Gun Lobby Up in Arms After Learning that D. C. Navy Yard Suspect Was Stopped From Buying an Assault Weapon by Gun Regulations

News That Didn’t Happen, But Could Have

A sidebar of the horrific tragedy at the Navy Yards in Washington is this information from the New York Times.

State Law Stopped Gunman From Buying Rifle, Officials Say

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

WASHINGTON — The gunman who killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday test fired an AR-15 assault rifle at a Virginia gun store last week but was stopped from buying one because state law there prohibits the sale of such weapons to out-of-state buyers, according to two senior law enforcement officials.

Upon learning of this the Gun Lobby did not issue a statement and the following news story is not true.

Washington September 2013 (AP)  The national gun lobby today said that the they believed that the horrific loss of life in the shootings at the D. C. Navy Yard was secondary to the fact that the alleged gunman was denied the right to buy an assault rifle.

“We think that the tragedy of a man being denied his God given, Constitutionally given, and Satan given right to buy as many assault weapons as he wanted is worse than the fact that a bunch of people were gunned down.  Think about it, those people who were  killed had to die knowing that they died by ordinary weapons and not from an assault rifle that they would have wanted to have been killed by.”

The Gun Lobby went on to add that the fact that a great number of additional people would probably have died had the assailant been allowed to purchase an assault rifle is not relevant to the discussion.

“Liberals and bleeding heart freedom haters will try to say that the regulation stopped an even greater slaughter, but that is a pretty steep price to pay for keeping mentally ill persons from owning a weapon of mass killing.  How can any sane or rational person equate probable murder prevention with the inalienable right of a disturbed person to go out and buy an AR 15?”

The responses to the Gun Lobby statement were numerous, but almost all could be paraphrased to say “These people are nuts”.

In Missouri Democrats Demonstrate That They Can Win the Tax and Spend Battles – All They Have to Do is Make Their Case

Something Many Other Democrats Are Afraid to Do

Supposedly it is political poison to be against tax cuts.  But when Republicans in Missouri voted to gut state spending on vital services to support tax cuts, Democratic Governor Jay Nixon took arms against that sea of troubles, and by opposing them, ended them. 

The Missouri House of Representatives failed on Wednesday to override Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of a sweeping tax-cut bill that had inflamed partisan debate and mobilized people in all corners of the state for and against it.

The vote to override his veto wasn’t close.  In the face of pressure a lot of Republicans retreated.

After more than an hour and a half of debate on the floor, 94 members voted in favor of overriding the veto and 67 against it, falling well short of the 109 votes needed to defeat the veto.

How did he do it?  Easy, logic and common sense and good old fashioned campaigning.  There was also a nice dash of hardball politics, something Mr. Obama needs to learn in the coming weeks.

Mr. Nixon, a Democrat, prevailed against a Legislature with Republican supermajorities in both chambers on a core Republican issue. Barnstorming the state through the summer, he argued that the tax cut would decimate financing for education, mental health and other vital services. He scoffed at the Republican argument that the cuts would bring businesses and jobs to the state.

“With the economy we’ve got right now, the thing that employers say to me is, ‘I need trained workers, I need people with math and science backgrounds, I need people that are good in it,'” Mr. Nixon said in an interview last week. “They don’t say to me, ‘Get me a third of a point less on some tax line somewhere.'”

Mr. Nixon enraged some opponents by withholding $400 million in state spending that he said he could not release if the tax cut became law. He successfully stitched together a broad coalition of support from education interests, with more than 100 school boards across the state passing resolutions to sustain the governor’s veto.

And the tea party folks, well they make a lot of smoke, but here there was not much fire.

Hundreds of protesters descended on the Capitol and packed the legislative chambers to push for overrides of the governor’s vetoes. They rallied outside the building before lawmakers gathered. Many wore green T-shirts from the Grow Missouri Coalition, which has been one of the chief advocates calling for an override of Mr. Nixon’s veto. Others wore stickers that read, “I support Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act,” a reference to a bill that would prevent federal gun laws from being enforced in the state.

So yes, common sense can prevail.  It just needs Democrats willing to stand up for their principles.  Are you listening Mr. President?  Well are you? 

Dish Network to Buy Company Called LightSquared and Provide Dish Chairman with $Hundred Million Plus Gain

A Goldmine for the Chairman, A Shaft for Investors

The corporate system is one that should work very well.  Shareholders provide capital and elect a Board of Directors to represent their interests.  The Board hires management to run the company, but the Board is the final authority.  This system of checks and balances should mean that the company is run in a way that maximizes the benefits for the shareholders.

Modern U. S. corporations have corrupted this model.  Basically many corporations have management in de facto or de jure control of the Board of Directors.  This means the corporation is largely run for the benefit of management.  If shareholders make some money also, well fine and dandy, and if they don’t well too bad.

