NEON GODS

If there never will be enough jobs for all our workers, what do we do with the permanent jobless?

Okay, here's what I'm hearing.  Companies in America have found that they can meet their production goals with far less workers than ever before.  This is due to a variety of reasons: computers, automation/robotics, offshoring, lower wages, and desperate workers willing to work long hours without demanding overtime, etc.

This looks like the way things are going to be for the foreseeable future.  So if America only has enough jobs for about 65% of it's adults who are capable of working, what do we do with the remaining 35% who cannot find a job because they just aren't there?  These are adults who want a job, NEED a job, need a certain amount of money each week for food and shelter, and in many cases feed and clothe their kids.

Can 65% of the adults who do have jobs support those who don't (and remember, these are people who are jobless because the jobs aren't there and never will be.  Some will try to make the problem go away by labelling these people as lazy or parasites and thus they aren't our problem)?

This is a problem that must be faced and soon.  We can already see hundreds of thousands of American workers who have been jobless for more than six months, many for over a year, and companies are doing just fine without them.

So, what do we do? 

--Trakker

It's your country. You get what you pay for.

The Associated Press has good news and bad news for us.  The good news is that in response to higher gas prices more people are taking mass transit to work and for other trips.  Good.  That's good for the environment.  But wait, America's mass transit systems are crumbling and the added burden of more and more riders could force their collapse.

Driven by high gas prices and an uncertain economy, Americans are turning to trains and buses to get around in greater numbers than ever before. But the aging transit systems they're riding face an $80 billion maintenance backlog that jeopardizes service just when it's most in demand.

...decades of deferred repairs and modernization projects also have many transit agencies scrambling to keep trains and buses in operation. The transit administration estimated in 2010 that it would take $78 billion to get transit systems into shape, and officials say the backlog has grown since then.

In Philadelphia, for example, commuters ride trains over rusty steel bridges, some of them dating back to the 19th century. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority — which operates subway, trolley, bus and commuter rail systems — is responsible for 346 bridges that are on average 80 years old. Officials said they may be forced to slow trains or even stop them from crossing one bridge that's 1,000 feet long and 90 feet above the ground if it deteriorates further, leaving stations on the other side without service.

A key power substation relies on electrical equipment manufactured in 1926. There's no hope for acquiring spare parts, so workers try to open the boxes housing the equipment as infrequently as possible to prevent damage from exposure to the environment.

I recall Washington, DC's Metro subway system when it opened in 1976.  It was a delight to use, the trains and stations were clean and attractive.  Today, 36 years later the cars are worn out, the stations are drab, and the escalators are out of service at least a third of the time.

These systems, like our highways, are largely funded and subsidized by the government, and are falling apart because the right has convinced the people of America that our taxes are too high and that government is bad.  So our transportation infrastructure is falling apart - and the right continues to demand more tax cuts!

America used to have the best, most modern infrastructure in the world.  We used to be proud of our highways, airports, and subway systems and we paid high taxes to keep them that way, but now we're told by the radical right that the government is too big, it's bloated, it's wasteful. Instead we must rely on the private sector to make us great again.

Well, I'm waiting for WalMart to expand and modernize Washington's Metro.  Philadelphia is waiting for AT&T to rehabilitate their rusty, dangerous bridges.  It's going to be a long wait.

This is just more evidence that ever since Reagan, the right has pushed an agenda that will eventually usher America back to the 1870s, and the right won't quit until people starve and the trains stop running.

It's our country, people.  Just remember, you get what you pay for.

--Trakker

America: screw the future, it's more fun to attack strawmen and let big business run the country

Paul Krugman put to words exactly what's been bothering me,

America used to be a country that thought big about the future. Major public projects, from the Erie Canal to the interstate highway system, used to be a well-understood component of our national greatness. Nowadays, however, the only big projects politicians are willing to undertake — with expense no object — seem to be wars. Funny how that works.

