In Florida the Failure of the State to Support Medicaid Expansion Could Cost Business $146 million a Year

Republicans Say They Support Business – They Just Don’t Act to Support Business

In Florida the state legislature, controlled by Republicans, is leaving town.  They are also leaving billions of dollar of federal health insurance aid on the table as they decided to deny low income workers access to Medicaid, access that would be paid initially by the Federal government and ultimately 90% by the Feds. 

The cost to businesses in the state could be substantial.

Part of the law that remained in place requires businesses with more than 50 full-time employees to provide health insurance coverage to anyone working more than 30 hours a week. Many people in agriculture, tourism and hospitality would have been eligible for an expanded Medicaid program.

But with no Medicaid expansion, those workers must either get health insurance from their employers, or they can turn to a federal health exchange to purchase insurance.

If they use a federal exchange, their bosses will be penalized.

And the fines are steep.

In Florida, about 400,000 people who would have qualified for Medicaid expansion are eligible to purchase insurance on exchanges.

If just one employee goes on the exchange, business owners are required to pay a fine of $2,000 for each of their full-time employees (minus the first 30). In a company of 200, that could translate into a fine of $340,000.

In total, Florida employers could face at least $145.7 million in federal penalties per year, according to tax preparation service Jackson Hewitt.

Of course the major rationale by Republicans is that they do not want health care coverage for the lousy, lazy stinking poor.

Some Republican lawmakers went as far as to characterize childless adults as people who could get insurance, if only they weren't so lazy. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, said the group was too busy playing a Grand Theft Auto video game to get a job. His father, Senate President Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, said he had little concern for "somebody who is an adult and chooses to sit on the couch."

And speaking the lazy, no good, shiftless citizens of Florida who sit around and talk and do little of value and get government paid health insurance, we think that more likely describes the Republicans in the Florida legislature. 

If the shoe fits . . . .

West Virginia Proposes a Great Program for School Lunches for Everyone – And Naturally Some Republicans Wants to Mess It Up

Adding Kids to the List of People Republicans Hate

The idea of providing free or reduced cost school lunches to children of low income parents is a terrible idea.  It is terrible because it stigmatizes those students and devotes resources to administer such a program that could be better used elsewhere.  What should be done is to have all school lunches free to students.  This is good economics, good nutrition and good policy.

The lunches would not be free, of course, they would be paid for by the taxpayers.  But in this way the wealthier tax payers would pay more and the system would save the cost of administration.  It seems West Virginia may be moving in this direction.

The bill — the first of its kind in the nation — would create a partnership between private donations and public funds to make breakfast and lunch available for free to every student, kindergarten through high school senior, in West Virginia. It’s based on a model program in Mason County that’s improved attendance and decreased discipline problems, according to the school district’s food service director.

So what’s the problem.  Well some jerk of a state legislator wants the program and wants to put kindergartners and grade school children to work.

West Virginia state Del. Ray Canterbury (R-Greenbrier) (Bob Bird/AP)

I think it would be a good idea if perhaps we had the kids work for their lunches: trash to be taken out, hallways to be swept, lawns to be mowed, make them earn it,” said Ray Canterbury, a Republican from Greenbrier and a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates, 

And if this interferes with school, well that’s okay with this Neanderthal who apparently never mentally got past the first grade.

“If they [students] miss a lunch or they miss a meal they might not, in that class that afternoon, learn to add, they may not learn to diagram a sentence, but they’ll learn a more important lesson,” Canterbury explained. (Note to Canterbury: As a parent, I can tell you that they’re not teaching kids how to diagram sentences in many schools these days.)

Now child labor laws have protected children since the 1930’s. And the idea that six, seven and eight year olds, or even 12 or 13 year olds should have to work is appalling.   But apparently Republicans think that child protection is just too much interference in the economy, and so they have a neat idea of how to put children back to work.  It’s simple kids, work or starve.

Harvard Economist Niall Ferguson Has to Apologize For Stating His True Feelings

An Apology – But No Explanation

Finally, finally we have the reason why Keynesian economics is a failure (despite its incredible success).  Harvard economist(?) and scholar(???) Niall Ferguson explained to a group of investors that the problem was Keynes’s sexuality and life style and that he talked "poetry" with his wife.

The Answer:  Niall Ferguson
The Question:  What does the face of bigotry and ignorance look like?

. . . Ferguson appeared to allude to a theory that Keynes's long-term economic theories were flawed because he was gay and had no children. "Keynes was a homosexual and had no intention of having children. We are not dead in the long run … our children are our progeny. It is the economic ideals of Keynes that have gotten us into the problems of today," Roberts wrote in his notes of Ferguson's remarks.

Another reporter, Tom Kostigen of Financial Advisor, gave a longer account. Kostigen wrote that Ferguson had also made mention of the fact that Keynes had married a ballerina, despite his gay affairs. "Ferguson asked the audience how many children Keynes had. He explained that Keynes had none because he was a homosexual and was married to a ballerina, with whom he likely talked of 'poetry' rather than procreated," Kostigen wrote. He added that the audience at the event went quiet when the remarks were uttered.

Mr. Ferguson has issued one of the strongest apologies one can say,

He added: "I should not have suggested – in an off-the-cuff response that was not part of my presentation – that Keynes was indifferent to the long run because he had no children, nor that he had no children because he was gay. This was doubly stupid. First, it is obvious that people who do not have children also care about future generations. Second, I had forgotten that Keynes's wife Lydia miscarried."

but his claims that he is not “anti-gay” rings hollow. 

Ferguson insisted he was not anti-gay. "My disagreements with Keynes's economic philosophy have never had anything to do with his sexual orientation. It is simply false to suggest, as I did, that his approach to economic policy was inspired by any aspect of his personal life. As those who know me and my work are well aware, I detest all prejudice, sexual or otherwise," he said.

Now we don't know Mr. Ferguson, but it is hard to believe that anyone who knows him would conclude that he detests prejudice, particularly against the gay community.  (That poetry remark is straight out of the "I hate gays and they are a bunch of sissies who deserve nothing" textbook of Bigotry and Hatred, Santorum Publishing Co., East Ignorance, MS)

Thoughts uttered like he did do not come randomly, they come out of a deeply held belief that is suppressed until it finally is regurgitated and spewed into the open because of the intense pressure to display ignorance, prejudice and bitterness that people like Mr. Ferguson have.  For a person who claims to ‘detest all prejudice, sexual and otherwise’ he sure has a funny way of saying it.  (We expect him to proclaim soon that “some of my best friends are gay”).

Of course, the total lack of any relationship between one’s lifestyle, sexual orientation and economic philosophy is so great that it needs no comment.  The only thing that is noteworthy here is how despicable the opponents of modern economic theory are, and how lacking in substance are their arguments that they must default to ‘gay baiting’ in order to somehow try and make a point.

First Ted Cruz, then Reinhart and Rogoff and now Niall Ferguson, can Harvard live with the shame and embarrassment?  Probably so, the reservoir of arrogance there is so great almost nothing can shame or embarrass the school.  As for the fact that Mr. Ferguson is a self admitted “doubly stupid’ person, well, won’t the great University be proud to know that’s what they have in their ranks.  We suspect Mr. Ferguson is not the only one of his ilk.

Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell Just the Latest Politician to be Bought and Paid For

Tempting to Target Republicans – But This Practice Cuts Across Party and Philosophical Lines

UPDATE:  It turns out a whole bunch of Virginia officials got all sorts of nice gifts and free rides on the corporate jet from Star Scientific.   But we are certain there was no ‘quid pro quo’ here, the company and its owners just are great friends with the Virginia Governor, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce and the like.  And everybody knows good friends provide free travel on the corporate jet for their friends. 

The scandal that is plaguing Virginia Republican Governor Robert McDonnell just won’t go away, and in part it is because Mr. McDonnell won’t let it go away.  Instead of admitting mistakes and giving back the money and benefits the Governor got from a wealthy Virginia businessman, Mr. McDonnell just persists in making things worse.

The issue that triggered everything, including a current FBI investigation is the payments and perks the family of Mr. McDonnell got from Star Scientific and its CEO, Jonnie R. Williams, Jr.

The Washington Post in late March that Star Scientific chief executive Jonnie R. Williams Sr. paid the $15,000 catering tab at Cailin McDonnell’s June 2011 wedding.

The Governor’s explanation for this and things like the use of fancy cars, travel in private jets etc is that, well, he has a lot of friends.

“I’ve been blessed to have a lot of friends,” he said. “And Mr. Williams and his wife, Celeste, have been family friends for four or five years. But I think it’s important for the people of Virginia to know nothing has been done with regard to my relationship with Mr. Williams or his company, Star Scientific, to give any kind of special benefits to him or his company.”

Of course, nothing special for Mr. Williams or his company includes this.

Three days before the wedding, first lady Maureen McDonnell traveled to Florida to address a group of investors about Star’s supplement, sold under the brand name Anatabloc. The governor and wife later hosted a luncheon at the mansion to mark the product’s arrival in stores.

which the Governor says is just part of his job.  And besides, he whines his wife is not getting paid. (other than the free housing and huge benefits that are paid for by the good citizens of Virginia)

“My wife is the first lady,” he said. “You know how much she gets paid? Zero. She’s a volunteer. She’s done a very good job as first lady.”

Gosh, $15k for food for a wedding, and a bunch of other stuff sure looks like getting paid to us.  Besides, in the great state of Virginia it is legal to buy a public official.

Under Virginia law, elected officials may accept gifts of unlimited value if they disclose those worth more than $50.

So the next time any of our Old Dominion friends need something from government, well, just provide the food for a public official’s wedding and there you are.

