Click here to view this media There are moments where I despair for the fate of this country, because it seems to me that we operate from completely different sets of realities based on the same set of facts. Unfortunately, Jim Cramer exemplifies this kind of “make-your-own-reality” within the media. You’d think he’d have learned after his humiliation on The Daily Show . But no, Jim Cramer unabashedly keeps blurring the lines between business reporting and market advocacy . Cramer came on Hardball on Friday to insist that Wall Street just hates Obama’s guts and they’re just waiting for that cuddly Republican to get into office before they unleash all those jobs we all know they have. It’s all that taxation and regulations that mean ol’ Barack Obama insists on inflicting on Wall Street. CRAMER: Okay, first, I’m going to agree with you, that the market has been fabulous, which is one of the reasons I’m always so astonished when people tell me that the problem is Obama. I mean, it’s clear Washington can be dysfunctional, but Democrats and Republicans not getting together. But when you get offline with CEOs, it’s not just Wall Street, but Industrial America, what they tend to say is, listen, we want to add, we want to hire, we want to grow in the United States, but everything is so up in the air and when it gets to the point where we’re thinking about what Washington’s going to do, we know we’re going to be the loser if President Obama is making the decision, because President Obama does not favor wealth creation and corporate profits. Not, the profits are huge. People have made a lot of money, but that is the rap that I hear. MATTHEWS: What is it particularly when a banker or a rich guy, anybody who’s got to make thse big decisions—well, let’s look at some of these numbers first, because I think they’re really informative. When President Obama took office January 20th, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 7949. Today, it closed at 11, 509, up from yesterday. That’s a 31% increase since Obama’s been president. Well, that alone sould be, wow, this guy’s good. And then there’s corporate profits. The New York Times cites a study by Northeastern University, and economist reports, “since the recovery began in June of 2009, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of that growth.” This is the stuff that causes revolutions, from the bottom, not from the top. [..] CRAMER: Look, I’m telling you that when you get off the desk with them, they really just feel like, look, if we got a Republican in there, we could really do a great thing in this country by hiring a lot of people. My rage meter at Cramer’s gleeful dishonesty is just redlining. CEOs are telling him privately that they’re just waiting for a Republican in the White House to hire people while Americans suffer through massive unemployment? Well then NAME NAMES, Cramer, you dishonest jerk, and tell us just which CEOs are telling you this and who are acting so treasonously. Because Chris Matthews–to his credit, since you apparently don’t believe in offering up these facts to these business owners–pointed out all the reasons that Obama could hardly be considered anti-business. These asses were bailed out by American taxpayers, posted record profits, pocketed nice little bonuses…but they need a Republican in the White House to pass that largesse back to the Americans? Well to put it bluntly, eff that. And eff Cramer and his ridiculous advocacy for Republican lies. But I have to give kudos to Chris Matthews for having facts on hand to show the lies and propaganda of Cramer’s statements. Look how very differently Cramer was received earlier that day on Morning Joe. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …Click here to view this media There are moments where I despair for the fate of this country, because it seems to me that we operate from completely different sets of realities based on the same set of facts. Unfortunately, Jim Cramer exemplifies this kind of “make-your-own-reality” within the media. You’d think he’d have learned after his humiliation on The Daily Show . But no, Jim Cramer unabashedly keeps blurring the lines between business reporting and market advocacy . Cramer came on Hardball on Friday to insist that Wall Street just hates Obama’s guts and they’re just waiting for that cuddly Republican to get into office before they unleash all those jobs we all know they have. It’s all that taxation and regulations that mean ol’ Barack Obama insists on inflicting on Wall Street. CRAMER: Okay, first, I’m going to agree with you, that the market has been fabulous, which is one of the reasons I’m always so astonished when people tell me that the problem is Obama. I mean, it’s clear Washington can be dysfunctional, but Democrats and Republicans not getting together. But when you get offline with CEOs, it’s not just Wall Street, but Industrial America, what they tend to say is, listen, we want to add, we want to hire, we want to grow in the United States, but everything is so up in the air and when it gets to the point where we’re thinking about what Washington’s going to do, we know we’re going to be the loser if President Obama is making the decision, because President Obama does not favor wealth creation and corporate profits. Not, the profits are huge. People have made a lot of money, but that is the rap that I hear. MATTHEWS: What is it particularly when a banker or a rich guy, anybody who’s got to make thse big decisions—well, let’s look at some of these numbers first, because I think they’re really informative. When President Obama took office January 20th, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 7949. Today, it closed at 11, 509, up from yesterday. That’s a 31% increase since Obama’s been president. Well, that alone sould be, wow, this guy’s good. And then there’s corporate profits. The New York Times cites a study by Northeastern University, and economist reports, “since the recovery began in June of 2009, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of that growth.” This is the stuff that causes revolutions, from the bottom, not from the top. [..] CRAMER: Look, I’m telling you that when you get off the desk with them, they really just feel like, look, if we got a Republican in there, we could really do a great thing in this country by hiring a lot of people. My rage meter at Cramer’s gleeful dishonesty is just redlining. CEOs are telling him privately that they’re just waiting for a Republican in the White House to hire people while Americans suffer through massive unemployment? Well then NAME NAMES, Cramer, you dishonest jerk, and tell us just which CEOs are telling you this and who are acting so treasonously. Because Chris Matthews–to his credit, since you apparently don’t believe in offering up these facts to these business owners–pointed out all the reasons that Obama could hardly be considered anti-business. These asses were bailed out by American taxpayers, posted record profits, pocketed nice little bonuses…but they need a Republican in the White House to pass that largesse back to the Americans? Well to put it bluntly, eff that. And eff Cramer and his ridiculous advocacy for Republican lies. But I have to give kudos to Chris Matthews for having facts on hand to show the lies and propaganda of Cramer’s statements. Look how very differently Cramer was received earlier that day on Morning Joe. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …Education secretary facing claims that he and his advisers used private emails to conduct government business Education secretary Michael Gove is facing potentially damaging claims that he and his closest advisers have conducted government business using private emails. The emails allegedly include a discussion of replacing personnel in the department but civil servants were unable to find those emails when asked to retrieve them under the Freedom of Information Act, the Financial Times reported. The information commissioner has written to the permanent secretary at the Department for Education to raise concerns about the department’s handling of FOI requests. A spokeswoman for the Information Commissioner’s Office said it was still making inquiries and had not launched an investigation. The FT reports that Dominic Cummings, Gove’s chief political aide, wrote to colleagues shortly after he was appointed stating he “will not answer any further emails to my official DfE account …” The email continued: “i will only answer things that come from gmail accounts from people who i know who they are. i suggest that you do the same in general but thats obv up to you guys – i can explain in person the reason for this …” The inquiries are being made after an FT journalist made FOI requests seeking to retrieve details of emails he had seen through other channels. According to the paper, the department said in each case it did not hold the information. The latest claims come after the Guardian revealed last month that a charity set up to provide advice to free schools received fast-track public funding after an email from Cummings, sent after the election in May, in which he urged that they should be given “cash without delay”. The charity, the New Schools Network, was subsequently given a £500,000 grant. Andy Burnham, the shadow education secretary, urged Gove to make a statement clarifying whether the department had complied with the law. He said: “Concerns about the way Michael Gove is running the education department have already been raised with the cabinet secretary. It now appears that this abuse of power and due process may go further than we realised. “These new revelations are serious and paint a picture of a dysfunctional department. From the very top, there appears to be an arrogant disregard for the established processes of government. “The secretary of state seems to have created his own private and political network, in parallel to the civil service, to carry out government business via personal emails instead of through open and transparent means.” Burnham wrote to the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell last month, asking Britain’s most senior civil servant to scrutinise the £500,000 award to the New Schools Network by the Department for Education. The charity is headed by a former Gove adviser. That letter also questioned a number of civil service appointments in the department since the election with political backgrounds. They include schools minister Nick Gibb’s former researcher Alexandra Gowlland, and Elena Narozanski, Gove’s former special adviser, who have been recruited as speechwriters. Burnham said last night: “Mr Gove has built a narrow clique at the heart of Government by making political appointments to civil service positions and giving large contracts to former advisers without an open tender process.” A source close to Gove said: “The email quoted by the FT was sent by Mr Cummings to Conservative party advisers. The email did not refer to Department for Education official business but to Conservative party business only. “Mr Cummings was telling Conservative party officials not to use his departmental account for political business. “The FT story gives an entirely misleading impression of Mr Cummings’s email.” Michael Gove Education policy Information commissioner Freedom of information Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media As I’ve already written about here in my post on Neil Cavuto bringing in a speed reader to attack government regulations, as Media Matters pointed out, Fox News began a week long assault on government regulations in conjunction with the GOP’s push to roll those regulations back as well. During their weekly address, Rep. Peter Roskam continued that assault. Some of the businesses he named off have already been written about at C&L, such as the Gibson guitar case , and the GOP’s attempt to gut the NLRB and their union busting in the Boeing case . Roskam also mentioned a business called Chicago White Metal Casting , which is “a third-generation family-owned die casting company employing 250 workers in suburban Chicago”, that apparently isn’t too happy about the amount of paperwork they’re having to do in order to comply with the Clean Air Act and mercury emissions standards. Fox did some follow up on the numbers being pushed over at Fox “News” on the costs of regulations which I’m sure were fed to them straight from the GOP here — Fox’s Attack On Regulations Relies On Widely Discredited Cost Estimate : As part of a weeklong series helping to push an anti-regulatory agenda, Fox News is citing a discredited estimate that regulations cost businesses on average $161,000 each year. The estimate, which comes from a report prepared by outside researchers for the Small Business Administration, has been criticized for using a flawed research design, cherry-picking the highest cost estimates, and relying on “crude” data. Lots more there and I don’t want to just copy and paste all of their research here, so just go read the rest. And they also followed with another post this weekend which took a closer look at just what government programs, laws and regulations Fox, and by default the GOP were carping about as “burdensome” to small business owners. Fox’s War On Regulations Takes On Child Labor, Workplace Safety, Civil Rights Laws : As part of its week-long special targeting government regulations, Fox’s “straight news” program, Special Report with Bret Baier, listed “jobs regulations” that supposedly “adversely impact … small business owners in a real-time way.” However, the regulations listed by Fox include vital statutes that are the bedrock of 20th and 21st Century worker protections in the United States. So what’s on the list that Fox has been attacking to help out their Republican buddies in the House? The Fair Labor Standards Act, the Social Security Act, FICA, Medicare, the Military Selective Service Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Immigration Reform Act, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Polygraph Protection Act, the Civil Rights Act Title VII, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination Act, the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act, COBRA, the Health Maintnance Organization Act, the Veterans Reemployment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the WARN Act and last but not least, the Civil Rights Act. I guess if we just roll all of those back, all will be right in GOP land for the “job creators.” Go read the rest of the Media Matters report for the details on each of them. Full transcript of Rep. Roskam’s remarks via the LA Times : Hello, I’m Peter Roskam. I serve as the House Republicans’ Chief Deputy Whip, and I have the honor of representing the people of Illinois’ Sixth Congressional District. Like you, I’m frustrated with America’s jobs crisis: more than 650,000 people are out of work in Illinois, President Obama’s home state. Small business owners are fighting every day to create and innovate, but continue to face government barriers to job creation. Among them: our unsustainable debt, the constant threat of higher taxes, and excessive regulations. Today I’d like to talk to you about excessive federal regulations, how they hurt jobs and household budgets, and what we can do about it. Let me start with this: appropriate and responsible regulations help protect our health and safety. But things have changed quickly – and for the worse. Washington has become a red tape factory, with more than 4,000 rules in the pipeline – hundreds of which would cost our economy more than $100 million each annually. The disappointing reality is that what may be a faceless regulation to most can have a profound impact on local economies and families like yours. Just one rule has Chicago White Metal Casting, a manufacturer in my district employing 240, fighting to survive in an already tough economy. Already facing a stream of regulations, they’ll soon face new regulations from unelected bureaucrats implementing a back-door national energy tax – after it failed in Congress. Chicago White Metal Casting already has one employee who spends half his time dealing with existing federal audits, certification requirements, and complex paperwork. By now, you’ve probably heard about the case of Boeing, one of the world’s leading manufacturers. This Chicago-based company invested more than $1 billion in a new plant in South Carolina that would generate thousands of good-paying jobs … only to be sued by the government and told that the plant can’t open. Who in the government sued them? No one that’s elected, I’ll tell you that. No, Boeing is being sued by the National Labor Relations Board, which is charged with looking out for labor unions.Illinois Republican representative Peter Roskam I’d also like to share with you the story of Gibson Guitars, a company that makes world-class guitars. Well a few weeks ago, Gibson was raided by 26 armed federal agents. No charges have been filed and regulators have not explained to the company what they may have done wrong or how to rectify the situation. Well I’d like to know how job creators can be expected to prosper with the threat of a federal raid hanging over them? Stories like these are cropping up coast-to-coast. One Illinois farmer stood up at a town hall meeting last month and pleaded with the president. He said, ‘please don’t challenge us with more rules and regulations from Washington.’ I couldn’t have said it better myself. That farmer was one of several job creators who attended [the] president’s speech to the Congress as guests of House Speaker John Boehner. Republicans are listening to America’s job creators and working to address their concerns with real solutions. In the House, Majority Leader Eric Cantor has scheduled several bills for a vote this fall aimed at cutting red tape and addressing the excessive, Washington-imposed regulations that hamper job creation. This week, the House passed a bill to eliminate the barriers Boeing faces. It stops the government from telling an employer where it can – and cannot – create jobs. We can take common-sense steps like these and still have rules that look out for our health and safety. What’s important is that these rules are effective and dependable. Job creators should be able to focus on their work – not on Washington’s busy-work. In his speech last week, the president talked about the urgency of this moment. He said we can act ‘right now.’ I agree. He can help us fix this hostile regulatory environment immediately. He already canceled some counterproductive rules that hurt our economy, and he can cancel more. He can call on the Democrat-led Senate to pass the dozen or so jobs bills we’ve passed in the House and ones that are on their way. That includes the Boeing bill that I just mentioned. There’s also the REINS Act, common-sense legislation that gives Congress a say before Washington imposes new rules and regulations. So instead of being circumvented, the people’s representatives should be able to hold accountable unelected bureaucrats who encroach on our freedoms and make it harder to create jobs. I hope the president will consider our ideas as we take a look at his. Let’s listen to the people and find common ground to remove barriers to job creation. Let’s help small businesses return to creating jobs so that they can pick up where they left off instead of being left behind. You can learn more about our jobs plan by visiting Jobs.GOP.gov Thank you for listening.
Continue reading …The Emmy awards host is best known for playing ‘angry, scary, lonely women’ from Best in Show to Glee. But she’s a
Continue reading …Diplomatic quartet meets to try to kickstart negotiations, as France admits showdown with US will damage Palestinian cause Barack Obama arrived at the United Nations on Monday evening as pressure intensified on the Palestinian leadership to abandon its plan to ask the UN security council to declare the occupied territories a Palestinian state. The Europeans are at the forefront of attempts to persuade the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to back off from the request. Even France, which is generally sympathetic to the call for statehood, is now saying that the diplomatic cost of a showdown with the US, which has said it will veto the move in the security council, will damage the Palestinian cause. Abbas said “all hell has broken out against us” over the bid for statehood but he told the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, that he would not be diverted from his plan to make the request to the security council on Friday. The Middle East quartet of the EU, UN, US and Russia were to meet on Monday evening in an attempt to construct a formula to restart peace talks and stave off a showdown in the security council. Diplomats say the key is to make the proposal strong enough, in part by stating clearly that negotiations will be on the basis of 1967 borders with some swaps of territories, so that Abbas can claim a significant step toward ending the occupation. But the Palestinians remain deeply sceptical after 20 years of negotiations failing to win their independence. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, said in New York that he planned to tell Abbas at a meeting later on Monday that going to the security council will be a political error. “I will ask him: what is his strategy? Going to the security council, and what after that?” he said. “We have to avoid such a confrontation. We have to find a balanced solution.” Juppe said that the “relaunch of the peace process is needed” and that the international community has “three or four days” to find a solution. But Juppe also warned that the status quo of the Israeli occupation is “neither acceptable nor tenable”, and that lack of progress toward a solution will lead to another “explosion of violence”. The British foreign secretary, William Hague, said in New York that the Palestinian move is “not a course of action that we recommend, because it will just lead to confrontation”. “The best outcome of all the negotiations and discussions taking place here in New York this week would be if Palestinians and Israelis agreed to go back into negotiations together,” he said, a position echoed by the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who flies to New York on Tuesday, said Abbas was “wasting time” with the bid for statehood, and called on him instead to meet for face-to-face talks in New York. “I call on the PA chair to open direct negotiations in New York that will continue in Jerusalem and Ramallah,” Netanyahu said. Diplomats said that the principal American strategy now appears to be to pressure enough non-permanent members of the security council to vote against Palestinian statehood or, more likely, abstain in the hope of denying Abbas the nine votes he needs to win and so save the US the embarrassment of having to wield its veto. Neither Britain nor France has said how they will vote in the security council if the issue comes before them. Both are permanent members and a no vote would count as a veto. However, there is the possibility the Palestinians could also take the matter to the general assembly. It has the power only to offer only observer status but a vote in favour would be a moral victory. Hague did not rule out British support for that move. “We, along with all the other 26 countries of the European Union, have withheld our position on how we would vote on any resolution that may come forward in the general assembly in order to exert as much pressure on both sides to return to negotiations,” he said. Diplomats said a number of possilibitlies have been under discussion, including that Abbas might submit his request to the security council and that it will be put on hold while fresh peace talks begin. If they fail, or if agreement is not reached by a specified deadline, the request would then be revived and brought before the security council. But backtracking now will prove difficult for Abbas, after a he made a resolute speech late last week saying that the Palestinians have been forced in to the move by Israeli intransigence, and that he would not be “bought off”. The Palestinian leadership is also deeply sceptical of American claims to be prepared to act as an honest broker in fresh talks. It has lost confidence in Obama’s claims to be prepared to stand up to Israel. “It’s going to be a close-run thing,” said one western diplomat at the UN. “Can Abbas be persuaded that it’s not in the Palestinians’ interests to have a confrontation with the Americans in the security council and to embarrass Obama? I doubt it, but it might happen. If not, can the Americans get the votes together in the security council to avoid the veto? “I defy anyone to predict how this is going to turn out by the end of the week.” United Nations United States Israel Palestinian territories US foreign policy Middle East European Union France Russia Tony Blair Chris McGreal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: Planet Green.com What a relief for these soldiers and their families! Would it be too much to ask that they get whatever help they need? There’s no denying it now: Gulf War Syndrome, characterized by memory loss, lack of concentration, neuropathic pain and depression, is a physiological illness, not a psychological one. A UT Southwestern study, published in the journal Radiology, used a specialized MRI that specifically measures blood flow in the brain and detected marked abnormalities in the brains of those with Gulf War Syndrome . Not only have those abnormalities persisted for 20 years, but in some cases they’ve worsened. The findings mark a significant advancement in our understanding of the syndrome, which was for years written off by the Defense Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs as a form of combat stress rather than an objectively diagnosable injury. Dr. Robert Haley, chief epidemiologist at UT Southwestern, and a cadre of clinicians and researchers, have struggled with the government for some 18 years for research funding and to have the syndrome recognized as a legitimate war injury caused by chronic exposure to minimal amounts of sarin gas.
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: Center for American Progress On Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner peppered his address to the Economic Club of Washington with a dozen mentions of America’s so-called “job creators.” But in claiming that high taxes and unnecessary regulations have “pummeled” his supposed job producers, Boehner willingly misrepresented the source of and solutions to the nation’s economic problems. After all, recent surveys show that regulations and taxes are not killing small business. With corporations flush with cash and the total federal tax burden at a 60 year low, the U.S. instead faces a demand crisis fueled by staggering household debt . But John Boehner perpetrated the biggest fraud of his address when he declared, “Job creators in America are essentially on strike.” If so, they’ve been on the picket line for a decade. As it turns out, George W. Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy sadly coincided with the worst period of job creation of any president since Herbert Hoover. Like his lieutenant Eric Cantor , John Boehner has been regurgitating the “job creators” talking point for months. (Arguably, the sound bite dates back to 1993 , when Republicans deployed the same “job killing” language against the Clinton upper-income tax increases that preceded the 1990′s economic boom.) In May, Boehner served up the “job creators” line seven times in a speech to the Economic Club of New York . Contending that “the mere threat of tax hikes causes uncertainty for job creators — uncertainty that results in less risk-taking and fewer jobs,” Speaker Boehner explaine d that same month just who his magical job creators are: “The top one percent of wage earners in the United States…pay forty percent of the income taxes…The people he’s [President Obama] is talking about taxing are the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy.” If so, those expectations were sadly unmet under George W. Bush. After all, the last time the top tax rate was 39.6 percent during the Clinton administration, the United States enjoyed rising incomes, 23 million new jobs and budget surpluses. Under Bush? Not so much. On January 9, 