The Vanishing Deficit May 24, 2013 THE DEFICIT It’s falling — not only in dollars terms but, much more meaningfully, relative to the size of our economy. According to the CBO, the deficit Obama was handed by Bush as he took office four months into the 2009 fiscal year was 10.1% of our GDP. For the current year, a deficit of just 4% of GDP is projected — falling to 2.1% by 2015. And if the economy gains strength — as it will if Republicans stop blocking the badly needed infrastructure investments that would put millions more to work — the deficit will fall still further as a proportion of GDP. The deficit never needs to get to zero, let alone surplus, as it did for a bit under Bill Clinton. It need only be small in enough in most years — though not years of economic contraction when we should run a large deficit — that it expands the National Debt at a slower rate than the economy itself is expanding. So I’ve got an idea. Now that deficit is in much more acceptable territory, let’s repeal the sequester. Let’s fix things not just for the Congressmen and their biggest donors whose flights home were being delayed, but for the neediest hurt by the sequester as well. And let’s ramp up our investment in the infrastructure essential to our long-term well-being. Have I mentioned that before? REPUBLICARE With this quote as his launching point . . . House Republicans desperately want to rid the world of the Affordable Care Act. On that, their sincerity cannot be doubted. But as both their budget and their health-care record show, they are woefully unprepared for a world in which they actually succeeded. —The Washington Post . . . Bruce McCall sketches out Republicare in a nutshell, here, in The New Yorker. Have a great weekend!
Standing O’s May 23, 2013 “PIPPIN” All I remember about the original is that — eh? It was a hit? Really? Well, this new production grabs you from the first moment; evoked a standing ovation in mid-act at the performance I saw; and had me “oh — wow”-ing and laughing through to the end. I thought it might be a little racy for your 12-year-old, but the friend I saw it with said I was being ridiculous — it’s fine for a 12-year-old — so if SODA goes up another few points you can bring the whole family. “BUYER & CELLAR” Oh, and while you’re here, get tickets to this little item which The New Yorker calls, “A FANTASY so delightful you wish it were true” and the Times calls, “IRRESISTIBLE! Delicious and Wickedly Funny!” and I myself call “Next year’s rent money, if it sells out, because I have a piece of it” — because I thought it was so much fun when I saw it that I begged to invest. Full disclosure: You have to have some sense who Barbra Streisand is to enjoy the show. Further disclosure: You don’t have to be a fan. Or even the tiniest bit obsessed with her. Just vaguely aware. WHICH TO SEE The two shows could not be more different: PIPPIN is an extravaganza. Hoops! And fire! And magic! And music! Cirque de Soleil meets Moulin Rouge (the movie) meets — I don’t know, the Visigoths, Cabaret, and Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. BUYER AND CELLAR is a one-man show, brilliantly imaginative and acted and just so unexpected: I’m not telling you anything more about it. See both. “NEXT WEDNESDAY” This is not another show, it’s the date of an early dinner in New York with First Lady Michelle Obama and 7-foot-tall NBA Center Jason Collins and Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Bravo’s Andy Cohen and Super Bowl champ Brendon Ayanbadejo and a whole bunch others . . . and the reason there was no column yesterday. Do you know how hard it is to bake 250 little White Houses and drizzle them with blueberries and raspberry sauce? On the off chance you could be in New York next Wednesday, are gay or a straight ally, have an extra month’s rent to support the most leveraged of social invetsments, and hold progressive political views, me-mail me and I’ll tell you more.
