Gov. Craven Heartless Worm Lies About Pot

Twenty years ago we knew this shit was false, but didn't have the real-world proof to show.  Now we do.  Colorado. Washington. Nevada. Maine. Massachusetts.  California. 

Kentucky is missing out on the pot economic bonanza that could not only solve all our budget and pension problems but also the opioid epidemic.

But no. Because only rich white men are entitled to money and good drugs.

Think Progress:

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) appeared on a local radio show this week and called legalized marijuana a “sucker’s bet,” and something that will never happen so long as he’s in office. Why? Bevin says he’s concerned about overdoses.

“We are not, while I’m governor, going to be legalizing the use of marijuana in this state for recreational purposes or for revenue-generating purposes,” Bevin said on Terry Meiner’s WHAS radio show. “There are people overdosing based on ingestion of products that are edibles and things.”

Contrary to what the governor believes, however, while an individual can certainly have a “bad trip” from marijuana usage, there have been zero reported deaths from marijuana “overdoses,” according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Bevin points to the uptick in marijuana-related emergency room visits in Colorado, one of the first states to legalize marijuana, as evidence of the danger it poses. It is true, Colorado did see an increase in emergency room visits following legalization, according to a study released by the state’s Department of Public Safety. From 2014 to mid-2015, 956 emergency room visits per every 100,000 were possibly related to marijuana consumption. In the years before it was legalized, from 2010 to 2013, that figure was 739 per every 100,000 visits.

The study’s authors, however, attribute that rise to the decrease in stigma surrounding marijuana; after legalization, more people were open to trying the drug for the first time who may not have been aware of the side effects.

“The most common reason someone goes to the ER for a marijuana reaction is anxiety,” says Dr. Larry Bedard, former president of the American College of Emergency Physicians told The Cannibist. “Part of an anxiety reaction is you have an impending sense of doom. So a lot of people come in (to the hospital) thinking they’re dying, when they’re actually having a panic attack. That’s very common. If you’re smoking a joint and suddenly you can’t breathe and your chest feels tight and you start to get numb and tingly, you start to think you’ve been poisoned.”
And even though Bevin calls the notion of legalizing marijuana a “sucker’s bet,” Colorado has been consistently reaping its economic benefits.

Legalized marijuana roughly 8,005 full-time jobs and added about $2.4 billion to the state’s economy last year, an analysis from the Marijuana Policy Group (MPG) shows. The pot business is a stronger economic driver than nearly 90 percent of industries active in Colorado.

Meanwhile, legislators and cops are flooding the state with STOOPIT.

From the Legislative Research Commission:

Marijuana’s impact on public safety examined

FRANKFORT – As Kentucky lawmakers explore ways to pay for public employee pensions, a coalition of law enforcement groups say legalizing marijuana for recreational use isn’t the answer.

“I’m not willing to risk my grandchildren’s health to save my pension,” Kentucky State Police Commissioner Richard W. Sanders said yesterday while testifying before the Interim Joint Committee on Veterans, Military Affairs and Public Protection. “I don’t think that is the right way to go with this thing.”

Sanders is a 40-year law enforcement veteran with 21 years vested in the state’s hazardous duty pension.

Kentucky Office of Drug Control Policy Executive Director Van Ingram testified (sic: LIED) that marijuana is harmful to society.

“Sixty years ago big tobacco downplayed the risk of tobacco,” Ingram said. “We can see where that brought us: Huge settlements and big changes to that industry. Thirty years ago big pharma told us there was no risk of addiction to opioids. We can see where that brought us: The largest drug epidemic in the nation’s history.”

He added that 10 to 15 percent of people who use marijuana develop addiction issues.

“We are getting led down another path so some folks with a lot better suits than I have can make a lot of money,” Ingram said. “We certainly got enough addiction issues in this state without bringing more to the table.”

Rep. Tom Burch, D-Louisville, however, said Prohibition gave rise to crime …”and criminalizing marijuana has done the same thing.”

National Marijuana Initiative (MMI) Director Ed Shemelya testified that marijuana is legal for recreational use in eight states. He said at least one form of marijuana is legal for medical use in more than 21 states. He said Colorado is on track to sell $1 billion worth of marijuana this year and generate roughly $200 million in tax revenue.

“That’s a lot of money,” Shemelya said. “There is no disputing that.”

Again, states like Colorado are reaping all the benefits: massive tax revenues, reduced opiod use, more jobs and less crime because dealers of illegal pot are now out of work.

But Kentucky under repug rule can never have nice things.

Bevin's Fuck You to Higher Education

Because all kids learn in real colleges and universities is critical thinking, which leads to liberalism and voting Democratic.  Can't have that.

Adam Beam, AP:

As Kentucky inches toward a budget crisis over college funding, Republican Gov. Matt Bevin on Thursday ordered immediate 4.5 percent cuts for all public colleges and universities.

In a letter to Finance Secretary William Landrum and Budget Director John Chilton, Bevin ordered the allotments for Kentucky's eight public universities and its community and technical college system to be reduced by 4.5 percent "before the close of business" Thursday. The cuts would impact state funding for the colleges and universities in the current budget year that ends June 30.

Bevin's order comes as state lawmakers are locked in a stalemate over a two-year state spending plan. Senate Republicans have insisted on taking money from colleges and universities and spending it on the state's public pension debt, estimated at more than $30 billion. House Democrats have refused to agree to any cuts in education.

The two sides broke off negotiations Thursday, making it less likely the legislature will pass a budget by April 12. That could lead to a partial shutdown of state government.

SNIP

 

Brian Wilkerson, spokesman for Democratic House Speaker Greg Stumbo, said House Democrats were just made aware of the letter Thursday afternoon.

"Our legal team is reviewing the order at this point," he said.

SNIP

University of Kentucky spokesman Jay Blanton said university officials have not been officially notified of the cuts. University President Eli Capilouto has been one of the most vocal critics of Bevin's proposed cuts, calling them "draconian."

"Gov. Bevin announced this measure in January, so we anticipated it," Blanton said. "We will be working over the next few months to implement this reduction with the context of our current-year budget. It is too early to speculate on the specific measures we will take."

