Priorities

There was a small bit of consternation the other day when Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl mused on how extending unemployment benefits was an affront to God because it added a minuscule amount to the debt and was not "paid for" by spending cuts or tax increases. He then went on to note, unironically, that of course there was no need to offset $678 billion that would be added to the deficit because of extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, because... mumble mumble rich people free market trickle down Reagan freedom pony.

Nakedly stating that there would be no pennies for the peasants unless it was paid for (and even then his party would almost unanimously oppose) while stating at the exact same time that he'd willingly OK nearly 200 times the deficit addition as long as it went to rich white guys, seemed particularly galling to some. Surely this isn't what the GOP really believes or, at least, this isn't what they'd publicly admit to believing while cameras were rolling, right? Wrong.

"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

Really? No evidence? Not one egghead with a protractor and slide rule that says otherwise? No greatly respected nonpartisan think tank that deals with tax issues and budgetary matters that has done a study and come to the opposite conclusion and maybe even put it into chart form so as to make it more easily understandable?


What? It's almost like the reality of a situation is the diametric opposite of what Republicans are saying it is. This has never happened before. Surely we must mark this event on our calendars for it is as rare as a unicorn and as precious as a child's love.

So we're clear: adding $5 bucks to the deficit so all the people who are suffering in this economy, largely because of your economic policies and blocking of any measures to change the status quo, can have just enough money to survive makes you taste vomit in your mouth, but adding near a trillion dollars to the deficit with tax cuts that helped damage the economy in the first place so some guy with a monocle can get the ivory package on his new Maybach makes the angels in heaven sing.

That sounds about right. Besides, those unemployed people might be rich someday through the magic of trickle down economics, so they want their unemployment benefits cut to pay for the tax cuts they'll get when they're rich, right? Right.

Compassion

Right now unemployment is hovering around 10% and businesses aren't hiring. What's the problem? In his efforts to seem like the most self absorbed, uncaring prick not currently working for BP, Rand Paul decided to tell us what the problem was. Lazy peasants.

In an interview with WVLK-AM in Lexington, Kentucky on Friday, Paul told host Sue Wylie he supported the Republican filibuster last week of more than $100 billion in emergency spending that includes extended jobless benefits. Paul said the bill must be paid before the extension is voted into law -- and if that can't happen, it's time for America's unemployed to face facts and stop holding out for jobs similar to the ones they've lost.

"As bad as it sounds, ultimately we do have to sometimes accept a wage that's less than we had at our previous job in order to get back to work and allow the economy to get started again," he said. "Nobody likes that, but it may be one of the tough love things that has to happen."

Paul also suggested that regardless of whether the benefits could be paid for with cuts somewhere else, it might be time for some people to just stop asking for government aid.

"I think the issue is bigger than unemployment benefits." Paul said, referring to government spending. "It's all about priorities, what is the priority. And sometimes tough decisions will have to be made."

Ah yes, because the main problem in this jobless recovery is that people are sitting at home, looking at dozens upon dozens of valid job offers and are saying to themselves "Weeeeeeeell, this doesn't pay me quite as much as I'm used to. I think I'll just choose to be unemployed longer. You know, because unemployment benefits are so generous." It's a matter of people sucking up their pride, not a matter of no jobs. And if anyone is qualified to tell them that, it's a rich Republican whose entire income is predicated on taking government money.

And really people, grow up and stop taking government handouts. Sure it way seem like a king's ransom living on welfare or unemployment, getting at most a couple thousand a year and barely being able to afford to live. But what's more important: eating and shelter or living by the libertarian code of principles that Rand Paul himself refuses to live by?

I think we've been taught an important lesson here: if you would just give up those government benefits and actually have a desire to work... which 10% of this country obviously doesn't, you'll get a job regardless of the hiring situation in the country or the state of the larger economy. Because of magic. Thanks for the tip, Rand. Good luck on your quest to use your father's name to move from government Medicare payouts to just a direct government salary. Boy, you're sure teaching all those lazy assholes out there a lesson.

Nice to see you back from vacation, Michele

Last night, during the President's insubstantial, maddeningly vague, afraid to take a serious position on energy legislation, wet fart of a speech he did offer up one concrete idea: BP sets aside billions to a third party who can quickly and competently deal with paying out claims to those disaffected people of the Gulf who inexplicably still fucking love offshore drilling.

To most people this sounded like a smart idea. BP isn't a claims handling service, so let some entity that is properly equipped to do so handle that task and let BP get back to what it does best: blocking media access to oil spill areas and not fixing an undersea geyser of oil. But to Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, this is a clear sign of one thing and one thing only: the icy black hand of Stalin.

"The president just called for creating a fund that would be administered by outsiders, which would be more of a redistribution-of-wealth fund," said Bachmann. "And now it appears like we'll be looking at one more gateway for more government control, more money to government.
...
"But if I was the head of BP, I would let the signal get out there -- 'We're not going to be chumps, and we're not going to be fleeced.' And they shouldn't be. They shouldn't have to be fleeced and make chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest.

That's right, a third party entity paying out legitimate claims to the thousands upon thousands of people BP fucked over is just a Trojan horse for teh socialisms and teh government control! Tea baggers unite! And as an added bonus she offers a warning to BP not to let them get pushed around by big bad government and all those assholes who think they're entitled not to starve just because BP took away their means of making a living.

Nicely done Michele, way to look out for the little guy. It's heartening to know that even in the midst of a serious environmental and corporate malfeasance crisis, you've bravely hewed to socialist conspiracy theories and the idea that BP is in danger of being the victim here. Those lazy peasants and their complaints about the oil killing all the shrimp. Don't they know BP has dividends to pay out? Stay classy.

Compare/Contrast

$60 billion to extend wars that will seemingly never end and don't seem to provide any benefit to the United States? Come right in Mr. War Spending, sit down, the supermodels will be in momentarily for the orgy.

The U.S. Senate approved a $60 billion war-funding measure as the conflict in Afghanistan has surpassed the Iraq war in annual cost and number of troops.

Senators voted 67-28 for the bill, which goes to the House for consideration next month. The Senate rejected a proposal to require President Barack Obama to submit a non-binding report outlining when he plans to end U.S. involvement in the almost nine-year-old Afghan conflict.

$24 billion for unemployed workers and state aid? Go fuck yourself, peasants. Go dig ditches or die in an abandoned train yard or whatever it is you people do.

anxiety over out-of-control budget deficits led House leaders to drop tens of billions of dollars in spending from a separate catchall bill anchored by an extension of jobless benefits.

Confronted with a rebellion by Democratic Blue Dog moderates, House leaders planned to dump overboard $24 billion in aid to states and allow generous health insurance subsidies for laid-off workers to expire. The changes were an effort to round up votes to extend unemployment benefits and renew more than 50 popular tax breaks that expired last year.

God love the Blue Dog Democrats and their concern over deficits. That is to say their concern over deficits when it looks like that money is going to be spent on actual people who actually need it. When it's billions of dollars being spent of wars or boondoggle defense systems with no plans to pay for them, then the Blue Dogs are totally cool with deficit spending. They just will not suffer an American being extended an unemployment benefit in the worst job market in decades.

Nice to know where our priorities are.

Actual history

Today marks the 20th Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. As such, there are many celebrations, weird puppet shows, and retrospectives celebrating this day when Ronald Reagan told the commies to "tear down the wall" and they we're all like "Yessir, Mr. Freedom, please don't hurt us", had the wall taken down about 15 minutes later, and no one from Europe or Russia or anywhere else had anything to do with it; just Ronnie. Or so I've heard.

But the celebrations have brought many world leaders to Berlin to help commemorate the anniversary. In fact Nicholas Sarkozy has already taken the time to make erroneous claims about his own involvement in the fall of the wall in an attempt to make himself look good. But instead of releasing trite statements about "freedom" and "the world uniting" after the re-unification and wanton wall destruction, some leaders have decided to take a different track on the anniversary. Like Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who is kind of depressed and mad that the wall fell

Dmitry Medvedev is in less celebratory mood than most. He says Russia has often felt on the back foot since the Wall fell, despite assurances at the time that NATO would not expand eastward, as it since has.

“We were hoping the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact would be accompanied by a different degree of Russia’s integration into common European space,” he told Germany’s Spiegel magazine.

“What have we received as a result? NATO is still a bloc whose rockets are targeting the Russian territory."

...yeah...FREEDOM! Why are people so obsessed with celebrating the positives for Germany? Why can't they be more focused on the negatives for Russia? Some people and their priorities.

But for all the joy and remembrance and freedom, I do think we are forgetting something important. Maybe the most important thing that happened during that whole period. Of course I'm referring to David Hasslehoff's legendary performance on the Berlin Wall, where he wore a light up jacket and almost got hit by rockets. How important was it? According to David: it possibly was the reason Germany unified. He's still bitter Reagan is getting all his credit and there isn't a picture of him in the wall museum. So on this, the 20th anniversary, we leave you with the only historical moment worth remembering: HASSLEHOFF!

Chart of the day

Because it's a slow news day for anyone who doesn't want to obsess over the governorship of states they don't live in, we'll look at this interesting chart from Wired Science. It's based around a recent study done in New Zealand that tried to calculate the ecological footprints of our pets. Why? Because eco-snobs need something else to sneer at. Plus, after society collapses large dogs are going to be the new SUV's, compact terriers are going to be the new hybrids, and we'll all cry ourselves to sleep at night, so it's best to figure out classifications and carbon footprints now.

What they did find out is that we use 294 thousand square miles of land to feed our pets in America, roughly bigger than the size of Texas. Now I know what you're saying, "Hey, we've finally found a use for Texas", but it isn't that simple. Since our elected betters, when they aren't busy humping a pile of coal or denying global warming's existence, have recently taken to knocking solar power because of the land it uses, Wired decided to measure how much land it would take to solve all of the United States' power needs using solar. The answer is 16,602 square miles of desert land, or 17 times less land than we use for pet food.

Now I'm sure to the Natalie Portmans of the world, this just means we should burn our dogs for fuel instead of eating them. But I won't eat or burn my dog, Natalie, no matter how hot you are! But this, like the fact that we don't bat an eyelash on spending $680 billion a year on defense (without even factoring in our wars) but have a problem with $90 billion a year for health care, kind of puts a strange face on where Americans place their priorities. Now plow up that solar array, hippie, I'm buying two St. Bernard's.