Increasingly over the next few weeks, if you haven't already heard or seen political advertising for primary races in the 2014 midterm elections, we can almost guarantee you will. Avoiding being bombarded in that kind of situation will be like trying to handle snakes without getting bitten - a task crazy snake-handling preacher Jamie Coots just proved isn't exactly realistic.
In short, the 2014 election races have begun.
While the data-driven accurate political journalism of both Nate Silver's new team, and Ezra Klein's new group aren't yet ready for the 2014 elections, there is already some data - both scientific and anecdotal - that's already available. In short, for both Democratic and Republican politicians, the information we're seeing now could have some serious bite for this fall's elections, if the data continues through this fall as it is now.
To start with, Congress' current job approval rates, for both Democratic and Republican politicians, is still hovering near it's worst levels ever. To most thinking people, that level of disgust might spur members of Congress to pass a nearly universally popular bill, so they had some kind of achievement to sell voters come next autumn - for example, raising the federal minimum wage.
Conveniently, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report on Tuesday that focused on what the impact would be of raising the federal minimum wage. The result was positive, if not a bit confusing.
The report effectively showed that if the economy continues its sluggish upward trend, a national minimum wage increase would likely help more than 16 million Americans, and would bring nearly a million working Americans out of poverty. There would be a price though, as a relatively small number of Americans - around 500,000 - would find their income go down. They might even lose their jobs.
According to a Gallup poll this week, though, unemployment and underemployment are considered the number one problem for all Americans. A Federal minimum wage increase would help solve the underemployment problem, and if Congress would actually do things to help improve the economy, it's likely any economic drag from an increased minimum wage could be cancelled out by significantly greater economic growth.
Immigration reform is also a high priority for Americans right now - and as another Gallup poll confirmed, those Americans in favor of reform now equal the number who only want border enforcement. Immigration reform has also been proven to improve the economy, something even sane conservatives admit when they're being honest.
In short, Americans want more jobs, better paying jobs, and immigration reform, all items that Congress could help provide in the run-up to the fall elections.
However, as Robert Costa reported on Monday, Republicans in Congress have effectively said they can't handle voting on any major legislation this year - like immigration reform - for fear of angering their extremist base. Even if members of Congress intellectually wanted to pass the bill, as Greg Sargent has been saying for over a year, Republican leadership simply doesn't have the will to do what the majority of Americans want.
As the growing number of Congresspersons and Senators deciding not to run for re-election this year proves, it must really bite right now to be a member of Congress.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Fat, Dumb, And Unhappy
From the asinine statements of Sam Zell, who recently claimed the rich just work harder, to the crybabies of affluenza like Tom Perkins who insist people like him should have more votes because they have more money, to the Kappa Phi Beta club that New Yorker writer Kevin Roose discovered in 2012, never have we seen in modern America more wealthy people so detached from reality.
History, in fact, has several examples of similar times, though. The 1920s in the United States were such an example - before Black Tuesday, when the gutless yet instantly un-wealthy couldn't handle reality and threw themselves out of windows on Wall Street. The rein of Louis XVI of France was another similar period, just before the guillotines made short work of the clueless wealthy.
As the billionaires themselves revealed to Kevin Roose, and as Ryan Cooper has been highlighting over at Greg Sargent's Plum Line recently, the paranoia of these "one-percenters" has revealed more than just their insecurity. It's also revealed the dangers of inequality once again.
It all boils down to what a history teacher we once knew called "The F.D.H. Rule" - or "Fat, Dumb, & Happy Rule": If you've got far more than you'll ever need, don't be an idiot. Be happy and don't whine about how unfair your life is to the people you're taking your extra portions from. Today, we might even call it the "Slim Shady" rule: Don't piss off the people making your onion rings at Burger King.
That more Americans than ever are taking second, or even third minimum wage, fast food jobs just to bridge the basic income gap to a living wage, puts the lie immediately to the ravings of fat cats like Sam Zell about who is working harder. As Matt Bruening of Demos pointed out on Monday, the selfish rich overwhelmingly think they're deserving of every benefit, while the rest of society can go to hell.
That the UAW vote failed by a slim margin in Chattanooga, Tennessee the other day - after questionably legal outside influence by Republican Sen. Bob Corker - makes the counterintuitive point that not every working American believes he or she deserves a living wage for a hard day's work.
As E.J. Dionne pointed out on Monday, that very anti-American mystery isn't an idea that springs naturally from the Republican Party. Raising the minimum wage to a living wage level promotes many ideas Republicans have traditionally belived in: Reducing the cost of social welfare programs, fostering economic growth, strengthening families, and promoting hard work as a way out of poverty.
When push comes to shove, as it obviously did recently for one-time tea party hero 'Joe the Plumber' Wurzelbacher, even the extremists on the right head for the fair rewards of union work and more appropriate wages over the 'just take any job at any wage, shut up, and like it' meme that Republicans have been seriously pushing for the past few years.
