Global Climate Change Made Easy

Via PZ Myers, a cartoon that explains global warming in a way even the home-schooled can grasp:

Darryl Cunningham Investigates: Artist, Photographer, Sculptor, adventurer, spy (OK the last two may not be true)

Buck Up, Liberals: We're Right, They're Wrong

From the Rude Pundit, a reminder that even liberals have the right to draw a line and say: No Further.

Note to the Weary Left: It's Okay to Have Principles:

So after backing President Obama on compromise after compromise on various bills, on the stimulus, on health care reform, after supporting and advocating for deals that were not only far from perfect, but were in some ways detrimental to the cause for which the bills themselves were created, after watching the President reach out again and again to Republicans, only to be told he wasn't reaching out enough and only to watch Obama say that he needs to do more to compromise, after seeing Republicans drub Democrats in an election because many Democrats were too afraid to stand for anything Democratic for fear of seeming too "partisan," after listening to Obama justify doing almost everything that George W. Bush did in the name of national security and, in some cases, going further, after years and years of watching Democrats allowing Republicans to set the terms of all arguments, whether in the majority or minority, after investing in Barack Obama the modicum of hope he asked for in changing the terms of that long, ongoing American political fistfight, only to see the whole thing twisted again by the right as they put forth the most obnoxiously anti-American candidates they could find and obstructed progress in an unprecedented way, finally, on this one thing, on absolutely opposing allowing the tax rate for the wealthiest 2% of Americans to rise by a small margin, we on the left are told by people across the political spectrum that we want too much and that we need to back down and that we need to be happy because this is the best we're gonna get.

To which the Rude Pundit can only say, "Blow me." You're allowed to dissent, dear, worried liberals. You're allowed to draw a fucking inviolable line. The Rude Pundit has supported Obama on issue after issue, but he is allowed to join with many Democrats in the Congress and call, "Bullshit." No one gets a blank check.

SNIP

Bernie Sanders' epic speech on the Senate floor wasn't just about the tax cut. It was about an insanity of instant financial gratification that puts the desires of the very few above the needs of the very, very many, an insanity that has fucked this country for the rest of our lives. Again and again, with the assistance of the conservative Democrat Mary Landrieu, who voted for the original tax cuts, Sanders came back to the income disparity that has turned the United States into an oligarchy. Shit, it was always that way. But at least it was a benevolent oligarchy. Not anymore, as Wall Street greed pulls on our flayed flesh to finally skin us all alive.

SNIP

Oh, dear weary, weary leftists all, we've been treated like the once-virginal cheerleader who gave in when the quarterback wanted a hand job and then gave in again when he wanted a blow job, saying that it wasn't sex, no, not really, giving in, yes, even though it was against our core beliefs, to straight fucking, but, god, can't we at least say "No" to anal? Or is that too much to ask anymore?

Read the whole thing.

Have you talked to your Democratic neighbors today?

"In Defense of Government"

We have to do this, because Obama won't.

Kai Wright at The Nation:

... the debate on Capitol Hill this week is about something more—a larger fight to which Republicans eagerly rise, and from which the president continues to shrink. It’s a fight over whether government is a force for good or evil in America. That’s a strange debate for a republic, but it’s one that has defined ours since slavery. And it’s one that those of us who have benefited from government’s role as the great equalizer have been losing badly since around about 1980.

SNIP

As Paul Krugman wrote this weekend, if Republicans get the permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts they’re playing for—whether it comes now or in two years—the only way our government will be able to make up the cost is to mutilate Social Security and Medicare. The GOP leadership knows this. Its goal isn’t just to give money to rich people; it’s to kill government’s role as an economic safety net and equalizer. The Reagan revolution is reaching its grim climax.

At the same time, the antigovernment crowd’s political hand—if forced—has never been weaker (as John Nichols persuasively wrote this morning). A depressingly large number of middle-class and working-class Americans now know all too well what economists have long understood: you get a great deal more economic bang out of keeping lots of people from becoming destitute than you do by helping a few people horde wealth. People remain enraged about the no-strings-attached bank bailout, for instance, because they intuitively understand its ramifications. Wall Street is now enjoying a narrow, taxpayer-financed recovery while unemployment, hunger and poverty all continue climbing through the former middle class.

Read the whole thing.

Tax cuts and social security are just stepping stones on the path to the holy grail of the GOP: eliminating all federal government regulation. Zandar explains:

But in the end the Supreme Court will decide what it wants to, and it could very well eliminate just about every standing federal regulation on the book governing just about every industry out there: the ultimate and permanent deregulation of the country's businesses from any and all oversight.

