Year: 2012

PUTIN’ ON THE RITZ

Alan: “Now THIS is how you do a flashmob!!!!! What a crazy, delightful ever changing world! Who could have thought that in 2012 young people in Moscow would put on a ‘flash mob’ happening, dancing to an 83-year-old American song written by a Russian-born American Jew whose last name is the capital of Germany?”

Impossible to watch these six minutes without a broad smile.  Enjoy!  (But perhaps not as spontaneous and innocent as it appears — click here for the back story after you watch.)

LOSIN’ OUR DEMOCRACY

James Fallows, here in The Atlantic (in part):

It’s a simple game you can try at home. Pick a country and describe a sequence in which:

• First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don’t even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.
• Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology.
• Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them.
• Meanwhile their party’s representatives in the Senate abuse procedural rules to an extent never previously seen to block legislation — and appointments, especially to the courts.
• And, when a major piece of legislation gets through, the party’s majority on the Supreme Court prepares to negate it — even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party’s presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago.

How would you describe a democracy where power was being shifted that way?

Underscoring the point, a Bloomberg poll of 21 constitutional scholars found that 19 of them believe the individual mandate is constitutional, but only eight said they expected the Supreme Court to rule that way. The headline nicely conveys the reality of the current Court: “Obama Health Law Seen Valid, Scholars Expect Rejection.”

How would you characterize a legal system that knowledgeable observers assume will not follow the law and instead will advance a particular party-faction agenda? That’s how we used to talk about the Chinese courts when I was living there. Now it’s how law professors are describing the Supreme Court of the John Roberts era.

Of course, the Court may uphold the Affordable Health Care Act.  I hope they do.  Even so, I hope President Obama, not President Romney, gets to make the next two appointments.

DRIVIN’ ROUND THE TARMAC

I shared my BOREF obsession yesterday and made the case for a risk-adjusted share price of $125.  In consequence, trading volume in the stock was . . . zero . . . though the asking price (at least on my screen) jumped from $10 to $10.25.

Meanwhile, the company issued this release yesterday:

WHEELTUG SUCCESSFULLY TESTS ELECTRIC DRIVE SYSTEM ON BOEING 737NG

Prague, Czech Republic, 25 June, 2012 – Wheeltug plc announces the successful installation and test of the first in-wheel WheelTugR system in Prague on a Germania 737-700. During testing, pilots were able to push the plane back, and taxi without waiting for a tug or powering up the engines.

Pilots were able to move the plane through motors in the nosewheel powered solely by the aircraft’s APU. WheelTug savings are projected to be greater than current airline per-flight profits.

The four day ‘M1’ system test was conducted at Prague Ruzyne Airport. The system performed on all pavement types as well as wet and oil-slicked tarmac. A “sneak peek” of the full test video, including a tugless aircraft pushback, can be viewed at http://www.media.wheeltug.com .

“The small and powerful M1 WheelTug, built into the nose wheel and powered solely by the ircraft’s APU, moves a commercial aircraft through the full range of pushback and taxi maneuvers across a broad range of weather and surface conditions,” said WheelTug CEO Isaiah Cox.

“I’m excited about seeing engineless-taxi come to aviation. It was a great honour to be the first ilot to use WheelTug on a Boeing 737,” said Germania Captain Patrick Hintzen. “In particular, here are many delays on pushback and it is where the airline has the least control of aircraft. ith WheelTug, we are freed from the ‘chains’ that keep us parked at the gate.”

The tests were undertaken by the WheelTug team including key partners Endeavor Analysis, ICE Corp., Co-Operative Industries and Dynetic Systems. Tests were hosted by Prague Airport and ABS Jets, with the aircraft provided by Germania.

“We’re proud that we’re ready to enter the final stretch of system specification, leading to commercial deployment,” said Mr. Cox. “A recent study in conjunction with Oliver Wyman and US Airways, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, showed industry net profit of less than $164 per flight. Thus, WheelTug’s projected savings to airlines of over $200 per flight has the potential to dramatically increase airline profitability.”

“The M1 test reaffirms our forecast that WheelTug will soon lead to significant benefits for airlines, pilots, passengers and the general public,” said WheelTug director Jan Vana. “The team and observers at Prague Airport saw the power of WheelTug in action for ourselves,” said Vana.

“Specifically, we expect that the WheelTug system will:

– Significantly reduce fuel use;

– Substantially reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions;

– Increase safety and flexibility of airport operations;

– Provide airlines faster turnaround times, reduced engine wear and repair costs;

and

– Substantially decrease airport noise pollution.”

