Thursday, May 31, 2012

Judge blocks enforcement of Florida Republican voter suppression law


The Brennan Center for Justice has reported that a federal judge has issued an order today BLOCKING the enforcement of key provisions of a law Republicans passed to make it difficult for groups like the League of Women Voters to conduct voter registration drives in Florida.  This from the Brennan Center:

A federal judge blocked enforcement of key provisions of a restrictive voting law in Florida today, a breakthrough victory for Florida voters and voting rights advocates nationwide.

The law, H.B. 1355, included onerous restrictions on community-based voter registration drives, forcing the League of Women Voters of Florida and other groups to shut down their drives. In his decision, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle found that the Constitution and federal law prohibit most of Florida’s recently-passed restrictions, and highlighted the law’s impact on the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

“Together speech and voting are constitutional rights of special significance; they are the rights most protective of all others, joined in this respect by the ability to vindicate one’s rights in a federal court. … [W]hen a plaintiff loses an opportunity to register a voter, the opportunity is gone forever,” U.S. Judge Robert L. Hinkle wrote in his opinion blocking most of the Florida law. “And allowing responsible organizations to conduct voter-registration drives—thus making it easier for citizens to register and vote—promotes democracy.”


BREAKING NEWS: Edwards NOT GUILITY

The jury found Edwards NOT GUILTY on one of the six counts and mistrial on other counts.  


Listen to the Attack Democrat on talk radio


Click here http://www.blogtalkradio.com/powerful-patient/2012/05/31/getting-things-done-in-washington or below to listen to my interview on the Powerful Patient talk radio show today where I discuss health reform and the future of the Affordable Care Act.

Listen to internet radio with Powerful Patient on Blog Talk Radio

BREAKING NEWS: Federal Court declares Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional


The U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston today struck down as unconstitutional Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines a marriage as a union of people of opposite sexes. The plaintiffs claimed it was discriminatory because federal benefits were denied to same-sex couples married in Massachusetts.  The court agreed deciding that the Act unfairly denies equal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.


Church members applaud as 4-year old sings gay-bashing song.


The good members of the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle in Greensburg, IN gave a standing ovation to a four year old as he sang ‘Ain’t No Homos Going To Make It To Heaven’.  I’m not kidding.  We’ve made some progress on civil rights and just plain decency in this country but it is stuff like this that reminds us we still have a very long way to go.



Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Does Romney’s proof of citizenship meet birther standards?


Birthers have repeatedly questioned Obama’s citizenship.  One line of argument is Obama produced a “Certificate of Live Birth” as proof that he was a natural born citizen, not a “birth certificate.”  See the following typical birther rant:

Personal message from a reader dated Oct. 28, 2008:
[T]he Obama campaign did finally present a document which they claimed validated his eligibility (per the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section I) as a "Natural born citizen" to have his name on the ballot in contention for the office of the President of the United States of America. However, contrary to what the few media outlets who are giving this outrageous claim any attention at all have concurred, what the Obama campaign supplied was not, in fact, a "birth certificate". What they supplied was actually a "Certificate of Live Birth." There is a major difference between a "birth certificate" and a "Certificate of Live Birth." Aside from the level of detail differentiating the documents (hospital of record, doctor, height, weight, etc) - in the state of Hawaii, one authenticates natural born citizenship, and the other doesn't.

Now Romney has come forward with his own proof of citizenship.  So, let’s compare the two.  

Oh, my.  Has Romney produced a "Certificate of Live Birth" rather than a "birth certificate?"  Looks like it.  Hey, birthers.  You got another problem here.




Obama is the most moderate president


Republicans portray Obama as being a radical liberal, if not outright socialist.  So, how liberal is Obama compared to other U.S. presidents?  As it turns out, Obama is pretty much a moderate.

In a recent study, political scientists Keith Poole and Christopher Hare at the University of Georgia examined roll call votes in Congress in which the sitting president expressed clear support or opposition for a specific bill to determine how liberal/conservative presidents were in their policy positions going back to Truman.  See here for an explanation of the methodology: http://www.voteview.com/dwnomjoint.asp

Poole and Hare determined that “President Obama is the most moderate Democratic president since the end of World War II, while President George W. Bush was the most conservative president in the post-war era.”

The chart below and here http://voteview.com/blog/?p=317 shows the ranking of ranking of all presidents since Truman.

Check it out.  Obama is just about as much a liberal as Ike was a conservative.


Listen to the Attack Democrat on national talk radio

The Attack Democrat recently appeared on the Small Business Advocate Show with Jim Blasingame.  Listen below:


How much should the federal government get involved in our lives?


Should the federal government have done more to stimulate the economy?

Is Facebook REALLY worth only $7.50 per share


Keith Fitz-Gerald, Chief Investment Strategist, Money Morning has run the numbers and says Facebook is really worth only about $7.50 per share, not its $38 IPO price or its current price under $30 (off nearly 25%).  See http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120529-713253.html  How does Fitz-Gerald arrive at his $7.50 figure?

As my good friend Barry Ritholtz pointed out recently, both Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) and Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) debuted at about 15 times earnings. Today they trade at 13.6 and 18.2 times earnings and 3.75 and 4.9 times sales respectively.  As I type, Facebook's market cap is $86.84 billion and its price to sales is ridiculously high at 21.01. I think that's way out of line.

So what should the numbers be?

Try this on for size. If we use Google's price to sales ratio of 4.9 (and I am being generous here for discussion purposes), that equals a total market cap of $20.24 billion or 76.68% lower than where it's trading today.  With 2.74 billion shares outstanding, that's equal to only $7.39-$7.50 per share.

Read Fitz-Gerald’s complete analysis here: 
http://econintersect.com/b2evolution/blog3.php/2012/05/29/facebook-top-valuation-should-be-7-50

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Are the super-rich REALLY job creators? No.


Republicans argue that taxes on the super-rich should be kept low or even made lower because the rich are, they say, the true job creators.  Republicans don’t really offer any evidence for this claim for a good reason.  There isn’t any.  As it turns out, wealthy individuals rarely invest much of their wealth in job creation.

Paul Buchheit at Common Dreams summarized the facts about the investment habits of the super-rich in a recent post. 

Marketwatch estimates that over 90% of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), the stock market, and real estate. According to economist Richard Wolff, about half of the assets of the richest 1% are held in unincorporated business equity (personal business accounts). The Wall Street Journal notes that over three-quarters of individuals worth over $20 million are invested in hedge funds.

Angel investing (capital provided by affluent individuals for business start-ups) accounted for less than 1% of the investable assets of high net worth individuals in North America in 2011.

The Mendelsohn Affluent Survey confirmed that the very rich spend less than two percent of their money on new business startups. The last thing most of them want, apparently, is the risky business of hiring people for new innovation...

CEOs, upper management, and financial professionals made up about 60 percent of the richest 1% of Americans in 2005. Only 3 percent were entrepreneurs…

In fact, the very rich may not care about U.S. jobs in any form. Surveys reveal that 60 percent of investors worth $25 million or more are investing up to a third of their total assets overseas. Back home, the extra wealth created by the Bush tax cuts led to "worst track record" for jobs in recorded history. The true American job creator, as venture capitalist Nick Hanauer would agree, is the middle-class consumer.

Read Buchheit’s complete post here: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/29-1

Bottom Line: If we really want to help the job creators, we should stop worrying about the marginal tax rate paid by the top 1%.  We should focus on LOWERING the tax burden of the middle class.  And, we should be INVESTING heavily in education, infrastructure, and other programs to expand the middle class and make upward mobility once again a reality for those at the lower end of the income scale. 

Evidence: Republicans largely to blame for the dysfunctional Congress


Accept in rare cases, it no longer seems possible for members of Congress to reach bi-partisan agreements on how to solve major policy issues.  Most of us assume that bi-partisanship has become nearly impossible due to the ideological (conservative/liberal) polarization of the parties and the sharp decline in the number of moderate Congressmen and Senators.  Now we have empirical evidence not only that the parties have become more polarized but that most of the movement toward ideological purity that has made Congress largely dysfunctional has occurred in the Republican Party, particularly in the House and largely since the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s.

A group of political scientists from Princeton and the University of Georgia have published an analysis of party polarization.  They find it is real and asymmetrical as the charts at the end of this post show.

The researchers note that both parties have contributed to the polarization with Democrats becoming more liberal and Republicans more conservative.   However, most of the Democratic Party movement to the left “is a product of the disappearance of conservative Southern “Blue Dog” Democrats… [while] the northern Democrats of the 1970s are ideologically indistinguishable from their present-day counterparts.”   They continue “we should be careful not to equate the two parties’ roles in contemporary political polarization: the data are clear that this is a Republican-led phenomenon where very conservative Republicans have replaced moderate Republicans and Southern Democrat…Moreover, the rise of the “Tea Party” will likely only move Congressional Republicans further away from the political center.”

Bottom line:  If you want to know why it has become increasingly difficult to get things done in Washington, look to the Republican Party.  Republicans carry most of the blame for making the U.S. Congress, and American government in general, increasingly dysfunctional.  The solution is simple—Vote Democratic.  Turn the Republican extremists out.  Send a message to the GOP that it must return to the mainstream of American politics if it wishes to win elections.

The charts providing graphic evidence of the Republican Party movement to the extreme Right follow or you can view them at this link as well as read the complete analysis by the political scientists: http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494


Monday, May 28, 2012

The horror of a Romney victory


In a recent post, Ezra Klein gave us a preview of what to expect should Romney win the White House.

Because it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which Romney is elected and Republicans don’t hold the House and win control of the Senate, Republicans wouldn’t be stymied by Democratic opposition. They would have the votes to pass their agenda. True, they won’t get a filibuster-proof majority of 60 in the upper chamber, but Ryan’s budget is, well, a budget, which means it could be passed through the budget reconciliation process -- and couldn’t be filibustered. To enact a radical change of direction, Republicans need only a simple majority of votes.

So, what kind of radical change of direction would we likely see?  Klein says:

We don’t have to pore over every decision Romney made in Massachusetts to discern what he would do in Washington if elected. Romney and the Republicans in Congress have explained exactly what they intend to accomplish -- and their plans are remarkably in sync.

The budget prepared by Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, and the Romney campaign’s general-election platform look quite similar. Both would cut taxes while flattening the tax code. Their Medicare-reform plans look similar; Ryan even modified his original draft to make it look more like Romney’s, which allows seniors to choose between traditional fee-for-service Medicare and private options. Their plans to increase defense spending are alike, as are their plans to cut domestic spending and to turn Medicaid, food stamps and other safety-net programs over to the states.

In other words, a Romney victory will mean the end of the progressive income tax with even more tax breaks going to the super rich; the end of Medicare as we have known it; the end of Medicaid, food stamps and other safety-net programs; and drastic cuts in domestic spending in a host of other programs that would have a significant impact on just about every American whose family income placed them among the bottom 99%. 

A Romney victory is a horror story of the first order.  A Romney in the White House will mean that Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party and extreme Right nut cases will have the freedom to dismantle more than 100 years of socially responsible public policy.  We would be returned to the pre-and early1900 years where labor was exploited and the aged and infirm were cast aside so that a very few could become extremely rich.  Our country would be set on a dangerous course. 

Working and living conditions for most Americans in the closing years of the 19th century and first years of the 20th century were so bad Americans increasingly considered abandoning Capitalism altogether and embracing Socialism, Communism, or something even more radical.  The Progressive Movement of the early 20th Century saved Capitalism by offering Americans relief from the most severe hardships free market Capitalism brought and the hope of sharing in the prosperity regulated Capitalism could bring.  Legislation adopted from the early 1900s through the 1930s made it possible for Americans at all income levels to enjoy unprecedented prosperity and a steadily rising standard of living.  With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the hopes and dreams of average Americans began to fade as Republicans gained increasing power and equity and equal opportunity gradual gave way to inequality and most favored status for a few.  The election of Romney will bring an end to any hope of 90% of Americans for a future.  We will see a revival of the conditions of the early 20th century.  And, this time, there be no Progressive Movement strong enough to save us.

 Read Ezra Klein's post here:

Saturday, May 26, 2012

The times they are a changing for Gays


There is GOOD NEWS for the country.  Attitudes toward gay marriage have changed dramatically over the last 10 years.

Pew Research has released an analysis of survey data on Americans’ attitudes toward gay marriage going back to 2003-2004 which shows that support for gay marriage has increased dramatically in the last nine years across all groups, old and young alike  Forty-six percent of Americans now FAVOR same sex marriage, up from just 32% in 2003-2004.  A decade ago, Pew could not find a single demographic with majority support for gay marriage.  Now, it finds majority support among the young, women, college graduates and those with some college, upper income groups and Americans living in the Northeast or West.  Majority opposition to gay marriage is now concentrated among the elderly (over 65), men over 50, Southerners, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Americans with less than a high school education.  Even among those groups only bare majorities now oppose gay marriage.  The definite trend among all groups is a decline of opposition to gay marriage and an increase of support for same-sex marriage.

You can see more on Pew’s analysis including a detailed breakdown of the results by group here:  http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/23/changing-views-of-gay-marriage-a-deeper-analysis/?src=rss_main

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Romney’s REAL record on jobs is lousy


Romney likes to talk about his job creation record citing thousands of jobs he supposedly “created” while at Bain.  As numerous fact checkers have reported, Romney’s job claims are based upon dubious accounting and trickery.  See here: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/romneys-shaky-job-claims/ and here: http://go.bloomberg.com/political-economy/2012-05-17/fact-checking-romneys-jobs-stats/ 

Additionally, as many have pointed out, Romney’s role at Bain was to create profits for investors, not create jobs.  As Joe Biden and others have pointed out Romney’s experiences at Bain have little relationship to the job of a president.  As Biden put it, “Working In Private Equity ‘No More Qualifies You To Be President Than Being A Plumber’”

Of course, Romney was Governor of Massachusetts which seems a lot more relevant.  So, what was Romney’s job creation record while serving as Governor?  Andrew Sum and Joseph McLaughlin at the Center for Market Studies at Northeastern University examined Romney’s record while Governor back in 2007.  They concluded that Romney’s economic and jobs record while Governor of Massachusetts was horrible.

Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country.

On all key labor market measures, the state not only lagged behind the country as a whole, but often ranked at or near the bottom of the state distribution. Formal payroll employment in the state in 2006 was still 16,000 or 0.5 percent below its average level in 2002, the year immediately prior to the start of the Romney administration. Massachusetts ranked third lowest on this key job generation measure and would have ranked second lowest if Hurricane Katrina had not devastated the Louisiana economy. Manufacturing payroll employment throughout the nation declined by nearly 1.1 million or 7 percent between 2002 and 2006, but in Massachusetts it declined by more than 14 percent, the third worst record in the country.

While the number of employed people over age 16 in the United States rose by nearly 8 million, or close to 6 percent, between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed residents in the Commonwealth is estimated to have modestly declined by 8,500. Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents. The aggregate number of people 16 and older either working or looking for work in Massachusetts fell over the Romney years.

We were one of only two states to have experienced no growth in its resident labor force. Again, without the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina on the dispersal of the Louisiana population, Massachusetts would have ranked last on this measure. 

Check out the graphic below from the Sum/McLaughline article or see it here: 
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/29/romneys_economic_record/


More Evidence: Obama best on fed spending


Yesterday, I posted a chart prepared by Rex Nutting at MarketWatch showing that, contrary to recent Republican rants, President Obama has actually done a better job of controlling the growth in federal spending that his predecessors, including Reagan and both Bush 1 and 2.  Now there is more proof. 

Politifact did some factchecking of its own.  As the following two charts show, Obama’s record is not just better than that of Reagan, GW, and Bush 1 but it is the best of EVERY president going all the way back to Eisenhower in 1953.  In fact, in inflation-adjusted terms, Obama has presided over a DECLINE in federal spending, a record matched only by Eisenhower in the 1950s. 

See the Politifact charts below or here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/


Average % increase in spending—Actual, not adjusted for inflation






















Average % increase in spending--Adjusted for inflation



Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Which president increased spending the most?


You’ve probably heard the Republican rant about Obama’s runaway spending.  So, what’s the truth?  Which president increased federal spending the most?  Was it Obama, Clinton, Bush I, Bush II or Reagan?  You may be surprised to learn that rather than being a spendthrift, actually Obama has done a much better job at slowing the growth of federal spending than any of his recent predecessors, even if you count the stimulus.  According to Rex Nutting at Market Watch, federal spending under Obama has increased at an annual rate of just 1.4% and, adjusted from inflation has actually declined.  That’s a better track record on spending than Reagan, Bush I, GW, or Clinton.  Check out the facts here:

And in the Nutting’s chart below:


Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Romney’s job creation skills—Great video.


So, what do former Republican presidential hopefuls think of Romney’s job creation skills?  Watch this video of what they had to say during the campaign below or here: http://youtu.be/2fJhF6uctfM
  

Labor force participation—Who are the drop outs?


As you probably know the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% last month due to a drop in the labor force participation rate to 63.6%, the lowest point since December 1981  So, what age group has left the workforce?  Could it be that baby boomers are just retiring early?  Apparently not.

Matthias Shapiro at Wall Street Pit took a look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics labor participation rates for different age groups since January 2008.  He finds that the largest drop in labor force participation since January 2008 is among 16 to 19 year-olds, followed by 20-24 year-olds. Young people are either staying in school or giving up on finding a job if they have little education. Biggest gains have been among 60 year-old plus, particularly 65-69 year-olds, who are continuing a long-term trend of delaying retirement or seeking to continue to work full or part-time into their seventies or beyond.



Thursday, May 17, 2012

UPDATE: Latest forecast 2012 election


Here are the latest updates of forecasts for the 2012 election

President: 

Election Projection has Obama leading Romney by 68 electoral votes 303 to 235.  270 votes are required to win.  EP gives Florida to Romney and Ohio and Virginia to Obama.

Real Clear Politics has Obama with 243 electoral votes to 170 for Romney with states with 125 electoral votes including Florida (29), Ohio (18), and Virginia (13) too close to call.

Senate:

Election Projection estimates that Republican would win control of the Senate if the election were held today with 51 seats to 47 seats for Democrats with 2 Independents.

House:

Election Projection estimates that Republicans would retain control of the House with 246 seats to 189 for Democrats.


See the complete projections here:




Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Which party REALLY creates jobs?


Which party is the TRUE job creating party?  You may be surprised to learn that, in spite of what Romney says, more jobs have been created with Democrats control the White House.  That’s the finding of a new analysis by Bloomberg.  Since 1961, 42 million jobs were created under Democratic presidential administrations but only 23.9 million when Republicans held the White House. 

Bottom line:  If your concern is about who can create the most jobs, you have your answer.  Vote Democrat.



Thursday, May 10, 2012

Obama and marriage equality--Smart move

There has been a lot of discussion about Obama's announcement that he was comfortable with marriage equality.  Some think it will cost him votes in key battleground states like Ohio.  That may be true but I'm not so sure.  It could be a brilliant move.

Obama's announcement has been received enthusiastically by key supporters such as gays and youth.  His decision further energizes his base and, given Romney's response, provides a clear distinction between old, backward-looking, exclusionary Republican policies and a modern, dynamic, forward-looking, open, expansionist Democratic policies.

Additionally, like abortion, women's rights and a host of other social issues, Obama has placed himself and the Democratic Party on the right side of history.  More importantly for the 2012 election, Obama has diverted news coverage from the economy to the issue of marriage equality.  That may be the type of discussion extremist, right-wing social conservatives want to have, but it is definitely NOT a topic that fits with Romney's strategy.  Romney wants to talk about the economy and nothing else.  Any time spent on discussing social issues takes him off message.  That's good for Obama.

So, Obama did the right thing--for the Democratic Party, for the country, and his re-election prospects.  Smart move.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

A warning sign for Capitalists

What's wrong with this picture?


As this chart from Talking Points Memo and the Economic Policy Institute shows, until about 1980 when the Republicans and conservatives took control, the hourly compensation of American workers increased almost in lockstep with productivity.  American workers shared in the productivity gains that came from their willingness to work hard and to assist in the introduction of new technology.  In the 1980s, the Ayn Rand zealots took over.  Since then, workers have been treated as a barely necessary evil and unworthy of having a share in the future.

Capitalism works and can survive only when everyone---workers, managers, and owners—share in the financial and other rewards that Capitalism can bring.  When Capitalism stops working for any group, then it is in trouble.  We had better start thinking about how we can bring the hourly compensation of American workers back in line with productivity.  Otherwise, we are destined for big trouble.

See chart below or here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/40-years-of-workers-left-behind-chart.php


Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Disappointing job numbers


The ADP National Employment Report for April released today contains disappointing job news.  Analysts expected employment to grow by 170,000 in April.  ADP is reporting that only 119,000 new jobs were created.  As the following table prepared by Steven Hansen of Global Economic Intersection shows almost all of the growth was in small and medium size businesses and in the service sector.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics will be released on Friday and often differs, sometimes considerably, from ADP estimates.  However, this news from ADP is NOT good news for the country or Obama and the Democrats.  More here: http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/  and  


Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Unhappy with Congress? Blame the Republicans.


If you are unhappy with our dysfunctional Congress, don’t blame the Democrats.  Blame the Republicans because they created the mess. And, they did it on purpose.

In their new book, “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” political scientists Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein write:

Today’s Republicans in Congress behave like a parliamentary party in a British-style parliament, a winner-take-all system. But a parliamentary party — “ideologically polarized, internally unified, vehemently oppositional” — doesn’t work in a “separation-of-powers system that makes it extremely difficult for majorities to work their will.”
These Republicans “have become more loyal to party than to country,” the authors write, so “the political system has become grievously hobbled at a time when the country faces unusually serious problems and grave threats. . . . The country is squandering its economic future and putting itself at risk because of an inability to govern effectively.”
Today’s Republican Party has little in common even with Ronald Reagan’s GOP, or with earlier versions that believed in government. Instead it has become “an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition . . . all but declaring war on the government.”

Mann and Ornstein blame Newt Gingrich for creating the modern radical Republican Party:  His eagerness “to paint . . . his own institution [when Democrats controlled it] as elitist, corrupt and arrogant . . . undermined basic public trust in Congress and government. . . . His attacks on partisan adversaries in the White House and Congress created a norm in which colleagues with different views became mortal enemies. . . . He helped invent the modern permanent campaign, allowing electoral goals to dominate policy ones. . . . One has to look back to Gingrich as the singular political figure who set the tone that followed.”

My hope is that American voters will vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party in this year’s elections to send a message to Republicans that they must move back toward the center and return to governing rather than just obstructing if they wish to remain a viable force in American politics.


Mann and Ornstein quotes in this post are from the Post article.