Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Forecast Manager for the New England Economic Partnership and economist with the New Hampshire Center for Policy Studies Dennis Delay says the state is set to gain all the jobs lost in this recession by early 2012. He also says that this recession, saw less job loss in the state than the recession of the late 80s and early 90s. During that recession, Republicans were in charge and Judd Gregg was Governor. It was not as severe or as deep nationwide as the present one left by Bush & Co. in 2007-08 when New Hampshire had a Democratic Governor and Democratic majorities in both chambers of the state legislature.
"The economic recovery is surprisingly broad-based," Delay said. "We've gained in manufacturing, construction, professional and business services, retail trade; we've seen job gains in government.
Unemployment in the state peaked at 7.1 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis in February 2010 and declined to 5.5 percent in September. The state is expected to release the October rate later today.
The present good news is being brought to you by Democrats. The policies and steady stewardship of the House and Senate over the last four years mitigated the recession's effect here.
We'll see whether it will be maintained, and who takes/gets credit in the event of success.
Over the course of the past couple of weeks we've been talking about how the War On Social Security was about to get under way and what happens when countries choose to privatize their systems.
Today we take on another bite-sized chunk of economic analysis: how can you get to a situation where Social Security is financially stable for the next 75 years?
We'll describe some proposals that are out there-but the big focus of this conversation will be to look at one change that, all by itself, could not only solve the entire funding problem, but could actually allow us to lower the Social Security tax rate, immediately, and still achieve fiscal balance.
"Well, if that's such a bright idea" you might ask, "why haven't we adopted it already?"
That's a great question-and after you hear the proposal, you may well have explanations of your own.
"Obama's deficit is bankrupting the country. His taxes and spending are out of control. The answer to the economy? Just lower taxes". This is the story every Republican is telling. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but there is only one set of facts. Here they are, straight from the budget itself and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO -- packaged conveniently for you to forward to your fact-challenged friends.
The fiscal 2010 deficit will be about $1.4 trillion. Where does it come from? Not financial bailouts. TARP (which, it is hard to remember, was enacted under Bush with the full and aggressive support of the entire Republican leadership: McCain, Palin, Boehner, McConnell and Gregg) plus relief to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage companies was actually $32 billion in the black in 2010, thanks to so many banks paying back their loans with interest. Not the auto industry bailout (which also began under Bush), which is now estimated to cost a total of no more than $12 Billion, and then there is the likelihood that the government will make a big profit from the GM public offering. Health care reform had a negligible effect on the budget in 2010, and is actually projected to decrease the deficit over time as the cost-cutting measures take force.
The biggest culprit by far is the economic downturn, which cost $455 billion in lost receipts and increased cost of existing safety net programs like unemployment and food stamps. We can all have opinions as to whether the Republican policies were good or bad, but the fact is that the economy collapsed under Bush's watch, after 8 years of Republican-dominated policy, and has been too slowly but steadily improving under Obama.
The Bush tax cuts cost $336 billion in 2010 (and by the way, if they are extended, will cost a total of $4.8 Trillion over the next 10 years). The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $191 Billion, and Bush's Medicare drug plan cost $68 Billion in 2010. Obama's stimulus packages cost $412 Billion in 2010. The Republicans all claim it was a failure, but look at the facts: Often ignored is the fact that the single biggest part of the stimulus (38% overall, a much higher proportion in 2010)) was tax relief - mostly for individuals as payroll tax credits and a reduction in the Alternative Minimum Tax. And the non-partisan CBO estimates that in the second quarter of calendar year 2010, it raised real gross GDP by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent, lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points and put 3.3 million people to work. Those are calculations based on fact, not political opinion.
So the fact is that without the effects of Bush's economic collapse and the stimulus it fostered, his wars, tax cuts and Medicare expansion, Obama's policies alone would have yielded a budget surplus in 2010. Even if you argue that the spending part of the stimulus was unnecessary and keep only the tax cuts, they plus the Bush-era economic collapse and programs alone represent about 90% of the deficit. These are the facts. It's just arithmetic. Nothing here to argue with.
Is Obama's spending out of control? Obama's total 2011 spending proposal is up 3% over 2010. There are increases in defense, homeland security and energy research. 50% of the remaining departments saw their budgets cut. By comparison, Ronald Reagan's 1985 budget increased 11%. G. W. Bush's last budget increase was 18%. Even his first budget - before 9/11 happened - was up 8%.
What about pork? What about some perspective. The total cost of all earmarks in fiscal 2010, from all senators and members of congress combined, was $15.9 Billion. As bad as they are, earmarks add up to less than one half of one percent of the budget, only 1% of the deficit. What if we eliminate some of the Tea Party's favorite targets? Department of Education? 1.3% of the budget. EPA? Less than one-third of one percent of the budget. The fact is that 81% of the budget goes to mandatory programs (social security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt- nothing Obama or the current congress has anything to do with) plus the departments of defense and homeland security, where the Republicans are pushing to spend more, not less.
The total public debt is about $13.4 trillion. Where did it come from? Obama has added about $1.5 trillion to it so far. The total debt was $5.8 trillion before Bush's first budget and $11.9 trillion after his last - so he added $6.1 trillion. Clinton added $1.4 trillion over 8 years and ended up with a surplus. Bush 41 added $1.6 Trillion, and Reagan almost tripled the debt from when he took office, adding $1.9 trillion. So 93% of the debt that has been added in the last 30 years has been added by Republican administrations. Those are just the facts.
Finally, the Republicans complain that Obama's taxes are too high, and that we should reduce taxes to increase job growth. There is lots of political opinion, but absolutely no evidence that further tax cuts for the wealthy will spur employment. Remember that Obama actually decreased taxes substantially in the stimulus, and has proposed decreasing them further on small businesses this year. In fact, taxes are right now just about as low as they have been in decades. Throughout the 1950's, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. By the 70's, it dropped to 70%. Reagan dropped it to 33%, it was 40% for most of the Clinton years, and it is currently 35%. Our biggest boom years, under Eisenhower and Clinton, were when taxes were higher, and when taxes were dropped, under Reagan and Bush, we had economic stagnation. The nonpartisan CBO just analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest "bang for the buck," because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.
I just wonder what the Republican candidates would say if their opinions and rantings were challenged with these facts. It's unfortunate that we never get to see that.
It is not that America is out of ideas. We know what to do. We need massive public spending on jobs (infrastructure, schools, parks, a new WPA) along with measures to widen the circle of prosperity so more Americans can share in the gains of growth (exempting the first $20K of income from payroll taxes and applying the payroll tax to incomes over $250K, for example).
The problem is lack of political will to do it. The naysayers, deficit hawks, government-haters and Social Darwinists who don't have a clue what to do would rather do nothing. We are paralyzed.
Here in New Hampshire, the evidence of recovery is clear. Unemployment is now lower than it was on Inauguration Day 2009, at a level 40 percent below the national average. Much progress has been made, but there is still so much more to do.
Is it true?
Yup. In January 2009, the US was in fiscal freefall from the disastrous consequences of George W. Bush's and Republican economic policies. Obama rolled up his sleeves and got to work, even as the Bush legacy jobless rate continued to spike all around the country.
We've got a long way to go, but thanks to the leadership of President Obama, Senator Shaheen, Reps. Shea-Porter and Hodes, and Governor Lynch, New Hampshire is now just under the jobless rate when Democrats regained control of the levers of power.
For our prosperity going forward, much depends on the choices we make. For example, every Republican running for US Senate in New Hampshire wants to eliminate the remaining resources of the Recovery Act money. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office demonstrated clearly that this would be an exercise in job killing.
Supporters of that stimulus strategy say the short term borrowing pales relative to the economic free-fall that would result if Congress sat on its hands. But Gregg disagrees.
"When the Congress is on vacation, you're actually a little safer than when we're in session," he said Friday. "We're just spending too much. We've got to slow the spending down if we're going to get this government under control."
Gregg has at least one admirer. Van Susteren likened the New Hampshire Republican to a modern-day Cassandra. "When all is said and done," she said, "don't blame Senator Gregg because [he's] been saying this for quite some time."
I've read Cassandra, Greta. I've taught Cassandra. Senator Gregg, you are no Cassandra. More Agamemnon, really:
The first seal of approval was going after Ann Kuster for going after the Bush tax cuts. The second is that they didn't put her rebuttal online, saving it for yesterday's dead tree only version.
Good thing Annie has her own website for her own words:
I support permanent middle class tax relief instead of extending Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Apparently that position is enough to prompt an accusation of "economic illiteracy" from this newspaper.
...Frankly, this isn't a partisan debate. My opponent in the Democratic primary, Katrina Swett, supported the Bush tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and now the escalation in Afghanistan. And while I am proud to have widespread support from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, I am equally proud that so many Independents and open-minded Republicans are already standing with me in this campaign. They recognize that the reckless spending of politicians like Congressman Bass made a mockery of the fiscal restraint for which the Republican Party was supposed to stand.
...If that belief earns me some name-calling from the defenders of George Bush's policies, so be it.
Matching jobs with clean energy, and doing it right here in New Hampshire. And Annie Kuster has a plan to get us there. One part of it involves ending the corporate welfare that oil and nuclear companies get - to the tune of 65 billion dollars. Kuster:
"These are not the jobs of tomorrow - they are the jobs of today," said Kuster. "New Hampshire is already emerging as a leader in the area of clean energy technologies, so smart investments now can result in thousands of good jobs from Nashua to the North Country."
"Instead of continuing massive tax subsidies for the big oil and power companies, which Congressman Bass voted for repeatedly in Congress, we need to invest in safe, renewable technologies right here in New Hampshire."
Full release, including details of the plan, below the fold. Or you can click the link.
Our Carol is always finding innovative ways to help the rest of us. This one is a uniquely patriotic way to assist American productivity.
In short, Shea-Porter wants to ensure that federal agencies are complying with the FDR-era Buy American Act, which "requires the US government to give preference to US made products when making purchases."
I'm sure the wingers will find some way to turn this attempt to favor the Made in the USA brand into a socialist plot, but for now, you can find the "free media" full release, as well as text of the bill, below the fold.
I clicked on this diary on Daily Kos this morning, surfing the web and drinking my coffee, looking forward to week of vacation, even if spent catching up, visiting Social Security about my coming retirement and celebrating the birthday of my sightless and autistic brother who is lucky enough to live in MA, where our family has been supported by decent, if not elaborate, services for him.
Since I had been sharing info on local food on Facebook just before that, I started to think about agriculture, and what if's.
Robert Reich had a very good article in The Nation this past week. The former labor secretary pointed out that just before the Great Depression, income inequality had reached a zenith that could not support the economic system in the US. The richest 1% of Americans had accumulated 23.9% of the total income in the US, and, according to Reich, it was unsustainable. After the crash, through a series of progressive public policies, the disparity decreased until by the mid-70's, the top 1% had 8% to 9% of the income. Want to guess where we are today? Here's Reich from the article:
Consider: in 1928 the richest 1 percent of Americans received 23.9 percent of the nation's total income. After that, the share going to the richest 1 percent steadily declined. New Deal reforms, followed by World War II, the GI Bill and the Great Society expanded the circle of prosperity. By the late 1970s the top 1 percent raked in only 8 to 9 percent of America's total annual income. But after that, inequality began to widen again, and income reconcentrated at the top. By 2007 the richest 1 percent were back to where they were in 1928-with 23.5 percent of the total.
The Bloomberg poll(pdf warning) released yesterday was interesting in that it highlighted where the advantage is for Democrats this election cycle. The economy is painfully slow in recovering and people feel it.
71% of respondents believe we're still in a recession and by almost a 3-1 margin (70-28), respondents believe it is more important to reduce unemployment than to reduce the deficit. Dems would do themselves a big favor by not running scared from the deficit hawks. There's also interesting results on SS. Don't mess with SS, raise the cap on FICA.
The economy stinks, people are out of work, and someone will pay. Probably Dems - but I'd like to see a coordinated effort to hammer the Republicans on this. Unless people feel that their concerns are being addressed, they will be punishing pols in November.
New data show that the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest parts of the population in 2007 was the highest it's been in 80 years, while the share of income going to the middle one-fifth of Americans shrank to its lowest level ever.
The CBPP report attributes the widening of this gap partly to Bush Administration tax cuts, which primarily benefited the wealthy. Of the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts taxpayers received through 2008, high-income households received by far the largest -- not only in amount but also as a percentage of income -- which shifted the concentration of after-tax income toward the top of the spectrum.
..."If income growth had been shared equally among all income groups, the families at the bottom would have $6,000 per year more than they do now, and the middle would have $13,000 more," he said.
In my humble opinion, this gap is not nearly wide enough. What really needs to be done to keep the dirty plebs away from the beautiful people is Austerity.
We need to debone federal and state services further, strip jobless benefits from the unemployed, widen the deficit by making the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest permanent, raise your Social Security retirement age while trimming the benefits, loosen up regulation on the Banksters and the polluters, and repeal that deficit-reducing health care bill that would have finally made insurance affordable for you.
Do I have the basic GOP plan down, or am I missing anything?
It'll be so awesome if Republicans gain national and/or state congressional majorities in November so that they can get right to work on this.
And if you stay home in November because you were not delivered your own personal pony by Hope and Change, they will, along with a steady stream of impeachmentesque subpoenas from Darrell Issa.
To be serious for a second: everyone reading this knows at least five normally non-political friends who nevertheless voted in the presidential election (I should know, I used to be one of them). The time to reach out to them is now, not three months from now.
CW says (and yes, I think this is true even outside of dirty hippie land) that US Senate GOP nominee from Nevada Sharron Angle is a Crazy Person, for example:
"You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job but it doesn't pay as much. We've put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry."
And then you have Judd Gregg, whom CW dictates both here and nationally to be a Very Serious Person (He's even on the Catfood Commission, he's so Very Serious!), for example:
Because you're out of the recession, you're starting to see growth and you're clearly going to dampen the capacity of that growth if you basically keep an economy that encourages people to, rather than go out and look for work, to stay on unemployment.
So, what's the daylight between those two statements, anyway?
The one he grew up in, not the one he helped create:
John Boehner grew up in an America ruled by FDR's Democratic majority. I grew up in an America ruled by Ronald Reagan's Republican majority. The America he grew up is already "snuffed out." I doubt he will ever realize that it was people like him who did the snuffing.
That's the end of this scathing, sad, and all too accurate diary. I really wish I knew what John Boehner thinks the America he grew up in was like.
Earlier this morning, after a great pancake breakfast with more than 200 supporters, I officially filled out the paperwork to become a Democratic candidate for the US Senate.
I want to thank those of you who joined me this morning at the Statehouse. Not only was it a truly humbling show of support for Peggo and me, but it was also a great sign of things to come as we get close to November 2.
This is post #3 on immigration reform on the eve of the Immigrants Rights Rally. This rally is a yearly event organized by the NH Alliance for Immigrants and Refugees. As Eva Castillo, the NH AIR director, said today, this year it has a special urgency due to the horrible bill against immigrants in Arizona. We will stand up against the hate and stand for immigration reform. Click here for post #2 and here for post #1.
So many new developments abound on immigration reform in recent days, it's definitely been hard to keep up with them all. So, for the sake of brevity and for your own research purposes, I'm going to post links to a variety of news for you to choose on your own. Less editorializing from me = more deductions and information-gathering by you? That's my hope.
NH STATE SENATE & OUR PRESS CONFERENCE
Our organization - Reform Immigration FOR America - held a press conference yesterday. The Speakers were former Ambassador George Bruno, former NH GOP Party chair Fergus Cullen, Eva Castillo, Sarah Chaisson Warner of NH Citizens Alliance, John Young of the National Agriculture Council for Immigration Reform, and Carlos Cardona, a school board member from Franklin. Fergus has a very compelling story:
Cullen told the story of his own parents, who immigrated to America from Ireland. Cullen's parents came to America in the 1960s so his father could do a medical residency at a Boston hospital. At the time, foreign doctors were eligible for the draft, and Cullen's father served for a year in Vietnam rather than return to Ireland. In the 1970s, Cullen's parents became citizens.
Cullen said that in the last presidential primary, the Republican candidates with the most extreme views on immigration were largely ignored.
"There is support for comprehensive immigration reform, and it's not something we should put off for another election," Cullen said.
Many immigrants seek U.S. citizenship by time served in service with our military. President Obama first spoke out about Arizona's actions during a swearing in ceremony for new citizens who served in our military, risking their lives for a country that was yet to accept them as a member.
Also yesterday, HCR22 - a pro-comprehensive immigration reform resolution - passed the NH State Senate Judiciary Committee and moves on to the full State Senate. If it passes, that means that both bodies of the NH General Court calls on Congress and the President to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform. And that's awesome. So look for that on Wednesday.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Today Mayor Bloomberg said that our nation is "committing national suicide" if we don't pass immigration reform. He understands what this means to our economy and to our families. He gets it!
"We have to get real about the 12 million undocumented here," the mayor said. "We're not going to deport them. Give them permanent status. Don't make them citizens unless they can qualify, but give them permanent status and let's get on with this."
.....
He called on President Obama to lead the fight to overhaul the nation's immigration rules. "I will be there behind him supporting him 100%," he said.
Bloomberg long has been a supporter of immigration reform, saying current law deters international companies from sending employees through border hassles to work in the U.S. - and freezes out the highly skilled immigrants America needs.
Yeah, Mayor Bloomberg! You are welcome to the Granite State at any time!
So, Arizona's Governor signed that crazy "show your papers" bill into law, underscoring the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Without federal action, the President and the Congress should expect a whole lot more of these misguided and extreme state based laws. The federal government needs to stand up and lead and fulfill their responsibility to lead on immigration. We don't need anymore band-aid fixes for our broken immigration system - NH urgently needs comprehensive immigration reform this year.
Think that can't happen in NH? Folks have actually already tried. Remember what happened in New Ipswich? Or in Hudson? Did you know that there was even a similar resolution by Reps Ulery and Renzullo, but it was turned on it's head by State Rep. Kris Roberts earlier this year? Despite still having the anti-immigrant State Representatives names on it, the resolution is now
headed for the State Senate's Judiciary Committee this week. Spare one small segment, our group supports this resolution, as it now urges comprehensive immigration reform.
Comprehensive immigration reform is a much better fix for America, as it gives a pathway to citizenship to undocumented immigrants (that isn't an amnesty), accounts for a future flow of immigrants, eliminates bureaucratic backlog of visas and citizenship applications, and accounts for enforcement.