The WheelTug is designed for rapid retrofit. In under two hours, the test system was uninstalled from the Germania 737-700 and the aircraft returned to service.

After meeting the latest test milestone, WheelTug remains on target for Entry-into-Service for the 737NG and A320 families of aircraft. 215 WheelTug delivery slots have already been reserved by European, Middle East, and Asian airlines.

A full video of the test will be released at the 2012 Farnborough International Airshow, beginning July 9. WheelTug invites attendees to visit its Farnborough booth in Hall 4, A13.

E-GREGIOUS II

Not sure whether you found time over the weekend to watch that Jon Stewart clip, but I feel the need to expound a little further.  It’s the clip that shows Republicans blasting Obama for doing something no other modern president has ever done — except it turns out they ALL have.  The Republicans are just lying about this.

It’s the clip that shows Republicans blasting Obama for failing to pass the Dream Act when Democrats controlled Congress — not mentioning the reason he failed to pass it, despite its garnering ample majorities in both the House and Senate: 41 Republican Senators killed it with one of their hundreds of filibusters.  So the Republicans are lying about this, too.

It’s the clip that shows Fox News blasting Obama for saying that he has to enforce the immigration laws and then not enforcing them — except wait til you see how they edited that tape.  It’s egregious.

Republicans do it as standard operating procedure, beginning with Governor Romney’s very first TV ad: the one that shows Obama quoting the McCain campaign without revealing he was quoting them — making it look as though he was saying this stuff.

At what point does this become an issue of character?  At what point can today’s Republican Party be branded as dishonest?  As bullying?  As rooting for  — and even as orchestrating — the country’s failure so they can regain power and further lower taxes on the wealthy?  (Remember how they cheered when we didn’t get the Olympics? Remember their manufactured debt-ceiling crisis? Remember their refusal to pass the American Jobs Act that would have taken more than 1 million Americans off unemployment?)

What does it say of the Republican strategy that it relies on making it hard for people to vote and misinforming those who do?

BOREF MATH

So my first obsession, which is a billion times more important, is that we register and turn out enough voters 134 days from now to hold the White House and Senate, take back the House, and keep from losing the Supreme Court for the next 20 years.  If you don’t think it matters to you, too, consider the Clinton years versus the Bush years.  Consider Roosevelt versus Hoover.  Consider the side that “believes in” science and evolution and investing in the future and the side that believes the bridges will repair themselves if we can just cut taxes for the best-off low enough.  But see?  I’m obsessed and before you know it, I’ve gone off on a rant.

My second obsession, it will not surprise long-time readers, is this oh-so-unusual company, Borealis.  So many red flags!  So much that’s hard to explain!  And yet the plane moved — in 2005, with an early-stage motor running alongside it on a dolly, and this month, with what they say are two actual WheelTug motors so small they fit inside the two wheels of a 737’s nose gear.  And with four letters of intent signed by four airlines.

It has come to this: I am in love with an electric motor.  And an electric motor, to make it all the more absurd, I have never even met.

So for what it’s worth — (nothing?) — here’s how I do the math.  And I do it over and over because that’s how obsessions work.

First I assign a 50% chance to the possibility that, even though we have video showing that WheelTug appears to work, they will not be able they will not in fact be able to make a production model that works well enough to be put into service.  (I include in that the possibility it will not win FAA certification — although, remember, the WheelTug motor is in no way “mission critical.”  If it fails, the captain just taxis around using his or her engines as he or she always did.)

Of course, no one can say whether that 50% estimate is fair.  Maybe the chances of failure are 95% for reasons I just don’t get.  Or maybe 25% would be a better guess.  (I hope I hope  hope.)

But if we go with 50%, then the next hurdle is: what are the chances this thing will in fact become the industry standard? I do think every airline will want WheelTug — or a competitor — if it becomes available, because why on earth would you not want to save $500,000 a year on each of your jets?  But what if, say, Boeing next week announces its own even better motor?

Let’s assign a 50% chance to that as well.

So this gives us a 25% chance (50% times 50%) that WheelTug might in a few years by in the nosegear of most  commercial jets — say, 10,000 airplanes.  And that the company might be netting $50,000 a year from each one.  (I’m thinking that to save north of $500,000 a year, an airline would pay $100,000 a year, and that half that could be profit.)  So there’s a 25% chance of 10,000 times $50,000 (which is to say $500 million) in profit.

What is a company making $500 million a year worth?  At 5 times earnings: $2.5 billion.  With 5 million shares outstanding, that’s $500 a share.  But if there’s “only” a 25% chance of this, then $625 million — $125 a share.

Let me rush to say that in this scenario there’s still a 75% chance you will lose all your money. This is not a speculation to make with anything other than money you can truly afford to lose.  But if there’s a 25% chance it will one day be worth $500 a share?  I bought a little more last week after watching the video.  Which is sort of ridiculous, because after 13 years of buying it (mostly on dips), I already have so much.  But — this being an obsession — I could not resist.

Let me rush further to say that I’m not figuring in here the dilution — Borealis owns only most of Chorus Motors, which owns only most of WheelTug.  But then neither am I allowing for the possibility that the company should sell at 7 times earnings instead of 5 times earnings, or that its motor technology could find a use in something else, like cars.  Or that any of its other scoffed-at technologies might actually prove real.  Or that its Canadian mineral deposits might someday actually have realizable value.

Let me rush finally to say that there’s no guarantee that, even if the company succeeds with WheelTug, management will not find ways to squander all the proceeds.

All I can promise you is that if you do buy any shares, you will not be buying them from me.

 Tomorrow: A Very Fun 6 Minutes From Moscow

E-LIBRARY

Roberta Taussig:  “Following up on Wednesday’s post, did you know libraries now lend e-books? Check out this link provided by the Multnomah County library, Portland, Oregon (my fair city).  And the FAQ.”

E-CAMPAIGN

The Obama team has a new app you should check out: Dashboard.  It’s the national online organizing platform, and — writes Deputy National Field Director Marlon Marshall — “if you’re hoping to make an impact on this election, it’s where you need to be.”

You already know how we’re planning to win this thing: by running the best ground game in politics. From coast to coast, folks like you are out registering voters, recruiting volunteers, and having the conversations that will tip states our way. Dashboard is our online hub for the organizing that’s going on in every single state — from now up until the last vote gets cast. It’ll be where you can connect quickly with other volunteers to help get out the vote. You can join or organize an event right then and there. Dashboard will help you stay in touch and swap stories with other supporters to keep one another inspired for what lies ahead. When you join Dashboard, you’ll also get special updates on this race, new tools to track your progress, and access to groups you can join to organize around the issues you care about most.

E-GREGIOUS

This Jon Stewart clip you must see. And not just for his Peter Falk “Columbo” impersonation or any of the other really fun bits.  He shows Republicans blasting Obama for doing something no president has ever done before (except, as it turns out, Bush, Clinton, the other Bush and Reagan).  He shows Republicans blasting Obama for failing to pass the Dream Act when Democrats controlled Congress (except they forget to mention that the reason he failed to pass it, despite 55 Senate votes in favor, was their filibuster).  He shows Fox News blasting Obama for saying that he has to enforce the laws on the books and then not enforcing those laws (except wait til you see how they edited that tape).

E-GAD!

Borealis traded 4,653 shares yesterday (Facebook traded 21.875 million), and those shares traded at prices ranging from $6.75 to $10, settling in for the night at $8.

William Szczuka:  “I’m pretty happy so far with my investment. When I went to place an online order for 600 shares at $3.40 back in March I was instructed the order needed to be phoned in. They said it was because the order was more than 25% of the average daily volume. I’ve never had that problem before. 🙂  . . . Incidentally, this spring I coached my son’s little league team. Two of the boys are named Tobias and Andrew. I never thought anything of it until last week when an opposing slugger came to the plate and I had to call to these two in the outfield, ‘Andrew, Tobias – Back Up!'”

Doug in Spokane:  “I finally have some money I can afford to lose, so I called my broker this morning (Thursday) to put in an order for 100 BOREF shares.  They were trading at $8.05.  My broker, aka my oldest friend, is efficient.  Before I could say ‘limit order’ he had executed the trade.  Yes, I was the spike late in the day at $10.00.  ALWAYS say ‘limit order”‘up front about 10 times. Yes, the plane moved with WheelTug.  And there ARE agreements with airlines.  BUT, there is competition.  A German company is rumored to be working on something similar.  So is Honeywell, according to rumors.  However, WheelTug is first. I also own some other shares with money I can afford to lose — GLDD.  But that’s a real company with a history and earnings and a real product.  And the dividend was raised a year ago.  That is the extent of my speculation.”

