Last Call

Your chart of the day tonight, courtesy of Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider.

To put it simply, the first group of lines is employment under President Bush's first term, and the second is employment under President Obama's first term.  Blue is state government employment, Green is federal government employment, and Red is private sector employment, indexed to 100 being Inauguration Day for each President.

Bush added 4% to state employees and 5% to federal employees.  His total private unemployment lost a percentage point, to about 99% of what it was.  But that was considered the "Bush Jobs Boom".  He grew government employment at a massive clip hiring for the Department of Homeland Security and for the military after 9/11, but lost private sector jobs across the board.

Obama on the other hand?  We've seen cuts of 2.5% to state workers and 3.5% federal workers.  Obama shrank the number of government employees.  He also presided over a rebound in private sector jobs to where they were on Inauguration Day, and those numbers are now improving.  This is considered the "Obama Jobs Depression". 

President Obama is doing exactly what Republicans say we should be doing:  cutting government workers and concentrating on the private sector for hiring.  President Bush actually did what President Obama has been accused of doing:  massive Socialist government job hiring and "crony capitalism".

These numbers are the reality.  Obama is doing exactly what the Republicans say we need to be doing, but they're attacking him and lying about his record anyway, because Republicans are liars.  It's what they do.

You Get More Guns Because Butter Is A Luxury, Citizen

It's important to remember that Mitt Romney's trying to bring back every aspect of the Bush economy that destroyed our country's prosperity...well, for all but the one percenters like Mitt Romney.  That includes ridiculous spending on the military, and adding another $2 trillion to the Pentagon over the next ten years.

Here's an issue that hasn't been debated much in the presidential campaign but ought to be: How much should we spend on defense?

President Obama has proposed keeping the Pentagon budget essentially flat for the next 10 years. Mitt Romney, by contrast, wants to increase defense spending massively — by more than 50% over current levels, according to one estimate. That could mean almost $2 trillion in additional military spending over 10 years.

Romney hasn't actually proposed a defense budget or offered any specific numbers for his military strategy. But he says he wants core defense spending to reach at least 4% of the nation's gross domestic product — a big increase over the current level of about 3.2%. And he says the country needs about 100,000 more active-duty military personnel than the current 1.4 million, even though U.S. forces have left Iraq and have begun to withdraw from Afghanistan.

But that doesn't matter, because we have to cut Social Security and Medicare and roads and schools and police and jobs so we can spend more money on blowing things up.   Keep in mind that Mitt Romney wants:

• Another $2 trillion for the Pentagon.
• Permanent tax cuts for the wealthy.
• A balanced budget.
• The end of the Affordable Care Act.
• The Ryan budget.

The numbers simply don't add up for all of that.  He's lying again and again, and the end result will be massive debt, just as Republicans since Reagan always have created.  Of course it's a scam.

Parents Sue Because Their Precious Is Salutatorian

An Eagle Rock couple is considering filing a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District after their daughter, who earned straight A's and had a 4.50 GPA, was denied the honor of valedictorian and had to settle for salutatorian, her family says.

But according to Eagle Rock Patch, she had only a 4.50 weighted GPA after the first semester of her senior year, one notch below Eagle Rock High’s Jasmine Fernandez, who managed a 4.55.

Consequently, Fernandez stood as the 3,000-student school’s valedictorian Wednesday, and Marquez had to settle for salutatorian, according to Elisha’s father, Nelson.

And to Elisha’s mother, Carol, the second-place finish means that her daughter's "sleepless nights" were essentially “for nothing.”

"It's flawed. It's wrong," Carol told The Times. "All her hard work is not being recognized. All she had was straight A's. Not a B, ever."

They have sued without merit, too busy making asses of themselves to celebrate their daughter's considerable accomplishment.  They are also failing to teach their daughter a couple of life lessons. First, you can do everything right and still not get first place.  Second, there is always someone just as bright and talented fighting for your spot.

