jim hancock

A Little More on the Iowa Caucuses | I'm Sorry You Lost Your Health Coverage

2012-01-09T09:48:00.000-08:00

Someone I don't know took exception to my brief post about Mr. Obama's final message to Iowans the night before the caucuses in 2008.My correspondent is understandably distressed and frustrated by the series of personal catastrophes he's endured in the last couple of years. I wish him well and, more, I want to do all I can to ensure that we as a people do right by him and his family — that we do right by each other.

Dear Anonymous, I'm sorry you lost your job and home and health coverage. I can't think of a single way in which that doesn't suck. I'm sure you're aware that Republicans in Congress, and a few Democrats, have fought tooth and nail to block the President from extending and expanding loan modification programs. Or maybe you're not aware of that, but it's in the public record. And your family is paying the price very directly. Again: Sorry. I don't have a job. I quit my last day job a dozen years ago to operate a one-person company. I've been on my own for health coverage since June 2000. If you think things are bad now -- and they still are -- you would have soiled your trousers over the last decade. When my COBRA coverage timed-out, the insurer I'd been with for most of a decade said they would be happy to extend the same plan to me for $6,000 a month. In case you think that's a typo, let me say it differently: My insurance company said they would cover me going forward for a premium of $72,000 a year. I was so shocked by that number that I just laughed at the young woman on the phone -- so loud that I felt like I needed to apologize. She didn't make up that number. Someone making a whole lot more money than either of us did.Allow me to make a partial list of benefits extended under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 -- which is, frustratingly, phased in between 2010 and 2018. You can read the list and then tell me if you think it represents significant reform. The Act:- sets a cap on our total out-of-pocket expenses- ends lifetime coverage limits- ends annual coverage limits- extends coverage under family insurance to our children until their 26th birthday- sets minimum standards for health plans- prohibits insurers from declining coverage due to preexisting conditions- ends copayment for preventive care and screenings- establishes clear apples-to-apples comparisons of plan costs and benefits- prohibits insurers from dropping us if we get sick- requires a minimum of 80% of premiums go to medical services or we get a rebate- extends medicare to small and rural medical facilities- prohibits insurers from charging us higher premiums based on health risk- expands Medicaid eligibility to more low-income citizens- subsidizes premium coverages for low- and middle-income citizens- all but ensures an end to U.S. families losing their homes because of medical misfortuneIs it perfect? Of course not. But the law already beats the heck out of what we had and what we were going to get without it, and it's being refined and improved as the elements are activated and tested in real world applications. There's more on all this at HealthCare.gov and other nonpartisan sources.Every potential opponent in the 2012 presidential election wants to take all that back and leave us hanging out to dry. As for Iraq, without going into the bigger story, I'm sure you know that the general terms of the withdrawal were set by the Bush Administration in 2008. No one doubts the capacity of of the U.S. military to project power in such a way as to change the terms of that departure -- and a lesser Commander in Chief might had been baited into such a move. But by what authority, at what cost, and to what end? I think this withdrawal was about as dignified as it could have been under the circumstances. Please don't get me wrong: I don't place my hope in the U.S. government. I merely have expectations about what we should be able to expect from each other and for each other, and how government should operate to deliver those results as nearly as possible for our mutual benefit. I don't see anyone in the presidential race whose vision about that overlaps with mine nearly as much as President Obama.I really am sorry for your pain. I hope you find great healing and restoration for your family very soon.respectfully, jh

And Speaking of the Iowa Caucuses

2012-01-06T07:00:00.000-08:00

This is then Senator Obama's final message to Iowans just before the 2008 Iowa Caucuses.

I think it holds up pretty well: Health care reform and tax relief for working families delivered as promised with more on the way; completing the drawdown of troops in Iraq completed as promised; college loan reforms accomplished as promised. The promise to move toward energy independence is still pending, as is repairing the divide with Republicans in Congress — who, in fairness to the President, appear to have fled into their bedroom and slammed the door.

Seems to me, citizens can be delighted or dismayed, but it we can hardly deny Mr. Obama pursued and substantively delivered what he promised Iowans four years ago this week.

Speaking of Blue Like Jazz...

2012-01-05T22:16:00.000-08:00

Speaking of Blue Like Jazz — which we were not too long ago — I just finished Donald Miller's A Million Miles in a Thousand Years.

One of many dirty little secrets I protect (well, not anymore) is that I read a draft of the Blue Like Jazz screenplay and viewed a rough cut of the movie without ever finishing the book. I don't know what to say; I got bogged down; I didn't finish; it's just one of those things, OK?

This newish book — A Million Miles in a Thousand Years: How I Learned to Live a Better Story — follows the turn in Donald's life after Steve Taylor and Ben Pearson disrupted his routine with an invitation to make Blue Like Jazz The Movie.

"My career, and for that matter my life was stalled before I met Steve Taylor and Ben Pearson," Miller writes. "I am not sure where I would be if it weren’t for their friendship. I certainly wouldn’t have written this book. Thank you for helping me write my story, in more ways than one."*

I mention this because, 1) I really like this book — it's witty and honest and thoughtful storytelling — and 2) reading it over Christmas made me want to see the movie when it opens this Spring.

So, h/t to Jay who was sure I would enjoy this read (he was right); to Amazon who let me sample the book via Kindle before I spent money (which I did gladly after reading the sample); and to Mr. Miller for bringing a remarkable cast of characters to life in his book.

And that's the last fanboy gesture you can expect from me for...I don't know...a while.

* Miller, Donald (2009-08-26). A Million Miles in a Thousand Years: How I Learned to Live a Better Story . Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.

Anticipation | 3rd Sunday of Advent, 2011

2011-12-10T20:03:00.001-08:00

from Starfish235 on flickr

"Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord's Messiah." — Luke 2:25-26

Did those who eagerly waited for "the consolation of Israel" know what a troublemaker the child would grow up to be?

A friend posted a silly button that made me laugh out loud. Not the sort of thing that person usually posts.

Others were not amused. After half a dozen readers took my friend to task, I commented:

At the risk of fanning the flame, here's a question put to former Daily Show writer David Javerbaum by Salon, about research for his new comedic book about modern religion: "So spending all this time thinking about it: Does a New York liberal emerge with any new insights on religion as a result?"

A: As a Jew reading about Jesus, I thought he’s a pretty good guy. It’s the same conclusion Monty Python drew in “Life of Brian” – if people actually live what he did, it would be a pretty good world. But Jesus and Christianity have a tenuous relationship at best.

Someone I don't know replied:

People aren't capable of being Jesus. Christians know this and yet non-Christians keep expecting it. It is the fundamental gap between those who know Jesus and those who do not.

This struck me as an odd argument in light of what I've read in the Bible. I asked, "Do you ever have the feeling the 'Sermon on the Mount' may have been a severe error in judgement?"

To which the person I don't know responded, "How do you mean that?"

What I meant was that Jesus is on the record in a way that puts people who call themselves Christians on the hook when they encourage people to read the Bible.

I think anyone who reads the sixth chapter of Luke — even, and maybe especially, in the context the larger story of which it is part — can be forgiven for thinking Jesus means us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us; to give to everyone who asks; to treat others as we want to be treated; to be merciful as God is merciful; to suspend judgment and condemnation; to forgive; to become recognizably like our teacher; to do what he says.

And, I think, a person who reads what Jesus says about such things can be forgiven for thinking we are not very serious if we claim Jesus means something very different from what he says.

I appreciate the way C.S. Lewis frames it:

I have said that we should never get a Christian society unless most of us became Christian individuals. That does not mean, of course, that we can put off doing anything about society until some imaginary date in the far future. It means that we must begin both jobs at once—(1) the job of seeing how ‘Do as you would be done by’ can be applied in detail to modern society, and (2) the job of becoming the sort of people who really would apply it if we saw how." — C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco, 2001 edition, p. 88

It occurs to me this Advent that people longing for the government of God should be careful what they wish for. Simeon saw in the baby Jesus more than meets the eye…

Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.” — Luke 2:34-35

Occupy | If You See Something, Say Something

2011-11-21T15:12:00.001-08:00

— Department of Homeland Security Secretary
Janet Napolitano, August 17, 2011

If you see something, say something.

This is what citizens who identify with the Occupy movement in a thousand cities and towns across the U.S. are doing. They see suspicious behavior in the financial sector — acts that look fraud, bribery, confidence games, conspiracy and looting. And like the good citizens they are, the Occupiers are saying what they see.

The Occupiers point at smoke rising from the ruins of the real economy and say, "We think someone set this fire by negligence, if not on purpose; and we think it's probably the ones who devised ways to make mad sums without regard for consequences — including burning it down and collecting insurance after the fact in the form of bets laid against their own clients."

Occupiers would like to know if anyone is looking into this, because it's unclear that anyone is, while it's become quite clear there are serial offenders who will be happy to pay hundreds of millions in out-of-court settlements as long as that leaves open the option to take in billions committing the same infractions again and again.

Thus, something else that seems clear to Occupiers is the need for real legal action, redress and regulation on the people who have had and are having their way with the financial markets.

In September, 2008, then sitting chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Christopher Cox, wrote: "The last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work."

This admission came four years after the S.E.C initiated a program of voluntary self-regulation for the biggest banks, giving those banks latitude to set their own standards for capitalization ratios. The big banks quickly ran that ratio beyond 30-1.

To understand what that means (in admittedly simplified terms), think about how much money you have to have in your personal account in order to lend me $300. That's going to be something in the neighborhood of $300, right? If you were a self-regulating big bank from 2004 on, you would have the assumed the right to lend me $300 with just $10 in your account. Or, more to the point, with $300 in your account, you could lend $300 to 10 of your closest friends — and collect interest from each of us instead of just one of us.

To get a sense of the ballpark we're playing in, multiply by five big banks, add nine zeros and repeat.

Occupiers look at that sort of thing — and this is just one among several things — and say, "Wait, what?(!!)"

They're not alone. A few reporters and commentators raised questions at the time and later, but not loud enough or long enough, apparently, to capture and hold the attention of the people who are supposed to be looking out for all of us.

So, rather than standing by while it happens again when it's become VERY OBVIOUS that, left to their own devices, bad actors in banking and finance will never come to their senses — so it will happen again, and maybe soon — the Occupiers are saying what they see. And they intend to keep saying it until people in power pay attention and fix what's broken for the good of the nation. This what we expect from good citizens committed to the common good.

Drum circles aside, do you really have a problem with that?

American Haiku | We Are Penn State

2011-11-12T22:38:00.001-08:00

are we Penn State, all
caught looking the other way?
yes, we are Penn State

BLUE LIKE JAZZ | finally!

2011-10-13T08:00:00.000-07:00

I stayed up late with several hundred of my closest friends at the National Youth Workers Convention in San Diego to watch a rough cut of Donald Miller + Steve Taylor's film, Blue Like Jazz.

In the spirit of full disclosure. Mr. Taylor and I have been friends for something on the order of 30 years. That said, we have an informal agreement not to kid each other. So, I can tell you what I told him: "It's really good; stop listening to other voices; finish it."

Of course, he's too polite to stop listening, but he sees things too clearly to make false compromises at this point.

Taylor directed Donald Miller's screenplay and I think it's funny, thoughtful, unpredictable and real — by which I mean two things. First, Blue Like Jazz will earn a PG-13 rating because freshman year at Reed College — the very same institution from which Steve Jobs dropped-out back in the day — was a PG-13 experience (give or take an R). So don't take your grandmother or your middle school Bible Study when this film is released next April and then pretend to be shocked — shocked! I tell you — at the language and debauchery. It's not a movie for 12 year-olds. And I mean that in the best possible way.

The second thing I mean by real, is that the Blue Like Jazz movie is true to itself — real in the sense that it isn't trying to be anything but what it is. The storytellers are not attempting to pull a bait and switch. There is no cameo appearance by Billy Graham or a Billy Graham surrogate. This movie is not meant to close any deals or be the end-point of anyone's journey. It may be a mile-marker; maybe even a beginning for some views. I find a lot to like in that.

But don't take my word for it. Get yourself to Atlanta for the second National Youth Workers Convention, November 18-20, 2011, where you'll have a chance to stay up late and see how Blue Like Jazz is coming along. Maybe we can split a bag of popcorn.

We won't even debate the American Jobs Act?

2011-10-12T15:46:00.000-07:00

Last night the United States Senate failed to muster 60 elected officials willing to even debate the merits of the American Jobs Act.

That's how things work under current Senate rules. The Act itself might be passed with a simple majority of 51 votes. But 60 votes are required to bring the matter up for debate.

What part of we need jobs makes this proposal so distasteful that it can't be discussed?

Incentivizing employers to hire returning Iraq and Afghanistan Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines?
Hiring, rehiring and preventing the layoff of tens of thousands of firefighters, law enforcement officers and teachers?
Training to refit capable but unemployed American workers to take jobs requiring knowledge and skills they lack?
Modernizing more than 30,000 schools across the U.S.?
Adding — if Moody's Analytics is in the ballpark — 1.9 million jobs — lowering the unemployment rate by a full point and growing the U.S. economy by two percent? (Could your enterprise use a two percent bump at the closing of the year?)

Read the American Jobs Act for yourself. If your Senator voted against even debating the measure, you have a right to know why. Here's where you'll find Senate contact information.

Press Conference on the Economy | 10.06.11

2011-10-07T11:27:00.000-07:00

"If Congress does something, then I can’t run against a do-nothing Congress."
— Barack Obama

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 06, 2011

News Conference by the President

East Room

11:00 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. I will take your questions in a second. But first, I just want to say a few words about the economy.

Next week, the Senate will vote on the American Jobs Act. And I think by now I’ve made my views pretty well known. Some of you are even keeping a tally of how many times I’ve talked about the American Jobs Act. And the reason I keep going around the country talking about this jobs bill is because people really need help right now. Our economy really needs a jolt right now.

This is not a game; this is not the time for the usual political gridlock. The problems Europe is having today could have a very real effect on our economy at a time when it’s already fragile. But this jobs bill can help guard against another downturn if the situation in Europe gets any worse. It will boost economic growth; it will put people back to work.

And by the way, this is not just my belief. This is what independent economists have said -- not politicians, not just people in my administration. Independent experts who do this for a living have said this jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and for middle-class families all across America. And what these independent experts have also said is that if we don’t act, the opposite will be true. There will be fewer jobs; there will be weaker growth.

So as we look towards next week, any senator out there who’s thinking about voting against this jobs bill, when it comes up for a vote, needs to explain exactly why they would oppose something that we know would improve our economic situation at such an urgent time for our families and for our businesses.

Congressional Republicans say one of the most important things we can do is cut taxes. Then they should love this plan. This jobs bill would cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in America. If you’re a small business owner that hires someone or raises wages, you would get another tax cut. If you hire a veteran, you get a tax cut. Right now, there’s a small business in Ohio that does high-tech manufacturing and they’ve been expanding for the past two years. They’re considering hiring more, and this tax break would encourage them to do it.

Hundreds of thousands of teachers and firefighters and police officers have been laid off because of state budget cuts. This jobs bill has funding to put a lot of those men and women back to work. It has funding to prevent a lot more from losing their job. I had a chance to meet a young man named Robert Baroz. He’s an English teacher in Boston who came to the White House a few weeks ago. He’s got two decades of teaching experience, he’s got a Master’s degree, he’s got an outstanding track record of helping his students make huge gains in reading and writing. In the last few years, he’s received three pink slips because of budget cuts. Why wouldn’t we want to pass a bill that puts somebody like Robert back in the classroom teaching our kids?

Some of you were with me when we visited a bridge between Ohio and Kentucky that’s been classified as “functionally obsolete.” That’s a fancy way of saying it’s old and breaking down. We’ve heard about bridges in both states that are falling apart, and that’s true all across the country.

In Maine, there is a bridge that is in such bad shape that pieces of it were literally falling off the other day. And, meanwhile, we’ve got millions of laid-off construction workers who could right now be busy rebuilding roads, rebuilding bridges, rebuilding schools. This jobs bill gives them a chance to get back to work rebuilding America. Why wouldn’t we want that to happen? Why would you vote against that?

The proposals in this bill are not just random investments to create make-work jobs. They are steps we have to take if we want to build an economy that lasts, if we want to be able to compete with other countries for jobs that restore a sense of security to middle-class families. And to do that, we’ve got to have the most educated workers. We have to have the best transportation and communications networks. We have to support innovative small businesses. We’ve got to support innovative manufacturers.

Now, what’s true is we’ve also got to rein in our deficits and live within our means, which is why this jobs bill is fully paid for by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. Some see this as class warfare. I see it as a simple choice: We can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates in some cases than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job.

We can fight to protect tax cuts for folks who don’t need them and weren’t asking for them, or we can cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in America. But we can’t afford to do both. That’s the choice that’s going to be before the Senate.

There are too many people hurting in this country for us to do nothing and the economy is just too fragile for us to let politics get in the way of action.

We’ve got a responsibility to the people who sent us here. So I hope every senator thinks long and hard about what’s at stake when they cast their vote next week.

With that, I will take your questions, and I will start with Ben Feller of Associated Press.

Q Thank you very much, Mr. President. I’d like to ask you about two economic matters. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke warned Congress this week that the economic recovery is “close to faltering.” Do you agree?

And secondly, on your jobs bill, the American people are sick of games -- and you mentioned games in your comments. They want results. Wouldn’t it be more productive to work with Republicans on a plan that you know could pass Congress as opposed to going around the country talking about your bill and singling out -- calling out Republicans by name?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, with respect to the state of the economy, there is no doubt that growth has slowed. I think people were much more optimistic at the beginning of this year. But the combination of a Japanese tsunami, the Arab Spring, which drove up gas prices, and most prominently Europe I think has gotten businesses and consumers very nervous. And we did not help here in Washington with the debt ceiling debacle that took place, a bit of game-playing that was completely unnecessary, completely unprecedented in terms of how we dealt with our responsibilities here in Washington.

You combine all that -- there is no doubt that the economy is weaker now than it was at the beginning of the year. And every independent economist who has looked at this question carefully believes that for us to make sure that we are taking out an insurance policy against a possible double-dip recession, it is important for us to make sure that we are boosting consumer confidence, putting money into their pockets, cutting taxes where we can for small businesses, and that it makes sense for us to put people back to work doing the work that needs to be done. That’s exactly what this jobs bill does.

Now, with respect to working with Congress, I think it’s fair to say that I have gone out of my way in every instance, sometimes at my own political peril and to the frustration of Democrats, to work with Republicans to find common ground to move this country forward -- in every instance, whether it was during the lame duck session, when we were able to get an agreement on making sure that the payroll tax was cut in the first place, and making sure that unemployment insurance was extended, to my constant efforts during the debt ceiling to try to get what’s been called a grand bargain, in which we had a balanced approach to actually bringing down our deficit and debt in a way that wouldn’t hurt our recovery.

Each time, what we’ve seen is games-playing, a preference to try to score political points rather than actually get something done on the part of the other side. And that has been true not just over the last six months; that’s been true over the last two and a half years.

Now, the bottom line is this: Our doors are open. And what I’ve done over the last several weeks is to take the case to the American people so that they understand what’s at stake. It is now up to all the senators, and hopefully all the members of the House, to explain to their constituencies why they would be opposed to common-sense ideas that historically have been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past. Why would you be opposed to tax cuts for small businesses and tax cuts for American workers?

My understanding is that for the last decade, they’ve been saying we need to lower taxes for folks. Well, why wouldn’t we want to do that through this jobs bill? We know that we’ve got roads and bridges and schools that need to be rebuilt. And historically, Republicans haven’t been opposed to rebuilding roads and bridges. Why would you be opposed now?

We know that the biggest problem that we’ve had in terms of unemployment over the last several months has not been in the private sector; it’s actually been layoffs of teachers and cops and firefighters. We created over 2 million jobs in the private sector -- a million jobs this year alone in the private sector, but in the public sector, we keep on seeing these layoffs having an adverse effect on economies in states all across the country. Why wouldn’t we want to make sure that those teachers are in the classroom teaching our kids?

So here’s the bottom line: My expectation and hope is that everybody will vote for this jobs bill because it reflects those ideas that traditionally have been supported by both Democrats and Republicans. If it turns out that there are Republicans who are opposed to this bill, they need to explain to me -- but more importantly, to their constituencies and the American people -- why they’re opposed and what would they do.

We know that this jobs bill, based on independent analysis, could grow the economy almost an additional 2 percent. That could mean an additional 1.9 million jobs. Do they have a plan that would have a similar impact? Because if they do, I’m happy to hear it. But I haven’t heard them offer alternatives that would have that same kind of impact, and that’s what we need right now.

A lot of the problems that this economy is facing are problems that predate the financial crisis -- middle-class families seeing their wages and their incomes flat, despite rising costs for everything from health care to a college education. And so folks have been struggling not just for the last three years; they’ve been struggling for over a decade now. And at a time when so many people are having such a hard time, we have to have an approach, we have to take action, that is big enough to meet the moment. And what I’ve heard from Republicans is, well, we’re agreeing to do these trade bills. That’s great. I’m in favor of those trade bills and I’m glad they’re passing, but that’s not going to do enough to deal with the huge problems we have right now with respect to unemployment.

We passed patent legislation. That was bipartisan work. I’m thrilled that we were able to get Republicans and Democrats to work together on that. But that is a long-term issue for our economic competitiveness. It’s not putting Americans to work right now.

So the bottom line is this, Ben: If next week senators have additional ideas that will put people back to work right now and meet the challenges of the current economy, we are happy to consider them. But every idea that we put forward are ones that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. And I think it’s important for us to have a vote on those ideas, because I believe that it’s very hard to argue against them.

And if Mr. McConnell chooses to vote against it, or if members of his caucus choose to vote against it, I promise you we’re going to keep on going, and we will put forward maybe piece by piece each component of the bill. And each time they’re going to have to explain why it is that they’d be opposed to putting teachers back in the classroom, or rebuilding our schools, or giving tax cuts to middle-class folks, and giving tax cuts to small businesses.

Q Do you think the recovery is close to faltering?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that if we don’t take action, then we could end up having more significant problems than we have right now. And some of it is just simple math. The payroll tax cut that we passed is set to expire. The jobs plan includes an extension of the payroll tax cut.

Now, if that is not extended then that is over $1,000 out of the pockets of the average American family at a time when they’re already feeling a severe pinch. That means they’re going to be spending less. That means businesses are going to have less customers. And that’s going to have an adverse effect on an economy that is already weaker than it should be.

Okay. Chuck Todd.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Before I get to my question, do we assume by how you’re talking about the bill in the Senate that you are okay with the change in how to pay for it, the surtax -- the 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires?

THE PRESIDENT: We’ve always said that we would be open to a variety of ways to pay for it. We put forward what we thought was a solid approach to paying for the jobs bill itself. Keep in mind, though, that what I’ve always said is that not only do we have to pay for the jobs bill, but we also still have to do more in order to reduce the debt and deficit.

So the approach that the Senate is taking I’m comfortable with in order to deal with the jobs bill. We’re still going to need to reform this tax code to make sure that we’re closing loopholes, closing special interest tax breaks, making sure that the very simple principle, what we call the Buffett rule, which is that millionaires and billionaires aren’t paying lower tax rates than ordinary families, that that’s in place. So there’s going to be more work to do with respect to making our tax system fair and just and promoting growth. But in terms of the immediate action of getting this jobs bill passed, I’m fine with the approach that they’re taking.

Q My question has to do with your powers of persuasion. During the debt ceiling debate, you asked for the American public to call members of Congress and switchboards got jammed. You have done a similar thing while going around the country doing this. Talking to members of Congress, there’s not the same reaction; you’re not seeing -- hearing about phones being jammed. Talking to one member of Congress, he told me there’s a disillusionment he’s concerned about with the public that maybe they just don’t believe anything can get done anyway. Are you worried about your own powers of persuasion, and maybe that the American public is not listening to you anymore?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, no. What we’ve seen is the American people respond very enthusiastically to the specific provisions of the jobs bill. They are very skeptical about Congress’s ability to act right now, and that’s understandable. The American people are very frustrated. They’ve been frustrated for a long time. They don’t get a sense that folks in this town are looking out for their interests. They get a sense that folks in this town are thinking about their own jobs, their own careers, their own advancement, their party interests. And so if the question is, Chuck, are people feeling cynical and frustrated about the prospects of positive action in this city -- absolutely. And I can go out there and make speeches, but until they actually see action, some of that cynicism is going to be there.

As you said, during the debt ceiling debate, a very solid majority -- I think maybe even higher than 70 percent -- agreed with the approach that I talked about, which was we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

And what the American people saw is that Congress didn’t care -- not just what I thought; they didn’t care about what the American people thought. They had their own agenda. And so if they see that over and over again, that cynicism is not going to be reduced until Congress actually proves their cynicism wrong by doing something that would actually help the American people. This is a great opportunity to do it. This is a great opportunity to do it.

And keep in mind, if the American jobs bill passes, we’re still going to have challenges. We’re still going to have to make sure that we’ve got the best education system in the world, because that is going to be critical for our long-term competitiveness and creating good, solid middle-class jobs. We’re still going to have to keep investing in basic research and science. We’re still going to have to make sure that we do even more on infrastructure. I mean, what’s contained in the American jobs bill doesn’t cover all the roads and bridges and infrastructure that needs to be improved around the country.

So it’s not as if that’s going to solve all our problems, but it is an important start that we know would end up growing the economy and putting hundreds of thousands, millions of people back to work at a time when they need it the most. And it’s paid for.

The one persuasive argument that the Republicans previously had made against a bill like this is the deficit is growing -- we can’t afford it. Well, we can afford it, if we’re willing to ask people like me to do a little bit more in taxes. We can afford it without affecting our deficit. Our proposal is paid for. So that can’t be the excuse.

And so, yes, until they see Congress actually putting country ahead of party politics and partisanship, they’re going to be skeptical. And it doesn’t matter how many times I preach to them, this is not a reflection of their lack of faith in the American jobs bill. They haven’t seen Congress able to come together and act.

This is a good opportunity, though.

Q -- disillusionment?

THE PRESIDENT: What we’ve seen is, is that they agree with what we’ve put forward. Now, here’s what I’ll also say, is that based on the debt ceiling vote, what they’ve seen is that the Republicans in Congress, even when the American people agree with me, oftentimes will vote against something I’m proposing.

So there may be some skepticism that I personally can persuade Republicans to take actions in the interest of the American people. But that’s exactly why I need the American people to try to put some pressure on them. Because I think, justifiably, what they’ve seen is that oftentimes -- even ideas that used to be supported by Republicans, if I’m proposing them, suddenly Republicans forget it and they decide they’re against it.

Jackie.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you travel the country, you also take credit for tightening regulations on Wall Street through the Dodd-Frank law, and about your efforts to combat income inequality. There’s this movement -- Occupy Wall Street -- which has spread from Wall Street to other cities. They clearly don’t think that you or Republicans have done enough, that you’re in fact part of the problem.

Are you following this movement, and what would you say to its -- people that are attracted to it?

THE PRESIDENT: Obviously I’ve heard of it. I’ve seen it on television. I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel -- that we had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country, all across Main Street, and yet you’re still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this problem in the first place.

So, yes, I think people are frustrated, and the protestors are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works. Now, keep in mind I have said before and I will continue to repeat, we have to have a strong, effective financial sector in order for us to grow. And I used up a lot of political capital, and I’ve got the dings and bruises to prove it, in order to make sure that we prevented a financial meltdown, and that banks stayed afloat. And that was the right thing to do, because had we seen a financial collapse then the damage to the American economy would have been even worse.

But what I’ve also said is that for us to have a healthy financial system, that requires that banks and other financial institutions compete on the basis of the best service and the best products and the best price, and it can’t be competing on the basis of hidden fees, deceptive practices, or derivative cocktails that nobody understands and that expose the entire economy to enormous risks. That’s what Dodd-Frank was designed to do. It was designed to make sure that we didn’t have the necessity of taxpayer bailouts; that we said, you know what? We’re going to be able to control these situations so that if these guys get into trouble, we can isolate them, quarantine them, and let them fail. It says that we’re going to have a consumer watchdog on the job, all the time, who’s going to make sure that they are dealing with customers in a fair way, and we’re eliminating hidden fees on credit cards, and mortgage brokers are going to have to -- actually have to be straight with people about what they’re purchasing.

And what we’ve seen over the last year is not only did the financial sector -- with the Republican Party in Congress -- fight us every inch of the way, but now you’ve got these same folks suggesting that we should roll back all those reforms and go back to the way it was before the crisis. Today, my understanding is we’re going to have a hearing on Richard Cordray, who is my nominee to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He would be America’s chief consumer watchdog when it comes to financial products. This is a guy who is well regarded in his home state of Ohio, has been the treasurer of Ohio, the attorney general of Ohio. Republicans and Democrats in Ohio all say that he is a serious person who looks out for consumers. He has a good reputation. And Republicans have threatened not to confirm him not because of anything he’s done, but because they want to roll back the whole notion of having a consumer watchdog.

You’ve got Republican presidential candidates whose main economic policy proposals is, we’ll get rid of the financial reforms that are designed to prevent the abuses that got us into this mess in the first place. That does not make sense to the American people. They are frustrated by it. And they will continue to be frustrated by it until they get a sense that everybody is playing by the same set of rules, and that you’re rewarded for responsibility and doing the right thing as opposed to gaining the system.

So I’m going to be fighting every inch of the way here in Washington to make sure that we have a consumer watchdog that is preventing abusive practices by the financial sector.

I will be hugely supportive of banks and financial institutions that are doing the right thing by their customers. We need them to be lending. We need them to be lending more to small businesses. We need them to help do what traditionally banks and financial services are supposed to be doing, which is providing business and families resources to make productive investments that will actually build the economy. But until the American people see that happening, yes, they are going to continue to express frustrations about what they see as two sets of rules.

Q Do you think Occupy Wall Street has the potential to be a tea party movement in 2012?

THE PRESIDENT: What I think is that the American people understand that not everybody has been following the rules; that Wall Street is an example of that; that folks who are working hard every single day, getting up, going to the job, loyal to their companies, that that used to be the essence of the American Dream. That’s how you got ahead -- the old-fashioned way. And these days, a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren’t rewarded, and a lot of folks who aren’t doing the right thing are rewarded.

And that’s going to express itself politically in 2012 and beyond until people feel like once again we’re getting back to some old-fashioned American values in which, if you’re a banker, then you are making your money by making prudent loans to businesses and individuals to build plants and equipment and hire workers that are creating goods and products that are building the economy and benefitting everybody.

Jake Tapper.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Just to follow up on Jackie’s question -- one of the reasons why so many of the people of the Occupy Wall Street protests are so angry is because, as you say, so many people on Wall Street did not follow the rules, but your administration hasn’t really been very aggressive in prosecuting. In fact, I don’t think any Wall Street executives have gone to jail despite the rampant corruption and malfeasance that did take place. So I was wondering if you’d comment on that.

And then just as a separate question -- as you’re watching the Solyndra and Fast and Furious controversies play out, I’m wondering if it gives you any pause about any of the decision-making going on in your administration -- some of the emails that Democrats puts out indicating that people at the Office of Management and Budget were concerned about the Department of Energy; some of the emails going on with the Attorney General saying he didn’t know about the details of Fast and Furious. Are you worried at all about how this is -- how your administration is running?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first on the issue of prosecutions on Wall Street, one of the biggest problems about the collapse of Lehmans and the subsequent financial crisis and the whole subprime lending fiasco is that a lot of that stuff wasn’t necessarily illegal, it was just immoral or inappropriate or reckless. That’s exactly why we needed to pass Dodd-Frank, to prohibit some of these practices.

The financial sector is very creative and they are always looking for ways to make money. That’s their job. And if there are loopholes and rules that can be bent and arbitrage to be had, they will take advantage of it. So without commenting on particular prosecutions -- obviously that’s not my job; that’s the Attorney General’s job -- I think part of people’s frustrations, part of my frustration, was a lot of practices that should not have been allowed weren’t necessarily against the law, but they had a huge destructive impact. And that’s why it was important for us to put in place financial rules that protect the American people from reckless decision-making and irresponsible behavior.

Now, with respect to Solyndra and Fast and Furious, I think I’ve been very clear that I have complete confidence in Attorney General Holder in how he handles his office. He has been very aggressive in going after gun running and cash transactions that are going to these transnational drug cartels in Mexico. There has been a lot of cooperation between the United States and Mexico on this front. He’s indicated that he was not aware of what was happening in Fast and Furious; certainly I was not. And I think both he and I would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested that guns were allowed to pass through that could have been prevented by the United States of America.

He has assigned an Inspector General to look into how exactly this happened, and I have complete confidence in him and I’ve got complete confidence in the process to figure out who, in fact, was responsible for that decision and how it got made.

Solyndra -- this is a loan guarantee program that predates me that historically has had support from Democrats and Republicans as well. And the idea is pretty straightforward: If we are going to be able to compete in the 21st century, then we’ve got to dominate cutting-edge technologies, we’ve got to dominate cutting-edge manufacturing. Clean energy is part of that package of technologies of the future that have to be based here in the United States if we’re going to be able to succeed.

Now, the loan guarantee program is designed to meet a particular need in the marketplace, which is -- a lot of these small startups, they can get angel investors, they can get several million dollars to get a company going, but it’s very hard for them to then scale up, particularly if these are new cutting-edge technologies. It’s hard for them to find private investors. And part of what’s happening is China and Europe, other countries, are putting enormous subsidies into these companies and giving them incentives to move offshore. Even if the technology was developed in the United States, they end up going to China because the Chinese government will say, we’re going to help you get started. We’ll help you scale up. We’ll give you low-interest loans or no-interest loans. We will give siting. We will do whatever it takes for you to get started here.

And that’s part of the reason why a lot of technologies that developed here, we’ve now lost the lead in -- solar energy, wind energy. And so what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to close that gap and say, let’s see if we can help some of those folks locate here and create jobs here in the United States.

Now, we knew from the start that the loan guarantee program was going to entail some risk, by definition. If it was a risk-free proposition, then we wouldn’t have to worry about it. But the overall portfolio has been successful. It has allowed us to help companies, for example, start advanced battery manufacturing here in the United States. It’s helped create jobs. There were going to be some companies that did not work out; Solyndra was one of them. But the process by which the decision was made was on the merits. It was straightforward. And of course there were going to be debates internally when you’re dealing with something as complicated as this.

But I have confidence that the decisions were made based on what would be good for the American economy and the American people and putting people back to work.

And by the way, let me make one last point about this. I heard there was a Republican member of Congress who’s engaging in oversight on this, and despite the fact that all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program, he concluded, you know what? We can’t compete against China when it comes to solar energy. Well, you know what? I don’t buy that. I’m not going to surrender to other countries’ technological leads that could end up determining whether or not we’re building a strong middle class in this country. And so we’re going to have to keep on pushing hard to make sure that manufacturing is located here, new businesses are located here, and new technologies are developed here. And there are going to be times where it doesn’t work out, but I’m not going to cave to the competition when they are heavily subsidizing all these industries.

Q Just a follow-up on Wall Street. Are you satisfied with how aggressive your administration has been when it comes to prosecuting? Because I know a lot of it was legal, but a lot of was not. There was fraud that took place.

THE PRESDIENT: Right. Well, let me say this: The President can’t go around saying, prosecute somebody. But as a general principle, if somebody is engaged in fraudulent actions, they need to be prosecuted. If they violated laws on the books, they need to be prosecuted. And that’s the Attorney General’s job, and I know that Attorney General Holder, U.S. attorneys all across the country, they take that job very seriously. Okay?

Hans.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You just spoke of the need for banks to start lending, you talked earlier about how creative they can be in chasing profit, and yet earlier in the week you said that banks “don’t have some inherent right to just, you know, get a certain amount of profit.” You also said in that interview that you can stop them. How do you plan on stopping them from charging this $5 fee, or whatever the fee is? And do you think that your government has a right to dictate how much profits American companies make?

THE PRESIDENT: I absolutely do not think that. I was trying to make a broader point, which is that people have been using financial regulation as an excuse to charge consumers more. Right? I mean, basically the argument they’ve made is, well, you know what, this hidden fee was prohibited and so we’ll find another fee to make up for it. Now, they have that right, but it’s not a good practice. It’s not necessarily fair to consumers. And my main goal is to make sure that we’ve got a consumer watchdog in place who is letting consumers know what fair practices are, making sure that transactions are transparent and making sure that banks have to compete for customers based on the quality of their service and good prices.

Now, the frustrating thing that we have right now is that you’ve got folks over in Congress, Republicans, who have said that they see their role as eliminating any prohibitions on any practices for financial companies. And I think that’s part of the frustration that the American people feel, because they’ve just gone through a period in which they were seeing a bunch of hidden fees, rate hikes that they didn’t know about, fine print that they could not understand. That’s true for credit cards. That’s true for mortgages. It contributed to overall weakness in the economy.

And, yes, I think it is entirely appropriate for the government to have some oversight role to make sure that consumers are protected. So banks -- and any business in America -- can price their products any way they want. That’s how the free market works. As long as there’s transparency and accountability, and consumers understand what they’re getting -- and there are going to be instances where a policy judgment is made that, you know what, there are certain practices that just aren’t fair. And that’s how the market has always operated.

Q So is it your understanding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can’t actually prevent the debit card fees from going in place, like the ones that are being --

THE PRESIDENT: I think that what the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau could do is to make sure that consumers understood exactly what they were getting, exactly what was happening. And I think that Congress could make determinations with respect to whether or not a certain practice was fair or not.

David Nakamura.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Just following up on Jake’s question about Solyndra -- the loan program, guaranteed loan program that you talked about was giving out $38 billion in guaranteed loans, and promised to save or create 65,000 jobs, green jobs, in clean energy. And there’s been reports that actually only 3,500 new jobs have been created in that industry. Why has that industry been so slow to respond to the investment that your administration has provided? And what do you see going forward as to how it will respond?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that what has been true historically is that businesses that rely on new technologies, a lot of times it’s going to take a while before they get takeoff. And there are a lot of upfront investments that have to be made in research and capital and so forth, a lot of barriers for companies that are trying to break in. Keep in mind that clean energy companies are competing against traditional energy companies. And traditional energy is still cheaper in a lot of ways.

The problem is, is it’s running out, it’s polluting, and we know that demand is going to keep on increasing so that if we don’t prepare now, if we don’t invest now, if we don’t get on top of technologies now, we’re going to be facing 20 years from now a China that -- and India having a billion new drivers on the road; the trendlines in terms of oil prices, coal, et cetera, going up; the impact on the planet increasing. And we’re not just going to be able to start when all heck is breaking loose and say, boy, we better find some new energy sources.

So in the meantime, we’ve got to make these investments, but that makes it more difficult for a lot of these companies to succeed. What’s also a problem, as I said, is that other countries are subsidizing these industries much more aggressively than we are -- hundreds of billions of dollars the Chinese government is pouring into the clean energy sector, partly because they’re projecting what’s going to happen 10 or 20 years from now.

So, look, I have confidence in American businesses and American technology, and American scientists and entrepreneurs being able to win that competition. We are not going to be duplicating the kind of system that they have in China where they are basically state-run banks giving money to state-run companies, and ignoring losses and ignoring bad management. But there is a role to play for us to make sure that these companies can at least have a fighting shot. And it does mean that there are going to be some that aren’t successful, and it’s going to be an uphill climb for some. And obviously it’s very difficult for all companies right now to succeed when the economy is as soft and as weak as it.

Q There have been reports with Solyndra in particular that investors warned your administration that the government -- that loan of $500 million in that company might not be a wise use of taxpayers’ money. In retrospect, do you think your administration was so eager for Solyndra to succeed that it missed some of the critical warnings?

THE PRESIDENT: I will tell you that even for those projects under this loan guarantee program that have ended up being successful, there are those in the marketplace who have been doubtful. So, I mean, there’s always going to be a debate about whether this particular approach to this particular technology is going to be successful or not.

And all I can say is that the Department of Energy made these decisions based on their best judgment about what would make sense. And the nature of these programs are going to be ones in which for every success there may be one that does not work out as well. But that’s exactly what the loan guarantee program was designed by Congress to do, was to take bets on these areas where we need to make sure that we’re maintaining our lead.

Bill Plante.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Anybody on Capitol Hill will say that there’s no chance that the American Jobs Act, in its current state, passes either House. And you’ve been out on the campaign trail banging away at them saying, pass this bill. And it begins, sir, to look like you’re campaigning, and like you’re following the Harry Truman model against the do-nothing Congress instead of negotiating.

Are you negotiating? Will you?

THE PRESIDENT: I am always open to negotiations. What is also true is they need to do something. I’m not -- look, Bill, I think it is very clear that if members of Congress come in and say, all right, we want to build infrastructure -- here’s the way we think we can do it. We want to put construction workers back to work; we’ve got some ideas -- I am ready, eager, to work with them. They say, we’ve got this great idea for putting teachers back in the classroom; it’s a little different than what you’ve proposed in the jobs bill. I’m ready, eager, to work with them. But that’s not what we’re hearing right now. What we’re hearing is that their big ideas, the ones that make sense, are ones we’re already doing.

They’ve given me a list of, well, here’s the Republican job creation ideas: Let’s pass free trade agreements. It’s great that we’re passing these free trade agreements. We put them forward; I expect bipartisan support. I think it’s going to be good for the American economy. But it’s not going to meet the challenge of 9 percent unemployment, or an economy that is currently weakening. It’s not enough.

Patent reform: very important for our long-term competitiveness. There’s nobody out there who actually thinks that that’s going to immediately fill the needs of people who are out of work, or strengthen the economy right now.

So what I’ve tried to do is say, here are the best ideas I’ve heard. Not just from partisans, but from independent economists. These are the ideas most likely to create jobs now and strengthen the economy right now. And that’s what the American people are looking for. And the response from Republicans has been: No. Although they haven’t given a good reason why they’re opposed to putting construction workers back on the job, or teachers back in the classroom.

If you ask them, well, okay, if you’re not for that, what are you for? Trade has already been done; patent reform has been done. What else? The answer we’re getting right now is, well, we’re going to roll back all these Obama regulations. So their big economic plan to put people back to work right now is to roll back financial protections and allow banks to charge hidden fees on credit cards again or weaken consumer watchdogs, or alternatively they’ve said we’ll roll back regulations that make sure we’ve got clean air and clean water, eliminate the EPA. Does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy that are -- that is weakening with all these forces coming into play?

I mean, here is a good question, here’s a little homework assignment for folks: Go ask the Republicans what their jobs plan is if they’re opposed to the American Jobs Act, and have it scored, have it assessed by the same independent economists that have assessed our jobs plan. These independent economists say that we could grow the economy as much as 2 percent, and as many as 1.9 million workers would be back on the job. I think it would be interesting to have them do a similar assessment -- same people. Some of these folks, by the way, traditionally have worked for Republicans, not just Democrats. Have those economists evaluate what, over the next two years, the Republican jobs plan would do. I’ll be interested in the answer. I think everybody here -- I see some smirks in the audience because you know that it’s not going to be real robust.

And so, Bill, the question, then, is, will Congress do something? If Congress does something, then I can’t run against a do-nothing Congress. If Congress does nothing, then it’s not a matter of me running against them; I think the American people will run them out of town, because they are frustrated, and they know we need to do something big and something bold.

Now, the American people are also concerned about making sure that we have a government that lives within its means, which is why I put forward a plan that would also reduce our deficit and our debt in a more aggressive way than what the special committee has been charged with.

Folks want to talk about corporate tax reform. I’ve already said I’m happy to engage with them on corporate tax reform. I’m happy to engage with them, working to see what we can do to streamline and simplify our tax code, eliminate all the loopholes, eliminate these special interest carveouts and potentially lower rates in the process while raising more revenue.

I am happy to negotiate with them on a whole host of issues, but right now we’ve got an emergency. And the American people are living that emergency out every single day and they have been for a long time. They are working really hard. And if they’re not on the job, then they’re working really hard to find a job. And they’re losing their homes and their kids are having to drop out of school because they can’t afford student loans. And they’re putting off visiting a doctor because when they lost their job they lost their health insurance. They are struggling.

And as a consequence, by the way, all of us are struggling, even those who are well off. The irony is the same folks that the Republicans claim to be protecting, the well off -- the millionaires and the billionaires -- they’d be doing better, they’d be making more money if ordinary Americans had some money in their pockets and were out there feeling more confident about the economy. That’s been the lesson of our history -- when folks in the middle and at the bottom are doing well, the folks at the top do even better.

Q Is this kind of public pressure the only leverage you have, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, we have a democracy. And right now, John Boehner is the Speaker of the House and Mitch McConnell is the Republican Leader. And all I can do is make the best arguments and mobilize the American people so that they’re responsive.

So far they haven’t been responsive to not just me but public opinion. We saw that during the debt ceiling vote. But we’re just going to keep on making the case. But I guess what I’m saying, though, here, Bill, is -- and I said this when I made my speech at the joint session -- the election is 13, 14 months away. I would love nothing more than to not have to be out there campaigning because we were seeing constructive action here in Congress. That’s my goal. That’s what I’m looking for.

But I’m also dealing with a Republican Majority Leader who said that his number-one goal was to beat me -- not put Americans back to work, not grow the economy, not help small businesses expand, but to defeat me. And he’s been saying that now for a couple of years. So, yes, I’ve got to go out and enlist the American people to see if maybe he’ll listen to them if he’s not listening to me.

Matt Spetalnick. Where’s Matt?

Q Thank you, Mr. President. One question on the economy and one on foreign policy. First of all, the Senate has taken up today a bill aimed at pressuring China to let its currency rise. What’s your position on that bill? Would you veto or sign it, should it hit your desk?

On the foreign policy front, do you agree with Admiral Mullen’s accusation that Pakistan’s intelligence agency has used the Haqqani network as a virtual arm? And what, if any, consequences up to and including a cut-off of aid would you be willing to consider?

THE PRESIDENT: Obviously we’ve been seeing a remarkable transformation of China over the last two decades, and it’s helped to lift millions of people out of poverty in China. We have stabilized our relationship with China in a healthy way. But what is also true is that China has been very aggressive in gaming the trading system to its advantage and to the disadvantage of other countries, particularly the United States. And I have said that publicly, but I’ve also said it privately to Chinese leaders. And currency manipulation is one example of it, or at least intervening in the currency markets in ways that have led their currency to be valued lower than the market would normally dictate. And that makes their exports cheaper, and that makes our exports to them more expensive. So we’ve seen some improvement, some slight appreciation over the last year, but it’s not enough.

It’s not just currency, though. We’ve also seen, for example, intellectual property, technologies that were created by U.S. companies with a lot of investment, a lot of upfront capital, taken, not protected properly by Chinese firms. And we’ve pushed China on that issue as well.

Ultimately, I think that you can have a win-win trading relationship with China. I’m very pleased that we’re going to be able to potentially get a trade deal with South Korea. But I believe what I think most Americans believe, which is trade is great as long as everybody is playing by the same rules.

Now, the legislation that is being presented in Congress is an effort to get at that. My main concern -- and I’ve expressed this to Senator Schumer -- is whatever tools we put in place, let’s make sure that these are tools that can actually work, that they’re consistent with our international treaties and obligations. I don’t want a situation where we’re just passing laws that are symbolic knowing that they’re probably not going to be upheld by the World Trade Organization, for example, and then suddenly U.S. companies are subject to a whole bunch of sanctions. We’ve got a -- I think we’ve got a strong case to make, but we’ve just got to make sure that we do it in a way that’s going to be effective.

Last point is, my administration has actually been more aggressive than any in recent years in going after some of these practices. We’ve brought very aggressive enforcement actions against China for violations in the tire case, for example, where it’s been upheld by the World Trade Organization that they were engaging in unfair trading practices. And that’s given companies here in the United States a lot of relief.

So my overall goal is, I believe U.S. companies, U.S. workers, we can compete with anybody in the world. I think we can make the best products. And a huge part of us winning the future, a huge part of rebuilding this economy on a firm basis that’s not just reliant on maxed-out credit cards and a housing bubble and financial speculation, but is dependent on us making things and selling things -- I am absolutely confident that we can win that competition. But in order to do it, we’ve got to make sure that we’re aggressive in looking out for the interests of American workers and American businesses, and that everybody is playing by the same rules, and that we’re not getting cheated in the process.

Q Is China (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: That is a -- that is a term of art, so the Treasury Secretary, I’ve got to be careful here -- it’s his job to make those decisions. But it’s indisputable that they intervene heavily in the currency markets, and that the RMB, their currency, is lower than it probably would be if they weren’t making all those purchases in the currency markets to keep the RMB lower.

With respect to Pakistan, I have said that my number-one goal is to make sure that al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and cannot affect U.S. interests around the world. And we have done an outstanding job, I think, in going after, directly, al Qaeda in this border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. We could not have been as successful as we have been without the cooperation of the Pakistan government. And so, on a whole range of issues they have been an effective partner with us.

What is also true is that our goal of being able to transition out of Afghanistan and leave a stable government behind -- one that is independent, one that is respectful of human rights, one that is democratic -- that Pakistan, I think, has been more ambivalent about some of our goals there. And I think that they have hedged their bets, in terms of what Afghanistan would look like. And part of hedging their bets is having interactions with some of the unsavory characters who they think might end up regaining power in Afghanistan after coalition forces have left.

What we’ve tried to persuade Pakistan of is that it is in their interest to have a stable Afghanistan; that they should not be feeling threatened by a stable, independent Afghanistan. We’ve tried to get conversations between Afghans and Pakistans going more effectively than they have been in the past, but we’ve still got more work to do. And there is no doubt that there is some connections that the Pakistani military and intelligence services have with certain individuals that we find troubling. And I’ve said that publicly, and I’ve said it privately to Pakistani officials as well.

They see their security interests threatened by an independent Afghanistan in part because they think it will ally itself to India, and Pakistan still considers India their mortal enemy. Part of what we want to do is actually get Pakistan to realize that a peaceful approach towards India would be in everybody’s interests, and would help Pakistan actually develop, because one of the biggest problems we have in Pakistan right now is poverty, illiteracy, a lack of development, civil institutions that aren’t strong enough to deliver for the Pakistani people. And in that environment you’ve seen extremism grow. You’ve seen militancy grow that doesn’t just threaten our efforts in Afghanistan but also threatens the Pakistani government and the Pakistani people as well. So trying to get that reorientation is something that we’re continuing to work on; it’s not easy.