That was you?  Well, whether you paid $10 or $8 or $6 or $3 won’t make too much difference.  Not to say it wouldn’t have been better to get twice as many shares for the same $1,000 last week at $5.  But either we’ll ultimately lose our money, because the company’s technology isn’t practical or valuable; or we will make multiples of our money because it is.  As you say, it’s a speculation — unlike GLDD which is the dominant player in an indispensable, old-line industry not likely to change all that much.

Have a great weekend!  Watch the Jon Stewart clip.

WMT LEAPS

George Berger:  “I noticed today that my WMT leaps are up over 300%.  Time to sell yet?  Or hang on for 400%?”

A bird in the hand.  I would sell half, anyway.

BOREF

WheelTug posted a short clip.  I love the Franz Schubert score and the way the 737 backs out of its hangar without a tug.  And do you notice the covers on its engines?  The engines are not running.  The plane seems to be backing out under the power of the motors in its nose wheel.

At one point yesterday the stock was quoted “6 bid, 35 asked,” before someone stepped up to offer shares at $6.75.  It closed at “$4.85 bid, $6.75 asked.”  There remains the real possibility of losing every dime.  Then again, if this does prove real, the potential is very different from WMT leaps.  I would not sell half if you find yourself with a triple.  Yes; you could see yourself kissing that triple good-bye — who knows what dreadful problems could arise on the way to actual revenue, profits and, ultimately, dividends?  But you took this tremendous risk (with money you can truly afford to lose) in the hope not that the company would ultimately have a $60 million market cap ($12 a share) — there are condos in New York City that have sold for more than that — but that it might one day have a $600 million market cap, or (dare I imagine it) even . . . well, it’s enough for now to dream of $600 million.

(Hard as it is to imagine, nearly 7 years ago in this space — which is to say, the last time “the plane moved” — I made the case for its being a $100 stock.  That might be worth re-reading, both as a cautionary tale — the stock went to $3 rather than $100 — and because this time the motor is actually inside a wheel, and this time the company has letters of intent from four airlines, including El Al and Alitalia.)

The point is: it looks as though the thing may actually work.

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

So maybe we’ll all get rich.  If so, thank Tamara at Wayne State for this telling chart.  It shows the wealth distribution most people imagine exists in the country today . . . the distribution they imagine would be fair . . . and the actual distribution (which Mitt Romney has pledged to skew yet further toward the ultra-rich).

BOREF

We wait.  Torture!  The company issues a weekly update — I sure hope for a progress report by the weekend.

THE LIBRARY

Bob Stromberg: “Here is a great 3-minute YouTube about a grassroots organization that beat the Tea Party.  It changed the conversation from ‘taxes taxes taxes’ to ‘book burning’ and then ‘vote yes for a 0.7% tax increase to save the library.'”

Of course, it’s hard to know exactly where physical books go in an age of Kindles and iPads — I’m actually in the process of digitizing my own out-of-print books.

Those of us who love books — and the environment and instant gratification — love that we can learn of a book and, minutes later, be reading it, without ever having to cut down a tree or burn gas driving down to Borders to try to find it.

Yet at the same time we also hate that Borders and so many independent bookstores are gone.  (Remember Brentano’s?  “Brentano’s was an American bookstore,” begins its Wikipedia entry.)

Do we still need libraries?  I think we do.  They are like secular churches — places of community and respect and contemplation and, potentially, joy and self-improvement.  And belonging.  And, now, computer stations and Internet hook-ups for folks like my octogenarian pen pal in North Carolina who can’t afford these things on his own — he lives on $827 in monthly Social Security plus $66 in food stamps — but finds hours of connection when he can afford the gas to drive to the library.

CITIZENS UNITED

Craig Gawel: “With respect to yesterday’s post and the Supreme Court decision to let corporations contribute to campaigns, one quick question …. Can corporations vote? As I see it, if they cannot vote they should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. And as to foreign corporations, since the beginning of the Republic we have tried to limit foreign influence.”

Ed Miske:  “I wonder how the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, et al, will feel Wednesday morning after the election if President Obama prevails? Will they have second thoughts about spending billions on future elections?”

I’m afraid not.  To them, it’s pocket change.  As Chris Hayes frequently points out, a guy with $21 billion giving $10 million is like a guy with $21,000 in the bank giving $10.  Nothing.  And as I mentioned yesterday, often they won’t even have to give it to get their way — just threaten to give it.

Joel Margolis:  “Did you ever, even once, condemn Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign for being the first major party candidate to opt out of public financing for the general election? If not, please get off your high horse.”

