For The Record: The Dem’s Done Good!

111th United States Congress

• January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-2
• February 4, 2009: Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111-3
• February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111-5
• March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-8
• March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-11
• April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111-13
• May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-21
• May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-22
• May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-23
• May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-24
• June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111-31
• June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111-32
• October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111-84
• November 6, 2009: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-92
• February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111-139
• March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111-145
• March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111-147
• March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111-148
• March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111-152
• May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-163
• July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-195
• July 21, 2010: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111-203
• August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-223
• September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-240
• December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-291, H.R. 4783
• December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-296, S. 3307
• December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-312, H.R. 4853
• December 22, 2010: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-321, H.R. 2965

Sweden Repeats History

During the Great Depression of the 1930′s, Sweden fully embraced Keynesian economics and as a result, only had six months of recession. The United States however went through ten years of the Great Depression, and not until it followed Sweden’s path, and initiated massive deficit spending in preparation for WWII, did it too, finally cross over to prosperity.

Again Sweden’s central bank may set the direction for other policy makers as it looks beyond conventional inflation targets to asset-price growth in an effort to prevent the next bubble.

Riksbank Governor Stefan Ingves has raised the repo rate four times since July even as inflation remains below the bank’s 2 percent target. The increases occurred as house prices move above pre-crisis levels and credit growth hovers near 9 percent. While Sweden raises rates, the U.S., the euro region, Japan and the U.K. are keeping borrowing costs at record lows.

The financial crisis that started more than two years ago was exacerbated by central banks holding rates too low as inflation gauges failed to capture asset-price growth, according to Johnny Akerholm, president of the Helsinki-based Nordic Investment Bank. He says most policy makers are repeating the mistake.

“Rates are low and the central banks are ‘printing money’ while virtually all prices, except the consumer prices in industrial countries, are increasing rapidly.”

Monetary policy should address the threat of financial imbalances and new forecasting models are needed to provide broader gauges of the economy.

Because of its raising of interest rates, Swedish headline inflation has lagged behind the Riksbank’s target since December 2008. Inflation adjusted for mortgage costs will remain below target through 2013, the bank estimates.

The definition of inflation should be broadened. In the past, central banks were focused on consumer prices that were held back by the impact of globalisation. But they didn’t pay much attention to many other prices that were rising rapidly, including the non-traded service component in consumer prices. Low inflation figures let the central banks keep low interest rates, which gave rise to asset price increases and good returns on debt-financed investments. This added to risk-taking.

Bottom line: failure to account for asset-price growth, causes interest rates to remain artificially low, fueling inflation thereby suppressing real growth in the economy… from growing.

Republican Rules Increase Deficit

House Republican leaders yesterday unveiled major changes to House procedural rules that are clearly designed to pave the way for more deficit-increasing tax cuts in the next two years.

The new rules announced December 22 would replace pay-as-you-go with a much weaker, one-sided “cut-as-you-go” rule, under which increases in mandatory spending would still have to be paid for but tax cuts would not.

This increases the deficit.

In addition, increases in mandatory spending could be offset only by reductions in other mandatory spending, not by any measure to raise revenues such as by closing unproductive special-interest tax loopholes.

This increases the deficit.

Use of such an offset would violate the new House rules because the provision expanding the Child Tax Credit for working-poor families counts as spending and hence could not be paid for by closing a tax loophole. Yet the same new rules would enable the House to expand tax loopholes for multinational corporations and wealthy investors without paying for those tax breaks at all, because any tax cut, no matter how costly or ill-advised, could now be deficit financed.

This increases the deficit.

The new rules would stand the reconciliation process on its head , by allowing the House to use reconciliation to push through bills that greatly increase deficits as long as the deficit increases result from tax cuts, while barring the use of reconciliation in the House for legislation that reduces the deficit if that legislation contains a net increase in spending (no matter how small) that is more than offset by revenue-raising provisions.

This increases the deficit.

In the 1990s, when pay-as-you-go rules applied to both spending increases and tax cuts and Congress used reconciliation solely to enact deficit-reduction packages, the country went from large deficits to a balanced budget.

This creates a surplus.

But in the early 2000s, with Republicans controlling Congress and President Bush in the White House, Congress set aside pay-as-you-go and turned reconciliation on its head, using it not to reduce deficits but instead to push through costly, unpaid-for tax cuts in both 2001 and 2003. Previously, reconciliation had only been used for deficit reduction.

This increases the deficit.

The Bush-era tax cuts were a significant factor in the return to large deficits after 2001, contributing $2.6 trillion (including added interest costs on the national debt) to the budgetary deterioration between 2001 and 2010. House Republicans now plan to restore the very type of permissive budget rules that contributed markedly to that fiscal deterioration.

This increases the deficit.

So just in case you didn’t follow the above argument, the new house rules allow for tax cuts, without corresponding cuts in programs. If they spend the same, without receiving income, they have to borrow the money.

This, against all their campaign rhetoric, increases the deficit.
It’s time for a Tea Party revolt… against Republicans!

Electric Sex In The Window…

Today, in Lakehurst, NJ, the Navy announced it allegedly launched an F18 using electromagnetism. Recently, it also announced using electromagnetism to fire a projectile at nearly Mach 8.

In less than 5 seconds, the F18 was airborne. The electric catapult, manufactured by General Atomics, must be delivered to the Newport News Shipyard by this upcoming May, in order to meet the production schedule of the new Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier due to be christened in 2015. Failure of this test, would have caused a redesign to allow the re-installation of the now inefficient old fashioned steam catapults.

With the growing reliance upon electromagnetic technology, comes renewed concern over it’s its functionality in the event of an EMP. The Iranian nuclear crises, exposes this vulnerability. One Iranian missile launch, coupled with a crude nuclear device exploded over it’s own airspace, could blind our Mid-East operations for months to come.

With out capacitors, we could no longer launch planes into the air.

Courtesy of US Navy and General Atomics

Praise For Pakistan

Photo Courtesy of Ramsar

Anyone who has ever been party to a turnaround experience, knows that the bigger parties who’ve invested in such, can be rather impatient awaiting their results.

Often they chime in with well-meant, but ill timed advice.

Turnarounds are not led from the top. They are built from the bottom. It takes time to build a foundation.

That’s why this small important soundbyte, missed across the noise of the globe, is important.

General Petraeus: “We have to be very clear in recognizing what Pakistan has done over the course of the last 22 months, which is quite considerable. They’ve conducted impressive counterinsurgency operations” in several regions, including the Swat Valley, the North West Frontier Province and the tribal regions, Petraeus said. “And they have sustained significant military losses and civilian losses during the course of that time.”

Petraeus insisted that gains already made must be solidified before Pakistan expands its operations to other areas — such as troubled North Waziristan.

“They are the first to recognize that there are groups in there that have to be dealt with over time,” the general said, sitting at the desk of an office set up inside the military plane, laptops keeping him connected to operations across the country.

“But … they’ve got quite a few short sticks and hornets’ nests already, and rule Number 1 of a military operation is don’t start something you can’t finish. And they recognize the need to finish some of the operations they’ve already conducted before launching significant new ones.”

Photo Courtesy of M Atif

One must remember why we’re there. If insurgents are too busy defending themselves from annihilation, they can’t envision, plan, or stage operations like 9/11. Secondary in this fight, is the establishment of a happy Afghanistan. The Soviets failed. The British succeeded. How? They kept a frontier line in Afghanistan, which was never at peace, so the violence never ventured into India (India and Pakistan) which was their bread and butter.

But Pakistan must be recognized for what they’ve done. Is it enough? Yes! Those of us who have done “turn-arounds” see hopeful signs. Nice to see we learned something from Vietnam…

Merry Christmas From Afghanistan

I dare your patriotic tear ducts NOT to swell up a little….

Seasons greetings from CAAT 1, WPNS CO, 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines. (filmed on site at Alpha 1) Merry Christmas!

“Merry Christmas From Afghanistan”

Merry Christmas from Afghanistan, oh man, it’s that time of year,
and the birth of Jesus doesn’t seem to please the terrorists down here;
I’d like to take a moment for you folks at home to make it clear;
Merry Christmas from the Eastern Hemisphere.

Merry Christmas from Afghanistan, way back in the USA,
You’ve got mistletoe and falling snow, we’ve got sandstorms and grenades
But what the hell, it’s just as well we celebrate it anyway,
Merry Christmas from 5,000 miles away.

And I remember many Decembers, sitting ’round that tree,
And now I’m in an outer cordon sitting ’round an IED,
I’ve traded yams and roasted ham for a chicken noodle MRE,
Merry Christmas from out here in the middle east.

So merry Christmas from Afghanistan, from our AO to yours,
I’ll be watching illegal DVDs and defecating out of doors,
Put my pedal to the metal man, I’ll settle for that medal of honor when I win the war,
Single-handedly from my armored drivers door.

Yuletide salutations from our vacation in the sand,
from this E-3 Lance Coolie and up the whole chain of command
Between Al Qaeda, Al Jazeera, Mujahadeen, and the Taliban,
It’s a very merry Christmas in Afghanistan.

From south Montana, to northwest Indiana, to the shores of North Caroline,
From NYC to LA’s beaches and down the Mason-Dixon Line,
It’s that season where we’re freezing, but all in all, we’re doing fine,
So merry Christmas from Afghanistan tonight.
It’s that season where we’re freezing, but all in all, we’re doing fine,
So Merry Christmas down the Final Protection Line!

May God bless and protect our troops serving in this forsaken region of the world. Has a finer group of men ever served? God be with each and everyone of them this Christmas, and forever. Amen.

MythBusters: Down One More

Today appeared this Wall Street Journal op-ed piece: Taxes and the Top Percentile Myth by Alan Reynolds

He uses some data from the kavipsian theory of economics (as well as data I didn’t think to use) to argue against my case that raising the marginal tax rate will benefit the economy. In dong so, I think he helps make the case that I am right. Economies perform better when marginal tax rates are higher.

Here are key lines from his piece:

The ratio of taxes paid to income received by the top 10% was by far the highest in the U.S., at 1.35, compared to 1.1 for France, 1.07 for Germany, 1.01 for Japan and 1.0 for Sweden (i.e., the top decile’s share of Swedish taxes is the same as their share of income).

The large share of income reported by the upper 1% is largely a consequence of lower tax rates. In a 2010 paper on top incomes co-authored with Anthony Atkinson of Nuffield College, Messrs. Piketty and Saez note that “higher top marginal tax rates can reduce top reported earnings.” They say “all studies” agree that higher “top marginal tax rates do seem to negatively affect top income shares.”

What appears to be an increase in top incomes reported on individual tax returns is often just a predictable taxpayer reaction to lower tax rates

the table shows that average real pay among the top 1% was no higher at the 2007 peak than it had been in 1999.

By examining the sources of income Mr. Goolsbee (NYT) chose to ignore—dividends, capital gains and business income—a powerful taxpayer response to changing tax rates becomes quite clear.

The chart shows that the top 1% reported fewer capital gains in the tech-stock euphoria of 1999-2000 (when the tax rate was 20%) than during the middling market of 2006-2007. It is doubtful so many gains would have been reported in 2006-2007 if the tax rate had been 20%. Lower tax rates on capital gains increase the frequency of asset sales and thus result in more taxable capital gains on tax returns.

A near tripling of average dividend income from 2002 to 2007. That can only be explained as a behavioral response to the sharp reduction in top tax rates on dividends, to 15% from 38.6%. Raising the dividend tax to 20% could easily yield no additional revenue if it resulted in high-income investors holding fewer dividend- paying stocks and more corporations using stock buybacks rather than dividends to reward stockholders.

Average business income reported on the top 1% of individual tax returns by subchapter S corporations, partnerships, proprietorships and many limited liability companies. After the individual tax rate was brought down to the level of the corporate tax rate in 2003, business income reported on individual tax returns became quite large. For the Obama team to argue that higher taxes on individual incomes would have little impact on business denies these facts.

If individual tax rates were once again pushed above corporate rates, some firms, farms and professionals would switch to reporting income on corporate tax forms to shelter retained earnings.

As with dividends and capital gains, this is another reason that estimated revenues from higher tax rates are unbelievable.

Figures do show, however, is that if tax rates on high incomes, capital gains and dividends were increased in 2013, the top 1%’s reported share of before-tax income would indeed go way down.

Once higher tax rates cause the top 1% to report less income, then top taxpayers would likely pay a much smaller share of taxes, just as they do in, say, France or Sweden.

In essence, Mr Reynolds from the Cato Institute is proving (with additionally acquired data, thank you) the kavipsian theory to be correct. When you raise the marginal tax rates, you do not get higher taxes; you get money pumped back into the economy. You reinvest in your businesses so you won’t have to pay money on that profit.

I’ve always known I was right; I have all of history backing me up. But still, in a small way, it’s always nice to see an adversary, one respected as the Wall Street Journal, verify that this is so.

” ….. There You Go, Again”

From Politico

Republican Congressional furor followed Tuesday’s 3-2, party-line vote on Genachowski’s plan to adopt basic net neutrality protections for broadband networks. The order will prohibit Internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from blocking access to lawful content and websites. It also prohibits traditional wired broadband providers from unreasonably discriminating against any traffic.

The first calls to roll back the FCC’s new net neutrality order came Tuesday from the House’s most senior Republicans: House GOP Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, as well as the incoming leaders of the chamber’s top tech and telecom committees.

” ….. there you go again…”

The members each threatened to limit the agency’s funds or restrict its jurisdiction in the aftermath of the FCC’s vote, with Boehner proclaiming the “new House majority will work to reverse this unnecessary and harmful federal government power grab next year.”

“…… there you go… again…”

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), soon-to-be chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, later elaborated to reporters Tuesday afternoon that he plans to bring all five commissioners before the panel to discuss net neutrality at “the first hearing out of the box” next year.

” ….. there you go, again…”

He even signaled the possibility that Republicans may pursue repeal through the Congressional Review Act — an avenue that allows members to reject agency rules without threat of filibuster, provided they can secure a majority support against net neutrality.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.),who will lead the Energy and Commerce oversight subcommittee, will outline that Internet regulation is out of the FCC’s jurisdiction and that regulation will hamper economic growth and job creation,” he added, noting he too would pursue a resolution of disapproval next year.

” ….. there you go again…”

“Lee Terry (R-Neb.) : We’ll use everything available to us — so yes, we’ll use Appropriations, we’ll use the legislative process,” he continued. “This is really a war against Congress. … this is a power grab by an agency almost to unheard of levels. So we have a constitutional obligation to fight this order to the death.”

” …. There you go, again.”

My perspective is this. Bottom line, if your own government can’t protect you from your cable and internet providers, … who else will?

Internet Freedom: Under Attack

It is called “net neutrality” — and it’s under attack. Internet service giants like Comcast and Verizon want to offer premium and privileged access to the Internet for corporations who can afford to pay for it.

Those using the internet daily know: the Internet can only work if it’s a level playing field. Small businesses should have the same ability to reach customers as powerful corporations. A blogger should have the same ability to find an audience as a media conglomerate.

For many Americans — particularly those who live in rural areas — the future of the Internet lies in mobile services. But the draft Order would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content, applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections.

For instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it costs money to use and isn’t nearly as good.

Or a mobile provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a Tea Party group in your area).

After all, just look at Comcast — this Internet monolith has reportedly imposed a new, recurring fee on Level 3 Communications, the company slated to be the primary online delivery provider for Netflix. That’s the same Netflix that represents Comcast’s biggest competition in video services.

Imagine if Comcast customers couldn’t watch Netflix, but were limited only to Comcast’s Video On Demand service. Imagine if a cable news network could get its website to load faster on your computer than your favorite local political blog. Imagine if big corporations with their own agenda could decide who wins or loses online. The Internet as we know it would cease to exist.

Instead of a rule to protect Internet users’ freedom to choose, the Commission has opened the door for broadband payola – letting phone and cable companies charge steep tolls to favor the content and services of a select group of corporate partners, relegating everyone else to the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

Instead of protecting openness on wireless Internet devices like the iPhone and Droid, the Commission has exempted the mobile Internet from Net Neutrality protections. This move enshrines Verizon and AT&T as gatekeepers to the expanding world of mobile Internet access, allowing them to favor their own applications while blocking, degrading or de-prioritizing others.

Instead of re-establishing the FCC’s authority to act as a consumer watchdog over the Internet, it places the agency’s authority on a shaky and indefensible legal footing — giving ultimate control over the Internet to a small handful of carriers.

The reality is that reform is just a rhetorical front for industry compromises that reward the biggest players and K-Street lobbyists while giving the public nothing.

Change of Staff

It was announced Monday that Vice President Biden’s deputy press secretary, Annie Tomasini, will leave at the end of the year for a position at Harvard.

Her position will be filled by Amy Dudley, who was the Great Delaware Sen. Ted Kaufman’s press secretary.

The White House gave a brief description

Amy Dudley comes to the White House from Senator Ted Kaufman’s office, where she served as his press secretary. Prior to the Senate, she worked in the public affairs office of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), where she helped to develop media strategies to highlight the organization’s efforts to support and strengthen democratic institutions worldwide. Dudley began her career in Washington as a staff writer for The Hotline, National Journal’s daily briefing on politics, where she covered the 2006 midterm elections and the run-up to the 2008 presidential primaries. A native of Brookfield, Connecticut, Dudley graduated from Colgate University with a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science and Peace and Conflict Studies. :