This corruption of the corporate model was on display recently as Dish Network moved to acquire a company called LightSquared, and as a result the Chairman of Dish Network would make several hundred million dollars.

A Dish Network Corp.  director who resigned in recent weeks did so amid a disagreement over the company's handling of a bid for a telecommunications firm that could deliver hundreds of millions of dollars of personal profits to Dish Chairman Charlie Ergen, people involved in the situation said.

The director, Gary Howard, was on a special board committee formed to vet the LightSquared Inc. deal because of a potential conflict of interest on Mr. Ergen's part, the people said. Mr. Ergen in the past year or so bought LightSquared debt at discounts and would personally profit in a Dish purchase of LightSquared, according to court documents and people familiar with the trades.

And what about the other directors.  Oh, there is this.

In the case of Dish, insiders carry particular clout: Mr. Ergen is Dish's largest shareholder. He and five of the board's eight directors are either current or former executives of the company. A seventh director is Mr. Ergen's wife, Cantey Ergen. The eighth, who was on the special committee, is Stephen Goodbarn, the people said. Mr. Goodbarn, who joined the board in 2002, is CEO of a software company he co-founded, Secure64 Software Corp.

But not to worry shareholders, nothing in this deal or anything else prevents you from signing up for the Dish Network at full price.  Just because you are shareholders doesn’t mean the company will charge you extra for services, although they certainly would like to.

University of Alabama Sororities and Fraternities Organize to Vote in Local Election

No Problem Here With That . . . Except

For decades there has been controversy over the voting status of college students.  As temporary residents in the college towns, the question is whether or not they can vote in local elections.  This has largely been decided in favor of the students’ right to vote for local races.  Of course statewide the issue has been raised by Republicans who want to make it very difficult for students to vote at all because Republicans think students don’t vote Republican, but that’s another story.

Melissa Brown/Al.Com

Vans, limousines and at least one bus picked up people along sorority row at the University of Alabama and shuttled them to and from a polling place on the day of a school board election.

So this Forum has no problem with a story in the New York Times about a sort of “political machine” organized by the Greek societies in Tuscaloosa, the home of the University of Alabama.  Except there is this troubling aspect.

The school year at the University of Alabama has barely gotten started, and already the campus has found itself in a charged self-examination on issues of politics, power and race, with the exposure of tenacious segregation among fraternities and sororities drawing national attention.

But the turmoil began some weeks earlier. It raised the specter of the Machine, a secret society representing a league of select and almost exclusively white fraternities and sororities, which has been around for a century or more. Once a breeding ground for state political leaders, the Machine (it has long been known by that nickname) today maintains a solid hold on student government through an effective, and critics say coercive, brand of old-fashioned organization politics.

No the issue is not race, (this is Alabama, what did you expect?).  The issue is secrecy.  Secrecy is the sworn enemy of democracy.  Secrecy is the ally of totalitarianism.  Secrecy sides with corruption and venality.  Secrecy means this group has something to hide. 

And no, there is probably no legal remedy that would force the Alabama “Machine” to come into the cleansing glow of sunlight.  But obviously the members of the “Machine” do need some cleansing.  In shrouding themselves in secrecy they are admitting they are dirty.

Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain Just Hate It That the United States Will Not Be Involved in Another War in the Middle East

Advocates of the Worst Foreign/Military Policy Ever?

Against all odds, and even after the incompetent and inept Obama policy and actions with respect to Syria it is possible, just possible that the whole thing might not turn out too badly.  While it is more likely than not that nothing of significance will happen with Syria’s chemical weapons, there is now the chance that Syria will not use chemical weapons and no U. S. military action takes place.

This is not good enough for the war cheerleaders John McCain and Lindsey Graham.  They are furious, just furious that the U.S. is not committed to military action in the ugly and horrific Syrian conflict.

Sens. McCain and Graham - Asking Why the U. S. Cannot Have Another War in the Middle East - Since the last ones turned out so great.

But McCain and Graham, in a separate joint statement, saw little good in the U.S.-Russia deal.

U.S. allies and enemies alike, they said, will see the accord “as an act of provocative weakness on America’s part. We cannot imagine a worse signal to send to Iran as it continues its push for a nuclear weapon.”

Without a United Nations Security Council resolution that would threaten the use of force for noncompliance by the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, the two senators said, “this framework agreement is meaningless. Assad will use the months and months afforded to him to delay and deceive the world using every trick in Saddam Hussein’s playbook.”

“Is the message of this agreement that Assad is now our negotiating partner, and that he can go on slaughtering innocent civilians and destabilizing the Middle East using every tool of warfare, so long as he does not use chemical weapons?” the senators asked, concluding: “That is morally and strategically indefensible.”