Even if there was something wrong with what Senator Obama did — and there are strong arguments that there was not — how would that justify what John McCain calls “the worst decision of the Supreme Court in the Twenty-First Century?”  And how can the small to medium size contributions of millions of inspired ordinary citizens in the 2008 campaign be considered undemocratic?  By contrast, I think the billion dollars in superPAC money from just a few dozen individuals can be considered undemocratic.

LIGHT

I have written before about our hallway — pictured here — because what self-respecting financial writer does not, sooner or later, turn to that topic?  But now I have a confession; and great news.  The confession is that the 16 halogen lights that make it pop like a theatrical set burn 24/7.  It’s a shared hallway with no on/off switch and no easy way to make the lights motion activated, though that remains on my to-do list.  In the meantime, I’ve just now installed these LED replacements at a projected energy saving of 71% — 10 watts instead of 35.  Yes, they cost eight times more, but they may last ten times as long.  So leaving aside the benefit to the planet, and counting nothing for the convenience of having to change them only a tenth as often, the cost of the bulbs themselves may over time be a wash.  In which case, the 71% energy saving is all gravy.  Now, dear readers: can you think of an easy way to take a hard wired system and have it turn on any time one of two elevator doors or four hallway doors starts to open?  If the lights then stayed on for 5 minutes, this system would cut their energy consumption yet a further 85% or so. Without even the slightest sacrifice in quality of life.

With so much room for improvement, our future — should we rise to the challenge — is . . . bright.

BOREF

No news.

CITIZENS UNITED

This is the Supreme Court decision the President criticized in his State of the Union, saying, ““With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”  Facing him, Justice Alito famously mouthed  “not true.”  But was it?  Sheldon Adelson just dashed off his first of what are likely to be a lot of $10 million checks to be sure Romney becomes President (governing with a Republican Congress and set to swing the Court further toward the interests of the Koch brothers, who have pledged $400 million to help confuse the electorate) . . . and on Sunday’s Meet the Press, John McCain — no Obama supporter — called Citizens United the “worst decision of the Supreme Court in the Twenty-First Century: uninformed, arrogant, naive.”

I don’t know, but I suspect that Senator McCain meant to include in that the Twentieth Century as well.  (Otherwise, it’s a bit like calling a movie you review in February, “one of the best of the year!”)  Of course, it’s not clear whether Bush v. Gore — also a terrible decision — was even worse, or, for that matter, to which Century it should be ascribed.  Technically, the Twentieth-First Century began in 2001.  So actually, we need not choose between them.  We can simply say, rephrasing Senator McCain but sticking with his assessment,  that Citizens United was the worst decision of the millennium.  That, perhaps, gives it the rhetorical weight it deserves without having to think too hard about all the cases from 1901-2001.

I make light of this, because it’s unhealthy to be dour all the time; but the consequences of this decision — which allow any billionaire to influence almost any Senate or House vote without spending a dime (just threaten key committee members to dump $10 million in negative ads against him or her next time out) — are horrifying.

And don’t give me this stuff about “the unions.”  Let alone ACORN.  Yes, there is some similarity in the way unions can use money.  But leaving aside the fact that the unions have far less money than the billionaires or the corporations — no small fact to leave aside — the unions don’t represent just two brothers or one casino mogul; they represent, still, millions of workers and their families . . . and, by extension — because so many of the reforms and benefits they negotiate (like, “weekends”) become standard even for non-union employees, or at least raise the bar somewhat — arguably, tens of millions of families.

I mean, after 30 years of growing inequality and imbalance, did the Court really need to award the billionaires more control over our alleged “one man, one vote” democracy?  (Where the Republicans are working hard to disenfranchise as many Democratic voters as possible?  And where the Court previously stopped the Florida vote count that would have given Gore, the popular vote winner, the Electoral College vote as well?)

So while Alito was mouthing “not true,” four of his colleagues were mentally mouthing “true!” in line with their vigorous dissents — as have been an awful lot of other people, like John McCain.

But not everyone. And not all of my readers.  So in the interest of balance:

Paul deLespinasse: “Please ease up on the Citizens United harping. Citizens United was not an unreasonable decision,  and any bad effects supposedly produced could be eliminated without overturning the decision and without any new legislation,  as I pointed out recently in this op-ed.  It might give you some ideas to think about and some possible opportunities for the Democratic Party.”

SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

On a related note: Some people are saying well, sure, the Romney side will have a lot more money than the Obama side, but so what?  Obama had a lot more money than McCain — turnabout is fair play.  It’s worth noting that on the Obama side in 2008 and again now in 2012, the loot came and now again comes from literally millions of contributors.  The bulk of the Romney money will be coming from a few dozen.

After 13 years, today or tomorrow may be the day.  In fact, the Prague airport being 9 hours ahead of California, it may already betomorrow where you are. As long-time readers know, I refer, of course, to the test of an actual WheelTug system installed inside the nose wheel of an actual 737.  If there’s no column tomorrow, it’s for one of three reasons: It’s hard to type after holding your breath for 24 hours; the test failed, plunging me into a paralysis of despondency; the test succeeded, so I don’t need the income from this column anymore.

Stay tuned.

If you read yesterday’s post between about 3am and 8am, Eastern time, you missed the rather important UPDATE. (Executive summary: the President will be reelected.) Sorry about that.

LIGHT!

The quality of LED lighting is apparently much improved, even as the cost seems to be half what it was the last time I ordered bulbs.  Watch this video, as described here:

By now, we hope that most of you know that swapping incandescent bulbs with LED bulbs saves money and energy, but there’s still a lingering misconception that LED bulbs emit a cold, bluish light that is just not as warm or attractive as the old filament-filled bulbs we grew up with. To dispel this fallacy, we sought out a group of people with a critical eye for light bulb color and ambiance – lighting designers on the show floor of the International Contemporary Furniture Fair at New York Design Week. These meticulous designers take light warmth and quality very seriously (that is their job after all), so we couldn’t think of anyone better suited to give an honest opinion about the latest generation of high-tech LED light bulbs. Watch our video above to see how we retrofitted five gorgeous designer lamps with new Philips LED light bulbs – and in the process saved $1,732.86 in energy costs and won over some designer converts to the future of LED lighting.

This is the kind of news we should be working together to make — for fuel efficiency in lighting, in weatherizing homes, in retrofitting office buildings (the poster child for which is the Empire State Building, which has cut a projected 38%, which is to say $4.4 million, from its annual energy bill).

It’s part of the economic renewal Republicans have blocked at every turn that will put our unemployed back to work and restore our economic competitiveness.

How can we afford to put people to work restoring our infrastructure? The better question is: how can we not? It’s the same situation we faced in World War II: only there, no one was filibustering our way forward. Of course we needed to do what we needed to do, even if it meant running up huge deficits to do it. Now we have to do that again; only instead of running up massive debt to blow things up, we’d be running up massive debt to rebuild the nation and, by the way, tremendously improve our energy efficiency and, with it, our competitiveness, prosperity, and national security.

AND NOW . . .

I saved these for the weekend, on the theory that you might more easily be able to find the time to watch.

WARNING: Bill Maher’s sense of humor, as you probably know, springs from outrageous tastelessness.  There is a reason his show was long called, “Politically Incorrect.”  That barely begins to describe his irreverence.  Which on some levels is too bad, because if some of what he says makes me cringe, what chance has it to keep someone watching who doesn’t already agree with him?

But he’s so right about this stuff:

Clip #1: “If he’s a socialist, he’s a lousy one.”

From the estimable Matt Ball: “Best New Rule ever? Start at 1:58 and watch the last 5 minutes – about how ‘socialist’ Obama has let him down.”

Maher is scathing on Obama — you really have to watch — to make the point that the President has done largely what the conservatives wanted. Concluding: “So just admit it. This isn’t about what Obama is, it’s about what you need him to be, because hating him is what gets you up in the morning.”

Clip #2:  “Occupy Wall Street”

And what about last week’s “new rules”? Even better? Much of the first two and a half minutes are very funny but if time is really short start watching at 2:42: “Now that summer is upon us, the Occupy Wall Street movement must think of a more effective form of protest than . . . camping. To be considered a real movement, it has to start moving asses off the streets and into the voting booth.”

Have a great weekend.

Republicans are working hard to make it harder for eligible voters to vote.

And working hard to misinform those who do.

And giving yet more power to the already rich and powerful.

I know most Republicans will reflexively disagree — or simply close their ears.  But that doesn’t make it any less true.

(And we’re not supposed to talk about it.  Did you read Paul Krugman on “the new political correctness?”  Here, in the New York Times:  “[E]ven talking about ‘the wealthy’ brings angry denunciations; we’re supposed to call them ‘job creators’. Even talking about inequality is ‘class warfare’. . . .“)

I hate that it’s come to this. And if they win, with their completely backwards economic vision, I think it will hurt your personal finances even worse than eight years of Bush (six of them with a Republican Congress) did.

WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT

Well, for one thing, if you’re a Democrat or Independent or moderate Republican (remember those?), you can reject the current Republican candidates November 6.

And you can volunteer.

And you can listen to Joe Biden, who recently wrote:

Friend —

Something inspired you to step up and pitch in to support Barack and this campaign — whatever it was, whoever it was, I appreciate it.

I bet you know one or two people, possibly dozens, who would follow your lead if you just asked.

This is the time to do it: Last month, for the first time in this campaign, Mitt Romney and the Republicans brought in more money than we did.

They’re just getting started. We’re up against an unprecedented tidal wave of special-interest spending, and we won’t survive it without people like you asking your family and friends to get involved, too.

Here’s how:

Create a personal grassroots fundraising page, then invite your friends and family to pitch in to help you reach your goal.

You can tell them Joe put you up to this.

Our grassroots fundraising program is all about growing this campaign the right way — person by person, donation by donation. And it’s how we’re going to win.

The single best person to convince your friends and family to step up and own a piece of what happens in November is you.

And since this campaign is only as strong as the people behind it, you’ll know you made a real difference when the last poll closes on Election Day.

The next five months are going to be some of the toughest Barack and I have been through, and I can’t begin to tell you how much it means to know folks like you have our backs.

Take it up a notch and get your friends on board:

http://my.barackobama.com/Create-a-Grassroots-Fundraising-Page

Thanks again for your support. Let’s go win this thing.

Joe

If you can get a million people to donate $10 each (and I know that, popular and energetic though you are, that may be tough), you’ll have raised for Obama as much money as one guy — Sheldon Adelson — is reported to be giving the other side alone.  And one-fortieth as much as two guys, Charles and David Koch, plan to give.

They have a lot more billionaires than we do, and their billionaires love Citizens United. Our billionaires are — rightly — appalled, and, so far at least, seem to favor unilateral disarmament, despite the potentially disastrous consequences.

So, yes: set up that personal fundraising page, and get about the business of democracy. Millions of us are needed to balance the influence of a dozen of them.

AND THIS JUST IN:

Millions of us will pitch in, as we did in 2008, millions of new voters will be registered, as they were in 2008, more than a million volunteers will help turn people out to the polls, as they did in 2008 — and we will win.  Because the Romney vision is to cut taxes on the rich (raising the deficit and national debt that much further) while cutting back drastically on everything else — just when the economy most needs government demand and the infrastructure is most primed for renewal.  Cut back on everything else, that is, except for a trillion hike in military spending that we neither need nor can afford.  I’m not making any of this up.  It’s as nuts as the Bush economic stewardship was.

The Romney jobs record as chief executive was to take Massachusetts from a poor 37th out of 50 in job creation down to a near-bottom 47th (today, under a Democrat, it’s shot up to more like 11th) at the same time as he left the state with the highest per capita debt in the country. He did his best, presumably, but that proved to carry with it no special magic.  (His success with the Olympics, meanwhile, was in  getting more federal government subsidy than all previous US Olympics combined. It wasn’t deft budgeting; it was government bailout.)

The Obama record — despite being thwarted by the G.O.P. every step of the way — was to avert depression, save the auto industry, cut taxes for the middle class and small business, and help create 4.3 million private sector jobs — more net private sector jobs than were created in 8 years of his Republican predecessor.  (Also to restore our standing in the world, bring our troops home from Iraq, put us on a path to leave Afghanistan, decimate Al-Qaeda; pass health care reform the specific provisions of which — save one — are highly popular; double fuel efficiency standards, triple the representation of women on the Supreme Court, and sextuple the number of stem cell lines available to researchers.)

At the end of the day, the President will be reelected.  But it will be some nasty fight.  And we need you.

Are we really going to forsake the Clinton/Obama approach and try this stuff again?  The Koch brothers are betting $400 million that we will.  That Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, and the rest — even that great economic thinker Herman Cain — will be able to persuade 50.01% of the electorate to go back to George W. Bush economics.  But “on steroids,” as former President Clinton has taken to describing the Romney/Ryan vision.

Republican economics  . . .

First, as described by the left:

The Disaster of Republican Economic Policies
—By Kevin Drum
Tue Jun. 12, 2012 8:12 AM PDT

A few days ago the Congressional Budget Office released a short analysis explaining why the $5.6 trillion surplus they projected for the decade following 2001 instead turned into a $6.1 trillion deficit. Bruce Bartlett summarizes:

Putting all the numbers in the C.B.O. report together, we see that continuation of tax and budget policies and economic conditions in place at the end of the Clinton administration would have led to a cumulative budget surplus of $5.6 trillion through 2011 — enough to pay off the $5.6 trillion national debt at the end of 2000.

Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher, a turnaround of $11.7 trillion. Of this total, the C.B.O. attributes 72 percent to legislated tax cuts and spending increases, 27 percent to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56 percent occurred from 2009 to 2011.

Even if we absolve George W. Bush of responsibility for those “economic and technical factors” — mainly the Great Recession — his policies are still responsible for a turnaround of about $8.4 trillion in the deficit projections. In other words, if we had merely hung onto the policies of the Clinton administration, paid for things like Medicare Part D, and avoided the disastrous war in Iraq, we would have entered the Great Recession with one of the lowest debt levels in the advanced world. That in turn would probably have kept the housing bubble a bit smaller than it was, making the Great Recession a little less catastrophic, and would have given us more headroom for fiscal stimulus in 2008 and 2009, which also would have reduced both the length and depth of the recession.

But none of that happened thanks to Republican economic policies. This year, they swear they’ve learned their lesson and will never do this again. Do you believe them?

And now, as described by a Reagan/Bush Republican:

June 12, 2012

The Fiscal Legacy of George W. Bush

By BRUCE BARTLETT

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform – Why We Need It and What It Will Take.”

Republicans assert that Barack Obama assumed sole responsibility for the budget on Jan. 20, 2009. From that date, all increases in the debt or deficit are his responsibility and no one else’s, they say.

This is, of course, nonsense – and the American people know it. As I documented in a previous post, even today 43 percent of them hold George W. Bush responsible for the current budget deficit versus only 14 percent who blame Mr. Obama.The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.

In January 2001, the office projected that the federal government would run a total budget surplus of $3.5 trillion through 2008 if policy was unchanged and the economy continued according to forecast. In fact, there was a deficit of $5.5 trillion.

The projected surplus was primarily the result of two factors. First was a big tax increase in 1993 that every Republican in Congress voted against, saying that it would tank the economy. This belief was wrong. The economy boomed in 1994, growing 4.1 percent that year and strongly throughout the Clinton administration.

The second major contributor to budget surpluses that emerged in 1998 was tough budget controls that were part of the 1990 and 1993 budget deals. The main one was a requirement that spending could not be increased or taxes cut unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases. This was known as Paygo, for pay as you go.

During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush warned that budget surpluses were dangerous because Congress might spend them, even though Paygo rules prevented this from happening. His Feb. 28, 2001, budget message reiterated this point and asserted that future surpluses were likely to be even larger than projected due principally to anticipated strong revenue growth.

This was the primary justification for a big tax cut. Subsequently, as it became clear that the economy was slowing – a recession began in March 2001 – that became a further justification.

The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.

According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion.

However, the Bush tax cuts continued through 2010, well into the Obama administration. These reduced revenues by another $369 billion, adding that much to the debt. Legislated tax cuts enacted by President Obama and Democrats in Congress reduced revenues by an additional $407 billion in 2009 and 2010. Slower growth reduced revenues by a further $1.3 trillion. Contrary to Republican assertions, there were no additional revenues from legislated tax increases.

. . .

Putting all the numbers in the C.B.O. report together, we see that continuation of tax and budget policies and economic conditions in place at the end of the Clinton administration would have led to a cumulative budget surplus of $5.6 trillion through 2011 – enough to pay off the $5.6 trillion national debt at the end of 2000.

Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher, a turnaround of $11.7 trillion. Of this total, the C.B.O. attributes 72 percent to legislated tax cuts and spending increases, 27 percent to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56 percent occurred from 2009 to 2011.

Republicans would have us believe that somehow we could have avoided the recession and balanced the budget since 2009 if only they had been in charge. This would be a neat trick considering that the recession began in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

They would also have us believe that all of the increase in debt resulted solely from higher spending, nothing from lower revenues caused by tax cuts. And they continually imply that one of the least popular spending increases of recent years, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was an Obama administration program, when in fact it was a Bush administration initiative proposed by the Treasury Department that was signed into law by Mr. Bush on Oct. 3, 2008.

Lastly, Republicans continue to insist that tax cuts are highly stimulative, often saying that they add nothing to the debt, when this is obviously ridiculous.

Conversely, they are adamant that tax increases must not be part of any deficit-reduction package because they never reduce deficits and instead are spent. This is also ridiculous, as the experience of the Clinton administration clearly shows. The new C.B.O. data confirm these facts.