As this issue becomes less politicized, more folks seem to warm to the legislation.

Wait…what???

To me this is encouraging. Of course, we all know there are problems with the legislation that passed, but I think we can also collectively agree that the current system is completely unsustainable. So some type of fix had to be made, and Obama made his move.

Personally, I didn’t think it was smart politically, but I respect that he was able to at least draw some support from the other side of the aisle wit the compromises he made. After all, politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal.

Here’s more from Wash Post:

Opposition to the landmark health care overhaul declined over the past month, to 35 percent from 41 percent, according to the latest results of a tracking poll, reported Thursday.

Fifty percent of the public held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48 percent a month ago, while 14 percent expressed no opinion about the measure, according to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The approval level was the highest for the legislation since it was enacted in March, after a divisive year-long debate. In April, the poll found 46 percent in favor and 40 percent opposed.

But wait…what do independents think?

Well, they’re more in favor than they were…

Independents, who can tip the balance in elections, split 48 percent to 37 percent in favor, compared with 49 percent to 41 percent a month earlier.

However…

The intensity of opinion among this group showed little change; just less than a fifth expressed a very favorable view, and just more than a quarter expressed a very unfavorable view.

So some in the middle have switched to the undecided column. That’s net win for Obama and Dems, regardless of the unfavorable view.

And that begs the big question: do we really think that Republicans can run on “Repeal It!” this year or in 2012?

I think not.

What do you think?

If you’re lucky enough to earn a lot of income, you knew this was coming. After all, you only get taxed for Social Security on the first $106,800 of your income. Anything after that draws no SS tax.

So, basically, while the rest of us get taxed on our entire income, you all pay into the system for only a very small portion of your income.

Many on the right have suggested that this would amount to the largest tax increase in history. However, it’s a hollow argument.

Let’s just look at recent history. In 1992, the top tax bracket was 31%. That increased to 39.6% from 1993 to 2001. So that’s clearly an 8.6% hike. Know the percentage that’s taken out of your check for SS? 6.2%. Pretty simple math there.

And given that Americans value folks who’ve worked hard their entire lives and should have a social safety net, they want the rich to pay their fair share.

From Gallup:

My guess is that when Social Security reform rolls around in 2013, and if Obama is elected, he’ll propose two changes. First, no more cap. Second, raise the retirement age to 60. These solutions will keep this program solvent forever. If Romney is elected, there will be no reform because he’ll seek to privatize the system and nobody’s going to go for that given the volatility in the stock market, not only in this country but elsewhere.

So, if you’re rich you have to ask yourself…is this fair? Personally, I think the cap has always been unfair, but I’d love to hear your thoughts. But before you libertarians and conservatives serve up the same arguments, let’s please just take a deep breath and realize that folks who are rich will undoubtedly stay that way even with this tax increase. They’ll just have a little less disposable income. That is literally the net effect of this. Few would move out of the country as a result of this because every other prosperous nation that you’d want to live in has similar policies.

But yes, if somebody wants to become a resident of a weird island nation that has almost no taxes, go for it. And they can suffer the scorn of everybody and isolate themselves.

So, to me, this seems like a small price to pay to make sure the other 94% have the safety net we desperately need.

But wait, there’s more!

Another graph. This one shows the number of taxpayers who are above the cap and their earnings.

Basically, the rich have been gaining more and more income, as a percentage of the whole, than the rest of us. That’s not to demonize them and, by the way, well done! You’ve figured it out. *golf clap*

But the rest of us need a backup plan and you can give up some more to make sure we’re all safe and sound.

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

I’m not going to prognosticate too much today, but I will say that I think the talk of an electoral armageddon are severely overblown. Personally, I don’t see how the Repubs can take back either the House or the Senate.

Still, Obama is underwater when it comes to his approval numbers, so he can’t help out and may be a liability.

But what do you think? How many will the Repubs gain?

Also, is this a referendum on Obama or just a disgust with politics in general? After all, Repubs approval is lower than Dems, but they’re both lower than Obama’s.

Let me know what you think.

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

We’re very sad here in the Jacob household (New Jersey).

We took the dog out for a walk and she burst into flame.

I have no idea what to tell the kids.

What’s on your mind?

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

The title says it all, but here’s a bit more detail…

From NY Times:

Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay $550 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission, one of the largest penalties ever paid by a Wall Street firm, to settle charges of securities fraud linked to mortgage investments.

The S.E.C. filed a lawsuit against Goldman in April, accusing the bank of securities fraud. The settlement came just days before Goldman is scheduled to report its second-quarter earnings.

Under the terms of the deal, Goldman will pay $300 million in fines to the Treasury Department, with the rest serving as restitution to investors in the mortgage-linked security. Goldman will not admit wrongdoing, though it will admit that its marketing materials for the investment “contained incomplete information.”

Haha, yeah, it contained incomplete information. Like, “this investment’s goal is to turn you upside down and watch the money fall out of your pockets and into our hands.”

And here’s more from the S.E.C.’s director of enforcement, Robert Khuzami…

“Half a billion dollars is the largest penalty ever assessed against a financial services firm in the history of the S.E.C.,” Mr. Khuzami said in a statement. “This settlement is a stark lesson to Wall Street firms that no product is too complex, and no investor too sophisticated, to avoid a heavy price if a firm violates the fundamental principles of honest treatment and fair dealing.”

Is it bad that this has me smiling ear to ear?

I mean, with the financial regulations bill being passed today and this decision coming day, there’s obviously a new sheriff in town who’s trying to make sure that what went down in 2008 (and the years leading up to the meltdown) will never happen again.

And yes, businesses are crying foul, but meanwhile they’re sitting on record cash hordes, so their complaints ring pretty hollow to me.

Long story short, Goldman Sachs got what they deserved.

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

Listen, if a public or private company makes money and wants to keep it close to their chest, that’s their right. But those same businesses can’t then go and collectively fault the White House’s policies for preventing them from hiring more people. And that’s exactly what they’re doing through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups.

First, the Chamber story…

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which held a jobs summit Wednesday and accused the Obama administration of dumping onerous regulations on businesses. That has created an environment of “uncertainty,” which is causing firms to hold back on hiring as the unemployment rate has hovered near 10 percent, the Chamber said.

Onerous regulations? What they mean are ANY new regulations that make sure workers and consumers are protected from corporate mistakes.

So what did the White House say?

The White House countered that companies are wary of hiring not because of new regulations but because they’re still waiting for consumer demand to return. The administration also claimed credit for 3.5 million jobs created by the stimulus bill from last year.

Then, a little bit more on the money these companies are sitting on:

Nonfinancial companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, roughly one-quarter more than at the beginning of the recession. And as several major firms report impressive earnings this week, the money continues to flow into firms’ coffers. [...]

A survey last month of more than 1,000 chief financial officers by Duke University and CFO magazine showed that nearly 60 percent of those executives don’t expect to bring their employment back to pre-recession levels until 2012 or later — even though they’re projecting a 12 percent rise in earnings and a 9 percent boost in capital spending over the next year.

When asked why companies are holding back so much, many economists cite broader uncertainty that goes well beyond anything happening in Washington. Firms aren’t sure whether the economy can sustain a strong recovery. And as long as consumer spending remains low, there’s not much incentive for companies to ramp up.

I’m sure you’re spotting the inherent paradox here. Consumer spending won’t go up as long as firms aren’t hiring. It’s not secret that jobs stimulate far more consumer demand and spending, not the other way around. So what these businesses are essentially asking the American people is to spend money they don’t have so they might start hiring again.

Yeah, that’s a smart plan…

So, basically, there’s literally nothing anybody can do to make these companies hire, even though they’re starting to see record profits again.

Good times.

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

There is simply not a tent big enough to encompass the full spectrum of policy positions held by those opposed to our current One Party Democratic Rule, including: fiscal conservatives; social conservatives; Republican partisans; libertarians; independents; and the tea party movement. But there does not need to be a unanimity of policy preferences for the GOP to prevail. All they need in November is a common objective and general agreement that a key issue takes precedence over all others. My take -

• The objective is restoring balance and restraint in our federal government.
• The key issue is restraining the insane growth of spending and curtailing the fiscal irresponsibility exhibited by the Democrats and this administration.

In a nutshell – “It’s the spending, stupid” – (Thank you again James Carville).

The Tea Party movement is a microcosm of the opposition coalition, willfully misunderstood and mis-characterized by Democratic Party partisans. So far, the Tea Party has shown considerable focus, political acumen and seem to understand that social issues must take a back seat to economic issues in this election.
Read the rest of this entry »

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

First, take a look at this…

And yet the Wash Post leads with this headline: “Confidence in Obama reaches new low, Washington Post-ABC News poll finds”

Well, I guess if it’s presidential and it bleeds…it leads.

Here are some more internal numbers about confidence and it shows how each has slipped over time…

First observation…take a look at the “none at all” category. Obama and Repubs are tied with 29%, but Dems have 32%. That might be why the sentiment is more negative for Dems overall, even though Repubs confidence numbers are lower.

Second observation…why does the graph for Repubs have 72% and the numbers have 73%?

Third…looks like Repubs are gaining some ground, but they still haven’t been able to recover from before the inauguration time.

Fourth, the mood is anti-incumbent, with Republicans being at the bottom of the barrel.

Listen, there’s no doubt that the GOP will make gains in the fall, don’t buy the line that it’s absolutely hopeless for the Dems. Voters aren’t dumb and they’re not just going to vote for the opposition just because they’re the opposition…especially if they have no faith in the opposition.

Your thoughts?

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

Republican lawmakers Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe jumped on board to give Dems the votes they needed to pass a sweeping financial reform law. Susan Collins had previously committed to supporting the bill.

And one has to wonder, after reading what’s in the legislation…why are Republicans opposing this?

From The Hill:

The legislation aims to prevent future taxpayer-funded bailouts; would boost regulation over credit cards, mortgages and other products; regulate the $600 trillion derivatives market; and increase oversight of broad financial system risks, among other measures.

So how did the Dems get Brown’s support? Well…

Brown, the Massachusetts Republican who succeeded Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) in January, declared his support for the bill after Democrats removed a provision he had opposed in the conference report that would have levied $19 billion in taxes on financial firms.

Hey, if that’s what it will take to get reforms in place and finally be able to look into the black box that is the derivatives market, so be it.

Still, this really should have been a bipartisan bill. After those taxes were taken off the table, no good reasons remained for not supporting this legislation. So those Republicans are now going to have to answer questions in the fall about why they aren’t supporting anything that is attempting to fix the system they created that broke everything. Good luck with that.

More as it develops…

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

USA Today highlights an interesting trend that may be good news for the centrists, indies, moderate repubs and moderate dems out there.

A taste…

WARWICK, R.I. — Lincoln Chafee comes from a long line of Rhode Island governors, three in the previous four generations, all of them Republicans. Now the former Republican senator and mayor of Warwick is running for governor himself.

As an independent.

No independent has been elected to lead a state for more than a decade, since pro wrestler-turned-politician Jesse “The Body” Ventura became governor of Minnesota in 1999.

But this year there are three credible independent contenders for governor — a record. [...]

The other two are Tim Cahill, and indy turned Dem who’s running against incumbent Dem Gov Deval Patrick in Massachusetts, and Eliot Cutler, a Dem (who was briefly registered with the GOP) turned Indy who’s running for Governor in Maine. Cutler was a former Carter administration energy official who also helped craft the Clean Water and Clean Air acts while he was a legislative assistant under Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine.

Also, let’s not forget Charlie Crist, who’s now leading in a three way race in Florida for that Senate seat.

I think we all realized that this was coming sooner rather than later, especially with the Joe Lieberman situation. He was one of the first to switch to the middle after his party rejected him…and it seems like he’s been having a pretty good time in the middle. True, a lot of hardcore Dems hate him, but he still toes the party line a majority of the time so Dems might want to wise up. Especially since it’s likely that Romney will be the Rep candidate in 2012 and Lieberman could easily support Obama under those circumstances.

But to get back to the point…

Again, this writing has been on the wall for years. People hate party politics. And even though Fox News and the far right wing have co-opted the Tea Party, what we’re seeing as a result of these primaries is that people don’t want to go with the status quo. 2010 is a bad year for incumbents, be they Dems or Repubs. Most likely this will hit the Dems more because they make up the majority, but the mood is universally “throw the bums out.” Voters see the inherent flaws in being tied to this ideology or that, because politics has always been about the art of the compromise, and these newly minted independent politicians could actually deliver a new path forward.

But will people actually vote for an Indy?

Well…

Sixty percent of those surveyed in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say they are very or somewhat likely to vote for an independent candidate this fall, signaling at the least an openness to the idea.

“These are bad economic conditions and an extreme public disenchantment with the major parties,” says Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution and a former political science professor at Brown, in Providence. “That creates an opportunity for independent candidates.”

What’s unfortunate is that the Tea Partiers would be electing people who are far more likely to just be another cog in the right wing machine, as opposed to true independent thinkers. Well, let me back up. It’s not unfortunate because, as mentioned, the net effect may be politicians who are now not tied to any party and can make the best decisions.

Still, we’re not naive. We know that palms will still be greased and backs will still be slapped, but at least it appears we’re moving in a better direction.