Oh and the Attorney General is also involved here.  Seems he invested in the company and just forgot, forgot to disclose that.  Sorry about that, no problem, HE FORGOT.

The Inevitable Results of Failed Austerity Policy in Europe – The Rise of Far Right Ultra Nationalist Parties

Uh Last Century This Did Not Turn Out Well

Politics and economics are intertwined, and change in one area have a huge impact on the other area.  If economic policy results in deprivation, particularly for the lower income working class those individuals will turn to extremists.  In Europe in the 20^th century this meant the rise of Fascism, and World War II.

These expected results are playing out in Greece, where an ultra nationalist party is stoking fear and hatred to gain power.  And now it is happening in Britain, where the UKIP Party (really the KKK but in a much more refined mode, this is Britain after all) made a major showing in the local elections just held in that country.

Ukip, the populist anti-EU party, has sent tremors through Britain’s political establishment, winning seats on councils across the country and picking up 23 per cent of the vote.

With 32 of 34 councils declared, the UK Independence party had added 136 seats taking votes from all parties and securing a foothold in local government in areas where it had previously been almost non-existent.

To call UKIP populist is a mistake.  These are men and women who are anti-immigrant and anti-Europe, and who want to preserve Britain for the Anglo-Saxon people and send the rest of the populace packing.  They would pursue a policy of class hatred and an economic policy of reducing and maybe eliminating any government benefits for low income families.  They hate everybody who are not themselves.

These people prosper in bad economic times, and they greatly prosper when those bad times are not alleviated by government (and in this case are exacerbated by government).  The call will be for the ruling Conservative party in Britain to move rightward. 

No good can come of this, and charity and tolerance in Britain may well be a casualty of the egregiously wrong economic policy of the Conservatives and their Chancellor George Osborne. In Europe France is becoming more and more of a risk, smaller countries like Slovenia are beginning to be troublesome, Greece is defining economic success as the depression there slowing down and now Britain could become a political basket case.  Europe ain't fixed, it's getting more broken every day.

Alex Tabarrok on Tyler Cowens’ Marginal Revolution Forum Demonstrates that Krugman (and the rest of us) Are Right

Even As He Says Krugman et. al. are Wrong

Those who would deny basic economic theory like the Keynesian model and the zero interest bound of monetary policy have some new data.  Alex Tabarrok charts economic growth against fiscal stimulus and has this graph. The red line is a measure of fiscal stimulus, the green line a measure of economic growth.

He then reaches two conclusions.  The first is that the experience in the 1990’s shows contractionary fiscal policy did not contract the economy.

I assume that by very bad policy what Krugman means is a policy that is likely to have very bad effects. Hence, I have added to Krugman’s graph the growth rate of real gdp (annual rate). I don’t see the very bad effects. In the 1990s growth was strong even while “austerity” was increasing (falling red line). 

And the second conclusion is that contractionary policy after the 2009 Stimulus did not impact the economy. 

More recently, we have seen a big increase in austerity according to Krugman and his measure but although there has been no boom, growth has remained modest.

These are, of course, totally erroneous conclusions, ones driven by ideology and a desire to reach a pre-determined determination.  Take the 1990’s.  What the chart shows is the normal and reasonable relationship between fiscal activity and economic growth after a full fledged recovery has taken place.  As the economy grew under President Clinton, government spending relative to the economy was able to decline.  Less help was needed for the unemployed and lower government spending relative to the economy was the right prescription.  The private sector did fine without stimulus, and the result was a balanced budget.

Far from contradicting Krugman and others, the chart shows just what he says should and will happen.  That as the economy recovers as a result of large deficit spending, proper policy will then be to bring the deficit down.  Once stimulated properly, the economy does quite nicely on its own, thank you very much.

For the current recovery the charts also confirms Keynesian economics.  Note the almost exact correlation between the Stimulus and the resumption of economic growth in 2009-10.  Then note how when the Stimulus was prematurely ended the growth was truncated.  Current policy is a fairly large deficit by historical standards, but not nearly enough stimulus to make the economy grow.  Hence the flattened growth line after mid 2010.

So no, reality, the world objective people live in says that basic Keynesian economics is sound, the policy prescriptions are correct and that current monetary policy is ineffective.  To reach an otherwise conclusion one has to move outside reality, as apparently Mr. Tabarrok does.

Sigh, so much ignorance, so little time.  Sigh

  

Religious Leaders Fight a Pentagon Policy Against Religion – A Policy That Doesn’t Exist

If a Person is Deeply Religious Doesn’t That Mean They Have Moral Scruples and Have to Tell the Truth?

Apparently the latest battle against religion is taking place in the Armed Forces.  The Defense Department has said it will persecute, prosecute and court martial soldiers for sharing their faith.  Except of course, the Defense Department has said no such thing.

