Fox TV to Make Major Entertainment Event of the O. J. Simpson Murder Case

Because Making a Few Bucks Off of Glamorizing a Horrific Murder is What Fox TV Does

O. J. Simpson is serving time for various crimes in Nevada, but Fox TV thinks the public is still interested in his trial for murder in the slaying of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.  So they are going to present this, a ‘tentpole event series’ on the murder and trial.

What is a ‘tentpole event series’?  We have no idea, never heard the term before, have no concept of what it means, and given that it is associated with Fox we have no doubt that it is pretty meaningless.  But here is what Fox TV promises.

“The Run of His Life” will “take viewers behind the scenes of ‘The Trial of the Century,’ driven by the nonstop plot of a courtroom thriller and presenting the story of the trial as it has never been told,” Fox promised.

SPOILER ALERT!!!

While we don’t want to ruin the suspense, here’s what happens.  O. J. SIMPSON IS FOUND NOT GUILTY.

Sorry, could not help ourselves.

Of course, this is not the first time Fox TV has tried to capitalize on the O. J. Simpson case.

Fox last tried to get into bed with Simpson’s sordid story in 2006, announcing in November of that year The Practically Perfect November Sweeps Stunt: a two-hour interview in which Simpson himself would detail how he would have murdered his wife, Nicole, and her friend Ron Goldman more than 10 years earlier.

But what happened then?

Sadly, a few days later, News Corp. canceled the book and the TV interview, succumbing to the outrage, after a dozen Fox-affiliated TV stations said they would not air the interview.

“I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project,” News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch said at that time, adding: “We are sorry for any pain that this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.”

That’s right, the show was so egregiously offensive that it even shamed Rupert Murdoch.  But apparently that shame was not permanent, so here we are again. 

Low Fee Money Manager in Tampa Beats the Big Guys

But the Big Guys Get Much Higher Fees

If a pension fund is large enough to afford the very best money managers shouldn’t they do so.  For example, here is the amount of resources CALPERS, the California state pension fund devotes to management of its funds.

Calpers—which employs 125 consultants and 1,100 money managers

And here is what the Tampa Firefighters pay their pension fund manager.

Bowen Hanes charges a management fee of 0.25%, which totaled about $4 million last year for the firm.

And here is the performance the Tampa Firefighters got for that fee, which is about in line with what an index fund would charge.

As of Dec. 31, Mr. Bowen's annual returns beat pension giant Calpers—which employs 125 consultants and 1,100 money managers—over three-year, five-year and 10-year spans.

Of course, almost all money management companies do very well, very well for themselves of course.  For the client, well many time you don’t get what you pay for.

Think the NRA is Just a Nice Group of People Trying to Protect Constitutional Rights? No They Are Trying to Protect the Rights of Spousal Abusers to Have Guns

After All, What’s a Woman’s Life Compared to the Sacred Right to Keep a Gun

It would seem to be a no brainer, that a person being served with an order to stay away from a spouse they were threatening should not be allowed to have guns, at least until the issue was settled.  But to the NRA this is heresy, just because a person has threatened to harm or kill a spouse doesn’t mean that person should not have all the guns they want.

In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations. They argue that gun ownership, as a fundamental constitutional right, should not be stripped away for anything less serious than a felony conviction — and certainly not, as an N.R.A. lobbyist in Washington State put it to legislators, for the “mere issuance of court orders.”

And yes, women and children in particular are vulnerable here, but that means nothing to the NRA.  As has been seen in their defense of the right to own assault rifles, there is no outrage at the  death of men and women at the hands of people who should not have guns, but do.  The only outrage the NRA has is for people who would provide basic protection for those subject to attack. 

Over time, over a really, really long time the people of the United States will come to realize just how morally, ethically and even legally wrong the NRA is.  The sad part will be the needless deaths that will have to take place before that occurs.

In the meantime one wonders what a conversation between an NRA supporter who successfully kept guns in the hands of men and women threatening spousal or partner abuse and his or her children.  It might go something like this.

            Child:  What did you do at work today?

            Parent:  I made sure that John Jones was able to keep his guns.  Just because he threatened many times to kill his ex girlfriend and her children, and the fact that he had been arrested several times for violent acts did not mean he had to surrender his hard won Constitutional rights.  I worked for justice.

            Child:  That’s great, but I hope everyone is ok.

            Parent:  Well, he did go out and shoot the girlfriend and her children and the dog, but nobody died except the dog so no harm was done and a horrible infringement of John’s basic rights were prevented. 

