Olympic Decline

Is Western Civilization in decline? One way to answer that question has been through the prism of the Olympic Games.  From the 1976 Montreal Olympics where the US trailed both the Soviet Union and East Germany in the metal count to the American domination at the 1984 Olympics at the height of Ronald Reagan's America, the Olympics has provided a pretty fair gut check on the state of western civilization.  Reviewing the medal count of the XXX Olympiad, America reversed the medal decline in Beijing four year earlier and re-emerged on top with 117 metals, 60 of them gold.  The results surprised many in China who saw in Beijing a Chinese cultural and political ascendancy that was irreversible. But if we review, not the medal count, but the opening and closing ceremonies as the barometer to the health of western civilization, I see a civilization proud of its past but uncertain about its future.


The pomp, circumstance and optimism of the Olympic opening in Beijing 2008, designed by the Communists to be a coming-out party for a new superpower, made London's 2012 Opening Ceremonies puny and retrospective in comparison.  From the industrial revolution to the characters of England's historic literature, this year's ceremony celebrated the achievement of the past and ignored the challenges of the future.  In London's closing ceremonies, we were fed supermodels and other pop confections, everything both the far-right and far-left of the US believe is polluting Western Civilization.  In both the opening and closing ceremonies, aging rockers, Paul McCartney and The Who respectively, were called upon to evoke a time when hope and change represented something beyond a political bumper sticker.  But that was "all those years ago" as George Harrison sang.  My God, The Who are still singing "My Generation".  That generation is at least 60 years old now.  The imagery of Roger Daltry huffing and puffing through what's left of his lower vocal range sadly reminds me of one the last Star Trek movies where William Shatner, as Kirk, had to come to grips with the fact that the world is passing him by and his enemies are not intimidated by his small stature and pot belly.


The good news is that the fitness and the vigor of America's 2012 Olympic athletes and coaching staff remind us that a portion of our population still understands the value of hard work and sacrifice.  We still have people in this country who are hungry for success and still believe in the American Dream.  Unfortunately, these 529 American athletes and the many other achievers we have in areas outside the Olympics pale in number to an ever-growing fat, lazy, undisciplined slacker underbelly of "citizens" who do little, expect much, and assume America will always be on top because they were taught American Exceptionalism.

For those who assume the future will always be like the past, look at the medal count.  See how many medals Greece, Rome (Italy) and Turkey...or even Russia for that matter have won.  The paucity of success for those superpowers of the past should remind us that greatness rarely lasts.  I am concerned that that our success this year is masking deep seated fears about the future.  As the UK and western civilization struts its stuff around Olympic Stadium, I wonder whether our civilization's celebration of past glory was subconsciously designed to distract us from the uncertainty of our civilization's place in the future.

Samsung Video Proves It Did Not Copy Apple!!!

Bruce w/the Roots in EU - Doesn't Get Better

I Can't Believe I am Agreeing with Sarah Palin

Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide
By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS, The New York Times
Published: September 9, 2011

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS — Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.

That is not how we’re primed to see Ms. Palin. A pugnacious Tea Partyer? Sure. A woman of the people? Yup. A Mama Grizzly? You betcha.

But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the “far left,” she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment — left, right and center — and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide.

The next day, the “lamestream” media, as she calls it, played into her fantasy of it by ignoring the ideas she unfurled and dwelling almost entirely on the will-she-won’t-she question of her presidential ambitions.

So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah Palin’s ideas.

There was plenty of the usual Palin schtick — words that make clear that she is not speaking to everyone but to a particular strain of American: “The working men and women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came down from the deer stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the John Deere, and we took to the streets, and we took to the town halls, and we ended up at the ballot box.”

But when her throat was cleared at last, Ms. Palin had something considerably more substantive to say.

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.

Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.

“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”

Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.

Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.

Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them.

“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”

Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there?

The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market.

What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn’t choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time.

Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism.

On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity.

No one knows yet whether Ms. Palin will actually run for president. But she did just get more interesting.

Do You Know if Your Kid Is a Bully?

Life Is a Matter of Timing

Obama Doesn't Understand Capitalism

Obama: Corporate Profits "Have To Be Shared By American Workers" -- February 6, 2011

"If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line," President Obama told the Chamber of Commerce on Monday morning.

The Obama quote is an example of how the President doesn’t understand the difference between shareholders and stakeholders. In Capitalism, profits are to be distributed to the owners of the Company (unless the Company can generate a higher return on its cash), so that they, in turn, can invest and risk that profit on starting or growing other ventures. That is how new jobs are really created.

