Tag Archives: U.S.

Dummies for Dummies

Posted on by
8

Aspiration for Dummies:

“My ambition is the status quo.” Governor Mike Pence (R-IN)

Education for Dummies:

Indiana children are not required to attend public school until age 7, a problem with an easy solution, the proverbial low-hanging fruit. A bill to require kids to be in school or home-schooled if they are 5 at the time of the start of the school year is one that the Indiana Senate has declined to debate so far this year. Education for Dummies or Legislating for Dummies = Hoping Indiana Kids Are All Late Bloomers. (Read here for more.)

Science for Dummies:

“When a physician removes a child from a woman, that is the largest organ in a body. That’s a big thing. That’s a big surgery. You don’t have any organs in your body that are bigger than that.” State Representative Mary Sue McClurkin (R-Pelham) of Mississippi

Playing Fair for Dummies:

“You didn’t win but I did.” Christina Shaw, hairstylist and lottery winner, who told her co-workers that the tickets she purchased from all the workers’ contributions wasn’t lucky but the one she purchased for herself was. Who gets the 9.5 million dollars in winnings will now be up to the courts to decide because decency and camaraderie either weren’t present or just couldn’t overcome mindless, selfish greed. Perhaps Ms. Shaw didn’t attend school until she was 7, thereby missing the essential early days of kindergarten which include the lessons on How to Share, Why We Share, What is Sharing, and Only Bad Evil Monster-Trolls Don’t Like to Share.

Public Opinion on Immigration for Dummies:
Two separate recent letters to the editor printed in the Indianapolis Star tackled the topic of illegal immigration. One of the letters advised undocumented immigrants to contact the “U.S. Naturalization and Immigration Services Department,” a department which doesn’t exist. Undocumented workers could, of course, peruse the website for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, administered by the Department of Homeland Security. Concerned citizens interested in the enforcement of immigration law could also give a rudimentary glance at the website for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, which was formed by merging the investigative branches of the U.S. Customs Service and what was once called the “U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services.” The intent of the writer was probably good, but a perfunctory web search might have prevented recommending a service which never existed or the close shave of using outdated information culled from, my guess, too many hours of 90′s TV crime dramas with yellow-jacketed agents breaking down doors and shouting “INS!”

Another letter suggested the United States use drones on the southern border to deter illegal crossings. An idea which follows the implentation of it by over 7 years: drones have been flying over the U.S.-Mexico border since 2005.

Legislative Opinion for Dummies:

But, hey, if Joe Public gets confused about policies, agencies, and entities regarding immigration, it’s hardly a surprise. The legislative branch seems also to be a bit confused. The bipartisan group of House members working on an immigration bill are including the suggestion that a nationwide system to verify the legal status of workers be established. Which is explicitly the entire purpose of E-Verify, a system which, say it with me, already exists.
The bill is also purported to include plans to “beef up” national security on the border. Goody, I hope they include the use of drones.
While the inclusions are notable, equally remarkable is the glaring exclusion: a prong, plank, or plan to address the problems which plague the legal immigration system. Frankly, dealing with immigration as though it’s only made up of “illegal” issues is like consuming just the peanut butter portion of a PB-and-J sandwich, a deeply dissatisfying act which misses the point entirely and defies the whole concept and identity of the sandwich itself, or the problem itself. It’s an immigration sandwich, y’all, and scraping the creamy “illegal” filling from the equally essential “legal” portion means you’re not dealing with the sandwich at all. You’re just messing around with the ingredients. And as everyone knows, you’re not supposed to play with your food.
Denial for Dummies:
“This is not something that’s kooky.” Indiana Senate President Pro Tempore David Long (R-District 16, Fort Wayne) about the resolution calling for a U.S. constitutional convention to force a rewrite of the Constitution of the United States, a resolution which passed the Senate on Tuesday, February 26th. Long gave a speech on Tuesday where he said “states’ rights have all but disappeared” because the federal government has issued mandates which provide the choice to states of going along with a federal law or losing related federal funds. Long and those who permitted this bill to pass are conflating rights with choice and seem to believe that states are entitled to federal funds with no obligation to follow the rules that accompany those funds.
And on Wednesday, Senator Long placed the Senate in a split-second pseudo-session solely to avoid the senators having to pay taxes on their per-diem cash receipts during the mid-session recess. At least the good Senator did not call this gambit “kooky.” Instead he said that the action was just doing what the “IRS tells us to do.” As the staff of the Indianapolis Star wrote, “the IRS tells lawmakers to pretend to come to work?”
Of course they don’t, because if they did, that would indeed be “kooky.”
(Read more: Matthew Tully’s article on “kooky style,” Senate’s Wednesday use of the gavel, and regarding the bill for a constitutional convention.)
About these ads

Underemployment and the New Economy: Full-time Problems, Part-time Work, and No Solutions

Posted on by
6

Most Americans still believe that our economy is based on this basic premise: that it is possible for most people to work their way to the middle class, however loosely that's defined; that hard work and education will lead to success for most people and if people struggle, that's mostly due to poor decisions, sub-par work ethic, or lack of personal responsibility.

The recent suggestion by President Obama to raise the federal minimum wage is based on the premise that many people are working full-time jobs and still not making it. Which is true, many are. But many (more?) are stuck in situations where full-time jobs are not options– and not due to personal choice or failures or even personal and family conditions. A job market that is full of mostly retail and service positions is not one that is predominantly “full-time” (for purposes here, full-time employment is 36-40 hours per week even though legal definitions usually permit the employer or industry to define what is full-time in their sector or market). There's been quiet but growing attention in the media to the changing face of employment. Stories in the New York Times (here, here, here) and NPR (this and this) have pointed out that a growing majority of retail and service jobs prefer to operate with part-time workers because it better meets the demands of their business and allows flexibility of scheduling to meet the level of traffic, down to 15-minute increments. Profits expand when labor costs can be micro-controlled using mini-shifts of 2 to 3 hours or even placing employees on unpaid on-call status throughout the week. This is bad for workers, who have no set schedules, can't get enough hours to earn a living, can't arrange childcare or even pick up the necessary second and third part-time job to meet their monthly expenses. Lifting the minimum wage can help— but its effects will be limited if the whole idea of it is based on a “living wage for full-time work.” This is not just about the obvious employers like Walmart and Jamba Juice. The health care industry is also prone to giving part-time hours and, even less stable from the worker's point of view, PRN (on-call, as-needed) shifts. The education sector, particularly universities and vocational-technical schools also rely heavily on adjunct faculty and associate professors who similarly have no guarantees and no stability, teaching perhaps two classes one semester and then none for one or more semesters. And then there's the increasing use of temporary staffing services which provide short-term jobs, generally low-paying, with lag periods between assignments when no work is available. As an increasing number of companies use these staffing services in place of hiring full-time, permanent employees, the job market offers even less traditional full-time jobs.

The traditional job market most Americans believe in didn't go away entirely due to the Great Recession. The traditional job market has been changed by an economy that's fundamentally different from the past. The new job market does have full-time permanent positions: but what proportion of jobs are covered by that? A light majority, possibly, but, it appears, a declining one. Even when the economy recovers to, optimistically, 5% unemployment, the signs seem to indicate that the new economy, the recovered economy, will actually be majority part-time, PRN, and temporary employment. The new job market in 2 to 3 years will be based in no small part on jobs that are non-traditional and impermanent. The new condition for a growing plurality of Americans will be under-employment not by choice, lack of education, or personal “fault,” but due to an economy that works differently than it ever has in the modern era.

Without some change to wages or even social supports (TANF, UI, WIC) and employment regulations, this new mode of employment will be bad for everyone. The individual workers and their families will be affected immediately. But even in the short-term, businesses are affected by lack of demand as people cannot afford to purchase goods and services for themselves. In the medium to long-term, it will affect finance and the world of money in the U.S. writ large: how do the permanently under-employed and permanently transient workers qualify for credit? How would solid loans be made to workers who work for a staffing agency one quarter of the year and spend the following three quarters in various part-time jobs? How stable would be credit given to people who cannot demonstrate a reasonable ability to repay that credit because they have no reliable income? So the choice of lenders would be between denying all such applications (very, very bad for the national economy) or risking the entire credit and financing system on sub-grade, high-risk loans. Housing crisis, anyone? Fiscal crisis, anyone?

Equally troubling is the idea that neither public nor private entities appear to be accurately measuring these trends, let alone coming up with solutions to them. Unemployment is still measured largely by people who self-report through the Current Population Survey that they are both unemployed and looking for full-time work. This misses, as is so often said, those who are underemployed, temporarily employed, or so frustrated they've dropped out of the labor market entirely. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is working on a number of alternative metrics but those aren't the norm right now— and it always depends on the level of communication between government agencies and how the data is used. And even then, there are the questions. Who is measuring and compiling all the necessary elements of this new labor economy: the nature of the jobs in existence, the jobs that will be created? Do they measure only the number of jobs by industry or are they doing an accurate job of measuring by type (part-time, full-time) and by stability (temporary, seasonal, intermittent, permanent)? Of course, how these terms are defined makes a world of difference: permitting industry to define “full-time” may be useful for questions of safety— truck drivers, air traffic controllers, or surgeons— but is much less useful in questions of employment and wages. If the measurement of employment, like unemployment, is both incomplete and based on self-reporting, the measurement will be inadequate to provide the data needed to create solutions to the problems of the new economy.

Current benefits programs like unemployment insurance (UI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) are already being used as income supports by many who are already stuck in and limited by the new economy, which means benefits are being used in ways they weren't designed for and for purposes they aren't efficient or effective at meeting. The UI system was intended for people who are involuntarily unemployed in the short-term. The media and the government have already focused heavily on the problem of the long-term unemployed. However, there is a growing use of UI benefits by underemployed, part-time, temporary, and on-call workers– people who are employed. In many cases, their income is absolutely inadequate to meet their basic needs but they may make too much money to qualify for TANF, WIC, or similar programs and UI will only cover them for a limited period (in Indiana, it's 26 weeks). In many cases, these benefits are difficult to navigate for working people precisely because they were intended for the impoverished— and, in American mind and American policy, these are two characteristics that weren't intended to elide.

Like unemployment and wages, the systems of these benefit programs also rely heavily on self-reporting and the nature of the corresponding laws for these programs requires time-consuming interviews and paperwork to ascertain eligibility for the benefits. Here again, eligibility is defined by being unemployed, not “under-employed,” and unemployed in the short-term. Think “Welfare to Work”. The problem is, assistance frequently comes weeks after people have already fallen into desperation. And assistance stops when partial employment, temporary, or on-call employment has been accepted or, at least, after that under or temporary employment has become “customary”. If the long term trajectory of the nature of jobs in this country is trending toward extended under, partial, and temporary employment for a significant portion of Americans, these programs are and will be insufficient to provide what will be needed.

Is a new benefit program needed as a form of income support? Politically, that would be nearly impossible.

Are new regulations needed to protect workers? (And protect businesses and the overall economy?) Again, that would be nearly impossible to achieve, politically.

Will we need to change the way creditworthiness is defined and go to micro-loans at low interest rates?

Do we require a change to how we think about wages and place people/workers on “retainers”– a minimum amount of monthly income to remain on jobs where the number of hours must be flexible and inconsistent? Who would pay these retainers? The government? Federal or state? The employers?

What probably can't happen is changing the economy back to one where full-time, 40 hours per week, permanent jobs are the norm. The businesses and services we have, need, and expect don't function that way. The peculiarly American insistence that our desires and needs alike be met 24 hours per day or delivered the next day creates businesses and services which don't fit neatly into 40 hour per week boxes. Of course, businesses could change the dynamic so they use less workers for more hours per week and/or pay reasonable wages– both of which have benefits and problems of their own and will never happen as long as businesses' goals are mostly maximizing profits and increasing growth in terms of “now” and “this quarter.” Sure, we could have jobs that are busy-work: the old digging holes and then filling them conundrum. But this is not a reasonable solution. It isn't reality-based.

The problem is not being adequately measured, let alone addressed. Nostalgia and denial are standing in the way. Too many in power don't yet recognize the problem or at least, don't acknowledge that there has been a significant and probably permanent change in the nature and demands of work– but no change to the real needs and overabundance of supply of workers to fill the “decreased” or, rather, intermittent, micro-variable roles that need filled (by hour, not year). And even good policy solutions like lifting the minimum wage, EITC, TANF, and UI are based on a world and economy that lies in the past: a world of full-time permanent jobs. So, of course, we should continue with the good policy solutions– they address real problems. They just don't address this one. And that is the Real Problem.

So what do we do?

International Notebook Clean-up Day (Quotes from the Last Many, Many Moons)

Posted on by
Reply

“That's when you know you're living right, when you're an eighty-something percent free throw shooter and you get your own rebound. But I think he needs a haircut.” I.U. Men's Basketball Coach Tom Crean of Jordan Hulls, following the 01/12/13 game against Minnesota. Indianapolis Star.

“There are no conditions of life to which a man cannot get accustomed, especially if he sees them accepted by everyone around him.” Leo Tolstoy

“Some argue that [flat and falling wages, labor conditions, loss of well-paying "middle class" jobs, and inequality] was an unavoidable result of deeper shifts: global competition, cheap goods made in China, technological changes. Although those factors played a part, they have not been decisive. In Europe, where the same changes took place, inequality has remained much lower than in the United States. The decisive factor has been politics and public policy: tax rates, spending choices, labor laws, regulations, campaign finance rules…. Inequality hardens society into a class system, imprisoning people in the circumstances of their birth– a rebuke to the very idea of the American dream. Inequality divides us from one another in schools, in neighborhoods, at work, on airplanes, in hospitals, in what we eat, the condition of our bodies, in what we think, in our children's futures, in how we die…Inequality corrodes trust among fellow citizens, making it seem as if the game is rigged. Inequality provokes a generalized anger that finds targets where it can…Inequality saps the will to conceive of ambitious solutions to large collective problems, because those problems no longer seem very collective. Inequality undermines democracy.” George Packer, “The Broken Contract: Inequality and American Decline,” Foreign Affairs, November-December 2011. (Don't let the date on this one fool you. This is still an engrossing journal article with important things to say about what's happened in American life and what it means.)

“Government, politics, corporations, the media, organized religion, organized labor, banks, businesses, and other mainstays of a healthy society are failing…With few notable exceptions, the nation's onetime social pillars are ill-equipped for the 21st century. Most critically, they are failing to adapt quickly enough for a population buffeted by wrenching economic, technological, and demographic change.” Ron Fournier and Sophie Quinton, “In Nothing We Trust,” National Journal, April 19, 2012. (still a worthwhile and relevant read.)

“The care of human happiness, not the destruction of life, is the first and only object of good government.” Thomas Jefferson

“We, the people, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals and those who died in their defense. As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. That's what we believe.” President Barack Obama

“Going to war, being at war, should be painful for the entire country, from the start. Henceforth, when we ship the troops off to battle, let's pay for it… 'Freedom isn't free' shouldn't be a bumper sticker– it should be policy.” Rachel Maddow, Drift.

Soundbite Garden

Posted on by
Reply

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Prolonged growth in income inequality undermines the basic American belief that hard work should pay off. Anyone who contributes to the nation's economic growth should reap the benefits of that growth. But for decades now, those benefits have been skewed in favor of the wealthiest members of society.” Elizabeth McNichol, of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Indianapolis Star, “Report: Indiana's income gap is among the fastest-growing,” Maureen Groppe.

“A society is judged by how well it treats the least of its citizens, and using our resources to support families is not only a moral imperative, it is economically wise.” Shelli Yoder, who, at 43% of the vote, lost her bid for Indiana's 9th congressional district seat against the better-funded incumbent,Todd Young (R), but will hopefully run again in the next election.

President Obama “smiles when he misses [a basket]; when he makes one, he looks even more serious.” Michael Lewis, “Obama's Way,” Vanity Fair (another highly recommended read from earlier this year)

“Obama does not promise or threaten fundamental change. He personifies it. He is its product.” Dan Carpenter

“The president's campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift.” Mitt Romney, considering the cause of his failed 2012 presidential bid. (Maybe it's just that the President's a better singer. No offense, Mr. Romney.)

“We've got to give our political organization a very serious proctology exam. We need to look everywhere.” Post-election Republican, erm, soul-searching by former Mississippi governor, Haley Barbour (R).

“Look, if you want voters to like you, the first thing you've got to do is to like them first. And it's certainly not helpful to tell voters that you think their votes were bought.” Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (R) in reference to Mitt Romney's supposition that he lost because the President bought the votes of the young and minority populations.

“Teachers aren't against reform. They just don't like to be slapped around.” Jon Easter, on his Indy Democrat blog, speaking about Glenda Ritz' (D) election as the next State Superintendent of Public Instruction in Indiana.

“Educators now know in their hearts because of this election that they are respected members of their communities. When they talk, people respect their opinion.” Glenda Ritz

“Is it any worse…to leave a wounded man in battle than to have him return home and struggle alone?” Cpl. Aaron Mankin

“Our military and weapons prowess is a fantastic and perfectly weighted hammer, but that doesn't make every international problem a nail.” Rachel Maddow, Drift (Highly-recommended reading. I even added it to the Bookshelf.)

“Only an idiot would drive on the sidewalk to avoid a school bus.” Message printed on a sign a 32-year old Cleveland woman was sentenced to hold at an intersection for one hour on Tuesday, November 13 after she had, in fact, driven on the sidewalk to avoid a school bus.

 

Endorsements, Predictions, and Ephemera: The (2012) Jig is (Almost) Up!

Posted on by
3

Indiana Gubernatorial Race: The Emerald/Orange endorsement goes to John Gregg (D). I think he and his running mate, Vi Simpson, are more connected to this state and its interests than is opponent Mike Pence (R). Besides, the combined legislative experience of Gregg and Simpson (55 years total in the General Assembly) gives them a huge advantage in working with the legislative branch. Gregg is moderate and his policy positions are very safe. They should be appealing to a broad range of Hoosiers. Unfortunately, the Emerald/Orange prediction is that Pence and his running mate, Sue Ellspermann will win this race.

Indiana– U.S. Senate: You know, if it hadn't been for Richard Mourdock's (R) highly-publicized “God intended” statement, this race would look a lot different at this point in time. When Joe Donnelly (D) was announced as the candidate, my first thought was that West Wing quote “I wanted a Democrat. Instead I got you.” Nevertheless, the official Emerald/Orange endorsement is for Donnelly anyway; mostly because he isn't Richard Mourdock. And between Mourdock's mouth and Donnelly's conservatism, the prediction here is that Donnelly will win the seat. However, as a representative for the entire state, that's probably the best fit: we are a conservative-leaning state (no kidding) so a conservative-leaning senator is probably the right choice. Despite what the negative campaign ads tried to accomplish in linking Donnelly with “the extreme Pelosi-Obama agenda,” Donnelly prides himself on being the 6th most conservative Democrat in the House; he's quite probably the Hoosier Mean. And I think he'll be in Washington for the next 6 years.

Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction: By some happy accident, a high proportion of my friends and acquaintances are in the field of education. Most of them are non-plussed at best by incumbent Tony Bennett (R). I have listened to Tony Bennett tell both ISTA representatives and callers to a public-affairs radio program that “If you had read my dissertation, you would…” and I've heard Mr. Bennett wax hostile to educators and public education while funding in the state was cut by $300 million dollars. I have never heard Mr. Bennett (and I've listened to him with an open mind on multiple occasions) sound like his primary interest wasn't Tony Bennett. I have also never heard him throw in a couple of bars of “I Left My Heart in San Francisco,” which tells me he's humorless besides. So I'm endorsing Glenda Ritz (D) because she sounds like she believes in public service and public education; because she says “teachers” like they matter; and because many of my teacher friends tell me I should. Another sad prognostication here though: I'm predicting Bennett will retain his position. I'm also predicting it's going to be close and it's going to be–mostly– caused by a slew of Republican straight-ticket voters.

IN-9 U.S. House of Representatives: Surprising no one, I'm endorsing Shelli Yoder (D). I've been in agreement with her policy positions since Day One. She's intelligent, incredibly well-informed, and compassionate besides. In her debate with opponent Todd Young (R) at Franklin College, she not only emphasized her familiarity and concern with every inch and every person in the Ninth District, she fact-checked Young at every turn: if his statement was overdone, she came back with the statistic or study that corrected it; if he went for a classic Talking Point, she immediately countered with the rest of the story. Which means she knew those things. And she said repeatedly that she was going to listen to her constituents: this is a huge difference between herself and Young. Young's closing statement at that debate was to highlight that at the end of the day, he was going to vote his conscience. Fair enough, and admittedly, there's always a fine line to walk between representing the public and choosing the best policy for that public. But Young's expressed methodology of governance seems to negate the representation with a paternalistic “let me choose for you.” I don't want his conscience to be louder than the vox populi. And on the majority of things done (or not) in the House, I don't think his conscience is the best guide. I don't see that it even belongs in a discussion on tax reform or infrastructure, agriculture or energy, or any of the most common, mundane housekeeping and budgeting chores which he would be responsible for. No prediction here: I think this one's going to be close.

Indiana General Assembly, House District 93: The endorsement goes to Democrat Ryan Guillory. He's energetic and he thinks big: mass transit and pre-K education. Like Shelli Yoder, he seems to be both responsive to and genuinely interested in the actual community he's campaigning to serve. Additionally, he shows an openness and transparency about his thinking: his website has been very good at highlighting issues, saying what he wants to do, and better, explaining why. The Indiana General Assembly is a high-retention environment: it holds those that get in there for decades. I think it needs more new faces. I think at this time, it needs Ryan Guillory more than it needs 20-year incumbent David Frizzell (R). No prediction here, either: the Republican straight-party ticket scares me in this race, too.

President of the United States: Emerald/Orange endorses President Obama and Vice President Biden. But then, it's been endorsing them since it started, hasn't it? I'll keep it brief because everyone's writing about this one– and doing it better. I support the President because I think he's honest, objective, and careful. I also think he tends to govern as a mostly moderate problem-solver, especially since he's a Kenyan Muslim Socialist and all. I am voting for Obama because I believe he's unusually adept at balancing immediate necessities with long-term stability; because I believe in government, too, and I believe in good, smart government. And I think the President actually does believe that personal responsibility means nothing if people don't start on a level ground of actual opportunity and access to basic, basic things like decent, affordable education; safe food, drugs, water, and environment; fair laws that don't privilege banks over humans; and access to health care. The President emphasizes fairness and justice, as well as personal responsibility. He has shown himself to be a strong leader internationally. And I think the things people are viscerally angry about like gas prices, rising costs, stagnant economic growth, and declining wages are all conditions of a changing America and have been quietly happening for 40 years. Four years ago, I believed he was the right man for the right time and that he had the ability to be a thoughtful and capable president. That's still what I think. I don't think the country will benefit with the leadership of Mitt Romney. I don't think what America needs right now is a man who thinks $7 an hour Staples jobs are the path to greatness or that large societal problems can be solved by community and religious charity organizations alone. I don't trust a viewpoint that suggests that personal responsibility and hard work can magically solve every problem–and should. I don't want to ascertain that my milk isn't tainted with melamine and I don't want to bet that the market will do that for me. I don't want the Wall Street Masters of the Universe to bet the American house on bad cards– and do it overnight in less time than it takes to order a pizza online. I certainly don't want them to do it unchecked. See, it's in all of our interests for banks to work and to be perceived as working. “Trust me” just isn't an adequate plan: not for financial institutions, not for a president. Of the two candidates, I think one of them agrees with that. I think one of them understands that these beliefs and policies and positions can build or destroy lives, can build or insidiously destroy a country's welfare. And I think one of them just wants to be president to be president. He's not the one I'll be voting for. No prediction here, either. I'm just praying Nate Silver is right again.

Et Cetera, Et Cetera, Etc (or, as it's sometimes inexplicably seen around town, “ect”):

  • Man, oh, man, I want Elizabeth Warren to win today!
  • I still think we need more scientists, doctors, and teachers in the House and Senate. Truthfully, a couple of Joe-the-Plumbers might also be refreshing. And some more women. Let's work on all of that for 2014.
  • Blue Politics Future Cast– Faces that we're going to keep seeing more of (the up-and-comers): Mayor Cory Booker, Governor Deval Patrick, the aforementioned Elizabeth Warren, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Governor Brian Schweitzer, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and, hopefully, Shelli Yoder, and Ryan Guillory.
  • You know what I hope will happen next (besides infrastructure and tax reform)? That combining beer and politics will be fun again, beginning on Wednesday. The political air has been so toxic that posting on Facebook, no matter how delicately, has become a perilous act. I can't remember the last time I wasn't seeing that a “friend” was disowning anyone with an opinion because they were sick of the campaigns. And I really can't remember the last time I was able to engage in one of the smallest and best pleasures of the world: solving all the world's problems with a table of friends and some pints (or coffee or whatever). It just hasn't been possible because we've all gotten a bit crazy this past year. Yes, I know the proverbial rule that the two things you don't discuss are God and politics. But I say you're not in trouble when you're discussing The Big Stuff. You're in trouble when you can't. So, much as I love Election Day (and, seriously, I really love Election Day), bring on Wednesday or the day after when friends and family can speak to each other again and say what they really think without guilt or recrimination. The world is crazy and interesting and beautiful. I miss talking about it.

 

Justin Time’s 2012 PDG (Political Drinking Game)

Posted on by
Reply

Happy debate night! Grab your favorite beverage and drink when a candidate says:

Gin up (for obvious reasons)

Sword of Damocles or fiscal cliff or sequestration (because what else are you going to do?)

To be clear (here) or Let’s be clear (here)

A (whole) host

Look (only at the beginning of the sentence)

Obamacare (if you’re a Democrat, for self-evident reasons. If you’re Red-leaning, because it’s the government infringing on your liberties)

Average American or Average Voter  or Ordinary American or Average Joe (because you are in that chair, Blanche, you are!)

Middle class

Job creators or small business (because you are one or you’re beholden, Caulfield)

Disingenuous (because “You Lie” was already taken)

Self-deportation (because what are the chances that’ll get used again)

Economy (because it’s …say it with me…the economy, stupid)

Our brave men and women in uniform or our troops (because if anyone deserves a toast, it’s them)

 

Call for entries: I left some good ones off the list. Once you’ve sobered up, add your suggestion to the comments and I’ll add it to the list before the next debate (Veeps on 10/11).

 

 

 

From the Mixed-Up Files

Posted on by
Reply

By the Numbers

180. Number of bills introduced in the U.S. to restrict voting rights since the beginning of 2011. 14 states have passed legislation to restrict voting. (Brennan Center for Justice; MSNBC)

329. Number of consecutive months, as of July, with global temperatures above the 20th century average. (NOAA; The Hill)

700. Number of water mains in the U.S, on average, which break every single day. A third of the country's water pipes are 40-80 years old. This undoubtedly figures in to the D- grade the American water infrastructure received from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Repairing the infrastructure will cost approximately $335 billion over 20 years. (MSNBC)

30,000. Number of education jobs lost since the official end of the recession in 2009. Student-teacher ratios increased by 4.6% from 2008-2010, from 15.3 in 2008 to 16:1 in 2010, bringing student-teacher ratios back to levels last seen in 2000, according to a White House study. These ratios include special education and special needs classroom ratios. These classroom ratios are on track to increase even further. (AP; Washington Post)

396,906. Number of undocumented immigrants deported in 2011, the largest number in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements history. (CNN)

7.5 Million. The fine, in U.S. dollars, The Artists Formerly Known as Xe-Formerly Known as Blackwater-Now Known as Academi LLC agreed to pay to settle federal charges for possessing automatic weapons in the U.S. without registration, lying to federal regulators about weapons provided by them to the king of Jordan, passing secret plans for armored personnel carriers to Sweden and Denmark without U.S. approval, and illegally shipping body armor overseas. And this is just the stuff they've admitted to. (AP; Indianapolis Star)

So You Say

“First rule of journalism: Whenever you see elephants flying, shut up and take notes.” Tom Friedman

Paul Ryan's “not the kind of guy you pick to win Florida. This is the kind of guy you pick to win Fox and Friends.” Rachel Maddow

“And if you add in addition [to taxes paid] the amount [of our wealth] that goes to charity, why the number gets well above 20%.” Mitt Romney. To which Amy Davidson of The New Yorker shrewdly wrote “…what is the name for the category he refers to as 'the number?'– the sum of taxes and charity? Those are, after all– and one hopes that Romney recognizes this– two different things.”

“The political conventions are among the few 'shared' national political events left.” Jim Lehrer

“I mean, the conventions don't really do any work anymore. They're just three-day long infomercial parties for the party and the candidate.” Rachel Maddow

Climate change “is the biggest market failure the world has ever seen.” Former World Bank economist Nicholas Stern

Children of undocumented immigrants “study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, befriend our kids, pledge allegiance to our flag. It makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans.” Barack Obama

“The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central Liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan

“There are 250 million guns in this country. If a person wants to get his hands on a gun, they're going to be able to do it…But we also have this situation where we have a lot of 20 year olds who are living in this under-institutionalized world, lonely, not a lot of people dealing with them; at the same time, a tremendous hunger for fame and you see the rise of these spectacle killings. And I'd like to see a debate about that. There's not an obvious political solution but…there's a civil society solution where we all look out for people who are just drifting between the cracks.” David Brooks

Excerpt: Matthew Tully regarding Indiana candidate for U.S. Senate Richard Mourdock

“If I had to pinpoint the moment at which I went from thinking Richard Mourdock would be an ineffective senator to a downright disaster, it was probably when he answered a question this spring about his top goals for the Senate. [He] told several reporters and editors that day that if he were a member of the Senate next year but in the minority, his top goal would be to travel the nation campaigning for fellow conservative candidates. The answer was as petty as it was depressingly political and partisan. And it underscored Mourdock's deep misunderstanding of the responsibilities and power every senator has–even those in the minority.” Matthew Tully, “Coats has things to teach Mourdock,” Indianapolis Star, 08/08/2012.

 

Paul-apalooza!

Posted on by
3

In case you were under a rock today and hadn’t heard, Paul Ryan (R-WI) became the Chosen One today, the vice presidential pick for Team Romney. It’s just so exciting, isn’t it? Real News! On a Saturday! Not to take anything from the Iranians and their earthquake or the deaths by lightning strike in India, but ohmygosh, Mitt Romney has a running mate and it’s the physically fit, intellectual powerhouse from Wisconsin, House Representative Paul Ryan. The word of the day in the media is “energized:” the Romney campaign is energized, the Republican base is energized, the fiscal conservatives are energized. It’s almost as if the Romney campaign was lacking energy before or something.

Well, I know I’m breathless from all the excitement and coming up with something smart is going to be ridiculously difficult. Frankly, I’m just so excited and, well, teeming with energy, that I can’t really think straight. So I’m going to do a little P90X and then lay down in a hammock and try to calm down a bit. In the meantime, here’s the short list of highly-energized thoughts that have struck me in these few, electrifying hours since Paul Ryan was crowned the Republican Veep candidate.

The headline for today could also be “Mitt Romney Cedes Foreign Policy Issues in Presidential Race.” Sure, ever since the Republican Primary Show ended, Romney has been focused on the economy. His recent trip abroad was gaffe-filled and generally regarded as graceless, but “it’s the economy, stupid” and the polls show the 2012 candidates in a dead heat, so no big deal, one might say, if Romney puts most of his chips on the electoral kitchen table and talks almost exclusively about domestic issues, particularly the economy. Only, here’s the thing, international issues are still going to need debating. There’s governance to do after the election. That whole being-president thing doesn’t happen in an American vacuum. It might have been wise to choose a VP with some foreign policy credentials or some deeply respected positions on international issues. Instead, Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan is also primarily known for domestic issues, specifically the budget, and also his abs. So, two things there: one, Mitt Romney today looked at the upcoming debates and said “Eurozone crisis? Iran? Israel? China? Global trade? Global climate change? Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria? Boy, I don’t know. Let’s talk about something else, like maybe the economy. And the economy. We could also just talk about the economy. The one here.” And two, Mitt Romney basically admitted to the American public that he’s concerned with winning the election and not the 4 to 8 years that follow it. You know, those 4 to 8 years when he might actually have to deal with the rest of the world, too.

The GOP is energized, which is good, if you’re a Republican. But this makes Paul Ryan an even more interesting choice for candidate Romney. It’s possible that instead of Ryan electrifying Romney, he’ll simply electrocute him. Ryan’s speech following the State of the Union didn’t make a case for Ryan’s charisma or excitement factor. But he’s been the fresh new thing for the Republicans for awhile, one of the bona fide rising stars of the party. Romney, well, his singing skills aren’t great, that whole “I like trees” thing was possibly one of his most entertaining moments on the campaign trail, and Bill Maher, whether fairly or no, has referred to him as “The World’s Least Interesting Man.” So maybe Romney-Ryan won’t be the Dynamic Duo, but, if you’re Romney, do you want to run the risk of being overshadowed by the light of the newest, freshest, fittest star of the Republican party? It’s a question I would have asked if I were running the campaign.

The upside of the Ryan pick, though, is this and I think it could be good for everyone: Choosing Ryan ensures that some substance will find its way into the conversation. There will be no way to avoid talking about the budget and taxes. This is to the good. Now, for Republicans, my guess is this is the big reason they chose him. After the last election and Palingate, there had to be a smart pick for this election. It’s nearly impossible to read or listen to anything about Ryan that doesn’t include the effusive use of “serious” and “intellectual.” That’s largely due to his budget. Hopefully, there will actually be a real discussion of what Americans want for the country and how we pay for what we want. That would be refreshing.

For Democrats, if they are able to accurately and concisely slice and dice that Ryan budget up so that a fourth-grader can understand it, the choice could be like Christmas morning came early for the Blues. Matt Miller has called Ryan’s budget a “path to nowhere.” Martin Wolf referred to it as “a political fantasyland” and then said about it “You can only say that this is a revolutionary proposal. It would mean the U.S. is going back to the sort of country it was in 1900.” So further discussion about Paul Ryan and his budget, if it’s intense and if the public will sit still for it, could electrify the Democrats, Independents, and anyone else who might not cotton to a taxidermic approach to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Well, it’s a big “if:” serious policy discussions are much less entertaining than “Uz-beki-beki-stan-stan.” They’re mind-numbing in comparison to scandals, snark, and gaffes. And in that spirit, you gotta hand it to Paul Ryan. He began his campaign to become the next vice president with a gaffe of his own. “I’ve some good news and I’ve got some bad news. Why don’t we get rid of the bad news first, okay? President Obama is the president of the United States. And the good news is, on November 6, he won’t be any longer.”

Oh, Mr. Ryan, I guarantee you, even if you and Mr. Romney win the election, Barack Obama will still be the president on November 6. See, he’s the president until the new one is inaugurated. But I know, big guy, it’s been a very exciting day. Probably best to get your first Highly Public Gaffe out of the way early.

Vacation (All She Ever Wanted…)

Posted on by
4

So, by the wanton threads of fate, it is another (sadly, another) in a long interminable string of vacation-less summers. There are worse problems to have, of course, and I am pleased that so few of these are plaguing my existence (though if the total could be zero I would be the greater pleased). Nevertheless, I can seem to find nothing—literally nothing, my dear Internets—to assuage the desire to be Anywhere Else.

Alas.

And so, because my mind is wandering in spite of the bound and restricted body, I present Some of the Places I Would Rather Be (also known as “Some of the Places My Head Is While the Rest of Me Is Most Emphatically and Grudgingly Not”):

She’s got the Basin Street Blues.

1. New Orleans: Because I know what it means to miss New Orleans…

2. The Beach: A Beach. Approximately any Beach will do.

How Blue is Your Geyser?

3. Yellowstone National Park: Because I once spent a summer working there pumping gas and it’s beautiful and amazing and seriously, you should go if you haven’t yet.

Digression on Yellowstone National Park and what it is to pump gas when you’re also female and an incomplete list of why that’s a spectacular way to spend one’s summer: (a.) because it’s beautiful and amazing. (b.) because at the very tippy-top of Mt. Washburn, if you time it right, you can watch the sun slide its way down below the horizon in a way it just doesn’t do in the flatness of Indiana. Also, if you time it right, the guy in the observatory tower will invite you in to look at his house/observatory where you will covet his solitude, his view, and his peace for the rest of your born days. (c.) because if you are female and you’re pumping gas because, by law, consumers cannot pump their own (or at least, couldn’t, back in the day) you will invariably get the better end of the argument that ensues when Mr. Women-Should-Be-Barefoot-and-Pregnant pulls up to the pump and throws a right old hellfit because a girl shouldn’t and couldn’t be doing that sort of thing. And when you pop the rebellious sod’s hood and check the oil, the ensuing purple-faced apoplexy is highly enjoyable to watch. (d.) because you haven’t lived until someone’s asked you “When do they feed the animals?” or “Where are the cages for the bears?” or “What time do they let the animals out for the day?” or “How come Old Faithful is late?”/”What’s the schedule for Old Faithful?”/”Do they turn Old Faithful off at night?” and (e.) because walking the geyser boardwalks in the moonlight will restore your faith in Something (even an amorphous something) in a way that little else could ever do. And (f.) you don’t know how big the sky is until you’ve looked at it from the mountains.

I spent my vacation at the gas station.

4. The Lake House:  (Yes, she’s still on about that.) Because there’s simply nothing for it; the soul wants what the soul wants and what it wants most of all is still—always—to sit on the dock for weeks on end and stare at the water until the world rights itself. Best of all, to have friends and family, with infinite amounts of time in quiet and lake-scented air on the sun porch with laptop and books and space…You’ve got to hand it to lake houses—they haven’t the space for anything that really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, or at least the good ones don’t, and the good one is the only one I need.

Trois Choses Pour Tuesday (erm, Mardi)

Posted on by
Reply

More Stuff Other People Said

“No one has yet won an election in the United States by lecturing America about limits, even if common sense suggests such homilies may be overdue.” Simon Schama

Obama “says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers—did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did! It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people!” Mitt Romney

“If Congress isn’t going to do anything to protect the U.S. economy and the Federal Reserve isn’t going to do any more to protect the U.S. economy then, yes, we are at the mercy of what happens in Europe and in China and in other parts of the world. But that is because we have chosen to be at their mercy. We are not helpless. We’re just acting like we are.” Ezra Klein

“Self-reliance and teamwork are not opposing virtues. We must have both.” Bill Clinton, 1996 Inaugural Address

“The truth is that, as technological societies become more advanced they have bigger government because they can afford it. And to the extent that government is public investment in public goods, including education of a skilled workforce, then it pays for itself through higher economic growth in time.” Michael Lind, who also points out that countries spending as much as 50% of GDP on government are frequently as  or more economically competitive than the U.S. while Third and Fourth World countries typically spend far less on government as a percent of GDP than does the United States.

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself…she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.” Thomas Jefferson

By the Numbers

1—Liter of water required to grow one calorie of food. (U.S. State Department)

4—Percent reduction in the number of violent crimes reported in 2011 from the number reported during 2010. The number of property crimes declined by 0.8% in the same period. (FBI; USAToday)

80—Percent of economics experts, including the director of the CBO, who agree that unemployment rates in the U.S. were lower at the end of 2010 than they would have been without the 2009 stimulus. (Washington Post; University of Chicago Booth School of Business)

13,000—Number of public sector jobs  lost in the U.S. during the month of May. Private sector jobs increased. (MSNBC)

6 Million—Amount spent annually by Virginia to protect the city of Norfolk alone from the rising sea levels of the Atlantic Ocean. (MSNBC)

76.8 Million – Dollars raised by the Republicans for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in May.  $60 million dollars were raised in that month by the Democrats for President Obama. (CBS News)

3.1 Billion—Dollar amount of solar cells the U.S. purchased from China in 2011. This equals more than half the American market for these devices. (U.S. Department of Commerce; Washington Post)

Miss Otis Regrets

“Dear Emerald Orange, I can’t help but notice that your normally lame blog has become increasingly inane. You seem to have nothing to say except to repeat the media droppings that others have left behind. What gives? Are you even trying? Love, Blog Reader”

Dear Blog Reader: Yes, yes, I am very trying (chortle), ask anyone. What gives? Lots of what I suppose could be termed “life,” which has made it difficult to post anything approximating original (although I did create a nifty table for the Indiana 9th District Race; like, from scratch and everything). And in fairness, I never claimed Emerald Orange would be anything but lame. So there. But I regret the blog has become nothing but “media droppings” of late. So, if anyone would like to relieve Emerald Orange from the quote-and-numbers doldrums, feel free to ask a question or heck, guest post. Just send an e-mail to emeraldorange@live.com, or throw a comment in, and presto-change-o, Better Blog. Much thanks. Love, Michelle. (Although, if your guest post is offensive or, heaven forfend, spam, you have no chance of appearing on my lame little blog. XOXO, BFF 4-Ever.)