But the Department of Defense on Thursday sought to debunk that speculation, saying that while aggressive proselytizing is barred, evangelization is still permitted and the rights of all believers — and non-believers — will be protected.

"The U.S. Department of Defense has never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen said in a statement. "The Department makes reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrates the religious diversity of our service members."

"Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one's beliefs (proselytization)," Christensen added.

Ok, we see the problem here.  Freedom of religion for some is the freedom to force their views on others, and that is what the Pentagon is trying to stop.  Gosh, how anti-relgious of them.

And then there is this made up offense.

 when some soldiers and chaplains complained that they were blocked from logging onto the website of the Southern Baptist Convention, Christian conservatives accused the military of targeting evangelicals for censorship.

Even after it turned out that the problem lay with a glitch in the SBC's own website, the Family Research Council and others still insisted the incident revealed a troubling pattern of military antipathy to Christians — a charge that critics said was akin to crying wolf.

Now one would think that people who claim to be very religious would be the first to try to find truth, and would be first in line to admit when they had made an error.  But if one thought that about Conservatives, one would be wrong, wouldn’t one.

This November Gives Thanks That Michael Mukasey Is No Longer Attorney General

And Give Hope That Someday He Will Leave the U. S. and Reside in a Totalitarian Regime That Suits Him

The anti- Constitutionalists, those folks who don’t believe in basic human rights keep trying to make the Boston Marathon tragedy a case for their position that no, those suspected of a crime do not have any rights if the government decides they have no rights.  The latest to join the fray, former Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Mr. Mukasey’s position is that the captured suspect did not have any rights, because when the FBI was questioning him it is was not in connection with his being a suspect but in connection with getting information.  Take a look at this twisted logic.

Of course, Mr. Tsarnaev could have chosen not to talk to intelligence interrogators, or chosen to lie to them. But that is what he would have been exercising: a choice, not a right.

Uh Mike, if you have a choice to do something it means you have the right to do it.  Really, think about if you can manage an intelligent thought process.

Mr. Mukasey advocates questioning the suspect for months,

Ideally, such intelligence questioning would have continued for a long period, probably months, so that interrogators could try to substantiate the information they obtained, then double back and ask more questions based on what they found. Intelligence-gathering is an incremental process, at best.

Now maybe Mr. Mukasey also means that during these months Mr. Tsarnaev would have been allowed to go free because in the U. S. the government cannot incarcerate a person without making a formal charge of a crime.  Yes we know that is stupidly insane that the government should have let Mr. Tsarnaev go free, but when one views the other logic and statements by the former AG such a position on his part seems possible.

To his credit Mr. Mukasey admits that the suspect could not be tried as an enemy combatant.  But what he really wants is to deny basic rights to people because they are suspected of committing odious crimes.

Regrettably, it appears that here we must fall back to the Obama administration's frequently articulated concern, always presented in overarching moral terms, that America must prove to a constantly doubting world that the U.S. can follow the law even—especially—when it confers rights on unlovely folk like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and even if those rights don't quite exist. 

And our response to Mr. Mukasey is that yes, the world needs to know that the U. S. is a country  of laws, and that it can follow the law even when the law confers rights on a person suspected of the heinous crime that took place in Boston.  When the world stops getting that message from America the terrorists and the totalitarians like Mr. Mukasey have won.

European Central Bank Admits Austerity Policy Failed – Cuts Interest Rates

But the Policy Of Cutting Interest Rates Will Also Fail – Don’t These People Know Nothing?

The recognition that European economic policy has been a total and complete failure got another boost as the European Central Bank cut its lending rate to commercial banks by 25 basis points. 

Facing diminished prospects for an economic recovery in the recession-bound bloc, the ECB cut its main refinancing rate by a quarter percentage point to 0.50 per cent and Mario Draghi, ECB president, said the bank remained “ready to act if needed”.

The reaction all around the world – So What.  See if the rate was .75% cutting it to .50% is not going to make any difference to anyone.  If banks were not borrowing from the ECB and loaning out the money when they could borrow for 75 basis points, they are not going to change their ways when the rate drops to 50 basis points. 

So why did the ECB do this?  Well one theory might be that they wanted to send a message to other policy making leaders that no, what Europe has been doing is not working and you need to change.  But more likely is that the bank is under pressure to do something, and that the people who make the decisions are just to ignorant to know that what they did is useless. 

Yeah, that sounds more like it.

Goldwater Institute’s Christina Corieri Shows How to Save Taxpayers $609 Billion

And an Extra Bonus – Take Health Care Away From the Working Poor

About the only word left to describe conservative opposition to Medicaid expansion is “mean”.  In the mistaken guise of saving taxpayers money, a person at the Goldwater Institute, Christina Corieri, advocates the 12 states that are undecided on accepting Medicaid expansion to reject it.  Her argument,

Using figures compiled by Kaiser and our own research at the state level, the Goldwater Institute estimates that the federal tab for Medicaid expansion has been reduced by more than $424 billion in new federal spending over the next eight years thanks to the 18 states that have already opted out. If the 12 still-undecided states also decide to opt out, there will be an additional $185 billion in savings.

