Ti's The Season

OK, I am maxed out on Christmas music now.  Typically I can go at least through the first week of December before I max out.  The reason it happened so soon this year is that I just got back from a shopping experience at Michaels.  Michaels shopping is another thing I easily max out on.  The only thing creepier than shopping at Michaels is shopping at Hobby Lobby and that because I was told that Hobby Lobby supports a lot of the creepy fundamentalist Christian agenda.  Otherwise Hobby Lobby wouldn't be nearly as creepy as Michaels.

 Normally I only go to Michaels for dire emergency needs.  Today wasn't an emergency.  I just thought I could pick up some tracing paper and it was next door to the Office Max where I had bought some envelopes.  Big mistake!  In the year or so since I last visited Michaels they had moved stuff around.  So I wandered around looking for where the tracing paper had gone to.  Then I wandered around looking for someone to ask about where the tracing paper had gone to.  Then I noticed that the line at the one open cash register was about 12 deep.  All the while, you guessed it, Christmas music blared out of the store PA system. I left the store with what shreds of sanity I still retained but without the tracing paper and now I will be border line postal anywhere Christmas music is in the air for the next month. . .  Happy Hoildays

Six possible successors to Hillary Clinton at State

Michael Tomasky at the daily Beast does tend to hit the panic button a bit too easily. I remember his "Obama Blew the Election" column after the first debate. In this morning's column on the state of play over Susan Rice as Sec of State I think his assessment is not so much panic as a reasonable assessment. Susan Collins' remarks yesterday were way more damaging than all the John McCain bluster over the past few weeks. What makes this Tomasky article share-able though are his alternative candidates for Sec of State. Al Gore is at the top of the list, but read down and you will find Indiana's Richard Lugar mentioned.

Blog vs. Facebook

I think by now anybody out there who has checked in on this blog more than once knows that I started on Facebook this past Sunday.  I won’t be ditching the blog completely but Facebook is faster, easier and a lot more fun than blogging.  A lot of the stuff I used to post here will in the future end up on Facebook.  Blogging is like being in a room by yourself that every now and then someone stops by to see if you are awake or not.  Facebook is like being in a school cafeteria with a bunch of stuff going on all the time.  Blogging is still better for long winded essays which I may post here from time to time but anything quick will go on Facebook.  So those of you  not yet signed on to Facebook and want to keep track of the rabbit holes I tend to jump in and out of let me invite you to get on board with FB.  There is a Badge, they call it, in the upper right corner of this page, and I think if you click on that you will be on the slippery slope to joining Facebook.

Deficits, and Debt

“Deficits don’t matter”  That questionable bit of wisdom came from none other than Dick Cheney and there is indeed a kernel of wisdom in it but with a huge caveat.  Deficits add to the national debt and at some point that really does matter.  The question of paramount importance today is has the debt reached a point where deficits really do matter.  In a word yes.  To get an idea of what the US has racked up in debt take a look at some of the charts on this website .   Pay particular attention to the chart of debt as a percentage of GDP. Note that the national debt is estimated to exceed 100% of GDP this year.  The last time that happened was during WWII.  Debt levels this high are extreme and only justifiable during a period of extreme national emergency.  There is wide debate on what a reasonable level of national debt would be.  Excluding deficit and debt reactionaries, reasonably suggested debt levels range between 40% and 70% of GDP.

Why is debt important? Interest rates.  Think Greece.  Say something really bad happened, I mean really bad like a mega-huge earthquake or a really big war and the US had to borrow a bunch of money really fast.  Where would we get the money  and how much would the interest be if we even could find someone willing to lend it?  History is littered with examples of wars lost and countries that fell because of high debt.

So how do we get the debt back to a reasonable level?  There are three ways.  Lower spending so that there are surplus tax revenues and apply the surplus to reducing the debt.  Raise taxes to a point that there are surplus revenues and apply the surplus to reducing the debt.  Neither of these approaches has the political legs to be more than pipe dreams.  The third way and really the only way is to bring spending and revenues into balance so there is no deficit adding to the debt and allow the economy to grow its way out of debt.

How is that possible?  Remember it is not the dollar amount of the debt that is of paramount importance, it is the relative size of the debt compared to GDP or debt as a percentage of GDP that is important.  If you double the size of the economy (GDP) the relative percentage of the debt will be cut in half.  That is the good news.  The bad news is that we are not going to get out of this mess over night.  It is going to take years if not decades to grow the economy to twice its current size.  Which means that the country, both political parties, have to agree on a long term strategy for spending and taxes that will get the job done.

Does the phrase ’constitutional amendment’ come to mind?  If Obama wants to go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of all time, let him pull that one off.

Tax Compromise (updated 11/11)

The Deficit  This is not rocket science

It all boils down to too much spending and not enough income.  The fiscal cliff was supposed to be harsh medicine to scare the congress into doing something about the deficit.  It didn't work.  So now comes the medicine which likely will throw the country back into recession which will worsen the deficit.  Congratulations doc  the operation was a success, too bad you lost the patient.  The solution?  Incremental-ism!  Take small steps.

The tax half


Decouple the top income earners' tax rate increase from the tax rate of the lower 98 percent.

Allow the lower income earners’ rates to continue as they are permanently.

Adjust the top income earners’ rates from 35% to 39.6% permanently by 1.15%  per year increments over the course of the next four years.

The top earners permanent rate of 39.6% may be reduced by capping deductions and closing loopholes in the tax code if it can be demonstrated that the result will be revenue neutral and apply only to those top earners.

Once the federal budget is balanced rebate any revenue surplus back to the tax payers proportional to their tax liability on a year to year basis.  Don't mess with the tax rates after that!

This is basically a merging of the Romney tax plan and Obama tax plan without any additional pie in the sky tax cuts.  When the tax revenues return to surplus the high end earners will get the lion's share of the rebate benefit lowering their effective tax rate.  Should the economy slip again into recession and the federal budget go into deficit again there would be no surplus rebate and the high end earners will have to take on the heavy lifting again.

PS added 11/11
I have noticed this post is getting a small but steady number of views.  If you think the idea has merit spread the link around.  Also comments are welcome

Fiscal Cliff

The next act in our political circus, now that the elections are over, has been dubbed “The Fiscal Cliff”.  The term refers to the end of the year expiration of several temporary tax reductions in conjunction with spending cuts in discretionary government expenditures including defense spending.  Speaker of the House John Boehner wasted no time after the elections in placing his marker down for the Republican position.  Speaker Boehner voiced a desire to put in place a one year bridge to defer the cliff until the next congress can take up a comprehensive resolution of the problem adding that the Republican House might consider revenue increases from closing tax loopholes and limiting deductions but that any tax rate increases would be out of the question.

This might seem to be a reasonable opening to a process of compromise.  It is nothing of the kind.  Note the terminology used, “tax rate increases are out of the question”  The Republicans would like nothing better than to negotiate on the basis of tax rate increases and until we get past the Jan 1, we are talking about taxes going up.  After Jan 1 though the dynamic changes.  Tax rates after Jan 1 will have reverted to their earlier levels before the Bush tax cuts and before the payroll tax suspension enacted as a stimulus measure by the Obama administration.  This will happen automatically with out any voting.  At that point the debate will be on reducing taxes and more to the point whose taxes to reduce.  Of course the Republicans want to frame the debate as a tax rate increase and the longer they can stretch the argument out in those terms the better.  Hence the bridge over 2013 to stall and argue until the next election year so they can demagogue about not raising taxes in 2014.

Speaking for the Democrats, Harry Reed has indicated that he is not that interested in a short term solution.  Reed wants to pursue the grand solution for tax reform, spending and deficit reduction and the sooner the better.  One suspects that Reed fully understands that the debate spin after the first of the year will be much more favorable for the Democrats.  Between now and the new year the country will want a break from politics.  Who wants to listen to more political arguing over the holidays?  This adds to the weakness of the Republican position.  The right wing media will certainly try to whip up hysteria about the doomsday consequences of the fiscal cliff but it will be tough sledding against “Peace on Earth Goodwill To Men”.

President Obama this afternoon put in his two cents in a short address from the East Room.  Obama took no notice of the Boehner bridge idea.  Rather, noting that unless congress acts before the end of the year, everybody’s taxes will go up.  Obama suggested that it was time for congress to get to work, noting that the Senate had already passed a tax bill that would continue the current tax rates for the 98% in the lower income brackets.  Then pulling a pen from his pocket he said I am ready to sign that bill as soon as the House passes it.  Take that, John Boehner.

So who will blink first?  I think Obama’s days of blinking in the face of Republicans holding the economy hostage were a first term thing.  It may take a while for that reality to sink in, so I think we are headed over the fiscal cliff and that is OK.  We ought to just take the plunge and deal with this baby in the new year.  For in fact the “fiscal cliff” metaphor is not really appropriate.  The media will promote this meme and the Republicans will use it to stir up fear to whatever extent they can but it isn't really a cliff.  It is more of a gradual slope than a cliff.  Yes your taxes will go up after Jan 1.  And yes the Pentagon may have to shuffle some of its spending priorities for a while but the world will definitely not come to an end on Jan 1.

I think it best if we just chill out for now and enjoy the holidays.  Maybe drop a note to Obama, Reed, your Representative and Senators to wish them happy holidays and assure them that this is no time to panic but rather to stand firm for a fair and balanced tax and spending policy.  Perhaps the ghosts of Christmas will visit John Boehner in the meantime and all will sort out for the best in the new year.  

Latino Mandate

The day after Obama’s re-election there were a number of pieces offered up in the news about mandates.  These typically take the form of yes, Obama has a mandate for this or that direction or conversely, no, Obama does not have a mandate for such and such action.  I frankly find no rational justification for the mandate concept.  Any given political position will prevail or not depending on the make up of the government and the motives and agenda of the players.  Did George W. Bush have a mandate to govern after the 2000 election any more than Johnson did in 64 when he was elected?  I think not.  Each president’s agenda succeeds depending on the will of congress and I don’t believe that one party or the other will defer to any president on a given issue if there is not a payback perceived to be of value to the opposition.  The perceived payback may be avoiding a punishing rebuke in a future election or some other gain from a compromised solution but whatever the case, no opposition will defer its position out of some nebulous concept such as a voted mandate.

That said every election presents a new or at least updated view of reality and it often happens that adversaries can find that previously intractable conflicts present a new calculus. Progress then once thought impossible suddenly becomes obviated.  As case in point, I offer immigration reform.  This issue has been stymied for years by a faction of the Republican party that has opposed any rational discussion of what to do about the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country. Leaders in both parties have tried to crack this nut but the “no amnesty” voice in the Republican party has effectively blocked progress.  I think that will change in Obama’s second term and comprehensive immigration reform will be achieved.  The reason is simple,  Obama captured as much as 70% of the Latino vote in crucial states like Nevada, Mew Mexico, Colorado and Florida.  The Latino community is the fastest growing segment of the population and it has come of age in the political process. Latinos vote.  The Republican party faces this stark reality, adjust your attitudes on immigration or join the Whig party in political extinction.  The electoral trajectory in the next 2 or 3 presidential contests could very well find Arizona, Georgia and Texas joining Virginia and Florida as battleground states, only it won’t be a battle at that point.  It will be goodbye GOP.

It will be painful for some Republicans to swallow this medicine I am sure but I predict it will happen.  Now as for the Democrats, they would certainly like to see the Republican position continue as is and profit from the eventual one party rule of the government.  The democrats however can ill afford to procrastinate on immigration reform for another four years.  If they do, that will leave the door wide open for a candidate like Jeb Bush, who well understands the situation, to appear on the scene in 2016 as a champion of immigration reform and steal the immigration issue right out of the democrat's pocket.  If anyone won a mandate in 2012 it wasn’t the president or either party, it was the American Latino community and woe unto any and all who ignore that mandate.

The Media Narrative

With the last of the debates now history and less than two weeks to go until election day, is it all over except for counting the votes? Well no, not just yet. Actually a lot can happen in the final days of a campaign that could cause voters to finally make up their minds or even at the last minute change their minds. The debates this year had a big impact on the election out come. The first debate put Romney in the game and the subsequent debates kept R from running away with the election. It would appear that the election has now entered a static period with Romney having a slight advantage in the popular vote and Obama a slight advantage in the electoral vote. So what could nudge the election one way or the other?

Enter stage right Richard Mourdock Republican candidate for senator from the great state of Indiana. Mourdock in the closing moments of his debate with Democrat Joe Donnelly opined that a pregnancy resulting from rape was the will of god and therefore is not a valid exception to a general prohibition of abortions. With friends like this, Romney really doesn’t need enemies. The net effect of this minor debacle is that the past two news cycles have been less that wonderful for the Mittster. Adding to the debacle are the trickle of Republican repudiations of Mourdock’s remarks while Mitt remains mute, no doubt wishing the embarrassing questions would just go away

This is one bit of flotsam in the media sea of election coverage that is part of what I call the media narrative. The media narrative is composed by the traditional news outlets and propaganda outlets such as Fox and MSNBC of course but includes all media from The View to Leno and Colbert. The campaigns do their best to shape the media narrative but it is, for the most part, swept along by forces no one really controls.

In the final analysis the media narrative in the closing days of a national election may only influence 1% or 2% of the vote. The thing is, that is all it might take to tip an election one way or the other.

Democrat Bugs

It may be election season but there is still a lot of work to do in the garden so every nice day that comes along I have been spending it outside. Among the garden tasks on the fall schedule are sealing the wood decks, getting tulip beds ready for planting and cutting back dead flower plants. 

The past few weeks I have noticed a particularly abundant number of bugs with distinctively red striped black wings. They seem to be everywhere, even getting into the house.. They don’t seem to be eating any of my plants. They just seem to like to hang out around windows and doors. Today I saw a lot of them and so I decided to see if I could find out what exactly they were.  So I tried a Google image search on “black winged with red stripes bug”. And just like that up popped pictures of my garden bug.

This is what wikipedia had to say about them. They are called boxelder bugs. They are a true bug found on box elder, maple and ash trees. Because they come out in October around election time they are also called democrat bugs. I guess there is no getting away from politics even in the garden. Too bad they can’t vote because there sure are a lot of them this year.

The Odds

This election the oracle of polling would appear to be Nate Silver with his NYTs 538 blog. Last week Mr Silver appeared on the Daily Show in an extended interview with Jon Stewart. Besides offering a listing of all the polls released each day, Mr Silver serves up his own analysis of the state of play in the presidential race in terms of percentages. Today’s percentages Chances of winning Obama 67.9% Romney 32.1% Popular vote Obama 50% Romney 48.9% Electoral College totals Obama 288.6 Romney 249.4. For what it is worth my much less scientific feeling is that this analysis is way too favorable for Obama. My instinct tells me that Obama’s chances of winning are more like 55% to 45% with an electoral margin more like 277 to 261 and I would give Romney the popular vote by a fraction of a percent.

With two presidential debates on the books, the third and final debate due tomorrow evening, it is now clear that Romney got a bounce from his success in the first debate and the best you can say of Obama’s second debate success is that he got a twitch. With Florida at advantage Romney, Obama’s last line of defense in the electoral vote runs through Ohio and Nevada or Iowa. Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire are at deuce. If Obama fails in Ohio and Virginia he will have to sweep Nevada, Iowa, Colorado and New Hampshire to get to 272. That is still a better hand to play than Romney’s but there is no room for a misstep.