            Child:  Wow, that’s wonderful, I hope when I grow up I can do great things like that.  You don’t think by that time the awful government will have taken away guns from people who want to kill other people with them do you?

            Parent:  Not as long as I am alive they won’t.  The Constitution stands forthright for the rights of everyone to have guns so they can shoot women and children they don’t like.  That’s what the Revolution was fought about, even though they don’t tell you that in those liberal, socialistic, commie schools you attend.

Is the Crisis in Cyprus Real – Or Just a Monty Python Sketch? – And What’s With Germany Suddenly Having ‘Principles’

We Report – You Decide

The European community, led by Germany, is trying to bully the small island nation of Cyprus.  The banking system in that country, largely through its own fault, is near a state of total collapse.  Europe is being asked to bail it out, which seems reasonable since Europe has bailed out much, much larger banking systems in countries like Spain.  But political considerations have raised their ugly heads.

Germany in particular is taking the high and mighty road, despite absolutely no basis for doing so given the history of the 20^th century.  Unlike any other situation, Germany is demanding Cyprus pay part of the cost of the bailout.  This is like asking an unemployed person to pay his or her own unemployment insurance benefits.

For reasons only understood if one understands bullies, Cyprus needs to raise 5.8 billion Euros to get a 10-13 billion Euro bailout.  The original plan was to tax bank deposits, in effect to take part of everyone’s bank account.  This was as unacceptable as it was idiotic.  

Petros Giannakouris/Associated Press

An employee of Laiki Bank, center, reacted during a rally outside the Cypriot Parliament on Friday.

With anger and anxiety growing across Cyprus, Mr. Anastasiades’s new plan would scrap a tax on bank deposits. Experts warned, however, that the deposit-tax plan might need to be revisited unless the government found other means to reach the goal of raising €5.8 billion to satisfy Cyprus’s creditors and unlock the full bailout funds.

So what’s the new plan?

The plan sent to Parliament would nationalize pension funds from state-run companies and conduct an emergency bond sale to help raise the €5.8 billion. Gone was any reference to a deposit tax, which Parliament roundly rejected in a vote Tuesday.

But that plan offends Germany.

Before concrete details emerged, German leaders made it clear they would not back a deal that involved nationalizing the state-owned companies’ pensions, a measure that is rejected in Berlin as more socially dangerous than even the original plan to tax smaller savings.

In a closed-door meeting with members of her junior coalition partner, the Free Democrats, Chancellor Angela Merkel made clear her impatience with the government in Cyprus, stating that “under no circumstances can we give up our principles,” the public television network ARD reported.

Now it’s nice that Germans have principles.  It would have been even nicer if they had those principles back when, say, they were murdering 6 million or more Jews, Eastern Europeans and other peoples.  It would be nice if they had those principles when some gratitude is required for the postwar aid given to Germany or the protection West Germany had from Soviet occupation.

As for the Cypriots, they are doomed no matter what.  Even if they get a bailout the economy will be devastated in the short term.  So the recommendation is that they leave the Euro, set up their own currency and suffer the consequences.  They will suffer almost the same if they don’t, but this way they will have the satisfaction of standing up to bullies.  And who knows, maybe Russia, which has a lot of wealthy citizens at risk here will do something. 

Great Decision By Supreme Court – Publishers Cannot Control A Book After It is Sold

A Small But Significant Blow Against the Monopoly of Publishers of College Text Books

One of the great, underreported scandals of modern America is the exploitation of  college students by text book publishers.  When a book is assigned for a course students have no choice but to buy it, and as a result publishers charge astronomical prices for the texts.  But one person decided to do something about this.

 Respondent, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., an academic textbook pub­lisher, often assigns to its wholly owned foreign subsidiary (Wiley Asia) rights to publish, print, and sell foreign editions of Wiley’s Eng­lish language textbooks abroad. Wiley Asia’s books state that they are not to be taken (without permission) into the United States.When petitioner Kirtsaeng moved from Thailand to the United States to study mathematics, he asked friends and family to buy foreign edi­tion English-language textbooks in Thai book shops, where they sold at low prices, and to mail them to him in the United States. He then sold the books, reimbursed his family and friends, and kept the profit.