There doesn't seem to be any shady ranking, no reason to cry foul, except the parents aren't happy with the result.  I hope this girl goes far away in life and learns better.

Nelson concedes that graduation has passed and the situation “is what it is.” But he dismissed the notion that other parents might find their family’s complaint excessive.  

“They’re not in the situation,” he said. “You don’t want your kid to be a loser. That’s what they’re basically saying. Be a loser.

“It’s not my mistake,” he added. "It’s [the district’s] mistake. At the end of the day the grades speak for themselves.”  

So close.  The grades do speak for themselves.  Saying this makes her a loser and blaming someone else for the results is childish.  Here's hoping they raised her better than that. 

Ten Year Old Rescued... At 32 Pounds

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Authorities say a 10-year-old Kansas City girl who weighed just 32 pounds was found locked in a closet that reeked of urine.

Prosecutors filed charges of assault and child abuse and endangerment against the girl's 29-year-old mother Saturday in Jackson County Circuit Court. The Associated Press is not naming the mother to protect the child's identity.

Officers freed the girl from the closet after responding Friday morning to a call to a child abuse hotline. The mother was arrested later after she was found with two younger children.

She had two other kids, who were healthy.  She kept this child hidden because she knew if someone saw her, she would be in trouble.

There is no explanation for why she didn't just feed the child.  The fact that she's alive is a miracle.  If she makes anything close to a full recovery, it will be yet another one.  I'll be following this one for a long time.

Still Crazy After All These...Months

If you're wondering if GOP 2012 Clown Car Calvalcade loser Michele Bachmann is still paranoid and delusional to the point of meeting the definition of clinically insane, the answer is "We report, you decide."

"It appears that there has been deep penetration in the halls of our United States government by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood has been found to be an unindicted co-conspirator on terrorism cases and yet it appears that there are individuals who are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood who have positions, very sensitive positions, in our Department of Justice, our Department of Homeland Security, potentially even in the National Intelligence Agency. I am calling upon the Justice Department and these various departments to investigate through the Inspector General to see who these people are and what access they have to our information."

MOOSLIMS IN OUR ERRYWHERE.  The woman is nuts...but what do you expect when you hire noted GOP anti-Islam bigot and asshole Frank Gaffney as your campaign adviser?

In her radio interview, Bachmann went on to charge that such influence has been used to “blacklist” FBI and military trainers who have been accused of espousing deeply Islamophobic views. Indeed, the FBI and Joint Chiefs of Staff appear to have decided that Islamophobic teaching materials — for example, one recently suspended teacher at the Joint Forces Staff College called for a “total war” on Islam — should hold no place in government counterterrorrism training. While anti-Muslim advocates like Gaffney have fewer allies in government, they appear to have a steadfast ally in Rep. Michele Bachmann. 

She is barking mad, and seriously Minnesota, if you do not send this woman home to gibber to the invisible enemies she sees behind her eyelids, I will take back the nice things I said about living there for 2 years.

Last Call

Dems are "prepared" for a worst-case scenario of SCOTUS trashing either the mandate on the Affordable Care Act or worse, throwing out the entire law.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) will respond swiftly to any adverse Supreme Court ruling with legislation to reinstitute parts of the health care law that get struck down.

“I’m prepared for a lot of different contingencies,” Harkin, who chairs the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said Thursday during a Senate vote.

If the Court finds the mandate unconstitutional — a big if — it will either strike the mandate alone, toss out coverage guarantees that the mandate is meant to support, or throw the whole law out. Those are, at least, the three most likely possibilities.

Harkin says he’s ready for all of them.

“We’re going to have to have some kind of community rating and keep the guaranteed issue,” he said. Those are the technical terms for provisions guaranteeing that all consumers can buy health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions, and cost sharing to allow high-risk people to afford insurance.

“We have some possible legislative fixes that I will bring forth at that time,” Harkin said. “But we are prepared for different forms of legislation to address that.”

In the unlikely event that the Court throws the whole thing out, Harkin says he’ll try to reanimate the whole thing.

“If they throw the whole thing out, yes, I will be prepared then with what I call a Health Care Restoration Act,” he said.

And of course it will immediately be blocked by Republicans.  Nothing will pass this year.  And tens of millions of people will be out of health coverage, and the rest of us will be back to insurance companies denying payment whenever possible.  So sorry, that acne problem you had in 5th grade wasn't on your insurance application, your policy is canceled.  Good luck getting coverage.

After all, opponents have spent $100 million to make you think it's evil socialism.  Turns out there are only five people they had to buy off.

Austerity Twins Super Powers...Activate!

Word is Rep. Paul "Zombie-Eyed Granny Starver" Ryan is an increasingly popular name being thrown around in Team Romney's veep decisions.  Frankly, I'm all for it.

Obama would win in a landslide.  Doug Mataconis:

Given Ryan’s popularity among the Republican base, it’s not surprising that the Romney campaign would let it leak that they are considering him. At the same time, though, Ryan’s association with a budget that isn’t necessarily popular among the independent voters that Romney will need to attract in swing states is an argument for not selecting him. Additionally, its worth noting that sitting Members of Congress don’t ordinarily get put on national tickets. The last time it happened was when Walter Mondale selected Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, before that it had not happened since Barry Goldwater had selected New York Congressman Bill Miller in 1964. Before that, a Congressman had not been on a national ticket since William Howard Taft selected New York Congressman James Sherman in 1908. So, is it possible Romney will choose Ryan? Yes, but it’s not likely.

Maybe, but neither is picking a shitkicker snowbilly from Alaska.

By all means Romney, pick the guy who wants to turn Medicare into a voucher program for private insurance companies, turn Medicaid into state block grants with rolls being slashed, end the Affordable Care Act and put 50+ million back in the uninsured column, and gut Social Security.  You do this.  Spend billions trying to convince us it's the only solution.

Then watch us throw you out on your ass.

Chart Of The Day

Two actually, from Henry Blodget over at Business Insider, brilliantly explains everything wrong with the economy. Chart number one:  Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP.

As you can see, it's reached record highs.  Corporate profits skyrocketed under Bush (between the last two grey recession lines there, more than doubling from 9/11 until the financial crash of 2008.  But Obama, that socialist and his awful socialist policies, turned around corporate profits in a matter of a couple years and now they have surpassed 2008's peak as corporate profits have gone from around 4% of GDP to near 11%.

Oh, but it gets worse.  Where do you think that 7% came from?



Chart The Second, Wages as a percentage of US GDP.  Since 1970, wages have dropped from about 54% of GDP to 44% of GDP, a new record low.

Corporate profits up to record highs.  Wages down to a record low.  Keep telling yourself that Obama's policies are killing businesses, that they're too broke to pay more in taxes or invest in employee benefits, and that greedy unions are wiping out America's ability to profit.

Meanwhile, we're too "broke" to afford schools, police, firefighters, roads, health care and basic infrastructure because we can never, ever, ever afford to raise taxes on the "job creators".

Obama saved corporate America.  They return the favor by doing everything they can to destroy him, his political party, and the rest of us.

Mini Moose, Epic Fail

I am regaining my faith in humanity.

Bristol Palin's show had terrible numbers.  It seems people aren't interested in her whatsoever, even when promised a public train wreck to entertain them.  The single mother has decided she should counsel Obama on the evils of same-sex marriage, and that she knows what this country truly needs.  Gee, sound familiar?

LOS ANGELES, June 21 (Reuters) - Bristol Palin tripped up with TV audiences after less than 750,000 people watched the first episode of her new reality show.

But according to audience figures on Thursday, just 726,000 watched the show when it debuted on Wednesday. By contrast, some 3.3 million watched the latest installment of MTV's "Teen Mom" reality series on Wednesday.

Looks like Sarah has to get out there and drum up some interest.  Good luck, toots.

Bye-Bye, Bedbugs

As Zandar pointed out earlier this week, there's a problem with bedbugs.  So much so that it has become an unstoppable wave of infestations, from apartment complexes to major hotels.  Resistance to insecticides has allowed them to flourish, which can lead to an entirely different unhappy train of thought.  A local company was featured on the news for using a very successful method: heat.

"We discovered this heat option, and bed bugs are extremely susceptible to high heat temperatures," Eftink says.

We took healthy bed-bugs inside, with the heat treatment underway.  "The air temperature in here's at least 135, and you're going to see that they'll die pretty quick," says Michael Woodring, Bug Zero Entemologist.  In just one minute, the bed bugs lost the battle.

Large heaters and fans ensure the heat reaches every square inch.  Several wireless sensors send temperature readings back to a computer.  But just to make sure the bugs are all toast, "We get in here once the temperature gets up and we start manipulating some of these items to expose any cracks or crevices that they might be able to hide," Woodring says.

Bug Zero's experts  make sure it's 125 degrees or above, and hold that temperature for at least an hour to make sure all the bed bugs are gone.  "We've had 100 percent track record success," says Eftink.

They're almost impossible to prevent.  "Even the best maintained hotelier who'd doing all he can about this is still vulnerable to that one individual who might bring bed bugs in their belongings," Eftink says.

But the heat will ensure bed bugs travel no more.  

Kids and pets are at risk when introducing toxins into an environment.  As we see more problems with chemical resistance, we should strive for a natural, effective way.  By pure luck, it seems one has been found.  It may not pan out in the long run, but I'm feeling cautiously optimistic.  Not just in the solution, but the benefits we stand to gain if it really does work like they say. 


Despite a couple of aggravating typos, this is a helpful page that gives you the broad strokes.  

The Bain Of Romney's Existence

Tom Hamburger's expose' of Romney's time at Bain Capital is pretty brutal:  Romney's company invested heavily in companies that shipped jobs overseas to China and India.

Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"Pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States."   That should be written on the epitaph of Romney's campaign.  Here it lies, unremarked.

Speaking at a metalworking factory in Cincinnati last week, Romney cited his experience as a businessman, saying he knows what it would take to bring employers back to the United States. “For me it’s all about good jobs for the American people and a bright and prosperous future,” he said.

Speaking as someone who has a good job in Cincinnati Mr. Romney, you're full of it.

For years, Romney’s political opponents have tried to tie him to the practice of outsourcing American jobs. These political attacks have often focused on Bain’s involvement in specific business deals that resulted in job losses.

But a Washington Post examination of securities filings shows the extent of Bain’s investment in firms that specialized in helping other companies move or expand operations overseas. While Bain was not the largest player in the outsourcing field, the private equity firm was involved early on, at a time when the departure of jobs from the United States was beginning to accelerate and new companies were emerging as handmaidens to this outflow of employment.

Bain played several roles in helping these outsourcing companies, such as investing venture capital so they could grow and providing management and strategic business advice as they navigated this rapidly developing field.

Remember the campaign adage "If you're explaining, you're losing" when it comes to optics?  Team Romney is losing big time with this horsecrap.

“This is a fundamentally flawed story that does not differentiate between domestic outsourcing versus offshoring nor versus work done overseas to support U.S. exports,” said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. “Mitt Romney spent 25 years in the real world economy so he understands why jobs come and they go. As President, he will implement policies that make it easier and more attractive for companies to create jobs here at home. President Obama’s attacks on profit and job creators make it less attractive to create jobs in the U.S.”

And speaking of horsecrap, this pretty much blows a hole in the Post's own smarmy fact checker guy, Glenn Kessler, who just the day before gave the Obama ad that Bain sent jobs overseas the dreaded 4 Pinocchios.

The Obama campaign fails to make its case. On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue, from the use of “corporate raider” to its examples of alleged outsourcing.  Simply repeating the same debunked claims won’t make them any more correct. 

Hey Glenn, check with your own paper next time you decide to make yourself look like a Romney stooge and a fool.