What The Humane Society Has To Do With Any Of This May 21, 2013 This is the story of how the right destroys, or attempts to destroy, good people working to do good things — in this case, the Humane Society. But you could substitute Al Gore or the Clintons or Barack Obama . . . or advocates for the poor, like ACORN. Read it and see whether it leaves you outraged at the Humane Society — or at the right wing’s attempt to dupe you. Washington’s robust market for attacks, half-truths A look inside an industry of distortion, where unnamed corporations pay richly to bend the debate their way By Michael Kranish The Boston Globe May 19, 2013 WASHINGTON — Even by the contemporary standards of bare-fisted attack ads, the unlikely assault on the president of the Humane Society of the United States seems particularly brazen. “Is Wayne Pacelle the Bernie Madoff of the Charity World?” the ad says, comparing the leader of the nation’s largest animal welfare group to the swindler serving a 150-year sentence for losses of $65 billion in the world’s most notorious Ponzi scheme. As a narrator speaks, an image of Pacelle is shown morphing into Madoff. Then the attack widens. The Humane Society, the narrator says, “gives less than 1 percent of its massive donations to local pet shelters but has socked away $17 million in its own pension fund.” Dollar bills are shown floating in front of Pacelle’s smiling face as the narrator says donors should only continue to contribute to the Humane Society “if you want your money to support Wayne and his pension.” This one-minute ad — viewed 1.7 million times on YouTube and created by a nonprofit organization called the Center for Consumer Freedom — provides a case study of what critics say is an industry of distortion in Washington. Increasingly, groups are seeking to influence public policy not by the traditional methods of lobbying or campaign contributions, but, as in this case, by hurling accusations, true or not, that are intended to destroy an influential target’s credibility. On one level, the charges can be easily refuted, according to the ad’s target, Pacelle. The Humane Society president said his organization shelters more animals than any other group, mostly using its own facilities instead of contributing to others, and he said that the $17 million pension fund covers hundreds of employees, not just himself. . . . But on a broader level, it is the story behind the ad that is most revealing — a story that provides a window into a world of questionable claims, powered by donations from unnamed corporations, and a Washington agenda with many millions of dollars at stake.. . . Does it matter that the charges against the Humane Society are wildly distorted? That Al Gore never said he invented the Internet? (Yet championed its funding long before it was easy to understand or sexy?) Does it matter that the President is a U.S. Citizen? Or that instances of in-person voter impersonation — used to justify photo ID laws that disenfranchise millions of voters — are so rare as to be statistically nonexistent? Or that the damning White House Benghazi e-mail ABC News “obtained exclusively” — that then got picked up by everyone else — had been faked by Republican operatives? Or that the IRS errors — which all condemn as an IRS scandal — were made on the watch of a Bush appointee? That the possible overreach by the Justice Department — in its appropriately independent investigation that Republican senators demanded — was all along slated for national scrutiny? Note, in this last case, the contrast with the Watergate bugging — a true White House scandal: Watergate was an operation (a) launched from the White House (not from the Justice Department); (b) designed to subvert a Presidential election (not to satisfy bipartisan national security concerns); (c) meant to remain secret until all involved were dead (not to be subjected to inevitable national scrutiny once concluded). I’m not even certain the AP phone-record subpoenas is more than simply “deeply concerning.” But even if it rises to the level of scandal, it’s not a White House scandal. And yet the drumbeat continues, enabled even by “moderates” on the right like my friend Peggy Noonan on “Meet The Press” this past Sunday morning: GREGORY: Peggy Noonan, you wrote something this week that really struck me in your column on Friday. And I want to put it up on the screen and ask you about it. “We are in the midst,” you write, “Of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they’re seeing. [The IRS and AP scandals] have left the administration’s credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don’t look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.” I have to say, Peggy, what you don’t talk about here is a man that you worked for [Ronald Reagan] who led the Iran-Contra scandal where they ran a secret war and lied to Congress and all the rest. Overstatement [in what you’ve said] here? NOONAN: I don’t think so. I think this is — what is going on now is all three of these scandals makes a cluster that implies some very bad things about the forthcomingness of the administration and about its ability to at certain dramatic points do the right thing. And I got to tell you, the– you– everyone can argue about which of these things is most upsetting, but this IRS thing is something I’ve never seen in my lifetime. It is the revenue gathering arm of the U.S. government… GREGORY: Peggy– Peggy, wait a second. MS. NOONAN: …going after political… GREGORY: Richard Nixon specifically directed people to investigate