New Year's predictions 2018

January:  Doug Jones will be sworn in as the new Senator from Alabama.  He will have to dodge Roy Moore, who will run in and try to snatch the Bible off the table and administer the oath of office to himself.

February: Justin Timberlake will perform at Super Bowl halftime, fourteen years after the infamous 'wardrobe malfunction' in which he ripped Janet Jackson's outfit and exposed her breast.  This time he will surprise people and invite Jackson back on stage, but this time,  in this year of #TakeaKnee and #MeToo  , when Timberlake tries the same thing again he will  'take a knee' from Janet to the nether regions.

March:  The start of baseball season will include a pitch clock. A major scandal will erupt when the Red Sox get caught speeding up the clock when the Yankees are pitching. Donald Trump will send a tweet blaming Hillary Clinton and reminding people Massachusetts is a blue state, even if they do call their team the Red Sox.

April:  The Trump administration announces that entry fees to National Parks will rise again, to well over a hundred dollars for top National Parks.  When it is pointed out  that this might make it too expensive for a family to visit Yosemite,  White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders Huckabee says,  "Well, then, they can go to Six Flags and see Yosemite Sam instead !"

May:  A few months after passing a tax bill that raises the deficit, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio will cite the skyrocketing deficit as a reason to cut entitlements (as they already have said they will.)  Social Security payments will be cut only slightly for present retirees.  Future retirees will be promised a t-shirt saying, "I paid thousands into Social Security but all I got was this lousy t-shirt."  When somebody points out that immigrants are overwhelmingly young people who could help stabilize Social Security and Medicare, conservatives will drown it out with chants of "build the wall, build the wall."

June:  Six months after moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, citing reasons of 'convenience,'   the Trump administration will announce they are moving our consulate with the Palestinian Authority to an abandoned oil platform off the coast of Louisiana,  also citing 'convenience.'

July:  The GOP effort to privatize Social Security by ramming it all through  in a matter of days that began in May will fail in the Senate.  Donald Trump will respond with a series of angry tweets attacking Hillary Clinton.

August:  The record breaking drought continues around the southwest.  In southern California and Arizona, mold is added to the 'endangered species' list.

September:  The Trump administration will announce a solution to the Confederate Monument controversy. They will all be relocated to Puerto Rico to serve as windbreaks for families who are still living out in the open with no heat or shelter a year after Hurricane Maria.  He will praise himself for helping bring 'a great success' to Puerto Rico.

October:  The Mueller investigation issues a final report several weeks before the election, concluding that there is evidence that Russia was in close collusion with members of the Trump campaign to ensure Trump's election.  Rather than indicating any concern about a foreign power being involved in our election, Republicans derisively criticize former FBI director Mueller and start wearing  Putin masks at Halloween parties.

November:  Democrats decisively win control of the House, many Governorships and despite the terrible Senate map, are able to pick up a 50-50 tie for control of the Senate.  Trump sends out a tweet calling the election results 'fake news.'

December:  On Christmas morning, the nation wakes up to find that the White House is buried under hundreds of tons of coal, with a reindeer poop on top of it.  Donald Trump will blame Hillary Clinton.

The Road to Ruin is Paton with intentions (not all of them good.)

About a week ago I attended a Republican debate in Springerville. I have blogged about the Congressional District One race before, but I decided I would go see for myself what the GOP is sending us for candidates this year.

All four of the GOP candidates for the office were present, Patrick Gatti, Gaither Martin, Jonathan Paton and Doug Wade. The GOP establishment has annointed Paton, and given their track record in choosing candidates whether local Republicans want them or not (think Rick Renzi, who jumped into the district from outside and spent big outside money to defeat Louis Tenney in a primary in 2002, or Paul Gosar, who did live in the district but who also got a lot of outside money to beat several other candidates two years ago before abandoning the district this year) I suspect Paton will be their nominee. Like Renzi, he jumped into the district just to run; also like Renzi, he is bringing a lot of outside money into the district; and also like Renzi he is ethically challenged (as I discussed in this post about a month ago.)

So what kind of a GOP nominee is he? Well, he sounded very much like a career politician (a good reason for that, because he is a career politician) in most of his answers, consistently ducking and weaving while avoiding providing a lot of direct answers unless the question was a softball (i.e. "did you vote in the last election?") However, he had a couple of answers I would like to talk about right now.

I had one chance to ask a question, so I decided to ask it about the Paul Ryan budget, which Paton is on record (both in 2010 and 2012 as supporting.) The Ryan budget proposes phasing out Medicare for workers below 55 and replacing it with a series of exchanges where seniors could purchase subsidized private insurance. Of course this is exactly what is at the heart of Obamacare, but according to Republican logic, Obamacare is better than Medicare for seniors, but nothing at all would be better for the rest of us than Obamacare. So, I mentioned my age (presently 49) and the fact that I have paid Medicare taxes since I had my first job at the age of sixteen (a third of a century ago) and asked about how he felt about the Ryan budget's plan to privatize Medicare. He of course hemmed and hawed a great deal, going back and forth and finally saying it would be 'wrong' to "deny coverage to people that have been paying their entire lifetime into anything." Which was a classic dodge-- the Ryan plan does not seek to deny coverage, it seeks to change it to a privatized system. He then went on to discuss Social Security (which I had not even mentioned in my original question) and said, "I don’t believe I’m ever gonna see a dime of the money that I’ve put into Social Security, and I think most young people believe that today. We should be able to do with our own money what we want to. And I think that’s the right way to go." In other words, keep your money and invest it yourself. Which is to say, no Social Security. Exactly the same thing the Bush people were saying when they tried to privatize Social Security in 2005. Their arguments may be evolving, but make no mistake about it, the plans set forward by the Cato Institute to privatize Social Security are still intact, and Jonathan Paton's comment makes it clear that he will be on board the next time they try to privatize Social Security.

The only other thing I'd like to remind people of concerning the Ryan budget is that as bad as their plans are for Medicare and Social Security, Paton and other Republicans who have signed onto it are also supporting deep cuts in a wide range of programs that benefit virtually everyone, in order NOT to cut the deficit (as they have tried to say to sell it) but to finance deep tax cuts for billionaires. The tired old logic that low taxes on so-called 'job creators' will boost the economy should have pretty much been disproven by now, as taxes are already at historically low levels so if they really helped the economy we'd be seeing it boom right now. Instead, tax cuts only reduce tax revenue, which in turn creates deficits. Using deficits as an excuse to cut spending on programs, while at the same time pushing tax cuts for billionaires that will add back onto the deficit is pretty brazen, though I do have to admire their messaging people for convincing people not to think about the math (maybe there really IS another reason for all those cuts we've seen the GOP push in education the past few years.) But make no mistake about it. Paton is fully on board with the entire Ryan budget, including the 'cut spending to reduce the deficit and then cut taxes to blow the deficit up again' math.

There was one other answer I would like to dicuss that came from Mr. Paton, and one which left me cold. Someone asked him a question about treaties that we have entered into with other nations as well as the United Nations, and also about the second amendment. Paton first said that we should not observe 'any federal law that's unconstitutional.' Huh? I thought that it was up to the courts to decide whether a law is unconstitutional. And if they do make that determination, then the law is no longer in force. So what exactly does he mean by that? How will he determine which laws to obey and not to obey as 'unconstitutional,' since we already obey only laws which the courts have upheld or which have not been challenged. But it was the rest of his answer which really bothers me. He talked about people (presumably members of Senate, since the Senate ratifies treaties) who vote for treaties made with the U.N. and said, "we should not vote for it, and if you do vote for it, I think you’re a traitor, you’re a traitor to this country.”

Excuse me? If you vote for a law that he believes is unconstitutional, then you're a traitor? It's one thing to disagree with a law or what it says. It's quite another to accuse people who exercise their Constitutional duty to vote on whether to ratify a treaty, "traitors" if they do not vote the way he believes they should. Yeah, I know. Just what we need to fit in with the image of Arizona. Another member of Congress who goes to Washington and calls people who disagree with him, "traitors."

After going to the debate, I can only say that it is of critical importance that we NOT send Jonathan Paton to Congress!

Why I hope the payroll tax cuts are NOT extended

This week the Obama administration has been pushing their advantage on the payroll tax cut, implemented as the GOP was poised to assume control of Congress and about the only kind of stimulus spending they could get (at the time) GOP support for (or at least to not filibuster) that would get money into the hands of ordinary Americans.

The argument that is being made now is a simple one: that despite yesterday's positive jobs report (and more importantly five straight months of 100,000 plus private sector jobs being created) the economic recovery is not yet strong enough to sustain a sudden loss of spending power from ordinary Americans (most of whom have adjusted to and spent the few extra dollars per paycheck the payroll tax cuts added and would in fact see a decline in their weekly paycheck, which could well ripple into the economy. And it is no secret that Republicans in Congress, who have seen their ratings tank even further after the failure of the supercommittee, want to inflict a political defeat on the President just to show that they still can.

I understand this, but I believe it is important that Democrats lose this battle. There are two reasons why I believe this.

The first one is that the payroll taxes are supposed to be dedicated to Social Security and Medicare. Although the actual money in the Social Security Trust Fund has long since been raided in order to mask the true size of congressional budget deficits and replaced by a stack of IOU's from Congress, the total of money in the Trust Fund is still calculated and used to project the future health of Social Security (and Medicare.) I fear that the decreased flow of money in payroll taxes would allow those who want to get rid of or radically change these programs to claim (accurately in fact) that their financial doomsday is much closer than the last time we checked and use that as a weapon to destroy or seriously damage Social Security and Medicare. And the logical way to fix them (getting rid of the cap on income subject to the payroll tax) would be effectively off the table if a Republican Congress, at the behest of a Democratic President, has just been extending a cut on payroll taxes.

Yeah, I'd probably notice the $40 a paycheck or so that I started getting two years ago and would quit getting, but I'd rather have Social Security and Medicare.

The second reason why I would like to lose this battle is because of the message it sends and how it will play next year during the debate on the Bush tax cuts and whether to extend them. Buying into the concept that failure to extend a TEMPORARY tax cut is a 'tax increase' plays into the hands of those who want to extend the tax cuts and instead get rid of the deficit by focusing only on spending (meaning for education, social programs and other programs that benefit the public.) To begin with, the argument that letting a scheduled tax cut expire on schedule is really a tax increase, is false and we should be consistent in saying so. If your grocer puts an item on sale and then the sale ends as scheduled, but then you went to the grocer and accused the store of 'raising prices' you would be laughed at. But that's the argument we are being asked to make this year (and may be asked to buy next year) about taxes.

We hold an ace in that next year the Bush tax cuts are due to expire. We should let them, on schedule. As Ezra Klein points out the GOP is in a deep, deep hole of its own making. If Congress does nothing (which is far easier to accomplish in Washington than actually doing something) then automatic tax and spending changes will kick in that will cut $6 trillion off of the budget defict. But 3/4 of that will caused by the end of the Bush tax cuts (and the other quarter by sequestration due to the failure of the supercommittee, but half of that is from the war budget.) Like the payroll tax cut, the loss of the Bush tax cuts for most people would be noticeable, but not anywhere close to how much we'd notice in terms of cuts to public services if conservatives had their way.

But add the payroll tax cuts up, and then the Bush cuts for the working class (not sure there is much of a 'middle class' anymore) isn't that a significant additional burden on working people? Yes, it is. I fully understand that (being a financially stressed member of the working class myself.) However if considering how massively the Bush tax cuts were weighted towards the wealthy, and more importantly what the GOP has proposed cutting (remember the Ryan budget that wanted to privatize medicare and slash Social Security?) there is no way that any member of the working class would receive enough from the continuation of these cuts to be able to make up for the lack of Social Security and Medicare in our old age. Social Security provides a guaranteed income that is at least enough to keep people who are too old to work anymore off the streets and with at least a minimal amount of food on the table, and medicare ensures that they will receive medical treatment at an age where private insurance would become prohibitively expensive. Compared to that, the loss of working class tax cuts is a small price to pay compared to the end of the 'deficit' argument that the Republicans have made to justify draconian spending cuts if ALL the Bush tax cuts expire and a flood of revenue returns to the government.

In other words, Democrats and progressives next year will hold most of the aces. It will be up to the GOP to try and put something together that we can agree to, because we have much less to fear from the automatic changes that would occur than the right. Let's show that our representatives in Congress and those of us who are out in our neighborhoods have learned how to hold onto our cards, and not waste them to score small (as continuing the payroll tax cut would be.) Buying into the logic that ending a tax cut on time is 'raising taxes' would undermine our own position next year that it is not.

Why a default really could bankrupt Social Security

Until a few days ago I was with those who questioned why a default would affect Social Security, since Social Security has a dedicated tax. However it will, and could even end Social Security.

To understand why, go back to the 2000 election, and also to a disastrous decision made during last December's lame duck session. Social Security is supposed to have a dedicated source of revenue, the Social Security payroll tax that is taken out every time we get a paycheck (plus an equal amount that our employer contributes that we don't even see.) Al Gore, concerned about federal agencies borrowing from the Social Security trust fund (supposedly a record of everything that was borrowed is kept in a file cabinet in the H.J. Hintgen Building in Parkersburg, West Virginia near the banks of the Ohio river) proposed to put Social Security in a 'lockbox' and prohibit Congress or any federal agency from raiding the Social Security trust fund. Of course we know what happened in 2000, and along with the end of the Gore candidacy went the idea of a 'lockbox.' Borrowing from the fund has only accelerated rapidly since then, so that most (by some estimates virtually all) of the money that is supposed to be in it has been replaced with I.O.U.'s now kept in the Hintgen Building. Then last December, as part of the 'compromise' budget proposal, payroll taxes were cut by about a third. This immediately unbalanced the Social Security account in that revenues coming in were much less than what was going out. Of course there is always that trust fund, right?

Well not if we default. If we default then there is one debt the government can wipe off the books and not pay back without suffering the adverse affects of a default on the value of the dollar in the international currency market. That debt is to toss the file cabinet out the window of the Hintgen Building and into the river, because according to bankers in New York or Switzerland or Hong Kong, that would be an internal U.S. government debt.

Don't kid yourself. This could happen, and it is not that far from happening.

GOP trying to scare seniors

GOP national chairman Michael Steele and the RNC is out with a new advertisement pushing a 'seniors bill of rights' in which he pushes for among other things, 'zero cuts' in medicare. He also brings up the discredited 'death panel' charge and tries to scare seniors that way.

Funny, but I and most Democrats support 'zero cuts' in medicare. Only there are 137 Republicans in the house who earlier this year voted to cut medicare. So which is it? Is the GOP suddenly suggesting that we preserve all funding for medicare and not cut it? If so then hallelujah, we have agreement.

Of course the Democratic plan does not make any cuts in medicare so it is clearly a moot point in the context of the present health care debate. In fact the last party to make wholesale changes in medicare was the GOP, which in 2004 gave us the 'medicare prescription drug benefit' which was mainly a trillion dollar sop to the pharmaceutical industry and really hasn't done much to improve the access of seniors to prescription drugs over what it had been.

What this is, is a cynical attempt by the GOP to scare and stampede seniors against health insurance reform. Again, medicare is already a 'government option' and there are no plans to cut it.

Let's also not forget that the last time the 'scaring seniors' card was played, it was by Democrats-- suggesting during the 2004 campaign that Bush would try to privatize Social Security if he won. Only that time it turned out to be accurate. After the 2004 election, President Bush did try to privatize social security. And he failed (thank God.)

So one party, the GOP, is now trying to scare seniors over something that isn't even in the bill, and pushing a policy of guaranteed spending levels on medicare which they themselves have opposed and did oppose earlier this year. The other party in effect wants to extend the good health care provided by medicare to other people, by way of a public option. And the other party, the Democrats, has only accused the first party, the Republicans of doing something to endanger a program seniors depend on when, in fact, it turned out that they were absolutely right in making that charge.

Which party would you trust, under the circumstances?

McCain still running away from talking about Social Security, and his own record on it.

It's not often that I feel the need to repost an old post verbatim, but I am doing this now to highlight one of the biggest concerns I have with John McCain: the fact that he is saying virtually nothing about Social Security, one of the biggest domestic issues that we face. In the past two weeks he was asked directly about it, and appeared to contradict himself, first suggesting that he'd be open to raising the limit on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax as one option to make the system solvent, and then reversing himself and saying he'd be against it. That would be all in a day's work for McCain, except that it represents pretty much all he has said about the topic!

So here is the repost of the post that I originally posted on April 19.

McCain has nothing to say about Social Security. But he's already said enough.

In 2005, President Bush introduced a plan to borrow $2 trillion to begin privatizing Social Security. He told us that if Social Security was left as it is now then it would begin running a deficit in 2014 and become insolvent by 2042.

Well, that failed. The President was actually completely correct about the crisis that Social Security is facing, but his solution to privatize the system would have done little to prevent its impending collapse while putting at risk the retirement income of millions of people.

So how does the man who wants to succeed him as Republican nominee and President feel about the issue?

Well, I went to John McCain's website and in his 'search this site' button I typed in, "social security" (quotated so you don't get a bunch of junk about social programs and national security) and

what I get is:

"No documents were found."

Frankly it is frightening that a man who wants to be President of the United States has so little to say about Social Security that the two words don't appear together even one time on his website.

Luckily though there is a record of what he thinks.

On April 1, 1998 he voted, "Yes" to Senate concurrent resolution 86 which would have set up private accounts using the then-surplus.

And in the New York Times on January 11, 2000, an article about McCain's plans for Social Security said:

"McCain will present today his first comprehensive plan for apportioning the spoils of the nation’s current prosperity, calling for. a program to shore up Social Security through the establishment of individual retirement accounts. McCain also specifically allocates money to help Medicare, which like Social Security faces a financial shortfall as the population ages. He calls for workers to have the option of investing at least 20% of their Social Security payroll taxes in private accounts."

In a 1999 Fox News interview McCain was quoted as saying,

"Allow people to invest part of their taxes earmarked for Social Security to investment, in investments of their choice. I am convinced that that will make the Social Security system solvent."

In 2005, McCain supported the Bush initiative.

In a GOP debate in Orlando, Florida on October 21, 2007, he was quoted as saying

"It's got to be bipartisan. And you have to go to the American people and say we won't raise your taxes. We need personal savings accounts, but we got to fix this system."

He wants it to be bipartisan, and his language is a bit more nuanced, but it's clear that he still hasn't given up on privatization.

Now I know why he hasn't said anything at all this year about Social Security. If he hadn't thought about such a major issue, I'd question his qualifications to be President. But he's thought plenty about it, and he appears to agree with President Bush on it. So I'm not questioning whether he's qualified, but rather I'm questioning whether his failure to put in on his website is because he knows darn good and well that many people would view his plans as extreme, as well they should..

It is probably also worth noting that if you go his list of 'pick an issue,' Social Security is not an option on that menu either.

It is indeed troubling to me that a man who wants to be President of the United States has so little to say about such a crucial issue.

McCain has nothing to say about Social Security. But he's already said enough.

In 2005, President Bush introduced a plan to borrow $2 trillion to begin privatizing Social Security. He told us that if Social Security was left as it is now then it would begin running a deficit in 2014 and become insolvent by 2042.

Well, that failed. The President was actually completely correct about the crisis that Social Security is facing, but his solution to privatize the system would have done little to prevent its impending collapse while putting at risk the retirement income of millions of people.

So how does the man who wants to succeed him as Republican nominee and President feel about the issue?

Well, I went to John McCain's website and in his 'search this site' button I typed in, "social security" and well,

what I get is:

"No documents were found."

Frankly it is frightening that a man who wants to be President of the United States has so little to say about Social Security that the two words don't appear together even one time on his website.

Luckily though there is a record of what he thinks.

On April 1, 1998 he voted, "Yes" to Senate concurrent resolution 86 which would have set up private accounts using the then-surplus.

And in the New York Times on January 11, 2000, an article about McCain's plans for Social Security said:

McCain will present today his first comprehensive plan for apportioning the spoils of the nation’s current prosperity, calling for. a program to shore up Social Security through the establishment of individual retirement accounts. McCain also specifically allocates money to help Medicare, which like Social Security faces a financial shortfall as the population ages. He calls for workers to have the option of investing at least 20% of their Social Security payroll taxes in private accounts.

In a 1999 Fox News interview McCain was quoted as saying,

Allow people to invest part of their taxes earmarked for Social Security to investment, in investments of their choice. I am convinced that that will make the Social Security system solvent.

In 2005, McCain supported the Bush initiative.

In a GOP debate in Orlando, Florida on October 21, 2007, he was quoted as saying

It's got to be bipartisan. And you have to go to the American people and say we won't raise your taxes. We need personal savings accounts, but we got to fix this system.

He wants it to be bipartisan, and his language is a bit more nuanced, but it's clear that he still hasn't given up on privatization.

Now I know why he hasn't said anything at all this year about Social Security. If he hadn't thought about such a major issue, I'd question his qualifications to be President. But he's thought plenty about it, and he appears to agree with President Bush on it. So I'm not questioning whether he's qualified, but rather I'm questioning whether his failure to put in on his website is because he knows darn good and well that many people would view his plans as extreme, as well they should.