for the child’s college tuition, the second required the state to pay for the child’s health care until age 18, and the third required the state to pay for the child’s health care until age six.

Now, of course these amendments were blocked, but Dutton made the point we all know so well. The rightwing assault on women’s rights has nothing to do with protecting the life of children.

There were more amendments in addition to Dutton’s, and they just get more clever. Representative Joaquin Castro of San Antonio offered up an amendment that would require abortion clinics to give medically accurate advice about contraception (which they already do). Of course, that amendment too was tabled. Castro also added amendments that called for the state to a) expedite the Medicaid application process for women who get sonograms and b) protect abortion patients from stalking, harassment, and violence. Neither passed, of course.

And, here was the amendment from Rep. Marisa Marquez of El Paso:

Sec.A171.057.AAMANDATORY VASECTOMY. On an application under Section 171.056, a court shall order a man to undergo a vasectomy if it is shown that:

(1) the man is the father of the pregnant woman’s child outside of marriage; and

(2) previous to the date of application, the man was a father to two or more other children by two or more other women outside of marriage.

In other words, the Personal Responsibility for Sexually Active Men Amendment!

I don’t even have to tell you what happened to that one.

As you may have heard by now and probably suspected anyway, the draconian forced sonogram (i.e. forced pregnancy!) law passed the Texas House, and it did so naturally without any of these amendments.

But, it’s clear that the so-called “Culture of Life” is a promiscuous emperor who’s not wearing any clothes and doesn’t care about zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, or fetuses once they’re born or about preventing unwanted pregnancies or even helping poor women pay for the freaking sonogram. Nor about the safety of the poor deluded damsels in distress they believe have been brainwashed into having abortions. And, the pantsless deadbeat babydaddy emperor certainly doesn’t want to see any forced vasectomies.

Just this morning I ran across this doozy in a roundup of headlines at the Austin American Statesman:

New York Times columnist Gail Collins recently said Texas “ranks third in teen pregnancies… and it is No. 1 in repeat teen pregnancies.” That statement is Mostly True, according to PolitiFact Texas.

Governor Goodhair (miss Molly Ivins along with Ann) fasttracked this ridiculous sonogram bill, declaring an “emergency” status for it, but if the Texas theocratic equivalent of the Taliban really wants to focus on a pregnancy-related emergency, perhaps they should look at the fact that Texas is tops in teen pregnancy–once again making our state the national buffoon of rankings. Their abstinence-only, forced pregnancy agenda looks like an even bigger joke when considered in this light.

Then again, teen pregnancy seems to be something they *want* to be tops in. For some reason which makes no logical sense, the Huckabees and the Palins find more fault with the pregnancies of financially independent women like Natalie Portman or the fictional Murphy Brown while they applaud the fictional Junos.

Anyhow, the lead story at that Statesman roundup is about Perry appearing with Grover Norquist tomorrow. More anti-tax rhetoric in store, woohoo.

See for the rightwing, we’re all subhuman and corporations and clumps of red whatnot are “people” — except for when it comes time for “personal” responsibility. Then suddenly, those of us, adult and children, who are living and breathing suddenly are “people” with “responsibilities.”

The right talks about our budget like it’s a family affair, which it’s not as Kat so expertly explained in her last post, but when it comes time for even the forced sonogram that they’ve declared an “emergency” for, well, it’s not so family-ish anymore, it doesn’t take any kind of village.

This is the oligarchy’s distraction from passing any kind of meaningful economic policy. That in itself is a devastating cost to all of us, but added onto that is the fact that this distraction is being born on the backs of women, their civil rights, and their families.

Just take a look at this story about a Nebraska family — Her baby wasn’t expected to live, but Nebraska law banned abortion:

There was less than a 10 percent chance their child would have a heartbeat and be able to breathe on its own. There was an even smaller chance – estimated at 2 percent – that the baby would ultimately be able to perform the most basic functions on its own, such as eating.

Robb and Danielle, left alone in an exam room, held each other and discussed what to do. They just couldn’t see the logic in exhausting painful, expensive medical procedures after being told they had almost no chance to save their baby’s life.

They decided: There are worse things than death.

“So (the perinatologist) came in, and we said we’d just like to put an end to this nightmare and can you help us. She said, no, she can’t,” Danielle said.

The perinatologist said Nebraska’s abortion law, which had been in effect less than two months, would not allow Danielle to terminate her pregnancy because her baby still had a heartbeat and because her own life was not immediately jeopardized.

The couple went home to wait, brokenhearted. They acknowledge they could probably have gone to another state to terminate the pregnancy. Danielle said she felt intense stress and wasn’t strong enough emotionally to deal with an unfamiliar place and doctors she hadn’t met.

Eight days later, Danielle went into contractions, and baby Elizabeth was born to her 15-minute life.

Legislating pregnancy is inhumane. Rights should not be up for public policy debate.

“This isn’t culture. This isn’t custom. This is criminal.” –Hillary

Don’t mess with lefty hearts and minds across this country. The liberal tendencies of the electorate are going to come roaring out with this kind of overreach. Pretty soon we’ll have feminists and socialists behaving badly all over the place. Not, because we’re all extremists, but because the political dialogue in this country has moved so far to the right, that the radical notions of freedom, equality, and the government needing to leave us alone so long as we’re not infringing on everyone’s rights will be seen as very far left notions.

The Year of Dangerous Rhetoric

Posted: March 7, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Federal Budget, U.S. Economy | Tags: , , | 25 Comments

Pols always seem to use over-the-top rhetoric when trying to get elected.  We’ve had smear campaigns and unfulfilled campaign promises for as long as there has been some one running for an elected office.  Journalists enjoy making headlines out of this rhetoric and we’ve entered an age where they don’t even hesitate to join in on the pitch.  The Supremes have upheld free speech rights for NAZIs parading in Jewish neighborhoods, opportunistic gay hating religionists spewing bile at the funerals of US soldiers, and megacorporations.   No one wants to draw any lines on freedom of expression these days.

The first amendment is a beautiful thing.  So is, however, self-restraint.  Just because you have a broad right, a big mouth, and some urge to purge doesn’t necessarily mean you should avail yourself of the opportunity.  This was always made clear to me as a kid with the example of  ‘Don’t yell fire in a crowded theater if there’s no fire’.  Evidently Weeper of the House John Boehner slept through that part of the social studies curriculum.

Markets–especially financial markets–thrive on information.  Financial markets even trade on them.  I remember working in the Treasury area of a large savings and loan in the 1980s while we were trying to package and sell mortgages, hedge using GNMA futures, and then price jumbo CDs to customers.  All of this was in the era of Paul Volcker and yo yo interest rates.  The Fed used to make announcements on Friday afternoons.  The entire market would shut down in anticipation of the Fed’s announcements.  The last few hours of business would screech to a halt until the information came out.  We had one bond salesman that used to call us and read us jokes from a file box during the waiting hour.  It was a weird time for all.

The Fed noticed how disruptive that was and ended the practice.  Current Fed Chair Bernanke is so aware of how his words impact the market he even has a policy of ‘managing expectations’ in that he always makes some kind of statement on monetary policy when releasing any information.  He also does speeches to businesses where he clarifies how the Fed will be dealing with the markets for Treasuries.  This is supposed to end a lot of instability and speculation that can damage investment positions unnecessarily.  You really don’t want to mess with Treasury markets because they represent the base, risk-free rate upon which everything else gets priced.

That brings me to to a few people in politics that don’t seem to connect market instability to policy maker rhetoric. It seems every one has learned that lesson except the outrageous Speaker of the House John Boehner who appears to want to make the markets as shaky as his hands.

House Speaker John Boehner routinely offers this diagnosis of the U.S.’s fiscal condition: “We’re broke; Broke going on bankrupt,” he said in a Feb. 28 speech in Nashville.

Boehner’s assessment dominates a debate over the federal budget that could lead to a government shutdown. It is a widely shared view with just one flaw: It’s wrong.

“The U.S. government is not broke,” said Marc Chandler, global head of currency strategy for Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. in New York. “There’s no evidence that the market is treating the U.S. government like it’s broke.”

The U.S. today is able to borrow at historically low interest rates, paying 0.68 percent on a two-year note that it had to offer at 5.1 percent before the financial crisis began in 2007. Financial products that pay off if Uncle Sam defaults aren’t attracting unusual investor demand. And tax revenue as a percentage of the economy is at a 60-year low, meaning if the government needs to raise cash and can summon the political will, it could do so.

Speaker Boehner’s staff answers any criticism of his rhetoric with the usual false equivalency.  Interestingly enough, the Bloomberg article I’m quoting is finally taking on the ridiculousness of equating our government with family finances.  Every financial economist loses a bowtie whenever that happens.

“If an American family is spending more money than they’re making year after year after year, they’re broke,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner.

A person, company or nation would be defined as “broke” if it couldn’t pay its bills, and that is not the case with the U.S. Despite an annual budget deficit expected to reach $1.6 trillion this year, the government continues to meet its financial obligations, and investors say there is little concern that will change.

Still, a rhetorical drumbeat has spread that the U.S. is tapped out. Republicans, including Representative Ron Paul of Texas, chairman of the House domestic monetary policy subcommittee, and Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly, have labeled the U.S. “broke” in recent days.

Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, said in a speech last month that the Medicare program is “going to bankrupt us.” Julian Robertson, chairman of Tiger Management LLC in New York, told The Australian newspaper March 2: “we’re broke, broker than all get out.”

The U.S. government is not one big dysfunctional family unit.  People die. Their estates have to be settled.  They can’t print money.  They can’t tax any one else’s assets.  Their incomes don’t grow in perpetuity into the trillions of dollars.  Politicians who continually make this false equivalency are not only wrong, they are dangerously wrong.

When Governor Christie makes these ridiculous statements the biggest damage he can do is limited.  At the very worst, the market may price New Jersey’s bond issues as riskier. The resale market for NJ bonds may get thinner.  This is especially true if Christie shows any willingness to entertain the idea of  state bankruptcy which at this point can’t even happen.  If he shows unwillingness to use the state’s taxing powers to clear up the mess, he can also create some havoc in the market. Every one knows a government can get the funds to pay its debt one way or another.  Showing the world you won’t do it in a timely way just makes your bondholders extra nervous.

Speaker of the House Boehner has a bigger job that includes the budget of the U.S.  He can unnecessarily influence financial markets while repeating such craziness.  The U.S. cannot technically go bankrupt but speculation and uncertainty can impact the rate of interest we will pay on our debt.  It can also cause the FED to enact money supply increases to maintain low levels of interest which can create inflationary pressures.  Boehner is at a level of power that careless political rhetoric can influence markets.  He needs to be more mature and less cavalier with his ignorant pronouncements on US debt and the US economy.

I swear that these guys are purposefully trying to tank the economy.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →