Here's What Democrats Will Be Doing for the Next 2 Years

Namely, complaining that Republicans have a voice in government.

If the Villager victory dance over this deal today is any indication, liberals have just been dealt completely out of the narrative and it's now simply a battle between conservatives, Tea Partiers and the president. And all the important parties agree that it is a perfect template for future "compromise."

I suppose in Digby's eyes compromise previously was telling Republicans to shut up and vote for their budget-busting, economy-cratering ideas.

Then there was this:

Of course, you have to keep in mind that the Republicans gave up nothing real in this deal. Since they never expected to keep the estate tax at zero all they gave up was a fake desire to make the tax cuts permanent -- they always wanted the issue for the election -- and an equally phony pose that they didn't want to extend unemployment.(Even they aren't dumb enough to pull that much money out of the economy at the moment) That's it, the full extent of their contribution to the "compromise." So keep your eyes peeled for the next irrelevant shiny object they throw out to the Democrats as compromise bait. I'm sure they have them all lined up.

Digby's wrong, of course, about what Republicans wanted from the Deal. Republicans did, in fact, want the threat of tax increases gone and didn't want the death tax reinstated at all. As for unemployment, there's debate about whether letting people live on the dole as long as desired is a good thing or not (it's really not, but liberals think you want everyone to starve if you point out human nature and the tendency not to change until forced to). And does Digby honestly think $313 billion in extra spending is an "irrelevant shiny object"? This from the same people complainig about not raising taxes in a recession.

I think the compromise was as good a deal as Barack Obama was going to get and he took it. Republicans possibly could have done better in the next Congress, but that would have required allowing tax rates to jump January 1, along with the attendant bad press, and I can't see John Boehner wanting that to be the new face of the Republican-Controlled House (although Democrats would love it).

One thing the crying and whining from Democrats over the last six weeks makes clear is that anything that doesn't add more debt and make people more dependent is going to be viewed as Making People Starve. I'm sure there are some non-thinking people who will find this appealing, but most people are going to see fiscal restraint as a good thing.

The Importance of Marriage to Middle Income Americans

A new and devastating study on the declining marriage rates of middle income Americans was released last week and here is the transcript.

Highly-educated Americans (those with a college degree or better) have a much higher rate of marriage and the author explains why:

First, they have access to better-paying and more stable work than their less-educated peers. This is important because marriage still depends on money — especially the financial success and stable employment of men.

Second, highly educated Americans are more likely to hold the bourgeois virtues – self-control, a high regard for education, and a long-term orientation — that are crucial to maintaining a marriage in today’s cultural climate.

Third, highly educated Americans are now more likely to attend church or to be engaged in a meaningful civic organization than their less educated peers. This type of civic engagement is important because being connected to communities of memory and mutual aid increases men and women’s odds of getting and staying married.

Finally, highly educated Americans are increasingly prone to adopt a marriage mindset — marked, for instance, by an aversion to divorce and nonmarital pregnancy, and a willingness to stick it out in a marriage — that generally serves them well through the ups and downs of married life. They recognize that they and their children are more likely to thrive — and to succeed in life — if they get and stay married.

Children raised in single parent households have few resources when times are tough. Their parents are poorer--there's power in pairs--and less able to help children adjust to the adult world. And these adults are more willing and prone to accept government aid. The rise in unmarried women with children who are Democrats (who want to redistribute wealth) is not without cause.

The gay marriage debate of the last decade has taken the spotlight off this pressing issue.

Indeed, the biggest marriage story among ordinary Americans is that cohabitation is mounting a major challenge to marriage as the preferred site for childbearing and co-residence in Middle America (as well as in many poor communities). This is disturbing because children and cohabitation do not mix. Children born to cohabiting parents are at least twice as likely to see their parents break up before they turn five, and they are much more likely to suffer educational and emotional problems, compared to children born into married homes. Finally, children in cohabiting households are at least three times more likely to be physically, sexually, or emotionally abused than children in intact, married families. And yet scholars estimate that more than 40 percent of American children will spend some time as the wards of cohabiting adults (one of whom is often unrelated).

New Poll: Americans Want Everything and Don't Want to Cut Anything

Brace yourselves, the great intellect of the American public has spoken and says it wants it all:

Americans want Congress to bring down a federal budget deficit that many believe is “dangerously out of control,” only under two conditions: minimize the pain and make the rich pay.