So what’s the problem here, after all when a person legally purchases a book they have the right to resell it if they want.  Oh, John Wiley didn’t want them to.  And young Mr. Kirtsaeng lost to Wiley in District Court and the Appellate Court.  But he got his hearing before the Supreme Court, with this wonderful result which is this.  The first sale doctrine holds, after the first lawful sale unless a person violates the copyright a person owning the book can do with it as he or she pleases, including re-selling it. After Wiley sells you the book they cannot say you cannot take it anywhere you want, including the United
States.

So no John Wiley and others, you cannot gouge American college students and not allow those consumers to lawfully buy your product elsewhere at a lower price.  And once they have purchased the book, common law dating back for centuries and current statutory law say they have the right to do with the book as they please, including bringing it into this country and reselling it. 

The Supremes get it right.  And ultimately the problem here is the greed of text book publishers.  Sell your product at a fair price where you make a decent but not excessive profit and no one has a problem with you.

Three-fourths of a 21 Gun Salute to Conservative Columnist George Will for Standing Up for Principles

And Here’s Why He Does Not Get the Full Salute

George F. Will

Opinion Writer

This Forum has frequently condemned Washington Post columnist George Will for his columns, mainly because they have been usually just totally wrong.  But Mr. Will is sometimes (ok rarely) a man of principle and his commentary on the Supreme Court hearing on the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act does display those principles.  Mr. Will, rightly in our opinion, claims that the 10^th amendment means that the Federal government has no role to play in the definition of marriage.

The question now is whether DOMA is “necessary and proper” for the exercise of a constitutionally enumerated congressional power. There is no such power pertaining to marriage. This subject is a state responsibility, a tradition established and validated by what can be called constitutional silence: The 10th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This is correct, and it is particularly illustrative of the problems many of us have with Conservatives, namely that as soon as a result is derived from the application of their principles they abandon those principles.  Mr. Will notes this, but very half heartedly,

Conservatives who supported DOMA should, after 17years’ reflection, want the act overturned because its purpose is constitutionally improper. Liberals who want the act struck down should be discomfited by the reason the court should give when doing this.

and he sticks in a slam at liberals when in fact liberals like everyone else believes the 10^th amendment is valid and should be observed in many situations.  So the fact that Mr. Will cannot bring himself to make his usual vicious attacks on people he thinks are wrong  when those people are his Conservative friends is why  he does not get the full salute. 

But that should not detract anyone from recognizing this rare event, a Conservative maintaining principle.  Pay close attention, it is not likely to happen again very soon.

To Support the Republican Budget Economists John Cogan and John Taylor Pervert Economics – And Are Not Even Clever About It

Apparently Supporting Republican Budget Proposal Can Only Be Done With False Arguments

[Editor’s note:  This lesson in basic economics is brought to Conservatives by the letters ‘s’ and ‘t’, and the number zero.]

Economics is a social science, with emphasis on the science part.  Like every other academic discipline, it must conform to the rules of logic, the observations of data and the tenets of analysis.  This does not mean everyone on the profession must reach agreement, but it does mean that any position must be supported by the internal logic that is required for any rational thought process.

In order to support the economic policy prescriptions of Conservatives apparently one must abandon these requirements.  As an example, here is an opinion piece by economists John Cogan and John Taylor in the Wall Street Journal, one which goes counter to basic principles of economics.

Our assessment is based on a modern macroeconomic model (developed with Volker Wieland of the University of Frankfurt and Maik Wolters of the University of Kiel) whose features include a recognition that the resources to finance government expenditures aren't free—they withdraw resources from the private economy. 

Wow, a ‘modern’ macroecnomic model, what a great contribution as opposed to the old fashioned macroeconomic models.  But notice the utter fallacy of the basis of the analysis, that when the government uses resources they withdraw those resources from the private economy.

Now this is a true statement, BUT ONLY WHEN THE ECONOMY IS At FULL EMPLOYMENT AND FULL UTLIZATION.  When there are idle resources, such as the situation for the past five years the government can command those resources without reducing any activity in the private sector.  This is something taught on Day 1 in beginning economics.  Furthermore even if the economy is a full utilization, if government takes consumption spending away from the private sector and engages in investment than the economy will grow faster than it otherwise would do so.  Investment, regardless of whether or not it is private or public is the key to economic growth.

But here is another idiotic statement from these two economists.

The long-run economic gains from restraining government spending would not, despite what critics claim, harm the economy in the short run. Instead, the economy would start to grow right away. 

No, no, no.  A reduction in spending, regardless of its other merits will reduce growth.  It will lower employment and decrease economic activity.  Just ask the Conservatives in Virginia who are lamenting the reduction in government spending in that state.  This again is an uncontested issue.

Finally there is this from the opinion piece.

Nor does the model account for beneficial changes in monetary policy that could accompany enactment of the budget plan. Lower deficits and national debt would reduce pressure on the Federal Reserve to continue buying long-term Treasury bonds.

Translation – monetary policy will move towards lower bond prices and higher interest rates.  Who exactly thinks that higher interest rates will stimulate an economy?  What C- student of economics would even propose of suggest such a thing?

The only conclusion that can be drawn here is that the Republican budget plan is so fraudulent in terms of its positive impact on the economy that only fraudulent reasoning can support it.  If real logic, data and analysis were in its favor, wouldn’t that be what its supporters would write about.

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, The Bogus Budget Guru Apparently is Unaware There Was an Election Recently

Which is Odd, Since He Was a Big Loser in It

The Republicans have turned over their budget policy to one man, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, in the belief that despite all evidence to the contrary Mr. Ryan is a budget expert.  Now defending his budget on a Sunday talk show Mr. Ryan made this amazing statement.

Asked by host Bob Schieffer to address the criticism that his budget is old news, since many of the proposals were brought up in previous years, Ryan ticked off key components of his plan - reforming entitlements and closing tax loopholes - and how those ideas appeal to American voters.

"I hardly think that that’s retread, I think that’s what people want," Ryan said.

What, Mitt and I Lost - Why Didn't Somebody Tell Me

See Paul, if your budget was what people wanted they would have voted for you.  That’s the way in works in a democracy.  Maybe you should spend a little more time in Civics 101, apparently you need to go back to school on this one.

As the Opposition to Marriage Equality Approaches The Trash Heap of History – Republicans Will Need to Decide Whether or Not They are for Equality or For . . .

Corporate American is Coming On Board – For Business Reasons Of Course

The Republican Party is making news these days as the Party tries to make itself into something more acceptable than just the narrow group of right wing voters.  But possibly the biggest obstacle to greater acceptance of Republicans is their opposition to gay marriage.  The issue has turned on them with a fury, from being an electoral asset less than 10 years ago to be an electoral albatross today.

Another nail in the coffin of opposition to equality for gay and lesbian couples is the changing attitude of corporate America.  The crazy quilt of rules and regulation on gay marriage is making life more difficult for businesses than it has to be, and businesses are seeing which way the wind is blowing.

As the federal law which prohibits recognition of gay marriage heads for an oral hearing at the Supreme Court, some employers are signing up for equal rights.

on March 27th the case reaches the Supreme Court. Last week 278 employers, including Deutsche Bank and Microsoft, signed an “amicus” brief urging the nine justices to scrap the law.

The problem is that nine states (plus Washington, DC) allow gay marriage, and three others recognise gay unions solemnised elsewhere. This conflict between federal and state law creates all sorts of headaches, such as separate payroll systems and differing tax treatment of health-care benefits. “Even sophisticated employers struggle,” the brief says.

Ok, it would be nice if these companies supported equality on its own merits, but hey, let’s take what we can get.  As for Republicans, looks like their opposition to equality is the equivalent of swimming uphill (love to mix the metaphors)

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll found record high support — 58 percent — for gay marriage.

In a new survey released Monday, only 36 percent of those polled thought marriage for gay and lesbian couples should be illegal and 6 percent had no opinion.

Gay marriage has been one of the country’s fastest-shifting political issues of the decade. Just three years ago, the same poll found 47 percent of respondents favored legal gay marriage and 50 percent were against it.

which means the rest of us get to watch how the GOP squirms out of this one.

British Conservatives Introduce a Budget that is Called the “Bleakest in Years”

In Other News, British Conservatives Declare Their Economic Policy of Austerity a Resounding Success

As has been noted here before, the world is witnessing an experiment of sorts in economics. In the United States fiscal policy has been expansionary with a target of job creation, while in Britain the policy has been austerity, with a target of reducing deficits.  Wonder which country has the better result?  Wonder no more.

George Osborne on Tuesday ordered ministers to come up with £2.5bn of extra spending cuts, as he scrambled for money in what is expected to be one of the bleakest British Budgets in years.

Faced with stagnant growth, disintegrating debt targets and dismal opinion poll ratings, the chancellor will on Wednesday attempt to put himself on the side of “people who want to work hard and get on”.

But not to worry Conservatives, things like empirical results are not relevant to your policies anyway, are they.

Cyprus Stands Up to German Bullies – And Germans Need to Have a Short History Lesson

Because Apparently the Germans Have Forgotten a Few Things

Unlike the bank bailouts for other parts of Europe, Germany has insisted that in order to bail out the banks of Cyprus the depositors, none of whom are responsible for problems, must lose part of their deposits.  The reasons for imposing this on Cyprus are (1) German politicians are trying to suck up to an electorate in advance of the fall elections and (2) Cyprus is sufficiently small and insignificant that it can be bullied by the Germans.

But the people of Cyprus have stood up and said no.  This was not an easy thing to do.  A failure of the banking system in Cyprus could doom the island nation to an economic disaster for years.  But the German policy is so unfair, and so blatantly wrong that the Cypriot people needed to make a statement to Germans regardless of the consequences.  And they did.

As for Germany, the Germans need to revisit the history of the 20^th century and the atrocities that nation imposed on the world.  And no, the people in charge and the electorate today are not the ones who did those horrific things, but still, it was their country and they bear some responsibility.  Even more relevant, the current prosperity of the German nation is in large part a result of massive allied aid following World War II, along with the military protection provided by the United States, Britain, France and others that kept the Soviet Union from turning West Germany into the economic and political basket case that was East Germany.

So yes Germany, you still owe the rest of the world, you owe it a lot.  And in case  you have forgotten why we recommend just one book, William Shirer’s history of Nazi Germany will do fine.  Read it and weep.

No One Will Hire Keith Olbermann, But Here’s a Suggestion for Keith

Because We Need Him – Even With His Personality

It’s always difficult to give credence to information that comes out of discovery for a lawsuit, but this information about former MSNBC, former Current TV, former ESPN and former a bunch of other networks commentator Keith Olbermann has the ring of truth.  Olbermann has sued (and since settled) with his most recent employer.  (Suing an employer not being the best career move)

"One of the cards his people played was hardship," the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told POLITICO. "He spent last fall talking to all the major networks, and he couldn't get a job. The idea was, this could be the last money he ever earned."

Mr. Olbermann is one of the few non-Conservative commentator who can convey information to audiences in an entertaining and informative manner (yes Rachael Maddow and Chris Hayes are out there, but no one would call them entertaining).  So how does he get back on the air?

Think it all you want Keith, Just Don't Say It

The suggestion here is that Mr. Olbermann irrevocably cede his entire non-commentary personality to a trust.  The trust would have absolute authority over Mr. Olbermann in any non-commentary role. Mr. Olbermann would not be permitted to interact with any network executives or make any statements to or about his employers.  He would, outside the confines of programming, be prohibited from saying or doing  just about anything.

Would this work?  From all accounts this is what happened with comedian/writer Larry David and the Seinfeld show.  Mr. David was the creative genius behind the show, and by all accounts he was one of the most difficult individuals ever created.  So NBC simply kept him out of the management loop, and let him do his thing and nothing else.  All in all, a good plan and one Mr. Olbermann should embrace.  If not for himself, then at least for the rest of us.

Proof Positive that Conservatives Like WSJ Columnist Daniel Henninger Are Simply Wrong

Basing Conclusions on The Failed Economist Alberto Alesina

One of the more polemic writers in the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal is Daniel Henninger.  To write for the Journal means there is no requirement for honesty in a discussion.  The conclusions are what are important, regardless of their validity, or in the case of Mr. Henninger and his most recent screed, the lack of validity.

Mr. Henninger takes the position of most right wing fanatics, that government spending must be cut or else the entire country will collapse.  He starts out with a totally erroneous statement. 

There is general agreement on at least two things about the current U.S. economy. It is emerging from the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and its debt level is unsustainable.

No, there is not general agreement that the current debt level is unsustainable.  In fact other than ideologically driven economists no one else is all that concerned about the current debt level of the United States.  Willing lenders have driven the interest rates on U. S. debt to their lowest levels ever.

But Mr. Henninger appeals to expertise, in this case economist Alberto Alesina.

The path back to stronger growth, argues Mr. Alesina, is a combination of significant, permanent cuts in public spending and relatively small tax increases, if any.

Gosh, that doesn’t sound right, and it is not, as real world data shows.  Here is what Mr.

Alesina (speaking in the third person) said in 2010 response to criticism of his so-called research into the issue.

A recent paper by Jayadem and Konzcal [sic] (2010) argues that Alesina and Ardagna’s results do not apply to the current situation because fiscal adjustments on the spending side are expansionary only when they occur when the economy is already expanding. The criticisms of that paper are at best overstated... In addition, what is unfolding currently in Europe directly contradicts Jayadev and Konczal. Several European countries have started drastic plans of fiscal adjustment in the middle of a fragile recovery. At the time of this writing, it appears that European speed of recovery is sustained, faster than that of  the U.S., and the ECB has recently significantly raised growth forecasts for the Euro area.

Well, 3 years later there is the empirical test of the above words.  They turned out to be totally, completely, utterly fallacious.  Wrong.  Incorrect.  In error. 

But why then would a writer of opinion for the Wall Street Journal choose Mr. Alesina as his authority?  The obvious answer, there is no real, legitimate authority that supports his view, so a bogus expert is the only alternative.

Uh Oh – Sarah Palin Picks on Somebody Who Can Actually Fight Back

Big Mistake Sarah

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is what might be described as a ‘rhetorical bully’.  Ms. Palin’s shtick is to rather nastily attack people who either cannot resond or choose not to respond.  President Obama is her biggest target, and he and other Democrats really don’t care enough to pay much attention to the former VP nominee, so Ms. Palin can say what she wants without fear of something coming back at her.  And when Ms. Palin does say things, she does it on social media forums, or in front of friendly audiences.  No fights in the arena for her.

But recently Ms. Palin took on Republican advisor Karl Rove.  Not a good idea.  Mr. Rove is like one the Hall of Fame members of snarky attacks, and when you take on Karl Rove you get it right back atcha.   Ms. Palin suggested that Karl, without actually naming him (that would be too courageous) should run for office himself if he didn’t like the candidates.  Karl’s response,

Rove also served back a not-so-subtle dig of his own at Palin.

“I appreciate her encouragement that I’d go home to Texas and run for office,” Rove said. “I would say this, though, I don’t think I’m a particularly good candidate, sort of a balding, fat guy. And second of all, I’d say if I did run for office and won, I’d serve out my term. I wouldn’t leave office mid-term.”

Ouch.  Here’s some friendly advice Gov. Palin.  Go back to attacking people who don’t respond.  Really, it’s what you do best and you should not try to play in the big leagues with a minor league swing. 

Very Strange – Washington Post Explodes with Two, Count Em, Two Pieces of Real Journalism

Maybe It’s Just a Relapse Into a Past Condition

This Forum has been highly critical of the Washington Post.  This once great newspaper is trying to stay economically viable by courting the ultra right wing, and so it has dropped much of the journalism that made it the standard of integrity and investigation and added a bunch of shrill right wing shills.  But the Post has a deep DNA of investigative reporting and every now and then that heritage asserts itself.

Such is the case recently with two actually pieces of real reporting.  The first was an in-depth look at medical care, or lack there of in the NFL.   The story was well written, factual and even handed.  It led readers to the conclusions that doctors routinely ignore the medical well being of NFL players in order to get them out on the field.

A second story illustrated the horror of the Great Recession in the United States by showcasing the desperate lives of people in Rhode Island.  These are people who are kept from severe hunger only by the presence of the SNAP program, what used to be called food stamps.  The story is too discouraging, too disheartening, too bleak to be quoted at length.  But here is the gist of it.

Three years into an economic recovery, this is the lasting scar of collapse: a federal program that began as a last resort for a few million hungry people has grown into an economic lifeline for entire towns. Spending on SNAP has doubled in the past four years and tripled in the past decade, surpassing $78 billion last year. A record 47 million Americans receive the benefit — including 13,752 in Woonsocket, one-third of the town’s population, where the first of each month now reveals twin shortcomings of the U.S. economy:

So many people are forced to rely on government support.

The government is forced to support so many people.

To Conservatives this is Barack Obama’s fault, he being the “Food Stamp President”.  But no one, not even the most radical of the right wing can deny that the Great Recession is something that George Bush and the Republican Administration created, that Mr. Obama came to office AFTER the economic collapse.

The Conservative solution is to cut these benefits, that this will somehow spur the recipients to get jobs and reduce their reliance on government programs.  But the Conservatives who advocate this live warm comfortable lives of plenty, and have no idea of the suffering of those who do not.  They cannot conceive of people being out of work because there are no jobs.  History will judge these Conservatives harshly.

Tax Policy Center Says Republican Budget Plan Would Have $5.7 Trillion in Tax Cuts, Most Going to the Wealthy

Gee, Tell Us Something We Did Not Know

A part of the Paul Ryan/Republican budget plan is to cut tax rates for the wealthy folks from about 40% to 25%.  Here’s what a non-partisan tax think tank has to say about it.

The tax plan embedded in the House Republican budget would cut taxes by $5.7 trillion over the next decade, with the benefits flowing disproportionately to very wealthy households, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year would benefit the most from the GOP tax plan, the analysis shows, reaping an average $400,000 tax break that would send their after-tax income soaring by nearly 20 percent. . . .

Aides to Ryan and Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) did not immediately respond to the analysis. 

No No No Republicans would say.  They plan to ‘reform’ the tax system so that revenues would be the same.  How do they plan to do this, we don’t know.  They won’t say.

The budget, drafted by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), proposes to make up the revenue lost to those changes through an overhaul of the tax code that would eliminate existing tax breaks and deductions.

But the budget leaves those details to the House Ways and Means Committee, 

But that is what in the Dictionary of Realism is called “pie in the sky”.

Urban Institute resident fellow Howard Gleckman questions whether it is possible to replace all that cash.

“Could Ways & Means find $5.7 trillion in tax preferences? It is hard to imagine,” Gleckman writes, noting that such a large sum would require a 30 percent reduction in existing tax breaks.

“Because the rate cuts are so regressive,” Gleckman continues, “House Republicans would have to heavily skew offsetting tax increases to high-income households if they want to keep the distribution of taxes roughly what it is today. And that will be another heavy lift.”

The good news in all this, the fiscal alchemy that is Paul Ryan is finally beginning to be exposed.  And once it is maybe there can be a serious debate on taxes and tax reform, something the rest of us want but also something Republicans will want to avoid at all costs.

European Economic Managers – If They Can Do the Wrong Thing They Will Do the Wrong Thing

Making Depositors Bail Out the Cypriot Banks

Lost in all of the news about the stupidity of European policy makers who are destroying some European economies in order to save them is the announcement that the European Union will bail out the Cypriot Banking system.  Well that news would have been lost except for this.

Under an emergency deal reached early Saturday in Brussels, a one-time tax of 9.9 percent is to be levied on Cypriot bank deposits of more than 100,000 euros, or $130,000, effective Tuesday. That will hit wealthy depositors — mostly Russians who have put vast sums into Cyprus’s banks in recent years. But smaller deposits will also be taxed, at 6.75 percent, meaning that the banks will be confiscating money directly from retirees and ordinary workers to help pay the tab for the 10 billion euro bailout or $13 billion.

The sanctity of the banking system is, well, sacrosanct  Until now depositors have not suffered from the fact that those managing the banking system in European countries like Spain have really messed up the entire thing.  But if the European action holds, depositors will be paying for the mistakes of men and women the depositors had no control over, the bankers.

And all of this brings the world back to 1933, and the term ‘bank holiday’ rears its ugly head.

The government also extended a bank holiday that was put in place to try to stop a run on the banks. The holiday was supposed to end Monday night. Now, banks will not be opening their doors Tuesday, as planned. There was talk that they might not open Wednesday, either.

A bank holiday is really a holiday for your money, it doesn’t do any work, it just sits in the bank where nobody can touch it. 

And who in the U. S. endorses such a policy?  Why conservatives of course.

“This is the first time that senior creditors have taken a loss in a euro zone bank rescue,” said Adam Lerrick, a sovereign debt expert at the American Enterprise Institute who has long argued that debt-heavy countries in Europe must make private investors — including bank depositors, if need be — share the cost of bank bailouts. “It prevented the insolvency from being transferred from the banking system to the government.”

 Ah, yes, the American Enterprise Institute, is there any  policy position these people can’t get right?

The good news, everyone living today who hasn't lived through a run on a banking system is in for a front row seat to a phenomena everyone thought had been cured and done away with decades ago.  Thanks European policy makers, you are making history come alive.

SAC Capital Advisors is One of the Nations Most Successful Investment Advisory Firms – And Now We Know Why – They Cheat

And Incredibly, They Got Caught

The Investment Businesses in the last election cycle moved away from President Obama in a big way.  They felt that he was too mean to them, to eager to regulate them and not willing to leave them alone.  Mr. Obama didn’t understand that the investment industry was capable of self-regulation because they were such moral, decent and upright people.

So now it turns out that one of the investment advisory firms that performed so well did so because they cheated the system.

SAC Capital Advisors LP, one of the nation's most successful investment firms, will pay a record $616 million penalty to settle two insider-trading cases, including what authorities called the most lucrative such scheme ever.

The SAC settlements—for $602 million
 and $14 million—do "not preclude any such
[future insider trading] charges at all against
any person, including Steven Cohen, who's not
named as a defendant in these cases,"
said George Canellos, the SEC's acting enforcement chief.

Gosh, pay a fine, promise never to do it again and there you go.  Off to office to attract more investors with the promise that this time they will do it within the spirit and letter of the law not get caught.

So far no one has gone to jail, or even been charged.  But one can hope, can't one.

In a related story, Bonnie and Clyde, two of America's most successful entrepreneurs admitted they robbed banks.  The pair said they hoped that he fact that they made a lot of money, contributed heavily to Conservative causes and only killed a few people would not cause negative feelings about them, or in any way suggest they should be put in jail.

When asked why they robbed banks Bonnie said they thought about become investment advisers or starting a hedge fund, but realized that they just were not that desperate for money, or willing to compromise what little integrity they possessed.

Harvard Law School Grad, U. S. Senator and Extreme Conservative Ted Cruz Doesn’t Know the Constitution

Harvard Must Be So Embarrassed – the Rest of Us Sure Are

Last week saw everyone upset because newly minted Texas Senator Ted Cruz was abusive to Sen. Diane Feinstein of California.  Sen. Feinstein had the temerity to introduce and supports legislation which banned assault rifles.  Mr. Cruz opposed this, as is his right, but his opposition was grounded in Constitutional law.  Mr. Cruz castigated Sen. Feinstein about not understanding that the Constitution was absolute in allowing every conceivable weapon to be owned by the public.

In his mind, the Bill of Rights allows no regulation by Congress.  But such a belief is so contradicted by over 200 years of law that one wonders if Mr. Cruz has ever set foot in a law school, practiced law or has any idea of what the history of  Constitutional law is.  Apparently Mr. Cruz thinks the Constitutional right to free speech cannot be limited by Congress.  But a person cannot commit perjury and claim immunity under the free speech doctrine, nor can a person engage in libel or slander, or cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.  Really, it’s in all the law books.

Or apparently Mr. Cruz thinks that Freedom of Religion cannot be regulated by Congress.  But that freedom does not mean using illegal drugs in religious ceremonies, engaging in polygamy or sacrificing virgins (of either gender).  Does Mr. Cruz have no idea of any of this?

Every item in the Bill of Rights is subject to regulation, no freedom is absolute.  But Mr. Cruz must have been absent from law school the years they went over those concepts.  So how ashamed must Harvard be of its grad who is now in the U. S. Senate?

Race Car Driver/Commentator Michael Waltrip Make a Mean Statement Involving Sarah Palin

Ms. Palin is Highly Offended – But Why?

Apparently former VP candidate and resigned Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin sits around the house and monitors every time someone invokes her name in a manner that offends her.  Something like that happened just recently.

 . . . two-time Daytona 500 winner Waltrip used the term "master strategery" instead of "strategist" while trying to describe Brad Keselowski's crew chief Paul Wolfe. Realizing the error, Waltrip then incorrectly associated the term with the former Alaska governor and said it was "Palin strategery."

Now we’re not sure what any of that meant, but apparently Ms. Palin was highly offended.

While Palin also used the word in a December 2010 appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, she clearly believed Waltrip's reference to her during the NASCAR race in Las Vegas was misguided.

Tweeted Palin: "Hey Waltrip, final lap & you still don't have your facts right. Get some "strategery" and check your facts before you shoot off your mouth."

And apparently Ms. Palin was ignorant of the fact that actually Michael Waltrip was a fan.

Sarah and Michael in Happier Times

But the message to Ms. Palin here is to do one of two things.  Either get a thicker skin, you can afford a new one with all the money you are now making off your political fame, or lose the snarky rhetoric that you use.  Really, if you want  people to be nice to you then you need to be nice to them, that’s in the Bible,  meaning you should already know that.

And just to prove the "I can dish it out but I can't take it, boo hoo" attitude of Ms. Palin it should be noted that she went to CPAC and delivered a very personal attack on the President and some other folks.  But that's okay, in the Palin world she is allowed to say or do anything, but no one is allowed to even look askance at her.  Hey, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen (and no that is not meant in a sexist way, it is meant in a Harry Truman way).

[Editor’s note:  Because he is highly caustic and snarky to others The Dismal Political Economist has no problem with anyone being that way back to him.  In fact he would like it because it meant someone noticed him.]