response on taxes and economy...

Anonymous said...
Jim

You say look at what made our economy the greatest in the world. If you don't believe in the FairTax fine. Now look at what is ruining our economy in relation to the tax laws of other nations. We are becoming more and more uncompetitive.

Exactly! This is the consequence of our move away from Keynesian economics towards the back of a napkin supply side economics. The Laffer curve is laughable! But the impacts of cutting taxes at the expense of our infrastructure and making the middle class.. and future generations pay for it has hurt us dramatically.

I'll quote myself...

The impacts of the Bush tax cuts have been huge. And it has hurt our business competitiveness around the globe. That is reason--as the book, "the politics of Bad Ideas" points out--that the World Economic Forum the deterioration of the US public finances has begun to damage US competitiveness. This is a business research institute in Switzerland. The US experienced the most dramatic drop in rankings of ALL nations.

Also there is a myth that American businesses are being strangled by taxation at the expense of competitiveness. I'll outsource to Economist Mark Thoma at U. Oregon "The Greek Menace" who brings together some stuff around the web... I'll quote the larger point--aside from conservatives once again manipulating with hyperbole rather than data...

Economist Dean Baker:

Washington Post Misleads Readers to Push for Lower Corporate Tax Rates

Today, the preferred policy is further reductions in corporate income taxes. To advance this agenda the Post tells readers that, "U.S. companies operating abroad already labor under a bigger tax burden than most foreign competitors."

That's not what the OECD says. Data from the OECD show that in the average member country corporate taxes are equal to about 3.5 percent of GDP. In the United States, corporate taxes have generally been between and 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent of GDP over the last two decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office (Table F-4).

But more broadly this decline comes from the conservative revolution. The Regan myth--keep in mind he raised taxes twice to try to correct the harm done from his tax cut at the beginning of his term--of taxes cuts creating economic growth was considered flawed by many economist in theory... and now we have the data to back it up. But the propaganda has remained useful. Our society has become less equitable with the reductions in the top economic bracket. Disparities of wealth over the long term have a huge impact in undermining the market system. We haven't seen such disparities of wealth since the 20's. And we have Regan and the pathology of tax cuts.


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Why I'll never get elected to office...

If my writings weren't bad enough... if my artistic need to shock and inspire through dramatic black and white distinctions... if my unfortunate turns towards invective... if my tattoos which will certainly continue to expand... if if if...

to add fuel to the fire... or amunition for conservatives I... the blogger that I am... post things like this....


Which side are you on?

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

This is how conservatives win elections for the Republican party...

Obamamania...
Written
by Dr. Jack Wheeler

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave s hips. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves; he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum , I believe it because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior. His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.

A vote for McCain empowers people like this. Vote Obama 2008. Any questions?

Lesser of two evils yes... but far less than the views of people like this...


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

response to Bellum omnium contra omnes

to the question of changing ones mind, political expediency, and other question we like to talk about politically...

In response to the statement "I vote for the best person," my understanding of such a comment is it refers to the individual (political)actions of the candidate in question. This is (possibly/hopefully) not based on quotes and political spin alone. My interpretation of "the best person for the job" refers to a belief justified by quantifiable data from established agencies recognized as being unbiased and nonpartisan. Such sources vary in methodology as far as the gathering of sources. Such examples of reputable sources of information are www.factcheck.org, www.vote-smart.org, www.ontheissues.com, www.politifact.com, www.thehill.com, etc.

Politics is coalitions... a vote for John McCain empowers a guy like Lynn Westmoreland to promote a destructive economic agenda...

Assumption is the candidates are both at least competent for the job... one may be more qualified... but coalitions is the name of the game with politics...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Brad Delong on Obama's tax plan...

Former Clinton Administration economist... currently at Berkely Brad Delong on Obama's tax plan...
Stand Next to the Ugly, Dance Next to the Klutzy, and Talk Next to the Stupid...

It's not an ugly, dumb thing: it's an ugly, dumb, stupid thing.

I have three effects--a crowding-out effect, a higher-natural-rate-of-unemployment-due-to-less-capital-deepening effect, and an inflation-fear effect. The way the numbers work out is that I implicitly forecast that McCain will run average unified deficits of $500 billion a year, and Obama average unified deficits of roughly $150 billion a year. Push that down to a balanced unified budget and you get not an extra $600 billion but an extra $130 billion.

Aiming for a balanced unified deficit over the business cycle would, I think, be a good thing economically--but I really do not see how we could possibly get there.

