The Truth Unmasked: House Panel Reduces Aid for Poor to Avoid "Defense" Cuts

Make no mistake...when assholes like Paul Ryan blabber on about "austerity" what they are really talking about is making the less fortunate pay so that the corporate welfare gravy train can continue rolling along. How else can you possibly explain this report from Bloomberg:

A U.S. House panel voted to cut spending on food stamps, health insurance and other aid for the poor to avoid planned cuts in defense spending.

(snip)

The spending reductions are triggered by a so-called supercommittee’s failure last year to come up with a plan to reduce the government’s $1.2 trillion budget deficit. About $55 billion would be subtracted from the Pentagon budget, with an equal amount from non-defense programs.

Also yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee unveiled plans to boost defense spending next year by $1 billion to $519 billion, with an additional $88.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan.

The Budget Committee’s measure would cut off food stamps to 1.8 million Americans, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while reducing assistance to millions more. About 280,000 children would no longer be automatically eligible for free school lunches because they receive food stamps, according to CBO.

The bill would give states more ability to pare their Medicaid rolls and would end social services block grants, which fund programs such as Meals on Wheels for senior citizens. The bill would tighten rules on who may claim child-care tax credits in an effort to prevent aid from going to illegal immigrants.

It's an election year, and yet these fuckers apparently believe that they will not suffer at the polls from such a blatant attempt to keep enriching defense war contractors at the expense of the most vulnerable members of our society. And the really sick part is, they're probably right.


From my You Tube channel: "Ain't this new world a shame...I can't stop thinking that it doesn't have to be this way"

If Mitt Romney Had Given An Honest Answer To The "Treason" Question

There was more sound and fury reported from the presidential campaign yesterday designed to get liberals and progressives all hot and bothered after Romney declined to "correct" a dimwitted audience member who asserted that Obama should be tried for "treason." Here is Gawker with the details:

What do you do when your party's base is made up of scared old white people who believe that the president is a traitor? You never, ever, ever correct them, and you talk a lot about God. Take Mitt Romney's example!

"We have a president right now that is operating outside the structure of our Constitution," the audience member said to applause. "And I want to know — yeah, I do agree he should be tried for treason — but I want to know what you would be able to do to restore balance between the three branches of government and what you are going to be able to do to restore our Constitution in this country."

Romney didn't correct the woman, choosing instead to address the question she posed.

"Well, as I'm sure you do, I happen to believe the Constitution was not just brilliant but probably inspired. I happen to believe the same thing about the Declaration of Independence," said Romney. "I would respect the different branches of government if I am fortunate enough to become president."

Romney later said that "of course" he doesn't believe that Barack Obama is a traitor: "I don't correct all of the questions that get asked of me." No, of course not.

Well, first off, the question is dumb because a president who is "operating outside the structure of the Constitution" is committing an impeachable offense, not treason. BIG difference.

Secondly, here is the answer Romney should have given to the question were he at all honest:

"Well, OF COURSE Obama has been operating outside of the structure of the Constitution, just as his predecessor did for nearly eight full years after 9/11 and just like I intend to do if I get elected this November. That's what the War on Terror is really all about. So sit your tired old ass down and STFU."

Why I Don’t Care About Voter ID Laws

We have reached the point in this country that the many distractions have become so numerous that most people don’t even recognize them as distractions anymore. Take, for example, one issue that always gets the liberals and progressives whipped into a raging froth: voter ID laws. Around the country, the Republicans have been passing these laws in a blatant attempt to keep down the numbers of minority and poor voters, thereby presumably suppressing Democratic vote totals at election time. How horrible, the thinking goes, that citizens are deprived of their basic Constitutional rights like this. How can such a thing happen in a representative democracy?

The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t. But then again, “representative democracy” in this country has become a hollowed out façade, a farce that exists only to keep the gullible and the distracted from recognizing that America has in fact become an corporate oligarchy in which the concerns of average citizens matter not one bit, and the hardships facing the members of the underclass who are being disenfranchised by these laws count for even less.

Nothing so dramatically illustrates this point than the upcoming presidential election. I would challenge those who think this issue is at all important to make a reasonable argument that the lives of poor people will materially change in any way during the next four years as a result of this contest between two poodles who are bought-and-paid for by Wall Street. If Obama wins, he will just keep doing what he has been doing for the poor for the last four years: jack shit. Witness how he even allowed Acorn to be thrown under the bus after that organization, which WAS dedicated to helping underclass citizens, helped him win the 2008 election. And for obvious reasons, Romney would hardly be an improvement.

Until such time as the power of the big corporations and Wall Street to completely control the political process is broken, the battle over Voter ID laws will be yet another pointless distraction designed to keep people from recognizing what the real problem is, that all of us who are not millionaires or billionaires are in fact disenfranchised. And in this post-Citizens United dystopia of ours, I see zero chance of that changing any time soon.


Special Friday Morning Bonus: From my new You Tube channel, The Hangdogs sing perhaps the best song I've ever heard summing up our collective predicament:

Twenty floors up in a new high rise
They hate their boss, plot his demise
They play their stocks and their PR lies
And sip their whiskey sours

Down here we buy what they say we need
Play the quick pick five and the OTB
If we could trade in our debt for our dignity
We'd take back what was always ours

Well, the streetcar preacher says just have faith
Says Jesus coming back to take us home someday
But he's running short on time
And something left to save

So, Willard Was An English Major

You really have hand to the wingnut conservatives. It seems like every time they come up with a certain mantra they can relentlessly repeat in the media in an attempt to thwart popular dissent in any given area, reality almost always seems to rear its ugly head and makes a mockery out of their words. Not that this cows them in any way, mind you. It's just that after it happens often enough you would think that even the movement's dimwitted followers would finally catch on that they are being conned.

As everyone knows, for the past year or so student loan debt and the inability of most recent college graduates to find good jobs has become a very prominent issue in the national conversation. The conservatives have tried to counter the public's growing concern that young adults are being systemically crippled financially before they even have a chance to get started in life by doing what they do so well: blaming the victim. One of the ways this is being done is to chide college students for studying "worthless" degrees like music, art, history, political science, communications, philosophy and English. Supposedly, it is the students' fault for being so daft as to enter a field of study for which there will be few jobs waiting for them when they graduate.

It's exactly the kind of line that sells really well with the selfish old fuckers who make up the majority of Republican Party's base--just another version of the "these kids today got no respect" bullshit that selfish old fuckers have been peddling ever since modern medicine advanced to the point where it allowed enough selfish younger people to live to become selfish old fuckers and affect the outcome of elections. It is, of course, absolute crap. Notwithstanding the fact that there IS value in studying for knowledge's sake rather than to earn a buck later, prior to 2008 the economy never had any trouble absorbing all of those art and liberal arts majors once they graduated. It was the economic crisis created by the greedy elite scumbags who run Wall Street and corporate America, not the students' choice of majors, that created this crisis.

So lo and behold, along comes the most unlikely poster child to prove that the conservative line blaming the students for choosing unprofitable majors is complete bullshit: former Massachusetts Governor and Wall Street titan Willard Mitt Romney himself. On Friday, at a speech at Otterbein University in Ohio, Romney not only admitted he was an English major, but advised English majors that their best option was to go to graduate school. So much for the ridiculous conservative notion that you can't make any money after studying in the liberal arts.

What Romney's example really shows, of course, is that it hardly matters WHAT you choose to study just so long as you are born with silver spoon shoved up your ass into a well connected family. Romney's success on Wall Street and in politics has nothing whatsoever to do with his college major and everything to do with the fact that his father was Chairman of the old American Motors Corporation, Governor of Michigan and a presidential cabinet secretary. In that regard, he is no different from President George Bush the Lesser, who may have been a business major, but actually was a "C" student, a draft dodger, a drunk, a coke head and an all around fuck up who kept getting second chances in life because of the family he was born into.

Nevertheless, I am fairly certain that this latest example of blatant hypocrisy won't slow down the conservative propaganda machine one damn bit. As long as there are plenty of selfish old fuckers out there who are happy to have someone tell them that they should not at all feel guilty about how young adults today are getting boned by a system that is now hopelessly broken, the bullshit will just keep piling up until one day it engulfs us all.


Bonus: They want more

Special Music Post: "Wallace '48" by The Hangdogs

Several weeks ago, I posted the song "Anacostia" by the late, great alternative country band, The Hangdogs. At the time, I lamented that the band's outstanding musical tribute to former Vice President Henry Wallace's doomed 1948 progressive presidential campaign was not available on You Tube. Well, I decided to take matters into my own hands, and am now proud to present my first ever You Tube upload: "Wallace '48" by The Hangdogs. "No more hunger fear or A-bombs," indeed.

I actually have a cache of great indie rock and alternative country tunes from the 1990s and early 2000s that were previously too obscure for You Tube that I'll be uploading to my new channel in the coming weeks.

Enjoy!

Q: Is Marco Rubio Ineligible To Be Romney's VP? A: Who Gives A Damn?

Fellow blogger and all around irascible economic naysayer Karl Denninger put up a rather histrionic post this past Tuesday stating emphatically that Florida Senator Marco Rubio, currently considered among the front runners to be named by Willard Mitt Romney as his Vice Presidential candidate, is in fact not eligible for the office. Rather than me risking putting words in Karl's mouth, I'll let him tell you himself:

Folks, cut this crap out.

Really.

Here are the facts:

Rubio was born to two parents who were not citizens at the time of his birth. They were here in the country and he was born here, but his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth.

At a later date his parents became citizens of the United States.
Marco Rubio is ineligible to be President of the United States under the natural born citizen requirement. He is a citizen but will never be a natural born citizen as he was not at birth due to the Cuban citizenship of his parents and you cannot retroactively acquire natural born citizenship status.

He therefore must not be nominated as VP, since the primary qualification for that office is the ability to stand as President if something happens to the President while he is in office.

The Constitution's 12th Amendment specifically says:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

I know there are people who think the Constitution shouldn't read this way on natural born citizenship as a requirement for this office, but it does read this way AND IS WHAT IT IS.

If you want to change this the proper thing to do is to amend The Constitution before you run someone who is currently ineligible. Circumventing it as was done with Obama is wrong, no matter which party does it.

We've had enough lawlessness in this country at the top and we are way past the point where we should be tolerating it in any fashion, irrespective of whether you happen to like someone or not.

I am not going to recreate all of the bolding and italics Karl uses in his original post, and it actually reads a bit less hysterical without it. But you get the idea.

As for Denninger himself, I read his blog regularly even though I only agree with about half of what he says. He fascinates me not only because he has been sounding warnings about collapse since before the crash of 2008, but because I know of no other writer who can veer so wildly back and forth between being so spot on and being so spectacularly wrong--even sometimes within the same blog post. What Karl really is is a rabble-rouser, and the world can always use more of them to get people thinking, even if they have a spotty track record.

What is cute about this post is that despite five years or more of writing about how the country is going completely to hell thanks to the venality, avarice and greed of our government and business elites, Karl still seems to think the system can be saved if only we could get the right person into office. Since Karl is all freaked out about whether Marco Rubio is eligible to be Vice President or not, I thought I would take a moment to remind him of a little history.

First of all, and this is very obvious but I will state it anyway, the American people do not elect the president. The president is in fact chosen by the Electoral College, a tiny group of ironically unelected people that nobody knows who gather together a month and a half after the masturbatory November balloting and actually choose the President. Theoretically, the votes of the general public are supposed to be reflected in the Electoral College vote, but that doesn't always happen. In 1876 and 2000, the political system conspired using the Electoral College as an excuse to deny the candidate who polled the most votes nationally. If America truly had free and fair elections by majority (or at least plurality) rule, Samuel Tilden and Al Gore's busts would be lining the Hall of Presidents and Rutheford Hayes and George Bush the Lesser would be modern day trivia questions. Lawlessness in this country is nothing new, Karl. The elites have practiced it throughout this nation's history whenever they have seen fit.

But more importantly, in the grand scheme of things what difference does it really make whether Shrub Bush lost his election by half a million votes and was installed by judicial fiat, or whether President Hopey-Changey's birth certificate was forged, or whether Williard Romney's father was born in a Mormon polygamist's encampment in Mexico or whether Marco Rubio parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth? If the elites want those fuckers to be the President and/or Vice President, they will be nominated by one of the two major parties. And the big business, war and empire agenda will roll merrily along no matter which side wins.

But I saved Karl's most priceless line for last, and even left in the all caps and bolding this time:

THE RULE OF LAW MUST STAND ABOVE THE "DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS" OR THIS NATION IS NO LONGER A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

America hasn't been a Constitutional Republic anywhere but on paper since at least the day Bush the Lesser was installed into office by the Supreme Court, and arguably much farther back than that. If that basic truth has not yet sunk in, Karl, then you are far more hopelessly naive than I would have taken you to be from reading your blog.


Bonus: "I don't wanna vote for your president...I just wanna be your tugboat captain"

Professional Trolling: Meet The 20-Somethings Who Dumb Down American Politics

Ever wonder why there seems to be such a steady stream of fresh bullshit pumped into our ever coarsening national political conversation? Well, thanks to two recent media exposes, the awful truth has been revealed. The Atlantic Wire has the sordid details:

They're as young as they are ruthless and they're the warriors who wage Washington's political battles. Opposition researchers have been around since the dawn of politics but today they're younger, more tech savvy and arguably more bloodthirsty. Today, ABC News and Roll Call each gained exclusive access to the Republican and Democratic war rooms, respectively. What they found was a sweatshop of 20-somethings spending all day looking for the next gaffe, non-gaffe, indiscretion, or closeted skeleton. Welcome to the dirty world of politics.

Who they are In Jake Tapper's tour inside the Republican National Committee's war room, you can see the fresh-faced youths in their 20s, trying to carve out a space for themselves in this competitive field. In Roll Call's tour of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's war room, you find the same age demographic of "mostly 20-somethings."

What they're looking for RNC chairman Reince Priebus says sifting through President Obama's speeches and looking for empty promises is step number one. "We've got a lot of speeches and a lot of material on him and we have to hold him accountable to the promises he made to the American people," Priebus tells Tapper. In terms of gaffe-watching, they'd like to find another Hilary Rosen moment to use against Democrats. For the Democrats' operation, Roll Call gets a lot of research details. "Do the candidates own any small businesses that accepted federal funds they voted against?" asks reporter Shira Toeplitz. "Start digging through the secretary of state’s archives. Do they have more than a few mortgages on their underwater home? A case for fiscal irresponsibility with the right documentation. Runs a construction business? Often there are lawsuits to be found." In one case, a researcher named Diana Asti found a diamond in the rough: A secret marriage. “My head just went in all different directions, like maybe they’ve divorced and he hasn’t paid alimony, or maybe he has a child and he hasn’t paid child support,” said the 23-year-old Democrat. "It was a very exciting moment.”

Weapons of choice While the Internet is key, old school shoe-leather work is still indispensable. The DCC uses a mix of "scouring news clips and YouTube videos and traveling across the country to comb through public records, all in hopes of finding a good hit," reports Roll Call. "Discoveries go into hundred-page research books on their targets that are used as bait to recruit candidates, leaked to reporters or cited in campaign advertisements and mail pieces." For the GOP, Prieubus stressed technology tools. "We - 24/7 - monitor print news, online news, TV, radio, Twitter, Facebook," said Spicer. We try to capture everything that's going on in real time so that we know what's happening ... and we're able to respond within seconds."

Work hours At the DCCC, hit squads search for eight weeks at a time and then break. The team of 20-somethings at the RNC, meanwhile are running a 24/hour operation. According to officials speaking to Tapper, they used to allow the researchers a break at 3 a.m. but now they don't stop scanning videos and news clips for anything. "Oh my God it looks like North Korea in here," Tapper remarked.

What is particularly notable about this story is that none of "reporters" involved seem at all perturbed that the national news media spends countless hours every week obsessing over the slime that these soulless cretins exhaust themselves digging up. Right here, a rock has been overturned and the little maggots who are doing so much to drive us towards our collective doom are being exposed for all the world to see. Of course, the dumbass spin to these stories is that it is all a legitimate part of the political process rather than a hideous abomination helping to ensure that it will be impossible to ever build a consensus to address the many dire issues we face as a nation.

What is truly sad is that these brainwashed kids of both political parties really believe that they are doing a service for their cause and helping to vanquish their opponents. They have absolutely no inkling that they are really just cogs in a gigantic machine owned and operated by the elites designed to distract addle-brained Americans and provide them with the illusion that they still have a real choice when they go into the voting booth. These 20-something twits provide the hateful grist so beloved by the preening freaks and charlatans who occupy the Hologram. If you were looking for a truly Americanized version of the banality of evil, you need look no further than this.

I particularly like clueless hack Jake Tapper's line at the end of the article about how the operation he is visiting "looks like North Korea." Given that America has already essentially become a one party state in which both Republicans and Democrats first and foremost serve the interests of the tiny billionaire elite over over a mass of citizens who are being gradually impoverished in order to maintain a corrupt, undemocratic status quo, he is far more correct in that assertion than he realizes.


Bonus: "In these days of evil presidentes...Working for the clampdown...But lately one or two has fully paid their due...For working for the clampdown"

Are Romney Supporters Smarter Than Obama Supporters?

I have stated repeatedly on this blog that anyone who is not a millionaire or a billionaire who donates money to one of the presidential candidates is seriously delusional at best.  As I pointed out in last Friday's rant, each campaign is expected to raise over (cue Dr. Evil) one BEEEELION dollars, most of it from the fat cat donors who completely own the election process and the two major candidates being put up to give the laughable illusion of "choice."  So far, as you can see by the two charts above that were posted Friday on Buzzfeed, non-wealthy potential Romney voters appear to be more realistic about the fact that he does not support their interests than non-wealthy Obama voters.

There was not an article to go with these charts, just a comment from the blogger who posted them:

March fundraising report shows Romney even more dependent on wealthy donors than Barack Obama and George W. Bush in 2004. Can he fire up the base?

Actually, considering that his "base" is Wall Street and the faction of the corporate elite who support the Republican Party, he already has.  Those tiny donations from the delusional little people do not actually even amount to a rounding error in the fundraising for either campaign. Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that supporting one of the major party candidates is preferable to supporting the other one, just that early on rank-and-file Romney supporters seem to be suffering from fewer delusions about their guy--or maybe they just hate him for being the Mormon former gubbner of Taxachusetts.


Bonus: A commenter on Friday suggested that I could have used this song then...so here it is

"Pothole Nation" = Spoiled Rotten Nation

It must be great to be a liberal think tanker-type...to be able to sit around in your ivory tower coming up with new ways to explain how America can be fixed that have no basis whatsoever in reality. The best part is, because your ideas are only ever considered by other liberals and progressives, there is never anyone around who will be willing to tell you that you're actually full of shit. This is where I, as a former member of the tribe come in.

At first glance this article, entitled "Pothole Nation," by Sam Pizzigati of the Institute for Policy Studies seems reasonable in that it decrys how America has for the past generation or two been allowing its infrastructure to slowly decay:

Investing in infrastructure used to be a political no-brainer. Politicians of nearly every ideological stripe supported government spending on everything from school buildings to bridges.

The more conservative pols would typically favor highways, the more liberal preferred mass transit. But nearly all elected officials considered quality infrastructure essential. Businesses simply couldn't thrive, even conservatives understood, without it.

This consensus remains solid — among the American people. Only 6 percent of Americans, one poll last year found, consider infrastructure "not that important" or "not important at all." Among our politicians, it's a different story. Infrastructure has become a political hot potato. Congress can barely reach any consensus at all. Lawmakers have spent more than two years haggling over a bare-bones transportation bill.

Overall, U.S. infrastructure spending has declined dramatically. Back in 1968, federal outlays for basic infrastructure amounted to 3.3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Last year, federal infrastructure investments made up only 1.3 percent of GDP. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that we would now need to spend $2.2 trillion over five years to adequately "maintain and upgrade" America's roads, dams, drinking water, school buildings, and the like.


But lawmakers in Congress are moving in the opposite direction. The House's 2013 budget, if adopted by the Senate, would force massive cutbacks in infrastructure investment.

The impact of these cutbacks? Still more potholes, brownouts, and overcrowded classrooms and buses.

The irony in all this: We ought to be witnessing right now a historic surge in infrastructure investment. The cost of borrowing for infrastructure projects, the Economic Policy Institute's Ethan Pollack points out, has hit record lows — and the private construction companies that do infrastructure work remain desperate for contracts. They're charging less.

"We're getting much more bang for our buck than we usually do," says Pollack.

Yet our political system seems totally incapable of responding to the enormous opportunity we have before us. Center for American Progress analysts David Madland and Nick Bunker blame this political dysfunction on inequality.

The more wealth concentrates, their research shows, the feebler a society's investments in infrastructure become. Our nation's long-term decline in federal infrastructure investment — from 3.3 percent of GDP in 1968 to 1.3 percent in 2011 — turns out to mirror almost exactly the long-term shift in income from America's middle class to the richest Americans. And the U.S. states where the rich have gained the most at the expense of the middle class turn out to be the states that invest the least in infrastructure.

Why should this be the case? Madland and Bunker cite several dynamics at play. In more equal societies, middle classes will be more politically powerful. That matters because the middle class has a vested interest in healthy levels of infrastructure investment. Middle class families depend on good roads, public schools, and mass transit much more than rich families. Rich kids may attend private schools, and the ultra-wealthy can even commute by helicopter to avoid traffic congestion.

Some wealthy people, Madland and Bunker acknowledge, do see the connection between infrastructure and healthy economic development. But increased investment in infrastructure demands higher taxes, and lower tax rates have always been among the "more cherished priorities of the rich."

"When push comes to shove, infrastructure is likely to take a backseat to keeping taxes low," they posit. "There is a significant body of evidence that suggests a strong middle class is important for public investments."

Unequal societies — like the contemporary United States — have weak middle classes. That leaves Americans with a basic choice. We can press for greater equality. Or spend more time dodging potholes.

Notice the most basic element that is missing here? There is absolutely no mention that America is in a deep financial hole and that it is going to take a lot more than just raising taxes on the wealthy to not only get us out of our financial fix but to be able to afford a robust infrastructure repair program.

Instead we get a bunch of blather about the supposed connection between unequal societies and the lack of infrastructure spending. I'm not sure what country Mr. Pizzigati has been living in these past 40 years, but as a child and into my early adult years, I seem to remember America actually having a fairly robust middle class. Certainly, they were large enough in number that they could have voted to support infrastructure projects. But that's not what they did, is it? Nope, instead they voted for the assholes, starting with Ronald Reagan, who promised to cut their taxes. The rich might as a class like lower taxes, but they hardly have enough votes to win elections unless they pull a substantial portion of the middle class (and working class) along with them.

So why did Americans so docilely agree to give away the store? Because even though they may want their government services, they don't want to pay for them and hate paying taxes even more. That is the very essence of Spoiled Rotten Nation. Me first and fuck the rest of you...until one day the whole stinking system collapses under the strain, as our deteriorating infrastructure will no doubt eventually do.

But it's those last two sentences of the article that really made me laugh. This November, tens of millions of delusional idiots are going to go to the polls and cast their vote for rich, Wall Street asshole Willard Mitt Romney, who will essentially be promising to do what every President since Reagan has done. And tens of millions of other delusional idiots will go to the polls and cast their ballots for President Hopey-Changey, who will blow smoke up their asses like he already has for four grueling years, until he gets reelected and then proceeds to continue doing what every President since Reagan has done. Either way, the infrastructure will remain right where it is today: fucked.



Bonus: I don't believe I have yet used a Cars song...time to correct that deficiency

Friday Rant: Billion Dollar Men

Return with me now to the year 1972. That was quite a tumultuous time in America. The Vietnam War was winding down, a controversial new sitcom named All in the Family topped the Neilson ratings and had tongues wagging around water coolers all across the nation, a young filmmaker named Francis Ford Coppola scored his first big success with The Godfather, starring a young, unknown actor named Al Pacino…oh, and incumbent President Richard Nixon scandalized the nation by raising the then-unprecedented sum of $40 million for his reelection campaign, much of it from wealthy, fat cat donors.

Nixon, of course, got into hot water not so much for the obscene amounts of money his campaign raised that year but because his operatives used a portion of the dough to finance a succession of dirty tricks, including the Watergate break in, that ultimately resulted in his resignation in 1974. That same year in the wake of the scandal, Congress created the Federal Election Commission and placed a hard cap on the amount of money individual donors could give to campaigns. With periodic tweaking, the 1974 campaign finance measures remained the law of the land until the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which effectively eliminated any limits on campaign donations and turned the clock back on 40 years of earnest but ultimately doomed attempts to eliminate the effects of big money on politics.

And now, during this first post-Citizens United election cycle we are already seeing the effects of the court’s ruling as the two major party candidates are engaging in a Romanesque orgy of fundraising that would have made even old Tricky Dick blush. Here is the Atlantic Wire with the story:

Mitt Romney's campaign has set a fundraising target of $800 million for this election cycle, setting up a race with President Obama that could see each side spending more than $1 billion by November. It also guarantees that, for the first time in a generation, neither candidate will accept public financing for their campaign.

The new "Romney Victory" fund — which we first mentioned yesterday — is a collaboration between the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee that, according to The New York Times, hopes to raise $500 million in donations from big-spending donors and "bundlers." They also hope to gain another $300 million in smaller contributions directly to the campaign. Add in another $200 million in Super PAC money (which is technically independent of the Republican effort, but will be spent by outside groups opposed to the President) and that could mean more than $1 billion spent in an effort to unseat the incumbent.

Of course, they have their work cut out for them. Romney, who had to fight a primary challenge against a large field of fellow Republicans, has "only" raised about $86 million so far. More money will certainly flow to him as the general election heats up and those who have been willing to support him so far latch on to the nominee. But President Obama has already raised around $350 million for his efforts, most of which has been sitting and waiting for an opponent that he can bury under it. He raised $53 million in March and he hasn't even really started campaigning yet. Considering that he raised $750 million in 2008, despite splitting Democratic support in a bitter primary fight himself, another billion from his side is also pretty likely.

No matter which side wins the money war, there's no doubt that this will be the most expensive presidential campaign of all time, dwarfing the races from even just four years. In that race, the two nominees — Obama and John McCain — set records by breaking the $1 billion mark between them, but that sum is no longer enough for even one candidate. And that doesn't even begin to account for the outside money that will also flood airwaves this fall. The totals have become so staggering that they almost defy complaints from those who wish to see someone put the brakes on money in politics. With so much being spent and seemingly no hope for reform, Americans may just have to resign themselves the fact that the money game is impossible to beat.

I never thought I would ever say this, but I agree completely with the Atlantic Wire on this one. The fact is that Americans DO need to resign themselves to the fact that the money game is impossible to beat. The only way Citizens United could be overturned is with a Constitutional Amendment, and that has zero chance of happening in a political environment in which no measure that does not have at least 61% support needed to end a filibuster has any chance of getting past the hopelessly gridlocked Senate. And even if it somehow managed to squeak through the two houses, it would still need 75% of the state legislatures to pass it in order for it to be adopted. I have about as much chance of landing a date with Megan Fox as that does ever happening.

The first takeaway lesson from all of this for the average American is that they should never, ever donate money to a political campaign. A puny $100 or even $1000 check will buy you exactly ZERO influence when there are billions of dollars at stake. How much harder do they need to hit the voters over the fucking head before they finally recognize the truth? Save that cash, or give it to a worthy charity if you must. Heck, buy a copy of my book. I swear I’ll only spend the proceeds on beer, which is a promise far more likely to be kept than anything which will emit from Obama or Romney’s pie holes during the course of the campaign.

The second lesson should be perfectly obvious and I’ve said it here many times, but I’m going to say it again because so few people have gotten it through their think skulls. The millionaires and the billionaires now own the political process lock, stock and barrel. Yes, the votes are still tallied up on Election Day, and with the exception of a few hanging chads or Diebold shenanigans, the candidate with the majority or a plurality of them usually wins. The problem is that it no longer matters regarding any issue of real importance who the winning candidate is. The game is completely rigged in the nomination process of the two major parties. The general election is nothing but an elaborate stage show put on for benefit of the partisan zealots, the hopelessly naive and the utterly distracted, who between them constitute the overwhelming majority of the voting public.

It is too early to say for sure how this election is going to shake out, but here is one prediction I will make with 100% confidence. On January 20, 2013, the president-elect will raise his right hand and take the oath of office with every intention of serving the interests of the wealthy elites who put him there over the interests of the tens of millions of voters who stupidly cast their ballots for him. The only thing we do not know for certain yet is which of the two major candidates will be the one who sells the rest of us down the fucking river for four more grueling years.


Bonus: Forgive me, but this song is too perfect NOT to use here

Crazy Ass Representative Allen West Channels "Tail Gunner Joe"

It was just a tad over 62 years ago in February 1950 when an obscure, back bencher Republican Senator from Wisconsin named Joseph McCarthy first rose to national prominence by proclaiming in a speech that he had a list of "members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring" who were employed in the State Department. Given that the Cold War has been over for more than two decades and that Communism is effectively dead worldwide save for isolated pockets like North Korea and Cuba, one would think that there would be no way a politician looking to score political points would be able to go down that long closed road. If so, one is obviously not familiar with the particular craziness which inhabits the addled mind of crazy ass Representative Allen West of Florida. Here is the Palm Beach Post News with the details:

U.S. Rep. Allen West told about 90 largely supportive Palm City voters Tuesday that locally prioritized federal projects — such as the St. Lucie Inlet dredging — aren't going to matter if Washington officials don't address a mounting deficit.

Later Tuesday evening, a Jensen Beach crowd of 100 with more than 15 protesters greeted the congressman with mixed support, cheers and jeers.

The conservative tea party icon also got in shots at Democrats and President Obama, who spoke Tuesday at Florida Atlantic University. West said Obama was "scared" to have a discussion with him. He later said "he's heard" up to 80 U.S. House Democrats are Communist Party members, but wouldn't name names.

What is it with these lunatic far right Republicans? First it was dingbat Representative Michelle Bachman prattling on about the Soviet Union during her ill-fated presidential campaign and now this. Could it be that they have come to realize that the Islamophobia-terrorism dog isn't hunting anymore as far as scaring the voters into blindly supporting militarism and gigantic Pentagon budgets goes, and they are nostalgic for a bygone era when America at least had a plausibly dangerous foreign enemy? Yeah, that must be it.


Bonus: "Come on now, who do you, who do you, who do you, who do you think you are...Ha ha ha bless your soul...You really think you're in control...Well, I think you're crazy"

Federal Funds For Retraining The Unemployed This Year $1 Billion Less Than In 2000

Given that it was supposed to combat the worst effects of the Great Recession, one might have assumed that there would have been a provision in President Obama's $700 billion boondoggle Recovery Act to increase the amount spent on job retraining programs for the unemployed. Shockingly, or perhaps not-so-shockingly given what a colossal waste of taxpayer funds the Recovery Act really was, that was actually not the case. Here is Bloomberg Businessweek with the story:

Federal funds to retrain Americans who’ve lost their jobs are drying up. Many job seekers who show up at career centers to request courses in such growing fields as computers or nursing are being turned away because money for that training has already been spent, the New York Times notes.

The U.S. spends nearly a billion dollars less on retraining the unemployed than it did in 2000, when the unemployment rate was 4 percent. Last year the government spent about $1.2 billion, compared with $2.1 billion in 2000.

Whether there will be a new influx of cash depends on congressional budget wrangling. In his latest budget, President Barack Obama proposed an additional $2.8 billion for job training. The National League of Cities says the recent budget proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would severely reduce that funding. Ryan says he’s only streamlining and improving programs that “overlap, lack clarity and accountability, and fail to meet the challenges workers face.”

If there is anything worse than a blow dried little asshole Randian politician, it's a blowdried little asshole Randian politician who is too afraid to even be honest and say that he favors such budget cutting because he is a devotee of a crazy old hag who went on the dole herself in the years just before she mercifully relieved us of her malevolent presence. Instead he has to make up a bunch of mealy-mouthed crap to try and justify his Social Darwinism.

There is a much better reason than just being a selfish asshole to oppose President Hopey-Changey's desire to just throw more money at the problem, and the article actually goes on to make it:

Although the separate budget proposals reflect ideological differences, it’s also very difficult to figure out how much it’s worth spending on programs with a value that’s hard to prove. Even the most effective retraining programs face a huge problem: You can’t retrain people for jobs that don’t exist. And right now, the number of people seeking employment is greater than the number of available jobs. That isn’t likely to change soon, either: As the Wall Street Journal reported today, most of the new hires by S&P 500 companies since the recession have been outside the U.S.

Bingo...give that business reporter a cigar for not buying into the the "jobs recovery" hype. My colleague Dave Cohen over at Decline of the Empire actually did a post this past Monday about the lack of good paying jobs being created during this "recovery." The key factoid from that post is that more than 55 percent of new jobs added in the past six months have been in the retail, temp, "health care and social assistance" and "leisure and hospitality" sectors. In other words, menial jobs that do not require a great deal of training. In such an economy, Obama could increase the budget for job retraining tenfold and it would likely make very little difference. Not only that, federally subsidized retraining places those who complete it into direct competition for jobs with young adults just entering the workforce and who received no such federal help.

But ultimately, this is the biggest argument against federally subsidized retraining:

To Safeway, the retrained applicants are better candidates. In essence, the government is paying for training that Safeway would otherwise have to provide.

Many of the most “successful” retraining programs work in just this fashion, as a January report from the Government Accountability Office points out. A local employer works closely with the career center to tailor the retraining exactly to their needs. In return, the employer all but promises to hire the workers. That helps officials make their numbers look good, too. The only question is where the money will come from to pay for it.

That's right...the federal subsidies ultimately serve to fatten the bottom line of the corporations. They are, in fact, just another form of corporate welfare, and one we can ill afford at a time of trillion dollar plus federal budget deficits. If the companies need new employees, let their CEOS receive a few million dollars less to blow on solid gold backscratchers.


Bonus: Because with Obama, hope is like the rain

Willard Mitt Romney: The First “Citizens United” Candidate

It’s all over but the shouting in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Former Massachusetts Governor Willard Mitt Romney, who entered the presidential primary season as the favorite, has effectively secured the nomination despite the fact that he is very much loathed by a substantial portion of the party’s fundamentalist conservative base. For nearly a year, the right wingers thrashed around, desperately searching for a standard bearer, ultimately cycling through a motley lineup of alternatives—Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and finally, Rick Santorum—only to watch each one implode as they demonstrated their laughable unelectability.

The final result should not be surprising to anyone who has been paying close attention to American politics ever since the Supreme Court’s unfortunate Citizen’s United decision in 2010 effectively removed all limits on corporate campaign contributions and handed total control of the nomination process to the big money boys. Despite a couple of rogue billionaires who breathed life into the flailing Gingrich and Santorum campaigns, giving each the resources to score momentary primary victories and prolong the process, Romney was Wall Street’s guy from the very beginning. In the end, he was able to use his deep well of financial support to utterly obliterate the other contenders.

What was particularly striking about this campaign was how, given the strength of the “Anybody but Willard” sentiment within the party, no conservative challenger of any real stature stepped forward to challenge Romney in the first place. Most glaringly notable by her absence was of course the former Governor of Alaska, one Sarah Palin. As her party’s previous vice presidential nominee, and with a rabidly loyal following, Palin would have seemed to have been much better positioned to compete for the nomination than any of those other Tea Party pygmies. The fact that she did not enter the fray is unusual given that vice presidents and vice presidential candidates typically do run for their party’s presidential nomination in subsequent elections, even if they are not always selected as the nominee.

No one other than Palin herself, or maybe a few of her close advisors, knows for sure why she chose not to run, but as the old saying goes: follow the money. My guess is that Romney outmaneuvered Palin in securing the support of an overwhelming percentage of the Republican Party’s big money donors, and that knowing she ultimately would not be able to compete on a level playing field she demurred. Palin may have been the Tea Party’s darling, but that was likely also her undoing. She seemed to really believe the rhetoric about slashing big government spending, and those who profit the most from big government largess couldn’t take a chance that she might actually be true to her word. On the other hand, Romney was one of them, having been a Wall Street player himself. All they needed to do was ensure Willard had the cash to buy a blitz of campaign commercials that ultimately brainwashed enough of the party’s less radical voters into pulling the level for him when it counted.

So now we have what is shaping up to be a truly unprecedented election cycle. Ever since Ronald Reagan ushered in the current political paradigm, every presidential election has been largely decided based upon which party’s base is more enthusiastic about their candidate. In 1980 and 1984, it was obviously Reagan, who triumphed over the last two “reality based” Democratic presidential nominees, Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. Vice President George H.W. Bush then basked in The Gipper’s glow in 1988, which was enough to put him over the top against the passionless Michael Dukakis. By 1992, the enthusiasm finally swung over to the Democrats, as the young and dynamic Bill Clinton defeated the older, seemingly out-of-touch Bush. Some of the Democrats’ ardor for Clinton had faded by 1996 due to his relentless pursuit of centrism, but he was buoyed during his reelection bid by a soaring economy. By 2000, it was the hard right’s desire to “drink a beer” with George Bush the Lesser that was about the only thing separating him from the colorless Al Gore and pushed him to a dubious victory. The right’s passion for Bush’s war policies then helped him eke out a reelection victory in 2004 over the equally bland John Kerry before the enthusiasm swung back to the Democrats and the young and dynamic Barack Obama in 2008.

But this year? Both parties’ bases are thoroughly discouraged with their candidates. Liberal journalist Robert Sheer pretty well summed up the feelings of many liberals and progressives about President Hopey-Changey last week in an article entitled "Obama by Default," which featured a very tepid endorsement of the incumbent. Even though I vehemently disagree with Sheer that liberals and progressives should vote for Obama again, Sheer’s article is illustrative in demonstrating just how disillusioned many on the left now are with their supposed savior.

This “enthusiasm gap” is directly reflective of the fact that the billionaires are now in position to ensure that whatever petty differences may exist between them, the nominees of the two major parties will always first and foremost represent their interests as a class. In theory, we still live in a representative democracy in which the voting public COULD rebel and choose a true populist who will fight to restore some semblance of economic fairness. In actuality, as long as 90 plus percent of the population is totally distracted by the Hologram and refuses to do even the basic homework necessary to be reasonably informed about the issues, campaigns will continue to be decided in favor of those billionaire backed candidates who can most afford to blanket the airwaves with 30-second sound bite teevee ads and frame the media narrative in their favor.

So where is this post-Citizens United dystopian trend headed? It’s too early to tell for sure. At this point, it does not appear that the enthusiasm gap will yet be wide enough during the 2012 campaign to cause the whole political system to begin to lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public. By 2016, however, after four more years of gradual economic collapse putting ever more pressure on the working and middle classes, things could really start to get interesting.


Bonus: The future is NOW

Slimeball Defends Pink Slime For $45,000

The headline above was my best New York Post imitation. Anyway, here's the story from Think Progress:

The meat industry has been hammered for the weeks after it was revealed that some companies had been controversially using beef scraps mixed with ammonia hydroxide, called “pink slime”, as hamburger filler. This week, one passionate defender of pink slime emerged: Rep. Steve King (R-IA).

As we know, King enjoys touting his carnivorous habits while beating up on people who don’t eat meat. But meat producers have also been major financial backers of King, who sits on the House Agriculture Committee, throughout his political career. A cursory glance at King’s fundraising records shows more than $45,000 in campaign contributions from the meat industry during his time in Congress. This cycle alone, two prominent PACs, the National Beef Cattleman’s Association and the National Council of Pork Producers, as well as Lynch Livestock, have already maxed out their contributions to King’s reelection campaign.

That money appears to have been well-spent. All this week, King has been defending pink slime — or “lean finely textured beef” as he calls it — to his constituents. Indeed, in every one of the half dozen town halls that ThinkProgress attended, King talked up pink slime unprompted. In Emmetsburg, for instance, he said pink slime was actually a “supplement” and an “enhancement.” In Algona, he pledged to hold congressional hearings not into pink slime, but into the “smear campaign” against pink slime.

How much do you want to bet that despite his meat obsession, asshole Representative Steve King has never in his life ever eaten Pink Slime? What's the matter with Iowa? How do you keep electing this fucking slimeball?


Bonus: Instead of Pink Slime, how about some Pink Floyd?

Saturday Night Video: Clarke And Dawe "Enter The Age Of Reason"

If you are not familiar with John Clarke and Bryan Dawe, they are a couple of comedians who appear regularly on Australian television whose bits about politics are both witty and scathing. In the video below Clarke and Dawe brilliantly lampoon how the wealthy really control things, even in a supposed democracy, as Clive Palmer, businessman, mining magnate and part-time critic warns about the perils of an elected government actually running the country.

Choice bit:

Palmer: "People have got to think: do you WANT to live in a country run by the government?"

Interviewer: "Has this ever happened before?"

Palmer: "It happened once, but we fixed it. We got rid of it."

Enjoy!



Bonus Video: A classic Clarke and Dawe bit about an oil spill off the coast of Australia that was making the rounds back during the Deepwater Horizon fiasco.

Friday Rant: Obama and Romney's Pointless Argument About American "Exceptionalism"

This past week, some rather tepid rhetorical sparks flew between presumed Republican presidential nominee Willard Mitt Romney and President Hopey-Changey about who can blow more smoke up the voters' asses about the laughably idiotic notion called, "American Exceptionalism." Here is the Raw Story with the details:

US President Barack Obama on Monday hit back at his likely Republican election foe Mitt Romney, who questioned whether he shared the notion that America is a uniquely virtuous nation.

At the weekend, Romney appeared to tap into the view, prevalent among the conservative grass roots, that Obama — born in Hawaii of a white mother and Kenyan father — somehow is different than mainstream Americans.

Asked about the comments during a press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada on Monday, Obama said the man he is likely to face in November’s election was simply playing to the political gallery.

“It’s still primary season for the Republican Party,” he said, but then took aim at Romney’s central argument.

“It’s worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic Convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism.”

“But, you know, I will cut folks some slack for now because they’re still trying to get their nomination.”

Then Illinois state lawmaker Obama’s speech in Boston in 2004 extolled the “genius” of America, quoted the Declaration of Independence and called on Americans to reaffirm unique values.

Romney said during an event in Wisconsin at the weekend that when he traveled abroad he stood “a little taller, a little straighter, because I knew I had a gift that others didn’t have, and that was I was American.”

“Our president doesn’t have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do,” Romney told a conservative crowd.

“I think over the last three or four years, some people around the world have begun to question that.”

American exceptionalism is a highly charged term, and sometimes means different things to different people, and is a particularly potent concept in conservative politics.

Generally, the term is said to be the notion that America has a unique historic mission, values and ideals, that are either endowed by God or enshrined in the Constitution that make it exceptional in the world.

Holy FUCK, this is shaping up to be one long, miserable campaign. If you want to know why there is absolutely no hope that America will be able to change course before we manage to destroy ourselves, look no further than this happy horseshit. It was this dumbass idea that somehow America is exceptional, and therefore not bound by the limitations that bog down other mere mortal nations, that was a huge factor in getting us into such a huge fucking mess in the first place.

This bullshit all started with Ronald Reagan, of course. Jimmy Carter tried in his own bumbling and inept manner to warn Americans that there were limits not only to our military power but to the energy resources that fueled our very way of life. During the 1980 presidential campaign, Reagan and his minions took Carter's warnings and won big by beating him over the head with them. Then Reagan won re-election by using the same American exceptionalism club to wallop Walter Mondale even harder. And ever since then, the idea that America cannot do absolutely whatever the fuck it wants to do on the world stage has been verboten in the political arena.

Yet the question needs to be asked: just how exceptional is a country that simultaneously launched two major wars of choice against pipsqueak opponents, spent over a trillon dollars on the effort, and actually managed to lose both of them? Or a country that operates its own offshore Gulag where it holds people for more than a decade without trial? Or a country which routinely tortures and abuses prisoners of war? Or a country which secretly arranges for kidnappings and deportations to foreign torture chambers? Or a country that sanctions assassinations against even its own citizens? Or a country which allows the banking criminals who crashed its economy to walk away scott free with hunderds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded bonuses in their pockets? Or a country in which 50 million people are at risk of dying from even relatively minor medical ailments because they cannot afford to go see a doctor? Or a country that makes filthy rich mega-stars out of the likes of Brittany Spears, Kim Kardashian, Snooki, Charlie Sheen, Lady Gaga, Adam Sandler, Justin Bieber and Katy Perry? Or a country in which less than one-third of its young adults even know what year it declared its independence?

We'd be a hell of a lot better off if these two assholes would stop trying to one-up one another and level with the public for once, but Spoiled Rotten Nation won't stand for that. It doesn't want to hear the truth: that there is absolutely NOTHING exceptional or more noble about America as a nation-state, other than the fact that those of us who were born here or immigrated and became citizens had the good fortune to not only be living on top of the greatest pile of natural resources ever bestowed upon any civilization, but that those resources were located in a relatively isolated spot on the globe which made us largely immune from conventional military attack.

And what did we choose to do with that incredible bounty? We created a crass, superficial, me-first society that has been devouring those resources as quickly as possible and despoiling this beautiful landscape to create a hideously ugly, coast-to coast shopping mall to accommodate the lowest common denominator tastes of a vast horde of drooling consumer zombies.


Bonus: To paraphrase both George Carlin and Joni Mitchell: "only a nation of unenlightened halfwits would pave paradise and put up a parking lot"

The "Walmart of Weed" is Opening in Washington

When a government refuses to acknowledge either public sentiment or common sense in a certain area of the law, the people start finding creative ways to undermine the very same law. It happened during the prohibition years, and it is gradually happening again. Here is the Washington Post with the story:

A company dubbed the “Walmart of Weed” is putting down roots in America’s capital city, sprouting further debate on marijuana — medical or otherwise.

Just a few miles from the White House and federal buildings, a company that candidly caters to medical marijuana growers is opening up its first outlet on the East Coast. The opening of the weGrow store on Friday in Washington coincides with the first concrete step in implementing a city law allowing residents with certain medical conditions to purchase pot.

Like suppliers of picks and axes during the gold rush, weGrow sees itself providing the necessary tools to pioneers of a “green rush,” which some project could reach nearly $9 billion within the next five years. Admittedly smaller than a big box store, weGrow is not unlike a typical retailer in mainstream America, with towering shelves of plant food and vitamins, ventilation and lighting systems. Along with garden products, it offers how-to classes, books and magazines on growing medical marijuana.

“The more that businesses start to push the envelope by showing that this is a legitimate industry, the further we’re going to be able to go in changing people’s minds,” said weGrow founder Dhar Mann.

Although federal law outlaws the cultivation, sale or use of marijuana, 16 states and the District of Columbia have legalized its medical use to treat a wide range of issues from anxiety and back pain to HIV/AIDS and cancer-related ailments. Fourteen states also have some kind of marijuana decriminalization law, removing or lowering penalties for possession.

Nearly 7 percent of Americans, or 17.4 million people, said they used marijuana in 2010, up from 5.8 percent, or 14.4 million, in 2007, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. A Gallup poll last year found a record-high of 50 percent of Americans saying that marijuana should be made legal, and 70 percent support medical uses for pot.

Public sentiment is definitely swinging toward finally legalizing marijuana. In fact, one question I would want to ask the 20% of respondents to that poll with the inconsistent opinion about pot is why exactly do they favor the "medicinal use" of marijuana versus it being legal otherwise? How does someone enjoying a little weed in the privacy of their own home affect your life in any way whatsoever? So they should have to wait until they get a brain tumor before they can fire up a joint? That makes exactly no sense whatsoever.

It is long past time to change this country's insane marijuana laws and legalize it already. Taxing it like alcohol in cigarettes would also help cash strapped governments at all levels raise revenue. It's a win-win with very little downside. Except for the prudes, busy-bodies and fundie whack jobs who aren't happy unless they are all up in somebody else's business.


Bonus: Too bad Bill didn't live to see it

TDS Blog Endorses Barack Obama for Re-Election as President of the United States

image: The Obama record, as unblemished as that of the guy who designed the original Hope poster

Now that Mitt Romney has secured the Republican nomination and the general election campaign is about to begin in earnest, it is time for me to make my official endorsement for President of the United States. This wasn’t an easy decision, as both candidates are very capable and bring a wealth of experience to the table that would help them guide the nation in these uncertain times. Mr. Romney is a successful businessman whose experience on Wall Street is invaluable to understanding the needs of working and middle class families. What’s more, although Mr. Romney could have continued in his high paying position with Bain Capital, he instead selflessly chose to enter public service and very much distinguished himself as Governor of Massachusetts. During the campaign, Governor Romney has been the voice of reason in the Republican primaries, and has refused to turn his back on his core values or change his positions despite the scurrilous attacks from his opponents. Were he not running against a successful incumbent, I would have no hesitation in bestowing upon him my full endorsement.

Governor Romney’s excellent qualifications are, however, trumped by the superior record while in office of the incumbent, Barack Obama. Taking the presidential oath in the middle of the worst financial crisis since World War Two, Mr. Obama hit the ground running and was quickly able to restore the public’s confidence in the financial markets with his aggressive actions to curtail the shady dealings of Wall Street hucksters. Even before taking office, Mr. Obama signaled that he would not be representing business as usual by his staunch opposition to the Troubled Assets Relief Bill at the height of the 2008 campaign. Mr. Obama’s boldest move was unleashing the FBI and Department of Justice prosecutors on Wall Street, who then secured indictments against the big players who were most responsible for the rampant fraud that caused the housing bubble and the resulting crash in the financial markets.

In foreign policy, Mr. Obama has been even bolder, accelerating President Bush’s Iraq withdrawal timetable and removing all American troops from that country before the end of his first year in office. Mr. Obama resisted the military’s call for a surge in Afghanistan, and instead negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the beleaguered Karzai regime. Additionally, one of his first acts upon entering office was issuing an executive order shutting down the American Gulag at Guantanamo Bay. Mr. Obama also successfully resisted any America involvement in the Libyan civil war. As a result, Mr. Obama was, as the press consensus had it at the time of his acceptance speech upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, the most deserving recipient of that prestigious award in recent years.

But perhaps President Obama’s most important and lasting contribution has been in being the first American President to take seriously the nation’s dire energy predicament. In his second State of the Union speech, he became the first commander-and-chief to mention the phrase “Peak Oil,” and he committed the nation to beginning to wean itself from its oil addiction by using the savings from his enormous cuts in Pentagon spending to invest in mass transportation. Showing that he is unafraid to make unpopular decisions, he stood up to the big oil lobby when he steadfastly refused to consider approving the Keystone Pipeline project, thus thwarting attempts to have that hideously polluting oil resource shipped to the U.S. for refining. Mr. Obama demanded that his justice department vigorously pursue a civil case against British Petroleum on behalf of the victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and by executive order enacted a ban against that wretched company ever again operating within U.S. jurisdiction. Mr. Obama also refused to bail out failed U.S. automakers GM and Chrysler, explaining at the time that although both firms have in the past made an enormous contribution to American prosperity, it made no sense to try to save the 21st century equivalent of a buggy whip factory.

In short, President Obama’s record as a reformer who is determined to change the country’s course at a time in which it appeared headed for disaster is unblemished. He is a visionary and experienced leader with whom America would be wise to keep at the helm of the ship of state. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that The Downward Spiral blog enthusiastically endorses Barack Obama for reelection as President of the United States.


Bonus: I'd like to dedicate this song to all of those who are planning to vote for either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney this November

War Pigs Porn: Pentagon Desperately Plays The Jobs Card While Trying To Avoid Budget Cuts

The Pentagon War Pigs know that they are starting to lose the battle in the court of public opinion. After two lost wars in one decade, it's about time that the average mope citizen woke up to the fact that the biggest reason their government is running trillion dollar plus annual budget deficits at a time in which programs that benefit Americans are being frozen if not slashed is because of the out-of-control, five-sided monster on the banks of the Potomac.

As I've stated repeatedly on this blog, America's level of defense war spending is absolutely insane. Including indirect costs, the total is approximate to what every other nation on earth spends on war. What's more, four of the next six nations in war spending, including Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, are currently aligned with the U.S. We could slash Pentagon spending by at least three-fourths and still be utterly safe from conventional military attack.

Now the Pentagon is playing the one political card it hopes will carry weight in these difficult economic times: the loss of jobs that would result if the budget cutting deal reached by Obama and the Republicans last year are allowed to take effect. Here is Reuters with the story:

The Pentagon said on Thursday it would expect hundreds of thousands of layoffs across the defense industry if lawmakers did not take action to avert an additional $500 billion in defense budget cuts that could take effect in January 2013.

Frank Kendall, the Defense Department's acting undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said the cuts would force the Pentagon to break many hard-won contracts with industry, including a multibillion dollar deal with Boeing Co for development of a new refueling plane.

The Navy's contracts with Lockheed Martin Corp and Australia's Austal Ltd for littoral combat ships would also be vulnerable if the mandatory cuts, known as sequestration, took effect as planned, Kendall told the Senate Armed Services Committee at a confirmation hearing to stay in the job.

Kendall said the defense industry would face fairly deep cuts applied indiscriminately, rather than on a targeted basis, given the way the Budget Control Act was worded.

The Pentagon last month unveiled a budget proposal for fiscal 2013 that would begin to implement $487 billion in spending cuts that the White House and Congress agreed to make, spanning the next decade. If lawmakers did not come up with $1.2 trillion in other deficit-reducing measures, the Pentagon would have to cut its proposed funding by another $500 billion.

Kendall said there was a good chance that President Barack Obama would use a legal clause to exempt the personnel accounts from the cuts -- which would increase the burden that would fall on spending for new weapons, research and development programs and upgrades for older weapons.

"A lot of the work that we're done over the last couple of years to try to make more efficient acquisition decisions and get better contract structures would be broken," he said.

Kendall said the cuts would ripple through all tiers of the defense industry, hitting small and medium-sized businesses particularly hard.

He said some of the biggest companies in the sector had already approached him with concerns about having to provide advance notice of potential layoffs given the uncertainty caused by the current budget situation.

Conservatives like to bash so-called "welfare queens" every chance they get, even though the average person on welfare actually receives a tiny pittance compared to what is paid out to defense contractors every year. Right here in this article you can see who the biggest welfare queens of all really are. $487 billion in budget reductions over the next decade represents less than $50 billion per year, or put another way less than 10% of the Pentagon's current annual budget allocation. It's time to cut these fuckers off, whatever the costs to the economy.


Bonus: But of course

The REAL Lesson From Obama's "Keystone Cave-In"

Last Friday, in the wake of President Hopey-Changey abruptly changing course on the Keystone Pipeline project, Rolling Stone political writer Jeff Goodell wrote a piece called, "Lessons from Obama's Keystone Cave-In," which was particularly notable because it demonstrated yet again that if you don't understand the dire implications of peak oil you are hardly going to learn the right lessons from any energy-related decision made by our so-called "leaders." Just for the heck of it, I thought I'd go through the four lessons listed by Goodell and offer a rebuttal for each of them:

1. "All of the above" = "Drill, Baby, Drill"
Obama talks a good game about developing "green" energy sources, but here he is, doubling down on oil. Although this speech was clearly political theater, I expected him to appease anti-pipeline activists by using his visit to Cushing – the belly of the fossil-fuel beast – to remind Big Oil that not only has he promised to yank away $4 billion in subsidies, but that oil is, as he said the other day, "the fuel of the past." Ha! Instead, Obama offered up a speech that would make Sarah Palin proud, reminding us how, over the last three years, "I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore." And he crowed: "We are drilling all over the place now." And as for pipelines, he bragged that "we’ve added enough new oil and gas pipelines to encircle the earth." Climate blogger Joe Romm rightly called the address "Obama's worst speech ever."

Okay, so Obama seemingly contradicted himself in two different speeches before two different audiences. That happens all the time with politicians. So which time do you suppose he was lying? The time he mouthed an empty platitude about oil being "the fuel of the past," or when he started bragging about his administration's pro-drilling record?

As the old saying goes, Money Talks and Bullshit Walks. In this case, the latter example was money while the former was the bullshit.

2. If Obama gets re-elected, the northern half of the Keystone pipeline is going to get built.
He did not say this explicitly in his speech yesterday, but the political code is perfectly clear. Obama is essentially endorsing tar sands oil production, with all the environmental wreckage it causes, as well as dooming the Midwest to more pipeline spills. It also means that investment dollars will now flow to boosting the production capacity of the tar sands operations, which in turn will pump up the industry's political clout even more. In effect, there’s no stopping the tar sands now. The dirty bitumen is gonna get dug up and refined and piped down to the Gulf and slimed across the world.

It should have been perfectly obvious even before Obama gave his speech that the whole damn pipeline was eventually going to be approved. All along, he was just trying to run the clock out until after the 2012 election and hoping there wasn't another spike in gasoline prices to force his hand before he was safe from ever facing the voters again. Well, the spike happened as you might have noticed, and Obama quickly realized there were more votes to be lost from being seen by Spoiled Rotten Nation to be standing in the way of America accessing another major source of oil (even if it will do nothing to bring down prices in the short term) than he will likely lose in support from environmentalists. Speaking of which:

3. Enviros have no muscle.
When the State Department last year decided to block the pipeline at least temporarily, enviros cheered. Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, called it "a victory of truth over misinformation," and writer/activist Bill McKibben said "it isn’t just the right call, it’s the brave call." But that bravery wilted quickly in the face of high gas prices and Republican attacks, lame as they have been (the pipeline will have no measureable impact on gas prices in America today, tomorrow, or ever). The unmistakable subtext of this speech was: Tough shit, Frances and Bill and all your earnest followers. Are you really gonna vote for Romney in November?

Of course environmentalists won't be voting for Romney, and that is exactly why Obama was able to make the political calculation I outlined in my response to lesson 2. Yeah, a lot of environmentalists might stay home in November, or they might choose to throw away their votes by casting them for the Green Party, but they WON'T be voting for Romney and that will blunt any political effect their protest might have. Some of them will no doubt even cave in and vote for Hopey-Changey anyway, using the totally self-defeating lesser of two evils "logic."

The real lesson on this point ought to be obvious. The environmentalists, as well as those who believe in economic justice and those who are opposed to America's big business, war and empire foreign policy, DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. In a democracy you have real choices at the ballot box. As non-elite Americans living in a full blown corporatocracy, we most assuredly do not have any choice on issues of real importance that affect the economy or our future other than to throw our votes away on third party candidates who stand zero chance of ever being elected.

4. Obama is still wimping out on climate change.
Duh. But people had hopes. During the 2008 campaign, Obama talked about slowing the rising seas and putting a price on carbon pollution. After the election, he hired John Holdren as science advisor and Steven Chu to run to the Department of Energy, both of whom understand the dangers of climate change as well as anyone. Didn’t help. Today, despite the fact that global carbon pollution is accelerating and extreme weather is becoming the norm (it’s a sad but revealing irony that, as Brad Johnson points out, Cushing has been ground zero for climate disasters in the U.S.), Obama won’t even mention the words "climate" or "global warming," much less demonstrate any leadership on the single most dangerous threat that civilization has ever faced. Instead, he has shifted the conversation to energy independence. That may be a worthy goal, but if it’s pursued without regard to the risks of climate change, it will only increase the danger of future catastrophes.

Obama most certainly is "wimping out" on climate change. Why? Because he is a product of a system that is completely dependent upon never ending economic growth for its very survival, and curtailing the burning of fossil fuels would destroy that system pretty quickly. Obama would have to be politically suicidal NOT to wimp out on climate change, and the world only very rarely ever sees the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev achieving high political office.

Goodell then concludes his piece with this:

In any crass political calculation, drilling for oil will always win more votes than putting a price on carbon. But if I recall what I was taught in fifth-grade American government class, we elect presidents to do more than crass political calculations. Obama wants to be thought of as the president who freed us from foreign oil. But if he doesn’t show some political courage, he may well be remembered as the president who cooked the planet.

Excuse me for being so blunt, but what a childish statement. I don't know how old Mr. Goodell is, but the last president I can recall who didn't make every single decision based upon "crass political calculation" was Jimmy Carter, and we all know how well that worked out for him.

So many environmentalists just refuse to get it into their heads that humanity has painted itself into the tightest of corners. Beginning in earnest about a century ago, we tapped into the greatest energy resource nature could have possibly bestowed upon us. Instead of wisely managing that very nonrenewable resource, we exploited it as quickly as we could and allowed our population to expand in a very short time to well beyond what the planet can possibly sustain when that resource runs out, even if the resulting environmental damage from burning that resource wasn't also a hugely negative factor.

Not only America, but all of humanity is barreling towards the cliff at breakneck speed, and it is likely already too late to put on the breaks. "Leaders" like Obama have been put into place by his billionaire backers in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses and keep the game going for as long as possible. That is the real lesson to be learned from Obama's Keystone cave-in, and accepting it is the key to becoming part of the reality-based community.


Bonus: "I believe before the world ever got that bad, I'd be on my knees a-crying"