University of Louisville spokesman John Karmen said the school is still examining the impact any budget cuts would have on the school.

Other schools have already taken action to address the cuts. Morehead State University officials announced a mandatory, unpaid five-day furlough for all employees in response to the cuts.

 Bevin's conservatard austerity already killing jobs.

"I will not negotiate over the full faith and credit of the United States"

You certainly sound like you've learned the lesson of the 2011 debt ceiling fight, Mr. President. You even sound like you finally acknowledge that congressional repugs are not rational beings. I sincerely hope that is enough to make you hold firm.



Full transcript here.

The Drama Queen Party

That's not a reference to its abundance of closet cases, but its desperate need for permanent crisis.

The Rude Pundit:

The point is this: since the Cold War, and for a large part of that even, and except for 9/11, nearly every crisis this country has faced in the last generation, has been manufactured by the Republican Party as a means of promoting its brand of conservatism, whatever that conservatism has been at the time - anti-Communist, family values, fiscal, whatever. And the current sequester and upcoming debt ceiling fight are part and parcel of that. No, Democrats are not immune to such manipulations (Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?), but since Nixon, that has been the way Republicans govern. If Democrats could make infrastructure repair into a threat to the lives of Americans (which they easily could), you would see the nation demanding something be done to fix roads and bridges. The GOP knows how to hold a knife to the throat of the country.

Which is what they are doing now, again, again, again.

The worst punditry going on right now ascribes blame to both parties. That is a lie. That is believing in the GOP's version of crisis. If someone sets a fire, are you going to complain if the firefighters are yelling too loudly while they try to put it out?

The country needs to chill the fuck out. Republicans won't allow that.

 Read the whole thing.

Obama Won; The Working Class Lost

In the end, this is what we're left with: repugs with nothing left to lose - having already agreed to higher taxes on the rich - holding the debt ceiling hostage and demanding trillions of dollars in spending and "entitlement" cuts that will gut Social Security, Medicare, and the last remnants of a social safety net.


On the other side, President Obama with everything to lose, including the entire economy if the repugs won't raise the debt ceiling, and nothing to bargain with.

Here's his choice: Kill the New Deal and Great Society, or kill the entire economy. What do you think President No Liberal Principle Is Worth Standing Up For is going to do?

Ed Kilgore:

TNR’s Noam Scheiber probably reflects the current views of a majority of progressives in expressing less than total confidence in the president in this next war of nerves and threats and hostage-taking:

Put all that together and here’s what the fiscal cliff accomplished then: It affirmed to Republicans that Obama will do pretty much anything he can to avoid a debt default, regardless of what he says. It affirmed the White House anxiety that the GOP might not blink before we default. To put it mildly, that’s quite an asymmetry. I want to believe the president can get through the next stage in this endless budget stalemate without accepting some of the more dangerous spending cuts conservatives are demanding. But at this point I’m having a hard time seeing it.

Especially when the last-minute deal on revenue is entirely insufficient.

Kevin Drum:

And there's not much question we're going to need more revenue. I'll have more on this in a couple of days, but unless we want to abandon any pretense of decent care for the elderly—and we don't, no matter what Paul Ryan believes—we're going to need to raise substantially more tax revenue in the future. But if Republicans remain dead set against tax increases, and even Democrats are unwilling to raise taxes on the middle class, how is that going to happen? As things stand now, not only are tax increases on the middle class unthinkable, but Obama was even forced to cave in on the estate tax thanks to Democratic nervousness about offending the ultra-rich.

In one sense, I guess it's not worth borrowing trouble. If we're going to need more tax revenue in the future, let's deal with it in the future. Maybe political pressure will force Republicans to capitulate. Maybe Democrats will take over Congress. Maybe a latter-day John Galt will come along and invent a free energy machine and none of this will matter.

Still, over the next 20 years we're probably going to have to increase taxes by something like five points of GDP. That's an increase of nearly a third in the federal government's tax haul, and we just fought a battle royal just to get something like half a point of GDP. Eventually, something will have to give.

Jon Walker at Firedoglake cites Obama's own promise Tuesday that he will seek to cut the deficit, even though nothing could be worse for the economy. 

Allison Kilkenny at The Nation:

Economist Dean Baker writes that this entire debate has been part of a larger distraction “at a time when by far the country’s most important problem remains the economic downturn caused by the collapse of the housing bubble.”

“The obsession with budget deficits is especially absurd because the enormous deficits of recent years are entirely the result of the economic downturn,” he writes at CNN.

Furthermore, profits have returned to prerecession levels. Bakers points to the Campaign to Fix the Debt, an organization comprised of many of the country's richest and most powerful CEOs that pushes the case for cutting Social Security and Medicare as well as lowering the corporate income tax rate.

SNIP

“CEOs from both political parties have openly come together to demand cuts in Social Security and Medicare, two programs that enjoy massive political support across the political spectrum,” Baker writes. “The wealthy are joining hands without regard to political affiliation to cut benefits that enjoy broad bipartisan support among everyone who is not rich.”

Baker reiterates that we dot not have a chronic deficit problem, and the big deficits are the results of a collapsed economy, which can only be fixed by the president and Congress supporting programs that will put people back to work and bring the economy back up to speed. The 99 percent having money to buy goods is the only way to get the economy rolling again, which won’t happen by Congress giving massive tax breaks to a handful of billionaires who don’t create jobs for anyone other than themselves when they create nefarious Fix the Debt committees.

In fact, Baker writes, it’s necessary for the government to run large deficits!

Ideally, the money would be spent in areas that will make us richer in the future: Education, infrastructure, research and development in clean energy, etc. There is just no way around a large role for the government given the economy’s current weakness.

Actually, that last point isn’t true. There is a way around that role, and that’s Boehner and Company’s plan: the anti-state—the resource vacuum that slashes earned benefits, worsens the recession and leads to infinitely more suffering for the 99 percent.

Boehner made his intentions clear following the fiscal cliff deal:

“The American people re-elected a Republican majority in the House, and we will use it in 2013 to hold the president accountable for the ‘balanced’ approach he promised, meaning significant spending cuts and reforms to the entitlement programs that are driving our country deeper and deeper into debt.”