The impact of the conservative revolution is that American's have such a terrible understanding about how an economy works that Democrats have to create these crazy economic plans that sell well.

Sigh... lesser of two evils... lesser of two evils...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

to the question of changing ones mind, political expediency, and other question we like to talk about politically...

McCain's performance was less consistent than Obama's. This fact cannot be disputed in the critical, unbiased mind. I wonder at the primary cause for McCain's change in performance from "maverick critic of the Bush administration" to supporting Bush-policy 95%. Is this action a simple change of mind, an indication of political ambition, or a combination of the two scenarios? My inquiry is of a strictly personal nature, and not of true political concern; as it relates to neither your motivation for this post nor my final decision come this November. What are your thoughts to my question?

I avoid mind-reading... (thats a response that I stole from economist dean baker and philosopher David Pacini). Baker criticizes news articles when they discuss politics from the question of personal beliefs and personal political philosophy.

These are things these leaders and decision makers may or may not hold but there is no way to verify. How can we trust a journalist who is only seeing certain aspects of candidates and elected officials? Plus they only interact in certain way and politicos are aware they are interacting with a reporter--there is no such thing as off the record.

I flip the question around as something that might be interesting in an abstract way. But I tend to focus those kinds of discussions to philosophers, artists, and other cultural animals. Politics should be serious discussions since it is serious life or death issues at stake. I don't like the cult of personality that the media and voters fixate on.

I always respond by pointing to this negative tendency within out political culture.

They can't read minds can they? No, they can report on the facts, the policies, the positions, contributors, x...y...z...

We can't read minds can we? Its not meant to be condescending to the question since I do think its interesting. But I'm up to my ears in serious politics and most of my interactions with voters have to do with petty issues that are of no importance. Its a very sad state of affairs... and it explains how we've ended up with the corruption and apathy that we now have. We reap what we sow... no?

they can't read minds. I think this is part of my issue with individualizing candidates. I don't comprehend at all the "I vote for the best person." "I like him as a person"

This individualization and personification... has nothing to do with political policy or leadership. Conservatives are often passionate--Liberals can do so as well--about personal politics.

Hell I know the name of Clinton's cat--socks...

why in the world do I need to know that...

we want people discussing political differences. When the news media and political junkies talk about someones political philosophy as the instigator or certain decisions we confuse what we are talking about... as well as what we are capable of knowing.

I'd be intrigued to have philosophical discussions with these people. But that's neither here nor there when it comes to leadership and policy decisions.

I get--whats a good word--frustrated when we talk about candidates doing things for philosophical or political expediency. Talk about the context of verifiable facts; people will infer what they will. But its like the race question... Obama has no need to respond to it. He's a sucker cause he keeps responding which is what McCain wants.

I don't think this speaks to the voters as people who only care about petty stuff. I just think they know there is no point in caring about the important stuff... its driven into them by the media, the two major political parties--who need each other to play the devil, and core gropus who enjoy the status quo while they bemoan the apathy and corruption. When one profits and enjoys the perks of the status quo... one will do and say anything to make it stay the way it is.

The only solution... organize, participate, and never give in...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

THE MEDIA KEEP FALSE SIMPLICITIES GOING, WHILE COMPLEXITIES DROP OUT

One example of a false simplicity that returns front and center and there persists after the underlying complexities get a brief hearing is Obama’s supposed refusal to visit wounded troops. The charge, made in an ad by the McCain campaign, that Obama passed up a chance to visit the wounded in Germany because he wanted to go to the gym instead was quickly shown to be false, as was the alternative charge that he didn’t make the visit because he wasn’t going to be allowed to bring photographers. I believe the ad, not widely shown to begin with, has been withdrawn. However, the explanation of why he didn’t go is a little complicated and it will not be remembered. What will be remembered, and this may well have been the effect aimed at with the advertisement, was that Obama for some reason or other passed up a chance to visit the wounded. A more important example of a false simplicity holding on front and center is the issue of whether the Surge succeeded. Even those who claim that it did, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, readily agree, at least when questioned, that other factors operated to bring about the reduction of violence in Baghdad – including former Sunni militants becoming allies of the present Iraqi government; the main Shiite militia standing down at least for the moment. Would these factors have operated without the Surge? How did the Surge affect them? Sorting out the answers to these questions would take time that the media did not take; but it would have been helpful at least just to have the public bear in mind that the questions needed to be looked into before judging just what the success of the Surge amounts to. The public has not been encouraged to bear this in mind. On the contrary, the debate has reverted to the simple issue of whether the violence diminished after the Surge, which invites the fallacy that if it did it was because of the Surge.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Let the swiftboating begin...