You Can Bank On It

And keeping with "all SCOTUS nonsense day" here at ZVTS, the pattern emerges once again:  Democrats pass law, President Obama signs it, corporations sue claiming the law regulating them is unconstitutional, law starts journey towards Roberts Court.  This time it's banks suing Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the law creates, claiming that the CPFB itself is unconstitutional because SHUT UP THAT'S WHY.

In particular, the suit will contend that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), created by the law, lacks sufficient checks and balances and, in the words of the CEO of State National Bank, is "simply unconstitutional."

“No other federal agency or commission operates in such a way that one person can essentially determine who gets a home loan, who can get a credit card and who can get a loan for college,” said bank head Jim Purcell. “Dodd-Frank effectively gives unlimited regulatory power to this so-called Consumer Financial Protection Board, also known as CFPB, with a director who is not accountable to Congress, the President or the Courts."

Which is not true.  By that logic, all executive branch agencies that regulate commerce are not accountable and are unconstitutional.

Oh wait, gosh, I think I've found the point.

C. Boyden Gray, who served as White House Counsel under President George H.W. Bush, will represent the plaintiffs in court.

Gray told reporters that the lawsuit was not a challenge to Dodd-Frank as a whole, but rather two specific sections that create the CFPB and a new regulatory group, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). The FSOC gathers the nation's top regulators to oversee the financial system as a whole, and charges it with identifying what financial institutions pose unique risks to that system and merit heightened oversight.

The FSOC is being challenged on the grounds that once it begins designating systemically significant institutions, it will create a two-tiered financial system where smaller banks will put at a disadvantage, according to Gray.

Yes, those tiers will be "Small community banks that have money" and "big crazy megabanks that are insolvent and gamble with taxpayer money to keep afloat."  It's the "You're hurting the small banks by giving us all this money!  They can't compete with us while we crush them!" defense.  How sweet.

And yes, given a year or two this too will be before the Roberts Court, and away the CPFB and FSOC will go because giant banks are people, my friend, and their rights (and the "free speech" dollars they ply the court with) are more important than yours.

Gotta love it.

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition!

• Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky has been found guilty on 45 of 48 counts in his child molestation trial and will be sentenced in 90 days.
• In a major escalation of tensions in the Middle East, Turkey is accusing neighboring Syria of shooting down a missing jet over the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
• An election crisis is looming in Egypt as Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammad Morsi has the votes, but military candidate Ahmed Shafik may be declared the winner.
• Tropical Depression Debby is forcing offshore rig evacuations in the Gulf of Mexico as the storm rolls towards the US coast.
• A judge has thrown out competing patent lawsuits as Apple and Motorola went at each other, with the judge calling the entire US patent system "chaos".

Last Call

David Paul Kuhn of Real Clear Politics declares the President doomed beyond all hope of undooming as his prediction that Team Obama may get on the sunny side of a third of the white male vote is all but guaranteed absolute doom that will doom his doomed head.

Pundits often note that Romney cannot win with his current level of Hispanic support. That's likely true. But so is the converse: Obama cannot win with his level of white support unless white swing voters withhold their votes from Romney as well.

Today, fewer whites back Obama than any Democratic candidate since Walter Mondale. Romney does not need to emulate Ronald Reagan to win. Should he match Reagan’s share of the white vote in 1984 -- presuming all else remains constant since 2008 -- Romney would rout Obama.

Of course, America has changed since Reagan. Non-Hispanic whites were 89 percent of the electorate when Reagan first won the White House in 1980. They were 85 percent in 1988. By 2008, whites were 74 percent. That shift has upended the electoral landscape. But only so much.

Take Michael Dukakis’ fate as an example. In 1988, George H.W. Bush’s margin of victory exceeded Obama’s in 2008. But if Obama’s level of white support in 2012 equals Dukakis’, and all else remains the same from 2008, Obama would likely narrowly win. He would lack a mandate and risk immediate lame-duck status. But he would survive with white support that once sundered Democrats.

Unless . . .

What if Obama doesn't even match Dukakis with whites? That’s the dynamic of 2012. This electorate has a white floor. And it has broken for this president. Democrats cannot depend on demographics to save them.

So, if you're wondering why a bunch of red states have passed laws designed to make it harder for urban and poor voters to vote (many of which are non-whites) then you probably haven't been paying attention to this blog for the last 3 years.   Is there anything Obama can do, pray tell?  Kuhn isn't saying, you'd have to buy his book on why white men are the neglected victims of politics.

And to Kuhn, it's too late for Obama, of course.  Dooooooooooooooom.

In 2010, whites backed GOP House candidates by a 60-38 margin. It gave Republicans a historic landslide. The white margin two years ago roughly matches the break-even point today. That’s because presidential electorates are browner and blacker, though possibly not enough for Democrats. Plainly put, the data shows that Romney will likely win if he matches his party’s minority support in 2008 and its majority support in 2010.

So if Romney gets more votes than McCain did in 2008, he could win.  What trenchant analysis.  White people hate Obama more than Michael Dukakis now?  What's happened in the last 3 years or so to make that happen, one has to wonder.  Stock market's up.  Unemployment is down.  But white men overwhelmingly turned on the President's party in 2010.

I can't imagine why.

The Stakes Next Week

Ahead of next week's Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act, it's important to remember the legislation is providing benefits and help to people right now, and billions of dollars in coverage expansions and aid to providers is already being used.  If SCOTUS strikes the law down, all of that could instantly go away in places like Peekskill, NY.

In this small city about an hour from Manhattan, pregnant teenagers, laid-off professionals and day laborers without insurance receive care at a community health center that has been part of the social fabric here for nearly four decades.

Because of the sweeping federal health care law passed two years ago, the center, part of the Hudson River HealthCare network, received a $4.5 million grant last month to expand. It plans to add six more medical and seven more dental exam rooms, allowing it to see as many as 5,000 additional patients, many of whom are without insurance, on Medicaid or have limited coverage. An additional 730 community centers or so like it are to be renovated or built across the country in the next two years for patients like that. 

Unless the Supreme Court says otherwise. 

And you'd better believe Republicans will take health care away from millions to give tax cuts to Mitt Romney and his friends.

Critics of the law, particularly Congressional Republicans, argue that much of the spending already allocated and authorized is wasteful. They have been particularly concerned over the Prevention and Public Health Fund, whose funds have already been cut by a third as lawmakers sought to find money for other programs. 

“Instead of helping Americans prevent health problems, the president’s new law actually uses this so-called prevention fund as a Washington slush fund,” Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, said last month. 

Barrasso is calling the Hudson River HealthCare network liars and a slush fund.  Of course, he gets free health care being a Senator.  Do you?

As a result, people like Linda Ellis, 64, are now insured. Ms. Ellis could not find a private insurance company to cover her when she lost her employer-sponsored plan after being laid off. Her husband is already enrolled in the federal Medicare program, so she had to try to find coverage on her own. She was not eligible for the state Medicaid program. Because of a shoulder condition and minor ailments like sinusitis, no one would offer her a policy when she scrambled to find coverage. 

“People don’t realize you can get rejected in the private market even if it’s not life-threatening,” said Ms. Ellis, who now pays $428 a month for insurance from a federally financed state program in Ohio. Ms. Ellis had contacted Families USA, a consumer advocacy group that provided her contact information to The New York Times. 

But Ms. Ellis said she had no idea whether she would continue to be covered if the Supreme Court declared the entire law unconstitutional. When she asked the office of her United States senator, she was told no one could say, and federal officials declined to comment on what might happen to any program now financed under the law. “Obviously I’m concerned,” she said. 

She should be.  Five guys with free health care for the rest of their lives could take affordable health coverage from people like Linda here as early as Monday.   Folks, the Affordable Care Act is doing good things now and I damn well bet it's doing good things for some of the people who are reading this right now.   All that could vanish next week.  Doesn't that bother anyone?