Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Pew: How Americans fall out politically

Lemme summarize this summary of a Pew Research survey of Americans' political leanings:
  • More Americans than in the past claim they are independent, but they're actually lying about it;
  • Those who call themselves politically moderate are more likely to be independent, but they're not really moderates -- 
    • "Being in the center of the ideological spectrum means only that a person has a mix of liberal and conservative values, not that they take moderate positions on all issues," and
    • Thus, the political middle "does not form a potentially coherent coalition around which some political entrepreneur might build a centrist party;"
  • Moderates are less politically active;
  • Ipso facto, those that do claim a party affiliation are more politically active, and they are more polarized than in years past;
  • More Americans nowadays are calling themselves liberal, and fewer conservative, even though a plurality still calls itself conservative.

So I don't often quote polls, since this blog is about the issues and my opinion, not public opinion.  But this data is significant because it shows that many Americans are either confused, or not entirely honest, about their political leanings.  

Anecdotally, in my own life, I have seen it often with so-called "Independents" who are really just Republicans or Democrats according to how they vote, yet they want to retain the self-myth that no party can contain their maverick political spirit.  Yeah, right.


By Dan Balz
July 5, 2014 | Washington Post

Monday, June 16, 2014

The true life of a 'welfare queen'

My dear conservative friends love personal anecdotes over cold statistics -- which we lib'ruls just fake anyway.

So here's a real "welfare queen's" experience of what it takes to qualify for, and keep, welfare assistance [emphasis mine]:

The first step in the food-stamp application process was turning in every imaginable document regarding my identity, housing, assets and personal finances. I was photographed and fingerprinted, which made me feel like everyone thought I was a criminal. After winding my way through the byzantine bureaucracy, including several hours-long appointments during which I obviously couldn't be looking for work, I was finally approved; the monthly allotment worked out to about $5 per day.

To keep receiving food stamp benefits, I had to spend every "work day" at a Human Resources Administration work-search office – my presence there was mandatory from Monday through Friday and from 9am to 5pm. The office was more than an hour from my apartment (that is, when public transportation – which I had to pay for myself – was functioning properly), but arriving even five minutes late earned a strike against my record for "non-compliance".

Two strikes, and I would have been out: the US system automatically revokes all benefits for rule-breakers, who then have to start the application process all over again. It's not a pleasant thing to discover when you're attempting to pay for groceries and your EBT card suddenly no longer works. The only excusable absences are job interviews – which required asking the interviewer for a mortifying letter of verification – or for illness with a doctor's note.

I asked about what would happen if I'd had a cold but couldn't afford to go to a doctor just for a note about it. My caseworker shrugged and said I'd have to go to the ER.

As I've told my conservative friends, and Gray emphasizes, "No one wants to be on welfare":

No one wants to worry about being judged as "wasteful" by pundits and policymakers and the people behind you in line for using your Electronic Benefits Transfer card at the grocery store to buy your prepackaged food, because you're too exhausted from 12 hours on your feet at a retail job and you don't have the time or the energy to cook.

No one wants to fear buying cake mix for a child's birthday celebration, only to receive scornful glares from other shoppers because they aren't buying rice and beans.

No one wants to explain for the fiftieth time that, Yes, my EBT card only works at grocery stores, and only for food – and, no, it can't be used for paper towels or beer.

Welfare-to-work, even if well-intended, has become overly bureaucratic and outdated:

The reality of meeting workfare requirements, however, is different from the idealized bargain of "will work for food". The bureaucracy today is mind-numbingly difficult to navigate and ultimately serves to block welfare recipients from access to better jobs and educational opportunities. [...]

Annie Hollis, a Baltimore-based social worker who has worked in urban settings for over 10 years, explained why the Clinton-era reforms were flawed and discriminatory from the start. "The problem with workfare is that in the wake of globalization, most of the jobs available to people without postsecondary education are increasingly part-time and minimum wage," she told me.

Policy hasn't caught up to that reality because recipients are only permitted to receive vocational training for a maximum of 12 months. Based on my personal experience working with single mothers leaving domestic violence situations, most jobs that pay a living wage require much more than one year of post-secondary education.

If federal workfare requirements weren't already stringent enough, states such as Florida, Georgia and Maine have pushed to expand the hoops that applicants must jump through to avoid sanctions – including eliminating waivers for job training absences due to illness to forcing recipients to pay for their own unconstitutional drug testing


By Stefanie Gray
June 15, 2014 | Guardian

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

'Liberal' media lies: Obamacare will cost 2 million jobs

So did the CBO really mean to forecast that 2 million people would lose their jobs because of Obamacare? No. But that's how the mainstream media -- including the "liberal" axis at the New York Times and Washington Post reported it.

As Weinstein clarifies, here's what the CBO actually said:

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive.

Is that just wonkish liberal-progressive spin?  Is that just "figures lie, and liars figure?"  No again:

When workers no longer have to rely on full-time employers to get affordable health care, they suddenly have the freedom to not work full-time. That could mean people stuck in crappy hourly jobs 40 hours a week at, say, the local big-box store. Or creatives jammed in underpaying urban admin assistant jobs. Indeed, the CBO adds:

Because the largest declines in labor supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers… the impact on the overall economy will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in hours worked.

Weinstein sums it up [emphasis mine]:

The problem here is truly philosophical. It is ideological. It is rooted in the two Americas' distressingly divergent answers to a simple question: What is a job for?

For pundits and pointy-headed analysts, it's to keep The Economy and Growth flowing. That is its good. That is its end. Workers are the means. For most workers (the vast majority of whom aren't leaving their families and schlepping through megastorms to cubicles or factories for the love), the job is the means to a different, individualized end: the ability to buy one's own way, to keep loved ones fed and happy and healthy, to stave off poverty.

So what the CBO said today, in essence, was that if this Obamacare thing works out, people won't need to work full-time jobs just to keep health care benefits. They may actually be able to spend more time with those families. They may be able to freelance, to split hours between two parents rather than having one stay-at-home parent and one full-time earner. They may be able to take a chance on that novel or Etsy shop, instead of staying at the office until death.

That's not what conservatives hear, though, because that's not what conservatives care about. Their concern for people is subverted by their concern for commercial output, or economic abstractions that appear to impact commercial output.

People are real. They are not economic abstractions. And health care (and Medicare and food stamps, for that matter) is not single-sided accounting, with all costs and liabilities and no assets or benefits.  Health insurance that is not tied to employment facilitates Americans' labor mobility, unleashes their creativity and risk-taking, simply because they don't have to make one of the most important decisions in life -- where to work -- based solely on where they can get decent health insurance.  


By Adam Weinstein
February 5, 2014 | Gawker



UPDATE (02.082014): Check out Matt Taibbi's somewhat nuanced take on the media flap over the CBO report: "Latest Health Care Flap Shows Media at its Most Boring."

Conservatives ruining 'American exceptionalism'

Beinartfeb argues convincingly that conservatives, who say they defend "American exceptionalism," are actually doing the most to destroy Americans' feeling of having a special place in the world that diverges historically and culturally from Europe.  

How?  First, because of conservatives' politicizing religion. Feelings of exceptionalism are strongest with those who attend church regularly and identify with a particular religious denomination. By politicizing religion, starting in the 1980s, conservatives have steadily turned off generations of Americans from churchy Christianity. They believe church has gotten too political.  (They're right).  We have an increasing contingent of "spiritual not religious" Americans who never hear the pastor's or televangelist's politicized sermons.

Secondly, because of Dubya. A belief in American exceptionalism goes along with an aggressive, "unapologetic" U.S. foreign policy. Thanks to Bush's avoidable debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq, two generations have been turned off from an active, interfering U.S. role in the world; and they are less likely to believe in "going it alone" and more likely to trust the UN and international institutions.

Third, because of economic inequality. Republican policies have limited class mobility, have encouraged accumulation of wealth at the top, and have made more Americans class-conscious: they are more likely to look at their country just like any other, where the Haves rule the Have-Nots -- not the land of the "American Dream" where anybody who works hard can live comfortably and even strike it rich. 


By Peter Beinartfeb
February 3, 2014 | The Atlantic

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Prager: Sad conservative parents REDUX

In a previous post, I took more time than necessary to destroy Dennis Prager's flawed conceit that somehow college -- not reason or life experience -- is what turns kids into liberals instead of conservatives (or more importantly, voting Democratic instead of Republican).

Note that words here matter. Are conservative parents sad because their young-adult kids decide to vote Democrat, or because they espouse certain beliefs like support for gays?  

In his follow-on column, Prager provides a lot of, er, helpful advice for conservative parents who want to successfully indoctrinate their kids.

The trouble is, a lot of this "character-building" stuff that Prager preaches is indeed apolitical. I mean, I'm a far-left liberal and I agree with a lot of it. It's stuff that I was taught. And I'll teach the same to my kids with no fear that it'll transform them into Tea Party Republican zombies.  

As I said before, one's values are not the same as voting habits.  Most Americans hold very similar values; but we express them differently in our politics.  

Finally, I could pick apart at least half of Prager's "traditional American values," for instance: "...that American military strength is the greatest contributor to world peace and stability, or ... American exceptionalism."

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson certainly never dreamed that America's military strength was going to ensure world peace and stability. Washington didn't even favor a standing army.  America's superpower status was born after WWII.  So we're talking about a "traditional" state of affairs that is only about 70 years old -- not even one-third of our nation's history.

And the term "American exceptionalism" was coined by... Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin in 1929. And he didn't mean it as a compliment. 'Nuff said about that "traditional" value.


By Dennis Prager
November 12, 2013 | The Dennis Prager Show

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Our caveman brains like conspiracy theories

Now I'm reading the interesting bestseller on practical psychology You Are Not So Smart by David McRaney that describes the scientifically proven ways that our caveman brains gloss over most information, take foolish logical shortcuts, fool us to protect our fragile egos, and constantly re-write our memories to preserve a "consistent" image of ourselves over time.  

A few of these tricks of the mind are mentioned below, such as confirmation bias. There are many, many others such priming, hindsight bias, apophenia, the availability heuristic and the just-world fallacy, that are hardwired into our subconscious minds by evolution, and very difficult for our relatively younger conscious, rational mind to combat. 

Just about the best we can do is admit that all of us fall prey to these tricks of the mind. 

(Priming seems like the most insidious of them all: literally seeing a picture of something for a fraction of a second, or a certain odor, can trigger the deeper, animal subconscious mind to bias how the "thinking" mind perceives subsequent events or makes "rational" judgments. The crazy thing McRaney repeats over and over, in all these psychological experiments, is how well people explain why they think or act the way they do, and actually believe it themselves -- they don't think they're lying! -- when in fact their stated reasons are total bullshit.)

Apropos, I have my own theory about political conspiracy theories. One of my dear conservative friends has lately begun to fall for many of them. I'll give my best guess why. 

For conservatives, most conspiracy theories boil down to two things: 1) either they want to believe that a corrupt, power-hungry federal government is out to tyrannize freedom-loving Americans, and they'll latch onto any evidence or coincidence to support that view and discard anything that doesn't; or, more disturbingly, 2) their pro-wealthy ideology prevents them from accepting the obvious and perfectly legal ways that the super rich trade money for political influence at the expense of the rest of us; therefore, conservatives must look for more abstruse, far-ranging explanations for why "the system" seems to gang up on us average folks.  

Anyhow, I totally agree with Michael Shermer's conclusion that, "when conspiracy-mongering leads to absurd conclusions and diverts our attention from real, pressing political issues and leads people to become politically apathetic, it can be a dangerous waste of time."