2009, the Republican-friendly Wall Street Journal summed it up with an article titled simply, ” Bush on Jobs: the Worst Track Record on Record .” (The Journal’s interactive table quantifies his staggering failure relative to every post-World War II president.) The meager one million jobs created under President Bush didn’t merely pale in comparison to the 23 million produced during Bill Clinton’s tenure. In September 2009, the Congressional Joint Economic Committee charted Bush’s job creation disaster, the worst since Hoover: That dismal performance prompted David Leonhardt of the New York Times to ask last fall, “Why should we believe that extending the Bush tax cuts will provide a big lift to growth?” His answer was unambiguous: Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7… Is there good evidence the tax cuts persuaded more people to join the work force (because they would be able to keep more of their income)? Not really. The labor-force participation rate fell in the years after 2001 and has never again approached its record in the year 2000. Is there evidence that the tax cuts led to a lot of entrepreneurship and innovation? Again, no. The rate at which start-up businesses created jobs fell during the past decade. The data are clear: lower taxes for America’s so called job-creators don’t mean either faster economic growth or more jobs for Americans . It’s no wonder Leonhardt followed his first question with another. “I mean this as a serious question, not a rhetorical one,” he asked, “Given this history, why should we believe that the Bush tax cuts were pro-growth?” Or as Mark Shields asked and answered in April: “Do tax cuts help ‘job creators’ or ‘robber barons’?” Just days after the Washington Post documented that George W. Bush presided over the worst eight-year economic performance in the modern American presidency, the New York Times in January 2009 featured an analysis comparing presidential performance going back to Eisenhower. As the Times showed, George W. Bush, the first MBA president, was a historic failure when it came to expanding GDP, producing jobs and even fueling stock market growth. Apparently, America’s job creators can create a lot more jobs when their taxes are higher – even much higher – than they are today. (It’s worth noting that the changing landscape of loopholes, deductions and credits, especially after the 1986 tax reform signed by President Reagan, makes apples-to-apples comparisons of effective tax rates over time very difficult. For more background, see the CBO data on effective tax rates by income quintile.) The epic failures of the Bush tax cuts for America’s supposed job creators hardly end there. The U.S. poverty rate began rising in 2005 , well before the onset of the December 2007 Bush recession. As David Cay Johnston document, average household income fell after the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, dropping to about $58,500 in 2008 from $61,500 in 2000. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found that the Bush tax cuts accounted for almost half of the mushrooming deficits during his tenure , and, if made permanent, over the next 10 years would contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession put together . As the data show, the Bush tax cuts provided a massive payday for the wealthy , helping fuel record income inequality . For Republicans, this predictable result of the Bush tax cuts was a feature, not a bug. As the Center for American Progress noted in 2004, “for the majority of Americans, the tax cuts meant very little,” adding, “By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration’s latest tax cuts.” But that was just the beginning of the story. As the CAP also reported, the Bush tax cuts delivered a third of their total benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans . And to be sure, their payday was staggering. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showed that millionaires on average pocketed almost $129,000 from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Despite that record failure, House Republicans want to give the job creators who don’t create jobs another jaw-dropping tax cut. In May, Speaker Boehner and House Republicans updated their ” Pledge to America ” with another gilded-class giveaway they called their ” Plan for America’s Job Creators .” As Ezra Klein , Paul Krugman and Steve Benen among others noted, the “Plan for America’s Job Creators” is simply a repackaging of years of previous proposals and GOP bromides. (As Klein pointed out, the 10 page document “looks like the staffer in charge forgot the assignment was due on Thursday rather than Friday, and so cranked the font up to 24 and began dumping clip art to pad out the plan.”) At the center of it is the same plan from the Ryan House budget passed in April to cut the top individual and corporate tax rates to 25%. The price tag for the Republican proposal is a jaw-dropping $4.2 trillion. And as Matthew Yglesias explained, earlier analyses of similar proposals in Ryan’s Roadmap reveal that working Americans would have to pick up the tab left unpaid by upper-income households: This is an important element of Ryan’s original “roadmap” plan that’s never gotten the attention it deserves. But according to a Center for Tax Justice analysis (PDF), even though Ryan features large aggregate tax cuts, ninety percent of Americans would actually pay higher taxes under his plan. In other words, it wasn’t just cuts in middle class benefits in order to cut taxes on the rich. It was cuts in middle class benefits and middle class tax hikes in order to cut taxes on the rich. It’ll be interesting to see if the House Republicans formally introduce such a plan and if so how many people will vote for it. If this all sounds hauntingly familiar, it should. When it comes to using the tax code to line the pockets of the wealthiest people in America, John Boehner and Congressional Republicans simply want the next decade to look like the last one. That is, gargantuan tax cuts for America’s so-called “job creators”; no jobs for Americans. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives. )
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: Center for American Progress On Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner peppered his address to the Economic Club of Washington with a dozen mentions of America’s so-called “job creators.” But in claiming that high taxes and unnecessary regulations have “pummeled” his supposed job producers, Boehner willingly misrepresented the source of and solutions to the nation’s economic problems. After all, recent surveys show that regulations and taxes are not killing small business. With corporations flush with cash and the total federal tax burden at a 60 year low, the U.S. instead faces a demand crisis fueled by staggering household debt . But John Boehner perpetrated the biggest fraud of his address when he declared, “Job creators in America are essentially on strike.” If so, they’ve been on the picket line for a decade. As it turns out, George W. Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy sadly coincided with the worst period of job creation of any president since Herbert Hoover. Like his lieutenant Eric Cantor , John Boehner has been regurgitating the “job creators” talking point for months. (Arguably, the sound bite dates back to 1993 , when Republicans deployed the same “job killing” language against the Clinton upper-income tax increases that preceded the 1990′s economic boom.) In May, Boehner served up the “job creators” line seven times in a speech to the Economic Club of New York . Contending that “the mere threat of tax hikes causes uncertainty for job creators — uncertainty that results in less risk-taking and fewer jobs,” Speaker Boehner explaine d that same month just who his magical job creators are: “The top one percent of wage earners in the United States…pay forty percent of the income taxes…The people he’s [President Obama] is talking about taxing are the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy.” If so, those expectations were sadly unmet under George W. Bush. After all, the last time the top tax rate was 39.6 percent during the Clinton administration, the United States enjoyed rising incomes, 23 million new jobs and budget surpluses. Under Bush? Not so much. On January 9, 2009, the Republican-friendly Wall Street Journal summed it up with an article titled simply, ” Bush on Jobs: the Worst Track Record on Record .” (The Journal’s interactive table quantifies his staggering failure relative to every post-World War II president.) The meager one million jobs created under President Bush didn’t merely pale in comparison to the 23 million produced during Bill Clinton’s tenure. In September 2009, the Congressional Joint Economic Committee charted Bush’s job creation disaster, the worst since Hoover: That dismal performance prompted David Leonhardt of the New York Times to ask last fall, “Why should we believe that extending the Bush tax cuts will provide a big lift to growth?” His answer was unambiguous: Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7… Is there good evidence the tax cuts persuaded more people to join the work force (because they would be able to keep more of their income)? Not really. The labor-force participation rate fell in the years after 2001 and has never again approached its record in the year 2000. Is there evidence that the tax cuts led to a lot of entrepreneurship and innovation? Again, no. The rate at which start-up businesses created jobs fell during the past decade. The data are clear: lower taxes for America’s so called job-creators don’t mean either faster economic growth or more jobs for Americans . It’s no wonder Leonhardt followed his first question with another. “I mean this as a serious question, not a rhetorical one,” he asked, “Given this history, why should we believe that the Bush tax cuts were pro-growth?” Or as Mark Shields asked and answered in April: “Do tax cuts help ‘job creators’ or ‘robber barons’?” Just days after the Washington Post documented that George W. Bush presided over the worst eight-year economic performance in the modern American presidency, the New York Times in January 2009 featured an analysis comparing presidential performance going back to Eisenhower. As the Times showed, George W. Bush, the first MBA president, was a historic failure when it came to expanding GDP, producing jobs and even fueling stock market growth. Apparently, America’s job creators can create a lot more jobs when their taxes are higher – even much higher – than they are today. (It’s worth noting that the changing landscape of loopholes, deductions and credits, especially after the 1986 tax reform signed by President Reagan, makes apples-to-apples comparisons of effective tax rates over time very difficult. For more background, see the CBO data on effective tax rates by income quintile.) The epic failures of the Bush tax cuts for America’s supposed job creators hardly end there. The U.S. poverty rate began rising in 2005 , well before the onset of the December 2007 Bush recession. As David Cay Johnston document, average household income fell after the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, dropping to about $58,500 in 2008 from $61,500 in 2000. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found that the Bush tax cuts accounted for almost half of the mushrooming deficits during his tenure , and, if made permanent, over the next 10 years would contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession put together . As the data show, the Bush tax cuts provided a massive payday for the wealthy , helping fuel record income inequality . For Republicans, this predictable result of the Bush tax cuts was a feature, not a bug. As the Center for American Progress noted in 2004, “for the majority of Americans, the tax cuts meant very little,” adding, “By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration’s latest tax cuts.” But that was just the beginning of the story. As the CAP also reported, the Bush tax cuts delivered a third of their total benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans . And to be sure, their payday was staggering. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showed that millionaires on average pocketed almost $129,000 from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Despite that record failure, House Republicans want to give the job creators who don’t create jobs another jaw-dropping tax cut. In May, Speaker Boehner and House Republicans updated their ” Pledge to America ” with another gilded-class giveaway they called their ” Plan for America’s Job Creators .” As Ezra Klein , Paul Krugman and Steve Benen among others noted, the “Plan for America’s Job Creators” is simply a repackaging of years of previous proposals and GOP bromides. (As Klein pointed out, the 10 page document “looks like the staffer in charge forgot the assignment was due on Thursday rather than Friday, and so cranked the font up to 24 and began dumping clip art to pad out the plan.”) At the center of it is the same plan from the Ryan House budget passed in April to cut the top individual and corporate tax rates to 25%. The price tag for the Republican proposal is a jaw-dropping $4.2 trillion. And as Matthew Yglesias explained, earlier analyses of similar proposals in Ryan’s Roadmap reveal that working Americans would have to pick up the tab left unpaid by upper-income households: This is an important element of Ryan’s original “roadmap” plan that’s never gotten the attention it deserves. But according to a Center for Tax Justice analysis (PDF), even though Ryan features large aggregate tax cuts, ninety percent of Americans would actually pay higher taxes under his plan. In other words, it wasn’t just cuts in middle class benefits in order to cut taxes on the rich. It was cuts in middle class benefits and middle class tax hikes in order to cut taxes on the rich. It’ll be interesting to see if the House Republicans formally introduce such a plan and if so how many people will vote for it. If this all sounds hauntingly familiar, it should. When it comes to using the tax code to line the pockets of the wealthiest people in America, John Boehner and Congressional Republicans simply want the next decade to look like the last one. That is, gargantuan tax cuts for America’s so-called “job creators”; no jobs for Americans. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives. )
Continue reading …Since France introduced its burqa ban in April there have been violent attacks on women wearing the niqab and, this week, the first fines could be handed down. But a legal challenge to this hard line may yet expose the French state as a laughing stock Hind Ahmas walks into a brasserie in the north Paris suburb of Aulnay-sous-Bois. Jaws drop, shoulders tighten and a look of disgust ripples across the faces of haggard men sipping coffee at the bar. “Hang on, what’s all this? Isn’t that banned?” splutters the outraged waiter behind the bar, waving a wine bottle at her niqab. Ahmas stands firm, clutches her handbag with black-gloved hands and says: “Call the police then.” But she decides there’s no point fighting. We cross the road to a cafe where she’s a regular. No one bats an eyelid; the boss certainly doesn’t want to lose her custom. Ahmas is breaking the law by ordering an espresso and sitting in a booth in the window. But these days she is breaking the law by stepping outside her own front door. In April, France introduced a law against covering your face in public. Muslim women in full-face veils, or niqab, are now banned from any public activity including walking down the street, taking a bus, going to the shops or collecting their children from school. French politicians in favour of the ban said they were acting to protect the “gender equality” and “dignity” of women. But five months after the law was introduced, the result is a mixture of confusion and apathy. Muslim groups report a worrying increase in discrimination and verbal and physical violence against women in veils. There have been instances of people in the street taking the law into their hands and trying to rip off full-face veils, of bus drivers refusing to carry women in niqab or of shop-owners trying to bar entry. A few women have taken to wearing bird-flu-style medical masks to keep their face covered; some describe a climate of divisiveness, mistrust and fear. One politician who backed the law said that women still going out in niqab were simply being “provocative”. Ahmas, 32, French, a divorced single mother of a three-year-old daughter, puts her handbag on the table and takes out a pepper spray and attack alarm. She doesn’t live on the high-rise estates but on a quiet street of semi-detached houses. The last time she was attacked in the street a man and woman punched her in front of her daughter, called her a whore and told her to go back to Afghanistan. “My quality of life has seriously deteriorated since the ban. In my head, I have to prepare for war every time I step outside, prepare to come up against people who want to put a bullet in my head. The politicians claimed they were liberating us; what they’ve done is to exclude us from the social sphere. Before this law, I never asked myself whether I’d be able to make it to a cafe or collect documents from a town hall. One politician in favour of the ban said niqabs were ‘walking prisons’. Well, that’s exactly where we’ve been stuck by this law.” But despite all the fanfare surrounding the niqab ban, no woman has yet been punished under the law for wearing one. The first real test will come on Thursday, when a local judge in Meaux, east of Paris, will decide whether to hand out to Ahmas and a friend the first ever fine. They were stopped outside Meaux town hall on 5 May wearing niqabs and carrying an almond cake to celebrate the birthday of the local mayor Jean-François Copé, who is also head of Nicolas Sarkozy’s rightwing UMP party and an architect of the ban. The cake was a joke, a play on the French word for fine, amende . They wanted to highlight the absurdity of a law that they say has increased a mood of anti-Muslim discrimination and driven a wedge through French society, yet seems not to have been taken seriously by the justice system. Sarkozy was accused of stigmatising women in niqab to win votes from the extreme right, yet the law didn’t actually boost his poll ratings. Now, human rights lawyers are suggesting it could soon be overturned. Only the French police can confront a woman in niqab. They can’t remove her veil but must refer the case to a local judge, who can hand out a ¤150 (£130) fine, a citizenship course, or both. Some police have wrongly given on-the-spot fines, which were later annulled. Others appear to ignore women in niqab walking down the street, perhaps because they feel they have more important crimes to be stopping. The interior ministry says that since the law came into force in April there have been 91 incidents of women in niqab being stopped by police outside Paris and nine incidents in the Paris region. Each time, police file a report, but so far no judge has handed out a fine or citizenship course. The French justice ministry says “fewer than 10″ cases are currently going through the courts and the lack of fines shows the state favours “dialogue” not punishment. But Gilles Devers, a lawyer acting for Ahmas and several other women in niqab, argued punishments were not being handed out because the niqab law contravenes European human rights legislation on personal liberties and freedom of religion. As soon as a fine is imposed, there will be an appeal right up to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg, which could rule against the law and expose the French state as a laughing stock. If the French law is challenged in this way, the result would be crucial for Muslims across the continent. Belgium introduced its own niqab ban this summer, punishable not just by a fine but seven days in prison. In Italy, the far-right Northern League has resuscitated a 1975 law against face coverings to fine women in certain areas of the north. Silvio Berlusconi’s party is now preparing an anti-niqab law. Denmark is preparing legislation to limit the wearing of niqabs; politicians in Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland are pushing for outright bans. Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, blogged this summer : “The way the dress of a small number of women has been portrayed as a key problem requiring urgent discussion and legislation is a sad capitulation to the prejudices of the xenophobes.” Ahmas grew up in and around Paris, where her father, born in Morocco, worked as a town-hall gardener. Her parents were not strict Muslims. She put on the niqab six years ago as an educated single woman who once wore mini-skirts and liked partying, but then rediscovered her faith. She says her now ex-husband had nothing to do with her choice. (The new law punishes men who force women to wear the niqab with a ¤30,000 fine, but none has yet been imposed.) Like many women in niqab who refuse to stay indoors, she is desperate for work. For years, she worked in call centres as a specialist in telephone polling. Even before the ban, she knew it would be easier to get work without the niqab, so at the office she would always pull back her veil, leaving her face exposed for the day. “Life is hard and I have to work. If my daughter wants something – even a Barbie doll – and I can’t pay for it, it breaks my heart.” In January, at the height of the public debate on the niqab, Ahmas lost her job after her contract wasn’t renewed. “I’ve contacted scores of employers looking for work. I always ask them if they accept the veil. They say, ‘It depends what type. If it’s tunic and trousers and a headscarf, that’s OK, but a long robe is not.’” This is clear discrimination: “Totally illegal,” she sighs. Secular France has a complicated relationship with the veil. In 2004, all religious symbols including the headscarf were banned in schools. Even among Sarkozy’s opponents there are very few feminists or socialist politicians who would defend the right to wear niqab in a country where secularism is one of the few issues that still unites a fragmented left. Barely a handful of people came to Notre Dame cathedral to protest against the law in April. On the Cote d’Azur, Stéphanie, 31, still likes to go swimming in the sea off Nice wearing her niqab. But the former law student and convert to Islam tries to go when the beaches are quiet. The last time she went for a dip with her mother and 10-year-old daughter on a Sunday afternoon, a sunbather called the police. A group of officers arrived and hurried across the sand saying: “But Madame, what are you doing?” “I said: ‘I’m drying myself.’ They wrote in their notebooks, ‘Swimming in niqab.’” Stephanie, who prefers not to give her surname, was summoned by the local state prosecutor. She arrived at court and agreed to lift her veil so security guards could check her identity, but they refused to allow her access until an exasperated prosecutor buzzed her in himself. The prosecutor, whom she described as “very human”, wanted to better understand why she wore the niqab. She converted at 17 and put on the niqab several years later, long before meeting her husband. Her North African parents-in-law didn’t like her wearing full-veil, and the marriage ended. Her own parents converted to Islam a few years later but don’t believe a niqab is necessary. She told the prosecutor it was her choice and refused to stop wearing niqab. The prosecutor reminded her of the law and let her go with no sanction or punishment. He told the local paper, Nice Matin , that a woman in a veil was less dangerous than someone who had “double or triple parked”. Before the law, Stephanie would often be called names like “Batman, Zorro, or Ninja” in the street – often by pensioners. Now people favour swear words or sexual insults. She wants to work with children, but despite having a degree in theology, she can’t find a job. The first time Stephanie was stopped by police was for standing on a central Nice shopping street in May. A police officer illegally gave her an on-the-spot fine, which was later overturned. This summer, a bus driver refused to let her onto a bus with her daughter. “If I have a meeting, I’ll always leave the house at 6.30am instead of 8.30am in case a bus won’t take me and I have to wait 45 minutes for another one.” Recently, after she had bought a cinema ticket for the latest Harry Potter film with her daughter, staff tried to stop her entering the screening. Eventually the cinema decided not to call the police because they didn’t want to feature in the local paper. The headquarters of the French Collective against Islamophobia is in a small ground-floor office on a cobbled street near Paris’s Gare de L’Est. It doesn’t promote the wearing of niqab but gives legal advice. “It’s not the police I’m afraid of, it’s the personal attacks on women by people acting on their own initiative in the street,” says Samy Debah, the association’s head. The group’s legal adviser says there has been “an explosion” in the number of physical attacks on women wearing the niqab. Many women say that their attackers were middle-aged or old people. In one recent case a young French convert was assaulted at a zoo outside Paris while carrying her 13-month-old baby. “Her child was traumatised by the zoo attack and is now being seen by a psychologist. These women blame themselves; they see a baby in that situation and think, ‘It’s my fault.’” At a cafe on the left bank, Rachid Nekkaz, a French property developer, explains why his association, Don’t Touch my Constitution, was the only group to stage high-profile protests when the law came into force – he backed Ahmas’s birthday-cake stunt and has set up a ¤1m fund to pay any fines over the niqab. His next, and most radical, protest action will be this Thursday, when his association announces its plans to field a woman in niqab for president in 2012. Nekkaz is personally opposed to the niqab and thinks it is fair to ban it in French state buildings. But he thinks outlawing it in all public places is “a gross attack on personal freedoms and the French constitution”. “The perverse effect of this law is that women in niqab are effectively under house arrest,” he says. He plays a voicemail message left on his mobile by the mother of French convert, thanking him for taking a stand and saying there are several converts in niqab in Grenoble now too afraid to leave the house. There are no reliable statistics on who wears the niqab in France and whether they have kept wearing it since the law. It is estimated that only a few hundred women wear it, mostly French citizens. Muslim associations say a minority of women have taken off the niqab or moved abroad. Nekkaz says that more than 290 women still wearing niqab have contacted him: he says a large number were divorced with children, most were aged between 25 and 35, many were French of north African parentage, and many were living on income support. An Open Society Foundation report on women in niqabs in France in April found that of a sample of 32 women in niqab, none had been forced to wear the full veil. Many said they would refuse to take if off after the law came in, adding that they would avoid leaving home, or move abroad. Kenza Drider, a 32-year-old mother of three, was famously bold enough to appear on French television to oppose the law before it came into force. She refuses to take off her niqab – “My husband doesn’t dictate what I do, much less the government” – but she says she now lives in fear of attack. “I still go out in my car, on foot, to the shops, to collect my kids. I’m insulted about three to four times a day,” she says. Most say, “Go home”; some say, “We’ll kill you.” One said: “We’ll do to you what we did to the Jews.” In the worst attack, before the law came in, a man tried to run her down in his car. “I feel that I now know what Jewish women went through before the Nazi roundups in France. When they went out in the street they were identified, singled out, they were vilified. Now that’s happening to us.” French burqa and niqab ban France Islam Religion Women Angelique Chrisafis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …