The big lie

Guess how much Wisconsin taxpayers are paying for state workers' pensions.

You're wrong. Unless you guessed $00.00. That's right, the Badger State's taxpayers don't pay any part of the pensions. The workers do, because their pensions come out of deferred compensation--that is, money that's owed to them as wages, but that they have elected (through their collective bargaining agreements) to defer and put into the pension system.

It is true that taxpayers would have to make up shortfalls if the projections of payouts fall short (i.e. retired workers live too long). But that is the product of short-sighted public officials who made overly-optimistic projections to make the deal seem sweeter to employees. (The plans are defined-benefit plans; if Gov. Walker really wants to save money down the road, he should negotiate with public workers so that new contracts, or perhaps newly-hired workers, go into less generous defined-contribution plans. But then again, saving money isn't what he's really about.)

You can read the details here, from Tax.com, and a further commentary here, from Forbes.com, of all places.

We tell the truth in our jests

From a friend of a friend:

A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, "Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie."

Last American veteran of WWI dies

Frank Buckles, the last surviving American veteran of WWI, has died at age 110.

He must have been some guy. He enlisted at 16, by lying about his age. He served in France, although behind the lines. He came to Washington for the 90th anniversary of Armistice Day, November 11, 2008, to be at a ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. He was back in Washington a year later--he must have been 108--to testify before Congress on a proposal to designate a National WWI Memorial on the National Mall.

Oh, and he also survived being a POW in the Philippines during WWII.

Wow.

Where'd they get the flags?

If you've been watching the news from Libya--and how can you not be?--you've seen the opposition (or should we call them rebels, or just the people?) flying black, red and green flags with a crescent and star. That was the Libyan flag under the monarchy that Qaddafi overthrew in 1969.

So, where did they get all the flags? There seem to be too many for them to have been made in the past couple of weeks. Have people been saving them all these years, dreaming of the day when the dictator would fall? Has there been an underground movement making flags as a means of resisting tyranny?

If you know, or have an idea, let us know.

If ya can't join 'em, beat 'em

Note: This is a re-write of an earlier post

As fervor to bust unions rises among Rebuplicans (and, sadly, some independents), we've been seeing the MSM interview working people who voice anger at public-employee unions. Polls suggest that the anger is not as widespread as the media--most of which has surrendered to the easy path of mistaking the presentation of opposing views (however fringe) as fairness--implies.

Worse, none of the reports I have seen ask this question: Why aren't more people in unions? More specifically, If people in unions are better-paid, have more benefits and enjoy more job security than unorganized workers, wouldn't it be a good thing for more people to join unions?

Questions like these may seem obvious, but they must not be. Or, they are ignored and obscured by those who don't like the answers? (Part of it is certainly short budgets, short deadlines and shortsightedness by reporters and editors.) Unfortunately, not enough speakers who are on the side of working people are asking questions like these, and when they are asked it is not done often enough or at sufficient volume.

Again, we see progressives getting beaten down, objecting but not really digging in for a long struggle to change minds clouded by sustained, well-funded barrages from the plutocrats. The Right was willing to spend decades taking its foolish ideas from the realm of derision and fantasy to the center of the national stage. Progressives--who, after all, have truth (that's small "t" truth, not large "T" truth) on their side, must be willing to fight as hard. Perhaps what's happening in Wisconsin will wake us up, finally.

Speak up!

Rebuplicans

Readers may have noticed that this page has been referring to Rebuplicans lately. Readers may also know that for the past few decades--or longer, an article in Wikipedia puts its origin in 1940--members of that party have consistently referred to my party, the Democratic Party, as "the Democrat Party." That is a slur. It is meant to convey disrespect: Members of the GOP cannot be bothered to learn the true name of their political opponents' party.

The other night, Lawrence O'Donnell interviewed Scott Fitzgerald (yes, that is said to be his real name), the majority leader of the Wisconsin State Senate. O'Donnell went out of his way to be polite to Sen. Fitzpatrick, but the senator repeatedly referred to his colleagues across the aisle as "Democrat senators." Unfortunately, although understandably, O'Donnell did not correct Mr. Fitzhugh. The governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, shows a less subtle condescension and contempt for the opposing party.

On this page, anyway, members of the other party will be known henceforth as Rebuplicans until they learn to call our party the Democratic Party. Feel free to join us and get others to do the same. Who knows, if it spreads, maybe the Rebuplicans will learn some respect. Not a small thing. It is, after all, one of the keys to democracy.

More wisdom

I recently found a terrific blog on politics and life by DEK Rivers, and it's based in Wisconsin! (I happened upon it before the recent blow up). I much recommend Caffeinated Politics.

Here's a small sample:

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by really smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."

Mark Twain

What would Twain have made of America today?

Knowledge vs. Wisdom

Thanks to Ron Dean and Barry Roseman, plaintiffs' employment lawyers, for this quotation:

"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad."

Miles Kington

The Rebuplian DOMA problem

As you have no doubt heard, the Obama administration has declared that the fraudulently named Defense of Marriage Act is so patently unconstitutional that the Justice Department will no longer defend it.

Rebuplicans are predictably outraged. But they have a problem here. DOMA declares marriage to be the union of a man and a woman. But GOPhers are resolutely anti-union these days.

So where does that leave them?

(If you respond that the GOP must have become the party of divorce, you're right. Divorced from reality, at any rate.)

Words for these times

Proof that history does repeat itself, that the same battles need fighting, over and over again.

Come all you good workers

Good news to you I'll tell,

Of how the good old union

Has come in here to dwell.

Which side are you on, boys?

Which side are you on?

Which side are you on, boys?

Which side are you on?

My daddy was a miner

And I'm a miner's son.

I'll stick with the union

Til every battle's won.

Which side are you on, boys?

Which side are you on?

Which side are you on, boys?

Which side are you on?

They say in Harlan County,

No neutrals are there there.

You'll either be a union man,

Or a thug for J.H. Claire.

Which side are you on, boys?

Which side are you on?

Which side are you on, boys?

Which side are you on?

Oh, workers can you stand it?

Oh, tell me how you can.

Will you be a lowdown scab,

Or will you be a man?

Which side are you on, boys?

Which side are you on?

Which side are you on, boys?

Which side are you on?

Don't scab for the bosses,

Don't listen to their lies.

Us poor folk hasn't got a chance,

Unless we organize.

Which side are you on, boys?

Which side are you on?

Which side are you on, boys?

Which side are you on?

(later verse)

They say down in Hinds County,

No neutrals have we met.

You'll either be for Meredith,

Or a Tom for Ross Barnett.

Which side are you on, boys?

Which side are you on?

Which side are you on, boys?

Which side are you on?

Florence Reece (except last verse)

Evolutionary question

Your editor has no more doubt about evolution than he does that the Sun will rise tomorrow. Well, no more than he would have if he believed that the Sun actually rises.

But here's a challenge for proponents of Darwin's theory: Why don't earthworms sleep late?

A Christmas Story

I've noted before that, although I'm not a Christian, I love Christmas. Not for the theology--that won't surprise you--but for the spirit. Yes, the Christmas spirit. Tomorrow night, as we do every Christmas Eve, the lovely Diane and I will watch Miracle on 34th Street (the original, 1947, B&W version, of course), and at the end I'll tear up.

One reason that it's easier for a non-Christian to love this season is that it never came with any of that baggage that that bedevils (you should pardon the expression) so many for whom the holiday has religious and family trappings. I can appreciate the spirit of Christmas in its essence. Of course, the spirit I cherish was largely constructed by American business and Hollywood. The miracle on 34th street, after all, was that Macy's would put customers ahead of profits (and in so doing, as the actor portraying RH Macy notes, make even more profits).

But enough Scrooge.

Tonight's CBS Evening News had a truly wonderful Christmas story, about a young (really young) man who truly knows the spirit of Christmas. Take a look. Oh, and go here to learn more about how you can get in on the goodness.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!

Good news--for me, at least

Just saw a story that asserts that my home state, Massachusetts (a commonwealth, actually), is one of the 10 worst states for retirement. Whew! I don't want to spend my retirement (when and if) among a bunch of old people, any more than I want to be surrounded by tourists when I travel. When I travel, I want to be the only tourist (well, with the lovely Diane), and when I retire I want to be among younger people.

So, all you alte kakas out there: Go to Florida!

Insanity

You have no doubt head the saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If that's the case, then our attitude toward guns is the very definition of insanity.

In Panama City, Florida, the other day, a man stood up at a school board meeting and started taking potshots at the School Committee. In Sacramento, a young mother, a supervisor at a bookstore, was killed after a man apparently walked into a barber shop and started shooting. The mother was found in a position that led police to conclude that she heard the firing and placed her body to protect her 2-year old son. He will now grow up without a mother. Meanwhile, TPM reports that a plan to reduce gun smuggling to Mexican drug cartels has languished at the Justice Department out of fear of NRA influence.

Insanity.

The tax psychosis

The prevailing attitude toward taxes in this nation--at least so far as the mainstream media are concerned--may best be described as a psychosis, that is, a derangement characterized by a loss of contact with reality. This disease has grown over the past 30 years, to the point where it now dominates our politics.

Reality is that the nation faces great challenges: an educational system that has been overhauled and surpassed at all levels by countries in both Europe and Asia, the immense financial burden of war, a deteriorated infrastructure, a high-tech sector that is losing ground daily to foreign competitors, and a dependence on foreign energy sources that is only increasing, to name a few. Yet every serious attempt to deal with these problems--and to restore the United States to a position of leadership--is crippled by a reflexive refusal to consider any increase in the levies on those who can easily afford to pay more, who are also those who by every measure get the greatest benefits from government.

Not surprisingly, the tax psychotics are also bullies. Anyone with the courage to question their delusion is bullied and shouted down. They have to do that, because no rational defense of their position can be mounted.

Like many sane people, Democrats have been hesitant to challenge the delusion. Instead of calling the tax psychosis was it is--crazy--Democrats have temporized, tried to avoid conflict and attempted to reason. To no avail.

The anti-tax movement did not start out by being loony (although elements of the movement got there quickly). In the hands of its initial proponents, opposition to taxes was an expression of a belief that government was too large. And there are still those who espouse the need for smaller government, although few indeed are the members of this camp whose positions are consistent. But even the "starve the beast" camp of Grover Norquist et als has been obscured by a simple, reflexive and complete rejection of any tax hike, no matter how needed or equitable it might be.

The tax psychosis has crippled the United States. It distorts the debate about vital national issues and limits the range of solutions to problems that have have led to our national decline. It empowers the forces of reaction and fear.

Unless and until the progress of the tax psychosis is reversed and room for a healthy, real debate about tax policy created, there will remained hobbled, at home and abroad.

Future posts will pose some suggestions about how to counter the tax psychosis. Your suggestions will be welcome.

True intellectuals

Democrats tend to consider themselves more thoughtful and, truth to tell, more intelligent than Republicans.

But consider: It is said that the mark of a true intellectual is someone who can keep opposing thoughts in his or her head at the same time. And Republicans, as we know, believe that we must not tax the rich at the same time that they think that diminishing the deficit immediately has to be our first priority.

The price

"Why didn't you people shoot?" With those words Adm. Wilhelm Canaris, chief of German military intelligence, greeted his new deputy, Col. Erich Lahousen, formerly his opposite number in the Austrian service.

What would have happened had the Austrians resisted the forced annexation of their country? No one knows, of course. Had the Austrians fought (there was substantial division in that country over the Anschluss), they would have had to pay a price in blood, and most probably Germany would have prevailed. But it seems safe to assert that the butcher's bill would have been lower than it turned out to be. In all probability, many fewer Czechs, Poles, French, Norwegian, Dutch, British, Russians and Americans would have died to destroy Nazi Germany.

Had the world resisted Hitler earlier, the cost would have been even lower. When the German Army marched into the Rhineland in 1936, its orders were to turn around if the French put up a hand and said Stop.

I do not for a moment mean to equate Republican congressional leaders with Hitler. The point is that there is always a price to pay for standing up to bullies, and the cost gets higher the longer the bullies are allowed to prevail. Worse, that cost curve provides further justification for refusing to fight We saw that yesterday, when the President argued angrily that the cost of further resistance to Republican obstructionism on the Bush tax giveaways is too high. What he ignored is that the price has risen precisely because he has not been willing to fight back. Had he and his administration stood up to the GOP earlier, many fewer people would have had to suffer before the Republicans knuckled under--as they would have been forced to--on issues like taxes and unemployment compensation.

Ultimately, the West was forced to stand up for Poland, a nation that was geographically isolated and profoundly undemocratic. But by September 1, 1939, there was no choice. Even then, the Allies' unwillingness to take risks led to the occupation of Western Europe.

So far, Barack Obama has refused to learn from history. But he is a smart man and there is yet time for the light to dawn. Let's hope that the fury of his supporters and allies wakes him from the stupor that has taken up much of his first two years.

The President's defense

Did you see President' Obama's spirited defense of his "compromise" with the Republicans?

This is called--as the President should recall--putting lipstick on a pig.

How come?

Today's Times reports that the President's commission on the national debt lacks to votes for a comprehensive plan.

There are essentially three ways to bring the federal budget into line and, ultimately, to reduce the national debt: 1) For the economy to grow fast enough so that increases in federal revenues are greater than increases in spending. 2) To raise taxes. 3) To cut spending.

How come the deficit commission concentrates almost all of its energy on the third of these? As do Republicans and a surprisingly high percentage of commentators who ought to know better. As far as raising taxes are concerned, the deficit commission's chairs, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, would concentrate on extracting more from the middle- and working-classes while letting the affluent off pretty much scot-free. They pay no attention to the first source of needed funds.

Does that make sense to you? Me, neither. But maybe that's because we're not rich enough. Or being paid by those who are.

What the President should say

Last night, I suggested that President Obama should announce that he will veto any extension of the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000. On thinking about it, he should be more clear. Here is the kind of thing he should say:

The Bush-era tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 will expire at the end of this month. They are history. They will not be restored. I will veto any measure that extends those tax cuts. If Congress sends me a bill that extends the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers, I will veto it. If Congress attaches an extension or reenactment of the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 to a defense-authorization bill, I will veto it. If Congress attaches an extension or reenactment of the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 to a bill raising the debt limit, I will veto it. I trust that I have made myself clear. It is time for Congress to get on with the business of the nation, to pass measures that will be effective in bringing the nation out of recession and in starting to plan how we are going to deal with our huge load of debt once the economy is strong again. It is past time to talk about tax cuts for those who can well afford to pay a little more for the benefits that they receive from this nation.