Uh, John and Lindsey, Saddam didn't have chemical weapons, remember?  Oh yes, you never believed that despite the fact that none were ever found.

Now everyone is horrified by the senseless slaughter in Syria.  But everyone except Senators McCain and Graham live in reality world, and in reality world as opposed to where Senators McCain and Graham are, there is little the U. S. can do about this. 

McCain and Graham would have us intervene on behalf of the so-called moderates in Syria.

“The only way this underlying conflict can be brought to a decent end is by significantly increasing our support to moderate opposition forces in Syria,” they said. “We must strengthen their ability to degrade Assad’s military advantage, change the momentum on the battlefield, and thereby create real conditions for a negotiated end to the conflict.”

These moderates of course are in short supply, maybe in non-existent.  Almost all of the forces arrayed against Syria’s Assad are fanatical fundamentalists whose brutality matches that of those they are fighting.  They hate the U. S., they hate Israel and once in power they would probably be just as cruel and brutal as the current regime.

The U.S. armed and aided the Taliban in Afghanistan.  How did that work out?

Mr. Obama Says He Will Not Negotiate Over the Debt Ceiling

If You Close Your Eyes and Meditate You Can Almost Believe Him

Almost all of the blame of the recurring crises in Washington over funding the government and raising the debt ceiling so that the U. S. can borrow money to pay for what it has already spent belongs to Republicans.  They are the ones that continually fight to create a crisis.  But a part of the blame lies with the President.  He has negotiated in the past and so there is every reason to believe he will cave in the future.

And yet now the President is saying he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling.  From the Washington Post.

Obama: I will not negotiate on the debt ceiling

By Aaron Blake, Published: September 16 at 1:11 pm

President Obama on Monday reiterated that he will not negotiate with Republicans over the debt ceiling and called on them to cede the battle over Obamacare and pass a new budget.

"The Affordable Care Act has been the law for three-and-a-half years now," Obama said in a speech at the White House. "It passed both houses of Congress. The Supreme Court ruled it constitutional. It was an issue in last year’s election, and the candidate who called for repeal lost."

Obama said the still-fragile economy is only threatened by the GOP's threats to potentially allow a government shutdown if Obamacare is funded and to not raise the debt ceiling if it doesn't include more spending cuts. Both battles are set to occur in the coming weeks.

"In case there’s any confusion, I will not negotiate over whether or not America keeps its word and meets its obligations; I will not negotiate over the full faith and credit of the United States," Obama said. "Let's stop the threats, stop the political posturing."

Well let’s hope he means it this time.  Really let’s hope that past experience taught Mr. Obama a lesson.  And let’s remember that hoping for something don’t make it come true.

Another Great Idea From the University of Virginia to Destroy American Higher Education, Equal Opportunity and Economic Competitiveness

Make Elite Public Universities Private Schools

When historian can get past the subjective nature of their work and can look objectively at recent American history they will regard the growth of low tuition, state subsidized public colleges as a major factor in the phenomenal economic growth of the middle class in the past World War II era.  The GI Bill and federal aid to higher education opened up the opportunity for a college degree to millions, and their education and training made the U. S. the dominant economy of the last half of the 20^th century.

Historians will also find that the relative decline in America beginning in the late 20^th century was in part caused by the decline in public education and state supported colleges.  Instead of educating the middle class, state schools now educate more and more of the wealthy class, and as for the middle class, they are left with huge student loan debt because taxpayers support lower taxes in place of higher education.

Now the University of Virginia is considering taking the first step that would transform this wonderful elite state university into a private school.

A University of Virginia panel has proposed that the institution break many of its ties with the state government and operate more like a private school.

Such an arrangement — which would need state lawmakers’ approval and likely would meet opposition — would allow Virginia’s flagship public school the freedom to more easily increase tuition and accept more top-tier students from across the country and the world. Although it could increase U-Va.’s prestige and shore up its finances, such a move could also make it more difficult for in-state students to win admission and could significantly raise their tuition.

The state of Virginia has already done its part by reducing its support of UVa.

The 11-page draft report says that change is needed at the university because of “significant, sustained, and permanent decreases in federal and state funding.” Under the proposal, U-Va. would give up much of its state funding, which totaled more than $154 million in 2012-13, or about 6 percent of its $2.6 billion budget. 

And of course University officials deny this would harm the historic mission of UVa, a mission that originated with Thomas Jefferson and his desire that the state provide a great public education for its citizens.

“President Sullivan has no intention or interest in attempting to make U.Va. a private institution,” McCance wrote in an e-mail Wednesday. “She strongly believes and has consistently stated that the University of Virginia has a unique and important mission as a public university and that it embraces this mission and the responsibility of serving the Commonwealth and the nation through that role.”

But no one should be fooled, this is the first step in making UVa private in everything but its name.  And the model will set the stage for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to do the same, and the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and others will be waiting and watching. 

But maybe higher education in America is not that good, after all the idiots that are developing this policy which will further accelerate the decline of this country are all college graduates, and many probably have advanced degrees.  That hasn't smartened them up very much, has it?

Exploding the Myth of the 47% Who Do Not Pay Income Taxes – Heck It’s Not Even 47% Any More

Another Conservative Talking Point Shot to Hell

Conservatives love to distort tax data, well they have to because undistorted data doesn’t support their position.  One of the frequently cited pieces of data is that 47% of all Americans don’t pay income taxes, and the implication is that 47% of Americans are living off the sweat and work and taxes of the rest of the population.  So, Conservatives want to cut taxes for the wealthy and raises taxes for low and middle income families.

Well as the Tax Policy Center now shows (thank to Paul Caron and his wonderful Tax Prof Blog) , this is largely a myth that 47% of Americans don’t pay taxes.  First of all, the 47% is now down to 43%. 

 

And as the graphs shows, about 2/3 of those who don’t pay income taxes pay the regressive payroll tax.  This means they are working but just not making enough money to have to pay income taxes.

 And finally, it turns out that most of the people who do not pay income taxes or payroll taxes are the elderly, the one living on Social Security and little else.  Almost all of these people have worked most of their adult life. 

So no, 47% of Americans are not living off the work of 53% of Americans.  Conservatives just don’t want you to know that, they want you to believe in their fantasy world, not the real one.  Of course facts and data are known for their anti-Conservative bias.

Annals of American Idiocy – Federal Crop Insurance

Celebrating All The Bad Ideas in American History, Politics and Economics

[Editor’s note:  There are innumerable writings about how great America is and what wonderful things have been done in this nation.  This is one of an irregular series whose topics are all of the things America has gotten wrong.] 

Who could not want to support America’s farmers?  These are the families that work hard all year long to bring everyone the best produce and food in the world.  It’s just Pa and Ma and the kids plowing the fields.  What’s not to love?

Of course the above is pure fantasy.  Sure there are family farms, like Dick Thompson in Iowa chronicled by the great NY Times food writer Mark Bittman.

In the mid-’80s he was a co-founder of the Practical Farmers of Iowa(P.F.I.), and between then and his death, he and his wife showed more than 40,000 visitors how a relatively small farm could support a modern family while stewarding the land. Farming in Iowa is not as monolithic as most Easterners believe, but there are not many shining beacons of sustainable agriculture; Thompson was one.

. . .

He kept impeccable records, allowing him to demonstrate to anyone who cared to look that his relatively low-tech and (by Iowa standards) small farm yielded between $150 and $200 more per acre than those of his more conventional neighbors. He knew, and said, that “Every farm is different.” But he also said, “You cannot buy the answers in a bag.” The farmer, in short, has to know the land; there is no one-size-fits-all.

But most farming is done by large agricultural organization and businesses.  And to insure they make money the federal government provides them with subsidized crop insurance.  What’s wrong with this?  Plenty.  Here is Mr. Bittman again.

Take the Federal Crop Insurance program (F.C.I.C.), for example. In 2011, F.C.I.C. paid out nearly $11 billion, a record, due largely to flooding; in the 10 years before that, annual payouts were around $4 billion. In 2012, the effects of drought forced F.C.I.C. to smash the just-set record: payouts were $17.3 billion.

The program itself is flawed, of course; it rewards risky behavior like planting in flood- or drought-prone or easily eroded areas, where crop failure might not come as a surprise but is compensated anyway. Equally important, F.C.I.C. fails to encourage or even acknowledge that farmers who invest in improving their soil — as Thompson did — suffered far less damage in recent years when bad weather hit.

In almost every Midwestern state, in 2012, 80 percent of crop insurance payouts were because of drought; yet those effects can be mitigated by attention to healthy soil, which should be the farmer’s fundamental craft. A new paper by the Natural Resources Defense Council (“Soil Matters”) describes these issues and ultimately recommends that F.C.I.C. “launch a pilot program that reduces premium rates for farmers who apply low-risk/high-reward farming methods to reduce the risk of crop loss.” Think of this as an insurance policy reduction for the equivalent of nonsmokers or safe drivers.

That’s right, since the subsidized insurance program will pay for mismanagement of the land, why not mismanage the land.  And the question should also be raised, why the subsidy?  Everybody else has to pay their own way on insurance, why should tax payers subsidize farmers and encourage them to engage in bad, risky behavior.

If there was private unsubsidized insurance farmers would be forced to engage in land management practices that minimized risk.  And the private insurance companies would work with farmers to see that would happen, the same way private auto insurance companies fight to reduce accidents.

One would think that Conservatives would be leading the charge to end this wasteful and ineffective program that produces bad unintended results.  But of course Conservatives are leading the charge to expand the program and make things worse.  Maybe they can’t help it, making things worse is what modern Conservatism is all about.

Subsidized Federal crop insurance, another chapter in the Annals of American Idiocy.

Another Nail in Coal’s Coffin – Duke Power to End Coal Fired Plants in Indiana

And Unfortunately No Politicians Are going to Provide Relief for Displaced Coal Industry Workers

Coal is dying, which is only fair since burning coal to produce electricity is deadly to humans, plants and animals.  The process of burning coal to produce electricity is being replaced with the huge increase in supplies of natural gas and the less huge increase in alternative energy sources like solar and wind.

This is incremental, of course, and one of the increments is the decision of Duke Power to reach a settlement with the environmental community in Indiana, resulting in an end to using coal in some plants.

Under the settlement, Duke Energy agreed to retire by June 1, 2018, four coal-fired units at its Wabash River Station in West Terre Haute that date to the 1950s and generate a combined 350 megawatts of power.

Duke has also agreed to stop burning coal at a fifth unit at the Wabash River Station by June 1, 2018, and says it is exploring refitting that unit to burn natural gas. The settlement does not prevent it from making such a conversion before the deadline.

Duke spokeswoman Angeline Protogere said a sixth unit is owned by Wabash Valley Power Association and is already powered by synthesis gas.

What all this means is that coal mining and coal mining jobs will continue to decline.  Government has an obligation to attend to the upset in the economies of coal mining communities and to aid the movement away from coal jobs and into other jobs.  But politicians don’t like to spend money they don’t have in areas that don't have a lot of votes, and they do like to lie.  So they will go out into the coal areas of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia and promise to revive and support the industry.  They are lying to get votes.  And after the election they will just walk away from these sparsely populated communities, towns and villages that are scarred environmentally by the mining of coal and scarred economically by the decline of coal.  For those employed in the coal industry, the tragedy just continues.

Update: Lawrence Summers Has Withdrawn From Consideration as Head of the Fed

Apparently Even Mr. Summers Has Better Political Instincts Than The President

Thanks Mr. Summers – A Class Act in the End

From the Washington Post and others we now have this.

Lawrence Summers - You'd be smiling too if you had just avoided a nasty fight in the Senate

In a letter dated Sunday to the president, Summers wrote that he was withdrawing his name.

“It has been a privilege to work with you since the beginning of your Administration as you led the nation through a severe recession into a sustained economic recovery,” he wrote. “This is a complex moment in our national life. I have reluctantly concluded that any possible confirmation process for me would be acrimonious and would not serve the interest of the Federal Reserve, the Administration, or ultimately, the interests of the nation’s ongoing economic recovery.”

It is not clear, of course that Mr. Summers would have been appointed, given Democratic opposition to naming him to succeed Ben Bernanke.  But his withdrawal is a major plus for everyone, including Mr. Summers, and he is to be commended for this action.

With Mr. Obama Rumored to be Ready to Appoint Lawrence Summers to Head the Fed One Big Question Arises – Why

And the Answer Please – Wait for It – Arrogance

As a former member of the Clinton Administration Lawrence Summers generates a lot of emotion from his detractors.  Yes he is a highly qualified economist, but he is also a former President of Harvard, whose ability to interact with people that are not genuinely awed by Lawrence Summers is almost entirely missing.  And despite the fact that there is much more qualified applicant for the job to replace Ben Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve System, at this point in time Mr. Obama seems determined to appoint Mr. Summers.

Golden for The Wall Street Journal

Lawrence Summers is facing resistance from some Senate Democrats.

The opposition to the expected appointment is mounting among Democrats and economists.

WASHINGTON—Lawrence Summers's prospects of becoming chairman of the Federal Reserve next year dimmed Friday, as an important Senate Democrat signaled that he would vote against the Harvard economist, should President Barack Obama nominate him to lead the central bank.

Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, considered a political centrist, joins at least three other Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee who are expected to vote against Mr. Summers if he is nominated.

And with a little bit of luck Senate Democrats will do for Mr. Obama what he should be doing for himself, ruling out the appointment of Mr. Summers.

The mounting opposition to Mr. Summers suggests his potential path to Senate confirmation is narrowing quickly. His nomination would need Republican support to advance from the banking committee to the Senate floor.

So if Mr. Obama goes ahead with the Summers appointment, reasonable people will ask “why?”.  The answer will be the arrogance of the President, the belief that he and he alone knows what’s best, that he does not need to govern with the help of the Senate, that he does not need to listen to anyone else and that he can do whatever he wants, regardless of the political consequences. 

With the debacle in the methodology of his Syrian policy (if not the results), the coming crisis over the budget and debt ceiling which is partly the fault of Mr. Obama, his failure to organize the Democrats into a cohesive force and his inability to be much else other than the reasonable alternative to a bunch of crazy Republicans Mr. Obama is moving to cement his place in history.  That place may well be judged to be “average”, and the legacy of the Obama Presidency could be that some much could have done but so little was done.

Buffalo, New York Sandwich Beef on Weck is Said to be Better Than Pastromi

Are You Serious, Are You Kidding Me, Look at It

The people of Buffalo take food seriously.  The home of the chicken wing also has another signature sandwich, roast beef on a Kimmelweck bun.  Now apparently Zagats has deemed this a better sandwich than pastrami.  From the Buffalo News.

Beef on weck beats pastrami for New York sandwich crown, Zagat says

September 10, 2013 - 2:55 PM

By Andrew Z. Galarneau

Zagat, the survey-based guide to restaurants in the U.S. and select international cities, has named the beef on weck New York State's specialty sandwich.

This is a joke, right.  Look at the thing.

Yes, that white stuff is salt.  Lots of salt, a huge amount of salt.  Bite into this sandwich and  you taste salt, only salt, nothing else.  This sandwich is served exclusively in Stroke City.  Eat one and you get free transportation to there.  Eat two and you embrace the Vegan lifestyle.

Columbia South Carolina Will Solve Homelessness Problem by Banning It From Downtown Columbia

What an Easy, Cost Free Solution

The problem of the homeless in America has an easy solution, one that most of us just didn’t consider or think of.

With business owners sounding increasingly worried about the threat they believe the homeless pose to Columbia’s economic surge, the City Council approved a plan this month that will essentially evict them from downtown streets.

See the problem is Columbia thinks it is poised for a strong economic revival.  And nobody wants the homeless to get in the way of progress, or get in the way of anything else.

In Columbia, which has branded itself “the new Southern hot spot,” residents say the city’s time has come.

They point to plans for the 181-acre campus that once housed the state’s mental hospital and will, over the next two decades, become a mixed-use development with an annual economic impact of more than $1 billion. Speculation is rampant that a minor-league baseball team will relocate to Columbia. Less flashy projects also abound, including the conversion of a vacant office building into housing for University of South Carolina students, some of the more than 780,000 people who live in the metropolitan area.

But business owners are warning that rising homelessness in Richland County — up 43 percent in two years, according to the South Carolina Coalition for the Homeless, an increase many blame on an absence of affordable housing options and a sluggish national economy — is imperiling the area’s prospects.

So what happens if the homeless don’t go away?  Well they have to, the city council has mandated that there are no homeless in downtown Columbia.  They no longer exist.

Anne McQuary for The New York Times

Assembly Street in Columbia, S.C., which runs parallel to Main Street, where homeless people line up for a meal at the Oliver Gospel Mission. The City Council approved a plan to open the winter shelter for seven months and stop food programs in parks.

Under the new strategy, the authorities will increase enforcement of existing vagrancy laws and offer the homeless three options: accept help at a shelter, go to jail or leave Columbia.

And if they do, well Columbia will just starve them out.

The city is also planning to impose new limits on meal service for the homeless on public property. And it plans to station a police officer at a strategic location between the city’s shelter and downtown to “monitor and control foot traffic.”

Any objections?  Take them up with the South Carolina Stasi authorities.

“You’ve got to get to the root of the problem: why we’re homeless,” said Jaja Akair, a homeless man who spoke to lawmakers during a City Council session that stretched past 3 a.m. “You can’t just knock us to the side like we’re a piece of meat or a piece of paper.” 

Ah but they can Mr. Akair, they can.  This is America.

Remember How Gun Control Legislation Was a Sure Thing After the Newtown Shootings? – Immigration Reform Is Headed Down the Same Road

And You Are Surprised Why?

The spring’s big political news was how immigration reform passed the United States Senate and because it was politically advantageous for both parties to enact reform, passage in the House was practically a given.  The so-called, self designated smart folks in the room all said that the Republicans would never, ever stand in the way of reform and alienate an important block of voters.  Well a funny thing happened along the path to citizenship.

In a sign of diminished expectations, the House Judiciary Committee chairman said there is nothing wrong with having a debate that doesn't end with an immigration bill being signed into law.

"We pass bills all the time that don't get passed all the way through and signed into law, because we want to spell out to the American people what we think the right solutions to our problems are," the chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), said in an interview. "I don't believe immigration reform should be any different than that."

At the same time, Mr. Boehner faces considerable pressure from business groups, evangelicals, law enforcement and some GOP donors for action on immigration legislation.

House leaders will check in with lawmakers returning to Washington next week to see if there is a groundswell for action. But absent an unexpected reversal, advocates of an overhaul are predicting action may have to wait until 2014.

Bottom line, the House ain’t gonna take it up this year.  And if anyone thinks it will come up in 2014, well there’s a nice bridge in Brooklyn for sale, just contact this website.

The problem is not House Republicans acting irrationally, it is House Republicans acting rationally.  The gerrymandered House is so safe for most Republican seats that the only risk to an incumbent is a challenge in a primary from the right.  And the surest way to generate that challenge is to push for immigration reform.  As for the national Republicans, the ones that want to win the White House in 2016 here the message from the House GOP

“Boys and girls, you’re on your own”.

Think they will get it?  Probably not, they don’t get much.

Mr. Obama’s Syrian Policy Falls Victim to America’s History in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan

And Victim to the Ignorance and Arrogance of the Administration in History and Politics

With the decision by President Obama to postpone any Congressional action on U. S. authority to take action in Syria, it is now probable that absent some new provocation by Syria  no such vote in the Congress will ever take place.  No one really wants a vote.  Opponents are not eager to undermine the President and supporters are not eager to take action which has no political support.  There may be a token effort by Syria to allow outside control of its chemical weapons, there may be a real response but that response is largely outside the influence or control of the United States.

Mr. Obama and his people may not know it but their failure here has its roots in the history of the last 65 years.  In that time frame America has intervened in wars in Korea and Vietnam and started  wars in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.   Korea can be called a modest success and Kuwait was a real success, thanks to the fact that George H. W. Bush was a lot smarter than his son, but  the others were abject failures resulting in huge loss of life and limb, huge outlays and huge weariness on the part of the American people to intervene militarily in conflicts which did not have direct American interests at stake.

Hindsight tells us that Vietnam was not necessary, and in fact was a total fabrication.  The American people were told that if North Vietnam took over South Vietnam the entire Southeast Asia region would fall to communism, and world wide domination by communists would result.  This was garbage.  The fallacy of the war in Iraq is still in the headlines today, where sectarian and political violence occurs on a regular basis.  And the idea that the U. S. could establish a working democracy in Afghanistan is ludicrous.  The U. S. cannot even establish an effective central government in that country.

And so with Syria the American people have reached their limit.  It is not that they accept chemical warfare, it is that they no longer trust the government in foreign military adventures.  America has reached its limits, and the people recognize this even as the political leaders do not.  George Bush in Iraq and Barack Obama in Afghanistan have left the American public with zero appetite for any foreign military activity. 

That this is not apparent to the administration and its supporters is bizarre.  These are supposed to be smart people, but it turns out they are both ignorant and arrogant, particularly of politics which they probably consider beneath them.   And Mr. Obama and his administration are now paying the political  price for that ignorance and arrogance.  And even worse, it is unlikely they will learn anything from the experience. 

Hedge Fund Managers – the Smartest Folks in the Room – Turn Out to Be Pretty Dumb

Again

Large and wealthy investors like pension funds and Mitt Romney get to invest with hedge funds, something not available to the average investor.  The response from the average investor, ‘thanks’.  See the management of a typical hedge fund rakes in millions, but that is not pay for performance.

Hedge Funds Severely Underperforming This Year

Reuters

It’s been a great year for the stock market. It’s been a tough year for a hedge-fund manager.

A typical hedge fund has risen 4%, on average, this year through Aug. 9, according to an analysis conducted by Goldman Sachs That performance compares to a 20% total return (including dividends) for the S&P 500 over the same time frame, meaning the market has outperformed an average hedge fund by five times this year.

Hedge funds, on average, underperformed the markets last year as well, with an 8% gain, compared to a 16% total return for the S&P 500.

In fact, in a rather strong market a bunch of these funds lost money.

 Fewer than 5% of the hedge funds that Goldman monitored have outperformed the S&P 500 this year, while about 25% of these funds have posted absolute losses.

Of course, these are the same people that turned on Mr. Obama in 2012 after his economic policies and bank subsidies and failure to prosecute their abuses saved their collective butts.  Yeah, they are just as clueless politically as they are in the area of finance.

Interesting Results in the New York City Primary Races – And a Terrible Result in Colorado Recall Elections

One Message From Tuesday – Gun Nuts Will Not Tolerate Restrictions on Their Rights to Possess Weapons of Murder

In New York City the Democratic primary provided some pretty interesting results.  Both the race for Mayor and the race for Comptroller involved candidates who had a history of moral/sexual transgressions.  Both lost badly.

Former Representative Anthony Weiner, at one point a front runner for the nomination for Mayor will apparently end up with less than 5% of the vote.  Mr. Weiner is a very flawed man, and his overwhelming defeat is very welcome.  The other flawed candidate, former Governor Eliot Spitzer, once a front runner for the nomination for Comptroller, lost also, and here the reaction is more ambivalent. Mr. Spitzer seems to be genuinely dedicated to financial reform, and he could have made a huge difference in that area if his personality (he is not a nice, likeable person even though that is somewhat irrelevant) had not been his main enemy. 

Hopefully the message to other politicians is clear, that voters will not tolerate outrageous behavior and they will not overlook that behavior in assessing the candidates.  Of course, given the venality of most politicians it is not likely this message will be received or even heard.

In Colorado voters recalled two Democratic legislators who led the fight for modest gun control legislation.  These votes put the final nail in the coffin of any kind of reasonable regulation of firearms and ammunition.  Of course, that regulation was on life support anyway, and not expected to live.  Americans who want unlimited access to weapons place the freedom to own assault weapons and the freedom to maim and kill above almost anything else.  Although they will never recognize it, they share the blood on the hands of those who perpetrate awful gun violence.

The defeated candidates were eloquent in defeat, and these remarks by one of them puts his opponents to shame.

The recall elections ousted two Democratic state senators, John Morse and Angela Giron, and replaced them with Republicans. Both defeats were painful for Democrats – Mr. Morse’s because he had been Senate president, and Ms. Giron’s because she represented a heavily Democratic, working-class slice of southern Colorado.

In an emotional concession speech, Mr. Morse called the loss of his seat “purely symbolic” and defended the record of the last legislative session as “phenomenal.”

“We made Colorado safer from gun violence,” he said afterward, as his supporters trickled away from a hotel ballroom here in his district. “If it cost me my political career, that’s a small price to pay.” 

Contrary to Published Reports, MSNBC and Progressive Broadcasting is Not Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel in Putting Alec Baldwin on Talk TV

They Are Scraping Several Feet Below the Bottom of the Barrel – Maybe in Uncharted Territory

Some Say They Could Do Worse – Really, How? - Maybe William Baldwin?

The lack of talent to host and broadcast on progressive programming to counter the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh was never more evident than with this announcement.

Alec Baldwin will join MSNBC as the host of a current events and culture talk show beginning Fridays in October. Up Late w/ Alec Baldwin will air Fridays from 10-11 p.m. ET.

The award-winning actor has hosted the podcast “Here’s the Thing” on WNYC since 2011. On the show, Baldwin interviewed an array of politicians, policy-makers, and performers, ranging from David Letterman and Dick Cavett to Republican campaign strategist Ed Rollins.

“After two seasons of my WNYC podcast, I’ve developed a fondness for hosting a show that involved talking with smart, talented, and engaging people in every imaginable field,” Baldwin said. “I’m grateful to MSNBC for helping me bring a similar show to television.”

As for qualifications, well there is this.

Baldwin is the winner of two Emmy Awards, three Golden Globe Awards, eight SAG Awards, and a Television Critics Association Award for his role as Jack Donaghy on NBC’s 30 Rock. In addition to his dramatic credits, Baldwin has proven to be an adept and perennial host of NBC’s Saturday Night Live, with 16 hosting appearances to his credit.

But to MSNBC’s credit Mr. Baldwin was not their first choice.  They did try to get Chuckles the Clown from the old Mary Tyler Moore Show, unaware that Chuckles had been crushed to death by a rogue elephant while wearing a peanut suit in a circus parade.

Hosting Saturday Night Live qualifies one to host a supposedly serious program on MSNBC?  Really?  On the plus side the expected viewer count of 27 is likely to decline after the novelty of the first few shows.

At Last, A Possible Reason to Support the Campaign of Eliot Spitzer to be New York City Comptroller

Know the Man by His Enemies

This Forum has been less than enthusiastic about the return of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to public life, specifically his run for the office of Comptroller of New York City.  The feeling here was that Mr. Spitzer did not deserve public trust, and that this particular office was really not the way for anyone to be effective in fighting malfeasance in the financial industry.

But this bit of news, from Taegan Goddard’s excellent Forum, Political Wire gives us pause.

August 31, 2013

Anti-Spitzer Fundraising Fizzles

Terrified of Eliot Spitzer, "heavy hitters on Wall Street have abandoned their ambitious plan to inject millions of dollars into the race for city comptroller to help elect Scott Stringer," theNew York Post reports. 

"Forward NY was supposed to raise huge sums -- up to $150,000 per individual -- from corporate executives who abhor Spitzer for targeting them and their industry when he was state attorney general. As it turns out, they fear Spitzer more than they hate him."

So maybe there is something to Mr. Spitzer’s campaign.  New Yorkers need to think before they vote today.