The more than $609 billion in total savings from these 30 states would represent over 50% of the expected federal spending on the Medicaid expansion.

So what’s the problem here, other than the fact that  people who would be eligible for Medicaid expansion, and their children would not get health care?

In 2014, at least 18 states and the District of Columbia will provide coverage to all adults with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty line. That currently would translate to coverage for all individuals with incomes below about $15,000 and for households of four people receiving less than about $31,000.

Without Medicaid expansion many of those people would get some health care, primarily in the most inefficient manner such as Emergency Room treatment for non-emergencies and for treatment because a disease or injury has progressed far more than it would have or should have had decent affordable care been available. 

But how would that care be paid for?  Easy question, by the taxpayers in the form of higher insurance premiums, higher co-pays, higher deductibles and lower health care benefits.  So opposing Medicaid expansion may not save a lot of money, but it will cause tremendous misery both health wise for the working poor and money wise for the rest of the population.  Of course for Conservatives that is just an extra bonus.

As for Ms. Corieri, she works for a think tank and while we have no knowledge of the benefits she gets along with her salary, it is almost certain that she had wonderful employer supported health insurance, fantastic health insurance, and no worries at all about her health care. She just wants to deny basic benefits to other people.

The Wall Street Journal Opinion Page Sinks to a New Low – Andrew Roberts Presents the So-Called Rationale for Pre-Emptive War in the Middle East

Surely The WSJ Cannot Get Anymore Reprehensible Than This

This Forum reads the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal so other people do not have to.  Mass consumption of the articles and editorials that appear there could be dangerous to the national health.  And just when everyone thought they could not get any worse, along comes some historian, Andrew Roberts, to make the case for Israel to make a pre-emptive war against Iran.

The basis for Mr. Roberts position how throughout history nations have correctly and successfully waged pre-emptive war.  Yes he goes back aways, for example the rationale for an Israeli attack on Iran is found in the story of David and Goliath (who knew?)

The Case for Pre-Emptive War, From Goliath to the Dardanelles

. . . In the Middle Eastern context, Goliath ought to have charged down David long before he was able to employ his slingshot and river pebbles to such devastating effect. The Egyptians should have attacked the Hittites as soon as the Egyptians suspected they were developing the chariot as a weapon of war. Had the Mayans and Incas assaulted the conquistadores as soon as they stepped ashore—and thus before the Spaniards could deploy their muskets, horses, metal armor, hand-held firearms and smallpox to crush them—they might not have seen their civilizations wiped out.

and he does cite some more recent examples.  But we wonder why he does not cite the most notable modern example of pre-emptive war, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.  Oh, maybe that didn’t turn out so well for Japan.  And the U. S. pre-emptive attack on Iraq, how’s that working out?  Ah yes, it is pretty easy to make a case for a position if you leave out all of the examples and situations that contradict your position.  

See Mr. Roberts is urging another country, Israel,  not the U. S. to go to war.  This also ignores the several failures of Israeli attacks in the Middle East, like its invastion of Lebannon. Does anyone really believe that Israel can conquer its way to peace in that region?

But not to worry.  There is no danger here to Mr. Roberts or his family.  So he has no problem risking a conflagration for other folks.  But look Mr. Roberts, thanks to the U. S. policy of making military assault weapons available to everyone, you can grab one and go merrily off to the Middle East and lead the charge.  Oh, you think you might be killed.  Yeah, you might.  Rhetoric like yours can get hunreds of thousands of people killed.  In fact it did during the George W. Bush administration.  Check it out, you are a historian and it is in all the new history books.

Republicans Ready to Vote For States to Collect Sales Tax on Internet Sales

Recognizing That Republican Controlled States Need Revenues to Boost Services

The great thing about hypocrites is that one can always count on them to be hypocritical.  Take, for example, the issue of taxes and Republicans and the question of whether or not states can force internet sellers to collect sales tax and remit the tax to the state in which the buyer resides.  This now looks like a done deal, that Congress will give states the power to do just that.

The Marketplace Fairness Act would allow state governments to force Internet retailers to collect sales taxes from their customers and remit the proceeds to state and local governments, just as brick-and-mortar retailers have done for decades. The states would be required to provide free software that would be embedded in retail Web sites to do the calculations.

Could such legislation pass the Senate with its requirements for 60 votes?  Yep it could

The legislation cleared its final procedural hurdle Thursday evening on a bipartisan Senate vote, 63 to 30. Final Senate passage is scheduled for May 6, and that tally is likely to be even more strongly in favor. Earlier test votes won as many as 75 yeses. 

But wait, what about the opposition.

Legislation that would force Internet retailers to collect sales taxes from their customers has put antitax and small-government activists like Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform and the Heritage Foundation in an unusual position: they’re losing.

For years, conservative Republican lawmakers have been influenced heavily by the antitax activists in Washington, who have dictated outcomes and become the arbiters of what is and is not a tax increase. But on the question of Internet taxation, their voices have begun to be drowned out by the pleas of struggling retailers back home who complain that their online competitors enjoy an unfair price advantage.

Once again the media is missing the real story. Republicans have taken over a majority of the states in the last several years.  And facing re-election, these Republicans are slowly realizing that while voters say they want less government, what they really want is better schools, more efficient transportation systems and stronger law enforcement. 

So to get the money to support higher spending Republicans will support collecting sales tax on internet sales, and argue, correctly, that this is not new taxing.

Supporters of the bill include Tea Partyconservatives like Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, and Republican leaders like Senator John Thune of South Dakota. They argue that the bill, which could generate as much as $24 billion in new tax revenues, is not a tax increase at all. It only ensures that taxes already owed are actually paid. Most states collect 4 to 7 percent on retail purchases.

But it will result in higher revenues for state and local governments and higher spending, since no one expects states to reduce taxes to offset the higher state revenues.  And this is good, because better education, better roads and better law enforcement increases economic growth. And as a extra benefit, all of us get to laugh at how once again conservatives go back on their principles in order to get elected and stay in office.

Europe Has a Garbage Problem – No Not Its Economic Policy (Which is Garbage)

A Real Garbage Problem – Like Not Enough of It

In the United States we know how to do everything better than anyone else.  Take our garbage (please) for example.  We dump it in landfills that pollute the ground, water and air.  Or we dump it in rivers and oceans which pollute rivers and oceans.  And we resist any attempt to force us to conserve or produce less garbage, because as Conservatives point out, that reduces our freedom.

In Europe they are also experiencing a problem with garbage, but no, not the same as America.

Brian Cliff Olguin for The New York Times

A trash incinerator. Roughly half 

of Oslo and most of its schools

 are heated by burning garbage.

Across Northern Europe, where the practice of burning garbage to generate heat and electricity has exploded in recent decades, demand for trash far outstrips supply. “Northern Europe has a huge generating capacity,” said Mr. Mikkelsen, 50, a mechanical engineer who for the last year has been the managing director of Oslo’s waste-to-energy agency.

Yet the fastidious population of Northern Europe produces only about 150 million tons of waste a year, he said, far too little to supply incinerating plants that can handle more than 700 million tons. “And the Swedes continue to build” more plants, he said, a look of exasperation on his face, “as do Austria and Germany.”

Wow, so what to do?  Well why not import garbage from the more wasteful, less enlightened.

By ship and by truck, countless tons of garbage make their way from regions that have an excess to others that have the capacity to burn it and produce energy.

“There’s a European waste market — it’s a commodity,” said Hege Rooth Olbergsveen, the senior adviser to Oslo’s waste recovery program. “It’s a growing market.”

As for the U. S., yes we are recycling more, a lot more.  But garbage, well let’s just dump it and let future generations worry about the problem.  You know, the future generations we are so concerned about that we pollute their air, water and ground just to make a few extra bucks for ourselves.

Paul Krugman and the Rest of Us Keynesians Have Won the War on Economic Policy and Austerity

But It Wasn’t a Fair Fight – The Other Side Had No Substance, Only Mindless Faith

The argument over whether or not fiscal austerity is the right economic policy to return the world to a high growth, low unemployment economy is over.  Austerity lost.

The Economic Argument Is Over — Paul Krugman Has Won

Henry Blodget | Apr. 24, 2013, 10:15 AM |

America 1935 or Europe 2013?  We Report, You Decide

Over the course of this debate, evidence has gradually piled up that, however well-intentioned they might be, the "Austerians" were wrong. Japan, for example, has continued to increase its debt-to-GDP ratio well beyond the supposed collapse threshold, and its interest rates have remained stubbornly low. More notably, in Europe, countries that embraced (or were forced to adopt) austerity, like the U.K. and Greece, have endured multiple recessions (and, in the case of Greece, a depression). Moreover, because smaller economies produced less tax revenue, the countries' deficits also remained strikingly high.
 
So the empirical evidence increasingly favored the Nobel-prize winning Paul Krugman and the other economists and politicians arguing that governments could continue to spend aggressively until economic health was restored.
 
And then, last week, a startling discovery obliterated one of the key premises upon which the whole austerity movement was based.
 
An academic paper that found that a ratio of 90%-debt-to-GDP was a threshold above which countries experienced slow or no economic growth was found to contain an arithmetic calculation error.
 
Once the error was corrected, the "90% debt-to-GDP threshold" instantly disappeared. Higher government debt levels still correlated with slower economic growth, but the relationship was not nearly as pronounced. And there was no dangerous point-of-no-return that countries had to avoid exceeding at all costs.
 
The discovery of this simple math error eliminated one of the key "facts" upon which the austerity movement was based.

Ok, Henry Blodgett is not a good source, even though his summary is right on.  He is a disgraced Wall Streeter who was caught flogging bad stock to his brokerage firm’s customers.  But here is another, more credible piece of evidence that the Austerians have lost.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy was one of the leading Austerians, and he took over the Spanish government after Socialists were blamed for the crash.  But he is changing his mind.

The Spanish prime minister, when he took over 16 months ago, attacked bloated budget deficits by cutting spending and raising taxes. The deficit has indeed shrunk under this treatment, yet on Friday, Mr. Rajoy's government is expected to lay out an agenda that tilts away from austerity—putting new priority on spurring growth.

Behind the move is a continued slide in Spain's fortunes. Its jobless rate leapt a full point Thursday, to a depression-like 27.2%, and the central bank sees the economy shrinking 1.5% this year.

Now no one should expect the really radical conservatives to admit they were wrong, and in Britain they will not change course until the next election gets closer.  But given the fact that no country, absolutely zero countries have prospered from the economic policy recommend by conservatives means that the intellectual battle is over. We won, they lost.

CNN Taking Another Trip Down the Road to Oblivion – And It’s Not a Round Trip

A Once Proud Network Becomes a Twice Proud Joke

CNN, the Cable New Network was a great idea.  News would be brought to viewers on a 24/7 basis, and the network would be only news.  With no other programming distractions CNN could devote extensive resources to news coverage, interesting and informative stories and it could present objective reporting in a way other networks could not.

But the implementation of the concept has proved to be too difficult, at least for the gang in charge of the network.  The CNN coverage on the Boston Marathon tragedy is now the stuff of Jon Stewart jokes, and the latest news is that the network wants to revive its unheralded and rightfully dead program Crossfire.  Crossfire, in which commentators and politicians sit around and yell stupid things at each other was killed in large part after Mr. Stewart went on the show and destroyed it.

So apparently CNN now wants to bring back the show in the worst possible way.  A trial balloon has been floated in which one of the most irrelevant commentators on the scene today and one of the most unknown talking heads on the scene today would host the show.

Which one is not Newt?  Anybody?

Earlier this month, news broke that CNN was looking to relaunch Crossfire, the famous debate show that pitted two pundits -- one liberal, one conservative -- against one another on the political issues of the day.

Sources now tell POLITICO that the network is in discussions with former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and former Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter about roles on the show.

"They are talking to Cutter and to Gingrich," a source familiar with the discussions said. "[Cutter] is in discussions; Newt is in discussions too," another source confirmed.

Really!  Is there anyone, left, right or center that doesn’t want Newt Gingrich just to go away, never say another word in public and just leave.  And is there anyone, left, right or center who has ever heard of Stephanie Cutter or has any knowledge of why she should get a gig on TV.  Actually, the fact that she would consider being co-host on a revived Crossfire with Newt Gingrich means that she is unqualified and unsuited for any TV show, or even to host the Ag report from Fargo.

The good news here, maybe a new Crossfire will hasten the demise of CNN, and it can be replaced by a real news cable channel, you know, like CNN before a bunch of buffoons ruined it.

A New York Times Restaurant Review of Saison in San Francisco Says All There is to Say About Eating in America

And Yes, You Will be Nauseous

Food is becoming a hot (pun intended) topic in America as various food writers like Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman gain popularity and credibility  Food should be simple, inexpensive, nourishing and not make a person pre-maturely old and ill.  In short, food should be nothing like what the typical American eats.

Food is also a luxury in some circles, and in fact the more luxurious the better for many people.   Yes if you have a lot of money you can spend it as you wish, but do you really want to flaunt your wealth on hundred dollar dinners when many in America go hungry and have to depend on food banks to feed themselves and their children?  Apparent the answer to that is yes, as illustrated in this restaurant review in the New York Times about a meal at Saison in San Francisco.

I found myself asking a question that comes up increasingly often at the high end of American dining: How much are we willing to pay for an extraordinary dinner?

We are not talking solely about money here, although the tab for a tasting menu at Saison, which starts at $298 before drinks, tax or tip, is not pocket change.

The answer to the question of how much we should pay for an extraordinary dinner is about $10 to 12.00.  That is what it costs for a great meal in a local (usually ethnic) restaurant.  And the good service is thrown in for free.  Not so at Saison

There is the price of being late: the meal will start without you, and, as the Web site puts it, “any missed courses cannot be made up.” The price of changing your plans: Saison charges the full $298 if you cancel with less than three days’ notice. The price of dietary restrictions: Saison accommodates few of them. The price in time and control: dinner lasts more than three hours, and menus are not posted in advance.

So Saison would not pass The Dismal Political Economist’s test, which is would he eat there if someone else were paying.  But the food critic for the Times comes to a different conclusion.

The issue is whether Saison, which has won two Michelin stars along with its share of mixed reviews, delivers enough pleasure to justify the pain. After my latest meal, in the restaurant’s new and costly concrete-chic space south of Market Street, near the ball field where the Giants play, my answer has gone from a reluctant no to a definite yes. 

But he is wrong.  This is not eating, this is greed and gluttony.  And emblematic not of the real America, but of Mitt Romney’s America.  In Mitt's America men and women can pay more than $300 for a meal and not throw up.  That is just one way they differ from the rest of us.  One can easily imagine the boys as they sit around and contemplate the $400.00 check (for $298.00 you only get the house wines, who wants that) and complain about how the 47% are taking their money and ruining their lives.

Oh, and what is so special about Saison?  Well there is this.

At Saison, the most important kitchen tool is the oldest of all: fire. Mr. Skenes calls it “the heart of the restaurant.” Nearly every dish at Saison contains something that was smoked, grilled or roasted by a wood fire.

But if that is what you want the solution is simple.  Go to Asheville, North Carolina, find 12 Bones, (it’s on the river in the arts district) something The Dismal Political Economist does many times in a year despite the distance from his home  and get a half rack of ribs, two sides (select the collards and you will be thanking this site for months)  and a piece of cornbread.  That will set a diner back about $12.00, but with the satisfaction that he or she has eaten something better than Saison will ever serve and been treated far nicer than you ever will be at Saison or any of its ilk.

President Obama has eaten there three times since 2008.  Agree or disagree with his politics, the man knows his BBQ.

12 Bones

No, this is not the restaurant, just a look
at the neighborhood.

We make everything from scratch. Our meats are smoked long & slow over select hardwoods. Our recipes are both old family favorites & new ones we've just come up with. We believe that simple ingredients & lots of care in preparation make the best food. Some things on the menu change daily...if you can't live without a rib flavor you had 2 weeks ago then holler, we'll make it again if you make enough of a fuss!

Thanks for coming in...

Tom, Sabra, and all of our dedicated staff

How can you harass us?

For individual takeout, call either location directly to place an order:

RIVER STORE: 5 Riverside Drive · Asheville, NC 28801 · Phone 828-253-4499 · Fax 828-253-4426

SOUTH STORE: 3578 Sweeten Creek Road · Arden, NC 28704 · Phone 828-687-1395 · Fax 828-687-1396

Bulk catering line 828-606-7880

Senator Lindsey Graham (R, SC) Wants U. S. Troops to Invade Syria

Ok Sen. Graham, You Go First – Pick Up Your Assault Rifle at Any Gun Store

As reports that Syria is using chemical weapons against its people become the news of the day, the question of what, if anything the U. S. should do is now a major topic.  And of course the men who erroneously urged U. S. involvement in Iraq are back full force arguing for U. S. intervention in Syria.

Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) used appearances on the Sunday news shows to push for an intervention in Syria now that the government of President Bashar al-Assad is believed to have used chemical weapons on a small scale. But the lawmakers differ on some of the particulars.

Syria is “going to become a failed state by the end of the year” if we don’t intervene, Graham said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” He warned that “we’re going to start a war with Iran because Iran’s going to take our inaction in Syria as meaning we’re not serious about their nuclear weapons program…. The whole region is going to fall into chaos.”

That’s right, if the U. S. does not invade Syria the whole region will fall into chaos.  Of course, chaos is exactly what would happen if the U. S. did invade Syria, along with massive loss of life, horrendous damage and a destruction of the fiscal situation in this country.  Here’s what is happening now from our last invasion in the Middle East.

___________________________________

 

MEMO FROM BAGHDAD

Clashes in Iraq Carry Worries of a New Civil War

By TIM ARANGO

Published: April 28, 2013

__________________________________________

Senator McCain is somewhat more restrained,

“The American people are weary. They don’t want boots on the ground. I don’t want boots on the ground,” McCain said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “The worst thing the United States could do right now is put boots on the ground in Syria” because it would turn public opinion in the country against us, he said.

But want to support the opposition in Syria.

But, McCain argued, the United States should be arming the rebels, using airstrikes to attack Assad’s forces and create a safe haven for refugees.

And “an international force” must be prepared to “secure those stocks of chemical weapons” should Assad fall, McCain said.

Leaving everyone to wonder just what universe Sen. McCain lives in.  The opposition in Syria is composed of radical Islamists, people who hate and despise the U. S. and who will eventually use any support we give them against us.  (see Ahghanistan, Taliban).  And an international force would be nice, except for the fact that no nation, not a single one has volunteered to be part of that force.

The American people might be fooled again, because 'military involvement' sounds a lot more benign than "let's get a lot of American soldiers killed and wounded and create another terrorist state'.

The President has created a problem for himself by promising unknown action in Syria.  So one can conclude that Republicans and Democrats alike compose a Ship of Fools here. Doing nothing in Syria is terrrible policy.  Doing anything else is worse than that.