If a Company has a problem of disparity between the pay of its executives and its workers, it should (at least theoretically) be a disadvantage to be exploited by competitors and damaged by fleeing workers. A Company's Board of Directors is the corporate body tasked with reigning in compensation packages when those packages negatively affect the Company’s performance. A weak Board that doesn't address this problem has historically translated into poor stock performance.

Another example of the President’s misunderstanding concerning why and how capital is risked can be found in the bailout of GM where secured bondholders were crammed down in favor of union workers. Team Obama may think that the GM bailout is a big win -- and in the short-term, it is. But longer term, that precedent will make capital-riskers less likely to provide securitized funding for the next basket case company and taxpayers will be more likely on the hook for turn-around funding in the future.

Shrinking the Federal Budget Deficit

Gentlemen,

I’d like to share with you a recent discussion that led me to do a little research on the Federal budget deficit and what levers could be pulled to move us towards a balanced budget in the coming years. I hope you find the topic interesting and it gets you thinking more about the defining issue of our generation, the burgeoning Federal Deficit. The discussion started with a friend of mine (who is a big Fox News watcher) suggesting that we could close the budget deficit by cutting the compensation of Federal employees who are being paid more than their private counterparts for doing the same job. On a gut level, I did not think that that a cut in Federal payroll could appreciably close the deficit, but I said that I would review federal expenditures to either substantiate or change my view. After reviewing the numbers, I conclude that even if we cut the Federal payroll substantially, we cannot balance the federal budget without also trimming entitlements and defense. And even that solution, if it did balance the budget, would not begin to address a repayment of the $13.8 Trillion National Debt, which is a separate liability from that of the annual deficit!

BTW, factcheck.org did a long and boring analysis of Rand Paul’s comments concerning pay differentials between public and private employees (http://factcheck.org/2010/12/are-federal-workers-overpaid/). The issue is complicated, but for the sake of this discussion, lets assume that US federal government workers are 10% overpaid visa vie their corporate counterparts.

Current 2010 Budget $3.5Trillion*
Current 2010 Tax Revenue $2.1Trillion*
Current 2010 Budget Deficit $1.4Trillion*
Currently, the U.S. Office of Personal Management estimates that there are just over 4.2 million federal employees. Thus, based on the average salary figures reported by USA Today, total wages paid to all federal employees now total nearly $300 billion per year. Add to this figure the costs of insurance, paid time off, and retirement benefits (which have not even been quantified here), and the total federal outlay to "pay" federal employees soars by billions more.

Let’s take a $320B base figure as the cost of federal employees and benefits and then use the assumption that federal workers are paid on average 10% more that comparable workers in the private sector. If we were to implement a 10% across the board cut of salaries and benefits (politically a virtual impossibility), we would save the taxpayers $32B dollars a year. Sounds like a large number. But based on 2010 numbers, that savings would only represent 2.5% of the 2010 budget deficit. If we could to get rid of every U.S. Government worker (right-wing dream), we could only close 25% of the colossal 2010 deficit.

Now if you say that 2010 was an aberration due to the cost of the $787 Billion Stimulus Act, let’s look at 2008.

2008 Budget $2.9 Trillion*
2008 Tax Revenue $2.66 Trillion*
2008 Budget Deficit $240 Brillion*
The $32 Billion representing the 10% public/private savings differential in the original assumption would represent 15% of the 2008 deficit. A better percentage savings than in 2010 to be sure, but still not nearly enough to solve the deficit problem, in what some consider a more typical budgetary year.

For the sake of supply-siders, let’s look at closing the deficit using the other side of the ledger - tax receipts. I agree with conservatives who argue that we could cut the deficit by taking actions to speed the growth of the economy and increase the taxable base. But, to show you the limit of that approach, in 1999, a year where most economists said our economy was running on all cylinders, the U.S. ran a budget surplus of $77 Billion. According to factcheck.org, $75 Billion of that sum was attributable to a short-term surplus in the social security fund. Only $1.9 Billion of the surplus came from tax receipts.

So, although we do need to lessen regulation and create tax incentives designed to spur economic development, the deficit will not appreciably shrink without attacking our biggest expenditure categories. To properly attack these sacred cow expenditure while also promoting policies that increase GDP, I believe we need to take the following steps to reverse the current budgetary trends:
a) add a needs test to social security. For taxpayers with significant assets, social security would be capped at a simple return of money paid in;
b) increasing the age of full eligibility to 68 for taxpayers in the system less than 15 years;
c) begin bringing market forces to control spiraling medicare costs (e.g. allow purchase of prescription drugs from Canada);
d) cut all government departments 10% save for the Department of Defense which would be cut 5%
e) grow the economy by switching to a flat 18% tax on all income above $45,000 and guarantee that tax rates would not change for 10 years (a. no deductions for individuals and b. non-profits & churches would begin to be taxed);
f) enact a balanced budget constitutional amendment to stop the cycle of over-spending;
g) enact a temporary consumption tax dedicated solely to paying off the national debt.

If and when the national debt is paid off, we can then drop the consumption tax. The savings from no consumption tax and no debt interest payments would then allow for the lowering of the estate tax to 18%, equal to the tax rate on earned income (2011 estate tax is scheduled to be 35% on amounts above $5M). Without much proof beyond a gut feeling, I also believe that a balanced budget would eventually free up enough money to give each American a yearly voucher of around $2000 ($660B total) to spend solely on bare-bones health insurance. By the Federal Government footing a healthcare safety net which allowed consumers to choose among competing private plans, we re-engage the primary patient / doctor relationship and inject market forces to tame the health care beast. This change would, over time, go a long way towards curbing the increases in the cost of entitlements such as Medicare by incentivizing early intervention “health care" as opposed to the high-cost administering of critical "sick care”. Finally, Government financed/Consumer chosen healthcare would sidestep the nasty constitutional fight about to begin over whether the federal government has the right to force citizens to buy Obamacare.

Do you read these numbers differently than I do? What’s your opinion beyond the obvious fact that Washington doesn’t have the leadership (on either side of the aisle) to implement any plan that requires tough choices.

Humbly submitted,

Dave

*Numbers from Wikipedia

Sarah Palin's Not the Only Proud American

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones' Bayonne
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Finally, No-BS Deficit Reduction Reccomendations

Let's see all the Republican deficit talkers get behind this...I doubt it.

3:35 PM ET The Details
The draft put out by the commission chairs has been released, coming in at 50 pages. The overarching goal, Simpson and Bowles write, is to achieve "nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction through 2020" while reducing "the deficit to 2.2% of GDP by 2015."

How they get there is going to be a matter of contention as other commission members have already stressed their displeasure with the suggestions. But here are a few of the more noteworthy suggestions.

Roll discretionary spending back to FY2010 levels for FY2012, requires 1% cut in discretionary budget authority every year from FY2013 though 2015;
Fully offset the cost of the "Doc Fix" by asking doctors and other health providers, lawyers, and individuals to take responsibility for slowing health care cost growth;
Reduce farm subsidies by3 billion per year by reducing direct payments and other subsidies;
Achieve100 billion in Illustrative Defense Cuts;
Index retirement age for Social security to increases in longevity. "This option is projected to increase the age by one month every two years after it reaches 67 under current law, meaning the normal retirement age would reach 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075." There will be a "hardship exemption" for those unable to work beyond 62;
Give retirees the choice of collecting half their benefits early and the other half at a later age to minimize impact of actuarial reduction and support phased retirement options;
Reduce corporate tax rate to 26% and permanently extend the research credit;
Gradually increase gas tax to fund transportation spending.
3:37 PM ET Beyond Social Security
A more detailed list of discretionary spending cuts proposed by Simpson and Bowles has been released. Below are a few of the more notable bites at the apple:

Reduce Congressional & White House budgets by 15 percent;
Freeze federal salaries, bonuses, and other compensation at non-defense agencies for three hears;
Cap the number of federal political appointments at 2,000;
Eliminate the Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools;
Eliminate all earmarks.;
Reduce unnecessary printing costs;
Reduce funding to the Smithsonian and the National Park Service and allow the programs to offset the reduction through fees;
Cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
3:38 PM ET Gregg, Conrad Weigh In
Retiring Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) has put out a statement commending the chairs' suggestions but not formally endorsing them.

The proposal that the Co-Chairmen of the Commission have put forward is an aggressive and comprehensive plan for getting federal spending, deficits and the debt under control. I look forward to reviewing it in depth and hopefully improving on it.
It is critical to our nation's future that we take action that puts the country and our children's future back on sound financial ground. This will not be the final proposal, but it is a significant step down the path of establishing fiscal responsibility.