Unfrozen caveman conspiracy theorist.


By Michael Shermer
November 27, 2013 | Los Angeles Times

With the passing of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy last week, and the accompanying fusillade of documentaries purporting to prove there was a conspiracy behind it, we might expect (and hope) that cabalistic conjecturing will wane until the next big anniversary.

Don't count on it. A poll this month found that 61 percent of Americans who responded still believe that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy, despite the fact that the preponderance of evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin.

Why do so many people refuse to accept this simple and obvious conclusion? The answer: psychology.

There are three psychological effects at work here, starting with "cognitive dissonance," or the discomfort felt when holding two ideas that are not in harmony. We attempt to reduce the dissonance by altering one of the ideas to be in accord with the other. In this case, the two discordant ideas are (1) JFK as one of the most powerful people on Earth who was (2) killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a lone loser, a nobody. Camelot brought down by a curmudgeon.

That doesn't feel right. To balance the scale, conspiracy elements are stacked onto the Oswald side: the CIA, the FBI, the KGB, the Mafia, Fidel Castro, Lyndon Johnson and, in Oliver Stone's telling in his film "JFK," the military-industrial complex.

Cognitive dissonance was at work shortly after Princess Diana's death, which was the result of drunk driving, speeding and no seat belt. But princesses are not supposed to die the way thousands of regular people die each year, so the British royal family, the British intelligence services and others had to be fingered as co-conspirators.

By contrast, there is no cognitive dissonance for the Holocaust - one of the worst crimes in history committed by one of the most criminal regimes in history.

A second psychological effect is the "monological belief system," or "a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network," in the words of University of Kent researchers Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton in a 2012 paper titled "Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories." A conspiracy theory, they wrote, is "a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal." Once you believe that "one massive, sinister conspiracy could be successfully executed in near-perfect secrecy (it) suggests that many such plots are possible."

With this cabalistic paradigm in place, conspiracies can become "the default explanation for any given event." For example, the Kent researchers found that people who believe that Princess Diana was killed by MI6 were also more likely to believe that the moon landing was a hoax, that HIV was created in a laboratory as a biological weapon and that governments are hiding extraterrestrials. The effect is even more pronounced when the conspiracies contradict one another. People who believed that Diana faked her own death were "marginally more likely" to also believe that she was killed.

A third psychological effect is "confirmation bias," or the tendency to look for and find confirming evidence for what you already believe and to ignore disconfirming evidence. Once you believe, say, that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration, you focus on the handful of anomalies that fateful day and connect them into a seemingly meaningful pattern, while ignoring the massive evidence pointing to Al Qaeda. JFK conspiracy theorists ignore the massive evidence pointing to Oswald while seeking deep meaning in trivial matters, such as the man with the umbrella on the grassy knoll, or the puff of smoke behind the picket fence, or the odd noises echoing around Dealey Plaza. Each become pregnant with meaning when the mind goes in search of cabals.

Such conspiracy-mongering may seem harmless, but there's a dark side. Another study this year by University of Kent researchers found that"exposure to information supporting conspiracy theories reduced participants' intentions to engage in politics, relative to participants who were given information refuting conspiracy theories." They attributed this effect to "feelings of political powerlessness." What can any of us regular folks do if the world is run by a handful of secret societies (like the Illuminati) or families (such as the Rockefellers or Rothschilds) or operatives (think CIA or KGB) operating clandestinely to establish a new world order?

What happens in history matters, and where conspiracies are real - as in the case of the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln - we should ferret them out. But when conspiracy-mongering leads to absurd conclusions and diverts our attention from real, pressing political issues and leads people to become politically apathetic, it can be a dangerous waste of time.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Prager: Sad conservative parents

"What in the world have they been teaching you at that college?!"

This is funny stuff, especially since it's meant to be a somber wake-up call. Where to start?

First, talk radio host Dennis Prager offers nothing but a few anecdotes to prove his point, which is probably evidence aplenty for his conservative audience. But is there any real evidence that so many young adults are rejecting their parents' values?

Here's counter-evidence from the 2013 American Values Survey:

Americans of every age, gender, political party, and region overwhelmingly say that "family" is most important to them, far more so than religion, work, community, or politics. Interestingly, such devotion to family is actually 13 points higher in the "liberal" northeast than in the "heartland" Midwest.

Love of family seems pretty conservative to me. And there's more:

Religion isn't the source of our division, either: 80 percent of Americans say religion is fairly or very important in their own lives, and almost 90 percent say they believe in God. 

Meanwhile, 60 percent of Americans still find abortion morally objectionable.

So if it's not Americans' strong love of God and family that bothers Prager, perhaps this is?:

According to the poll, large majorities of Americans now say that contraception, interracial marriage, sex education in schools, unmarried cohabitation, stem cell research, gambling, and divorce are morally acceptable. Even pre-marital sex and having children out of wedlock are morally acceptable to the majority of Americans under 65, and homosexuality is morally acceptable to the majority under 45. While marijuana is still about a draw (47 percent morally acceptable to 51 percent morally objectionable), for the most part what used to be "counterculture" is now, simply, culture.

Aha!  That's Sodom and Gomorrah alright!

That leads to my second point.  Prager avers that rejection of traditional values by the yutes has been happening "for at least two generations" now. A generation is 25 years, so that puts us back at 1963. Prager's Wikipedia page says he was born in 1948, meaning he was a teenager in the 1960s and a young man in the 1970s.

I seem to recall some interesting cultural stuff happening in the 60s and 70s... we read about it in high school once.... Oh yes! The counter-cultural revolution, free love, feminism, rampant drug use, riots, protests, bombings.... Gee, I guess all that happened on Pragers' parents' watch. Why didn't they put a stop to Prager's misbehaving? It makes you wonder... Is Prager really rejecting his own generation? 

I mean, compare the youth of the 60s and 70s with the youth of the 90s and 00s.  They're apples and oranges. As Fareed Zakaria recently noted, "[C]ompared with almost any period in U.S. history, we live in bourgeois times, in a culture that values family, religion, work and, above all, business."  

Read just about any survey of Millennials, or heck, go talk to one, and you'll find kids not just respectful of their parents, but downright reverent of adults. Moreover, "Millennials pray about as often as their elders in their own youth," according to Pew research, and, "Millennials (like older adults) place parenthood and marriage far above career and financial success." 

It gets worse for Prager -- I mean, better:

They respect their elders. A majority say that the older generation is superior to the younger generation when it comes to moral values and work ethic. Also, more than six-in-ten say that families have a responsibility to have an elderly parent come live with them if that parent wants to. By contrast, fewer than four-in-ten adults ages 60 and older agree that this is a family responsibility.

In fact, Millennials' biggest fear is an authority figure's disapproval (or failure to pat them on the back); and their greatest ambition is to live just like their parents (although few hope to live better). So it seems odd for Prager to cry "hell in a hand basket!" with such a crowd of fine, upstanding kids co-habitating in their parents' basements.

What gives? Well, I'd wager it has something to do with Prager's handsome head of white hair and 65 years of age. It's easy to forget the way we were. It's also related to his bio: he's always had his nose in a book. Prager was studying Russian and Hebrew while his coevals were screwing, smoking weed, dropping acid and dropping out. It seems to me his real problem is that his generation -- or at least the better parts of it -- changed American history for good. And true conservatives like Prager, as we all know, "stand athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

So in that sense, Prager is a true conservative, because nobody is now so inclined to roll back the cultural changes of the 60s and 70s. Back then Prager should have done more standing athwart: he ought to have have studied less and cracked hippy skulls more.

Personally, I don't see how our culture could possibly go much farther to the Left. 
OK, gay marriage and twerking are new ones, but... in America's history we've been a lot more decadent, culturally and morally.  (For a total historical eye-opener, check out The Way We Never Were). 

And never ever in the history of mankind have our children been so well-protected and fretted over as they are in today's USA.  The whole country has practically become one big daycare center; it's completely child-friendly. 

Although... if you want actual daycare for your kids you'll have to get a second job and go into debt, because it's more expensive than college. It's a shame that Prager and other "sad conservative parents" in their 50s and 60s aren't more upset about that! But why should they be? Their privileged kids are all grown up and in college now being indoctrinated in Lenin, Marx and Lady Gaga....

And this brings me to my third and final point: values are not the same as political affiliation. Certainly the two are related, but not always the same.  Here's Prager's real beef with today's yutes, I suspect:

To be sure, Millennials remain the most likely of any generation to self-identify as liberals; they are less supportive than their elders of an assertive national security policy and more supportive of a progressive domestic social agenda. They are still more likely than any other age group to identify as Democrats.

Noooooo!  Anything but that!

Well, sorry to break it to you, Prager and Mom & Dad, but it is indeed possible to pray often, honor your parents, love your country, get jazzed about private enterprise and still be a liberal Democrat.  Now go grab some kleenex before your kids see you like this.


By Dennis Prager
November 5, 2013 | National Review

There is a phenomenon that is rarely commented on, although it’s as common as it is significant.

For at least two generations, countless conservative parents have seen their adult children reject their core values.

I have met these parents throughout America. I have spoken with them in person and on my radio show. Many have confided to me — usually with a resigned sadness — that one or more of their children has adopted left-wing social, moral, and political beliefs.
A particularly dramatic recent example was a pastor who told me that he has three sons, all of whom have earned doctorates — from Stanford, Oxford, and Fordham. What parent wouldn’t be proud of such achievements by his or her children?

But the tone of his voice suggested more irony than pride. They are all leftists, he added wistfully.

“How do you get along?” I asked.

“We still talk,” he responded.

Needless to say, I was glad to hear that. But as the father of two sons, I readily admit that if they became leftists, while I would, of course, always love them, I would be deeply saddened. Parents, on the left or the right, religious or secular, want to pass on their core values to their children.

As a father, I have as my purpose not to pass on my “seed” but to pass on my values. Just about anyone can biologically produce a child. That ability we share with the animals. What renders us distinct from animals is that we can pass on values. As the Latin puts it, animals have only “genitors,” while humans have “paters.” Or, as the Hebrew has it, parent (horeh) comes from the same root as teacher (moreh). That is why Judaism puts teachers (of religious and moral values) on the same plane as parents.

So it is sad when a parent who believes, for example, in the American trinity of “Liberty,” “In God We Trust,” and “E Pluribus Unum” has a child who believes that equality trumps liberty, that a secular America is preferable to a God-centered one, and that multiculturalism should replace the unifying American identity.

It is sad when a pastor or any other parent who believes that the only gender-based definition of marriage that has ever existed — husband and wife — has a child who regards the parent as a bigot for holding on to that definition.

It is sad when a parent who believes that America has always been, in Lincoln’s famous words, “the last best hope of earth” has a child who believes that America has always been little more than an imperialist, racist, and xenophobic nation.

That this happens so often raises the obvious question: Why?

There are two reasons.

One is that most parents with traditional American and Judeo-Christian values have not thought it necessary to articulate these values to their children on a regular basis. They have assumed that there is no need to because society at large holds those values, or it did so throughout much of American history. Villages do indeed raise children. And when the village shares parents’ values, the parents don’t have to do the difficult work of inculcating these values.

But the village — American society — has radically changed.

Which brings us to the second reason.

Virtually every institution outside the home has been captured by people with left-wing values: specifically the media (television and movies) and the schools (first the universities and now high schools). In the 1960s and 1970s, American parents were blindsided. Their children came home from college with values that thoroughly opposed those of their parents.

And the parents had no idea how to counteract this. Moreover, even if they did, after just one year at the left-wing seminaries we still call universities, it was often too late. As one of the founders of progressivism in America, Woodrow Wilson, who was president of Princeton University before he became president of the United States, said in a speech in 1914, “I have often said that the use of a university is to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible.” Eighty-eight years later, the president of Dartmouth College, James O. Freedman, echoed Wilson: “The purpose of a college education is to question your father’s values,” he told the graduating seniors of Dartmouth College.

Even now, too few conservative parents realize how radical — and effective — the university agenda is. They are proud that their child has been accepted to whatever college he or she attends, not realizing that, values-wise, they are actually playing Russian roulette, except that only one chamber in the gun is not loaded with a bullet.

And then the child comes home, often after only a year at college, a different person, values-wise, from the one whom the naïve parent so proudly sent off just a year earlier.

What to do? I will answer that in a future column. But the first thing to do is to realize what is happening.

There are too many sad conservative parents.

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Obama protesters chant, 'Bye bye black sheep'

Racism is not pervasive on the Right, no sir!

These people were all plants and cranks bused in by George Soros to make colorblind conservatives look bad.


By Laurie Merrill, Dianna Nanez and Linnea Bennett
August 6, 2013 | Arizona Republic

Monday, July 29, 2013

Conservative ire at DC's 'fair wage' law

Since my post, 'Meyerson: Cities resist the 'Wal-Mart-ization of work,' on July 17, I've been eagerly awaiting the decision of DC Mayor Vincent Gray whether or not to veto the DC City Council's "fair wage" law ("Large Retailer Accountability Act of 2013") that would require all big-box retailers, such as Wal-Mart, that earn more than $1 billion in yearly revenue with floor space of over 75,000 square feet to pay all employees a minimum wage of $12.50 an hour, up from $8.25.

According to WSWS, other major national retailers such as Home Depot, AutoZone, Macy’s, Lowe’s, Target and Walgreen’s have written an open letter to Mayor Gray, declaring the bill "misguided."

For what it's worth, the "liberal" Washington Post has also come out against the bill.  Let me repeat that: arming al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria?  For.  Paying working Americans a living wage?  Against.  That's the lib'rul media for ya'.  

We're still waiting on Mayor Gray's decision.  The tension is so thick you could cut it with a knife!  ... And why not cut it with a premium electric knife with rubberized handle (made in China) from Walmart for only $18.00?  (Hey, it's my way of balancing the scales, since I rip on Wal-Mart so often).

If you think it's just me, or just liberals, that see this DC law as a bellwether, think again. Witness all the conservative ink spilled on the subject:

If all these right-wingers think that DC's living wage law is a terrible idea, then it must be good!  

Seriously though, anybody who knows, knows that where Wal-Mart goes, wages go down across the board. Is that what DC really needs?  A line has to be drawn somewhere, and only the DC City Council has the authority to draw it.  

In the absence of action by the states and federal government on raising the minimum wage, which should be at least $10.59 today, only cities can take action. That's what DC is doing. That's federalism in action. Funny that pro-fedreralist conservatives are so up in arms about it.

There's also this stupid debate about who needs who more: DC or Wal-Mart?  Of course Wal-Mart needs DC, why else would they be opening 3 stores and planning 3 more?  Wal-Mart is not in the charity business.  

I lived in SE DC for two years, so I know that Washington, DC does not need cheaper toasters; it needs more jobs that pay a living wage.  Wal-Mart will not only offer poverty wages, it will depress wages at its competitors and across the District, making Washington poorer. 

Let's hope Mayor Gray has a big brass sack!

UPDATE (01.08.2013): Mayor Gray says he hasn't made a decision yet, and hasn't even been presented formally with the bill by the City Council: "D.C. minimum wage bill: Vincent Gray still undecided on signing or veto."