As the radical right has taken over this country, it has done all it can to insure that America becomes an 18th century country in a 21st century world.  A nation of high unemployment, low wages, crumbling infrastructure, extremely high college tuition (that only the rich from all over the world can afford), and run by big business for big business, not the people.

The NYTimes, in an article today, reports that a lot of immigrant's kids, especially those from India, China and other countries with booming economies, are leaving the U.S. and returning home because they can see they have no future here.  So true.

--Trakker

 

We are now two seperate nations living in one country. We have almost nothing in common anymore..

Why have I been silent here lately?  Partly because I made the mistake of reading comments at the Fox News news site.  At least the commenters there don't hide their racism.  But even at other news sites it's becoming painfully obvious that we are a nation of two very distinct tribes who increasingly agree on less and less.  And both sides now pretty much hate each other with an increasing passion.  I don't see how this is going to work out in the future because the two sides have a completely opposite view the kind of country they want America to be. 

Look at Paul Ryan's recent budget proposal.  The Republicans want to cut funds for almost everything that benefits the people, especially the poor, and increase spending on the military and give huge tax cuts for the very wealthy, including retaining the Bush Tax Cuts which the Republicans initially agreed would end in 2010.  They are still in place in 2012!  Hahahaha, silly us!

They also want more people to be armed in public, and by public I mean schools and bars and parks and churches.  I think we all know how this is going to play out.

I don't want to live in a country with a crumbling infrastructure, a small middle class, prohibitively expensive college tuition with fewer and fewer grants for the children of the poor, and a huge and growing number of poor, with no health care and many living on the edge of disaster (Republicans appear to enjoy the thought of people desperate for jobs, scared that they may get sick and lose their homes or apartments and get thrown out onto the street).

The right really does live on a different planet than the rest of us.  They don't trust science, they don't trust any sources of facts except for those that distort facts to fit their fairytale world.  They are becoming increasingly hostile to blacks, gays, non-Christians, the poor, and anyone else that doesn't embrace their distorted brand of Americanism. 

I don't know how this will end.  My side wants to live in a modern, educated, open-minded, society that respects people who are different (religion, race, sexual orientation), that has a large middle class and a wealthy class that is willing to pay more to help those who are jobless, who are ill, who have ambition but no money. 

The other side believes if you give your money to the rich instead of the government, they will build bridges and highways and send up weather satellites, and test your food and water to make sure it is safe, etc., etc.  Didn't I tell you they live in a fairytale world?

--Trakker

 

Health care costs in America are killing our economy and making us less competitive.

Ezra Klein makes a solid case for a single-payer health care system in the U.S., and in the process shows why either the radical right is doomed or our country's middle class is doomed.

In 2009, Americans spent $7,960 per person on health care. Our neighbors in Canada spent $4,808. The Germans spent $4,218. The French, $3,978.

Why does our health care cost so much more than everyone else?

“The United States spends more on health care than any of the other OECD countries spend, without providing more services than the other countries do,” they concluded. “This suggests that the difference in spending is mostly attributable to higher prices of goods and services.”

Why is this?

“Other countries negotiate very aggressively with the providers and set rates that are much lower than we do,” Anderson says. They do this in one of two ways. In countries such as Canada and Britain, prices are set by the government. In others, such as Germany and Japan, they’re set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.

What is the solution?

But as simple an explanation as “the prices are higher” is, it is a devilishly difficult problem to fix. Those prices, for one thing, mean profits for a large number of powerful — and popular — industries.

In other words, we're screwed because these industries can buy enough politicians to insure the government does nothing that would reduce their profits.

But this disparity cannot continue or at some point only the wealthy will be able to afford health insurance and Medicare will become a huge drain on our budget.

As Ezra pointed out:

If we had the per-person costs of any of those countries [Canada, Germany, France], America’s deficits would vanish. Workers would have much more money in their pockets. Our economy would grow more quickly, as our exports would be more competitive.

So we have to do something or our middle class will vanish (or only the very healthy or very lucky will retain their middle class standard of living) and our country will become a sweat shop for the world.  

The only solution is to adopt a single-payer health-care system similar to the countries cited above.  That will be considered "socialized medicine" and the radical right will fight it tooth and nail, but the American people are beginning to catch on to the fact that the looney right is all about enriching the wealthy and impoverishing the middle class.  I believe a single payer health care system in the U.S. is inevitable, or eventually we will become the world's newest, and largest, third world nation.

--Trakker

A new 'Morning in America?' The old one turned out to be 'Twilight in America'

I'm still not pleased with the job President Obama has done.  He is still too timid on important issues, and can only be described as an early 1990s Republican (without the Southern strategy of course).  But the polls show he's beginning to pull away from all four Republican candidates in national polls and in many critical state polls, and I'm pretty sure he will continue to increase his lead because the people are beginning to recoil in horror at what the Republicans are trying to do, women especially!

My daughter is a teacher and Girl Scout leader.  She's busy all the time and doesn't have much leisure time but she has become outraged at the right's war on the Girl Scouts and women's health issues.  In her latest post she linked to this article on a blog that recounts the experience of one woman whose daughter would have died if the Rick Santorums of this world had their way.  What's even more striking is that all of her Facebook friend are leaving angry comments too.  Typical is one friend who commented, "I am sharing [this article]. Women's healthcare is being assaulted by one party. Period."  These are people who just a month ago spent most of their time discussing their spring garden plans, cats, or kids.  The Susan G. Komen flap started it off, but the new Virginia law requiring some who want abortions to have a probe stuck up their vagina really struck a chord.

Another issue that is getting some attention is guns.  People are fed up with the ever-present gun violence, cops and kids getting killed and the murder-suicides where women and children are shot by irate, depressed fathers/lovers who then turn their gun on themselves.

I think the right has blown past the line of common sense and is quickly alienating a lot of voters who used to vote for them most of the time.  I also feel a new confidence in the Democrats.  The tide is turning on gay marriage as more and more people come to the conclusion that even if homosexuality makes them very uncomfortable, it's only fair to let people who love each other marry.  And they see which party has been leading the fight to secure those rights and which party is still demonizing gays.

I think Obama's bailout of the auto industry and how well it has turned out (GM has reclaimed the mantle of #1 auto manufacturer in the world) has also impressed people.

I'm getting more optimistic by the day that we will see the Democrats in Congress and in the states growing more assertive and getting more support.

--Trakker

This is going to be an interesting year (for Democrats)

Yesterday I had to drive to our cabin in West Virginia where I'll be the rest of the week.  It's a four hour drive and the weather was perfect.  I had a chance to examine why I'm not getting anything done around the house these days, and I suddenly realized that lately the political and economic news has been almost addictive.

The auto industry.  When GM and Chrysler faced crushing deficits our financial system was reeling and could not lend them the money they needed to survive. 

The Republicans screamed, "Let the companies fail!  That's how markets are supposed to work."  The Obama administration, however, realized that if GM and Chrysler failed, hundreds of other companies that supported the auto indutry would fail, and we would have an economic meltdown, so the administration bit the bullet, ignored the Republican's anger and scorn, convinced Congress to lend GM and Chrysler the money they needed to survive, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back. 

This highlights the major difference between Democrats and Republicans.  Democrats make policy based on what is best for the country and Republicans base their policy decisions on what hurts the Democrats the most.  Letting GM nd Chrysler fail would have insured the economy would crash insuring that Obama the Democrats would have been toast in 2012.

The Republican primaries.  WOW!

We saw Tea Party leader Michelle Bachmann flame out in spectacular fashion almost immediately.  I didn't expect that.  Since then we've seen some truly pathetic human beings briefly climb into the lead, (Trump, Cain, and Gingrich), we saw another Republican star flame out in even more spectacular fashion (Rick Perry - really, Texas, this is the guy you keep electing governor?!), and now we're down to three hugely flawed candidates who have little chance of ever becoming President (let's face it).

What makes the Republican primary so satisfying is that the candidates have been falling all over themselves pandering to the party's base which are among the most radical, regressive people in this country.  If they could they would turn America into a Christian theocracy, destroy the safety nets for the poor, cut the federal workforce in half, end public education, and make Israel the 51st state.  Who knows what they would do for an encore?

So why am I so happy?  Because the radical right has pushed the pendulum so far to the right that the American people are finally coming to realize that the Republican party wants to actually destroy the America we know, and take it back at least a half century, and those who are paying attention are aghast.  If it weren't for the huge SuperPACS who will support the Republicans no matter who the sorry candidate is, I would predict that Obama will win big in November, probably take the House back, and maybe even keep the Senate in Democratic hands.  I think the pendulum is going to swing to the left in Obama's 2nd term (it can't go any further to the right).

Which brings me to poor Greece.  From my admittedly imperfect knowledge of the situation, if any European country deserves to be miserable, it is Greece.  They cooked the books and lied about their debt situation for years.  They also had a culture of evading taxes (not unheard of some countries but the Greeks took it to whole new level). 

So Greece was a rogue and its irresponsibility could end up sinking the Euro, and causing damage to economies all over the world.  Now the rest of Europe is demanding that the people of Greece suffer greatly for it. 

But I want to know how Greece got away with this irresponsibility for so long?  Surely the European Central Bank and those investors who accepted Greece's economic figures should have been savvy enough to spot the huge flaws in those figures.  These people are experts at sniffing out lies, and protecting their client's interests.  I also think that severe austerity is not the answer.  How can people and businesses pay taxes (revenue which is badly needed) if they have no jobs, no money?   When people lose everything, they have nothing more to lose. That is tinder for violence and even revolution.  The whole European economic crisis will be an interesting story for months to come. 

My sympathies lie with the Greek people who are really suffering. If you want to revive Greece's economy pump money into it, get people back to work, make the country attractive to tourism, and then make sure the people and businesses pay their taxes.

--Trakker

"We don't want your stinking government help. (But we need it.)"

Ki Gulbranson is famous today.  He probably wishes he wasn't.  He probably wishes he'd kept his mouth shut, but instead he told a NYTimes reporter that "too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means." He said he supports politicians who promise to cut government spending.  He also said that he makes about $39,000 a year "and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government." 

He also supports Tea Party candidates.  So this Gulbranson is one of those rugged individuals who wouldn't take a dime from the damn government even if they tried to force him to, right?   Weeeeeell... not exactly.  He actually accepts Earned Income Credit payouts from the government and has signed up three of his kids to get free breakfast and lunches at school.  Also, Medicare has paid for his mother to have two hip replacements!

This is all part of an in-depth NYTimes article that is worth reading.  It makes Ki Gulbranson look like a hypocrite, but really, he's just a hard-working American who doesn't make enough to support his family without some government help.  I doubt he realized just how much government help he gets until the Times reporter started asking embarrassing questions.

The bottom line is this, the average American worker has seen his and her inflation adjusted income decline for more than three decades, and they need help.  Most of them who rail against government giving so much of their tax dollars to so many people believe THEY have earned the help they get from the government because they are hardworking, responsible, white Americans, but they consider any money that goes to black and brown folks to be excessive because it is assumed they are lazy wastrels who live large on working American's taxes.

The graphs in the article are startling and in my opinion require further explanation because I suspect they include payments to disabled service members, and given that we've been fighting two deadly wars for a decade that should not come as a surprise.

So, what do we do about this?  If we refuse to make the very wealthy pay more in taxes the only alternative is to raise the rest of our taxes and/or further cut the safety net, which will destroy our poor and our middle class.

--Trakker

Yeah, that was not a good idea!

Dana Milbank captures the awesome lack of intellect of the Republicans elected in 2010.  These are the people that the Tea Party wants to elect more of, because they are so much smarter and more awesome than that pretend smarty-pants elected President in 2008.

House freshmen have been on the job for almost exactly a year, and until now they’ve done little more than talk about cutting the national debt.

But on Wednesday morning, eight lawmakers finally decided to take action. They scheduled a “major announcement,” invited the media and declared that they had a plan to reduce the deficit by — are you sitting down? — $1.5 million.

That's Million, with an M.

The eight lawmakers announced that they were returning unused portions of their office budgets in the hope that the money could help pay down the debt. And they were feeling mighty pleased with themselves.

“Now, I can hear the pundits saying, ‘Oh, these freshmen — they’re just grandstanding,’ ” said Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.). Now, why might a pundit say that? Well, maybe because Duncan delivered these words while posing before TV cameras and holding an 11-by-17 mock-up of a check with “taxpayer protection” written in the memo field. Upon completion of the grandstanding, they marched into the Capitol to deliver their “checks” to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

The reason we are making fun of these people is because they don't realize that they are making fools of themselves before the press and even many average Americans.  For one thing, $1.5 million when the deficit is being measured in billions and trillions makes them look like rubes.  And for another thing,

...returning office money at the end of the year is a routine event on Capitol Hill. As Politico’s Scott Wong noted this week, virtually every senator does it. Many House members do, too — without holding a news conference.

If anything, the exercise showed that thrift among the freshmen lawmakers is relatively rare. Landry said that he and the others invited any lawmaker who had saved office money last year to join them at the event — but the turnout was less than 10 percent of the freshman Republican class.

So all they did was emphasise the fact that more than 90% of the new Republicans elected in 2010 who demanded that government tighten their belts, didn't do the same with their budget.  Hmmm.

Milbank ends with this,

But the low dollar value didn’t detract at all from the lawmakers’ overpowering sense of self-righteousness. As skeptical questions came in from the congressional reporters, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) became defensive. “People like yourselves question the motives of people who are trying to cut down the debt,” he complained.

No, but they do question the motives of people who, a year after arriving in Washington with plans to change it forever, march around the Capitol grounds with phony checks.

 This isn't to poke fun at the fact that these eight Congressmen saved the government some money.  Good for them, really.  It's about proportion, thinking little accomplishments warrant great attention and praise.  Many others do what they did every year without fanfare.  And more to the point, saving money from a Congressman's budget is a lot less painful than trimming billions from programs that feed the poor or help kids pay for college, which is what Republicans are demanding.

--Trakker

A guide to Republicanstan - part 3: Socialism

Socialism.

To most educated Americans, socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to private ownership) and cooperative management of the economy; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. 

Socialism is an economic system just like capitalism is an economic system.  Nothing weird about this.  In America we have many examples of socialism, ranging from our police departments to the National Weather Service.

But in Republicanstan, socialism is not an economic system, it is a special word of scurrilous, but unknown meanings, that Republicans use to ridicule a Democrat when they can't find anything else to use against them.  In Republicanstan, words do not have meaning, words are codes that let you know how you should feel about a politician.  The words freedom and liberty, for example, are words used to describe politicians that the Republicanstan people must vote for, and words like socialist, fascist, and communist are words reserved for the most dangerous politicians, politicans who hate America, want to impose Sharia Law, and turn America into a nanny state.

This method of using words as code rather than requiring people to actually know what the words mean makes it easier for the lazy and mentally challenged (the majority in Republicanstan) know how to respond.  For example, if the people of Republicanstan had to observe President Obama and see that his health care program actually requires people to buy health insurance from private, capitalistic American companies, they might actually think it is a good idea and that President Obama is a capitalist.  And while true, this would require the people of Republicanstan to learn about economic systems, listen and evaluate current events, and make their own judgement, a judgement that in Republicanstan would be a very bad judgement indeed, so it's just easier and better for Republicanstan to encourage the use of code words so their people can spend more time watching NASCAR races and Fox News.

--Trakker