failure

While corporations are sitting on records amount of cash and still refusing to hire we have the reality absent GOP pushing for more tax cuts for these people. They consider to insist that their almost 30 year old failed experiment in economics is the way to go, that some how corporations will create supply without any demand. It's enough to make your head explode. 

Today Think Progress posted this chart. I have seen it before but always forgot to share it. It's a striking tell of what the Bush tax cuts did for the jobs market:

I know many on the right will be quick to dismiss this chart as some form of partisan hackery, compiled using fake numbers. To those people I ask you to look at the data source. This data comes straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and at the time of the data, George Bush was President. So if you honestly believe that the Bush administration would alter data to make it look like one of his keystone pieces of legislation was a failure then I'm amazed you even have the common sense to turn on a computer.

For those that do accept this data and realize it is true, especially given the fact that it was produced by the Bush administration, thank you. We can get beyond the partisan rhetoric and talk like grown ups, which is something greatly amiss in our country today.

Justice Clarence Thomas has been breaking the rules of the court for 13 years by not reporting his wife’s income. That income shows a direct conflict of interest with cases Thomas has ruled on, including Citizens United. As Jonathon Turley points out:

For many, the incident will be cited as evidence of how toothless these rules have become. There is little deterrent for a justice who fails to disclose required information for 13 years — including information that would have likely been used as a possible basis for a recusal motion. It takes Common Cause to launch a major campaign to get compliance with the requirements.

What will be fascinating is the next case to come before Thomas of a criminal appeal in a failure to disclose case or tax case. There was nothing particularly complex about this reporting form. While criminal defense attorneys often argue that such omissions do not warrant prosecution, Thomas is viewed as fairly hostile toward such defendants coming before the Court. I was just counsel in the case of a judge who was removed from the bench by the United States Senate on articles of impeachment that included his failure to report income in a bankruptcy filing.

Of course Thomas won’t disclose in the future. We have created a Supreme Court that is above the law and that is why it’s time to change the Constitution so that we have a way to rid ourselves of ignorant minds like this:

Yesterday BP saw a huge decline in it's value as their stocks lost 15% of their value:

As BP hacked away at a pipe gushing oil at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, investors sawed off 15 percent, or $21.1 billion, of the company's market value Tuesday.

Some are pointing to the announcement by Eric Holder of the criminal investigation into BP, but the big sell off started before that in the U.K. markets, leaving it to point to BP's failure to contain the spill.

This sudden decline in value for the oil giant begs the question of rather BP will survive or not. In this clip from Rachael Maddow last night, Rachael explains how the EPA could actually nail BP for billions in court.

I believe this would be the best outcome to the situation. Sure it will play hell with oil prices for awhile, but it will also send a loud message to the oil industry that they can lose everything if they play by their own rules. It would also provide a very interesting case to watch.

This unprecedented:

In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen," authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance.

This legislation also created America's first payroll tax, as a ship's owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor's monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine.

So unprecedented that they were only enacted by the 2nd President of the United States. I guess all those AGs suing over the “constitutionality” of the mandate didn’t really do their homework.

Adding….I  think we can also safely assume that the Texas Board of Education will be meeting this week to remove John Adams from the history books also.

The American Family Association has decided to blame the death of the SeaWorld trainer last week on the company not following the Bible:

Chalk another death up to animal rights insanity and to the ongoing failure of the West to take counsel on practical matters from the Scripture. [...] Says the ancient civil code of Israel, “When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable.” (Exodus 21:28) So, your animal kills somebody, your moral responsibility is to put that animal to death. You have no moral culpability in the death, because you didn’t know the animal was going to go postal on somebody. But, the Scripture soberly warns, if one of your animals kills a second time because you didn’t kill it after it claimed its first human victim, this time you die right along with your animal. To use the example from Exodus, if your ox kills a second time, “the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:29)

(via ThinkProgress)

Again this is a case of “picking and choosing” what parts of the Bible, or even Exodus 21, should be followed. For example:

When you ignore Afghanistan for 7 years then you never get stories like this:

The Taliban’s top military commander was captured several days ago in Karachi, Pakistan, in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and American intelligence forces, according to American government officials.

The commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is an Afghan described by American officials as the most significant Taliban figure to be detained since the American-led war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s founder and a close associate of Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mullah Baradar has been in Pakistani custody for several days, with American and Pakistani intelligence officials both taking part in interrogations, according to the officials.

This is a great accomplishment for the military and administration, but for some reason I feel Dick Cheney will consider it a major failure.

If this keeps up then we might finally get rid of Lieberman in 2012:

More than 80 percent (81 percent) of Democrats now say they disapprove of the job Lieberman is doing with only 14 percent approving. Among Republicans, 48 percent disapprove of the senator with just 39 approving. And among independents, 61 percent disapprove of Lieberman's antics with just 32 percent approving.

"It all adds up to a 25% approval rating with 67% of his constituents giving him bad marks," the study concludes. "Barack Obama's approval rating with Connecticut Republicans is higher than Lieberman's with the state's Democrats."

This also proves another thing. Lieberman didn’t make his choices on health care reform to reflect his constituents. Instead we now know he did it for himself. This is why we really need a constitutional amendment to allow recalls of all our elected officials. We shall call it “The Lieberman Amendment”.

The New York Times is reporting that the Senate bill will result in much higher premiums.

One example is a family of 4 earning $54,000 in 2016. They would be elligible for a $10,100 subsidy under the new system, but if they buy into the most popular federal plan then the monthly premiums would be more than $20,000 a year. After the subsidy that would leave the family paying $825 a month for coverage.

In another example, the NYT looks at the Medicare buy in. They are reporting that it will cost about $7,600 a year for a single person, or $633 a month.

If these numbers are true then this healthcare bill needs to fail, because that’s exactly what it is – a failure. If it doesn’t then Congress must look at doing a drastic raise of the minimum wage as well as a big increase in the federal poverty levels.

The one thing I have noticed lacking from information coming out is the issue of cost containment. What is in the new bill to reduce the extremely high costs Americans suffer for health care? That’s something I would really like to see.