Listen to Republican Chuck Hegal mid-way in who was dead on in regards to how innappropriate John McCain's recent attack on Obama was. 

Here is the real story via MSNBC

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports that there was never a plan for Obama to take the press to Landstuhl, despite the claim by McCain folks and others. The plan was to go with his military aide, retired General Scott Gration. The Pentagon said Gration was off-limits because he had joined the campaign -- violating rules that it not be a political stop.

Obama had gone to see wounded troops in Iraq earlier in the week, without even confirming he'd been there. No press, no pictures. He has done the same when he goes to Walter Reed -- never any press.

Imagine if McCain hadn't voted against the New GI Bill?  Instead he stated that he was against it because it created incentives for soldiers to leave after one tour.

He could have said thank you for one tour of service! Which is above and beyond in its honor and valor.  He decided the paying for college for young men and women was too much to ask of tax payers.  Some of us believe one tour of duty earns them a good education and quality health care.  Imagine if John McCain did as well... 

Imagine if McCain was not still supporting a failed Iraq policy that was underfunded, poorly planned, and has only created a larger terrorist threat? 

What if he took the postion held by most forigen policy experts that the past 8 years of go it alone has harmed our national security, weakend our security across the globe, and left our troops to fight--with no sacrifice called for from the citizens at home. 

Taxcuts in a time of war is unprecedented... that is John McCain... that is what he should be talking about.  But when you are on the wrong side of issues it always good to throw mud...

Thats why he's attacking Obama...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Thank you Bill O'Reilly, Thank you Neil Boortz

This might make us pause the next time we chuckle at talking head talk show hosts like O'Rielly, Boortz, and i'm sure their are left wing ones... (but they aren't as popular so I don't know their names) who use invective and condecencions. Its not funny... people who are angry for legitimate reasons, and lack education on many complex issues--will take their anger out on others in sometimes dangerous and definately unporductive ways.

As chairman for the Democrats in Henry I have actively reached out to Republican leaders and told them my focus is on policy not people and that if there ever see myself or others out in public representing the Democratic party who get out of line and turn to mud/invective to please call me and tell me.

This stuff matters... those discussing the issues... escpecially those on radio should be leaders. Its time for everyone to hold them accountable for that trash. You are what you say... you are what you do...

Phone message warns Sierra Club 'bullets are coming' (AJC)

By TIM EBERLY
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/18/08

The Sierra Club might have made an enemy in Early County.
Staffers for the environmental organization's chapter in Atlanta reported to police that someone left a threatening message on its voicemail, presumably because the Sierra Club won a lawsuit that prevented the building of a power plant in the poverty-stricken county desperately in need of jobs.

"We need those jobs," the anonymous caller said. "You (expletive) communists have screwed us for the last time. You better have eyes in the back of your head because the bullets are coming."

The call came in on July 4 — four days after the Sierra Club and other environmental groups won a lawsuit in Fulton County that prevented the coal-burning plant from being built, charging that it would emit up to 9 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

The plant would have brought millions in tax revenues and more than 100 high-paying jobs to the county, which is in Georgia's southwestern corner and ranks as the state's sixth poorest.

A Sierra Club staffer reported the incident to police July 8. A police report describes the caller as a white man, possibly 30 years old or older, with a Southern accent.

Atlanta police advised the Sierra Club to save the threatening message and contact its phone service provider to trace the call, the report said.
When reached by phone Friday afternoon, Patty Durand, director of the Georgia chapter of the Sierra Club, declined to comment.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Political Talking Points

The conniving politician:

To the cynical politicians are corrupt and evil statement I always ask...

Why attack politicians? We live in a Republic. These politicians represent constituents. If they didn’t they would get kicked out. Money is a pretty big constituent right now–which is why I support election/campaign reform. But you also have elite opinion and the general opinion of the public at large. So politicians are evil only in the sense that the interests of their constituents are evil. Why abstract away from that... and just blame the guilty parties. Ad hominem attacks on politicians makes people more cynical about government–there by less likely to participate, there by the likelihood for corruption grows larger. The only true critique of corruption in government is your own participation in the political process.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

on the fly blogging...

Back from the gym... eating lunch... found this... gotta run to school now...

Ten Reasons to ban gay marriage

Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Part 1 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer

Philosophical Differences vs. Empirical Differences

Take a second to think about this point. Many times conservatives will try to end a political discussion with me by saying "ah, yes! Well it seems we just have philosophical differences. This statement has always bothered me and I figured out why about a year ago.

Many discussion I have are about issues like health care and education. But pretty much all of these discussions have to do with how you best get improvements in these goods and services.

example-- How many discussions with Conservatives do you get into; where they are arguing people don't need to get health care or good schools? The argument is about how you get those improvements not whether we want to or not. To argue people don't need health care when I'm arguing you do--that is a philosophical difference.

Now every once in a while you come upon someone who won't honestly admit what they really believe or want and will manipulate people by saying-- "oh this is the best way to get what you want." Thats a sham--that I find is pulled by some conservatives but not most of them--that is perpetuated upon the public.

So next time someone argue that you just have "philosophical differences" take a moment to reflect on it. And if you don't think so contend that argument!

Seriously... thank god....

The last 8 years have proven how successful this has been.... Is Clinton really promising us 4 more years of no economists? Is that a promise or a threat.

Seriously folks.. this is absurd and sad...

on Chavez and condemnation...

Civil liberties have been generally protected, even the harshest critics who are at all serious concede Some of the harshest criticism in the West concerns the government's refusal to renew the license of RCTV (which now broadcasts only on cable). I agreed that it was wrong. I also agreed with Western commentary that "it couldn't happen here." For very good reasons. It couldn't happen here because if there had been a military coup in the US that overthrew the government, disbanded Congress and the Supreme Court and every other democratic institution, and then was reversed by a popular uprising, and if CBS, say, had publicly supported the coup and gros sly distorted what was happening so as to facilitate it, then CBS wouldn't have had its license revoked 5 years later. Rather, the owners and managers would have long ago been in prison or probably would have received the death sentence. It's fair to criticize violations of rights by an official enemy, but there should be some limits on hypocrisy.

good point

Having failed to capture Osama Bin Ladin they turn to other hobgoblins in hopes that we forget...

Republicans are putting a heavy focus on Race and flag-pin politics...

Good quote in the NYT's today:

“Republicans have lost their credibility on the issues they want to scare people on, like national security, so they will try a different strategy.” Chris Van Hollen Chair of DCCC

Osama Bin Ladin is still on the loose so they want us to forget it was on their watch. Hobgoblins are always the best distraction...

Political pandering... or negative hyperbole?

My dad pointed out that the by-line(?) of our recent press release on McCain's gas-tax holiday for the Henry County Democratic party was a possibly antagonistic.

Jim Nichols, Chair of the Democratic Party in Henry County, responded today to John McCain's political pandering in a recent economic speech by the Republican nominee. In the speech, McCain called for a gas tax holiday.

For more on the issue you can go to a post I did on the Henry County Democrats site.

My dads comments were

The opening sentence of the Release referred to John McCain's "political pandering". Right off the bat that puts off those that may not yet have formed an opinion on McCain - whether they be Dems or Repubs. To me, use of that phrase - outside of your quote - immediately discounts the rest of the Release - it's clearly one-sided and shrill. Can I really glean anything useful from it? (that's my reaction).


I think it's more powerful for that phrase to be in your quote. Something like: "This is simply political pandering by John McCain" That's legit for you to say that - but not for the text of the release to say that. The text of the Release should set you up, in a neutral way - not do your work.


For what it's worth...

Part of me thinks he is probably right. I intended to point out that it is a questionable policy move, be a very astute political move. My point was that it won't help the market fundmentals. The goals should be to lower gas prices.

And while people like the idea of lowering their taxation for understandable reasons the impacts of lost revenue that would be going into fixing roads and other infrastucture needs seems like a higher social priority; espcially when most economists feel that since supply is fixed (oil producers claim they are churning out the product as quickly as they can) the only possible change in the price can come from demand going down.

The likelyhood of demand going down during the summer when people go on vacation and travel of lot seems a bit far-fetched. Are people going to walk their kids to summer camp?

So maybe I ought to start saying "putting votes before good policy," or "prioritizing votes before market fundamentals."? Nothing seems to roll off the tongue very well.

here is some stuff I found on political pandering...

definition of pander --

Pronunciation: \ˈpan-dər\
Function: intransitive verb Date: 1523
: to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires

Economist Russ Roberts speech on Political pandering


Economist Arnold Kling on the economics blog Econlog post in response to Roberts speech

What Roberts calls pandering, I call fear-mongering. I think that both parties do it. For those of us who believe in free markets, I believe that the Republican exaggerate not only their own commitment to free markets but also the extent to which Democrats threaten free markets.

I think that stem-cell research and Global Warming both are issues that are heavy on pandering and fear-mongering. The Bush Administration has not outlawed stem-cell research. It has only stopped Federal government funding for certain types of stem-cell research. On the other hand allowing embryonic stem-cell research would not mean the end of respect for human life.

On Global Warming, the main thing that believers do is get angry with skeptics. What sort of legislation are we seeing proposed? Anyone? Bueller?

On health care, the Left is excited about single-payer health care, and the Right fears single-payer health care. Again, where are the specific proposals for single-payer health care in terms of legislation or the platforms of leading Presidential candidates?

A reasonable theory of modern politics is that it is all melodrama. People take government less and less seriously, which makes politicians shout louder and louder to get our attention. Whenever a story breaks in the media, whether it be Terry Schiavo or the Virginia Tech killings, politicians rush to get in front of the camera to take advantage of it. That, I would suggest, is a sign of their desperation.

John McCain's Tax Pandering on economics by Kevin Drum

Now that's a shocking development, isn't it? A Republican presidential candidate prating endlessly about helping the regular guy and then offering up a tax plan that even Donald Trump would be embarrassed to ask for directly. The only thing missing was the usual sad song about some mythical Midwest striver who had to sell the family farm to pay his "death taxes."

But at least someone is noticing the two-face act this time around — though that's mostly because McCain is turning out to be unusually clumsy at this kind of stuff. In an odd way, this almost speaks well for him. The pandering he's doing is so plain and so odious that I suspect he's having a hard time making it sound like he really believes this stuff. George Bush never had that difficulty.

please feel free to comment... I'm not sure where I'm at on my Dad's point.

Obama and many Democrats a little off on the working class...

Professor Larry Bartels points out that the "bitter" perception is a little less than accurate when you look at the numbers... Who's Bitter Now?

Last week in Terre Haute, Ind., Mr. Obama explained that the people he had in mind “don’t vote on economic issues, because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them.” He added: “So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.”

This is a remarkably detailed and vivid account of the political sociology of the American electorate. What is even more remarkable is that it is wrong on virtually every count.

Small-town people of modest means and limited education are not fixated on cultural issues. Rather, it is affluent, college-educated people living in cities and suburbs who are most exercised by guns and religion. In contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the elites.

For the sake of concreteness, let’s define the people Mr. Obama had in mind as people whose family incomes are less than $60,000 (an amount that divides the electorate roughly in half), who do not have college degrees and who live in small towns or rural areas. For the sake of convenience, let’s call these people the small-town working class, though that term is inevitably imprecise. In 2004, they were about 18 percent of the population and about 16 percent of voters.

For purposes of comparison, consider the people who are their demographic opposites: people whose family incomes are $60,000 or more, who are college graduates and who live in cities or suburbs. These (again, conveniently labeled) cosmopolitan voters were about 11 percent of the population in 2004 and about 13 percent of voters. While admittedly crude, these definitions provide a systematic basis for assessing the accuracy of Mr. Obama’s view of contemporary class politics.

Small-town, working-class people are more likely than their cosmopolitan counterparts, not less, to say they trust the government to do what’s right. In the 2004 National Election Study conducted by the University of Michigan, 54 percent of these people said that the government in Washington can be trusted to do what is right most of the time or just about always. Only 38 percent of cosmopolitan people expressed a similar level of trust in the federal government.

Do small-town, working-class voters cast ballots on the basis of social issues? Yes, but less than other voters do. Among these voters, those who are anti-abortion were only 6 percentage points more likely than those who favor abortion rights to vote for President Bush in 2004. The corresponding difference for the rest of the electorate was 27 points, and for cosmopolitan voters it was a remarkable 58 points. Similarly, the votes cast by the cosmopolitan crowd in 2004 were much more likely to reflect voters’ positions on gun control and gay marriage.

Small-town, working-class voters were also less likely to connect religion and politics. Support for President Bush was only 5 percentage points higher among the 39 percent of small-town voters who said they attended religious services every week or almost every week than among those who seldom or never attended religious services. The corresponding difference among cosmopolitan voters (34 percent of whom said they attended religious services regularly) was 29 percentage points.

It is true that American voters attach significantly more weight to social issues than they did 20 years ago. It is also true that church attendance has become a stronger predictor of voting behavior. But both of those changes are concentrated primarily among people who are affluent and well educated, not among the working class.

Mr. Obama’s comments are supposed to be significant because of the popular perception that rural, working-class voters have abandoned the Democratic Party in recent decades and that the only way for Democrats to win them back is to cater to their cultural concerns. The reality is that John Kerry received a slender plurality of their votes in 2004, while John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey, in the close elections of 1960 and 1968, lost them narrowly.

tax's cut that go to the top 1%... no kidding

It is no accident that the President managed to use the t-word at least twenty and as many as 36 times in each of his post-9/11 State of the Union addresses (as opposed to only once in January 2001).

--John Mueller Terrorphobia

update: I need to give you more of the juicy quotes from this one...

Since when does it take political courage to defend a rational approach to public policy against an hysterical one?

Once again, the parallel with the post-World War II Red Scare is instructive. In that atmosphere politicians scurried to support spending billions upon billions of dollars to surveil, screen and protect, and to spy on an ever-expanding array of individuals who had aroused suspicion for one reason or another. Organizations were infiltrated, phones were tapped (each tap can require the full-time services of a dozen agents and support personnel), letters were intercepted, people were followed, loyalty oaths were required, endless leads (almost all to nowhere) were pursued, defense plants were hardened, concentration camps for prospective emergency use were established (an idea desperately proposed by Senate liberals in 1950), and garbage was meticulously sifted in the hope of unearthing scraps of incriminating information.


[credit: Associated Press] At the time, critics of this process focused almost entirely on the potential for civil liberties violations. This is a worthy concern, but hardly the only one. As far as I know, at no point during the Cold War did anyone say: “Yes, many domestic Communists adhere to a foreign ideology that ultimately has as its goal the destruction of capitalism and democracy by violence if necessary, but they’re so pathetic they couldn’t subvert their way out of a wet paper bag. So why are we expending so much time, effort and treasure over this issue?” It is astounding to me that this plausible, if admittedly debatable, point of view seems never to have been publicly expressed by any politician, pundit, professor or editorialist (although some may have believed it privately). On Stouffer’s survey, only a lonely and obviously politically insignificant share of the population (about 2 percent) professed to believe that domestic Communists presented no danger at all.....

Criticisms of the Patriot Act and of the Bush Administration’s efforts to apprehend prospective terrorists focus almost entirely on concerns about civil liberties, worrying that the rights of innocent Americans might be trampled in the rush to pursue terrorists. This is a perfectly valid concern, but from time to time someone might wonder a bit in public about how much the quest to ferret out terrorists and to protect ourselves is costing, as well as about how meager the results have been. In their valuable recent book, Less Safe, Less Free (2007), David Cole and Jules Lobel ably detail and critique the process. As their title implies, they suggest that we are less safe in part because the FBI and other agencies have failed in their well-funded quest to uncover the enemy within. There’s an alternative explanation, however: They have not failed, and we are not less safe; investigators haven’t found much of anything because there isn’t much of anything to find... All this may help to explain why there have been no al-Qaeda attacks in the United States for so many years, contrary to almost all anticipations. Perhaps the group’s goal is not to destroy the United States with explosions, but to have the Americans destroy themselves by wallowing in fear and by engaging in counterproductive policy overreaction. Thus, shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden happily crowed that “America is full of fear, from its north to its south, from its west to its east. Thank God for that.” And in 2004 he proclaimed his policy to be “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy”, noting with consummate glee that, “It is easy for us to provoke and bait. . . . All that we have to do is . . . raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses.” The 9/11 attacks, he calculated, cost only $500,000 to carry out, “while the attack and its aftermath inflicted a cost of more than $500 billion on the United States.”

Interesting... might be something to this...

TPM post Damn Statistics gets into the race issue for Obama...

What I take to be implicit in Sirota's argument is that racially polarized voting increases with the size of the black population in a given state. That leaves Obama winning a lot of states with few blacks. But once the black population gets into the high single digits, racialized voting kicks in and Obama then can't get enough of the white population to win. Only when blacks approach 20% of the population does the black population get large enough to make up for and often overcome the increased white resistance to voting for Obama. (After all, I don't think Sirota is saying that Mississippi and Louisiana are models of racial harmony.) Of course, these are Democratic primaries, not general elections. And that is the key. Because that means that in most cases the percentage of the black electorate is roughly double what it is in the general election.