Disqus - Friends of crowdedfalafel

Re: Grover Norquist: Pink Unicorns Aren't Real And GOP Won't Break Tax Pledge

ke lockhart — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:42:38 -0000

At one point in this interview, Norquist claims that "Four years ago Obama overreached and thought his election had made him king."

My jaw dropped. The American people have elected Mr. Obama twice now. "Overreach" or no, it means that a majority of the American people TWICE thought we should let him have the lead, try his ideas, etc.

Who elected Grover Norquist?! And just who is acting like a supercilious king?

Re: Grover Norquist: Pink Unicorns Aren't Real And GOP Won't Break Tax Pledge

ke lockhart — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:48:14 -0000

And an electoral landslide. Frankly, it's the GOP's turn -- FINALLY -- to give a little.

Re: Grover Norquist: Pink Unicorns Aren't Real And GOP Won't Break Tax Pledge

ke lockhart — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:52:02 -0000

At one point in this interview, Norquist claims that, "Four years ago, Obama overreached and thought his election had made him king."

My jaw dropped.
Obama has twice now been elected by a clear majority of the American people. "Overreach" or no, that means that a majority of us thought we should let him lead, try his ideas, etc.

Who elected Grover Norquist? And so who is acting like a supercilious king here?

Re: Sen. Chambliss: Reform Tax Code To Raise Revenue

ke lockhart — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:35:09 -0000

You've hit the nails on the head, Russ (and taken care of any need for moi to post!).

I was also dumbfounded at Inskeep's apparent ignorance of widely acknowledged economic data, including the very major point that only about 3% of small businesses would even be subject to a tax increase if the top bracket rate goes back up. (Inskeep missed another golden opportunity during the Norquist interview. Have never liked Inskeep much and unfortunately he just keeps proving me right.)

But you really nailed it with your points about GOP inconsistencies (imagine that!) between tax increases versus reduced deductions.
Thank you!

Re: The Tax Battle Decoded: What $250,000 Gets You

ke lockhart — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:28:29 -0000

Interesting story on the differences in "real income" the $250,000 can mean, depending on where you live.

However, I find NPR covers this issue with same mystifying omission that everyone else keeps leaving out of this discussion: Namely, that a taxable "income" of $250,00 isn't literally $250,00 in earned wages, whatever; for tax purposes, its your Adjusted Gross Income that matters.

By that logic, a family of four with dependent children, a mortgage, property taxes, etc. will see a host of hefty deductions before one dime of tax gets calculated. Which means that same family will very likely fall OUT of the $250K income bracket -- and therefore not see a tax increase at all.

There's a reason the percentage of Americans slated to be affected by this tax increase is only TWO PERCENT. You have to be earning quite a lot of money already to have even a portion of that AGI literally be above $250K.

Re: It's Time For 'A Rational Approach' To Immigration

ke lockhart — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 08:39:13 -0000

Ahhh, what a difference a single election makes!

Sen. Jeff Flake says in this interview that there is certainly a "moral imperative" to reform immigration and provide a path to citizenship for those who were brought here as children, etc. Yet during his tenure in Congress Flake himself has consistently voted against the Dream Act and any other attempted bill giving some relief to undocumented immigrants. On the other hand, he has voted for every effort to impose further restrictions like mandatory ID and to spend money on that dodo known as "border security."

And you can bet that if Romney had won the election -- despite the very same lack of support from Hispanic voters -- neither Flake nor the rest of us would be talking about any immigration reform right now; certainly not one centered on a path to citizenship.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, and I suppose I'm grateful that the tide has so turned against them that Republicans are now finally ready to deal on this issue. But have no illusions, folks: For most of them, the "change of heart" is an inch deep and based solely on staying alive politically. In fact, this whole reform business still has to make it past the House, a chamber filled with parochial minds if there ever was one.

Re: The Value And Risk Of Drawing A Red Line

ke lockhart — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:05:23 -0000

I'm sorry, but this Miller fellow is driving me crazy! His main criticism is that the U.S. is not being "clear" about our intervention policies when it comes to Iran, Syria, etc. He cites the HW Bush example with approval, because Miller feels the Bush admin made the consequences crystal clear to Iran -- but ignores the very salient reality that Bush was perfectly willing to go to war, while Obama -- and the American people -- are currently NOT.

Yet given that reality, what the heck is Obama supposed to do -- except sort of fudge and try to be firm without making any total overt commitment to engaging in yet another foreign conflict? Miller's fussy dissatisfaction with this reality just isn't very helpful.

Re: Episode 446: The Invisible 14 Million

ke lockhart — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 12:07:58 -0000

I don't think this program dealt in "disinformation" at all. If you feel it presented just one side of the story, say so. But to claim that the facts as presented aren't true is . . . unhelpful.

Re: Episode 446: The Invisible 14 Million

ke lockhart — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:33:17 -0000

Wow. This revelatory story is almost as good as Planet Money's famous series on the financial meltdown a few years back. (BTW, If you have not yet heard "Big Bank" and others, I cannot recommend it highly enough as supremely enlightening -- and infuriating.) Major props to Chana Jaffe-Walt for her fine journalist's "obsession" for sticking with this story -- which highlights another angle on our nation's huge economic disparities.

Like most of the folks commenting here, I personally don't really begrudge those who have taken the disability route. But I do find many of this story's other revelations deeply troubling:
1. The increasing tide of those who are "economically disabled." That these hidden unemployed have been allowed to live in the shadows for 30 years is shameful, not least because it describes an economy that is far more systemically troubled than we have ever been led to believe. But if you don't know (or won't acknowledge) that a problem exists, how can you work to fix it? As a result, we're getting to the point where we're raising entire generations on disability. Gee, isn't that precisely what "welfare reform" was designed to eliminate 30 years ago?!
2. The depressing ignorance of so many in poverty, especially the rural poor -- who have so little knowledge of other worlds that they can't even imagine a sit-down job that could accommodate their disability. Again, what you can't imagine you can't strive for. Equally depressing is how narrow their worlds are job-wise, where there's literally nowhere to work except McDonald's. Ugh!
3. The deep harm our economic failures are causing so many millions of good people who would much rather work. Makes me wonder -- for the umpteenth time -- why don't we revive public works programs like those in the 1930s? If we're gonna pay able-bodied folks like the laid-off mill hands extended unemployment or (often enough) disability, why don't we honor them with some work to do as well? Obviously, those with major disabilities couldn't participate -- but others could be asked to help at libraries and schools across the nation, help repair our failing infrastructure, etc. Many would also learn new skills at the same time.
4. The cynical complicity of states in moving their poor to the disability rolls. Now, I understand quite well how hard the Great Recession has been on every state, particularly those with weak / inflexible economies. But one quick look at the graphs showing which states have the highest rates of citizens on federal disability shows that the majority are also politically Deep Red states -- those which rail and vote the loudest against the very funding they so disproportionately enjoy. Such cynicism (or is it sheer idiocy?) is maddening.
5. The realization it's truer than ever that the little guy barely stands a prayer anymore in America. The lack of upward mobility in the U.S. -- which has steadily been getting worse for the last 30 years -- coincides exactly with this disability timeline, and also with the timeline showing how the average American's income/spending power has actually been DECLINING since the early 1970s.

I am hopeful that stories like this will help get the problem more front and center in our politics. It seems to me that some of these issues -- the billion+ paid annually without question to disability lawyers, the families with kids on disability being punished for showing improvement -- could be readily fixed through some thoughtful legislation.

As for the ongoing failures of our public education system and our lopsided economy? Not so sure about that . . .

Re: Episode 446: The Invisible 14 Million

ke lockhart — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:40:36 -0000

I suspect you're on to something here, Paul. Many of those responding who are on disability or know folks who are cite the healthcare coverage as a critical key reason they wanted it / feel compelled to stay on it, regardless of what are often deep desires to work. In fact, I'm of the opinion that making healthcare universal would free up so much economic juice we could dispel this stupid recession in months! It would cost far less to essentially make Medicare available to everyone than what we collectively spend now -- and freeing employers from the expense of providing it would also free up lots of capital for new jobs, better pay, etc. (Of course, we'd have to eliminate the current Republican Party from our politics in order to get this done! ;oD )

As for our veterans . . . I cannot really speak to the military situation with any expertise. But making comparisons with the Gulf War seems inaccurate to me, since that lasted less than a year and was a very different type of warfare, period. What's so characterized both Iraq and Afghanistan has been their endless, insurgent/terrorist/suicide-bomber natures -- and native populations deeply distrustful of the very soldiers forced to work daily right in the midst of them. Between terrible brain trauma from IEDs and the stress of never being able to know where the next bomb is coming from, I can easily see why disability rates could double from that of the Gulf War.

Re: 'We've Had Enough Bushes,' Says Former First Lady Barbara

ke lockhart — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:05:28 -0000

Couldn't agree more, Babs.

Re: 5 Presidents Set To Help Dedicate George W. Bush's Library

ke lockhart — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:08:00 -0000

Doh! Of course you're from Texas, cc! That explains everything.

Re: 5 Presidents Set To Help Dedicate George W. Bush's Library

ke lockhart — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:12:53 -0000

I really wish that Mara Liasson would stop crediting GW Bush with the auto bailout (Her top of the hour news blurb says, "Although he ran as the anti-Bush, Obama has continued several policies of the Bush administration, including the TARP and auto bailouts.")
But Bush only approved a small ($17 b) temporary bailout and then with visible relief passed the larger, ongoing problem to Obama.

It's bad enough that conservatives are rewriting the Bush history. Let's not allow NPR to start doing it, too.

Re: Gates: Obama Made Solid Decisions, But Was Swayed By Factious Staff

ke lockhart — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:29:05 -0000

You're getting there.
I do agree that Gates feels that issues of national security should be "above" politics. Yet where on earth are his criticisms of Bush II on those grounds?!? NOBODY milked or exploited "national security" and fear like the neocons did.

I think Gates regards Biden as a classic naive, sloppy-thinking "liberal" who wants to end all wars, etc. But that position has very little to do with politics or following the "current Washington populist trend" -- whatever the heck fantasy you have about that is. (Washington is about as "populist" as a Wall Street banker.)

Especially since, as I recall, Biden was laughed at nearly universally back in 2007-08 for characterizing the Iraq quagmire an inevitable result of sectarian tensions, suggesting that perhaps the solution would be to divvy up that benighted country according to sect and be done with it. Considering that those exact same sectarian tensions are STILL tearing up that country 11 years after we blew the lid off of it -- and getting Al Queda involved there for real this time -- maybe Biden doesn't look so clueless or wrong as Gates would have us believe.

Re: Gates: Obama Made Solid Decisions, But Was Swayed By Factious Staff

ke lockhart — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:31:17 -0000

But not on the grounds that he was "too political" about his military decisions, etc.

Re: Keystone Greens See Pipeline As Crucial Test For Obama

ke lockhart — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:33:42 -0000

Don Barber below made all the points I wanted to -- including the important point about how Canada has even refused to give us "first dibs" rights on the refined oil the pipeline would allow them to export. So we don't even get improved "energy independence" out of this lousy deal.

Frankly, I'm mystified why this whole project has gotten even this far. Any way you slice it, America does a job Canadians don't want to do on their own land. We would wind up donating all the valuable farm and ranch acreage, taking all the environmental risks (leaks, spills, etc.), still get no better deal on the oil we still have to buy -- for what? A few thousand short-lived jobs to build it, a handful to maintain it . . . and that's about it.

Unfortunately, I think the sometimes overblown environmental arguments have gotten all the attention at the cost of missing what to me are the even more salient economic arguments against. Clearly, some big dogs in the oil business will make out like bandits. The rest of us? Not so much.

But if Obama's final yardstick will be "Is this in our national interest?" the answer sure seems pretty obvious to me.

Re: Scientist Switches Position, Now Supports Keystone XL Pipeline

ke lockhart — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:52:15 -0000

Canada does have some refineries located very close to the Tar Sands in Alberta. But their own citizens (particularly in BC) don't want the pipeline built on their own land.

Besides, the scale of Canada's refineries apparently is just too small to "properly leverage" the profits out of this sucker quickly enough. That's why so many big dogs in the international oil industry -- Exxon, BP, Shell, Koch Brothers, etc. -- have gotten behind the Keystone pipeline. They own (or partly own) refineries all along the current and proposed pipeline route in the Midwest and near the Gulf Coast. The sooner that pipeline gets built and working, the sooner they can 1) claim their tax subsidies and 2) export that oil to the rest of the world.

Re: Scientist Switches Position, Now Supports Keystone XL Pipeline

ke lockhart — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:04:49 -0000

I did. Apparently you don't know how to read.

Re: Scientist Switches Position, Now Supports Keystone XL Pipeline

ke lockhart — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:08:35 -0000

God, I hope not!
I'm still appalled at Greene's apparent enormous ignorance of the issue, but once the conversation gets put into the very limited range it was presented in -- Keystone XL won't make any difference to the continued development of Tar Sands oil -- there's really not that many places to go.

This is one of the reasons that I'd like to see a shift in the national discussion about Keystone. As vital as the environmental concerns are, they are still largely abstract, difficult to "prove" -- and always cast us into the same dreary partisan corners, shouting at each other. And believe me, the Kochs, the oil industry, and everyone who supports Big Oil politically (esp. Republicans, though the Democrats are hardly saints here, either) -- these groups are perfectly happy to restrict the argument to these confines.

That's because a sole focus on the environmental questions successfully prevents the very real "economic interest" discussions we could be having. And once you contemplate just who really benefits from the pipeline being built and what it will cost the American taxpayer, it becomes pretty difficult to support the pipeline as being in the true interest of the American people.

Re: Scientist Switches Position, Now Supports Keystone XL Pipeline

ke lockhart — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:20:20 -0000

And of course the headlines from U.S. media -- including the one on this very page -- will just tout Science's "change of heart," which appears to give a "seal of approval" to the whole deal. That's what will fan out across the 20-second TV news summaries, while journalists and pundits will spend countless hours "analyzing" and discussing ONE POINT: that the Tar Sands will be developed further, regardless of the Keystone pipeline being built. (Which, when you think about it, isn't exactly a ringing endorsement to build it.)

No one will ask what the benefits to the average American are or are not. No one will delve one thin dime below the frothy surface.

Re: Scientist Switches Position, Now Supports Keystone XL Pipeline

ke lockhart — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:25:49 -0000

The only way we could ensure that happening is to tie Keystone pipeline construction to those new energy resources.

The oil industry is getting massive tax subsidies on top of a new pipeline that will allow them to export that much more refined oil to the rest of the world. Why don't we tax them for it all instead? You want your dirty oil pipeline so bad? PAY FOR IT by putting x percent of every dollar you profit from it into an Energy R&D Fund run by the nation's best scientists. (NOT McNutt! ;oD) Pay for your trashing of our present for at least a down payment on our future.

To me, that's the only way I could live with this utter boondoggle.

Re: Scientist Switches Position, Now Supports Keystone XL Pipeline

ke lockhart — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:37:01 -0000

Huh? How is anyone "dying on their sword" by arguing against the pipeline? And what makes you so sure the "pipeline will go forward with little regulation" regardless?
If President Obama nixes the pipelines as not being in the nation's best interest, it will NOT get built. Sheesh -- that's the whole point here!

Re: Scientist Switches Position, Now Supports Keystone XL Pipeline

ke lockhart — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:37:06 -0000

Your points are well taken. And if you have good news I just haven't heard -- you say the plan "seems to have a growing acceptance"-- please tell!

But I'd consider any significant movement toward an Energy Fund a mark of progress. Because in this political climate, that carbon fee-and-dividend solution won't get passed. (Obama can't even get any funding for research approved.)

I'm not just referring to our usual acrimonious Red-Blue divides here, but also to the deluge of political money coming from the very global interests who stand to make the most money out of KXL (oil guys, Wall Street, etc.). As long as our politicians (Republican AND Democrat) are so beholden to Big Money (and that just gets worse and worse, thanks to the Supreme Court's insane rulings that money=free speech), I'm not very hopeful that much of what is truly in our nation's best interests will move forward. If Obama nixes the KXL, they'll just keep trying under the next President. And if it looks like Obama will let it through (very possible), maybe we could at least get some strings attached.

Re: Scientist Switches Position, Now Supports Keystone XL Pipeline

ke lockhart — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:01:02 -0000

But no plan takes the oil to a Canadian coast, where they could export it themselves. They'd rather use U.S. land for that.

Re: Scientist Switches Position, Now Supports Keystone XL Pipeline

ke lockhart — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:26:08 -0000

Well, I see your points -- I do, given your clarifications. There is a danger of any defeat here seeming like an enormous blow to all environmental efforts, period -- and that is likely how it would be portrayed in the media. (Just like the rejection of UAW at the Tennessee VW plant was billed as a huge blow to unions everywhere, with little mention of what a squeaker the final vote really was, etc.)

But the KXL issue has galvanized Americans in a way very few other environmental issues have. (The first comment period garnered over 1.5 million responses, most of them against the pipeline.) It seems like environmentalists and those working for more equitable economic conditions can -- or should -- harness that human energy to keep demanding better regulations across the industry -- and more caution whenever global corporate giants start proposing things that imperil our planet and bring economic benefits mostly just to the 1%.