Obama's Pay Freeze Helps Keep Frivolous Tax Cuts

Yesterday President Obama called for a two year pay freeze for federal workers, estimated to save the government up to $6 billion a year for the next ten years.*  This bit of preemptive capitulation hasn't pleased anyone, angering the President's supporters while emboldening his detractors who believe that the pay freeze is merely a first step. President Obama gave up this negotiating chit the day before meeting with Repulican leaders in their "Slurpee Summit."

I think this pay freeze is terrible policy for several reasons, especially with the dire state of our economy.  Using the projections of the President's economic team, this pay cut will cost the country 25,000 private sector jobs over the next two years. Despite what Eric Cantor and the Republicans may say, federal employees currently earn 22% less than their private sector counterparts according to the 2009 Office of Personnel Management report.



How can we expect the government to do a better job than it is currently doing when we don't even want to pay the employees a fair wage?  How can we expect to retain the best people we currently have when they are now more open to recruitment to fill jobs in the private sector?** 

Meanwhile, the President still seems determined to allow the tax cuts to be extended permanently*** costing the country $370 billion per year.  He's covered the 2% the cost of these tax cuts with this middle class pay freeze... how will he cover the other 98%?

In 2012, President Obama will be running for his reelection, and the right will have two new memes to press in their campaign.  "President Obama wants to increase the pay of federal workers and raise your taxes."  Follow this up with equally untrue stories about his $2B trip to India, lack of birth certificate, and Muslim faith, and we'll be looking at a serious GOP tea party in November.

____
* I have seen some conservative commentators wondering how a 2-year freeze can equal ten years worth of savings, I can see how it'd be difficult to accept that not getting a raise this year will make the raises in the future relatively smaller.

** This fits into the long-term plan of the Republicans to shrink the federal government and hand it over to the private sector; as the best employees leave, the quality of work will drop, which tends to feed into more cuts/firings, which tends to lead to private contractors filling in at a much higher cost.

*** There's no doubt in my mind that if they are extended for even a year that they will be extended permanently when they come up to expire next.  If we can't allow them to expire with our large current majorities, what possibility will we have in 2011 or 2012?

Rep. Bob Inglis and the Difficulty of Being Reasonable

One of the casualties of the Tea Party craze sweeping the nation was South Carolina Republican Bob Inglis.  Inglis had a moderate/conservative voting record (based on contemporary US politics) but lost a primary challenge to a Tea Party candidate, after a lot of noise regarding his votes on TARP and other "liberal" programs.

Inglis has come out recently criticizing the leadership of the GOP, ridiculing such nonsensical positions as the "birther" issue as well as climate change denial.  I applaud him for being willing to stand up to this portion of his party, rallying behind the basis of scientific consensus and facts.  He said his party is arguing against global warming "(b)ecause 98 of the doctors say, 'Do this thing,' two say, 'Do the other.'"  This is a good thing to hear from someone on the right, even if it is someone who was defeated in his primaries and will be replaced by a farther-right partisan in January.

A few thoughts come to mind after reading about Rep. Inglis.  First off, why is it that only Republicans are covered in the press discussing the nonsensical nature of climate change denial?  Is it that they are the only ones standing up to say these things?  Or is it a matter of the press only wanting to report those who go against the grain?  I suspect it's the latter... there's no "news" in a Democrat standing up and defending the science of climate change, but when a politician stands against his party, even in the defense of overwhelming scientific consensus, it's more newsworthy.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, why do we feel that reasonable discussion and debate will change the mind of those so strongly opposed to our positions?  When someone like Rep. Inglis stands up against the partisan nonsense that has come to control the Republicans, he is shouted down as a sore loser by those on his side.  On the few issues that Inglis worked with Democrats, he is reviled by his fellow party members for being weak.

How do we liberals expect to have our voiced heard when even conservatives such as Inglis can't get their message across to those who mistrust science so badly?

The Tea Party's Vision for the Future?

I'm not a fan of privatizing many government services.  I can't think of any current government services I would like to see privatized, but then I don't think about that a whole lot.  Whenever I do hear the right suggest that a lot of government should be privatized, I like to ask what specifically they mean.  Should we privatize roads?  The police?*  Fire service?

I can usually make a pretty strong argument against privatizing any of these things, especially as people look at the costs of laying roads or fighting their own fires.  However, the backlash coming from Fountain Hills Arizona's decision to consolidate trash pick-up service shows that privatization of basic services is a fight we'll see more and more.

The decision is expected to save the city of 25,000 over one million dollars a year, as well as add recycling pick-up to a city that currently is without.  They will replace the five companies providing service with one company to serve the entire population, which is expected to reduce noise and pollution as it synchronizes pick-ups across the town.

Tea Partiers have fought this decision by the council, arguing that "trashcare" will eliminate choice and somehow threaten the liberty of the citizens.**  According to AZ Central, a flier was circulated around Fountain Hills with an ominous icon and the phrase, "The Hills Will Have Eyes," and that claimed the "Fountain Hills Green Police" checked residents' garbage and recyclables, and as a result, "you are wanted for questioning." 

Although I strongly disagree, I can understand the Tea Party's argument for "more choice" and even their anti-environmental dislike of recycling, but isn't saving government money part of what drives these groups?  Shouldn't a government agency finding a way to "cut waste" and save a million dollars in a small town budget be a positive thing in anyone's eyes, let alone the "cut government spending"-happy Tea Party?



____

* We've actually seen a lot of this, at least here in Portland, where you see far more private security guys running around on the street than you do police.  These private security cannot, of course, do anything to help the general public (they aren't allowed by their employer) but do help cover the gaps left behind after tax cuts cause budged cuts to public security.

** I wonder, do these same Tea Partiers feel that grocery store employees keeping an eye out for shoplifters are threatening their freedom?  How about gas station employees watching for those who leave without paying for their gas?  Or restaurant managers calling the police on dine-and-dashers?

Boogeyman China Headlines Delusional Anti-Government Ad

A very disturbing ad is making the conservative rounds, featuring a glimpse into a so-called future where China is inexplicably mocking the United States of 2010. I saw this ad over on The Consumer Trap today, where the overt racism is decried. Setting the racism aside (I can't imagine any self-respecting actor of Chinese descent signing up for this commercial) this ad is full of ridiculous misrepresentations and misdirection.



First off, the presenter suggests that America fails because they "turn their back on the principles that make them great." I don't disagree with this basic premise, we're in a lot of trouble right now because we've done exactly that, turning our back on the principles of the 20th century that saw us rise to world prominence. From 1936 to 1980, our top marginal tax rate was at least 70%... during this time America became the industrial and manufacturing powerhouse that won WWII and lead the technological revolution for the world. We turned our back on this progressive tax code in the 1980s, and the massive tax cuts of 2001 continue to ravage our economy today.

Unfortunately, this isn't what the message is in the commercial. As an example of the "turning our back" idea, they list the US Stimulus package, and refer to it as "so-called" and "massive". This idea is ridiculous on the surface, as China enacted a much larger stimulus package at the same time as ours (representing 1/6 of China's economic output), 38% of which was directed toward infrastructure improvements.

The ad also decries the health care overhaul of the Obama administration, a convenient talking point of the right, which is entirely out of context when comparing our industry-oriented reforms to China's state-based free insurance. If the right's suggestion that Obama has made US health care state-run were true, wouldn't the Chinese applaud this change to something more similar to theirs?

Finally, the commercial makes the point that US debt is largely owned by China. While this is partially true (they hold 20.6% of our outstanding foreign debt) they own less of us than Japan and the UK combined, neither of which would take a pro-US stance versus China. On top of this, a large majority of our debt is held domestically, with foreign debt making up less than $5 trillion of the $13 trillion debt. The implication in the ad, of course, is that Obama and progressives are somehow responsible for China holding our debt, when a majority of our outstanding debt was accumulated under President Bush. Not to mention that China holds a smaller percentage of our debt today than they did at the beginning of the Obama administration.

Unfortunately, none of these facts are convenient for the anti-tax anti-spending message of the commercial, and it's not likely people will go to the work of researching this information for themselves. It's much easier to ignore the facts and stir up emotions when people are justifiably afraid that our country has fallen behind in many areas. This commercial, sadly, blames the very things that could help us catch back up with China and the world.

Blogging to Restore Sanity

I've been a fan of The Daily Show for many years. I've long been a critic of the media and their sensationalist bent, and have been particularly disappointed over the last decade as they've slid further and further into a divisive fearful agenda. Jon Stewart (and later Stephen Colbert) have provided me some hope with their satire of these biases in the news over the years, and I was particularly encouraged this fall when I heard of their Rally in Washington.

I wasn't sure what to expect from the rally, other than to see a lot of people get together to enforce the underlying message of tolerance and civility. It was inspiring to see so many people show up (estimates ranged from 150-250,000+) for what was, essentially, a comedy rally asking everyone to play nice.

I watched a couple hours of the rally afterward streaming on CSPAN, and I have to admit I was disappointed in the content. While it was entertaining enough, it wasn't nearly as fun or substantive as I had hoped. Part of my disappointment came from the music-heavy content, but the guests just weren't all that funny or compelling. The "Law and Order" guy reading the poem was OK, but the Myth-Busters at the beginning dragged on needlessly, as did some of the comedy bits. As a daily viewer of both Stewart and Colbert, maybe my expectations were too high.

Regardless, the message of the rally was important and I was inspired to see that so many people across the country are willing to stand up for civil discourse and reason. I attended a satellite rally here in Portland, and was proud to take part with 700 fellow moderate Portlanders. In a rare turn of events, I left my camera at home for this rally, but did bring my video camera and have put together a short video which I've posted on YouTube. It'll be at the end of this post as well.

After attending the rally, and watching the DC rally online, I thought about how I've been trying to remain outside of the debate for the last few years. In 2008 I was reasonably vocal in my support for then-candidate Obama, and I alienated a couple of my conservative friends over the course of the election season. After the '08 election, I felt bad for this divide, and decided that I would tone down my politics in my social networking. As the President took office and started disappointing me with his centrist corporatist approach to governing, I basically gave up on political involvement altogether. Since then, I've been very discouraged by the rise of the far right, whether it be tea party enthusiasts or global warming deniers, but have maintained a basic silence in my political opinions.

With the 2010 election projections hanging grimly over my head, and the hope of seeing 200,000 or so moderates gather in Washington, I've decided I need to share my opinions on these subjects once again. Even if it's just to let off some steam when I see an article that offends me, or to express my frustration at the lack of consideration I see in some online discussions... I just need to get it out. Keeping it inside for the last two years has caused me too many sleepless nights and stomach aches... hopefully, writing things down here will help me keep a sane approach to discourse and prevent my head from exploding after seeing unsubstantiated attacks on the moderate improvements our President is working toward.

I tend to ramble on. Heh. Here's the video I made from the Portland Rally to Restore Sanity, including a motivational speech from Oregon state Representative Jefferson Smith (D-47).