to audit people. I mean, of course, we’ve seen it in our lifetime. MS. NOONAN: Understood but this is so broad. This is extremely broad and very abusive to normal U.S. citizens just looking for their rights. And here’s the thing… GREGORY: Right. No question– no questions about– about the egregiousness of it. MS. NOONAN: If it doesn’t stop now, it will never stop. GREGORY: Mm-Hm. MS. NOONAN: And the only way it can stop is if, frankly, a price is paid, if people come forward and they have to tell who did it, why they did it, when it started. Peggy makes it sound as though she’s the only one concerned that the IRS not be politicized. But the President has done exactly what she hopes someone would do: put a stop to it. So why is she maligning instead of applauding? Steve Chapman, in the Chicago Tribune, draws an interesting contrast: . . . Here is what the 44th president [Obama] had to say about how the agency should operate: “Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I’m angry about it. It should not matter what political stripe you’re from. The fact of the matter is the IRS has to operate with absolute integrity.” Obama said this as he announced the dismissal of the acting commissioner for failing to prevent political abuse. Here is what the 37th president [Nixon] had to say about how the agency should operate: “Are we looking over the financial contributors to the Democratic National Committee? Are we running their income tax returns? … We have all this power and we aren’t using it. Now, what the Christ is the matter?” . . . Nixon wanted this done! Obama is outraged that it was done! It is night and day different. . . . One of Nixon’s top aides called the commissioner of the IRS and demanded action, hoping to “send [the DNC chair] to jail before the elections.” Nixon ordered investigations of Democrats who might run against him. Obama’s complaint is that the IRS engaged in unfair treatment of groups that oppose him. Nixon’s was that it was reluctant to engage in unfair treatment of those that opposed him. . . . The right must recognize the difference here, just as they must recognize that the Humane Society is not remotely what they say. Aren’t they even a little embarrassed? To be fighting against the humane treatment of animals? To have fought, successfully, to destroy a principal advocate for the poor? To be fighting to keep the minimum wage low? To be fighting to allow felons and the mentally ill to purchase guns without a background check? To be fighting to make it more difficult for those least advantaged to vote? To be fighting against the very cap-and-trade, the very “individual mandate,” and the very bipartisan deficit committees that they themselves championed until the President embraced them? And to be waging these fights, in the main, so shabbily?
The REAL Willful Misconduct In The Benghazi Tragedy May 20, 2013 IRS Just a reminder: the head of the IRS all the way up until six months ago was a Bush appointee. Why would a Bush appointee condone or keep secret misdeeds that disadvantaged Republicans? If you don’t have a good answer to that, will you please shut up? Or else blame George W. Bush for appointing someone to head the IRS who allowed this to happen? Thanks to Doug Schneller for this piece by Alex Seitz-Wald at Salon: . . . While few are defending the Internal Revenue Service for targeting some 300 conservative groups, there are two critical pieces of context missing from the conventional wisdom on the “scandal.” First, at least from what we know so far, the groups were not targeted in a political vendetta — but rather were executing a makeshift enforcement test (an ugly one, mind you) for IRS employees tasked with separating political groups not allowed to claim tax-exempt status, from bona fide social welfare organizations. Employees are given almost zero official guidance on how to do that, so they went after Tea Party groups because those seemed like they might be political. Keep in mind, the commissioner of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee.The second is that while this is the first time this kind of thing has become a national scandal, it’s not the first time such activity has occurred. There follows considerable historical background — not to argue that numerous wrongs make a right, which they do not, but to provide context. No one holds that the IRS acted properly. But this is not “a White House scandal,” it’s a monumental IRS screw-up on a Bush appointee’s watch, now being fixed. Can we move on to putting people to work renewing our infrastructure? Enacting comprehensive immigration reform? Keeping felons and the mentally unbalanced from buying guns? BENGHAZI Those emails ABC News said it had exclusively “obtained” showing White House meddling in the talking points? Um, well, it turns out ABC had not actually obtained them. What it had obtained — apparently from a Republican operative — was a doctored email with invented damning language. That’s what ABC quoted on air as having come from the White House, quickly picked up by the other networks and talk radio. And that’s the scandal here — as Rachel Maddow explains (beginning around 3:36). This is a very big deal. No? Take five minutes and watch? Tomorrow: What The Humane Society Has To Do With all This