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Black: Conservatives should back Glass-Steagall

My man Bill Black explains why real conservatives should support re-instituting Glass-Steagall.  Bottom line: if President Obama is against it, they ought to be for it!


By William K. Black
July 21, 2013 | New Economic Perspectives

Glass-Steagall prevented a classic conflict of interest that we know frequently arises in the real world.  Commercial banks are subsidized through federal deposit insurance.  Most economists support providing deposit insurance to commercial banks for relatively smaller depositors.  I am not aware of any economists who support federal “deposit” insurance for the customers of investment banks or the creditors of non-financial businesses.

It violates core principles of conservatism and libertarianism to extend the federal subsidy provided to commercial banks via deposit insurance to allow that subsidy to extend to non-banking operations.  Absent Glass-Steagall, banks could purchase anything from an aluminum company to a fast food franchise and (indirectly) fund its acquisitions and operations with federally-subsidized deposits.  If you run an independent aluminum company or fast food franchise do you want to have to compete with a federally-subsidized rival?

Deposit insurance is a material federal subsidy, but it pales in comparison to the implicit federal subsidy we provide to systemically dangerous institutions (SDIs) (so-called “too big to fail” banks).  The SDIs are precisely the banks most likely to purchase non-commercial banks. The general creditors of SDIs are protected against all loss so they funds to SDIs at a substantially lower interest rate than smaller competitors.  The largest SDIs are commercial banks that get both the explicit subsidy of federal deposit insurance and the larger subsidy unique to SDIs.

No conservative or libertarian should want the SDIs to maintain their political and economic dominance.  The SDIs’ dominance comes about not due to their efficiency but their size and the size of their lobbying wallet and force that allows them to extort greater federal subsidies than their rivals.  If conservatives and libertarians have any uncertainty about their position on Glass-Steagall they should consider these facts: (1) President Obama opposes ending the SDIs, (2) has done nothing effective to end the large federal subsidy provided to the SDIs, and (3) opposes bringing back Glass-Steagall and removing the explicit federal subsidy to banks that indirectly provides a competitive advantage to their commercial affiliates.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Americans incentivized not to work?

So this friend of mine, let's call him Rusty, shares the opinion of many on the right that at some point in time, starting around the time Obama became President, (hmmm....), Americans lost the incentive to work, or more accurately, were incentivized by Big Gubumint not to work, thanks to food stamps, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, and unquantified "welfare" of all kinds.  Nothing I say can convince Rusty otherwise.  It's an article of faith.

Rusty and his Rush Limbaugh-listening ilk don't believe stats such as those from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that there are currently 3.1 applicants for every job out there.  (While still daunting, this rate is far down from 6.9 applicants for every job at the end of the recession in June 2009.)  Nor do they stop to think what would happen if all those "welfare" recipients decided to enter the workforce -- even more applicants for every scarce job, and downward pressure on wages.

In fact, Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage, which would give more Americans the ability to support themselves without welfare.  A poverty-level minimum wage is certainly a disincentive to work.  

In his latest Rolling Stone blog post, Matt Taibbi takes the piss out of another right-wing theory, this time of David Brooks, about why Americna men especially don't want to take all those "humiliating" jobs out there just waiting to be filled: "David Brooks Wonders Why Men Can't Find Jobs: Comedy Ensues."

Regardless of why Brooks' particular theory is stupid and unsupported by facts, it's alarming that almost all U.S. conservatives are living in a speculative alternative America where able-bodied Americans prefer to "lounge around" on $200 a month for food stamps, rather than accept one of the many job offers dangling in front of them, because they consider such work beneath them.  According to conservatives, for whatever reason, before Obama, these Americans were incentivized to work, no matter how.  Post-Obama, these people have no incentive to work.  

So what changed besides the color of the guy in the White House, I wonder?  It couldn't be the fault of the GOP majority that came in with Obama.  So what is it??