That repug majority in the House revealed its true self in the refusal to hold a vote on emergency relief for victims of SuperStorm Sandy.

As David Atkins writes:

Once again, we're confronted with a situation in which Democrats aren't willing to simply let the country go to hell in a handbasket, while Republicans are. That gives Republicans the advantage in any negotiation going forward until and unless Democrats make the necessary rules changes to prevent Republicans from operating a tyranny of the minority.

And he warns:

Still, the thought of this Republican Congress negotiating with Grand Bargain-desperate Obama over the debt ceiling is a terrifying prospect. It's going to take massive progressive mobilization over the next two months to block the worst from happening.

Bush Tax Cuts and Spending Cuts Both Bad - So Cancel Them Both

Seriously, can we stop the bipartisan bullshit about how we can only prevent massive spending cuts that will throw us back into recession if we let billionaires keep their Bush tax cuts?

Because that is precisely the opposite of the facts. The opposite of reality. The opposite of the truth.

There's an easy way to avoid this "fiscal cliff' boogeyman everybody's trying to terrify you with:

End the Bush tax cuts for the rich. That makes the motherfucking parasites start paying the fair share they haven't paid in more than 30 years.

Once the too-lazy-to-even-be-cocksuckers billionaires pay back the trillions they've stolen from the working class, that puts enough money in the Treasury to not only cancel the economy-killing spending cuts, but also to launch trillions in infrastructure investment that creates millions of jobs, growing the economy and eliminating the deficit the old-fashioned way.

Travis Waldron at Think Progress:

The United States is approaching the so-called “fiscal cliff” at the end of 2012, when a set of policies enacted by the debt deal reached in August 2011 will go into effect. In addition to massive spending cuts, several tax provisions will expire, including the full Bush tax cuts.

Though both the GOP and Democrats agree that the low-end Bush tax cuts, those that give everyone a tax cut but primarily affect the middle class, need to be extended, Republicans have blocked that in order to leverage an extension of the upper-income tax cuts. The logic, Republicans argue, is that not doing so will raise taxes on “job creators” at a time when the economy can least afford it.

An analysis of the fiscal cliff policies by the Economic Policy Institute, however, found that the cost of the Bush tax cuts — and particularly those for high-income earners — far outweigh the benefits:

SNIP

The findings are similar to an earlier report from the Congressional Budget Office that found the expiration of the high-income Bush tax cuts, once multipliers are added, would cause far less economic damage than spending cuts to the discretionary budget favored by Republicans.

Cancel the Bush tax cuts for the rich AND the economy-killing spending cuts. Now that's bipartisan.

The Cost of Rejecting Free Money

It's Officially Stupid. We've got trillions of dollars in desperately-needed infrastructure projects all across the country, and 10 million people in desperate need of decent jobs.

If creating 10 million jobs to build that infrastructure cost us an additional trillion dollars added to the national debt, it would still be worth it because of the economic growth from that investment.

But a trillion dollars of infrastructure investment would not add a trillion dollars to the national debt, or anything close to a trillion dollars.

That's because the U.S. government currently has available to it trillions of dollars in free money.

Paul Krugman, who, for the record, has been dead-on right about everything economic for the past 12 years at least:

That’s right: for every maturity of bonds under 20 years, investors are paying the feds to take their money — and in the case of maturities of 10 years and under, paying a lot.

What’s going on? Investor pessimism about prospects for the real economy, which makes the perceived safe haven of US debt attractive even at very low yields. And pretty obviously investors do consider US debt safe — there is no hint here of worries about the level of debt and deficits.

Now, you might think that there would be a consensus that, even leaving Keynesian things aside, this is a really good time for the government to invest in infrastructure and stuff: money is free, the workers would otherwise be unemployed.

But no: the Very Serious People have decided that the big problem is that Washington is borrowing too much, and that addressing this problem is the key to … something.

For the U.S. to refuse to grab every free dime investors will give us and spend it repairing about 90 percent of what's wrong with this country - fixing crumbling infrastructure and putting people back to work - is policy malfeasance on a galactic scale.

As Charles Pierce puts it:

If we want to invest in infrastructure, which we desperately need to do, then we should just borrow money at the current historically low rates and fix the damn infrastructure. Put people to work. Give them money to spend because, as we know, the only sensible reaction to foolishness like this is Fk The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money.

Kentucky's Gamble Fails; It Has to Budget the Hard Way

Fun as it is to watch Sen. Damon Thayer throw a hissy fit over his own party leader killing his gambling bill, let's not let the hair-pulling and eye-scratching going on at the Capitol distract us from the desperate need to start making Kentucky's obscenely wealthy individuals and corporations pay their share in taxes.

Janet Patton at the Herald:

A bid to allow casino gambling in Kentucky fell short of passage Thursday when the state Senate voted 21-16 against it. One senator was absent.

Gov. Steve Beshear's proposed constitutional amendment, introduced by Sen. Damon Thayer, R-Georgetown, would have let voters decide in November whether to allow up to seven casinos.

"I want to congratulate Senate President Williams," Thayer said after the vote. "He has orchestrated the defeat of this amendment and he deserves credit for doing that."

SNIP

The governor, who defeated Williams to win re-election with a campaign promise to "let the people decide" on gambling, blamed the Senate president.

"Obviously, I am disappointed that several of the senators who had publicly said they would support letting the people decide did not follow through on their commitment to our citizens," Beshear said in a statement. "I am also disappointed that Senator Williams chose to sabotage the chance for our citizens to decide by scheduling the vote for today, when he knew that a senator who planned to vote 'yes' would not be in town."

In 1987 Wallace Wilkinson got elected governor on the promise to establish a lottery that would solve Kentucky's budget problems once and for all. Lottery dollars would shower billions on education and give the Commonwealth massive surpluses forever.

Two decades of the lottery have left Kentucky poorer and more in debt than ever. Casino gambling would just make that result 10 times worse.

Williams and the Senate repugs did the right thing for the wrong reasons. If only they had a budget plan other than massive cuts and austerity for everyone but themselves.

Brett Guthrie is a Lying Moron, Part 3

Also too cowardly to hold town halls in Kentucky's Second District, which he pretends to represent.

Still sending out emails full of motherfucking lies that his constituents have no chance to challenge him on.

Clearly, a Balanced Budget Amendment is long-overdue. We cannot continue to recklessly spend today so that our children and grandchildren can pick-up the bill tomorrow. Every child born today already owes more than $46,000 to our government’s creditors.

It’s time to stop spending money we don’t have. A constitutional mandate to pass a balanced budget every year would force Congress to only spend what it takes in. No more borrowing from China; no more taxing future generations, just common-sense fiscal policy to permanently change the culture of spending in Washington. Families across Kentucky know how to live within their means; it’s time their government does too.

Steve Benen demolished the balance budget amendment bullshit on Monday:

Those who continue to argue that House Republicans deserve to be taken seriously on public policy probably don’t fully appreciate how very wrong they are.

We’re in the midst of a jobs crisis; economic growth is anemic, and Americans are desperate for policymakers to take this crisis seriously. And yet, this is what’s on the mind of the congressional GOP.

Keep in mind, in early August, House Republican leaders told their members that “the best thing they could do during the August recess” was to sell their constituents on the idea of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Apparently, the next wave is on the way.

This is just madness. Even if we put aside the fact that there are real problems that require immediate attention, and even if we ignore the proposal’s legislative prospects, the Republicans’ Balanced Budget Amendment is one of the worst ideas in the history of bad ideas. That congressional Republicans managed to create a BBA this year that was even worse than the previous version is a testament to their creativity, but it also reflects a degree of economic illiteracy that should disqualify them from any adult conversation on public policy.

What sensible policymakers should be doing is dismissing this “pathetic joke” of a proposal as quickly as possible.

That this is at the top of the priority list for congressional Republicans is a reminder of just how far gone they really are.

Guthrie concludes:

You can show your support for a balanced budget amendment by visiting www.americaspeakingout.com or www.guthrie.house.gov and submitting your thoughts.

Yes, do visit guthrie.house.gov and let him know what a lying moron he is.

Our Last Balanced Budget Was Just 11 Years Ago, Mitch

It's only republicans who are incapable of balancing a budget, Mitchie-poo.

Steve Benen:

We’re facing a jobs crisis, weak economic growth, and the prospect of voluntarily default, created entirely by congressional Republicans, in less than three weeks.

With this in mind, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took to the Senate floor this morning to talk about what he considers to be really important: a constitutional amendment that has no chance of being ratified.

“The time has come for a balanced budget amendment that forces Washington to balance its books. If these debt negotiations have convinced us of anything, it’s that we can’t leave it to politicians in Washington to make the difficult decisions that they need to get our fiscal house in order. The balanced budget amendment will do that for them. Now is the moment. No more games. No more gimmicks. The Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check. We’ve tried persuasion. We’ve tried negotiations. We’re tried elections. Nothing has worked.”

What a beautiful summary of a spectacularly dumb idea.

McConnell’s pitch is beautiful in its own way. He’s come to believe that policymakers — including, apparently, himself — are no longer trustworthy with public resources. To prevent irresponsible politicians from doing what they want to do, McConnell wants a constitutional straightjacket. That McConnell decried gimmicks while touting a gimmick was just the cherry on top of an inane sundae.

Now, this would ordinarily be about the time that I mention that the balanced budget amendment is easily the worst proposed amendment since Prohibition, and has accurately been described as a “pathetic joke.” I might also note that this version of the BBA is actually worse than the old one.

But instead, I thought I’d focus on one specific part of McConnell’s pitch: the notion that “nothing has worked.”

If McConnell were right about this, we could at least have a reasonable conversation about the constitutional merits of his idea. In other words, if policymakers really had tried everything to close the budget gap, and every idea failed, leading to deficits that only went in one direction, it’d at least be the basis for a coherent debate.

But here’s the part McConnell doesn’t remember: the 1990s.

It really wasn’t that long ago — McConnell was in the Senate at the time — that the deficit didn’t exist. When Bill Clinton left office a decade ago, we not only had a large surplus, we were paying off the national debt for the first time in a generation. Those debt clocks we occasionally see? They had to be shut down — no one had ever programmed them to run backwards.

We were on track to eliminate the national debt in its entirety within just 10 years. Republicans of the Bush era — including a guy by the name of Mitch McConnell — reversed course, created huge deficits, and added several trillion dollars to the debt.

The point, though, isn’t just about blame, it’s about reminding McConnell of recent history. He’s certain that “nothing has worked,” but reality shows otherwise.

Liberals balance budgets the quickest and most economy-growing way: raising taxes on the rich and increasing spending to create jobs.

Bigger is Not Better

The bigger the budget deal, the more permanent poverty for the non-rich, the more permanent power for corporations, the quicker end to the last remnants of genuine democracy in this country.

Digby nailed it Monday:

"Bigness" has absolutely nothing to do with policy. Or even the scale of the policy. (Most people would consider health care reform "big", after all.) No, "bigness" is all about the image of Obama being "the one person in Washington willing to rise above partisan concerns and do what's right for the country." And clearly, everyone who's anyone knows that "what's right for the country" is cutting spending on an epic scale in the middle of an economic nightmare.

I will say this, I think there may be quite a few Independents and "people in the middle of the political spectrum" who might see things in more parochial personal terms and could conclude that the president has indeed Gone Big --- on unemployment, home foreclosures, anemic growth and a general belief that the country has gone to hell in a handbasket. (And after the Koch Brothers weigh in, they will likely conclude that he went Very Big on cutting Medicare and Social Security too.) But according to the Village, those are irrelevant details. All that matters is that the president is seen as a "grown-up" who gets credit for making a deal. Any deal. As long as it's Big.

If the president is listening to these people he's making a Big Mistake.

Susie Madrak at Crooks and Liars gets shrill:

So is multimillionaire President Obama something different than a Third Way-loving neoliberal? I can't wait to hear multimillionaire talking head Lawrence O'Donnell explain this one:

WASHINGTON -- The White House on Wednesday closed the door a little more on the debt proposal being floated by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) [Ed. note: apprx. $17 million; wife Elaine Chao, board member of Wells Fargo and other boards, compensation unknown], a measure already under siege by conservatives.
"This is not a preferred option," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney [Ed. note: annual salary $172K, married to ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman, believed to be $700K per annum] said of McConnell's proposal in his daily briefing.

McConnell's proposal for avoiding debt default -- to transfer full power to raise the debt ceiling to the White House for the remainder of Obama's current term, cutting Congress out of the process -- does nothing to address deficit reduction, Carney said. And Obama is set on making sizable cuts.

"The president is firmly committed to significant cuts in spending and to dealing with our deficit and debt problems in a balanced way," he said. "Bigger is better. ... It's an opportunity for a game-changer, to put the United States on much firmer ground as we really get into the 21st century and the economic competition that confronts us."

You got that, people? This is from the White House press secretary: "Bigger is better." You say "rope-a-dope," I say "watch your wallets."

Yes, I get the alleged end game. I know that 60 of the GOP freshmen have signed the "no tax" pledge of unelected Koch legbreaker and unindicted Jack Abramoff bagman Grover Norquist [born wealthy, trust fund baby who earns $200K annually from part-time job directing Americans for Tax Reform and other miscellaneous income; married to PR flak Samah Alrayyes Norquist, income unknown], which means that at least 38 Democrats have to sign onto any debt ceiling deal. So surely House Dems would use that leverage to protect Social Security and Medicare, right?

The problem here is, President Obama really likes that old-time DLC religion. He keeps telling us he actually wants a Republican grand bargain on Social Security and Medicare (let's not forget the Catfood Commission), and has a track record of pushing House Democrats to bend over for things they'd rather not.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong. I hope so. But since we've known all along that the Republicans would never actually allow a default, wouldn't the real stroke of 11-dimensional progressive genius have been to refuse to negotiate at all? To say, "People are hurting enough and this deficit talk is a manufactured crisis"? Nope. He wants these deep austerity cuts. He'll do whatever he can to get them.

Paul Krugman explains how the White House has this exactly backwords:

Greg Sargent tells us that the White House is promoting a Gerald Seib piece which summarizes the political strategy thus:

A big deal would reassure independents who fear the country is out of control; position Obama as the adult who made Washington work again; allow the President to tell Dems he put entitlements on sounder financial footing; and clear the decks to enact other priorities later.

[Bangs head against wall]

What I learn from political scientists is that this is all fantasy — albeit a kind of fantasy beloved of political pundits, who love to imagine that complicated psychodramas are playing out in the minds of voters. Well, here’s a little secret: most voters don’t sit around reading Clive Crook columns or debating the Bowles-Simpson plan. They have a gut sense — things are getting better or they’re getting worse — and mainly vote on that basis. They’re not paying attention at all to this stuff.

Wait, it gets worse. Even if voters were trying to make decisions based on things like fiscal responsibility, how likely are they to have remotely accurate information? Not at all if they watch Fox; but the truth is that even if they watch a reputable network, or for that matter even if they read the Times the way most people read it, getting fast impressions rather than scanning articles carefully for the nuances hidden in the 12th paragraph, they probably have only the vaguest sense of what’s going on.

How many Americans truly understand just how extreme and dangerous a game the GOP is playing with the debt limit? Surely it’s a small minority — partly because conventions of “balance” prevent most media outlets from ever saying too clearly what’s happening.

Oh, and about independent voters: if you think that they’re strong-minded, solid citizens repelled by the partisanship — well, there may be a guy like that somewhere in America. But by and large, given the vast differences between the parties these days, independent voters are basically confused, clueless people — not exactly the kind of people likely to take reassurance from Obama’s stance on entitlement programs. On the contrary, they’re the sort of people likely to be stampeded by “Obama wants to raise the Medicare age!”

When pundits talk this kind of stuff, it’s mainly funny in a tiring sort of way. But if the White House actually believes this stuff — well, that’s scary.

Liberals value content over size, and substance over appearance.

Back to the Dark Ages

Digby with evidence that even the least-destructive budget proposals on the table are economic armageddon.

The Economic Policy Institute analyzed all the current budget plans and issued a report comparing them side by side. It isn't exactly reassuring:

The current budget debate has generated various plans to bring revenues and spending into alignment, including proposals by the president, congressional caucuses, individual legislators, and outside groups. The majority of these plans focus disproportionately on the non-security discretionary (“domestic discretionary,” or NSD) budget, that portion of the overall budget that not only delivers the primary source of investment in our nation’s future, but also provides vital services to people in need, protects Americans from corporate abuses and environmental degradation, and keeps the government itself operating...

This analysis examines President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, the president’s April framework, the Bowles-Simpson debt commission’s plan, and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget resolution. The major findings of this analysis are summarized below:

• Each of the proposals cuts the NSD budget [as a share of GDP] to its lowest level in over half a century.

SNIP

This is how we are going to Win The Future?

If one were to "negotiate" using these proposals as a starting point, the leftward position is NSD spending lower than it's been since 1962.

SNIP

Ok, let's set aside the lunacy of any of these people proposing to do this while unemployment is still high and the economy is faltering. But even if the economy was recovering smartly, why in the world is a Democrat proposing to go below 3%? Are they just giving up the idea of liberal government altogether? Apparently so, although it's unclear if they know it:

SNIP

I'll leave it to you to decide whether these people know what they're doing or not. But any way you slice it, this cutting fetish is hugely destructive regardless of their alleged good intentions. The numbers don't lie.

It's hard to see where this ends but it's obvious that it's going to be extremely hard to crawl back out of the hole that's already been dug. Proposing to cut already inadequately financed programs has already made it impossible to grow them, even if the draconian cuts of Ryan or the other plans are stillborn. Why?

Because only rich people matter. The rest of us are serfs and cannon fodder.

Liberals demand that government budgets reflect the needs and opinions of the majority, not the rich tiny minority.

I'd Swear They're in Cahoots

Mitch McConnell's bizarre debt ceiling proposal is neither a trap nor a victory for Obama. It is, however, a blank check for Obama to make the trillions in spending cuts - including death blows to Social Security and Medicare - that he's wanted all along. Repugs will love every cut and eagerly vote to approve them. It's the Democrats who won't have the votes necessary to stop Obama from throwing the nation into the same austerity abattoir that has destroyed the economies of Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain.

Thus, the real trap is for Congressional Democrats, who lose no matter what Obama does.

The Rude Pundit explains:

It's possible for the McConnell exit strategy to be all those things and a trap for Democrats in Congress (not so much the President, who will be reelected against any of the numbskulls, lunatics, or bores the other side nominates). The proposal is really about Republicans holding onto the House and possibly gaining the Senate in 2012.

Look at this from the perspective of your average congressional Democrats. The President has the easy part: he just says every five months or so, "Hey, raise that shit." And it gets raised unless Congress stops him. So the Congress debates a "Resolution of Disapproval" for ten hours in each chamber. So, splitting it down the middle, that's ten hours of Democrats being forced to either back the President and say why they want more debt. Or saying that they disagree with the President and either voting to disapprove, and thus voting with Republicans, or explaining why they didn't vote to disapprove. Meanwhile, Republicans get to stay monolithic and clean in their message. And then it gets better on "Hey, raise that shit" parts 2 and 3, when Obama is forced to submit a list of unilateral fantasy cuts that tie Democrats into additional knots. And then, oh, fuck, yeah, that's why this is a big-ass bear trap and not a little badger one, Obama has to veto the resolution and there's another hour of debate.

Right now, GOP campaign ad writers are being fired because their work will be done for them. Just iMovie that shit and put it out on YouTube. Democrats better be ready to chew their legs off.

The Rude Pundit sees this as part and parcel of how McConnell and Boehner have governed. They take themselves out of the battle and merely stand on the sidelines, hurling Molotov cocktails while saying that their pathetic pyromania is leadership.

One other thing: because this doesn't just raise the debt ceiling $2.5 trillion in one fell swoop, it requires a certain amount of trust in the Republicans by the Obama administration. If they dick the President over, then we plunge once again into crisis. Those fuckers aren't worthy of that kind of trust. Why would you let the arsonists guard the gas stove?

David Dayen has a good analysis of McConnell's "plan."

The Cost of Wrongful Convictions

Any conservatives out there want to champion saving millions of dollars of tax dollars per year? And at the same time catching more criminals and improving public safety? Here's your issue, from The Nation:

COSTLY MISTAKES: For people who spend years behind bars for crimes they did not commit, it is impossible to quantify what they’ve lost. Now an expansive new report puts a price tag on what wrongful convictions have cost taxpayers in one state for the past twenty years. In Illinois, according to a joint study between Northwestern University’s Center on Wrongful Convictions and the Better Government Association, which tracked exonerations from 1989 to 2010, the total comes to $214 million.

Even more sobering is what this has meant for public safety. “While 85 people were wrongfully incarcerated,” the study found, “the actual perpetrators were on a collective crime spree that included 14 murders, 11 sexual assaults, 10 kidnappings and at least 62 other felonies.” The most common cause of wrongful convictions: “alleged government error and misconduct by police, prosecutors, and forensic officials.”

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Find out more at bettergov.org.

Easy Solution to the States' Medicaid Crisis

It's the issue that has confounded every state government: funding its share of Medicaid. Here in Kentucky, the hole Medicaid funding blew in the state budget forced the General Assembly into a special session to try to figure out how to close the gap.

But for those of us in the reality-based community who understand what is the proper purpose of the federal government, the answer is obvious.

Kevin Drum:

Although Medicare is getting most of the attention today, Paul Ryan's budget proposal also contains big changes to Medicaid. But Suzy Khimm reports that cuts to Medicaid aren't much more popular than cuts to Medicare:

But new polling from the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation also suggests that Medicaid is more popular than Beltway insiders might assume. Though public support for Medicaid lags slightly behind support for Social Security and Medicare, it's still robust: According to the KFF poll, only 13 percent of the public was willing to support major cuts to Medicaid....[Drew] Altman explains that part of the support for Medicaid comes from the services it provides for the elderly and disabled: though the program's usually described as an entitlement for the poor, seniors and the disabled make up two-thirds of Medicaid costs.

For what it's worth, I think Ryan's Medicaid proposal is far worse than his Medicare proposal. Basically, he endorses the Republican party line, which is to turn Medicaid into block grants for states, and then give states the freedom to spend it any way they want. But this is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

Here's the problem: states aren't allowed to run budget deficits, so when the economy turns bad they have to cut back on spending. But bad economic times are precisely when more Medicaid spending is needed. So unless Ryan is proposing to automatically increase those block grants whenever individual states or the country as a whole are in a recession — and he's not — this produces the worst possible dynamic you can imagine: a safety net that gets worse at exactly the times when it's needed most.

States have been experimenting with Medicaid for decades, and successes are few and far between. There just aren't any magic bullets here, and giving them more scope for experimentation isn't likely to produce any new miracles. A better bet would be to federalize Medicaid entirely. It's a huge burden to state budgets, and one that's especially burdensome during an economic downturn like the one we're in now. Ryan is right that there's really no good reason for Medicaid funding to be split between states and the federal government, but he's wrong about how to fix that. Medicaid shouldn't be a 100% state program, it should be a 100% federal program, one that's both a true safety net and a useful automatic stabilizer during recessions.

Who will be the first state governor to call on President Obama to make this happen?

You're Welcome (with apologies to John Hodgeman)

Blue Texan fixes the budget, closes the deficit, pays off the debt, ends the wars, restores the middle class, makes the rich pay, punishes Wall Street and guarantees Obama's re-election with overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

No, I am not being sarcastic. Blue Texan's plan really does all that.

And it will, too, get passed. All the Democrats have to do is type it up, present it to the House repugs as an untouchable ultimatum and watch them all drop dead from shock. Not so much from the content as from the very idea of dems negotiating like they mean it.

I’ve got a better plan for returning the country to prosperity. Here it is.

Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Cut all defense spending by 50%.
Restore all tax rates to 1981 levels — across the board.
Double the Estate Tax.
Pass a millionaire’s tax.
Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction >$500,000.
Eliminate mortgage interest deduction on vacation homes.
Eliminate corporate tax loopholes.
Eliminate tax breaks for Big Oil.
Eliminate Big Farm subsidies.
Pass a carbon tax.
Pass a bank tax.

Problem solved.

Now when do I get breathlessly praised for my serious, courageous leadership?

If I Believed in Magic ...

I still wouldn't pray for anything David "I can't get elected Governor without an illiterate roundball player on the ticket" Williams wants.

Senate President David Williams called Saturday for Kentuckians to pray that lawmakers reach a consensus this week after a fight over how to balance the state's financially troubled Medicaid program.

“I ask that you keep the members of the Kentucky state Senate in your prayers, and keep all the people in the General Assembly in your prayers, and, yes, keep our governor in your prayers,” Williams, R-Burkesville, one of three GOP gubernatorial candidates, told some 400 people at the 5th District Lincoln Day dinner in Corbin.

Williams' remarks come amid an acrimonious debate in Frankfort over how to shore up the state’s Medicaid program — a debate that has become politically charged amid this year’s gubernatorial campaign.

Want to help Kentucky legislators solve the budget problem? Call or email them here.

End Game for the Wealthy in Wisconsin

UPDATE Below:

I was going to post on the entirely non-monetary nature of the crisis in Wisconsin, but then Toast Walker went and deliberately created a new fiscal crisis.

David Dayen:

I got a sense from Sen. Chris Larson and some others in Wisconsin that the Governor and his Republican allies had run amok in the Capitol before attention was paid to their machinations due to the assault on public workers. But I didn’t realize how bad it was until I saw this come across the transom:

Madison – Today, Governor Scott Walker signed Special Session Assembly Bill 5 which requires a 2/3s vote to pass tax rate increases on the income, sales or franchise taxes.

“I went to work today, met with my cabinet, and signed legislation that will help government operate within its means,” Governor Scott Walker said. “Wisconsinites can’t turn to raising taxes to balance their own family budgets when times get tough. This bill will ensure that we don’t kick the can down the road for a quick budget fix only to slap a long-term tax hike on the backs of Wisconsin taxpayers. I thank Senator Leah Vukmir and Representative Tyler August for their leadership on this issue.”

SNIP

Being from California, I’m pretty clear what the implications of a Prop 13-style supermajority requirement for taxes will do. It will basically destroy government as they know it in Wisconsin, ratcheting down the ability for the state to collect the revenue needed to provide a basic level of services. If you liked the efficient, responsive government we’ve seen over the last three decades in California, you’re going to love it in Wisconsin.

This is really depressing. The fight is still ongoing over public employee union rights, but without the ability to obtain needed revenue, I don’t see how they’ll matter a whole lot. The state government will say their hands are tied and that they must have concessions, and either the workers will suffer, or the recipients of their services. Revenues, half of what a budget comprises, have now been walled off. This is a budget crisis requiring shared sacrifice, says Scott Walker, but that sacrifice doesn’t extend to any Wisconsinite who doesn’t receive government services.

But that's really just about money on the surface; the real purpose from the beginning has been to eliminate all public services along with the Democratic Party which provides them.

John Nichols at The Nation:

Why, if the state is in so much trouble, did Walker engineer the enactment of roughly $140 million in new tax breaks for multinational corporations, which the legislature passed in January? Why did he rush to reject federal transportation funding that other states – states with similar or worse fiscal challenges -- have rushed to collect? Why, in the very week that he was pushing his budget repair bill, did the governor reject federal broadband development money that Wisconsin's rural counties have been seeking for years?

The answer to all of these questions is that the governor has made his budget decisions not with an eye toward fiscal responsibility but with an eye toward rewarding his political benefactors. Out-of-state corporations, road-building interests that did not want competition from high-speed rail, telecommunications corporations that want to cash in on the demand for broadband all benefitted from the decisions made by the governor in January. Now, in February, the governor says that Wisconsin needs to end collective bargaining for public employees and teachers and alter the way in which the state operates on multiple levels in order to address a fiscal "crisis."

SNIP

Risser is absolutely right. He is right, as well, when he says that: “We now know this struggle is not about the money. Public employee unions have offered many concessions to help solve the state’s fiscal crisis. When those efforts at compromise were ignored, it became clear that Governor Walker and his allies are part of a national agenda, fueled by big-money conservative groups, to destroy the unions at all costs.”

That’s the bottom line: This is not about the money. This is not a fiscal crisis. This is a political crisis. And Governor Walker has the power to resolve it by refocusing on fiscal issues, as opposed to pursuing the political goal of breaking state-employee and teacher unions.

And don't forget the clause in Walker's union-busting bill that hands Wisconsin's public power plants over to the Koch brothers for a pittance.

Susie Madrak:

As Heather already pointed out, WI Gov. Scott Walker's budget fix bill also grants him the ability to sell off the state's power plants with no bids. The Kochs are probably hoping that Wisconsin legislators may pass the rest of the bill in hopes of saving collective bargaining.

Now, we can't know for sure, but it's a pretty good guess that the Kochs the ones who are apparently so confident they're going to own the Wisconsin state-owned power plants, they're already advertising to hire new plant managers!

Energy client is looking for experienced Plant Managers for multiple power plants located in Wisconsin. You need 15+ years of operations & maintenance experience in a power plant environment. You should have at least 5 years of experience managing operations & maintenance teams in an operational power plant. The ideal candidate has experience in a coal fired power plant. Salary is commensurate with experience.

As Bernie Sanders told Cenk Uyger, this is the end game for the obscenely wealthy.

UPDATE: More than two dozen political action groups have teamed up to organize pro-union rallies across the country this Saturday, Feb. 26. Find a really near you here.

Rethugs "Shocked" Tax Cuts Failed to Turn Bullshit Into Steaks

C'mon, Steve: they're not really surprised and you're not really surprised that they're surprised.

SURPRISED BY THE DEGREE OF SURPRISE.... The day of President Obama's inauguration, the federal budget deficit left by the Republican administration was $1.3 trillion. After some additional economy-saving measures were added to the mix, the 2009 deficit reached $1.4 trillion. Last year, things improved slightly, and the deficit fell to $1.29 trillion.

Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office warned lawmakers that the budget picture was poised to get worse again, projecting a $1.5 trillion deficit this year.

Summarizing the thoughts of many, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) told Roll Call, "I think everyone is in a collective state of shock right now over the CBO numbers."

Really? Why is Congress so surprised? Frankly, I'm a little shocked by their collective state of shock.

This really isn't complicated. The deficit picture was starting to improve, but congressional Republicans insisted that Bush-era tax breaks get extended for another two years. How did Republicans propose paying for these tax cuts? They didn't -- the GOP said the price tag should just be added to the deficit.

And wouldn't you know it, that means ... I hope you're sitting down ... the deficit will go up, just as lawmakers were told it would if they cut taxes without paying for them.

SNIP

The fact that Congress is surprised only reinforces the fact that Republicans aren't paying close enough attention to reality. There's no great mystery here -- the deficit is going up because of the new round of tax cuts. That's what happens when one cuts taxes -- less revenue means higher deficits.

If Republicans didn't want a higher deficit, they shouldn't have fought so hard to make it worse. They had a choice -- expensive tax breaks or deficit reduction. They made their choice, were told what the consequences would be, and are now stunned by the realization that the rules of arithmetic haven't been suspended by the GOP's force of will.

It's unclear to me why Republicans aren't confronted with hysterical laughter when they claim credibility on fiscal issues. This is a party that inherited a massive surplus a decade ago, when we were actually paying off our debt. The GOP proceeded to squander the surplus, add $5 trillion to the debt in just eight years, and then demand Democrats clean up their mess.

When Dems did just that and the deficit picture started to improve, Republicans then demanded tax breaks that once again made the budget shortfall worse.

Deficit hawks that vote Republican are tragically confused. There's never been a more fiscally irresponsible political party.

But of course they only care about the deficit in terms of keeping it huge: as a rhetorical weapon to use against Democratic attempts to create jobs and grow the economy, and as an actual fiscal obstacle to such attempts - the starve the beast principle. And as a way to whip up votes among the ignorant and terrified.

Because the real goal is to transfer all wealth to the already obscenely wealthy.

From Perrspectives:

So it comes down to this. Republicans believe they can turn bullshit into gold. Despite the inescapable conclusion of history, theory and empirical evidence to the contrary, Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, John Boehner, Tom Coburn, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison and other Republican alchemists continue to insist that cutting taxes increases government revenue and thereby reduces the deficit. Of course, even though the tax cut claim is laughably false, conservative ideology requires that it must true. Otherwise, the Republicans have just been giving money to rich people.

Repeat that every chance you get: the Republicans have just been giving money to rich people.

Have you talked to your Democratic neighbors today?

Making Taxes Work for Everyone

As the Kentucky General Assembly begins its annual Reaming of the Commonwealth, the big item on the agenda is revising the tax code. David Williams and the rest of the rethuglicans are hell-bent on stripping the last shreds of income away from the state's shrinking middle class in order to further fatten our obscenely wealthy, who make up for their small numbers with outrageous greed.

One blogger has the experience, the persistence and the smarts to dig into Kentucky's tax system and figure out reforms that will really work. You should be reading Ralph Long every day.

On Sunday, he solved the corporate tax problem:

Let’s take a look at Kentucky Corporate Income Tax.

Every corporation pays taxes. Corporate taxes can be computed three ways.

SNIP

This is pretty small business friendly; the first $100,000 is taxed at an average rate of 4.5 percent. Not bad since most of the businesses in Kentucky fall into the small business category.

So when we talk about abolishing the corporate tax, who really benefits?

I’d say the top five winners would be Humana, Brown Forman, Lexmark, Ashland and Yum Brands.

SNIP

So let’s do a little math, we’ll round the numbers to make it a little easier, for an annual net income for just these 5 companies. We’re looking at roughly $4 billion dollars in net profit. Now if they actually paid 7 percent to Kentucky that would be about $280 million to the state treasury.

According to Office of the State Budget Director, the Corporate Income tax collected in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 was $69.9 million. So if that holds for the next 3 quarters we are looking at about $280 million in revenue from corporate taxes.

That’s from all the corporations in Kentucky not just the big five.

So here’s a proposal, remember the dollar amounts are net profit and that the rates would need to be reviewed on a regular basis.

Eliminate all corporate income tax on the first $50,000 in net profit. This helps small businesses and start-ups.

Reduce the rate to 3 percent on the next $50,000 in net profit.

From $100,000 to $250,000 reduce the rate to 5%.

Now every business with less than a quarter million in net profit got a major tax break.

From $250,000 to $1 million set the rate at 7 percent, no change for these companies.

Only after a million dollars in net profit do the rates increase.

From $1 million to $250 million set the rate at 10 percent.

Over $250 million set the rate at 12 percent.

And one other thing, no deductions, no exclusions, no exemptions, no extra breaks period. Just pay the rate.

This gives over 90 percent of the businesses in Kentucky a tax break, spurs employment and increases revenue for the Commonwealth.

And Long's personal income tax reform proposal is just as straightforward:

First the sales and use tax needs to be expanded to all goods and services except food bought for preparation and medical expenses. While regressive in nature this would provide the elasticity needed in the tax base.

Second the sales tax rate is lowered to 3 or 4 percent from the current 6 percent.

Third exempt the first $50,000 of income from taxation. According to the United States Census the median family income in 2008 in Kentucky was $41,489 and the median income in the United States was $52,029. This would effectively eliminate the income tax for over half of Kentucky’s households.

Fourth, income from $50,001 to $75,000 would be taxed at 6 percent.

Fifth, income from $75,001 to $100,000 would be taxed at 9 percent.

Sixth, income from $100,001 to $250,000 would be taxed at 12 percent

Seventh, income over $250,001 would be taxed at 15 percent.

There would be no deductions or exemptions.

Admittedly the percentages will need to be tweaked and subsequently reviewed on a regular base to keep the system fair. I don’t have access to the detailed economic forecasts the state budget office has therefore the starting percentages may need to be different.

The combination of widening and lowering the sales and use tax while elminating the income tax for over 50 percent of Kentucky households would put the money in the hands of people who will buy products and services.

Couple this with a more progressive and agressive tax on high income individuals makes the system fair to all taxpayers.

Have you talked to your Democratic neighbors today?

Get the email and phone number of your legislators here.