The So-Called Scandals May 17, 2013May 20, 2013 Fred: “You really think if the Bush Administration had targeted liberal groups and held up their tax exempt status (and even leaked confidential information) that you would be so dismissive and say, as you did yesterday, ‘My guess is that for many of those involved it may not have been political bias’? No, you wouldn’t.” ☞ No, I wouldn’t — because it had already been shown that, in its first term, the Bush Administration had misled us into war — “yellow cake” in his State of the Union and so much more — lied about “by far the vast majority” of his proposed tax cuts going to benefit those “at the bottom” of the economic ladder, hidden the names of the participants in the White House energy summit, used the Justice Department for political ends – and on and on. So — yes — I would have been highly skeptical. The Obama Administration, by contrast, in its first term, had done no such things. (Don’t get me started on all the good things it managed to do — you could write a book!) And the Obama team has no such culture. It has been transparent in important ways. And as soon as the IRS situation came belatedly to light, everyone, from the President on down, embraced the general alarm, taking immediate action to investigate and fix it. I’d also note that it’s not as though those 501(c)(4)’s were shut down (as the right wing managed to shut down ACORN). Or that they lacked access to powerful senators or Fox News. Why didn’t THEY break the story a year or two ago? Because, I presume, they weren’t aware of it. And neither was the White House. (Note, too, that Cincinnati is politically rather conservative; and that many of the IRS employees in that office were hired on former IRS Commissioner Shulman’s watch – a Bush appointee.) Similarly, when people compare this — or the AP subpoenas — to Watergate (“worse than Watergate” I think Michele Bachmann called it) . . . HELLO! Watergate was hatched in the Oval Office! The Justice Department investigation of leaks that led to the AP subpoenas, by contrast, was hatched — or at least demanded — by mostly Republican senators. Moreover, there was never the expectation that those subpoenas would remain secret once the investigation was over. (Why would the news organizations be party to such a coverup?) So it’s not as though the decision to seek those phone logs in furtherance of national security would not ultimately be subject to the very national scrutiny to which it is now rightly being subjected. Seeking to plug a national security leak with methods subject to inevitable public scrutiny is rather spectacularly different from a bugging operation designed to subvert a presidential election and remain secret forever — no? There are two patterns here. One is that when bad stuff is brought to the attention of this President and his Administration, it is acknowledged and action taken to correct it. Benghazi? Immediately recognized as a tragedy, with 29 recommendations for corrective action formulated soon thereafter, all accepted by the Secretary more or less immediately. The IRS outrage? Immediately acknowledged; heads are rolling, steps being taken to make certain it doesn’t happen going forward. The other pattern is that when something bad happens, the right seizes on it for political advantage. That is understandable and, I guess in the current poisonous polarized political environment just comes with the territory. But the rest of us should see it for what it is. None of this is Nixon hatching Watergate in the Oval Office. None of this is Reagan secretly selling arms to Iran to fund the Nicaraguan contras (and his Vice President, who would succeed him, denying knowledge of it). None of this is Bush 43 misleading us into a catastrophic war and a catastrophic tax policy. Rather, these are mistakes being made at lower levels, being acknowledged and corrected. Better still, of course, would be an Administration none of whose people ever made mistakes in the first place – but that’s not realistic. Fred again (after I sent him that long screed): “Wow! Must have touched a nerve!” ☞ Indeed. And here’s why: These kinds of attacks are really important to respond to because they ultimately can have enormous, catastrophic consequences. This is the way they “beat” Al Gore in 2000 — just piling on a lot of stuff no one item of which had merit* . . . yet there were so many of them that people didn’t have time to get into the details and it tore him down very effectively, with the result that we got the Iraq war, wrecked our national balance sheet, delayed the stem cell breakthrough that might one day have saved your life if only it had come faster — and on and on. It’s the same right-wing machine that somehow persuaded 70% of the folks who voted to re-elect Bush that Iraq played a role in attacking us on 9/11. Simply not true, yet helpful in getting him four more years — which allowed him to appoint Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court, tilting it even more to the right, which gave us Citizens United, which shifting the balance of power yet further from ordinary citizens to the already rich and powerful, and tightening their grip still more. This stuff matters — deeply. I’m not saying our side is perfect. But our President is amazing in his intelligence and temperament and integrity and stamina and judgment and commitment to the best possible future. And his team does its best to measure up. I’m also not saying that the other side has no moderate, sensible, constructive folks (John Huntsman jumps to mind; how’d he do?). But what is moderate, sensible, or constructive in voting down universal background checks when 90% of Americans want them (and when the law bends over backwards to demolish the “slippery slope” argument by including a 15-year prison term for anyone who attempts to set up a national gun registry)? What is moderate or sensible about opposing the cap-and-trade solution that your own party once championed? Or about opposing the “individual mandate” that your own party invented? Or filibustering the bipartisan deficit commission your own party proposed, once the President agreed to it? (We ultimately did get one, Simpson-Bowles, but only by Executive Order; and its deficit-cutting recommendations were killed by the very commissioners, led by Paul Ryan, appointed by the Republicans!) What is moderate or constructive about inflicting self-imposed wounds with the budget ceiling “crisis”? Or – especially – what is moderate or constructive about rejecting the American Jobs Act that would have put more than a million people to work doing things that really need doing – like repairing bridges and modernizing 35,000 schools — and that could be financed with near-zero-rate long-term debt? What is moderate or constructive about not investing in our future when it is clearly the best way to invigorate our economy (which would lower our deficit) and lay the foundation for the brightest possible future? I’ve made my point – or certainly taken enough of your time trying — but I can’t resist reminding you that one of the leaders of the right-wing machine is Rush Limbaugh, who labels “science” one of the “four pillars of deceit.” Science! Along with “government,” which he tears down at every opportunity, “academia” — who would want to listen to an egghead when they can listen to Joe the Plumber parroting what he heard from Rush? — and “the media” (not, presumably, including FOX or his own). Have a great weekend. Your January 2015 42.5 SODA LEAPS, if you bought any, have nearly doubled in a month, so this might be a good time to sell half, recouping most of your funds, and then just see what happens with the rest. *E.g., “the Buddhist temple” thing – which turned out to have no “there” there – and “the Love Story” thing – where Erich Segal acknowledged that Al and Tipper actually were models for characters in the book – and the “invented the Internet” thing — which he did not claim to have done, yet actually deserved a load of credit for having championed long before it was easy to understand or sexy . . . while a young George W. Bush was out partying, doing nothing for his country, not knowing who the President of Pakistan was. Which I didn’t know either; but I never imagined myself competent to run the world.
Gatsby May 16, 2013May 20, 2013 THE SEVEN-MINUTE GATSBY Here. (Bonus, if you have time: Catcher In The Rye.) Somehow, I had never even heard of John Green, who made these YouTubes, has written some best-sellers, and has a brother named Hank. IN THE NEWS Tim Couch (not the quarterback): “IRS/AP/Benghazi — my Republican wife wants to know why you haven’t commented on these.” ☞ Or on Minnesota marriage equality, while we’re at it. Hurray for that! We’re up to 12 states now, plus the District of Columbia. Illinois could shortly be next (neighboring Iowa has had it for four years, yet farmland prices remain strong), along with Brazil (not a state, but big) just after France last month (also not a state, but our major ally in the American Revolution), with California — which had it and then lost it — likely to follow next month when the Supreme Court rules. Progress! But I digress. IRS: Everyone agrees it is outrageous and indefensible for the IRS to target anyone on the basis of their political views. A thorough investigation is called for and underway; the President has already fired the acting head of the IRS; those found to have willfully exercised political prejudice should be prosecuted. My guess is that for many of those involved it may not have been political bias — just an ill-conceived attempt to find some time-saving shortcuts to sift through the huge influx of 501c-4 applicants. But that’s for prosecutors and, ultimately, juries to decide. AP: Here‘s a good story suggesting that the Justice Department tried everything it could before resorting to subpoenaing those phone-records. And here‘s one suggesting that Republican senators are not saying too much about this because it was they who pushed hardest for an aggressive probe. No question, subpoenas of this kind should be a last resort if a resort at all. But it’s also worth noting that this Administration — faced with the example of its predecessor’s meddling with the independence of the Justice Department — made a conscious decision to keep its distance. (You will recall the Bush White House pressuring Justice to prosecute cases of voter fraud — presumably to promote the “need” for voter-ID laws that disadvantage Democrats — and then ejecting several assistant U.S. attorneys for failing to find such cases.) So if the Justice Department was overzealous with these AP subpoenas, finding the wrong balance between national security and freedom of the press (something I don’t feel competent to conclude), that’s regrettable and a knock on the Justice Department . . . but only indirectly on the White House (even though, of course, ultimately, “the buck stops there”). Benghazi: Truly a tragedy. We failed adequately to protect the ambassador and his people; a thorough investigation led to I think 29 recommendations for corrective action, every one of which then-Secretary Clinton promptly endorsed and set into motion. If it took three days or even three weeks to get the story out, that may be clumsy — but how did that delay affect your life or your wife’s or anyone else’s? Watch the Gatsby thing. Fun.
Speed — and You’re Welcome May 15, 2013May 14, 2013 SLOW THE WORLD, I’M NOT AS QUICK AS I ONCE WAS Richard Feinberg: “You can adjust the speed of the playback [on that 30-year time-lapse aerial view of anywhere you posted Monday]. The question mark at lower right has instructions. Just mouse over the year button on the left and you get a drop-down that lets you choose between fast and slow. Also, you can left-click on any of the hash marks and just hold. That will freeze the animation and you can move around that way at your own pace.” BUT WITH 10 HOURS’ EXERCISE, I COULD BE Rafael Diaz-Granados: “It is not often that you agree with the editors of The Wall Street Journal, but on the front page of yesterday’s Personal Journal section [at the same time you had your ‘Get Smart‘ item] they ran ‘When Computer Games May Keep the Brain Nimble‘ that highlights Posit’s Double Decision game.” HISPANIC OUTREACH You know your party has a problem when your director of Hispanic outreach quits and changes his registration. Listen, my Log Cabin Republican friends: it’s okay to stand down until you get your party back (your party now thinks Eisenhower and Nixon were Socialists). Listen, my billionaire entrepreneur Republican friends: it’s okay to stand with Warren Buffett and Nick Hanauer (who makes the indispensable, irrefutable case that it’s the middle class, not the rich, who are the job creators). Listen, my Hispanic Republican friends, to what decorated Iraq vet and just-quit Republican National Committee director of Hispanic outreach for Florida Pablo Pantoja has to say: Yes, I have changed my political affiliation to the Democratic Party. It doesn’t take much to see the culture of intolerance surrounding the Republican Party today. . . . The first DNC Chair I worked with, Joe Andrew, had a stump speech that got better and better with each new delivery from its initial 1998 ad lib under a tent in the back yard of the home of the (then-Republican) Mayor of Los Angeles, which was vying to be the site of the 2000 Democratic Convention. By the time Joe actually delivered it at that Convention, it ended like this: We don’t care whether you’re white or black or brown or purple – you are welcome in the Democratic Party. We don’t care what religion you are or how big your bank account is – you are welcome in the Democratic Party. We don’t care whether you walked in here or rolled in here, whether you’re first generation American or a Mayflower descendant – you are welcome in the Democratic Party. And we don’t care what gender you are or what gender you like to hold hands with. So long as you like to hold hands, you are welcome in the Democratic Party. To which I would add, since I know you all come here as investors, not politicos: the stock market and the economy do significantly better under Democrats than Republicans. Welcome!
Joy To The World; Be Careful Crossing That Bridge May 14, 2013May 13, 2013 JOY TO THE WORLD Two minutes on the Copenhagen metro. It will brighten what I hope is already a fine day. Thanks, Evy! GOOD NEWS / BAD NEWS The good news is that, thanks to some of the stimulus money spent in the President’s first term, our national infrastructure has improved! The bad news is that, thanks to Republicans’ refusal to put people needing work TO work doing so much more that needs doing (funded with near-zero-rate long-term bonds), the grade has improved only from D to D+. Here. GET SMART I have a small interest in Posit Science, so if you click here and decide to sign up, I will be enriched. But if the studies are accurate (typically tested against the same amount of time working crossword puzzles) — and there are quite a few by now — your mind will grow sharper, too. And if there’s one thing I like, it’s sharp-minded readers.
R.I.P. Alan Abelson May 13, 2013May 13, 2013 ANONOMITY How many faces would you say are lost in this crowd? Ten thousand? Fifty thousand? Ah, the anonymity! Now put your cursor in the middle someplace and double click a few times until you can see each one clearly. Anonomity is the state of not being anonymous. AND SPEAKING OF AERIAL VIEWS This site offers 30-year time-lapse photography from space. Skip the preselected locations and use EXPLORE THE WORLD at lower right to type in locations. “Dubai” and “Las Vegas” are fun. (You get more control when you type them in yourself.) Zoom in and watch them grow like crazy. It seems to work for anyplace on the planet, including your own zip code. I’m not sure why they don’t let you adjust the speed of the time scale, but it’s free, so how can we complain? (If you’re quick, you can pause year by year.) Once you’re done playing, scroll down to peruse the “chapters” that follow. (Turns out, Charlie Reese notwithstanding, lawmakers have contributed a thing or two over the last century.) And imagine for a second Columbus or Magellan revivified, being shown this little toy that we get to play with, free. All just seconds, in cosmic time, after they want plunging into the unknown. FRIDAY’S COLUMN Bill Merkel: “I, too, am sad for Donald and pray that he gets his clock reset somehow. That Charlie Reese column makes me so mad I could spit. For anyone to think that going back to the way it was 100 years ago would fix everything shows the typical depth of the conservative narrative these days. That you could wish to undo the incredible progress made in the last 100 years (or even the last 20 or 10) just so you wouldn’t have to pay taxes is a view I can’t fathom. Retirement never worked better than when it claimed Charlie Reese. Now, about Cal Thomas…” Joe Devney: “Mr. Reese lost me with his third sentence: ‘Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?’ We have low taxes (too low in some cases) and modest inflation.” ☞ As outlined at Snopes, Reese first published this in 1985, then updated and re-published it several times. The tax list at the end, and some other stuff, was added by various posters as they re-launched. Soon it may include something about Benghazi. Because — while Reese’s disgust with our government was nonpartisan — I’m pretty sure the people who keep this spinning around the Internet are not. Janeen: “I think it was James Carville who once said, ‘I don’t want to live in an economy. I want to live in a society.’ Taxes are the bedrock of society-making. It is fair-game to say that some may be regressive, or levied inefficiently, or even laden with oppressive regulations. But, personally, there are some I get some satisfaction from paying (local property, which supports my schools, hospital, and local government). And — quite honestly — I wish my state (Iowa) would increase its fuel tax, so we can finally get the road and bridge repairs we so badly need. I cringed hearing about the ‘good old days’ when ‘mom stayed home to take care of the kids.’ The good old days weren’t so great. Entire generations of female talent were suppressed. In an ideal world we would all have more choices and latitude in how we juggle our work and home lives.” R.I.P. ALAN Not you, Alan. You’re going to pull through, I promise. Alan Abelson, who died Friday. (Click the link for the swell New York Times obit.) Alan was a force. Brilliant, unstoppable. He went to the same high school and college as my dad (entering college at 15), but a few years behind, and blew up the company I first worked for out of school, National Student Marketing Corp., with a Barron’s column that sent the stock from 140 down to 6 and, ultimately, its president and a Big Eight accountant to prison (and me to business school). When I started writing for New York after getting my MBA, my first story was about him: “The Smartest Man on Wall Street.” In connection with that, he had me to lunch and introduced me to amazing people to help me get started — a young blind financial analyst who was already something of a legend (she loved to astound cab drivers — and me — by suddenly shouting, a mile from where we had started, “Not here! Turn on Lexington!“), who remains a friend to this day; and a lovely guy named Ken Smilen, another of the most thoughtful men on Wall Street, who had a signed copy of Rudyard Kipling’s If on his office wall (sadly, long departed, an obituary for another day). Alan was an institution. Bitingly funny, yet generous; ramrod straight in his analyses and ethics; and if not the smartest man on Wall Street for each of the 57 years he wrote his column, then surely tied, at all times, for first.
Dying May 10, 2013 DO NOT MISS THE LAST THREE MINUTES So the Republicans yesterday blocked appointment of an EPA Administrator. This 4-minute clip from last night’s “All In With Chris Hayes” notes, at 1:16, where we are with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — back to where we were 800,000 years ago, when the sea level was dramatically higher — and includes compelling clips from Senator Whitehouse’s remarks on the floor, which, if we are to have any hope of sparing future generations untold misery, you must send to your climate-change-denying uncle. As a species, we are good at a lot of things. But taking action now to avoid dire consequences fairly off in the future is not one of them. Which is why the cockroaches may get the last laugh. LAUGHING AT BREAST CANCER In a good way. Four very funny minutes — here. DYING Donald: “I am dying so I have only taken to reading stuff that really matters to me. Please tell me what is wrong with this thinking and why you aren’t an enabler?” READ, WEEP, PRINT AND KEEP! This should be on the front page of every newspaper . . . Charley Reese’s final column for the Orlando Sentinel. He has been a journalist for 49 years. He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN. Be sure to read the Tax List at the end. This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It’s a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering! 545 vs. 300,000,000 People -By Charlie Reese Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes. Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. (The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.) The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? (John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want.) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red. If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan … If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way. There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees… We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper. What you do with this article now that you have read it… is up to you. This might be funny if it weren’t so true. Be sure to read all the way to the end: Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table, At which he’s fed. Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule. Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts anyway! Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat. Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt. Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think. Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries Tax his tears. Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass. Tax all he has Then let him know That you won’t be done Till he has no dough. When he screams and hollers; Then tax him some more, Tax him till He’s good and sore. Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he’s laid… Put these words Upon his tomb, ‘Taxes drove me to my doom…’ When he’s gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax. Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon) Gross Receipts Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Property Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service Charge Tax Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax Sales Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone Federal Excise Tax Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax Telephone State and Local Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. What in the heck happened? Can you spell ‘politicians?’ I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!! GO AHEAD. . . BE AN AMERICAN!!! ☞ I am distressed to learn that you are dying, Donald. For what it’s worth, don’t let this stuff add to your burdens. Try to focus on the couple of GOOD things that have somehow happened over the last 100 years since all these politicians were elected, all this debt accumulated, all these taxes imposed. Most of the things we use and enjoy today didn’t exist back then, so back then there was no need for taxes to fund things like the FCC or FDA or FAA. Medicare and Medicaid weren’t needed because healthcare consisted of aspirin and leaches (or, well, not much more). Social Security payments weren’t needed because old folks lived with their children. Those items alone — social security and Medicare and Medicaid — are a huge part of the budget we fund with taxes. We didn’t need to tax ourselves much for defense in peacetime because the oceans pretty much defended us (and because we paid our soldiers, when we did draft them, bupkus). There were few taxes to support transportation — because there were few highways. And so on. Yes, we have huge problems, not least the climate change problem Republicans refuse to acknowledge or confront (watch that clip!) . . . and glaring problems in our political system I’d love to see fixed: We went exactly backwards with Citizens United . . . we need to redraw electoral districts in a way that allows moderates and centrists to win . . . we need to bring back, at the very least, the “talking filibuster” so if someone wants to do it, at least they have to do it . . . and more. But getting rid of taxes (and thus all that those taxes pay for) and getting rid of debt (and thus all of the investment it funds) and getting rid of 545 people (only to replace them with 545 new ones selected in the same way) makes no sense to me. Charlie Reese is probably a lovely man, but this is a really simple-minded column that only serves to feed cynicism and disaffection without proposing a single constructive, viable solution. I’d welcome your thoughts — and hope you wind up with many more years than you expect to formulate them.