As Ryan Cooper also pointed out on Monday, in a consumer-based economy like the U.S., the economic incentives government can use to help goose the economy into a stronger position aren't just for the wealthiest "job creators". They're also for those who consume the products and services that keep everyone else afloat.
If the members of the one percent want to truly prove they are better than everyone else, they shouldn't be fighting against simple economic incentive programs like raising the minimum wage. They should welcome and even support the change in policies to help those at the other end of the economic scale.
That the one-percenters are terrified of competing on a truly balanced playing field tells us - and the rest of the world - their braggadocio is just hollow talk from people who'd be wise to follow the old F.D.H. Rule.
History, in fact, has several examples of similar times, though. The 1920s in the United States were such an example - before Black Tuesday, when the gutless yet instantly un-wealthy couldn't handle reality and threw themselves out of windows on Wall Street. The rein of Louis XVI of France was another similar period, just before the guillotines made short work of the clueless wealthy.
As the billionaires themselves revealed to Kevin Roose, and as Ryan Cooper has been highlighting over at Greg Sargent's Plum Line recently, the paranoia of these "one-percenters" has revealed more than just their insecurity. It's also revealed the dangers of inequality once again.
It all boils down to what a history teacher we once knew called "The F.D.H. Rule" - or "Fat, Dumb, & Happy Rule": If you've got far more than you'll ever need, don't be an idiot. Be happy and don't whine about how unfair your life is to the people you're taking your extra portions from. Today, we might even call it the "Slim Shady" rule: Don't piss off the people making your onion rings at Burger King.
That more Americans than ever are taking second, or even third minimum wage, fast food jobs just to bridge the basic income gap to a living wage, puts the lie immediately to the ravings of fat cats like Sam Zell about who is working harder. As Matt Bruening of Demos pointed out on Monday, the selfish rich overwhelmingly think they're deserving of every benefit, while the rest of society can go to hell.
That the UAW vote failed by a slim margin in Chattanooga, Tennessee the other day - after questionably legal outside influence by Republican Sen. Bob Corker - makes the counterintuitive point that not every working American believes he or she deserves a living wage for a hard day's work.
As E.J. Dionne pointed out on Monday, that very anti-American mystery isn't an idea that springs naturally from the Republican Party. Raising the minimum wage to a living wage level promotes many ideas Republicans have traditionally belived in: Reducing the cost of social welfare programs, fostering economic growth, strengthening families, and promoting hard work as a way out of poverty.
When push comes to shove, as it obviously did recently for one-time tea party hero 'Joe the Plumber' Wurzelbacher, even the extremists on the right head for the fair rewards of union work and more appropriate wages over the 'just take any job at any wage, shut up, and like it' meme that Republicans have been seriously pushing for the past few years.
As Ryan Cooper also pointed out on Monday, in a consumer-based economy like the U.S., the economic incentives government can use to help goose the economy into a stronger position aren't just for the wealthiest "job creators". They're also for those who consume the products and services that keep everyone else afloat.
If the members of the one percent want to truly prove they are better than everyone else, they shouldn't be fighting against simple economic incentive programs like raising the minimum wage. They should welcome and even support the change in policies to help those at the other end of the economic scale.
That the one-percenters are terrified of competing on a truly balanced playing field tells us - and the rest of the world - their braggadocio is just hollow talk from people who'd be wise to follow the old F.D.H. Rule.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Monstrous Potential
If the news of the potential merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable didn't have you angry last week - regardless of whether you receive any service from either corporation - it should.
To say the resulting union would simply be an ugly little monster reaching for your wallet would be like saying King Kong was just a little misunderstood monkey. This disastrous merger would actually be more like the 1976 movie "Network", come to life in a terrifying new way.
The cable and telecom oligopoly in the United States is already a perfect example of how modern so-called conservatism is just another smokescreen for the corporatocracy of Wall Street. As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston noted in his 2012 book, "The Fine Print" our cable and telecom companies have carefully worked around the law to make sure they don't truly have to compete with one another.
On the rare occasion when someone like the city of Chattanooga decides to buck that trend, and create real competition - as they did in 2006 - the private sector can't keep up - so they try to win in court. Thankfully, for Chattanooga, Comcast failed in their attempts to shut that whole thing down.
Sadly, Comcast, Time Warner, and the other telecom companies have broadly succeeded in their goal to prevent real competition across America. As a result, America has some of the slowest internet speeds in the developed world, at some of the highest prices.
John Cassidy wrote last week in The New Yorker, "It’s the predictable outcome of Congress bowing to the monopolists, or quasi-monopolists, and allowing them to squelch potential competitors." In other words, this monster corporate baby grabbing at our wallets and purses isn't some kind of rare accident.
As Time Warner Cable's relatively new CEO confirmed just three months ago - when he denied a merger would happen - the merger between the two companies wouldn't be to improve internet speeds, quality of service, or move into new areas. It would be "100% driven by what’s in the best interest of our shareholders." Those shareholders may be seriously disappointed in short order, though. After all, the combined Comcast/Time Warner corporation would control 57% of all cable subscribers, and would far and away have more phone and internet customers than any other U.S corporation.
As Daniel Gross of The Daily Beast noted, why would Comcast improve when they could just buy Time Warner, and sit on their ass?
The fact that both Comcast and Time Warner have a long and embarrassing history of poor customer service, and that a combined company would likely be even worse hasn't escaped notice. Satirist Andy Borowitz blasted the potential merger in his regular column last week in a piece that would be funny, if it might not truly be an example of the future.
Some Americans may think they'd be immune to the effects of this merger, especially those who use satellite TV and only have cell phones for internet. As Farhad Manjoo of The New York Times points out, they'd be wrong though. The joining together of Time Warner and Comcast - along with the recent decision by a federal appeals court to effectively kill net neutrality - could affect everyone.
In short, with nearly two-thirds of the cable, phone, and internet traffic under its control, Comcast could effectively hold the nation hostage to any pricing demand it wanted. Since Comcast also owns all the networks of NBC, it's highly unlikely you'd hear anything other than corporate-sanctioned propaganda in favor of the merger on any of their stations.
Rep. Anna Eshoo of California has promised to put forward a a bill in the U.S. House to make sure the FCC could continue to keep the internet open and equal. However, we don't think we have to remind either her or you that the House is controlled by Republicans, who frankly, like the CEO's of both Comcast and Time Warner, seem to only have the best interests of Wall Street on their minds, as The Nation's John Nichols reminds us all.
If you've been waiting for a signal to get involved in politics?
When your next cable bill skyrockets through the roof, as the monsterous cable and telecom companies grab for your wallet? We'd say that's a pretty big signal that now's the time.
To say the resulting union would simply be an ugly little monster reaching for your wallet would be like saying King Kong was just a little misunderstood monkey. This disastrous merger would actually be more like the 1976 movie "Network", come to life in a terrifying new way.
The cable and telecom oligopoly in the United States is already a perfect example of how modern so-called conservatism is just another smokescreen for the corporatocracy of Wall Street. As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston noted in his 2012 book, "The Fine Print" our cable and telecom companies have carefully worked around the law to make sure they don't truly have to compete with one another.
On the rare occasion when someone like the city of Chattanooga decides to buck that trend, and create real competition - as they did in 2006 - the private sector can't keep up - so they try to win in court. Thankfully, for Chattanooga, Comcast failed in their attempts to shut that whole thing down.
Sadly, Comcast, Time Warner, and the other telecom companies have broadly succeeded in their goal to prevent real competition across America. As a result, America has some of the slowest internet speeds in the developed world, at some of the highest prices.
John Cassidy wrote last week in The New Yorker, "It’s the predictable outcome of Congress bowing to the monopolists, or quasi-monopolists, and allowing them to squelch potential competitors." In other words, this monster corporate baby grabbing at our wallets and purses isn't some kind of rare accident.
As Time Warner Cable's relatively new CEO confirmed just three months ago - when he denied a merger would happen - the merger between the two companies wouldn't be to improve internet speeds, quality of service, or move into new areas. It would be "100% driven by what’s in the best interest of our shareholders." Those shareholders may be seriously disappointed in short order, though. After all, the combined Comcast/Time Warner corporation would control 57% of all cable subscribers, and would far and away have more phone and internet customers than any other U.S corporation.
As Daniel Gross of The Daily Beast noted, why would Comcast improve when they could just buy Time Warner, and sit on their ass?
The fact that both Comcast and Time Warner have a long and embarrassing history of poor customer service, and that a combined company would likely be even worse hasn't escaped notice. Satirist Andy Borowitz blasted the potential merger in his regular column last week in a piece that would be funny, if it might not truly be an example of the future.
Some Americans may think they'd be immune to the effects of this merger, especially those who use satellite TV and only have cell phones for internet. As Farhad Manjoo of The New York Times points out, they'd be wrong though. The joining together of Time Warner and Comcast - along with the recent decision by a federal appeals court to effectively kill net neutrality - could affect everyone.
In short, with nearly two-thirds of the cable, phone, and internet traffic under its control, Comcast could effectively hold the nation hostage to any pricing demand it wanted. Since Comcast also owns all the networks of NBC, it's highly unlikely you'd hear anything other than corporate-sanctioned propaganda in favor of the merger on any of their stations.
Rep. Anna Eshoo of California has promised to put forward a a bill in the U.S. House to make sure the FCC could continue to keep the internet open and equal. However, we don't think we have to remind either her or you that the House is controlled by Republicans, who frankly, like the CEO's of both Comcast and Time Warner, seem to only have the best interests of Wall Street on their minds, as The Nation's John Nichols reminds us all.
If you've been waiting for a signal to get involved in politics?
When your next cable bill skyrockets through the roof, as the monsterous cable and telecom companies grab for your wallet? We'd say that's a pretty big signal that now's the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)