So…who will you be voting for in the Fall?

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

The correlation (or not) of stock markets, political parties, election expectations and investor psychology has been a recurring topic of interest to this blogger (see 2006, 2007, 2008 , 2009).

Along these lines, we are beginning to see articles speculating about the potential impact on markets and investors should voters usher in a new divided government in the fall.

Richard Lehman, writing at Forbes recommends“Sell Into Rallies And Thank Politicians”:,

Joseph Lazzaro at the Daily Finance – “Job Creation: Democrats Have Run Out of Time WithVoters.”:

There is no doubt that should the GOP regain a majority in either house of Congress, we will certainly get episodes of gridlock. But if the legislation is needed, if there is real public demand for gridlocked legislation, the gridlock will eventually end as it always does. Out of that gridlock we will get better, more fiscally responsible legislation than we are seeing now under One Party Democratic rule. And that is a good thing.

The advantage of divided government is that both parties have a seat at the table of power. When both parties have real power, the bickering must be resolved by compromise. In contrast, the impotent bickering of the Republicans during the stimulus and healthcare debates was mostly ignored by the Democrats, resulting in fiscally irresponsible, one party legislative hairballs.

As far as stock market reactions, I am reluctant to link market behavior to any policy or partisan mix in Washington. I’ve not seen any studies that show a believable, statistically significant correlation between long term market direction and Republican, Democratic, or divided governments. That said – in the short term it is less important whether there really is a statistical correlation so much as whether investors believe there is a correlation. My sense is that most investors believe, as does Richard Lehman, that the stock market will benefit from Republicans taking control of either the House or Senate in the fall. With that expectation, a rising market could very well be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the GOP begins to look like it has a realistic chance of taking control of one house, the opportunities alluded to by Lehman may come along sooner rather than later.
Read the rest of this entry »

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

With the discouraging employment numbers coming out earlier this week (even though the unemployment rate dropped) and the seeming unpopularity of many of the administration’s positions, this isn’t necessarily surprising news.

Here’s the graph…

18 points in one year is a hell of a drop since it represents more than double the drop among Republicans. So, obviously, this doesn’t bode well for the upcoming elections.

Or does it?

Seems like the generic Repubs and Dems are essentially tied. So, as with most elections, the politics will be local and what will matter most is the mood on the ground…not at the national level.

Basically, Obama may not have much influence on the results when all is said and done. Still, having the swing voters on your side when the midterms hit is always a good thing.

More as it develops…

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

What do you think Robert Byrd’s legacy will be?

When do you think BP will be able to finally cap the well?

What do you think about the SCOTUS decision on gun rights?

Sound off!

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

PEOPLE NOT PARTIES

Leading independent attorney and counsel to IndependentVoting.org Harry Kresky penned a great HuffPo piece today called Let’s Have an Honest Debate About the Role of Parties:

“Proposition 14 abolished party primaries and replaced them with a system known as “top two.” All candidates will appear on a single ballot in a primary election in which all registered voters can participate and candidates can list party preference. The two highest vote getters face off in the November general election. A similar reform is now under consideration by a New York City Charter Revision Commission which has the authority to put it before the City’s voters in the November 2010 or 2011 election.

The pro-party argumentation – laid out in syndicated columns this week authored by George Will and David Broder, along with Errol Louis’ column in the New York Daily News – goes as follows. The political parties, they say, are central to our democracy as vehicles for voter education and mobilization, and the selection of candidates who represent their members’ preferences. Their right to do so is protected by the First Amendment, as is the right of citizens to form parties to advance their common interests. Without parties, we are told, billionaires and unchecked special interest groups will come to dominate our political system.

At the core of this position is a legal and logical sleight of hand that conflates the right of the people to form parties (and other associations like labor unions) to advance common interests with the control of the electoral system by the parties. The two are not the same….” [read the Huffington Post article here]

Errol Lewis called Prop 14 “dangerous” and “un-American.” Does Errol Lewis consider the 54% of the voters who went to the polls on Tuesday June 8th (probably mostly party registrants, given that it was a primary election) dangerous and un-American?

Hats off to the 2,670,811 California voters who stood up to the party bosses! All of the partisan forces were against Prop 14 — including minor parties from the Libertarians to Peace and Freedom and the Green Party.

Somebody has to speak for the people. Appropriately, it will have to be the people, not the parties. And that’s the good news!

For more news for independent voters, see The Hankster

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

For those of you who don’t follow the World Cup…

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

In early 2011, just half a year away, we’ll be seeing the GOP presidential hopefuls start to jockey for the top spot in earnest. And they’ll be bolstered by Republican gains in the midterms, as well as the perception that the Tea Party movement can turn out the vote come 2012.

What else will bolster them?

Polls like these…

PRINCETON, NJ — U.S. registered voters remain split on whether President Obama deserves to be re-elected in 2012, with 46% saying he does and 51% saying he does not — little changed from earlier this year.

The most recent Obama re-elect measure is similar to the president’s basic job approval rating among all Americans, which was 50% in the June 11-13 USA Today/Gallup poll and 48% in Gallup Daily tracking for the same period.

Here are the numbers…

And here’s how that shakes out when looking at party affiliation…

Still, this doesn’t mean that Obama will lose the election…

However, history shows that much can change in the years prior to a presidential election. Gallup surveys in late April/early May 2002 found 69% of registered voters saying President George W. Bush deserved re-election. This was at a time when Bush’s job approval rating was 77%, reflecting the rally effect that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. By October 2004, just before the election, Bush’s approval had fallen into the 50% range and his “deserves re-election” percentage had dropped to 50%. Bush ended up receiving 51% of the popular vote to John Kerry’s 48%.

Ultimately, I think 2012 will come down to the economy and whether or not Americans will trust Repubs or Dems more.

More as it develops…

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

Say what you will about MSNBC, but the following by Chris Matthews and the Hardball crew is a good look at how this new movement has sprung up and why it seems to continue to grow.

Of note, watch Part Six about how the “death panel” meme started with Sarah Palin and kept on rolling from there.

Part One


Part Two


Part Three


Part Four


Part Five

Part Six


By the way, for those of you who think I’m one sided, well, I doubt this will do much to dissuade you, but I’d suggest you watch Michael Moore Hates America, a documentary about how the filmmaker purposefully distorts the truth. That one is a must watch as well.

UPDATE:
Another great documentary is Manufacturing Dissent, which talks about how Moore deliberately misleads people.

Here’s the first 10 minutes…

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

Speak up, speak out, have your say! What’s on your mind today?

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

The victory in California for independent voters with Proposition 14 has strengthened the movement for open primaries around the country:

Arizonans should watch closely (The Arizona Republic) Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California’s outgoing Republican governor, readily acknowledged in a news conference that the goal is to reduce the power of political parties: “We wanted to have the politicians be public servants and not party servants.” He touted open primaries as a way to keep politicians from getting “stuck in their ideological corners.”

In Our View: One More Top Two – Washington’s system for primary voting is starting to catch on elsewhere (The Columbian – WA)

EDITORIAL: Watch this California experiment: State’s move to an open primary might reveal what works, what doesn’t (The Buffalo News, printed on Leagle.com) But it is a big step with a noble purpose. New York should watch and learn.

House backs open primary elections for 2011 (Capitol News Bureau, Louisiana Politics Blog, By JORDAN BLUM, Advocate Capitol News Bureau)

For more news for independent voters, see The Hankster

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us

Californians voted in favor of Prop 14 last night by a healthy margin. The open primary referendum empowers 3.4 million “decline-to-state” registered independents in the state, and is good news for independents and nonpartisan voters throughout the country. Partian control of elections has become a major obstacle to policy that truly represents the sentiments of voters, and is increasingly dangerous to our country.

Congrats to all!

LATEST ON PROP 14:

Parties talk about lawsuit challenging ‘open’ primary victory (Sac Bee/Capitol Alert, Posted by Susan Ferriss) Jason Olson, director of Independent Voice, a group that backed that measure, predicted that more decline-to-state voters would turn out for primary elections with the Proposition 14 approach. Independent voters are now about 20 percent of all California’s registered voters.

California Voters Back Election Overhaul (By JESSE McKINLEY, NY Times) Richard Winger, a prominent opponent of the measure, said that “California now has the most restrictive general election ballot access in the nation,” but acknowledged the sour mood of the electorate.

State Ballot Measures – Statewide Results (California Statewide Primary Election Results, Sec of State) 54.6% yes on 14

California voters approve revolutionary ‘open’ primary (By Susan Ferriss, Fresno Bee) Disgruntled California voters have blown up their election system by approving Proposition 14, which tosses out the current political party-based primary system in all but presidential races… That revolutionary approach doesn’t bother Jason Olson, director of Independent Voice, a group that backed Proposition 14.

For more news for independent voters and Prop 14, see The Hankster

Digg This! • Stumble It! • Add to Mixx! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to del.icio.us