Q I’m sorry, sir -- consequences of being (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: We will constantly evaluate our relationship with Pakistan based on, is, overall, this helping to protect Americans and our interests. We have a great desire to help the Pakistani people strengthen their own society and their own government. And so I’d be hesitant to punish aid for flood victims in Pakistan because of poor decisions by their intelligence services. But there is no doubt that we’re not going to feel comfortable with a long-term strategic relationship with Pakistan if we don’t think that they’re mindful of our interest as well.

I’ll make this the last question. Aamer Madhani.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Caught you by surprise, huh? (Laughter.)

Q You did. What should European leaders do to resolve the sovereign debt crisis going forward? And second, how risky is this continued situation to the U.S. economy? And finally, do you feel that the European leaders have been negligent in pushing austerity too soon?

THE PRESIDENT: Those are good questions. The biggest headwind the American economy is facing right now is uncertainty about Europe, because it’s affecting global markets. The slowdown that we’re seeing is not just happening here in the United States, it’s happening everywhere. Even in some of the emerging markets like China, you’re seeing greater caution, less investment, deep concern.

In some ways, as frustrating as the financial sector has been here in the United States after the Lehmans collapse, the aggressive actions that were taken right after Lehmans did help us to strengthen the financial sector and the banking sector in ways that Europe did not fully go through. And uncertainty around Greece and their ability to pay their debts runs on -- in the capital markets -- on the debt that many of these southern European countries have been facing, as well as Ireland and Portugal. All that has put severe strain on the world financial system.

I speak frequently with Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy; they are mindful of these challenges. I think they want to act to prevent a sovereign debt crisis from spinning out of control, or seeing the potential breakup of the euro. I think they’re very committed to the European project.

But their politics is tough because, essentially, they’ve got to get agreement with not only their own parliaments; they’ve got to get agreement with 20 parliaments, or 24 parliaments, or 27 parliaments. And engineering that kind of coordinated action is very difficult.

But what I’ve been seeing over the last month is a recognition by European leaders of the urgency of the situation. And nobody is obviously going to be affected more than they will be if the situation there spins out of control.

So I’m confident that they want to get this done. I think there are some technical issues that they’re working on in terms of how they get a big enough -- how do they get enough firepower to let the markets know that they’re going to be standing behind euro members who may be in a weaker position.

But they’ve got to act fast. And we’ve got a G20 meeting coming up in November. My strong hope is that by the time of that G20 meeting, that they have a very clear, concrete plan of action that is sufficient to the task. It will have an effect -- it’s already having an effect here in the United States; it will continue to have an effect on our economy because the world is now interconnected in ways that it’s never been before.

And that’s one of the biggest challenges that we have post-2008, after this financial crisis, is that America has always been -- well, over the last 20 years -- has been the engine for world economic growth. We were the purchasers of last resort, we were the importers of last resort, we would stimulate our economies and our American consumers would buy stuff around the world. And so if they got into trouble, they could always say, well we’re going to sell to the U.S.

Well, we’re now going through a situation where families are cutting back and trying to reduce their debts; businesses are more cautious. And the U.S. government obviously has its own fiscal challenges. I mean, we’ve got to make sure that we’re living within our means, although we’ve got to do it gradually and not in ways that immediately affect a fragile economy.

So what that means is, Europe is not going to be able to export its way out of this problem. They’re going to have to fix that problem. And part of the goal that I’ve been trying to promote for the last two years and I’ll repeat at the G20 is more balanced economic growth worldwide. We’ve got to get into a posture where the U.S. is always going to be a big market, and we’re going to welcome goods from all around the world, but we’ve also got to be selling goods around the world. We can’t just be running up our debt in order to help other folks’ economies. We’ve got to have -- as not only families, our businesses and our government -- we’ve got to make sure that we’re being prudent and we’re producing here in the United States. And by the way, that’s what’s going to create strong middle-class jobs here in the United States.

I think part of what’s going on for the country generally is this sense of, you know what, a lot of that debt that had been built up prior to 2008, that we were living on borrowed time because the underlying fundamentals of the economy weren’t as strong as they needed to be.

And that’s why not only do we have to put Americans back to work now, but we’ve also got to keep on reforming our education system so it’s producing the highest-skilled graduates in the world. It’s why we’ve got to keep on investing in basic research and science. It’s why we’ve got to make sure that we’re rebuilding our infrastructure. It’s why we’ve got to have a smarter energy policy, because that’s a huge source of us having to import from other countries instead of being able to export to other countries.

All those things are going to be important, and all those things are going to be challenging. They’re going to be hard. But right now, we’ve got the problem of putting people back to work. That’s why Congress needs to pass this jobs bill.

And last point I’ll make: If Bill is right and everybody on Capitol Hill is cynical and saying there’s no way that the overall jobs bill passes in its current form, we’re just going to keep on going at it. I want everybody to be clear. My intention is to insist that each part of this, I want an explanation as to why we shouldn’t be doing it, each component part: putting people back to work rebuilding our roads, putting teachers back in the classroom, tax cuts for small businesses and middle-class families, tax breaks for our veterans. We will just keep on going at it and hammering away until something gets done. And I would love nothing more than to see Congress act so aggressively that I can’t campaign against them as a do-nothing Congress.

All right? Thank you very much, everybody.

END
12:14 P.M. EDT

Steve Jobs | 1955-2011

2011-10-05T17:17:00.000-07:00

Your time is limited. Don't waste it living someone else's life.

— Steve Jobs, Stanford graduation, 2005

citizen journalism | cell phone captures remarkable Fox News interview

2011-10-05T12:37:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The 'F' Bomb | Make it Stop

2011-10-04T13:15:00.001-07:00

There's a petition to stop the 'F' Bomb.

Dear Members of Congress,

The famine in Somalia has killed 30,000 children in 3 months. In 2011 we have the opportunity to make famine a thing of the past. Lives are in your hands. Please fully fund Feed the Future and help break the cycle of famine for good.

The reasons for the famine in the Horn of Africa are complex and solutions are difficult, especially in Somalia, but we can’t lose sight of some simple facts:

1. 30,000 children have died in just 3 months. Thirty thousand. With over 12 million people at risk.

2. Famine is not a natural catastrophe – drought doesn't have to lead to famine. It can be prevented, as we have seen in much of Kenya and Ethiopia.

In the 21st century, it's an obscenity that people are dying because they can't get enough food to eat. Every one of those 30,000 children is part of a family – a son, a daughter, sister or brother. We can't imagine what it must be like to starve to death, but most of us know what it's like to lose someone we love.

Please watch the film and make use of the voice you have -- sign the petition. It will make a difference in putting pressure on world leaders to do more to help those in need right now, and live up to promises already made to invest in the things proven to work – early warning systems...irrigation...drought resistant seeds… and of course, peace and security.

Thanks for Reading.

Bono

Wanna sign?

The President Talks Tough | + most of us hear just part of the story

2011-09-27T23:08:00.000-07:00

Whatever you think President Obama said to the Congressional Black Caucus last weekend, don't believe it until you see it in context.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

When people...press, pundits, political opponents...take words out of context, how is that not lying?

Class Warfare | Elizabeth Warren on Tax Fairness

2011-09-23T10:20:00.000-07:00

bizarro world | the wealthy + the poor in America | a respectful exchange

2011-09-18T10:12:00.000-07:00

I repeat here a brief exchange on the post, bizarro world | the wealthy + the poor in America, because the Comments feature — properly, I expect — doesn't allow for embedded links and I thought it was important to highlight the Forbes 400 List and David Kay Johnston's Reuters reporting; which I've done below.

Nate commented on my bafflement about those who characterize America's working poor as pampered tax dodgers while painting our wealthiest citizens as beleaguered victims. Nate wrote:

And yet both of these characterizations can be found to be true. Wealthy & middle-class citizens over-spending and tying themselves to every penny of a paycheck, underwater in a mortgage and indebted up to their eyeballs. The working poor doing enough to stay under the gov't threshold and continue to get assistance, while buying new cars, digital cable packages and the latest kicks.

At the same time you have responsible citizens, both rich and poor, living well-within their means, paying off their debt and trying to make a better life for themselves little by little. Unfortunately, these sanest of people aren't sensational enough to write stories about, unless you're someone like Hemingway or McCarthy, who can take the mundane and make it magical.

And such is the nature of our fallen world. Apologies for the comment longer than the post, but it is indeed an interesting thought. Thanks.

To which I replied:

Thanks for your gentlemanly response, Nate. I think you’ve put your finger right on the bruise.

I have some thoughts about the nature of our fallen world, but I believe I’ll hold them for now and just say this: The people at the center of the fair taxation debate this autumn are not the “wealthy & middle-class citizens” to whom your response gravitates at the beginning — the ones who got in trouble by overspending.

The “beleaguered victims” I’m talking about are the top three-tenths of one percent of U.S. taxpayers:

— the wealthiest 235,000 of whom had incomes above $1,000,000.00 in 2009 (Reuters)

— the top 8,300 of whom had incomes of more than $10,000,000.00 in 2009 (ibid)

— the top 384 of whom in excess of $1,000,000,000.00 in 2009 (Forbes 400 list).

I don’t believe we have to worry about these households. They shouldn’t be punished; they should, each of them, pay a fair share under the law.

As for the working poor…for now, perhaps it is enough to say that the households who filed returns but paid no income taxes in 2009 had an average income of $14.483.00 (Reuters again), and to ask, “How far does $278.51 a week go in your zip code?”

I think fairness mandates that our wealthiest citizens pay effective tax rates equal to those making, say, $55,000.00, the median income for working age households.

Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I hope I’ve been equally respectful.

How did we come to this?

bizarro world | the wealthy + the poor in America

2011-09-16T09:38:00.000-07:00

Somehow I woke up this morning in an America with people who characterize our wealthiest citizens as beleaguered victims living from paycheck to paycheck and our working poor as lavishly pampered tax dodgers.

I find this bizarre.

Headline from the Future | Health Coverage

2011-09-14T11:07:00.000-07:00

Official Denied Emergency Treatment

(Arlington, VA) U.S. Senator Tom Brown died yesterday in the parking lot of a Washington area hospital after being denied entrance because he lacked proof of insurance.

The senator was taking a run, an aide said, when he complained of chest pains. “We took him straight to the hospital, but he didn’t have his wallet and they wouldn’t let us in.”

Speaking off the record, a hospital employee who is not authorized to speak to reporters told the Post, “They said, ‘He’s a United States Senator!’ I said, ‘I don’t care if he’s effing Ron Paul: No insurance equals no treatment.’ If I make an exception for some clown who says he’s a senator, where does it stop? Treat first, ask questions later? What kind of business model is that?”

A spokesperson from the senator’s office said, “Senator Brown had the same insurance every member of Congress carries. What he lacked was the ability to prove that in a life-threatening situation.”

“You can’t prove that by me,” the unidentified hospital employee said. “As far as I’m concerned, he made his choice when he declined health coverage…that’s what freedom is about: You make your choice and live with the consequences.”

The American Jobs Act | Letter to My Congressman

2011-09-13T19:59:00.000-07:00

September 13, 2011

Congressman Bilbray,

I urge you to use your position on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to fast-track passage of the American Jobs Act. If it is signed into law, your constituents can begin taking advantage of the provisions of this bill on October 1, 2011 — exactly when we need the help.

Please sir, call your colleagues to account if they attempt to game this important legislation.

The need is now, the time is now. I call on you to act now.

respectfully,

Jim Hancock

[Read it for yourself — click to download a pdf of the American Jobs Act to your download folder]

THE AMERICAN JOBS ACT | FACT SHEET

2011-09-10T11:54:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I posted the transcript of President Obama's American Jobs Act speech before a joint session of Congress.

Here is the Fact Sheet that accompanied that address, concluding with round costs associated with each item. Next week, the Administration will deliver the President's detailed proposal to Congress.

THE AMERICAN JOBS ACT | FACT SHEET

1. Tax Cuts to Help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow

Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.
A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases).
Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment.
Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.

2. Putting Workers Back on the Job While Rebuilding and Modernizing America

A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans: This provides tax credits from $5,600 to $9,600 to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans.
Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs,while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.
Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country,supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.
Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank, modernizing our roads, rail, airports and waterways while putting hundreds of thousands of workers back on the job.
A New “Project Rebuild”, which will put people to work rehabilitating homes, businesses and communities, leveraging private capital and scaling land banks and other public-private collaborations.
Expanding access to high-speed wireless as part of a plan for freeing up the nation’s spectrum.

3. Pathways Back to Work for Americans Looking for Jobs.

The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years: As part of an extension of unemployment insurance to prevent 5 million Americans looking for work from losing their benefits, the President’s plan includes innovative work-based reforms to prevent layoffs and give states greater flexibility to use UI funds to best support job-seekers, including:
Work-Sharing: UI for workers whose employers choose work-sharing over layoffs.
A new “Bridge to Work” program: The plan builds on and improves innovative state programs where those displaced take temporary, voluntary work or pursue on-the-job training.
Innovative entrepreneurship and wage insurance programs: States will also be empowered to implement wage insurance to help reemploy older workers and programs that make it easier for unemployed workers to start their own businesses.
A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.
Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring.
Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.

4. Tax Relief for Every American Worker and Family

Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year: The President’s plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers payroll taxes in half in 2012 – providing a $1,500 tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security Trust Fund.
Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates, which can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket.

5. Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan.To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.

AMERICAN JOBS ACT OVERVIEW

The American people understand that the economic crisis and the deep recession weren’t created overnight and won’t be solved overnight. The economic security of the middle class has been under attack for decades. That’s why President Obama believes we need to do more than just recover from this economic crisis – we need to rebuild the economy the American way, based on balance, fairness, and the same set of rules for everyone from Wall Street to Main Street. We can work together to create the jobs of the future by helping small business entrepreneurs, by investing in education, and by making things the world buys. The President understands that to restore an American economy that’s built to last we cannot afford to outsource American jobs and encourage reckless financial deals that put middle class security at risk.

To create jobs, the President unveiled the American Jobs Act – nearly all of which is made up of ideas that have been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and that Congress should pass right away to get the economy moving now. The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple: put more people back to work and put more money in the pockets of working Americans. And it would do so without adding a dime to the deficit.

Tax Cuts to Help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow

New Tax Cuts to Businesses to Support Hiring and Investment:The President is proposing three tax cuts to provide immediate incentives to hire and invest:

Cutting the Payroll Tax Cut in Half for the First $5 Million in Wages:This provision would cut the payroll tax in half to 3.1% for employers on the first $5 million in wages, providing broad tax relief to all businesses but targeting it to the 98 percent of firms with wages below this level.
Temporarily Eliminating Employer Payroll Taxes on Wages for New Workers or Raises for Existing Workers:The President is proposing a full holiday on the 6.2% payroll tax firms pay for any growth in their payroll up to $50 million above the prior year, whether driven by new hires, increased wages or both. This is the kind of job creation measure that CBO has called the most effective of all tax cuts in supporting employment.
Extending 100% Expensing into 2012:The President is proposing to extend 100 percent expensing, the largest temporary investment incentive in history, allowing all firms – large and small – to take an immediate deduction on investments in new plants and equipment.
Helping Entrepreneurs and Small Businesses Access Capital and Grow: The President’s plan includes administrative, regulatory and legislative measures – including those developed and recommended by the President’s Jobs Council – to help small firms start and expand. This includes changing the way the government does business with small firms. The Administration will soon announce a plan to accelerate government payments to small contractors to help put money in their hands faster. The President is also charging his CIO and CTO to, within 90 days, stand up a one-stop, online portal for small businesses to easily access government services. As part of the President’s Startup America initiative, the Administration will work with the SEC to conduct a comprehensive review of securities regulations from the perspective of these small companies to reduce the regulatory burdens on small business capital formation in ways that are consistent with investor protection, including expanding “crowdfunding” opportunities and increasing mini-offerings. Finally, the President’s plan calls for Congress to pass comprehensive patent reform, increase guarantees for bonds to help small businesses compete for infrastructure projects and remove burdensome withholding requirements that keep capital out of the hands of job creators.

Putting Workers Back on the Job While Rebuilding and Modernizing America

Tax Credits and Career Readiness Efforts to Support Veterans’ Hiring:The President is proposing a Returning Heroes Tax Credit of up to $5,600 for hiring unemployed veterans who have been looking for a job for more than six months, and a Wounded Warriors Tax Credit of up to $9,600 for hiring unemployed workers with service-connected disabilities who have been looking for a job for more than six months, while creating a new task force to maximize career readiness of service members.
Preventing Layoffs of Teachers, Cops and Firefighters:The President is proposing to invest $35 billion to prevent layoffs of up to 280,000 teachers, while supporting the hiring of tens of thousands more and keeping cops and firefighters on the job. These funds would help states and localities avoid and reverse layoffs now, requiring that funds be drawn down quickly. Under the President’s proposal, $30 billion be directed towards educators and $5 billion would support the hiring and retention of public safety and first responder personnel.
Modernizing Over 35,000 Schools – From Science Labs and Internet-Ready Classrooms to Renovated Facilities:The President is proposing a $25 billion investment in school infrastructure that will modernize at least 35,000 public schools – investments that will create jobs, while improving classrooms and upgrading our schools to meet 21st century needs. This includes a priority for rural schools and dedicated funding for Bureau of Indian Education funded schools. Funds could be used for a range of emergency repair and renovation projects, greening and energy efficiency upgrades, asbestos abatement and removal, and modernization efforts to build new science and computer labs and to upgrade technology in our schools. The President is also proposing a $5 billion investment in modernizing community colleges (including tribal colleges), bolstering their infrastructure in this time of need while ensuring their ability to serve future generations of students and communities.
Making an Immediate Investment in Our Roads, Rails and Airports: The President’s plan includes $50 billion in immediate investments for highways, transit, rail and aviation, helping to modernize an infrastructure that now receives a grade of “D” from the American Society of Civil Engineers and putting hundreds of thousands of construction workers back on the job. The President’s plan includes investments to improve our airports, support NextGen Air Traffic Modernization efforts, and resources for the TIGER and TIFIA programs, which target competitive dollars to innovative multi-modal infrastructure programs. It will also take special steps to enhance infrastructure-related job training opportunities for individuals from underrepresented groups and ensure that small businesses can compete for infrastructure contracts.The President will work administratively to speed infrastructure investment through a recently issued Presidential Memorandum developed with his Jobs Council directing departments and agencies to identify high impact, job-creating infrastructure projects that can be expedited in a transparent manner through outstanding review and permitting processes. The call for greater infrastructure investment has been joined by leaders from AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka to U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue.
Establishing a National Infrastructure Bank:The President is calling for Congress to pass a National Infrastructure Bank capitalized with $10 billion, in order to leverage private and public capital and to invest in a broad range of infrastructure projects of nationaland regional significance, without earmarks or traditional political influence. The Bank would be based on the model Senators Kerry and Hutchison have championed while building on legislation by Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg and the work of long-time infrastructure bank champions like Rosa DeLauro and the input of the President’s Jobs Council.
Project Rebuild: Putting People Back to Work Rehabilitating Homes, Businesses and Communities. The President is proposing to invest $15 billion in a national effort to put construction workers on the job rehabilitating and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of vacant and foreclosed homes and businesses. Building on proven approaches to stabilizing neighborhoods with high concentrations of foreclosures, Project Rebuild will bring in expertise and capital from the private sector, focus on commercial and residential property improvements, and expand innovative property solutions like land banks. This approach will not only create construction jobs but will help reduce blight and crime and stabilize housing prices in areas hardest hit by the housing crisis.
Expanding Access to High-Speed Wireless in a Fiscally Responsible Way: The President is calling for a deficit reducing plan to deploy high-speed wireless services to at least 98 percent of Americans, including those in more remote rural communities, while freeing up spectrum through incentive auctions, spurring innovation, and creating a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety.

Pathways Back to Work for Americans Looking for Jobs

Reform Our Unemployment Insurance System to Provide Greater Flexibility, While Ensuring 6 Million People Do Not Lose Benefits: Drawing on the best ideas of both parties and the most innovative states, the President is proposing the most sweeping reforms to the unemployment insurance (UI) system in 40 years help those without jobs transition to the workplace. Alongside these reforms, the President is reiterating his call to extend unemployment insurance, preventing 6 million people looking for work from losing their benefits and extending what the independent Congressional Budget Office has determined is the highest “bang for the buck” option to increase economic activity.
Reemployment Assistance: States will be required to design more rigorous reemployment services for the long-term unemployed and to conduct assessments to review the longest-term claimants of UI to assess their eligibility and help them develop a work-search plan. These reforms are proven to speed up UI beneficiaries’ return to work.
Work-sharing:The President will expand “work-sharing” to encourage arrangements using UI that keep employees on the job at reduced hours, rather than laying them off.
State Flexibility for Bold Reforms to Put the Long-Term Unemployed Back To Work:The President is proposing to provide additional funds to allow states to introduce new programs aimed at long-term unemployed workers, including:
“Bridge to Work” Programs:States will be able to put in place reforms that build off what works in programs like Georgia Works or Opportunity North Carolina, while instituting important fixes and reforms that ensure minimum wage and fair labor protections are being enforced. These approaches permits long-term unemployed workers to continue receiving UI while they take temporary, voluntary work or pursue work-based training. The President’s plan requires compliance with applicable minimum wage and other worker rights laws.
Wage Insurance: States will be able to use UI to encourage older, long-term unemployed Americans to return to work in new industries or occupations.
Startup Assistance: States will have flexibility to help long-term unemployed workers create their own jobs by starting their own small businesses.
Other Reemployment Reforms: States will be able to seek waivers from the Secretary of Labor to implement other innovative reforms to connect the long-term unemployed to work opportunities.
Tax Credits for Hiring the Long-Term Unemployed:The President is proposing a tax credit of up to $4,000 for hiring workers who have been looking for a job for over six months.
Investing in Low-Income Youth and Adults: The President is proposing a new Pathways Back to Work Fund to provide hundreds of thousands of low-income youth and adults with opportunities to work and to achieve needed training in growth industries. The Initiative will do three things: i) support summer and year-round jobs for youth, building off of successful programs that supported over 370,000 such jobs in 2009 and 2010; ii) support subsidized employment opportunities for low-income individuals who are unemployed, building off the successful TANF Emergency Contingency Fund wage subsidy program that supported 260,000 jobs in 2009 and 2010; and iii) support promising and innovative local work-based job and training initiatives to place low-income adults and youths in jobs quickly.
Prohibiting Employers from Discriminating Against Unemployed Workers: The President’s plan calls for legislation that would make it unlawful to refuse to hire applicants solely because they are unemployed or to include in a job posting a provision that unemployed persons will not be considered.

More Money in the Pockets of Every American Worker and Family

Cutting Payroll Taxes in Half for 160 Million Workers Next Year: The President’s plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last December by cutting workers payroll taxes in half next year. This provision will provide a tax cut of $1,500 to the typical family earning $50,000 a year. As with the payroll tax cut passed in December 2010, the American Jobs Act will specify that Social Security will still receive every dollar it would have gotten otherwise, through a transfer from the General Fund into the Social Security Trust Fund.
Helping More Americans Refinance Mortgages at Today’s Historically Low Interest Rates: The President has instructed his economic team to work with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, their regulator the FHFA, major lenders and industry leaders to remove the barriers that exist in the current refinancing program (HARP) to help more borrowers benefit from today’s historically low interest rates. This has the potential to not only help these borrowers, but their communities and the American taxpayer, by keeping borrowers in their homes and reducing risk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan.

To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.

		$, bn
Tax Cuts to Help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow		70
	Cut employer payroll taxes in half & bonus payroll cut for new jobs/wages	65
	Extend 100% expensing in 2012	5
Putting Workers Back on the Job While Rebuilding and Modernizing America		140
	Teacher rehiring and first responders	35
	Modernizing schools	30
	Immediate surface transportation	50
	Infrastructure bank	10
	Rehabilitation/repurposing of vacant property (neighborhood stabilization)	15
	National wireless initiative	0*
	Veterans hiring initiative	n.a.
Pathways Back to Work for Americans Looking for Jobs		62
	UI Reform and Extension	49
	Jobs tax credit for long term unemployed	8
	Pathways back to work fund	5
More Money in the Pockets of Every American Worker and Family		175
	Cutting employee payroll taxes in half in 2012	175
TOTAL		447

* Proposal has a gross cost of $10bn, but a net deficit reducing impact of $18bn because of spectrum auction proceeds.

The American Jobs Act | Transcript

2011-09-09T06:11:00.000-07:00

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

September 08, 2011

Address by the President to a Joint Session of Congress

United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.

7:09 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, and fellow Americans:

Tonight we meet at an urgent time for our country. We continue to face an economic crisis that has left millions of our neighbors jobless, and a political crisis that’s made things worse.
This past week, reporters have been asking, “What will this speech mean for the President? What will it mean for Congress? How will it affect their polls, and the next election?”

But the millions of Americans who are watching right now, they don’t care about politics. They have real-life concerns. Many have spent months looking for work. Others are doing their best just to scrape by -- giving up nights out with the family to save on gas or make the mortgage; postponing retirement to send a kid to college.

These men and women grew up with faith in an America where hard work and responsibility paid off. They believed in a country where everyone gets a fair shake and does their fair share -- where if you stepped up, did your job, and were loyal to your company, that loyalty would be rewarded with a decent salary and good benefits; maybe a raise once in a while. If you did the right thing, you could make it. Anybody could make it in America.

For decades now, Americans have watched that compact erode. They have seen the decks too often stacked against them. And they know that Washington has not always put their interests first.

The people of this country work hard to meet their responsibilities. The question tonight is whether we’ll meet ours. The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy. (Applause.) The question is -- the question is whether we can restore some of the fairness and security that has defined this nation since our beginning.

Those of us here tonight can’t solve all our nation’s woes. Ultimately, our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers. But we can help. We can make a difference. There are steps we can take right now to improve people’s lives.

I am sending this Congress a plan that you should pass right away. It’s called the American Jobs Act. There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans -- including many who sit here tonight. And everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything. (Applause.)

The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple: to put more people back to work and more money in the pockets of those who are working. It will create more jobs for construction workers, more jobs for teachers, more jobs for veterans, and more jobs for long-term unemployed. (Applause.) It will provide -- it will provide a tax break for companies who hire new workers, and it will cut payroll taxes in half for every working American and every small business. (Applause.) It will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled, and give companies confidence that if they invest and if they hire, there will be customers for their products and services. You should pass this jobs plan right away. (Applause.)

Everyone here knows that small businesses are where most new jobs begin. And you know that while corporate profits have come roaring back, smaller companies haven’t. So for everyone who speaks so passionately about making life easier for “job creators,” this plan is for you. (Applause.)

Pass this jobs bill -- pass this jobs bill, and starting tomorrow, small businesses will get a tax cut if they hire new workers or if they raise workers’ wages. Pass this jobs bill, and all small business owners will also see their payroll taxes cut in half next year. (Applause.) If you have 50 employees -- if you have 50 employees making an average salary, that’s an $80,000 tax cut. And all businesses will be able to continue writing off the investments they make in 2012.

It’s not just Democrats who have supported this kind of proposal. Fifty House Republicans have proposed the same payroll tax cut that’s in this plan. You should pass it right away. (Applause.)

Pass this jobs bill, and we can put people to work rebuilding America. Everyone here knows we have badly decaying roads and bridges all over the country. Our highways are clogged with traffic. Our skies are the most congested in the world. It’s an outrage.

Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us a economic superpower. And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America? (Applause.)

There are private construction companies all across America just waiting to get to work. There’s a bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that’s on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America. A public transit project in Houston that will help clear up one of the worst areas of traffic in the country. And there are schools throughout this country that desperately need renovating. How can we expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart? This is America. Every child deserves a great school -- and we can give it to them, if we act now. (Applause.)

The American Jobs Act will repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools. It will put people to work right now fixing roofs and windows, installing science labs and high-speed Internet in classrooms all across this country. It will rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hit hardest by foreclosures. It will jumpstart thousands of transportation projects all across the country. And to make sure the money is properly spent, we’re building on reforms we’ve already put in place. No more earmarks. No more boondoggles. No more bridges to nowhere. We’re cutting the red tape that prevents some of these projects from getting started as quickly as possible. And we’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it will do for the economy. (Applause.)

This idea came from a bill written by a Texas Republican and a Massachusetts Democrat. The idea for a big boost in construction is supported by America’s largest business organization and America’s largest labor organization. It’s the kind of proposal that’s been supported in the past by Democrats and Republicans alike. You should pass it right away. (Applause.)

Pass this jobs bill, and thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work. These are the men and women charged with preparing our children for a world where the competition has never been tougher. But while they’re adding teachers in places like South Korea, we’re laying them off in droves. It’s unfair to our kids. It undermines their future and ours. And it has to stop. Pass this bill, and put our teachers back in the classroom where they belong. (Applause.)

Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get extra tax credits if they hire America’s veterans. We ask these men and women to leave their careers, leave their families, risk their lives to fight for our country. The last thing they should have to do is fight for a job when they come home. (Applause.)

Pass this bill, and hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people will have the hope and the dignity of a summer job next year. And their parents -- (applause) -- their parents, low-income Americans who desperately want to work, will have more ladders out of poverty.

Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job. (Applause.) We have to do more to help the long-term unemployed in their search for work. This jobs plan builds on a program in Georgia that several Republican leaders have highlighted, where people who collect unemployment insurance participate in temporary work as a way to build their skills while they look for a permanent job.

The plan also extends unemployment insurance for another year. (Applause.) If the millions of unemployed Americans stopped getting this insurance, and stopped using that money for basic necessities, it would be a devastating blow to this economy. Democrats and Republicans in this chamber have supported unemployment insurance plenty of times in the past. And in this time of prolonged hardship, you should pass it again -- right away. (Applause.)

Pass this jobs bill, and the typical working family will get a $1,500 tax cut next year. Fifteen hundred dollars that would have been taken out of your pocket will go into your pocket. This expands on the tax cut that Democrats and Republicans already passed for this year. If we allow that tax cut to expire -- if we refuse to act -- middle-class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. We can’t let that happen. I know that some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away. (Applause.)

This is the American Jobs Act. It will lead to new jobs for construction workers, for teachers, for veterans, for first responders, young people and the long-term unemployed. It will provide tax credits to companies that hire new workers, tax relief to small business owners, and tax cuts for the middle class. And here’s the other thing I want the American people to know: The American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for. And here’s how. (Applause.)

The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act. And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan -- a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run. (Applause.)

This approach is basically the one I’ve been advocating for months. In addition to the trillion dollars of spending cuts I’ve already signed into law, it’s a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by making additional spending cuts, by making modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and by reforming our tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share. (Applause.) What’s more, the spending cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right away.

Now, I realize there are some in my party who don’t think we should make any changes at all to Medicare and Medicaid, and I understand their concerns. But here’s the truth: Millions of Americans rely on Medicare in their retirement. And millions more will do so in the future. They pay for this benefit during their working years. They earn it. But with an aging population and rising health care costs, we are spending too fast to sustain the program. And if we don’t gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it. (Applause.)

I am also -- I’m also well aware that there are many Republicans who don’t believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it. But here is what every American knows: While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary -- an outrage he has asked us to fix. (Laughter.) We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake and where everybody pays their fair share. (Applause.)

And by the way, I believe the vast majority of wealthy Americans and CEOs are willing to do just that if it helps the economy grow and gets our fiscal house in order.

I’ll also offer ideas to reform a corporate tax code that stands as a monument to special interest influence in Washington. By eliminating pages of loopholes and deductions, we can lower one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. (Applause.) Our tax code should not give an advantage to companies that can afford the best-connected lobbyists. It should give an advantage to companies that invest and create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)

So we can reduce this deficit, pay down our debt, and pay for this jobs plan in the process. But in order to do this, we have to decide what our priorities are. We have to ask ourselves, “What’s the best way to grow the economy and create jobs?”

Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs?
(Applause.) Right now, we can’t afford to do both.

This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare. This is simple math. (Laughter.) This is simple math. These are real choices. These are real choices that we’ve got to make. And I’m pretty sure I know what most Americans would choose. It’s not even close. And it’s time for us to do what’s right for our future. (Applause.)

Now, the American Jobs Act answers the urgent need to create jobs right away. But we can’t stop there. As I’ve argued since I ran for this office, we have to look beyond the immediate crisis and start building an economy that lasts into the future -- an economy that creates good, middle-class jobs that pay well and offer security. We now live in a world where technology has made it possible for companies to take their business anywhere. If we want them to start here and stay here and hire here, we have to be able to out-build and out-educate and out-innovate every other country on Earth. (Applause.)

And this task of making America more competitive for the long haul, that’s a job for all of us. For government and for private companies. For states and for local communities -- and for every American citizen. All of us will have to up our game. All of us will have to change the way we do business.

My administration can and will take some steps to improve our competitiveness on our own. For example, if you’re a small business owner who has a contract with the federal government, we’re going to make sure you get paid a lot faster than you do right now. (Applause.) We’re also planning to cut away the red tape that prevents too many rapidly growing startup companies from raising capital and going public. And to help responsible homeowners, we’re going to work with federal housing agencies to help more people refinance their mortgages at interest rates that are now near 4 percent. That’s a step -- (applause) -- I know you guys must be for this, because that’s a step that can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket, and give a lift to an economy still burdened by the drop in housing prices.

So, some things we can do on our own. Other steps will require congressional action. Today you passed reform that will speed up the outdated patent process, so that entrepreneurs can turn a new idea into a new business as quickly as possible. That’s the kind of action we need. Now it’s time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama and Colombia and South Korea -– while also helping the workers whose jobs have been affected by global competition. (Applause.) If Americans can buy Kias and Hyundais, I want to see folks in South Korea driving Fords and Chevys and Chryslers. (Applause.) I want to see more products sold around the world stamped with the three proud words: “Made in America.” That’s what we need to get done. (Applause.)

And on all of our efforts to strengthen competitiveness, we need to look for ways to work side by side with America’s businesses. That’s why I’ve brought together a Jobs Council of leaders from different industries who are developing a wide range of new ideas to help companies grow and create jobs.

Already, we’ve mobilized business leaders to train 10,000 American engineers a year, by providing company internships and training. Other businesses are covering tuition for workers who learn new skills at community colleges. And we’re going to make sure the next generation of manufacturing takes root not in China or Europe, but right here, in the United States of America. (Applause) If we provide the right incentives, the right support -- and if we make sure our trading partners play by the rules -- we can be the ones to build everything from fuel-efficient cars to advanced biofuels to semiconductors that we sell all around the world. That’s how America can be number one again. And that’s how America will be number one again. (Applause.)

Now, I realize that some of you have a different theory on how to grow the economy. Some of you sincerely believe that the only solution to our economic challenges is to simply cut most government spending and eliminate most government regulations. (Applause.)

Well, I agree that we can’t afford wasteful spending, and I’ll work with you, with Congress, to root it out. And I agree that there are some rules and regulations that do put an unnecessary burden on businesses at a time when they can least afford it. (Applause.) That’s why I ordered a review of all government regulations. So far, we’ve identified over 500 reforms, which will save billions of dollars over the next few years. (Applause.) We should have no more regulation than the health, safety and security of the American people require. Every rule should meet that common-sense test. (Applause.)

But what we can’t do -- what I will not do -- is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades. (Applause.) I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients. I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. (Applause.) We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards. America should be in a race to the top. And I believe we can win that race. (Applause.)

In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody’s money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own -- that’s not who we are. That’s not the story of America.
Yes, we are rugged individualists. Yes, we are strong and self-reliant. And it has been the drive and initiative of our workers and entrepreneurs that has made this economy the engine and the envy of the world.

But there’s always been another thread running throughout our history -- a belief that we’re all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.

We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party. But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future -- a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad -- (applause) -- launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges. (Applause.) And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set.

Ask yourselves -- where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways, not to build our bridges, our dams, our airports? What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? Millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, had the opportunity to go to school because of the G.I. Bill. Where would we be if they hadn’t had that chance? (Applause.)

How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the Internet and the computer chip? What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? (Applause.) How many Americans would have suffered as a result?

No single individual built America on their own. We built it together. We have been, and always will be, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all; a nation with responsibilities to ourselves and with responsibilities to one another. And members of Congress, it is time for us to meet our responsibilities. (Applause.)

Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight is the kind that’s been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past. Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight will be paid for. And every proposal is designed to meet the urgent needs of our people and our communities.

Now, I know there’s been a lot of skepticism about whether the politics of the moment will allow us to pass this jobs plan -- or any jobs plan. Already, we’re seeing the same old press releases and tweets flying back and forth. Already, the media has proclaimed that it’s impossible to bridge our differences. And maybe some of you have decided that those differences are so great that we can only resolve them at the ballot box.

But know this: The next election is 14 months away. And the people who sent us here -- the people who hired us to work for them -- they don’t have the luxury of waiting 14 months. (Applause.) Some of them are living week to week, paycheck to paycheck, even day to day. They need help, and they need it now.

I don’t pretend that this plan will solve all our problems. It should not be, nor will it be, the last plan of action we propose. What’s guided us from the start of this crisis hasn’t been the search for a silver bullet. It’s been a commitment to stay at it -- to be persistent -- to keep trying every new idea that works, and listen to every good proposal, no matter which party comes up with it.

Regardless of the arguments we’ve had in the past, regardless of the arguments we will have in the future, this plan is the right thing to do right now. You should pass it. (Applause.) And I intend to take that message to every corner of this country. (Applause.) And I ask -- I ask every American who agrees to lift your voice: Tell the people who are gathered here tonight that you want action now. Tell Washington that doing nothing is not an option. Remind us that if we act as one nation and one people, we have it within our power to meet this challenge.

President Kennedy once said, “Our problems are man-made –- therefore they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants.”

These are difficult years for our country. But we are Americans. We are tougher than the times we live in, and we are bigger than our politics have been. So let’s meet the moment. Let’s get to work, and let’s show the world once again why the United States of America remains the greatest nation on Earth. (Applause.)

Thank you very much. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END

The American Jobs Act Fact Sheet

Lawrence O'Donnell, the Extreme Right + the Least of These

2011-09-06T19:44:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

For Labor Day | The Book of Common Prayer

2011-09-05T08:54:00.000-07:00

Almighty God, who hast so linked our lives one with another

that all we do affects, for good or ill, all other lives: So guide

us in the work we do, that we may do it not for self alone, but

for the common good; and, as we seek a proper return for

our own labor, make us mindful of the rightful aspirations of

other workers, and arouse our concern for those who are out

of work; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and

reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and

ever. Amen.

Matt Damon | affirming (+ defending) teachers

2011-08-31T19:18:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Jon Stewart | Warren Buffett | Taxes

2011-08-20T18:52:00.000-07:00

A couple of days ago I tweeted the transcript of Warren Buffett's hour-long interview with Charlie Rose (a good read). Now Jon Stewart weighs in (a good watch in two parts).

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

World of Class Warfare - Warren Buffett vs. Wealthy Conservatives

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

this too shall pass | Bono + Edge on Letterman

2011-07-19T14:59:00.000-07:00

Humble Beast

2011-06-28T07:52:00.000-07:00

I've been listening to the thoughtful artists on Humble Beast records a lot lately...

Robert Reich connects the dots in the US economy in 2.5 minutes

2011-06-16T12:31:00.000-07:00

University professor — and former US Secretary of Labor — Robert Reich connects the dots in the US economy in two and a half minutes .

Martin Marty on Torture, Then + Now

2011-06-10T23:24:00.000-07:00

Torture, including torture by Americans: Who could have predicted that this would be a live topic here in the twenty-first century? We know how to associate torture with the accused and accusing other, with Inquisitors and witch hunters five centuries ago, or with far-away twentieth century totalitarian regimes and religious terrorists. But today the theological, humanistic, and tactical themes connected with torture have appeared close to home, giving new significance to those distant times, places, and events.

Accordingly, a very distinguished historian, Princeton 's expert on the Renaissance, is speaking up. Not known for ideology or pamphleteering, Anthony Grafton takes pains not to oversell the relevance of his subjects. He favors patient historical work and writes in a moderate mode. Recently he looked up from his Renaissance research to see how things are going today. Alert to contemporary controversies and mildly allusive about events in America, he stops short of issuing indictments. Grafton seems to be writing in the haze of "where there's smoke there's fire," but clearly sees enough to issue cautionary words.

His article in the November 5th [2007] New Republic, entitled "Say Anything," refers to what he has learned from the transcripts of those Inquisitors and witch-hunters. He knows enough to say enough about the practical ineffectiveness of torture. Americans, we were always told, do not torture for a number of reasons: Torture violates our moral codes, including those based on religious notions that humans are made in the image of God; religious leadership is almost unanimously against torture, and America is a religious nation; for us to torture is to enter a dangerous game, since if we torture we have no moral claim to demand that "the other," our enemies, should not torture our people when they are captured; and we are a practical people and like to work with things that work. Grafton concentrates on this last piece, the ineffectiveness of torture.

He notes that four centuries ago, as now, the tortured will "say anything" to get the pain to stop, which means anything that the tortured thinks the torturer wants to hear. And what the torturer hears is almost never right or useful. Grafton reports on the work of younger historians who are finding that "torture—as inflicted in the past—was anything but a sure way of arriving at the truth." He tells how, in unimaginable pain, some tortured Jews were broken and finally "filled in every detail that Christians wanted." Nowadays, he says, "no competent historian trusts confessions wrung by torture that confirms the strange and fixed ideas of the torturer." Grafton's conclusion: "Torture does not obtain truth…it can make most ordinary people…say anything their examiners want." Moral: "it is not an instrument that a decent society has any business applying…Anyone who claims otherwise…stands with the torturers" of long ago. And that, Grafton has made quite clear, is not a good place to stand.

Martin Marty publishes every Monday in Sightings, available from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Bible Believers

2011-05-24T09:08:00.000-07:00

And that's when Virginia understood: These people didn't believe the Bible; they believed what they believed about the Bible.

Discuss

Yo-Yo Ma + Lil Buck Riley | The Dying Swan

2011-04-27T22:00:00.000-07:00

President Obama at the 2011 Easter Prayer Breakfast

2011-04-26T22:07:00.000-07:00

To all the faith leaders and the distinguished guests that are here today, welcome to our second annual -- I’m going to make it annual, why not? (Laughter and applause.) Our second Easter Prayer Breakfast. The Easter Egg Roll, that’s well established. (Laughter.) The Prayer Breakfast we started last year, in part because it gave me a good excuse to bring together people who have been such extraordinary influences in my life and such great friends. And it gives me a chance to meet and make some new friends here in the White House.

I wanted to host this breakfast for a simple reason -– because as busy as we are, as many tasks as pile up, during this season, we are reminded that there’s something about the resurrection -- something about the resurrection of our savior, Jesus Christ, that puts everything else in perspective.

We all live in the hustle and bustle of our work. And everybody in this room has weighty responsibilities, from leading churches and denominations, to helping to administer important government programs, to shaping our culture in various ways. And I admit that my plate has been full as well. (Laughter.) The inbox keeps on accumulating. (Laughter.)

But then comes Holy Week. The triumph of Palm Sunday. The humility of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. His slow march up that hill, and the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross.

And we’re reminded that in that moment, he took on the sins of the world -- past, present and future -- and he extended to us that unfathomable gift of grace and salvation through his death and resurrection.

In the words of the book Isaiah: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

This magnificent grace, this expansive grace, this “Amazing Grace” calls me to reflect. And it calls me to pray. It calls me to ask God for forgiveness for the times that I’ve not shown grace to others, those times that I’ve fallen short. It calls me to praise God for the gift of our son -- his Son and our Savior.

And that’s why we have this breakfast. Because in the middle of critical national debates, in the middle of our busy lives, we must always make sure that we are keeping things in perspective. Children help do that. (Laughter.) A strong spouse helps do that. But nothing beats scripture and the reminder of the eternal.

So I’m honored that all of you have come here this Holy Week to join me in a spirit of prayer, and I pray that our time here this morning will strengthen us, both individually as believers and as Americans. And with that, let me introduce my good friend, Bishop Vashti McKenzie, for our opening prayer. (Applause.)

Video online here. [h/t Jason Linkins]

Limbaugh + O'Donnell Disagree about Nothing...And Everything

2011-04-25T22:00:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Jon Stewart | Tax Cheats + Grannies

2011-04-13T22:31:00.000-07:00

The Daily Show - That's Tariffic
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Martin Marty on the New York Times Food Writer Who Fasted

2011-04-04T21:54:00.000-07:00

“Why We’re Fasting” is the title of columnist Mark Bittman’s essay in Wednesday's New York Times, the “we” being himself and David Beckmann, here described as a “reverend,” and “this year’s World Food Prize laureate.” The pastor heads “Bread for the World.” Yes, why fast? Readers can do their own sighting and hearing of all the media-reported clashes over the national budget, now in final crunch time. That scan will reveal the obvious: that lost in the necessary political and economic debates blighted by the side-tracking but focal partisan and sub-partisan disputes on the issue is one set of people. Biblical scholars in this “Judeo-” and “Christian” nation call them “God’s people.” They are the poor, disabled, disadvantaged, undersheltered and, yes, hungry, about whom some of the budget debates were supposed to have been waged.

Bittman and Beckmann discuss Isaiah 58, essential reading for believers and bystanders alike at such a time and place as this. G. K. Chesterton famously observed that one can look at something 999 times and then, on the thousandth sighting, see something revelatory, as if for the first time. We are asked to do such looking now. To bid each other to do so will sound embarrassingly pious, and yet. . . .

As Bittman tells it, he is fasting, or was, last Monday, when thousands of others also fasted to draw notice to those Congressional budget proposals (H.R. 1) which would “quite literally cause more people to starve to death, go to bed hungry or live more miserably than they are doing now.” Adds Bittman: “And: The bill would increase defense spending.”

Bittman confessed to some skepticism about whether things work out the way Isaiah 58, reporting on God’s revelatory word, suggests. That chapter also reflected God’s being bored by all of Israel’s fussing about how strenuous the people were about holy fasting. The prophet—in my own loose translation—says, for God: “You think you are going to impress me by fasting, but all you do is get hungry and thus get angry and then beat up on each other. Is that the fast you think I want?”

Also in elaborated but consistent paraphrase for the Bible-believers among us: “You can stamp ‘In God We Trust’ on all your money, fight for particular prayers in public gatherings and schools, sing ‘God Bless America’ and all,” but if the people would not feed the hungry, free the imprisoned, and take care of those in need, their fasting, they learned, was beside the point, if not futile and wrong. The ancient prophet said this more elegantly and with an authority that columnists cannot command, but his words should outrank other texts which are cherished by biblical literalists and their secular cousins during legislative and electoral conflicts. Beckmann: “. . . deficit reduction isn’t as important as keeping people from starving: ‘We shouldn’t be reducing our meager efforts for poor people in order to reduce the deficit. They didn’t get us into this, and starving them isn’t going to get us out of it.”

Bittman does not expect God to intervene, but he still hears the moral punch of the biblical language. Disagree with Bittman and Beckmann if they offend, one can suggest, but for the biblically-minded folk, proving that the two are wrong is hard to do. I hope both fasters savor their post-fasting food but stay on the cause. Those obsessed with budget-cutting will certainly stay on theirs. Note: Isaiah 58 speaks wonderfully, not grimly, about the promise of what could follow moral action in the face of human need.

References

Mark Bittman, “Why We’re Fasting,” New York Times, March 29, 2011.

David Beckmann, “God, Hear Our Prayer,” Bread for the World, March 28, 2011.

Martin Marty publishes every Monday in Sightings, available from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Plato | Benefactors of One Another

2011-03-21T11:44:00.000-07:00

You have again forgotten, my friend, I said, the intention of the legislator, who did not aim at making any one class in the State happy above the rest; the happiness was to be in the whole State, and he held the citizens together by persuasion and necessity, making them benefactors of the State, and therefore benefactors of one another; to this end he created them, not to please themselves, but to be his instruments in binding up the State.

— Plato, The Republic, Book VII

Newt Gingrich's Confession | A Rewrite by Lawrence O'Donnell

2011-03-11T22:00:00.000-08:00

This, I think, is the kind of thing the young man in the post called Unlinked is reacting to...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Unlinked | Will American Millennials Reboot Marriage and Parenting?

2011-03-10T21:33:00.000-08:00

This week the Pew Research Center reported on the attitudes of 18-29 year-old Americans toward parenting and marriage. In a nutshell, the study found that being good parents is more important to a majority of these Americans than having a successful marriage. You can read the report for yourself.

Not in the report is what I thought I caught, whispered between the lines, floating on the wind. I wrote it down as I heard it this morning. Perhaps it was only in my mind.

"Do as You Would Be Done By" | One More from Professor Lewis

2011-03-09T23:21:00.000-08:00

I have said that we should never get a Christian society unless most of us became Christian individuals. That does not mean, of course, that we can put off doing anything about society until some imaginary date in the far future. It means that we must begin both jobs at once—(1) the job of seeing how ‘Do as you would be done by’ can be applied in detail to modern society, and (2) the job of becoming the sort of people who really would apply it if we saw how.

— C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco, 2001 edition, p. 88

C.S. Lewis | ...the same old game under the new system

2011-03-04T21:35:00.000-08:00

What is the good of drawing up, on paper, rules for social behaviour, if we know that, in fact, our greed, cowardice, ill temper, and self-conceit are going to prevent us from keeping them? I do not mean for a moment that we ought not to think, and think hard, about improvements in our social and economic system. What I do mean is that all that thinking will be mere moonshine unless we realise that nothing but the courage and unselfishness of individuals is ever going to make any system work properly. It is easy enough to remove the particular kinds of graft or bullying that go on under the present system: but as long as men are twisters or bullies they will find some new way of carrying on the old game under the new system. You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco, 2001 edition, p. 73

Follow the Money: Jon Stewart on Teachers + Wall Street

2011-03-04T08:11:00.000-08:00

The Daily Show - Crisis in the Dairyland - For Richer and Poorer - Teachers and Wall Street
Daily Show Full Episodes

Lincoln in Wisconsin | "capital is the fruit of labor"

2011-02-28T15:03:00.000-08:00

Abraham Lincoln gave a great speech to farmers at the Wisconsin State Agricultural Fair on September 30, 1859. The address builds beat after beat to make a big point about the nobility of work and the value of workers.

Here then, a substantial excerpt drawn from pages 499-502 in Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings. Roy P. Basler - editor, World Publishing, Cleveland, OH, 1946. A new edition, apparently printed from the same plates, is available from Amazon.

Mr. Lincoln's reference to the "mud-sill theory" represents a challenge to his contemporary, South Carolina's James Henry Hammond, and the notion that progress demands a lower class of workers — the mudsill on which the foundations is laid — to support the advancement of people in the upper class.
Mr. Lincoln jokes:

According to that theory, the educating of laborers is not only useless, but pernicious and dangerous. In fact, it is, in some sort, deemed a misfortune that laborers should have heads at all. Those same heads are regarded as explosive materials, only to be safely kept in damp places, as far as possible from that peculiar sort of fire which ignites them. A Yankee who could invent a strong-handed man, without a head, would secure the everlasting gratitude of the "mud-sill" advocates.

Hmm...is Wisconsin governor Scott Walker a mudsill advocate? Not in so many words, I'm sure. But what about underneath the rhetoric? The excerpt from Mr. Lincoln's speech after the jump...

The world is agreed that labor is the source from which human wants are mainly supplied. There is no dispute upon this point. From this point, however, men immediately diverge. Much disputation is maintained as to the best way of applying and controlling the labor element. By some it is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital -- that nobody labors, unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow, by the use of that capital, induces him to do it. Having assumed this, they proceed to consider whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent; or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, they naturally conclude that all laborers are necessarily either hired laborers or slaves. They further assume that whoever is once a hired laborer, is fatally fixed in that condition for life; and thence, again, that his condition is as bad as, or worse than, that of a slave. This is the "mud-sill" theory.

But another class of reasoners hold the opinion that there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed; and that there is no such thing as a freeman being fatally fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer; that both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them groundless. They hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed; that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existence without labor. Hence, they hold that labor is the superior -- greatly the superior -- of capital.

They do not deny that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital. The error, as they hold, is in assuming that the whole labor of the world exists within that relation. A few men own capital; and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital, hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class -- neither work for others, nor have others work for them. Even in all our Slave States, except South Carolina, a majority of the whole people, of all colors, are neither slaves nor masters. In these free States, a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families -- wives, sons, and daughters -- work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favor of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital -- that is, labor with their own hands, and also buy slaves or hire freemen to labor for them; but this is only a mixed, and not a distinct, class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Again, as has already been said, the opponents of the "mud-sill" theory insist that there is not, of necessity, any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. There is demonstration for saying this. Many independent men, in this assembly, doubtless, a few years ago were hired laborers. And their case is almost, if not quite, the general rule. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This, say its advocates, is free labor -- the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the

way for all, gives hope to all, and energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. If any continue through life in the condition of the hired laborer, it is not the fault of the system, but because of either a dependent nature which prefers it, or of improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune. I have said this much about the elements of labor generally, as introductory to the consideration of a new phase which that element is in process of assuming. The old general rule was that educated people did not perform manual labor. They managed to eat their bread, leaving the toil of producing it to the uneducated. This was not an insupportable evil to the working bees, so long as the class of drones remained very small. But now, especially in these free States, nearly all are educated -- quite too nearly all to leave the labor of the uneducated in any way adequate to the support of the whole. It follows from this that henceforth educated people too must labor. Otherwise education itself would become a positive and intolerable evil. No community can sustain, in idleness, more than a small percentage of its numbers. The great majority must labor at something useful -- something productive. From these premises the problem springs, "How can labor and education be the most satisfactorily combined?"

By the "mud-sill" theory it is assumed that labor and education are incompatible, and any practical combination of them impossible. According to that theory, a blind horse upon a tread-mill is a perfect illustration of what a laborer should be -- all the better for being blind, that he can not tread out of place, or kick understandingly. According to that theory, the educating of laborers is not only useless, but pernicious and dangerous. In fact, it is, in some sort, deemed a misfortune that laborers should have heads at all. Those same heads are regarded as explosive materials, only to be safely kept in damp places, as far as possible from that peculiar sort of fire which ignites them. A Yankee who could invent a strong-handed man, without a head, would secure the everlasting gratitude of the "mud-sill" advocates.

But free labor says, "No." Free labor argues that, as the Author of man makes every individual with one head, and one pair of hands, it was probably intended that heads and hands should co-operate as friends, and that that particular head should direct and control that particular pair of hands. As each man has one mouth to be fed, and one pair of hands to furnish food, it was probably intended that that particular pair of hands should feed that particular mouth -- that each head is the natural guardian, director and protector of the hands and mouth inseparably connected with it; and that being so, every head should be cultivated and improved, by whatever will add to its capacity for performing its charge. In one word, free labor insists on universal education.

I have so far stated the opposite theories of "mud-sill" and "free labor," without declaring any preference of my own between them. On an occasion like this, I ought not to declare any; I suppose, however, I shall not be mistaken, in assuming as a fact, that the people of Wisconsin prefer free labor, with its natural companion, education.

Follow the Money: What's a Teacher's Worth?

2011-02-25T14:51:00.000-08:00

OK, First:

In the same time frame as the screen above, the average salary in Wisconsin for:

Gaming Managers was $65,760

Securities, Commodities and Financial Services Sales Agents was $72,550

Art Directors was $72,840

Fashion Designers was $77,780

Broadcast News Analysts was $79,610

Public Relations Managers was $84,900

Athletes and Sports Competitors was $97,250

Marketing Managers was $103,150

I don't begrudge the salary of anyone doing honorable work — certainly not teachers. On average, I don't think practitioners in any of these categories add more value to Wisconsin's (or the U.S.) economy than teachers.

Second: Aren't some of the people moaning about teacher salaries today the same ones who steadfastly argued two years ago that $250,000 a year is barely a living wage? You know who you are; pick a side.

Joseph + the Amazing Technicolor Tax Plan*

2011-02-20T23:17:00.000-08:00

“Okay, everybody, gather round; it’s time for a story!” Mr. Shepherd said with a big grin.

“What kind of story?” asked Miss Dollar, pretending she didn’t know.

“A Bible story!” Mr. Shepherd exclaimed.

And all the the children cried, “YAY!”

When everyone was still, Mr. Shepherd said, “Today’s story is about Joseph. How many of you remember him?”

“I do! I do!” said the children, raising their hands.

“Of course you do!” Mr. Shepherd said. “Joseph is a Bible hero! Does anyone remember why?”

“He’s a Bible hero because he loved his family!” said Ben.

“That’s right; Joseph loved his father and brothers very much, Ben. And what else?”

“Joseph refused to have premarital sex,” said Chastity. “He ran away naked when his boss's wife tried to…um…what do you call it?”

“When she tried to seduce him; that’s right Chastity! What else?”

“He’s a Bible hero because he always trusted God, even when everything looked hopeless.” said Will.

“My, you all remember so much about Joseph! And because of all those great qualities, he was promoted to a position of tremendous honor and responsibility in the land of Egypt. Isn’t that wonderful?”

And all the children nodded their heads; except Elizabeth, who raised her hand and waited until she was called on.

“You stopped asking, ‘And what else,’ before we got to the end,” she said.

“OK, Elizabeth,” Mr. Shepherd replied, throwing a little wink to Miss Dollar. "What else?"

“Joseph is also a Bible hero,” Elizabeth began, “because when he saw in a dream that a global food shortage was coming, he instituted a 20 percent tax on everything grown in Egypt for seven years and stored huge quantities of grain all over the country — so much that he stopped keeping records because no one could count it all."

“Wait a minute!” interrupted Milton. “That doesn’t sound right! I thought you said Joseph followed God.”

“He did!” Elizabeth responded, but Milton cut her off again.

“No way! That's nanny state stuff! God would never tell a leader to do that!”

“Well, apparently, that’s what God told Joseph,” Elizabeth said. “Then, when the economy slid off the rails, Joseph opened the storehouses and sold grain back to the Egyptians.”

“They bought their own grain?” Milton demanded. “That’s crazy! That’s like a double tax! God hates taxes! Tell her Mr. Shepherd!”

But Mr. Shepherd just sat there, looking stunned.

Elizabeth pressed on: “And then the global food supply collapsed and everybody in the world came to buy grain from the Egyptian government.”

This horrified the other children, who looked to Miss Dollar for help. But she faked a coughing fit and buried her face in the crook of her arm.

After an awkward moment, Milton intoned the words they were all thinking: “God believes in free market solutions, Elizabeth. You take that back.”

But Elizabeth didn’t take it back; she plowed ahead: “The famine was far from over, and Joseph sold food to the Egyptians until all their money was gone."

Milton’s face was very red now. “He never!”

“When the money was gone, Joseph traded food for livestock. And when the government owned all the livestock, Joseph bought up all the land in Egypt — and everyone sold, because you can’t eat dirt every day. So the people were reduced to servitude from one end of Egypt to the other.”

“LIES!” Milton screamed, his eyes bulging.

“No!” Elizabeth countered. “It’s not! It’s part of why Joseph is a Bible hero! It’s right there in the book of Genesis! You could read it for yourself!”

Milton was crying freely now. “But we’re just children!” he sobbed, snot running down the little furrow between his nose and upper lip. “The adults would have told us if that was in the Bible…right?”

“You’d think, wouldn’t you?” said Elizabeth in a sad voice. She smiled gently. “After that, Joseph gave everyone seed to plant. And he made the 20 percent tax permanent. And do you know what the people did?”

Milton snuffled. “They rose up in a mighty tax revolt and demanded a return to true capitalism as God intended?”

“No,” Elizabeth said. “They thanked Joseph for saving their asses — also their camels and goats. Just kidding; the government owned the livestock. They thanked Joseph for saving their lives and got to work rebuilding the economy.

“And that’s how Joseph became a Bible hero,” Elizabeth concluded. “And it’s how his father and the rest of his family survived to become the Twelve Tribes of Israel. The rest of the story, you can read at your leisure.”

”I need to blow my nodes,” Milton moaned, and excused himself to search for a tissue.

* Apologies to Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Tim Rice, and Moses

E.B. White | 1952 | This is Bad

2011-02-14T14:12:00.000-08:00

We grow tyrannical fighting tyranny. This is bad. I think the most alarming spectacle today is not the spectacle of the atomic bomb in an unfederated world, it is the spectacle of the Americans beginning to accept the device of loyalty oaths and witchhunts, beginning to call anybody they don't like a communist.

—E.B. White, April 27, 1952, Letters of E.B. White, p 328

Second Thoughts about the National Football League + the Triumph of Socialism

2011-02-10T09:40:00.000-08:00

Lawrence O'Donnell takes a do-over on the public funding of professional sports.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The National Football League + the Triumph of Socialism | Lawrence O'Donnell

2011-02-07T21:15:00.000-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

William Barclay | Everything Matters

2011-02-02T21:14:00.000-08:00

Nothing has done the church more harm than the repeated statement that the things of this world do not matter. In the middle thirties of this century unemployment invaded many respectable and decent homes. The father's skill was rusting in idleness; the mother was trying to make a shilling do what a pound ought to do; children could not understand what was going on except that they were hungry. Men grew bitter or broken. To go and tell such people that material things make no difference was unforgivable, especially if the teller was in reasonable comfort himself.

— William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (9:1-9), Daily Study Bible Series, Revised Edition, Edinburgh, Saint Andrews Press, 1975

Anything Government Can Do... Part 02

2011-01-25T07:44:00.000-08:00

Following my post, Anything Government Can Do, The Free Market Can Do Better | An exchange between friends, my friend replied:

In response, I did not say better, but more cost effectively. Cost efficiency does not always equate as better. I can drive a well maintained 10 year old Toyota Corolla more cost efficiently than a new full sized auto, but that does not mean it is a better auto. Secondly, I never said anything about "the unfailing efficiencies of the free market". I believe it is the fact that the free market can and does fail that makes it pure. Government, on the other hand is able to prolong and deny failure by extending budgets, increasing debt and raising taxes. 45 out of 50 states are now insolvent and several are headed for bankruptcy while still spending at record levels. That is not "philosophy', but is backed up by government audits.A federal employee is paid 64.47% more (including benfits and pensions) than a free market employee with full benefits doing the same task. By the Governments on records there were 72 Billion dollars spent on improper payments in 2008. The government also discovered that 22% of the programs they finance (at a cost of 123 Billion annually) fail to show any positive impact on the population they serve. The beauty of the free market, is that it can not operate like this. Most free market enterprises operate on less than 6% profit and would long since be out of business if they operated so inefficiently. Many of the businesses I shooped at or resturants I ate in 10 years ago no longer exist. I am not aware of many (any) governmental agencies that have been aloowed to fail in that time.

A 2001 government comission evaluation found that the cost of operating and maintaining private roads is often less than half the cost of publicly manged roads. In Washington D.C. the cost of public education is $17,500 per student without figuring in capital expentures (Costs of buildings, healthcare, retirement and debt reduction). When you add these the total cost per student is $28,000. In the same district, only 39% of private schools charge more than $10,000 (all inclusive). These are not "philosophies", but facts "weighed" by audit, for the most part, government ausdit. Our forefathers also showed 0 interset in developing national health care, a federalized pony express or welfare. They believed in the free market and allowed it to function unhindered. It is what made us the most prosperous nation in the shortest amount of time in thistory.The free market certainly is not perfect, because greed is a temptation available to entrepenuers and CEO's as well as union and governmental leaders, but all in all it is heads above any system in place now or in history.

To which I respond:

Perhaps I mistook the heart of your argument. You said there is one flaw in Ms. Cutter’s reasoning: “and that is that Government can provide any service more cost efficiently than the free market.”

The heart of my argument is that this may be the wrong argument.

In one sense — borrowing a line from an old movie — “We don’t care how much it costs; we care how much it makes” (Heaven Can Wait, Paramount, 1978) I’m pretty sure a pencil-pusher could find fault with this notion; but only a pencil-pusher would care at the nth degree.

This was, more or less, the reasoning of Thomas Jefferson when he presided over the Louisiana Purchase; financing an amount equal to 95% of the nation’s annual revenue — much of which was already allocated to debt service — and increasing the nation’s debt by 19% just like that.

Mr. Jefferson defended the purchase in his second inaugural address — speaking to concerns not of cost efficiencies but of the soundness of the Union:

“I know that the acquisition of Louisiana had been disapproved by some from a candid apprehension that the enlargement of our territory would endanger its union. But who can limit the extent to which the federative principle may operate effectively? The larger our association the less will it be shaken by local passions; and in any view is it not better that the opposite bank of the Mississippi should be settled by our own brethren and children than by strangers of another family? With which should we be most likely to live in harmony and friendly intercourse?”

President Jefferson joined others like first Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton in the willingness — in fact the action — of leveraging revenues to match expenditures by the constitutional mechanisms enumerated in Article I, Section viii which begins:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”

They played this out with admirable flexibility, I think, and both Hamilton and Jefferson were inclined to generate revenues from the well-off before resorting to ordinary working Americans (you can see this inclination in Jefferson’s second inaugural speech and 15 years earlier near the end of Hamilton’s report on public debt to the House of Representatives dated January 9,1790 )American State Papers, Finance, Vol. 1, pp 15-25).

Wading back into the mainstream of our discussion, I believe we all should insist on effective rather than ineffective government operations at every level. I doubt you and I have much disagreement there. We may disagree about what if anything enables effective government.

Please pardon my overreach in putting words in your mouth regarding “the unfailing efficiencies of the free market.” That said, it seems to me that after spitting them out, you bit them again with your contention that free market failures drive the purity of the thing. This is an old conundrum which in my opinion embodies the philosophical divide between free market purists and…well, everybody else. I doubt we’ll solve that between us.

You note several interesting data points without citations. I’d be interested in tracking some of those down if you can direct me to original sources. I’m particularly interested in the claim that federal employees are paid 64.7% more than the rest of us for doing the same task. That doesn’t look like what I read from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Finally for now, you say, “Our forefathers also showed 0 interest in developing national health care, a federalized pony express or welfare. They believed in the free market and allowed it to function unhindered.”

I go back to the US Constitution which absolutely declares the responsibility of the government to interrupt the unhindered functioning of the free market as necessary to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

How else am I to understand Article I, Section viii?

The Congress shall have the power…

- To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises

- To borrow money on the credit of the United States

- To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states and with the Indian tribes

- To establish laws for bankruptcies

- To coin money and regulate its value against other currencies

- To fix standards of weights and measures

- To punish the counterfeiting of securities and currency

- To establish post offices and post roads

- To promote the progress of science and useful arts through limited copyrights and patents

- To constitute lower courts

- To define and punish piracies and felonies on the high seas and offenses against international law

- To grant wartime letters of marque and reprisal and make rules concerning captures on land and water

Then, tying it all up in a bow:

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Those powers — enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, ratified by the States and extrapolated into statutory laws and observable practices — stand in clear opposition to the notion that they believed in and intended the United States to be the crucible for a wholly uninhibited free market.

Which is not to say they were anti-business any more than I am.

I’m just another moderately successful entrepreneur — fully engaged in the life of commerce and in no way anti-business. And I’m just another citizen — fully engaged in the political process and in no way anti-democratic. These identities are not at odds for me.

Don't Be Silly | Lawrence O'Donnell + Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) wrangle over how many bullets constitute a full load

2011-01-23T15:00:00.000-08:00

On September 10, 2004 my post in this space included this:

They [the Administration of George W. Bush) have de-clawed law enforcement. The Brady Bill—the Assault Weapons ban—will expire next Monday after proving its worth over ten years. Mr. Bush has shown zero leadership in calling for the extension of the ban on weapons needed by no one except soldiers. On Tuesday the National Rifle Association will endorse Bush/Cheney 04. I will hold Mr. Bush responsible for every assault-weapon death from Tuesday on.

The January 2011 gun violence in Tucson was an ugly episode of the sort of lethality I feared.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Anything Government Can Do, The Free Market Can Do Better | An exchange between friends

2011-01-22T16:14:00.000-08:00

An old friend responds to my post on The Costs of Repealing Health Reform:

There is one flaw in her reasoning and that is that Government can provide any service more cost efficiently than the free market. The only way they will be able to reduce premioums to the amounts that she is talking about would be for the government to subsidize the difference and that will mean further National debt, and/or increasing taxes to Canadian and European levels.

To which I reply:

I'm not sure we're reading the same historical and contemporary background sources.

I wonder if your a priori assumptions about the costly ineffectiveness of government and the unfailing efficiencies of the free market are exactly and no more than that: philosophical positions you bring to the conversation, before the evidence is weighed and perhaps sometimes regardless of the evidence.

The founders showed zero interest in reviving The Plymouth Company or inviting the Hudson Bay Company down to run the show for profit. They wrote the US Constitution in order to form a more perfect union of the states, to establish domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence and secure the blessings of liberty in perpetuity. They were — and I am — convinced those things can be accomplished better by the government they formed (and reformed by the constitutional amendments they proposed and the states ratified two years later).

I don't think it's a big stretch, looking at what they said in those documents and the laws they enacted pursuant to those powers agreed upon by the states, to say they did not intend to relinquish their liberty to individuals and companies motivated by profit any more than to those motivated by the entitlements of royalty.

So, there follows a quick list of public interests, activities and operations the founders and/or I am convinced a government can and has run more efficiently than the amorphous free market might have done — had the free market any interest in the common good.*

- establish justice

- insure domestic tranquility

- provide for the common defence

- secure the blessings of liberty in perpetuity

- regulate interstate commerce

- Interstate highways + some other large-scale infrastructure

- FAA

- manage currency

- FDIC

-Federal + state unemployment insurance programs

- copyright + patent protections

- treaties

-consumer protection, food + drug safety

- health + safety — CDC, NIH

- Basic Science + National Academy of Sciences

- GI Bill + Federal Housing Authority

- Student financial aid

- Social Security and Medicare

- Pollution control

- Workplace safety

- National Weather Service + NOAA

- FEMA

* By this I mean some businesses have the skill sets and talent to accomplish some of these ends nicely, but they never will because doing so stands in the way of making money. By this I do not mean that federal, state and local governments perform as well as they can and should. In my view, neither of these notions rules out public/private partnerships nor the need for ongoing regulation and constant improvement by everyone involved at every level.

respectfully,

jh

Now It's Personal: The Costs of Repealing Health Reform

2011-01-20T12:51:00.000-08:00

The Simple Arithmetic of US Gun Homicides

2011-01-14T09:04:00.000-08:00

For every 100 people in the U.S. there are about 90 civilian-oned firearms. [1]

More than 12,000 Americans are murdered with firearms every year. [2]

Let's call that 1,000 gun homicides a month
250 firearm murders each week
36 every day
three an hour

Guns don't kill people
People kill people...mainly
People clutching guns

Do the arithmetic.

[1] Small Arms Survey 2007
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies

Geneva, Switzerland.

[2] Table 2
National Vital Statistics Reports

Volume 59, Number 2 December 9, 2010

Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2008

by Arialdi M. Miniño, MPH; Jiaquan Xu, M.D.; and Kenneth D. Kochanek, M.A. Division of Vital Statistics

Barack Obama in Tucson | the video 01.12.11

2011-01-13T22:39:00.000-08:00

Quite a few friends appreciated easy access to the transcript of President Obama's remarks at yesterday's memorial gathering in Tucson, AZ. Here's the video.

Barack Obama in Tucson | full text of speech 01.12.11

2011-01-13T06:57:00.000-08:00

Remarks by the President at a Memorial Service for the Victims of the Shooting in Tucson, Arizona
McKale Memorial Center
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
6:43 P.M. MST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Please, please be seated. (Applause.)
To the families of those we’ve lost; to all who called them friends; to the students of this university, the public servants who are gathered here, the people of Tucson and the people of Arizona: I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, kneels to pray with you today and will stand by you tomorrow. (Applause.)
There is nothing I can say that will fill the sudden hole torn in your hearts. But know this: The hopes of a nation are here tonight. We mourn with you for the fallen. We join you in your grief. And we add our faith to yours that Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other living victims of this tragedy will pull through. (Applause.)
Scripture tells us:
There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy place where the Most High dwells.
God is within her, she will not fall;
God will help her at break of day.

On Saturday morning, Gabby, her staff and many of her constituents gathered outside a supermarket to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and free speech. (Applause.) They were fulfilling a central tenet of the democracy envisioned by our founders –- representatives of the people answering questions to their constituents, so as to carry their concerns back to our nation’s capital. Gabby called it “Congress on Your Corner” -– just an updated version of government of and by and for the people. (Applause.)
And that quintessentially American scene, that was the scene that was shattered by a gunman’s bullets. And the six people who lost their lives on Saturday –- they, too, represented what is best in us, what is best in America. (Applause.)
Judge John Roll served our legal system for nearly 40 years. (Applause.) A graduate of this university and a graduate of this law school -- (applause) -- Judge Roll was recommended for the federal bench by John McCain 20 years ago -- (applause) -- appointed by President George H.W. Bush and rose to become Arizona’s chief federal judge. (Applause.)
His colleagues described him as the hardest-working judge within the Ninth Circuit. He was on his way back from attending Mass, as he did every day, when he decided to stop by and say hi to his representative. John is survived by his loving wife, Maureen, his three sons and his five beautiful grandchildren. (Applause.)
George and Dorothy Morris -– “Dot” to her friends -– were high school sweethearts who got married and had two daughters. They did everything together -- traveling the open road in their RV, enjoying what their friends called a 50-year honeymoon. Saturday morning, they went by the Safeway to hear what their congresswoman had to say. When gunfire rang out, George, a former Marine, instinctively tried to shield his wife. (Applause.) Both were shot. Dot passed away.
A New Jersey native, Phyllis Schneck retired to Tucson to beat the snow. But in the summer, she would return East, where her world revolved around her three children, her seven grandchildren and 2-year-old great-granddaughter. A gifted quilter, she’d often work under a favorite tree, or sometimes she'd sew aprons with the logos of the Jets and the Giants -- (laughter) -- to give out at the church where she volunteered. A Republican, she took a liking to Gabby, and wanted to get to know her better. (Applause.)
Dorwan and Mavy Stoddard grew up in Tucson together -– about 70 years ago. They moved apart and started their own respective families. But after both were widowed they found their way back here, to, as one of Mavy’s daughters put it, “be boyfriend and girlfriend again.” (Laughter.)
When they weren’t out on the road in their motor home, you could find them just up the road, helping folks in need at the Mountain Avenue Church of Christ. A retired construction worker, Dorwan spent his spare time fixing up the church along with his dog, Tux. His final act of selflessness was to dive on top of his wife, sacrificing his life for hers. (Applause.)
Everything -- everything -- Gabe Zimmerman did, he did with passion. (Applause.) But his true passion was helping people. As Gabby’s outreach director, he made the cares of thousands of her constituents his own, seeing to it that seniors got the Medicare benefits that they had earned, that veterans got the medals and the care that they deserved, that government was working for ordinary folks. He died doing what he loved -– talking with people and seeing how he could help. And Gabe is survived by his parents, Ross and Emily, his brother, Ben, and his fiancée, Kelly, who he planned to marry next year. (Applause.)
And then there is nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green. Christina was an A student; she was a dancer; she was a gymnast; she was a swimmer. She decided that she wanted to be the first woman to play in the Major Leagues, and as the only girl on her Little League team, no one put it past her. (Applause.)
She showed an appreciation for life uncommon for a girl her age. She’d remind her mother, “We are so blessed. We have the best life.” And she’d pay those blessings back by participating in a charity that helped children who were less fortunate.
Our hearts are broken by their sudden passing. Our hearts are broken -– and yet, our hearts also have reason for fullness.
Our hearts are full of hope and thanks for the 13 Americans who survived the shooting, including the congresswoman many of them went to see on Saturday.
I have just come from the University Medical Center, just a mile from here, where our friend Gabby courageously fights to recover even as we speak. And I want to tell you -- her husband Mark is here and he allows me to share this with you -- right after we went to visit, a few minutes after we left her room and some of her colleagues in Congress were in the room, Gabby opened her eyes for the first time. (Applause.) Gabby opened her eyes for the first time. (Applause.)
Gabby opened her eyes. Gabby opened her eyes, so I can tell you she knows we are here. She knows we love her. And she knows that we are rooting for her through what is undoubtedly going to be a difficult journey. We are there for her. (Applause.)
Our hearts are full of thanks for that good news, and our hearts are full of gratitude for those who saved others. We are grateful to Daniel Hernandez -- (applause) -- a volunteer in Gabby’s office. (Applause.)
And, Daniel, I’m sorry, you may deny it, but we’ve decided you are a hero because -- (applause) -- you ran through the chaos to minister to your boss, and tended to her wounds and helped keep her alive. (Applause.)
We are grateful to the men who tackled the gunman as he stopped to reload. (Applause.) Right over there. (Applause.) We are grateful for petite Patricia Maisch, who wrestled away the killer’s ammunition, and undoubtedly saved some lives. (Applause.) And we are grateful for the doctors and nurses and first responders who worked wonders to heal those who’d been hurt. We are grateful to them. (Applause.)
These men and women remind us that heroism is found not only on the fields of battle. They remind us that heroism does not require special training or physical strength. Heroism is here, in the hearts of so many of our fellow citizens, all around us, just waiting to be summoned -– as it was on Saturday morning. Their actions, their selflessness poses a challenge to each of us. It raises a question of what, beyond prayers and expressions of concern, is required of us going forward. How can we honor the fallen? How can we be true to their memory?
You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations –- to try and pose some order on the chaos and make sense out of that which seems senseless. Already we’ve seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health system. And much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. (Applause.)
Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, “When I looked for light, then came darkness.” Bad things happen, and we have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.
For the truth is none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped these shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind. Yes, we have to examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future. (Applause.) But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. (Applause.) That we cannot do. (Applause.) That we cannot do.
As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together. (Applause.)
After all, that’s what most of us do when we lose somebody in our family -– especially if the loss is unexpected. We’re shaken out of our routines. We’re forced to look inward. We reflect on the past: Did we spend enough time with an aging parent, we wonder. Did we express our gratitude for all the sacrifices that they made for us? Did we tell a spouse just how desperately we loved them, not just once in a while but every single day?
So sudden loss causes us to look backward -– but it also forces us to look forward; to reflect on the present and the future, on the manner in which we live our lives and nurture our relationships with those who are still with us. (Applause.)
We may ask ourselves if we’ve shown enough kindness and generosity and compassion to the people in our lives. Perhaps we question whether we're doing right by our children, or our community, whether our priorities are in order.
We recognize our own mortality, and we are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this Earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame -– but rather, how well we have loved -- (applause)-- and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better. (Applause.)
And that process -- that process of reflection, of making sure we align our values with our actions –- that, I believe, is what a tragedy like this requires.
For those who were harmed, those who were killed –- they are part of our family, an American family 300 million strong. (Applause.) We may not have known them personally, but surely we see ourselves in them. In George and Dot, in Dorwan and Mavy, we sense the abiding love we have for our own husbands, our own wives, our own life partners. Phyllis –- she’s our mom or our grandma; Gabe our brother or son. (Applause.) In Judge Roll, we recognize not only a man who prized his family and doing his job well, but also a man who embodied America’s fidelity to the law. (Applause.)
And in Gabby -- in Gabby, we see a reflection of our public-spiritedness; that desire to participate in that sometimes frustrating, sometimes contentious, but always necessary and never-ending process to form a more perfect union. (Applause.)
And in Christina -- in Christina we see all of our children. So curious, so trusting, so energetic, so full of magic. So deserving of our love. And so deserving of our good example.
If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate -- as it should -- let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. (Applause.) Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle.
The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better. To be better in our private lives, to be better friends and neighbors and coworkers and parents. And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud. (Applause.)
We should be civil because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American Dream to future generations. (Applause.)
They believed -- they believed, and I believe that we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved life here –- they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another, that’s entirely up to us. (Applause.)
And I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us. (Applause.)
That’s what I believe, in part because that’s what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed. (Applause.)
Imagine -- imagine for a moment, here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that some day she, too, might play a part in shaping her nation’s future. She had been elected to her student council. She saw public service as something exciting and hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.
I want to live up to her expectations. (Applause.) I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it. (Applause.) All of us -– we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations. (Applause.)
As has already been mentioned, Christina was given to us on September 11th, 2001, one of 50 babies born that day to be pictured in a book called “Faces of Hope.” On either side of her photo in that book were simple wishes for a child’s life. “I hope you help those in need,” read one. “I hope you know all the words to the National Anthem and sing it with your hand over your heart." (Applause.) "I hope you jump in rain puddles.”
If there are rain puddles in Heaven, Christina is jumping in them today. (Applause.) And here on this Earth -- here on this Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and we commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit.
May God bless and keep those we’ve lost in restful and eternal peace. May He love and watch over the survivors. And may He bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
END 7:17 P.M. MST

via Whitehouse.gov

guns | an American haiku

2011-01-11T22:16:00.000-08:00

Ben Stein | The Gift of Forgiveness

2011-01-10T07:28:00.000-08:00

The Twelve Days of Christmas have passed; now on to this year's real work.
Thank you Mr. Stein.

Thomas Jefferson on Constitutions + Founders

2011-01-05T07:16:00.000-08:00

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. It is this preposterous idea which has lately deluged Europe in blood. Their monarchs, instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits, and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations, which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs.

— Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Samuel Kercheval Monticello, July 12, 1816, The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl246.htm

At The Closing of the Year

2010-12-31T14:23:00.000-08:00

If I cannot bring you comfort
Then at least I bring you hope
For nothing is more precious
Than the time we have and so
We all must learn from small misfortune
Count the blessings that are real
Let the bells ring out for Christmas
At the closing of the year
-- Wendy And Lisa - The Closing of the Year

Happy New Year; God bless us every one.

The Prince of Peace in Baghdad

2010-12-25T07:51:00.000-08:00

New York Times
QUOTATION OF THE DAY

"Be careful not to hate the ones killing us because they know not what they are doing. God forgive them."
THE REV. MEYASSR AL-QASPOTROS, at a Chaldean Catholic church in Baghdad

NYTimes.com

FINAL UPDATE: A Letter to My Senators on Good Faith Toward 9-11 First Responders

2010-12-21T23:00:00.000-08:00

Dear Senator,

I urge you to press for another vote this session on providing health benefits to 9-11 First Responders and volunteers.

Please call on the opposition to act in good faith and without further delay on this important matter.

Thanks for your leadership, Senator.

Kind regards,

Jim Hancock

FINAL UPDATE: AP reports passage of the bill.

UPDATE: MSNBC reports a deal has been reached in the Senate Wednesday Afternoon. Almost there...

Sorority Girls from Hell

2010-12-20T08:10:00.000-08:00

We interrupt the regularly scheduled drama to present this thing that still makes me laugh.

Stephen Colbert on Speaking for Jesus at Christmas

2010-12-17T06:41:00.000-08:00

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Jesus Is a Liberal Democrat

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>

March to Keep Fear Alive

Diddy Dirty Money | Coming Home

2010-12-14T11:56:00.000-08:00

This woke me from a deep sleep last night. Turn it up.

Louis C.K. | It's Even

2010-12-08T23:18:00.000-08:00

What are you complaining about? Louis C.K. does the math on slavery.

Jon Stewart | The Gretch Who Saved the War on Christmas

2010-12-07T23:26:00.000-08:00

A holiday classic? You decide...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Gretch Who Saved the War on Christmas

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

The Daily Show on Facebook

This Economy's Winners and Losers | Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

2010-12-01T23:28:00.000-08:00

Go ahead, ask me who I love more: the middle class, the poor or the rich.

Never mind, I'll tell you: I love them all. Meaning I have close friends who are rich and poor and in between and I love them all — as I believe we are all loved and valued by our creator.

Now ask whose wellbeing I worry about.

Not the wealthy...I do not worry that the wealthy won't make it one way or another.

If we're all in this together — e pluribus unum — then I don't think this is rocket science. Everybody contributes, everybody pays, everybody benefits. Fair is fair.