Another committee member, Budget Chair Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) follows suit, echoing Gregg's remark.

We have now received a proposal from the bipartisan co-chairs of the President's Fiscal Commission, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. This is not the conclusion of the commission's work. This is the beginning.
I commend them for putting together a serious proposal. It reveals just how difficult it is to put the nation on a sound fiscal course. Some of it I agree with; some I strongly disagree with. We will have a chance to offer alternatives as we advance the process later today and next week.

3:38 PM ET Expect Some Tweaks
Huffington Post's Lucia Graves, who attended the unveiling, relays the following remark from Bowles, suggesting that there will be tinkering with the recommendations.

We're not asking anybody to vote for this plan. This plan is a starting point. It represents only Al and my thinking and no one else's. We have run it by the President's advisees. I think every member of the commission today said they thought it was a serious plan.
3:39 PM ET Sanders Disappointed
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is one of the first non-commission Senators out of the box with a statement opposing the findings.

The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan is extremely disappointing and something that should be vigorously opposed by the American people. The huge increase in the national debt in recent years was caused by two unpaid wars, tax breaks for the wealthy, a Medicare prescription drug bill written by the pharmaceutical industry, and the Wall Street bailout. Unlike Social Security, none of these proposals were paid for. Not only has Social Security not contributed a dime to the deficit, it has a $2.6 trillion surplus.
It is reprehensible to ask working people, including many who do physically-demanding labor, to work until they are 69 years of age. It also is totally impractical. As they compete for jobs with 25-year-olds, many older workers will go unemployed and have virtually no income. Frankly, there will not be too much demand within the construction industry for 69-year-old bricklayers.

Despite all of the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security can pay every nickel owed to every eligible American for the next 29 years and after that about 80 percent of benefits.

If we are serious about making Social Security strong and solvent for the next 75 years, President Obama has the right solution. On October 14, 2010, he restated a long-held position that the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, now at $106,800, should be raised. As the president has long stated, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the system as someone who earns $106,800.

With the richest people in this country getting richer and the middle class in decline, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the Social Security system as someone who earns $106,800.

Third-Way, the centrist Democratic organization, meanwhile, calls for a vote on the recommendations even though it seems unclear that the 18-member commission will support them.

The moment of truth is here. The Commission report is the only game in town - and if this wasn't just a campaign slogan, the parties must come together and demand a vote on the Commission's recommendations.
3:40 PM ET Trumka: 'Unconscionable' Cuts
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka leaves little doubt as to how labor views the recommendations.

The chairmen of the Deficit Commission just told working Americans to 'Drop Dead.' Especially in these tough economic times, it is unconscionable to be proposing cuts to the critical economic lifelines for working people, Social Security and Medicare.
Some people are saying this is plan is just a "starting point." Let me be clear, it is not.

3:41 PM ET White House: No Comment Just Yet
The White House, in a statement from spokesman Bill Burton, weighs in with a statement that falls noticeably short of embracing Simpson and Bowle's suggestions

The President will wait until the bipartisan fiscal commission finishes its work before commenting. He respects the challenging task that the Co-Chairs and the Commissioners are undertaking and wants to give them space to work on it. These ideas, however, are only a step in the process towards coming up with a set of recommendations and the President looks forward to reviewing their final product early next month.
3:42 PM ET The Real Danger
The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim, after looking through the chairs' suggestions, offers the following observation of the dangers they could pose to Social Security.

The most direct assault on Social Security, however, may not be the increase of the retirement age, but rather an attempt to tilt the program toward a welfare model and away from the current, universal insurance model that has made it popular and enduring despite 75 years of attacks. The co-chairs propose to "increase [the] progressivity of [the] benefit formula by creating a new bendpoint at the 50th percentile." Such a move would require means testing. In other words, the government would determine benefits based on a beneficiary's assets and other sources of income. Currently, beneficiaries are paid benefits based on their contribution over their working life. Replacing the social insurance model with a welfare model would erode support, encourage fraud and ultimately undermine the program.
3:51 PM ET 'Equal Opportunity Disaster'
“The Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs’ proposal is an equal opportunity disaster," said Eric Kingson of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign. "It cuts benefits for today’s seniors and persons with disabilities. It cuts Social Security benefits for virtually every American alive today and yet to be born."

4:01 PM ET Krugman: They Can't Be Serious
Paul Krugman is less than impressed by the recommendations put forward by Bowles and Simpson.

In a post titled "Unserious People," The New York Times' Nobel Prize-winning economist explains that if the retirement age is raised, those who make the least will be paying for those who make the most.

"Oh, and they’re talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer — except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever."
4:04 PM ET Grijalva: A Plan That Favors The Wealthy
Statement from Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who helped organize a letter of lawmakers opposing debt commission cuts to Social Security:

If the co-chairs of the deficit commission were dead set on gutting Social Security and Medicare from the beginning, they could have saved time and effort by releasing this proposal the day after the commission was formed. Instead, we have waited through nine months of backroom negotiations only to be told that the American people will have to tighten their belts another notch while defense spending continues to grow and corporate bonuses continue to expand.
The path this plan would set is not good for the public. Congress should be having a realistic, productive conversation right now about how to reduce our budget deficit and maintain a secure retirement system for those who have earned it. Instead, we’re debating a proposal from a commission dedicated to cutting crucial social programs and reducing corporate and upper-income taxes at the same time. This is not a recipe for a healthier American economy.

Real budget reform must begin by allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of earners to expire, as they were always designed to do. This would reduce the debt by at least $680 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Department of the Treasury. The middle class has already been hit extremely hard by the ongoing economic downturn and the housing crisis. The last thing we should do is take more money out of their pockets in the name of a conservative tax cut agenda that favors the wealthy over the rest of us.

4:07 PM ET It's Not Conservative Enough?
Commission members Reps. Dave Camp (R., Mich.), Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) and Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) have issued a joint statement that explicitly does not endorse the co-chairs' report:

We appreciate the leadership of Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles on the Fiscal Commission, and their shared commitment to addressing our pressing fiscal challenges. This is a provocative proposal, and while we have concerns with some of their specifics, we commend the co-chairs for advancing the debate. We will continue to work toward solutions that help spur economic growth and restrain the explosive growth of government spending.
4:09 PM ET Pro-Tort Reform & Pro-Public Option
Over at the Wonk Room, Igor Volsky looks into what the debt commission report says about health care:

On the health care side, the proposal strengthens some existing provisions in the Affordable Care Act, calling for the expansion of successful payment reforms and a far stronger Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which will advise Congress on how to control health care spending. The proposal also embraces the oft-repeated GOP idea of tort reform and throws progressives a bone by recommending that a public option be inserted into the exchanges along with an all-payer rate setting system.
4:24 PM ET 'Like The Devil Hates Holy Water'
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), one of three Democrats appointed to the deficit commission by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, issued the following statement:

The proposal laid out today by Commission Co-Chairs Bowles and Simpson is a starting point for the conversation about how to rein in the deficit and control spending here in Washington. This draft proposal has some painful cuts, some things that inspire me and some things that I hate like the devil hates holy water. I'll continue to work on making some changes to this draft, but it is an interesting starting point for future conversations.
4:47 PM ET MoveOn Calls On White House To Reject Recommendations
In an e-mail Wednesday, MoveOn asked members to contact the White House and tell President Obama to reject the proposal put forward by the panel's co-chairs:

The people who want to cut Social Security are spreading lots of myths meant to make you think there is a looming crisis. Well, it's not true—there is no Social Security crisis. The program's trust fund will have a $4.3 trillion surplus by 2023, and can pay all of its obligations for decades to come. Also, legally it can't contribute to the deficit—it only ever gives out benefits it can pay for.
Last week's elections showed that voters don't feel like Washington is looking out for them. Cutting Social Security in the name of a deficit it didn't create would show that Democrats aren't learning the lessons of last week. We need Washington—starting with President Obama—to stand up for those who are struggling. This proposal would do the opposite. Please call President Obama today and tell him this proposal is a non-starter.

4:49 PM ET Pelosi: 'Simply Unacceptable'
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) calls the report "simply unacceptable":

Our nation is facing two challenges: the need to create jobs and address our budget deficit. Any viable proposal from the President’s Fiscal Commission must strengthen our economy, but it must do so in a fair way, focusing on how we can effectively promote economic growth.
This proposal is simply unacceptable. Any final proposal from the Commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren’s economic security as well as for our nation’s fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare. And it must strengthen America’s middle class families–under siege for the last decade, and unable to withstand further encroachment on their economic security.

4:56 PM ET Union President: We'll Fight It
AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee calls the report's recommendations "unnecessary and dangerous":

Today, the chairmen of the Deficit Commission announced a plan to cut Medicare and raise the retirement age for Social Security. We will not rest until we defeat these unnecessary and dangerous proposals. They represent one more example of the ongoing assault against middle class Americans. Why is it that these millionaires always look for cuts instead of revenues? If we have enough resources to give more tax cuts to the rich, why can’t we find the resources to protect the retirement and health security of America’s working men and women?
Thankfully, there are Commission members like Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) who won’t support these regressive recommendations from the chairmen. We’ll fight these proposals just as we fought George Bush and the congressional Republicans who tried to privatize Social Security. We took on Bush and we won. We’ll fight these reckless attacks on working Americans just as hard.

5:03 PM ET The Timing
HuffPost's Sam Stein on today's surprise announcement:

There was little to no notice that a press conference was to be held and a major document unveiled suggesting fairly drastic cuts to Social Security and Medicare in addition to major revisions in tax law. In fact, multiple staffers to lawmakers who serve on the commission itself say that they were left in the dark about the announcement that was made by the two chairs: former Sen. Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles.
"Members didn't get a copy until they walked into that room," said a source who works with the commission. "And once we were there, the politicians said, 'If this is going to leak, you might as well get in front of it, put out a press release or hold a press conference."

5:31 PM ET Wyden: It Goes Too Far, Not Far Enough
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) avoided a simple endorsement or rejection of the co-chairs' proposals Wednesday. Instead, Wyden compared the chairmen's recommendations to those put forward in the tax reform bill he co-sponsored with Sen. Judd Greg (R-N.H.):

“The Fiscal Commission demonstrates what Senator Gregg and I have spent the last year saying: By eliminating what amounts to tax earmarks for special interests, it is possible to simplify the tax code, promote economic growth and cut taxes for the vast majority of American families and businesses. Obviously, what the Fiscal Commission terms 'Wyden-Gregg style reform' does not, in some respects, go as far as Wyden-Gregg does in simplifying filing for individuals and families and scaling back the corporate rate. While in other respects, it goes too far. For example, Senator Gregg and I considered limits on mortgage and charitable deductions too politically controversial to include in our legislation. But what I hope people will take away from the Fiscal Commission’s report is the fact that, when it comes to taxes, Congress needs to do more than simply vote on an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts. Extending a broken tax system will do nothing more than extend the current economic stagnation. If my colleagues are serious about creating jobs and growing the economy while addressing the nation’s fiscal health we need to get serious about comprehensive tax reform.”
6:22 PM ET Color Copies For Debt Commission Proposal?
HuffPost attended the White House deficit commission's presser in Dirksen this afternoon and thought it looked just like one of Steny Hoyer's weekly pen-and-pads sessions (lots of familiar faces), only with Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson at the head of the roundtable, speechifying and fielding questions. As they discussed the finer points of how to reduce the country's budget deficit and eliminate fiscal waste, they passed around stacks of color copies of their proposal. HuffPost noticed their proposals on how to cut spending were written in 32-point font and using only one side of each page. Something else that set the event apart from a Hoyer pen-and pad: Social Security Work's Alex Lawson was initially thrown out of the event, after being told it was for press only. "I walked back in when things had gotten started and people wouldn't want to fuss with me in front of the cameras," Lawson told HuffPost post event.

Janine Benyus: Biomimicry in action | Video on TED.com

Janine Benyus: Biomimicry in action | Video on TED.com

Kennedy-Nixon First Presidential Debate, 1960

Jan Brewer is Not the Only Quality Republican Running

Have the Romulans Beaten the Federation to China?

NET Video Player

Basil Marceaux - Man of the People

I'm with the Tea Party when they advocate limited government; I know this is "gotcha journalism"; but some of these people are so embarrassing.

Right Wing is Spitting Mad over Healthcare Bill

A Congressman feeling pressured to vote for ObamaCare?

New York Times Compiled List of Restaurant Dos and Don'ts

If you eat out as much as I do, you know how dead-on this list is.

One Hundred Things Restaurant Staffers Should Never Do (Part 1)
By BRUCE BUSCHEL

Herewith is a modest list of dos and don’ts for servers at the seafood restaurant I am building. Veteran waiters, moonlighting actresses, libertarians and baristas will no doubt protest some or most of what follows. They will claim it homogenizes them or stifles their true nature. And yet, if 100 different actors play Hamlet, hitting all the same marks, reciting all the same lines, cannot each one bring something unique to that role?

1. Do not let anyone enter the restaurant without a warm greeting.

2. Do not make a singleton feel bad. Do not say, “Are you waiting for someone?” Ask for a reservation. Ask if he or she would like to sit at the bar.

3. Never refuse to seat three guests because a fourth has not yet arrived.

4. If a table is not ready within a reasonable length of time, offer a free drink and/or amuse-bouche. The guests may be tired and hungry and thirsty, and they did everything right.

5. Tables should be level without anyone asking. Fix it before guests are seated.

6. Do not lead the witness with, “Bottled water or just tap?” Both are fine. Remain neutral.

7. Do not announce your name. No jokes, no flirting, no cuteness.

8. Do not interrupt a conversation. For any reason. Especially not to recite specials. Wait for the right moment.

9. Do not recite the specials too fast or robotically or dramatically. It is not a soliloquy. This is not an audition.

10. Do not inject your personal favorites when explaining the specials.

11. Do not hustle the lobsters. That is, do not say, “We only have two lobsters left.” Even if there are only two lobsters left.

12. Do not touch the rim of a water glass. Or any other glass.

13. Handle wine glasses by their stems and silverware by the handles.

14. When you ask, “How’s everything?” or “How was the meal?” listen to the answer and fix whatever is not right.

15. Never say “I don’t know” to any question without following with, “I’ll find out.”

16. If someone requests more sauce or gravy or cheese, bring a side dish of same. No pouring. Let them help themselves.

17. Do not take an empty plate from one guest while others are still eating the same course. Wait, wait, wait.

18. Know before approaching a table who has ordered what. Do not ask, “Who’s having the shrimp?”

19. Offer guests butter and/or olive oil with their bread.

20. Never refuse to substitute one vegetable for another.

21. Never serve anything that looks creepy or runny or wrong.

22. If someone is unsure about a wine choice, help him. That might mean sending someone else to the table or offering a taste or two.

23. If someone likes a wine, steam the label off the bottle and give it to the guest with the bill. It has the year, the vintner, the importer, etc.

24. Never use the same glass for a second drink.

25. Make sure the glasses are clean. Inspect them before placing them on the table.

26. Never assume people want their white wine in an ice bucket. Inquire.

27. For red wine, ask if the guests want to pour their own or prefer the waiter to pour.

28. Do not put your hands all over the spout of a wine bottle while removing the cork.

29. Do not pop a champagne cork. Remove it quietly, gracefully. The less noise the better.

30. Never let the wine bottle touch the glass into which you are pouring. No one wants to drink the dust or dirt from the bottle.

31. Never remove a plate full of food without asking what went wrong. Obviously, something went wrong.

32. Never touch a customer. No excuses. Do not do it. Do not brush them, move them, wipe them or dust them.

33. Do not bang into chairs or tables when passing by.

34. Do not have a personal conversation with another server within earshot of customers.

35. Do not eat or drink in plain view of guests.

36. Never reek from perfume or cigarettes. People want to smell the food and beverage.

37. Do not drink alcohol on the job, even if invited by the guests. “Not when I’m on duty” will suffice.

38.Do not call a guy a “dude.”

39. Do not call a woman “lady.”

40. Never say, “Good choice,” implying that other choices are bad.

41. Saying, “No problem” is a problem. It has a tone of insincerity or sarcasm. “My pleasure” or “You’re welcome” will do.

42. Do not compliment a guest’s attire or hairdo or makeup. You are insulting someone else.

43. Never mention what your favorite dessert is. It’s irrelevant.

44. Do not discuss your own eating habits, be you vegan or lactose intolerant or diabetic.

45. Do not curse, no matter how young or hip the guests.

46. Never acknowledge any one guest over and above any other. All guests are equal.

47. Do not gossip about co-workers or guests within earshot of guests.

48. Do not ask what someone is eating or drinking when they ask for more; remember or consult the order.

49. Never mention the tip, unless asked.

50. Do not turn on the charm when it’s tip time. Be consistent throughout.

Fox News- idiots...MSNBC- idiots...Obama administration- idiots!!!!!!

Check out this Jon Stewart video diatribe concerning the White House war on Fox News. Although I feel Jon was a little unfair to to Jim Cramer when he skewered CNBC's role in the stock market crisis, nobody tells the emperor that he has no clothes on better than The Daily Show host.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
For Fox Sake!
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis