This week in the same-sex marriage hearing, Justice Scalia wondered aloud if same-sex parents were harmful to children.
Just last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed same-sex couples as parents to children. A pretty big deal, widely reported.
What more evidence does one need to realize how out-of-touch and misinformed Scalia is on many issues? I mean this is inexcusable. He may not agree with the endorsement, but he certainly can't suggest that there does not exist any scientific evidence concluding that same-sex parents may or may not be harmful to children. For the AAP to approve means there exists many years worth of studies proving no harm (and the report has 60 citations).
But as is common with Fox News, Scalia appears to only know that which he chooses to know, ignoring the rest of the fact-based world that he deems to be dissonant or in conflict with his heavily self-edited view.
Brilliant legal mind? C'mon.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
How Anemic Was The Stimulus?
We know that the 2007-2009 economic collapse has been unprecedented in terms of the toll taken on jobs, and such devastation has unfortunately continued to linger much longer than history would have otherwise suggested. Why has the economy remained in such a funk, with the rate of unemployment stubbornly hovering well above the 7% level?
One significant reason has been the lack of fiscal stimulus. Oh yes, we had the American Economic Recovery Act of 2009, but it was much too low a figure in relation to the economic damage it aimed to mend. And a good chunk of that Act was not good old fashioned fiscal stimulus in the form of spending but rather tax cuts, which are substantially less effective when it comes to turning around an ailing economy. Meanwhile, since the downturn, the political climate has been obsessed with the opposite of fiscal stimulus, that being austerity in the form of deficit reduction. (Never mind that Economics 101 dictates the time to spend and ignore the deficit is during economic recessions/depressions. Instead we had GW/Cheney obliterate a surplus ala Cheney's "deficits don't matter" -- it didn't matter then, but apparently it does now, exactly at the wrong time.)
So the stimulus was not big enough, but the nagging question remains: how big should it have been? I think the two charts below help to establish at least a ballpark figure on that number.
The first chart shows the percent of job losses as compared to past recessions. As you can see, this current recession has been the worst ever in this respect. The second chart shows amounts of fiscal stimulus delivered in past recessions, more specifically during the Reagan and GW Bush recessions compared to Obama's inherited debacle.
The first chart makes the case that compared to Reagan's (purple line) and GW's (brown line) recessions, Obama's (red line) recession is twice as bad as Reagan's and three times worse than GW's downturn. These figures are arrived at by comparing the worst point in the job loss levels, the red line (Obama) bottoming below -6% as compared to -3% for Reagan and -2% for Bush II.
It's just one metric, admittedly, but it is apples-to-apples and employment loss does get at the root of an economic decline. What is made plain to see is that the fiscal stimulus (in real dollars) for Obama should have been at least 2x-3x greater than that passed during the recessions of Reagan and GW.
And yet the second chart clearly shows that not only has stimulus been anemic during this most recent recession/depression, it hasn't come close to the levels achieved during the Reagan and GW downturns. In fact, we see the bars for the recent downturn actually go negative, when as just stated, those bars should be 2x-3x higher than what is shown for the 1981-1982 and 2001 recessions. Incredible. A far worse economic condition and yet far less stimulus delivered as a remedy.
Of course, the fiscal stimulus bars are positive for recessions other than Obama's because prior to when the "Kenyan" took office, Congress knew that spending was necessary to help get an ailing economy humming again. Democrats worked with Republicans to pass such fiscal spending bills for the betterment of all Americans. Clearly that has not been the case for Obama, with Republicans vowing to stonewall and vote against any meaningful fiscal stimulus in the form of government spending.
Well there you have it, one attempt to arrive at an estimate for how much bigger stimulus should have been compared to past precedent. What is obvious is it was woefully too small, and remains so. As a further stick in the eye, real interest rates are negative, meaning investors are paying the federal government to take on added debt! We should be spending more and ignoring the deficit! Bridges, roads and infrastructure will have to be repaired at some point -- now is the time, not just because it will help the economy and job market, but because it also makes sense financially given the level of real interest rates.
Oh forget it. Since when did facts and reason make a difference to modern-day Republicans?
One significant reason has been the lack of fiscal stimulus. Oh yes, we had the American Economic Recovery Act of 2009, but it was much too low a figure in relation to the economic damage it aimed to mend. And a good chunk of that Act was not good old fashioned fiscal stimulus in the form of spending but rather tax cuts, which are substantially less effective when it comes to turning around an ailing economy. Meanwhile, since the downturn, the political climate has been obsessed with the opposite of fiscal stimulus, that being austerity in the form of deficit reduction. (Never mind that Economics 101 dictates the time to spend and ignore the deficit is during economic recessions/depressions. Instead we had GW/Cheney obliterate a surplus ala Cheney's "deficits don't matter" -- it didn't matter then, but apparently it does now, exactly at the wrong time.)
So the stimulus was not big enough, but the nagging question remains: how big should it have been? I think the two charts below help to establish at least a ballpark figure on that number.
The first chart shows the percent of job losses as compared to past recessions. As you can see, this current recession has been the worst ever in this respect. The second chart shows amounts of fiscal stimulus delivered in past recessions, more specifically during the Reagan and GW Bush recessions compared to Obama's inherited debacle.
The first chart makes the case that compared to Reagan's (purple line) and GW's (brown line) recessions, Obama's (red line) recession is twice as bad as Reagan's and three times worse than GW's downturn. These figures are arrived at by comparing the worst point in the job loss levels, the red line (Obama) bottoming below -6% as compared to -3% for Reagan and -2% for Bush II.
It's just one metric, admittedly, but it is apples-to-apples and employment loss does get at the root of an economic decline. What is made plain to see is that the fiscal stimulus (in real dollars) for Obama should have been at least 2x-3x greater than that passed during the recessions of Reagan and GW.
And yet the second chart clearly shows that not only has stimulus been anemic during this most recent recession/depression, it hasn't come close to the levels achieved during the Reagan and GW downturns. In fact, we see the bars for the recent downturn actually go negative, when as just stated, those bars should be 2x-3x higher than what is shown for the 1981-1982 and 2001 recessions. Incredible. A far worse economic condition and yet far less stimulus delivered as a remedy.
Of course, the fiscal stimulus bars are positive for recessions other than Obama's because prior to when the "Kenyan" took office, Congress knew that spending was necessary to help get an ailing economy humming again. Democrats worked with Republicans to pass such fiscal spending bills for the betterment of all Americans. Clearly that has not been the case for Obama, with Republicans vowing to stonewall and vote against any meaningful fiscal stimulus in the form of government spending.
Well there you have it, one attempt to arrive at an estimate for how much bigger stimulus should have been compared to past precedent. What is obvious is it was woefully too small, and remains so. As a further stick in the eye, real interest rates are negative, meaning investors are paying the federal government to take on added debt! We should be spending more and ignoring the deficit! Bridges, roads and infrastructure will have to be repaired at some point -- now is the time, not just because it will help the economy and job market, but because it also makes sense financially given the level of real interest rates.
Oh forget it. Since when did facts and reason make a difference to modern-day Republicans?
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Rob Portman's "Courageous" Flip-Flop
Ohio senator Rob Portman recently changed his position on gay marriage, stating "I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married." And many are applauding his sudden turnaround, deeming it courageous and brave.
Really? In this day and age, isn't this kind of decision -- to update one's views to match the current century -- just a long overdue correction, something that doesn't deserve being rewarded with laudatory characterizations? Rather Portman should simply be commended for joining the side of reason as well as the side aligned with the Constitution, the law of this land, as opposed to say the Bible. And then it should be glibly asked, "What took you so long?"
But of course, as often is the case, it takes a personal event to resonate with a politician enough to have him or her consider changing a position. Never mind said person should've had the empathy and ability to consider others versus oneself to arrive at a just decision. In this case, Portman learned that his own son was gay and such a revelation apparently changed everything.
However, something not getting mentioned in this story is a time table. Portman wrote, "Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay." Two years ago? And Portman only recently changed his opinion on this issue?? Let me understand, after his son told him he was gay, it took the senator two whole years to gain the wisdom and muster the courage to reverse his position publicly. What a man, I say, what a paragon of bravery, a valiant soul!
Pathetic.
It's similar to those who call Paul Ryan "brave" and "courageous" for having the "guts" to cut taxes on the wealthy, slash programs for the poor and elderly, and vow to close many tax loopholes without naming one specifically. What a ballsy American! Yes, a genuine Braveheart without the skirt and makeup....
As Paul Simon (& Art Garfunkel) once sang, "Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?"
Really? In this day and age, isn't this kind of decision -- to update one's views to match the current century -- just a long overdue correction, something that doesn't deserve being rewarded with laudatory characterizations? Rather Portman should simply be commended for joining the side of reason as well as the side aligned with the Constitution, the law of this land, as opposed to say the Bible. And then it should be glibly asked, "What took you so long?"
But of course, as often is the case, it takes a personal event to resonate with a politician enough to have him or her consider changing a position. Never mind said person should've had the empathy and ability to consider others versus oneself to arrive at a just decision. In this case, Portman learned that his own son was gay and such a revelation apparently changed everything.
However, something not getting mentioned in this story is a time table. Portman wrote, "Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay." Two years ago? And Portman only recently changed his opinion on this issue?? Let me understand, after his son told him he was gay, it took the senator two whole years to gain the wisdom and muster the courage to reverse his position publicly. What a man, I say, what a paragon of bravery, a valiant soul!
Pathetic.
It's similar to those who call Paul Ryan "brave" and "courageous" for having the "guts" to cut taxes on the wealthy, slash programs for the poor and elderly, and vow to close many tax loopholes without naming one specifically. What a ballsy American! Yes, a genuine Braveheart without the skirt and makeup....
As Paul Simon (& Art Garfunkel) once sang, "Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?"
Monday, March 11, 2013
True dat!
A poetic takedown of the financial media and Wall Street types, by Lawrence O'Donnell.
The market has more than doubled under Obama, compared to -25% under GW's eight years, and we know what the market did under Clinton, yet you don't hear a friggin peep about this from the Wall Street crowd. It's been shown in studies that the market has done better with Dems in the White House than Republicans, but facts are illusory to this crowd -- except when it has to do with companies. Most on the Street root for the Republican to win despite evidence showing the GOP is bad for their profession. Crazy.
Just imagine what we'd be hearing if the stock market more than doubled with a Republican in charge. The shrill boasting would be endless and insufferable. In large part, because it rarely happens.
But do we hear the Democrats boasting? Do we hear it repeated over and over on MSNBC? Nope. Nothing.
The market has more than doubled under Obama, compared to -25% under GW's eight years, and we know what the market did under Clinton, yet you don't hear a friggin peep about this from the Wall Street crowd. It's been shown in studies that the market has done better with Dems in the White House than Republicans, but facts are illusory to this crowd -- except when it has to do with companies. Most on the Street root for the Republican to win despite evidence showing the GOP is bad for their profession. Crazy.
Just imagine what we'd be hearing if the stock market more than doubled with a Republican in charge. The shrill boasting would be endless and insufferable. In large part, because it rarely happens.
But do we hear the Democrats boasting? Do we hear it repeated over and over on MSNBC? Nope. Nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)