It would be chaos. States could simply do what they wanted to, and the federal government would basically have no power over things. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage act, fair housing act, equal employment opportunity act, civil rights act, all of those would be toast overnight if there were no state laws on those. Kiss abortion and education laws goodbye too.

Red states could then be as backward, bigoted, and ignorant as they wanted to be. Don't like it? Move to another state where somebody gives a damn about evolution or civil rights or women.

Pretty scary endgame if you ask me.

Read the whole thing.

Have you talked to your Democratic neighbors today?

Firings Mean Jobs Are Available; Layoffs Mean Jobs are Gone

By now, everyone who is not a plutocrat or a member of Congress knows someone who is unemployed. Was that person fired? Or was she laid off? Because it makes a difference.

Susie Madrak at Crooks and Liars:

Fred Clark from Slacktivist points out something that should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of empathy -- or intelligence:

The confused conservatives seem to mistakenly believe that during the Great Recession those 8 million workers were simply fired.

If that had been the case, the economy would have greeted those 8 million newly unemployed workers with 8 million newly vacant job openings. The relocations, retrainings and logistics of rearranging all of those workers back into the assorted job openings created by their firings would have been unpleasant in the short term, but wouldn't have created an insurmountable long-term problem for either those 8 million people or for the economy as a whole. That sort of churning and rearranging goes on all the time, which is why economists regard something like a 4 percent unemployment rate as "full employment."

If those workers had all simply been fired, the scenario would have played out as something like the economic equivalent of a Chinese fire drill -- everyone get up and find a new seat. That would have been disruptive, but still possible because there would still have been one seat for every displaced worker.

But that is not what happened during the Great Recession. Those 8 million workers were not fired, they were laid off.

Getting laid off is not the same as getting fired.

Those 8 million workers got up and their seats were taken away. They cannot find new seats because there are not nearly enough seats to go around. Those 8 million or so workers cannot simply find new jobs because there are 8 million fewer jobs to be found.

The most recent figures, if you want to be precise: 14.2 million looking for work; 3.4 million job openings. That means 10.8 million Americans right now, today, are royally, epically screwed.

That means it wouldn't matter if every unemployed American followed all the advice for what job-seekers are supposed to do. If every single one of them keeps a positive attitude while still being willing to settle for less, if each and every one of them takes classes and volunteers to keep their skills sharp, if each and every one networks furiously, gets up every morning, showers, shaves and gets dressed for the office before sending out dozens of perfect, enticingly crafted résumés all day, every day, then 10.8 million of them will still not find jobs because there are 10.8 million fewer jobs than there are job seekers.

That is the situation. That is what we are up against.

Millions of people got laid off. They weren't fired -- they were laid off. Their jobs are gone and now there aren't enough jobs.

Getting laid off is not the same as getting fired.

There are no jobs. And there will not be any jobs until Congressional rethuglicans and their enablers in the White House stop emptying the treasury to further enrich the already obscenely wealthy.

Have you talked to your Democratic neighbors today?

The Truth A Socialist Tells

Steve Benen on the Conscience of the Senate:

SANDERS SPEAKS.... After Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) held the Senate floor (Friday) for eight-and-a-half hours, it's tempting to embed the whole thing. But given YouTube's time limits on clips, it would take roughly 34 separate videos to capture the floor appearance from start to finish.

I can, however, include this 12-minute clip, posted by Sanders' office and flagged by Joan McCarter, which helps give viewers a taste.



I'll gladly concede that I only caught parts of the senator's remarks, but my sense is that his core message -- "We can do better" -- has broad applicability. To be sure, Sanders appears to have been motivated by his strong opposition to the tax policy agreement hammered out by the White House and congressional Republicans, but let's not overlook the larger context here.

Sanders, it seems, doesn't just want to "do better" with this one tax deal; he wants the country's entire approach to economic inequalities to "do better." The senator was relentless in his criticism of the pending agreement, but his was a larger critique on the gap between rich and poor, concentrated wealth, trade, and Wall Street.

It was a rebuke, not just of the Republican provisions in the tax deal, but of what he sees as systemic flaws in U.S. economic policy.

This was the kind of message that Americans almost never hear, especially from elected officials in Washington, which only made the display that much more dramatic. What's more, many of Sanders' observations had the added benefit of being accurate.

The speech was not a literal filibuster -- there was no bill on the Senate floor at the time -- but that doesn't much matter, and it certainly doesn't take away from the extraordinary nature of Sanders' effort.