The public wants Congress to keep its hands off entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. They oppose cuts in most other major domestic programs and defense. They want to maintain subsidies for farmers and tax breaks like the mortgage-interest deduction. And they’re against an increase in the gasoline tax.

The story goes on in that vein, explaining all the areas Americans don't want the federal government cut, and who they think should pay for it, namely, the mythical rich.

I agree that the cap on earnings covered by Social Security taxes should be lifted. But if Social Security is means tested, it will become just another welfare program and a lot of people in the middle class will be angry with the results. If you're making $75,000 a year, the system is going to tell you why you should be paying for yourself.

Charles Krauthammer called the latest tax deal the swindle of the year, but that hasn't stopped Democrats from scuttling the whole thing. It's probably a good thing Obama's letting Bill Clinton be president again.

The Painful Truth about Unemployment

This pathetic Think Progress piece reminds me why solving the unemployent problem is going to be so difficult. The TP loons are upset with Newt Gingrich for saying this:

I would agree to a short-term extension of unemployment. But I have proposed, since we spent $134 billion last year in unemployment, that we change the entire program into a worker training program and not give anybody money for doing nothing.

For me, the irony is that I had said something similar that very morning without knowing anything about Gingrich's idea. It simply makes sense to me that people unemployed for a year or more are going to be very hard to fit into today's job market and it's crazy to pay people not to work. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who will, in fact, do nothing until their unemployment runs out, and with the latest unemployment extensions, it means someone could be sitting around unemployed for nearly four years. Does anyone honestly think a person who hasn't worked in four years is going to find employment quickly after the unemployment checks quit coming?

Yet reading the Think Progress piece, you'd think we were talking about slave labor here, rather than getting people to be self-supporting again.

The economy grows by nearly two dollars for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits “because recipients typically spend all of their benefit payments quickly.” The money “ripples through the economy into supermarkets, gasoline stations, utilities, convenience stores.” Flush with the revenue provided by these new consumers, those businesses are then able to hire additional workers and diminish the ranks of the unemployed.

Except for the fact that somebody is having to work in the private sector to pay for those benefits "rippling through the economy," and that person has less of his own money to spend. It's hard to imagine who it is who can't find a job in three years, but I guess if you're a trade show organizer, there probably aren't many of those jobs out there these days. You might have to take a job that's beneath you. Well, in another 13 months. In the meantime, I'll continue working my two jobs to support you.

Headline Displays Freudian Slip About Unemployment Benefits

Here's the headline:
Two Million Americans May Be Forced to Seek Work As Extended Jobless Benefits Run Out
Shouldn't people be looking for work while they're getting Unemployment?

The Unintended Consequences of Government Policy

We all tend to take our personal experiences and compare them (favorably) to the world at large. Sometimes, this creates an accurate picture of the world and sometimes it doesn't.

I was thinking about this today after my husband told me certain decisions he'd made in response to Obamacare. Remember, President Barack Obama promised that, not only would you be allowed to keep your insurance and your doctor, but that your rates wouldn't go up.

Well, guess what? Our health insurance rates are going up and our coverage is going down. In and of itself, this is bad enough. But the higher cost for health insurance has created some unpleasant and unintended consequences.

And uncertainty. Because we are uncertain about what health care costs will be like next year, my husband decided to cut down his United Way contribution. Way down. His reasoning is that he can donate more later if our health care doesn't cost as much as he thinks it might. While I hate cutting that contribution, it makes sense to me.

And the whole situation got me to thinking: if rising insurance costs--remember, our insurance wasn't supposed to go up under Obamacare--is causing us to cut our charitable donations (at least in this area), what will those increases do to others? Is this the Hope and Change We Can Believe In?

Obama Freezes Federal Wages for 2 Years

It's a token--and I do mean token--effort at trimming the budget. It saves $5 billion over 2 years, but as Ed Morrissey notes, we're talking about a $2 trillion deficit.

Of course, liberals are no happier with a wage freeze than conservatives. Echidne seems to think it's unfair for federal workers--who get paid by folks in the private sector--should have to live with the same tough economy as the rest of us. I can't remember when the last time was I got a cost of living increase that matched the cost of living. It's very hard to work up much sympathy for the guys making 150 grand.

Laughably, Jacob Davies at Obsidian Wings complains that "Federal workers must "sacrifice" because of an economic catastrophe they didn't cause, in a way that will do nothing to help the federal government or the economy." So, wait. The only people who should be "sacrificing" right now are those who "caused" the economic problems? How, exactly, does that work? Do only workers for Fannie and Freddie have to take the wage freeze since they "caused" the problem? Or is this more of the same liberal whinging that only "the rich bankers" caused the economic collapse (without help from people buying houses they couldn't afford or running up personal debt)?

I'm sure all those people unemployed don't think they "caused" our economic woes, either, but they're dealing with it. Not to mention all the people working harder than ever to keep things together. There's no reason federal employees can't take a wage freeze like millions of other Americans. Suck it up.

How to Balance the Budget

Barack Obama's bipartisan commission has released an outline of its recommendations to reduce the national debt.

The plan calls for deep cuts in domestic and military spending, a gradual 15-cents-a-gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax, limiting or eliminating popular tax breaks in return for lower rates, and benefit cuts and an increased retirement age for Social Security.

Among the popular tax breaks to disappear is the home mortgage deduction, the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit.

Liberals like Echidne are wringing their hands at the idea of the home mortgage deduction going away because--gosh--rich people don't care about home mortgage deductions.

Take the mortgage deductions for an example. They have always been a bit tricky to justify from an equality point of view, because they give a tax cut to those who can afford to buy rather than to rent and because the size of the price reduction they create is larger the more taxes you would otherwise pay.

But removing that deduction will also have odd equality effects: It's the middle classes who depend on that deduction to buy a house. The rich don't need it to be able to afford to buy.

Reducing or eliminating the mortgage deductions, combined with tax cuts of the types shown here, will do -- what? They must mean a move towards a larger relative tax burden for the middle classes, unless public spending is really really slashed.

Well that's not really what would happen. To start with, people shouldn't be buying houses for the mortgage deduction, and if you can't afford the house, that deduction isn't going to help. Secondly, anyone who thinks rich people don't care about tax deductions is either blind, stupid, or willfully ignorant. Rich people take all the deductions they can get, just like middle class people. Isn't that why liberals were so anxious to raise the tax rates?

Of course, the commission's proposals gore everyone's ox, whether you are a tax-and-spend liberal or a military-lovin' conservative. And there's no account here of how these severe changes in taxing and spending would affect the economy. It will be interesting to see the debate to come.

See more opinion here.

I Agree with Paul Krugman

Or, at least, his conclusion:

What I expect, instead, if and when the midterms go badly, is that the usual suspects will say that it was because Mr. Obama was too liberal — when his real mistake was doing too little to create jobs.

But, of course, Barack Obama hasn't done anything to create jobs precisely because of his liberalness. Obama has pursued a course that Americans have objected to vociferously, yet it has done nothing to stop the assault on the American economy.

Some of my friends argue that Obama seeks to ruin our economy and replace it with socialism, communism, or some form of dictatorship, but I'm not that conspiratorial. I do believe BO thinks his policies are best for solving the country's problems, but his answers are all wrong. While Krugman complains that the stimulus package was simply too small to turn around our economic woes, most of us recognize that personal bad economic times don't get better by continuing to rack up giant credit card bills. It gets better by (a) cutting spending and (b) increasing income. In the case of our country, this would mean holding the line on discretionary spending (no increases) and giving businesses incentives for hiring and producing. This could be accomplished in a variety of ways, including assuring businesses that you weren't going to add a bunch of new regulations that are going to cost them billions to implement (such as Obamacare).

Instead, what we have are Democrats behaving like Democrats, then shrugging when Americans reject it. For them, the problem isn't their arrogance and terrible policies; the problem is America.

Taxing the Rich

Dana has a nice post on the liberal obsession with taxing behavior they dislike, which makes very good points, but lead me to this Ross Douthat column which argues that "taxing the rich" can sometimes be a good thing.

The left-wing instinct, when faced with high-rolling irresponsibility, is usually to call for tax increases on the rich. But the problem, here and elsewhere, isn’t exactly that we tax high rollers’ incomes too lightly. It’s that we subsidize their irresponsibility too heavily — underwriting their bad bets and bailing out their follies. The class warfare we need is a conservative class warfare, which would force the million-dollar defaulters to pay their own way from here on out.

Over the last couple of years, there's been a great deal of talk about "too big to fail" companies and bailing out banks and such. There are those who argue that such bailouts were necessary to keep our economy from falling off a cliff, but it certainly illuminates the idea that there's one set of rules for the rich and another for the rest of us.

Back during the S&L crisis of the late 1980s, I thought it was insane that there was federal insurance covering at least $100k of anybody's money in the shakiest institution in town. That insurance encouraged people to find the worst savings and loan with the highest interest rate to bank with, safe in the knowledge that they would be able to get their funds regardless of the institution's solvency. That the taxpayer was on the hook for these ponzi schemes was no matter to me; I liked getting the high interest rates. Of course, I was young and liberal then, not realizing that I would be expected to pay higher taxes for years to come for financing these bogus schemes.

It's 20 years later and, apparently, we've still not learned the S&L lesson that bailing out bad companies doesn't really improve their performance. Why are we still subsidizing bad business decisions for big businesses? No doubt the employees of said institutions would be harmed (fired) when the company goes bust, but why are GM employees more deserving of my tax dollars than my favorite doughnut shop owner?

This policy is typical of the way the federal government does business. In case after case, Washington’s web of subsidies and tax breaks effectively takes money from the middle class and hands it out to speculators and have-mores. We subsidize drug companies, oil companies, agribusinesses disguised as “family farms” and “clean energy” firms that aren’t energy-efficient at all. We give tax breaks to immensely profitable corporations that don’t need the money and boondoggles that wouldn’t exist without government favoritism.

Douthat also points out this subsidizing the rich is evident in Social Security and Medicare, as well. The problem with means testing those programs, though, is that they were never sold as welfare programs (which would make them more vulnerable to cost-cutting). We were all told that everyone gets a share. IMO, the biggest problem with Social Security is the cap on the tax. Why is it that only the first $106,800? If you're going to tax people for this, it would bring in more income to tax the whole thing, not that I'm a big tax-everybody-person.

The bottom line here is that subsidizing bad behavior is bad public policy, whether you're talking about welfare, unemployment, or government subsidies for businesses. They all send the wrong message: taxpayers are suckers.

Stupid Liberal Tricks: Republicans Hate the Unemployed

Steve Benen must be a total idiot or just a jerk to write this:

"The jobs are there"? No, they're really not. Nationwide, there are five applicants for every one opening, which is a terribly painful ratio. Pennsylvania's unemployment rate is currently at a 26-year high.

Corbett not only seems confused about economic conditions, but his animosity about the jobless' attitudes is awful. Yes, I can appreciate the fact that an unemployed worker who's exhausted his/her benefits will be more desperate to take any job than an unemployed worker who's still receiving public aid. But this dynamic matters a whole lot more when there are plenty of job opportunities for those who want them. That's just not the current reality.

To hear Corbett tell it, the unemployed prefer to be unemployed -- turning down job opportunities that pay more, choosing to rely on aid that offers far less. Worse, Corbett doesn't seem to realize that his approach makes the larger problem worse -- cutting people off from unemployment benefits undercuts consumer spending, which in turn leads to less demand and fewer job opportunities.

Ok, so Benen is just an ass, obviously. And, amazingly, he twists the idea that people will wait to find a job longer if they are receiving unemployment than if they aren't into "hate."

Hey, jerk. Take it from somebody who's been unemployed. It's a sucky market to find a job but you can do it. What you can't do (and find employment) is decide to wait a month and take a "vacation" before you start looking. Or only look at jobs that pay as well as the one you left. Or try to get a better paying job. See, the idea is that you take a job close to what you were making--maybe not as much--and then keep looking for a better job. The old ditty about finding a better job while you have one is still true.

How do I know the market sucks but you can find a job if you bust your ass and look? Because I decided to find a full-time job last December to help pay off our debt (see Another Reason to Live Debt-Free) because I was sick and tired of being sick and tired. I busted my ass to find a full-time job (or, at least, I tried harder than usual). I put out lots of resumes. I had tons of phone interviews. I had lots of in-person interviews. I called in favors from friends who tried to get me hired. And guess what? Eventually, I got a full-time job. It took six months to do it, but I got one, and I'm making more money now than I've ever made (God is good).

Along the way, I took a patchwork of part-time jobs and one-day gigs to add money to our budget. I'm still working both my part-time and full-time jobs to try to get all the debt paid off faster (we're still hoping for the end of the year). Our plans didn't work the way we thought they would because it took much longer than usual for me to find a job, but, nonetheless, we'll make it.

This isn't bragging. Near the end, I'd begun having that "Oh, shit" feeling one gets when you realize things are way worse than you thought they were. I'd started contemplating taking a lesser paying job (along with my part-time gigs) just so I'd be gainfully employed. What I'm saying is, it's a bad market, but there are jobs, and telling people they're going to have to settle for less and make it up in volume doesn't mean you hate the unemployed.

Or, put another way:

Republicans assume someone earning $50,000 who loses his job is likely to hold out for a $50,000 position while utilizing his unemployment benefits. If his jobless benefits expire before he finds a position he may be forced to accept a lower paying job – say $35,000. Ironically, the job seeker will still make more than he made on unemployment and he is gaining valuable job experience and will likely be able to move back up the wage ladder as the economy grows and recovers. Extending jobless benefits may allow the job seeker to avoid accepting a lower paying job keeping him out of the employment market longer potentially making him less and less attractive to potential employers. It is hard for most workers to accept that they aren’t worth the $50,000 they made last year to accept that $35,000 position – but it is most likely the best economic decision they could make.

Economists are arguing that it could take nearly a decade for the job market to recover. That means a lot of people are going to have to take jobs they would have turned down only a couple of years ago. It's tough when you've been living on $100k to discover your same talents are only worth $70,000 now, but that's the reality we are living in. And there's nothing hateful about realizing that unemployment benefits we can't afford because of our national debt is giving people false hope that they'll get that $100k a year job in four more months.

Children and Materialism

This story on materialism and what it teaches our children got me thinking and remembering.

One day not long after Christmas, Sara comes home chattering eagerly about a new toy that has made its appearance—something that apparently stands out from the now mundane ponies, mermaids, and Barbies.

“It’s a stuffed animal that can transform into a fruit and even smells like a fruit,” she explains excitedly. “A Fur Berry. And there are four, maybe even five different kinds! And Tekla has one, and so does Flora, and Anna, and …” She stops her speech and looks at me expectantly.

“Well that’s great. Lots of Fur Berries, lots of opportunities to make swaps.”

But she’s shaking her head as if I don’t understand. I turn and face her. She is not eager or excited as I first thought, but agitated. In fact, her big brown eyes are blinking hard, fighting back tears. “No, Mommy,” she says with a hint of desperation. “Everyone has a Fur Berry—don’t you see?—everyone but me.” I may have been slow on the uptake, but now the message is clear. Swapping isn’t enough. A Fur Berry is not a toy one merely obtains on exchange for just a day or two at the most. Its importance lies far beyond its transient entertainment value. It will earn her social cachet, and it’s vital that I as a parent understand this. But somehow, I find myself unable to accept Sara’s urgent need for this fuzzy, pastel-colored plaything.

Days go by, however, and the Fur Berry is the only topic she’s willing to discuss, and always with the teary eyes. Eventually she does concede that, okay, not everyone has a Fur Berry. Only the girls. And well, not all the girls either, only a few. But they are the girls that matter. They are the girls who decide who is in and who is out.

My husband and I are dismayed. She’s only in first grade, yet peer pressure and the tyranny of cliques have already reared their ugly heads. Sooner than I expected, I find myself recalling my own painful struggles of early adolescence. I was never a popular child, introverted and bookish, awkward and unfashionable. And this last quality, my lack of style, was the most problematic. I was sadly aware of how popularity was connected to wealth, and that material possessions could impact one’s social standing: all my clothes came from the Sears catalogue, while many of the other girls were wearing trendy stone-washed Guess jeans. “A waste of money,” my mother would say, “and totally unimportant.” But I remember the looks of scorn on my classmates’ faces.

In a world where what's in today is out tomorrow, it's easy to tell ourselves that these fads aren't important, and that telling our children "no" is teaching them valuable lessons in avoiding materialism. But as the author herself notes, the humiliation of not having what others have can leave lifelong scars.

In Little Women, Amy succumbs to any and every fad at school, and eventually needs to buy pickled limes to repay her friends. Pickled limes? you might say. Why would anyone want something so disgusting? But fads are fads and yesterday's pickled limes becomes today's Lego Star Wars ship and tomorrow's Fur Berry. Yes, these trends are temporary, but sometimes there's more at work to them than first appears.

When I was in high school, designer jeans were all the rage. My family couldn't afford them. My mother had gone to college to get her BSN, and my father's $8-an-hour job didn't stretch much beyond the necessities. If I wanted spending money, I had to work for it, and I did so without complaint. Having my own, earned money was very freeing in most ways, but I couldn't afford designer jeans on minimum wage.

Because of our tight budget, I knew Christmas would be skimpy, and I didn't expect much of anything. Maybe a book I'd been wanting, or the latest Billy Joel album. But then, under the tree, was a tiny box that weighed next to nothing. In the box was a small strip of paper that read, I.O.U. one pair designer jeans. It was a humbling experience, knowing that my parents were willing to sacrifice something they wanted to get me something I wanted, and it was a lesson I never forgot. At that point, the jeans weren't just a pair of jeans; it was an acknowledgement that having what others had sometimes meant a great deal.

I still have that pair of jeans in my closet, believe it or not. They've traveled from my teenage bedroom at my parents' house to the tiny apartment I rented when I was a single woman to both the houses I've owned as a married adult. My husband has even asked me why on earth I have this old pair of jeans in the back of the closet? Why keep something so horribly out of fashion, something I'll never wear?

The answer, of course, is to remind me that loving your kids is about more than giving in to them every time they want something new. Those jeans remind me that my parents honestly cared about the travails of adolescence and the meanness of teenage girls, and that, for them, being a little late on some bill or not getting something for themselves was a small sacrifice to make to take away a little of that pain. And considering the amount of time my parents had spent lecturing my siblings and me on not following the crowd or giving in to peer pressure, the fact that even they understood the problems one faces in junior high and high school was comforting.

I don't buy my children every fad item that comes along. But I do buy some of them, particularly when my children have hit junior high, where fitting in becomes so important. We still don't have money to buy every new thing, but I've bought a single pair of outrageously priced jeans so that one daughter could look cool the first day of school. I've let my son have his shaggy hair the way he'd like, rather than insist he look clean and neat. And I'm sure there will be more of that balancing act in the future.

The Obama Tax Cometh

Dana has a great post up discussing what that saved tax money from the Bush tax cuts can buy...and not for the rich.

Using tax years 2000 and 2004 Forms 1040¹ (picked because 2000 was the last year under the pre-tax cut numbers, and 2004, because it had all of the 2003 tax cuts figured in) and an adjusted gross income of $60,000 for a family of four, with two children under 17 at the end of the tax year, and using the standard deduction, that $60,000 AGI in 2000 would have paid $5,214 in federal income taxes, while in 2004, only $2,974 in federal income taxes, for a savings of $2,240. Perhaps that’s just chump change to you, but it works out to $186.66 a month.

Now, what’s $186.66 a month to a family of four? Well, it might be a whole week’s worth of groceries, or perhaps it’s their electric and water bills for the month. Maybe it’s a car payment, so they can get to work. If we assume that the $60,000 is jointly and evenly earned by two people, working full-time jobs, you’re looking at an hourly wage of $14.42 an hour; $2,240 = 155.34 hours of work for them, or just shy of four weeks of full time work! Under the 2000 tax rates, each of those two people would be working two more weeks out of the year for the federal government . . . and two weeks less for themselves.

Sadly, even as liberals argue about "tax cuts for the rich," they are perfectly willing to let tax cuts for everyone expire provided they stick it to the rich in the process. I mean, why should you get $1000 tax credit per kid? You don't need it, right?

Robert Reich argues today that the recession is all the rich people's fault. Why? Because they haven't been paying enough all these years. If they had, there would have been plenty of goodies for all of us!

Government could have given employees more bargaining power to get higher wages, especially in industries sheltered from global competition and requiring personal service: big-box retail stores, restaurants and hotel chains, and child- and eldercare, for instance. Safety nets could have been enlarged to compensate for increasing anxieties about job loss: unemployment insurance covering part-time work, wage insurance if pay drops, transition assistance to move to new jobs in new locations, insurance for communities that lose a major employer so they can lure other employers. With the gains from economic growth the nation could have provided Medicare for all, better schools, early childhood education, more affordable public universities, more extensive public transportation. And if more money was needed, taxes could have been raised on the rich.

Big, profitable companies could have been barred from laying off a large number of workers all at once, and could have been required to pay severance—say, a year of wages—to anyone they let go. Corporations whose research was subsidized by taxpayers could have been required to create jobs in the United States. The minimum wage could have been linked to inflation. And America's trading partners could have been pushed to establish minimum wages pegged to half their countries' median wages—thereby ensuring that all citizens shared in gains from trade and creating a new global middle class that would buy more of our exports.

I always love liberal economics. In the liberal economic world, everybody works real hard and doesn't care how much they make. Entrepreneurs and big business guys are delighted to have 90% of their money taken in taxes and they still want to make more money so the government can take it!

Of course, in the real world, such policies provide little incentive to produce more than the minimum. And on top of that, these tax policies don't just hurt "the rich." They hurt everyone.

What Federal Waste?

Nothing to cut in the federal budget.

Federal Government Helped Pay Home Air-Conditioning Bills for Federal Employees, Prisoners and More Than 11,000 Dead People

Another recurring problem the GAO found was the payment of benefits to federal employees who make too much money to qualify for the program. The GAO found that 1,100 federal employees were receiving heating and A/C subsidies despite being able to afford to pay their own bills.

“Matching LIHEAP data with federal civilian payroll records, we identified about 1,100 federal employees whose federal salary exceeded the maximum income threshold at the time of their application,” the GAO reported.

One such case involved a Chicago-area Postal Service employee making $80,000 per year. According to the GAO, the woman, who was not named in the report, claimed on her LIHEAP application that she had no income. However, when pressed by GAO investigators, she admitted that she was not entitled to the benefits but wanted the money anyway because: “Times are tough and I needed the money.” She also said that she saw “long lines” and wanted some “free money.”

Why should poor people have all the fun??

Our Worst President Ever?

The more I think about the abject cynicism of Barack Obama, the more I'm drawn to the conclusion that, despite liberal professors' views to the contrary, he might be our worst president ever.

I don't take any great glee in announcing this. I fully expected to disagree with the vast majority of his policies. But I do try to accept that his vision for America and mine might be different, but that doesn't mean he hates the country, or that he wants to do it harm. There are those who fervently believe these things, but that's just nuts. You can be completely wrong about the maintenance your car needs and still run it out of oil.

After reading this Dick Morris column, though, I'm becoming ever more disgusted with the constant campaign mode of this president and his constant Republican bashing. This isn't just disagreement. It's constant war. Is there a compromise for this president, and is it possible for him to cast those who disagree with him as other than obstructionists?

For my liberal friends, I've noted some of their pet legislation signed into law by George W. Bush: No Child Left Behind (sponsored by Ted Kennedy) and the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act (co-sponsored by Russ Feingold). What legislation sponsored by and championed by Republicans has Barack Obama signed into law? Where, precisely, has he compromised?

The answer is that he hasn't. His rhetoric is designed not to bring sides together but to blame someone, anyone for the ills of the country, and that scapegoat won't be himself. His cynical approach to illegal immigration is just the most recent example.

Like Dick Morris, I believe that heavy fines and enforcement will drive most illegal immigrants back to their countries of origin. Unlike him, I don't think all of them will go because there are reasons besides the dollar to stay in this country. But Obama's cynical and racist ploy on this issue (trying to appeal to Hispanics who are disenchanted with him) is not worthy of America. Only 18 months into his term and he's already vying for the worst president slot, IMO.

How Long Till Kopp the Custard Guy Is Audited?

He's no Joe the Plumber, but Kopp the Custard Guy got under Vice President BiteMe's skin yesterday.

Earlier today Joe Biden was in Wisconsin, trying to help Russ Feingold salvage his Senate run, and he stopped at a frozen custard stand. When he asked the proprietor how much the custard cost, the proprietor answered, "Nothing, just lower our taxes."

Biden goes on to call the guy a smartass, which is a funny way to talk to the guy who's paid your salary for three decades. But it's tough to be a Democrat without a little contempt for the jerks who refuse to join public sector employment and continue to toil thanklessly in the private sector.



Do you think Kopp will now find himself getting the Joe the Plumber experience?

Understanding the Obama Economy

From National Review:

Since the beginning of the recession (roughly January 2008), some 7.9 million jobs were lost in the private sector while 590,000 jobs were gained in the public one. And since the passage of the stimulus bill (February 2009), over 2.6 million private jobs were lost, but the government workforce grew by 400,000.

It's important to remember who pays for those government jobs. It's the millions of Americans who used to have private sector jobs and now don't.

Why Is This Oil Spill Cleanup Taking So Long

The short answer is: the feds.

Five weeks ago Escambia County officials requested permission from the Mobile Unified Command Center to use a sand skimmer, a device pulled behind a tractor that removes oil and tar from the top three feet of sand, to help clean up Pensacola’s beaches. County officials still haven’t heard anything back. Santa Rosa Island Authority Buck Lee told The Daily Caller why: “Escambia County sends a request to the Mobile, Ala., Unified Command Center. Then, it’s reviewed by BP, the federal government, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard. If they don’t like it, they don’t tell us anything.”

This isn't mentioning the foreign governments with expertise in oil spill cleanup who are being stiff-armed by the Obama administration. Is it any wonder that conspiracy theorists contend the White House wants the spill to cause greater pain and suffering?

It's starting to sound like a broken record, but inexperience leads to poor decisionmaking, and this president's lack of executive experience is having dire consequences for American citizens. It's not just the terrorist attempts on us (only stopped by the grace of God), the foreign policy missteps and the lack of coherent solutions. It's the lethargy with which this administration chooses to act in the face of crisis. I don't care if Barack Obama is "angry" about the spill or not. I expect him to either lead or get the hell out of the way and let the experts handle the mess.

UPDATE: From Newsbusters, the problem is that white people are skeered of an angry black man.

Finding a Job

With unemployment at nearly 10%, finding a job these days can be a daunting task. Even in Texas, where unemployment is more around 8%, the pinch is felt, if not directly, in more subtle ways.

About six months ago, my husband and I decided to get serious about paying off our debt. I decided to seek fulltime employment to this end. For the past couple of years, I've worked freelance, which was great for being home when I wanted to be, but the stability just wasn't there. So, I started looking for fulltime work.

I've never had a problem finding a job when I wanted one. I don't say that to brag, it's just a fact. I started looking somewhat aggressively in December. Over the past six months I've had many phone interviews and almost as many in-person interviews. Most of those interviews were the kind where I walked out knowing I'd nailed it. I'd answered the questions I was asked, asked relevant questions and was friendly and intelligent. But a funny thing happened after these interviews. Well, ok, it wasn't funny, it was perplexing, then fear-inducing.

I didn't get any of the jobs. Not. one.

The first time or two, I shrugged it off as just "it wasn't the right fit." But by the fourth or fifth time I'd been rejected, it became personal. I nailed that interview. Why aren't they calling me back?

Then it hit me. There was someone else out there every bit as qualified as I was (and maybe more) who had also nailed the interview (and maybe better).

And then, the more terrifying part sunk in. There were probably a lot more people as qualified all going for the same jobs. A lot more.

It's a bad economy out there. A scary economy. And the experts are saying it's not going to get better for a long time. That means a lot of people are going to be discouraged, wind up in jobs far below their capabilities or on unemployment for a loooong time.

I fortunately found a new job, but the experience has left me with a lot of empathy for those still looking, and realizing that every job could have 500 applicants.

Unemployed Need Not Apply

Disturbing job ads

a current job posting on The People Place, a job recruiting website for the telecommunications, aerospace/defense and engineering industries, an anonymous electronics company in Angleton, Texas, advertises for a "Quality Engineer." Qualifications for the job are the usual: computer skills, oral and written communication skills, light to moderate lifting. But red print at the bottom of the ad says, "Client will not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason."

In a nearly identical job posting for the same position on the Benchmark Electronics website, the red print is missing. But a human resources representative for the company confirmed to HuffPost that the The People Place ad accurately reflects the company's recruitment policies.

"It's our preference that they currently be employed," he said. "We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. We do get a lot of applications blindly from people who are currently unemployed -- with the economy being what it is, we've had a lot of people contact us that don't have the skill sets we want, so we try to minimize the amount of time we spent on that and try to rifle-shoot the folks we're interested in."

There are about 5.5 people looking for work for every job available, according to the latest data from the Labor Department.

Couple this with the May jobs report that showed only 31,000 private sector jobs created, and you have a disaster not just looming, but happening. The government could encourage companies to hire out of work people through tax credits and other incentives for hiring workers who have been unemployed for six months or longer, but this White House and Congress seem more interested in handouts than hand ups.