I'd add, just as an aside, that I'm one of Bernie Sanders' constituents, and I've voted for him at every available opportunity, helping elect him to the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. And if anyone saw yesterday's remarks as some kind of hollow stunt -- a politician grandstanding for ego and self-promotion -- think again. Whether one agrees with the senator or not, Sanders brings an unrivaled sincerity and passion to his work. He took to the floor yesterday, not because some lobbyist handed him talking points, not because he wants to be on television, not because he's driven by some personal ambition, but because he cares deeply about working families, and intends to fight to do what he can to help them.

Even I don't always agree with Sanders, but I know better than to question his genuine commitment to those who too often have no champions.

As for the political world's reaction, I'd also add that it was hard not to smile as Congress' lone socialist made the transition from quirky Vermonter with an unbreakable Brooklyn accent to liberal folk hero.

CSpan has Sanders' whole speech, in three parts, here.

How the Freakazoids Stole Christmas

As Governor Beshear continues his unconstitutional and despicable promotion of an un-American Bronze Age myth, it's a good time to review the unprosecuted theft of the pagan midwinter festival by desperate early xians.

Overview:

Although nominally a Christian holiday, Christmas is also widely celebrated by many non-Christians, and many of its popular celebratory customs have pre-Christian or secular themes and origins. Popular modern customs of the holiday include gift-giving, music, an exchange of greeting cards, church celebrations, a special meal, and the display of various decorations; including Christmas trees, lights, garlands, mistletoe, nativity scenes, and holly. In addition, several similar mythological figures, known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas and Santa Claus among other names, are associated with bringing gifts to children during the Christmas season.

Yes, early church fathers took long-standing winter solstice festivals and just slapped a new name on them.

A winter festival was the most popular festival of the year in many cultures. Reasons included the fact that less agricultural work needs to be done during the winter, as well as an expectation of better weather as spring approached. Modern Christmas customs include: gift-giving and merrymaking from Roman Saturnalia; greenery, lights, and charity from the Roman New Year; and Yule logs and various foods from Germanic feasts. Pagan Scandinavia celebrated a winter festival called Yule, held in the late December to early January period. As Northern Europe was the last part to Christianize, its pagan traditions had a major influence on Christmas.Scandinavians still call Christmas Jul. In English, the word Yule is synonymous with Christmas, a usage first recorded in 900.

SNIP

The practice of putting up special decorations at Christmas has a long history. From pre-Christian times, people in the Roman Empire brought branches from evergreen plants indoors in the winter. Decorating with greenery was also part of Jewish tradition ...

The Christmas tree is often explained as a Christianisation of pagan tradition and ritual surrounding the Winter Solstice, which included the use of evergreen boughs, and an adaptation of pagan tree worship.

More information here.

The one part of modern Christmas that may be accurately attributed to christianity is the music, although I can't imagine that pagans never sang at Winter Solstice, nor Romans at Saturnalia.

So to all the "war on christmas" whiners, I say you can keep your music. But get your mythological mitts off my Winter Solstice evergreens, lights and decorations; your death-worship wizard away from my Saturnalia gifts and feasting, and your ludicrous "nativity scenes" out of my government buildings.

Because Punishing the Unemployed Is Not Enough

Keep in mind that this egregious cruelty is being proposed by President Obama's former budget director.

Anybody still have doubts about what Obama has in mind for Social Security?

From Digby, staying on top of the plutocrats:

Peter Orszag really has it in for the social security program. We already know that he's selling the ridiculous idea that if the Democrats agree to cut social security they will be rewarded for doing it. Now he's introducing the new image of the "disability queen" to weaken the program even more.

Evidently, there are a lot of people who qualify for SSI but have, until now, avoided applying for the problem because they were able to find some work. A lot of them have lost their jobs in this recession and are now applying. And Orszag is worried that this is bad for their character. You see, once in they lose all desire to work and will just hang around in the wheel chairs enjoying their leisure time instead of being the productive citizens they should be.

SNIP

Why Orsazg thinks it's necessary to bring disability insurance reform into this argument at the moment is anybody's guess. Right now, it's hard enough for able bodied people to get work. And while I can see how concerned he is that the work ethics of the disabled will erode over time if they are given this easy ride, it's hard for me to see why it should be of immediate concern considering that there are no fucking jobs. Are these people supposed to sell pencils on the street corner?

I haven't even heard Republicans make this argument for cutting social security but you can be sure that you'll be hearing more of it. The idea that the unemployed (who are already seen as hardly better than "illegal aliens" in the minds of a good number of Americans) are gaming the Social Security system will give impetus for more cuts and making it harder for legitimate claimants. But it will be a nice new market for the poor insurance companies won't it? This new mandatory "private disability insurance" will be quite the bonanza, I'm sure.

Orszag has taken that job at Citibank. At this point it's probably wise to assume he's just doing what they're paying him to do --- taking advantage of his knowledge of the political thinking of the White House and the economic crisis to destroy the social safety net. But damn, putting the screws to the disabled who clearly qualify for SSI but would work if there were any jobs by making it harder for them to get SSI is just plain cruel.

Read the whole thing.

The Social Security fight is gearing up, and it's aiming to drag in every last shred of the social safety net so the powerful can wrap up all the non-plutocrats and trash them in one neat dunk.

Yes, they are out to get us, and we have to save ourselves.

Have you talked to your Democratic neighbors today?

Next to be Sacrificed to "Compromise:" Women

That will teach those working-class slobs to think they deserve a share of this nation's wealth. As for those sluts who think they can have sex without paying the price ....

Digby on the next hostages:

I wrote the other day about the GOP congress's stated goal to make the Hyde Amendment permanent. Now it appears they are going to try to amend the health care bill to exclude any subsidies from going to health plans that offer coverage for abortion (even though the plan already calls for women to pay for that coverage themselves.)

None of this should be surprising to anyone who has followed the Tea Party. They were culture warriors long before they because born again deficit hawks. But whyile these supposed enemies of debt aren't exactly raising a fit about the millionaires tax cuts, they aren't going to settle for nothing. After all, Reagan already proved "deficits don't matter." Culture war victories are their due.

I sure wish that I felt more confident that the administration would hold the line, but I suspect that even the Tea Baggers have learned that you can pretty much always package a deal in such a way that the president will sign on as long as liberals are the ones that don't like it. And I'm guessing choice is one of those winning items. If they're smart, they'll put it together with something that helps sick kids so they can really twist Democrats into pretzels.

But make no mistake, it's the culture war, wedge issues that really animate the Tea Party, not all that dreary old stuff about tax codes and deficits. And they're going to want their due.

Once you go teabagger appeasement, you can't ever go back.

Giving Secularly

There are many secular organizations performing great deeds of charity locally, nationally and internationally. You don't have to give to groups that seek direction from an invisible sky wizard and follow rules from a Bronze Age fable.

PZ Myers:

I used to always give my spare change to the Salvation Army at this time of year — there they were, ringing their bell outside the grocery store, so sure, I'd give a little. That changed when I learned about their anti-gay policies, though…and now there's another reason to spurn the Salvation Army.

The Salvation Army says it refuses to distribute Harry Potter and Twilight toys collected for needy children because they're incompatible with the charity's Christian beliefs.

The policy has alarmed a Calgarian who volunteered to sift through a southeast warehouse full of unused, donated items and was alarmed when he was told by Salvation Army officials that the two kinds of toys are "disposed of" and not given to other charities.

"I asked if these toys went to another charitable organizations but was told no, that by passing these toys on to another agency for distribution would be supporting these toys," said the man, who wouldn't give his name due to his occupation.

So donors may have handed over popular toys for distribution, not knowing that the destination was going to be the landfill. And it's not because the Salvation Army is concerned about the quality or educational value of the toys…

"I was told to withhold a six-inch Harry Potter figure, but when I picked up a plastic M-16, I was told, 'That's for the 10-year-olds,'" he said.

I feel so dumb for having ever given that organization anything. I should have been clued in by the frickin' name that it was run by a gang of puffed-up sanctimonious looneys.

Want some great bang for your buck where it will do the most direct good? Give every dime you can spare to your local food bank. Find ones near you here.

Don't Primary Obama; Build Around Him

We all know that republican politicians fear their base while Democratic ones despise theirs. Why?

Because the republican base put those politicians in office, and can take them out of office. The Democratic base is disorganized and has no power. It has not built the foundational structure that nurtures and supports candidates who pay the base back with loyalty.

If Barack Obama as president accomplishes nothing more over the next two years than drive the racists even more insane and the republican party even further off the cliff just by being that ni**er in the White House, that will be enough for me to re-elect him.

I'm all for primarying every Blue Dog DINO left in Congress and statehouses, but the presidency is different. If you don't understand that, go back and read the coverage of the 2000 election until you do.

It's destructive, it's divisive and it's not necessary.

Smirky/Darth's appointment was the culmination of 36 years of slow, patient, painstaking work on the part of grass-roots republicans to build from scratch a political party after Goldwater's 1964 defeat destroyed the old one. They started at the beginning, digging a foundation among local republicans: one voter, one neighborhood, one precinct at a time.

The result was a perfect pyramid, with the gold ring of the presidency sitting solidly on a broad, strong, immovable foundation of activists and elected officials at the county, state and congressional levels.

Smirky/Darth got away with literal murder because they were supported by that stable foundation.

Barack Obama got elected in a landslide that floated far above the landscape, a president with no visible means of support. The huge and diverse majority that overwhelmed polling stations to vote for him in 2008 had no connection to the Democratic Party, no involvement in their state, county or precinct party organizations.

So when President Obama ran into the obstructionist rethuglicans of the Senate, he had no base on which to stand. Six million email addresses get you nowhere if those addressees have no local connection to the party, no organized structure to work within.

That's what we have to build. And we have to build it from below ground level, with a broad, deep foundation that will hold the tallest and heaviest of structures: the presidency.

Have you talked to your Democratic neighbors today?

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

"That's Unacceptable to Me"

It's unacceptable to us, too, Mr. President. But we're not talking about the same thing, are we?



Full transcript here.

Anti-Science Freakazoids Have No Right to Science Jobs

The sun rises in the east, gravity prevails and anyone who claims a Bronze Age fable trumps scientific fact Is. Not. A. Scientist.

From the Courier:

No one denies that astronomer Martin Gaskell was the leading candidate for the founding director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky in 2007 — until his writings on evolution came to light.

Gaskell had given lectures to campus religious groups around the country in which he said that while he has no problem reconciling the Bible with the theory of evolution, he believes the theory has major flaws. And he recommended students read theory critics in the intelligent-design movement.

That stance alarmed UK science professors and, the university acknowledges, played a role in the job going to another candidate.

Now a federal judge says Gaskell has a right to a jury trial over his allegation that he lost the job because he is a Christian and "potentially evangelical."

I seriously doubt it's a coincidence that this decision came down just days after Governor Beshear announced his support of the theory that a 600-year-old-man herded dinosaurs onto a boat 4,000 years ago.

Just Eliminate the Income Tax. Instead, Tax Wealth

This was written as a response to the tax "plans" that stupidly - or deliberately - conflate Social Security and the deficit. But now, it strikes me as the perfect "compromise" between the rethuglicans demanding tax cuts for the obscenely rich and liberals refusing to let the working and middle class bear all the tax burden:

Tax Wealth.

Leon Friedman at The Nation:

Is it really necessary that the poorest among us give up benefits or pay more sales taxes to reduce the deficit, rather than have the richest make a fair contribution? How can we significantly reduce the current deficit of more than $1.3 trillion and similar deficits in the future without cannibalizing Social Security, Medicare and other mandates? One obvious place to look is at the wealth of the top 1 to 5 percent of the population. Every study of inequality in this country has noted the growing wealth of those at the top, largely the result of the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s and the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and '03. The top 1 percent of the population now own 35 percent of the total wealth of the nation (they owned 20.5 percent in 1979). The next 4 percent own 27 percent of the total wealth. So together, the top 5 percent own 62 percent of the total wealth of the country.

What does this mean in actual numbers? As of March 31, the total net worth of all American households was $54.6 trillion, according to studies made by the Federal Reserve Board. The top 1 percent consists of about 3 million households, each with a net worth of at least $8.3 million. The total net worth of that group is 35 percent of $54.6 trillion, or $19.1 trillion.

Wouldn't that amount be an appropriate target for a federal tax? Imposing a tax based on wealth rather than income is not a new idea. The federal government and most state governments impose an estate tax based on the total net worth of the individual at the time of death (the federal estate tax, which lapsed in 2010, may be reimposed in some form next year). And most local government units have a tax that measures the value of each person's real property, which is levied on an annual basis, but such taxes do not touch personal property.

SNIP

There are many good reasons for imposing such a tax. First, the rich can afford it.

Second, there are a lot of rich people whose wealth is partly the result of government largesse, like the Bush tax cuts, 30 percent of which went to the top 1 percent. Third, taxing the wealth of the very rich will reduce the massive deficits and thus obviate the need to cut vital government services, as well as Social Security and Medicare.

Suppose such a wealth tax were imposed on the top 1 percent of households. It would raise $191.1 billion each year (1 percent of $19.1 trillion), a significant attack on the deficit. If we extended the tax to the top 5 percent, we could raise $338.5 billion a year (1 percent of 62 percent of $54.6 trillion).

Many years ago, Donald Trump suggested a one-time wealth tax of 14.25 percent on all Americans worth more than $10 million to wipe out the entire federal debt at the time, amounting to $5.7 trillion. Today we would need $13.5 trillion—about 40 percent of the wealth of the top 5 percent—to do it, which is highly unlikely to happen. But if we had the courage to take such a step, we would eliminate $414 billion in annual interest payments on the national debt.

SNIP

So what would a wealth tax mean? Because of the openness of our stock markets and the filings of the Securities and Exchange Commission, it's easy for Forbes to determine the wealth of the 400 richest Americans. Thus, we have no trouble determining who would be subject to the tax. If a very rich person had a net worth of $10 billion, he or she would have to pay 1 percent, or $100 million, each year to the government. In the face of the nation's stark financial problems, our richest Americans can afford this modest diminution of their wealth. And they certainly would have no right to complain, since it was previous government actions that enabled them to accumulate it.

Read the whole thing.

Think outside the box. Change the game. Throw the class warmongers for a loop.

Tax Wealth.

Meanwhile, Massive Job-Killing Trade Deal on the Table

While we're all freaking out over the kill-Social-Security-to-help-Paris-Hilton deal, the administration is working quietly behind the scenes to repeat the NAFTA catastrophe with South Korea.

From Firedoglake:

Statement by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka On Korea Trade Deal

For more than a decade, the labor movement, environmental groups, development advocates and others have advocated for a new trade policy that is part of a more coordinated and coherent national economic strategy. The proposed U.S.-Korea trade deal does not live up to that model and does not contribute to a sustainable global future. We believe we must move towards a more democratic, sustainable and fair global economy with broadly shared prosperity for working people around the world. Reaching that goal will require deep-seated reforms in current trade policy, as well as in our own domestic labor laws and other policies.

We welcome the tremendous efforts by the Obama administration and particularly Ambassador Ron Kirk and his team to address the urgent concerns of autoworkers and auto companies with respect to market access, safeguard provisions and some non-tariff barriers. Ways and Means Chairman Sander Levin and Ranking Member Dave Camp also pressed hard for key improvements in the auto provisions, and we appreciate their strong efforts. These newly negotiated provisions will give some much needed breathing room to the auto industry, and we appreciate the hard bargaining that was necessary to win these important changes.

However, the labor movement’s concerns about the Korea trade deal go beyond the auto assembly sector to a more fundamental question about what a fairer and more balanced trade policy should look like. In particular, the labor movement has consistently and for many years argued that the investment and government procurement provisions in the Korea deal will encourage off shoring. And despite the progress made in improving the labor chapter in 2007, it is clear that in both the United States and South Korea, workers continue to face repeated challenges to their exercise of fundamental human rights on the job – especially freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively. This deal does nothing to improve or strengthen the provisions negotiated by former President George W. Bush in these crucial areas. It is essential that both countries bring their labor laws and practice fully into compliance with international standards prior to implementation of the agreement. And for American workers to benefit from trade deals, we must strengthen U.S. labor law to harmonize social activity. Going forward, we hope to work closely with the Obama administration to address all of these concerns in any future deals,particularly the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

The Korea deal also fails to address the potential problem of currency manipulation and contains lax provisions on rule of origin (allowing up to 65% foreign content in autos eligible for the lower tariff treatment,in contrast to the EU-Korea agreement, which allows only 45% foreign content) and duty drawback (which disadvantages domestic parts production). These provisions will undermine both S. Korean and American workers. There is significant opposition by many S. Korean unions to the trade agreement, as the agreement fails to address key offshoring and outsourcing issues facing S. Korea. In fact, the weak offshoring protections and rule of origin make the agreement a back door for increasing offshoring to China and other countries from South Korea,as well as from the United States.

We are also concerned that the trade agreement leaves open the possibility that goods produced in the North Korean free trade zone, the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC), could in the future gain access to the United States. We shouldn’t leave open the possibility of including these goods for two reasons: 1) grave concerns over the atrocious labor rights record in the KIC and 2) the impact on jobs and wages of the exports of these goods — produced at perhaps the lowest wage levels in the world.

In addition to much needed reforms in trade policy, the United States must implement a well coordinated industrial strategy that includes tax policy, infrastructure, skills development and technology investments to support a vibrant, growing and modern manufacturing sector.

The experiences of union members and working people with too many flawed trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement and China’s accession to the World Trade Organization do not justify optimism that this deal will generate the promised new jobs. We’ve seen U.S. multinational companies take advantage of the investment and other corporate protections in past trade deals to shift production offshore, while maintaining access to the U.S. consumer market and undermining the jobs, wages and bargaining power of American workers.And the results have been catastrophic, with chronic and unsustainable trade deficits that sap economic growth and domestic job creation.

So long as these agreements fall short of protecting the broad interests of American workers and their counterparts around the world in these uncertain economic times, we will oppose them.

More Firedoglake coverage of the NAFTA-style Korea Free Trade deal.

When Dealing With Terrorists, Expect Time Bombs

And the rethuglican trap snaps shut on Barack Obama, who is about to go down in history as the president who destroyed Social Security.

Digby:

Following up on my post of this morning, I suppose it's one thing for them to not be astute enough to defuse the bombs the Bush people set when they had the chance but when they show you that they are setting a new one you'd think they'd resist the temptation to hand them the fuse:

Obama, as part of the Democratic package, secured a roughly 30 percent cut in the payroll tax, from 6.2 to 4.2 percent. Allowing it to expire in a year will mean that workers will see a nearly 50 percent jump in payroll taxes as the rate reverts back -- an event that will surely be described as a tax hike. The cut is estimated to cost $120 billion per year.

Democrats have never allowed the rate to be cut, even temporarily, in the history of the program, because payroll taxes feed the Social Security trust fund and create the political base of support for the program, said Nancy Altman, author of "The Battle For Social Security", a history of the program, and head of the advocacy group Social Security Works. Republicans have won a long-sought victory, even as President Obama hails it as a win for his party.

Republicans acknowledged that the expiration of the tax holiday will be treated as a tax increase. "Once something like this goes into place, a year from now, when it expires, it'll be portrayed as a tax increase," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). So in a body like Congress, precedents matter and this is setting a precedent. I think that certainly is going to create some problems down the road if it passes."
[...]

Lamar Alexander, the Senate's number-three Republican, also said that reform of Social Security should be tied to moving that tax rate back up. "My personal hope is that it doesn't become permanent unless we deal with a way to make Social Security solvent over the long term," he told HuffPost. "You have to remember, the payroll tax funds Social Security and I like the idea of a lower payroll tax contribution, but we've got to make sure Social Security is solvent, which we should be doing this next year as the first order of business." The way to make the program "solvent" and keep taxes low, of course, is to reduce benefits.

Are we supposed to believe that the President and the Democrats who are voting for the tax cut aren't aware of all this?

There is no possibility of Democratic victory here. Tax cut deal or no tax cut deal, rethuglicans have ensured that there is no chance of economic recovery before the 2012 elections, no chance of achieving any Democratic policy, no chance of any accomplishments for Barack Obama.

The only opportunity is to use the lessons of this catastrophe to build a new, liberal Democratic Party from the ground up.

A liberal Democratic Party that will take as its founding motto Gandhi's advice: “All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.”

No more trusting centrists or moderates, no more doing anything corporations or Wall Street want, no more dealing with republicans.

How to Talk About the Tax Cuts

Heather catches CSPAN callers conducting a clinic on how to refute rethug lies about tax cuts. This is easily adapted for radio call-in shows, letters to the editor, and family fights during the holidays.

Far too often I watch or listen to C-SPAN's morning call-in show Washington Journal and just get disgusted with either how severely misinformed some of the callers are, or the guests they have on and whether they're doing a good job of representing progressive policies and not just giving credence to Republican talking points and the lies that are being spread on Fox News and right wing hate talk every day. This was not one of those occasions.

The subject was the potential extension of the Bush tax cuts. The guests were Democratic strategist Steve McMahon and Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak.
There are a few thing I would have pointed out that McMahon did not during this segment, but that said, I think the response of the callers and McMahon to Mackowiak's lies should be taken as an object lesson for anyone that wants to knock down the Republican's ridiculous talking points on tax cuts and job creation. Sadly we can't get anyone in our media to do as good of a job as they did here when Republicans try to lie about tax cuts creating jobs.

"A fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party"

From Down with Tyranny:

John Conyers (D-MI) isn't an Independent and isn't in the Senate. He's a Member of the House, a really important Democratic one. He doesn't seem too happy with the conservative alliance Paul Ryan was so happy about as Obama and McConnell merged into one horrible nightmare:

This is a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party and the Nation. I can tell you with certainty that legislative blackmail of this kind by the Republicans will be vehemently opposed by many if not most Democrats, progressives, and some Republicans who are concerned with the country’s financial budget. I for one will do everything in my power to make certain that legislation along these lines does not pass during the lame duck session.

Tax cuts for the richest two percent, the millionaires and billionaires, are neither justified nor needed. There is no evidence that, in the last eight years, the Bush tax cuts did anything to encourage economic growth and create jobs. It seems hard to argue that the tax cuts for the rich trickled down to rest of the nation, when you consider the fact that we are just now coming out of the deepest economic recession since the Great Depression. If we permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it will cost our country four trillion dollars in lost revenue in the next decade, and decimate important social programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. As Paul Krugman noted today, “over the next 75 years, the revenue loss would be more than three times the projected Social Security shortfall.”

If America is to compete in a highly competitive global economy, we must have the needed federal revenues to invest in jobs, health care, education, infrastructure, and green technology. Furthermore, in a time when city and states are experiencing serious budget shortfalls, having difficulties paying for police officers, teachers, and firefighters, and other essential needs such as affordable housing and health care, now is not the time to provide tax cuts for the richest Americans who will simply put that money in their banks accounts.

This is not the time to pursue misguided tax policies that will wreak havoc on our nation’s fiscal health. Now is the time to show the American people that government has the ability to improve people’s lives in a tangible way.

But for the rethuglicans, it's just a game, as Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars explains:

Dan Bartlett reminds all of us that the GOP doesn't care about Americans, doesn't care about the destructive effects of their disastrous policies and that it's all gamesmanship for the soulless conservatives:

(I)n Washington, where anything beyond last week’s news cycle is considered ancient history, the jury-rigged nature of the Bush plan—and the fiscal sleight-of-hand involved—have been all but forgotten.

“We knew that, politically, once you get it into law, it becomes almost impossible to remove it,” says Dan Bartlett, Bush’s former communications director. “That’s not a bad legacy. The fact that we were able to lay the trap does feel pretty good, to tell you the truth.”

Case closed.

And Zandar makes a terrific case for why this deal will never happen.

The Invisible Twenty Percent

Tom B at They Gave Us A Republic reminds us that the middle class are not the only victims of enrich-the-rich policies.

You know, I'm really getting tired of hearing about all these awful things we're doing to the "middle class" and nary a word about the most endangered species of the bunch, that bottom twenty percent... that suddenly invisible fifth quintile... that nobody seems to know the first fricking thing about and about whom nobody displays the slightest curiosity as long as they show up to clean your house or mow your lawn.

Read the whole excellent thing.

Rethug Convicted for Election Fraud

Yes, this is election fraud: preventing people from voting through deception or intimidation.

Not to be confused with voter fraud: voting by people who are not eligible to vote.

Here's how to tell the difference:

Election fraud is committed by republicans, targets minorities and other Democratic voters, affects thousands of people, and can change election results.

Voter fraud is falsely attributed to Democrats, doesn't target any particular group, affects a handful of people at most, and has no effect on election results.

Republicans scream bloody murder about rare voter fraud in order to distract attention away from frequent, widespread and destructive election fraud they themselves are committing.

Now we have an actual conviction in a case of republican election fraud.

From TPM:

Former House candidate Tan Nguyen (R) was convicted yesterday of lying to investigators during a voter suppression probe surrounding an intimidating letter sent to Spanish-speaking voters.

Nguyen, a Republican who challenged Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) in 2006, was convicted of obstruction of justice.

According to prosecutors, Nguyen lied to investigators about his involvement with a mailing, written in Spanish and sent to 14,000 households, that warned that "emigrados" could go to jail for voting. The mailing was written on letterhead similar to that of an anti-immigration group in California.

News of the letter and subsequent state investigation broke just weeks before the 2006 election. Sanchez won by 24 percent.

Sanchez was lucky - such voter-supression election fraud usually goes undetected and succeeds.

But now you have hard proof of republican crime to throw in the face of the next rethuglican who foams at the mouth about "voter fraud."

Imagine a Different December 8

Jon Wiener in the Nation:

It was thirty years ago today: December 8, 1980, on what would turn out to be the last day of John Lennon's life, he did an interview promoting his new album, Double Fantasy. He talked about the sixties: "The thing the sixties did was show us the possibility and the responsibility that we all had. It wasn't the answer. It just gave us a glimpse of the possibility."

SNIP

And he spoke about "the opening up of the sixties." "Maybe in the sixties we were naïve and like children and later everyone went back to their rooms and said, 'We didn't get a wonderful world of flowers and peace.... The world is a nasty horrible place because it didn't give us everything we cried for.' Right? Crying for it wasn't enough."

Lennon also talked about his song "Power to the People," which had been released in 1971, nine years earlier. "In retrospect," he said, "if I were trying to say the same thing again, I would say the people have the power. I don't mean the power of the gun. They have the power to make and create the society they want."

The RKO interview was his last. When he finished it, he did a photo shoot at the Dakota with Annie Liebowitz for Rolling Stone, then headed off to the Record Plant with Yoko to work on her song "Walking on Thin Ice." At 10:30 pm their limo took them back to the Dakota and dropped them off at the curb. That's when he was killed.