2016 Election – Page 84 – The Wrongologist

Brexit: Better for the Pant Load or for the Pant Suit?

Around here, Monday means a wake-up tune. We should have Brexit breakup music, but instead of song, we need to watch this video by Mark Blythe, a Scottish political scientist, and a professor of international political economy at Brown University, about the logic behind voting for Brexit:

Blythe makes more sense in 5 minutes about the EU, why Brexit happened, and some implications for the US, than the entire journalistic class has said using millions of words over the past few days. At 4:01, he says, “As I like to say to my hedge fund friends, the Hamptons is not a defensible [military] position.”

Let’s take a quick look at a few conclusions of the Brexit vote:

Rust cities and towns largely voted to Leave
Wealthy cities favored Remain
Rural areas that have not seen much immigration had seen a lot of austerity
Older voters wanted to return to the prosperous 1970s-1980s, regardless of whether that is realistic

Demographically, the most striking difference in voting was between young people and older people. A YouGov poll showed:

18-24: 75% voted for Remain
25-49: 56% voted for Remain
50-64: 44% voted for Remain
65+: 39% voted for Remain

So younger voters wanted to keep the option to be citizens of a larger economic unit, where they might find more and better job opportunity, while older voters wanted out of the EU for a variety of fact-based and fear-based reasons. On either side of the Atlantic, it’s a mistake to think that people know all the facts before they decide. From Seth Godin:

There are two common causes of uninformed dissent…The second (quite common in a political situation), is the tribal imperative that people like us do things like this. No need to do the science, or understand the consequences or ask hard questions. Instead, focus on the emotional/cultural elements and think about the facts later.

Our first Brexit lesson is that America has a huge base that is angry, scared, and possibly, more than willing to jump into the abyss. Sober analysts warned Britons that pulling out of the EU would be an economic and security debacle. But, as Matthew d’Ancona of The Guardian observed:

They heard the warnings, listened to experts of every kind tell them that Brexit meant disaster, watched the prime minister as he urged them not to take a terrible risk…And their answer was: Get stuffed.

Our second Brexit lesson is that nativism, anti-immigration fervor, and elite-bashing are potent tools.

There was a definite scent of “Make Britain Great Again” running through the Leave campaign. The Leavers urged Britain to “take control” of its borders. While we point at Mexico, they pointed at Turkey, which they said would flood the UK with immigrants, even though Turkey may never be a member of the EU.

You can call it racism, you can blame it on the “market” or, you can blame it on the economic circumstances created by the political elites steering the ship.

This resonates in the US because foreigners are a source of marginal cheap labor that corporations use to bludgeon our working class. That anger is partly justified. However, it is misdirected, because people only believe what they want to believe, and because it’s easier for working people to blame foreigners than to blame themselves for repeatedly electing an economic elite that just keeps playing them over and over.

Brexit is an important wake-up for the US presidential election. Britain’s uprising against the European Union is the sort of populist victory over establishment politics that could easily happen here. As the NYT said on Sunday:

Mrs. Clinton shares more with the defeated “Remain” campaign than a similar slogan — her “Stronger Together” echoing its [Remain’s] “Stronger In.” Her fundamental argument, much akin to Prime Minister David Cameron’s against British withdrawal from the European Union, is that Americans should value stability and incremental change over the risks entailed in radical change and the possibility of chaos if Donald J. Trump wins the presidency.

Hillary urges potential voters to see the big picture, while promising to manage economic and immigration upheaval, just as Mr. Cameron did. She is also a pragmatist battling against nationalist anger, cautioning that the turmoil after the Brexit vote underscored a need for “calm, steady, experienced leadership in the White House.”

But we are not the UK, and today, the ABC/WaPo poll has Hillary is up by 12 points, although we still have miles to go before 2016’s election night.

We will have future columns covering our neo-liberal policies, their impact on the American people, and their implications for 2016, over the coming days and weeks.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – June 26, 2016

Sunday cartoons return! Sorry for the hiatus, but it was unavoidable.

Quite the week. Did the sky just fall on the UK? We will have more over the next few days. There is still left-over emotion about Orlando. We had a sit-in by Dems, or as one wag said, it was the first time in years that Democrats stayed up past 10:00pm. But, did it achieve much? And of course, there is the 2016 presidential campaign.

Europe and the UK worked for nearly 70 years to put the EU together, and it is undone in an evening:

COW Brexit 2

The conventional economists’ view of what Brexit means:

COW Brexit 3

UK Prime Minister David Cameron misreads the people, pays the price:

COW Brexit 4

Orlando led to sit-ins, political and otherwise:

COW Sit In

Loyalty oaths were on display after Orlando:

COW Loyalty

Trump has less campaign dough than expected, but there was a benefit:

COW Bigger Hands

Republicans vs. Yellen

Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen appeared before Congress on Wednesday for her semi-annual testimony. This, from the NYT:

Ms. Yellen’s final appearance before the presidential election in November was a master class in how many members of Congress have allowed real debate about the country’s economic challenges to be subsumed in the broader political din.

The way the kabuki play works, the Fed Chair starts with prepared remarks that all committee members already have in their hands. On Wednesday, she flagged long-run headwinds to economic growth, and said considerable uncertainties remain for the economic outlook, including risks from China and the so-called Brexit vote in the European Union. Still, she offered a dose of optimism, noting a considerable step-up in second-quarter growth and strong consumer spending in recent months.

Then the Kabuki play moved to questions by Congresspersons. More from the NYT:

It probably tells you everything that you need to know about the current state of the Federal Reserve and monetary policy that in the first ten minutes of Yellen’s Q&A, much of the questioning revolved around issues such as bank regulation/capital requirements and the diversity hiring policies of the Federal Reserve System.

It seems that Congresspersons can’t be bothered drilling down about what the Fed is really thinking about the economy. Based on yesterday’s evidence, they cannot even be bothered learning what Fed policy actually is!

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, (R-TX), said in his opening statement that the Fed is “complicit” in the failure of the Obama administration’s economic policies and the inability of the economy to grow above a 3% annual rate. (FYI, we have hit 3% or more just nine times in the past 16 years)

It got worse:

Bill Huizenga, (R-CA), said he’s worried the Fed has itself become a too-big-to-fail financial institution. Remember folks, the Fed can issue all the money it might require, so it is difficult to come up with a scenario where the Fed fails.
Representative Scott Garrett, (R-NJ), accused Ms. Yellen of unfairly aiding Wall Street and worsening income inequality. From the NYT:

“Why do you see a need to benefit Goldman Sachs?” he asked.

“I’m sorry, we are not trying to benefit the rich,” Ms. Yellen responded, before trying to interject that more than 14 million jobs had been created since the recession ended in 2009.

“Excuse me, I have the floor,” said Mr. Garrett,

Huizenga, (R-MI), said the Fed should also have to undergo a “stress test” like a big bank because of its $4.5 trillion balance sheet. Huizenga said he is worried the Fed is insolvent.

Yellen said the Fed has already undertaken this sort of exercise. Our balance sheet is very different…The Fed is very different from a commercial bank.

Then came the “excess regulations are holding the economy back” questions from Republicans:

Randy Neugebauer, (R-TX), says there has been a “buffet” of new rules put on banks with little thought of the overall impact. Yellen replies that the Fed is trying to “reduce the odds” that banks get in trouble, and that most banks are profitable.
Blaine Luetkemeyer, (R-MO), asks why no new banks are being chartered, again stressing burdensome regulation. Yellen says the challenging economic environment, not regulation, is the likely culprit.
Steve Stivers, (R-OH) says that Fed regulations have held down private investment.

Yellen says Fed regulations are not out of line with international standards and the safety and soundness of the banking sector has improved.

Sean Duffy, (R-WI) asked if government regulation was a headwind to growth, saying that businesses cite regulation as a headwind. Yellen replies: “Are you referring to our regulations?” (emphasis and brackets by the Wrongologist)

I’m talking about government regulations…Why don’t you cite it as a headwind?

It’s very hard to quantify the extent to which regulations… [are] headwind[s], she said.

After a fruitless attempt to get Ms. Yellen to call health insurance costs for Wisconsin manufacturers a headwind, Mr. Duffy gave up in a fit of pique.

I’ll accept that as a non-answer, he said.

This hearing is an object lesson in why average people hate Congress. Committee members had a chance to drill down on the country’s economic challenges, but see only another talking points opportunity.

Imagine what similarly ill-informed Congress critters might ask witnesses in front of a different committee, say, at the Judiciary Committee:

Is it really appropriate to hold confirmation hearings when your term ends in four years? Do we really want to saddle America with a Supreme Court justice nominated by a potential lame duck president?

Democrats’ Strategic Failure Continues to Haunt

When President Obama won re-election in 2012, Democrats increased their majority in the Senate, but the House of Representatives remained in Republican hands. In House races in 2012, 1.7 million more votes were cast for Democrats than for Republicans, but Republicans came away with 33 more Congressional seats.

How did this happen when in 2008, Republicans lost a “wave” election, and were looking at eight years in the minority? The Republicans were staring down a demographic tidal wave, and the Democrats were talking about a decade of changing politics. The Democrats had taken a super majority in the Senate. The real risk to the GOP was that, by the 2020 census, demographics could keep them in a semi-permanent minority for a very long time.

Then, along came a Republican strategist named Chris Jankowski. He had a strategy, one which the Democrats failed to react to. A strategy that turned a period of a likely permanent GOP minority to a GOP majority in four years. All of this is covered in “Rat-F*****: The True Story Behind The Secret Plan To Steal America’s Democracy“, by Salon’s editor-in-chief, David Daley.

Jankowski’s strategy was to gain control of as many state legislatures as possible in 2010. The plan was to control the state’s redistricting process for Congressional districts, once the result of the 2010 Census was available. That is because state legislatures draw most of the congressional boundaries across the country. The GOP’s plan was called REDMAP for Redistricting Majority Project. The idea behind REDMAP was to hit the Democrats in several state legislatures where Democratic statehouse majorities were thin. They targeted races with vast sums of money and were able to flip many state houses.

In 2009, Democrats held the majority of seats in both houses of the state legislature in 27 states. In six more, they held a majority in one house. The Presidency, the US Senate, and the House of Representatives were all in Democratic hands.

In 2010, Republicans gained nearly 700 state legislative seats, which, was a larger increase than either party has seen in modern history. The wins were sufficient to push 20 legislative chambers from a Democratic to a Republican majority.

Most significantly, the GOP took control over both houses of the legislature in 25 states.

REDMAP’s success was made possible by funding from a super-PAC called the Republican State Leadership Committee. It raised $30 million, mostly from corporations, of which $18 million was received just weeks before Election Day.

Pennsylvania is an object lesson: So skillfully were the lines drawn by the Republican legislature that in 2012, when President Obama carried Pennsylvania by 300,000 votes and the state’s Democratic congressional candidates collectively out-polled their rivals by 100,000 votes, Republicans still won 13 of Pennsylvania’s 18 seats in the House of Representatives.

In Michigan, the 2012 election was a huge success for Democrats. Voters elected a Democratic US Senator by more than 20 points and reelected President Obama by almost 10 points, but Republicans ended up with nine of the state’s Congressional seats to the Democrats’ five.

This was among the greatest political achievement in modern times. If you’re a Republican, you look at this and say, we played by the rules, we played within the law, and we won!

And the Democrats spent 2009-2011 asleep at the wheel, presiding over a catastrophic strategic failure.

Worse, the GOP plans were announced by Karl Rove in a March 2010 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Rove said they were going to use redistricting to take back the Congress. The GOP plan was in plain sight.

This takes us to Hillary Clinton’s possible choices for Vice President. Apparently, she is leaning towards Tim Kaine, (D-VA). Kaine is attractive in that Hillary needs to win in Virginia to win the presidency. Kaine is a Harvard-educated lawyer and was governor of Virginia from 2006-2010.

We mention him here since he was Chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2009-2011.

That’s right, it was Tim Kaine who the Republicans outsmarted with their REDMAP strategy. It is Tim Kaine who let the GOP place so many different locks on the door to Congress. Undoing that will take years of really concentrated effort, state by state, chamber by chamber. It’s going to take the Democratic Party at least until after the 2020 census to undo what Tim Kaine let happen in 2010 and 2011.

Perfect choice for VP. He’s the right guy to follow a Hillary Presidency.

In preparation for the next census, Democrats have come up with a REDMAP-like plan of their own. They call it Advantage 2020, and say they plan to spend $75 million.

Republicans have announced REDMAP 2020. Their spending goal?

$125 million.

The Pant Suit vs. the Pant Load – Jobs, Part Infinity

We are in a time when a presidential candidate’s personality counts for more than the candidate’s policies. Candidates obfuscate on most policy issues and the media lets them get away with absolutely outrageous declarations of near-facts or outright half-truths.

One policy we must make them nail down explicitly is their jobs policy.

The key to making America great again is adding more jobs. Wrongo is a pest on this subject, but without more jobs, growth in GDP is harder to achieve. Tax revenues are more difficult to grow. People who are idle get into trouble.

The Pant Suit and the Pant Load know this, so they will talk from here to November about adding manufacturing jobs back to cities that lost them starting in the 1970’s. Those jobs are never coming back, but both of them are working hard to convince you they can do it. Consider this, from Parallel Narratives:

We’re now being told by folks who know better that all we need to do to bring those jobs back, to resurrect a future we can believe in, or make America great again, is to elect the outsider politician who is not beholden to elite interests like banks, CEOs and politicians. Unfortunately, that horse has left the barn, those jobs are gone for good…

A great example of a politician braying the “I can bring jobs back” mantra was in Sunday’s NYT business section’s column, “Preoccupations.” In it, a young couple had the option to work from home, so they moved from Austin, TX, that hot-bed of tech, to South Portland ME, not so techie. They work for two different firms from two home offices. Then, they are invited to attend a funds-raiser for a gubernatorial candidate: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

The candidate raising campaign funds was a hard-working lawyer who seemed genuinely well meaning, but no one had told him that his economic platform of protecting manufacturing jobs and Maine’s traditional industries wasn’t going to fly with an audience of health care professionals, programmers, web designers and researchers…We muttered to each other that this guy didn’t have a place in his platform for people like us, many of whom worked for employers in other states. Our checkbooks stayed in our pockets.

If you hear this kind of BS from the Pant Suit or the Pant Load, your checkbook should also remain hidden.

While the low-wage jobs problem has been around for more than 40 years, America’s politicians are still peddling the same solutions. In fact, a new analysis from the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released Monday shows that only 88% of men ages 25 to 54 are participating in the US workforce. The CEA reports that the US has the third-lowest labor-force participation rate for “prime-age men” among the world’s developed countries. We have done so well that, on a percentage basis, Greece, Slovenia and Turkey all have more men working than the US does. Greece! The decline is concentrated among less educated. Here is a chart:

Male Labor Force Part by Edu

More than 95% of men used to work in 1964, regardless of their educational attainment. Today, you better have at least a bachelor’s degree if you want to be sure you will get a job. But it is worse than that. The CEA said:

In recent decades, less-educated Americans have suffered a reduction in their wages relative to other groups. From 1975 until 2014, relative wages for those with a high school degree fell from over 80% of the amount earned by workers with at least a college degree to less than 60%.

Clinton and Trump would have you believe that the problem is bad trade deals with China, the TPP, or immigration. Trump in particular, is saying that the political elites have knowingly caused this all at the expense of the American worker. There is a modicum of truth to that, but it is the American corporation and the American tax code that is closing out US jobs, and hammering the middle class. American corporations now pay about 11% of our total US taxes, down from about 30% of US taxes in 1960, as jobs (and markets) have moved abroad.

What are the Pant Suit and/or the Pant Load going to do in the face of advancing automation now facing us not just in manufacturing, but also in the service and knowledge industries?

It is time to make the candidates talk about this on the campaign trail.

The basic policy choice we have is to put people to work, or to continue to allow the profit motive to dominate. If the profit motive remains supreme, we will continue our relentless drive to reduce labor costs — by eliminating jobs, or by paying workers less for the same work.

To date, our leaders have chosen the latter path, and we have reaped the results. We have become a land of spreadsheets and flags.

Can the GOP Edge in the Primaries Carry Over?

(Note: There will not be a Sunday Cartoon post again this week. Wrongo and Ms. Right will be in Santa Barbara CA for our granddaughter’s college graduation. Blogging will resume on Tuesday, 6/14)

In 2008, the Republicans turned out a total of 20.8 million votes in 45 Primaries. In the 2016 primaries, the Republicans grew that total to 28.6 million votes.

The Democrats have 27.7 million primary votes in 2016, before the DC primary. When Clinton and Obama ran against each other in 2008, they had 37.4 million votes.

So the GOP is up 7.8 million votes or a 37.5% increase over 2008. The Democrats are down nearly 26% or, 9.7 million votes. The parties were separated by only 900,000 votes by the end of the 2016 primary season, and the GOP was on top.

The question to ask the pundits: What does the Republican increase in primary voter turnout by almost 8 million, and the Democrats’ vote shrinking by almost 10 million mean for the general election?

We could talk about the populist turn in 2016. The electorate is rebelling against the establishments of both parties. We could point to the insecurity about jobs, social security and pensions for the 98% of America who know these things are no longer certain in today’s America, and are even less certain in tomorrow’s America. These have made the Bernie promise of free education, Medicare for all, and a break-up of the banks very popular with Millennials. Trump has understood the economic fears of the white middle and lower classes, and has added fear of Muslims, fear of Mexican immigrants and a longing for a simpler world where America was unchallenged, and the 40-hour work week was nearly a right, to be the aspirational standard for tomorrow’s America.

We could talk about Hillary Clinton and the enthusiasm gap. In 2016, Hillary has garnered 15.7 million votes, and she will win the nomination. In 2008, she received 18.1 million votes, 2.4 million more than she got in 2016, and lost. This time around, she was not facing one of the best retail politicians of the last 100 years in Barack Obama, and no one thought that Bernie was real competition, until he was.

So, America is now at a point where, for the Pant Suit vs. the Pant Load, these numbers really begin to matter. Let’s remember that primary turnout doesn’t necessarily translate into a reliable indicator of the turnout in the general election.

Also, over half of the GOP turnout was for candidates other than Trump. Voter preference may change significantly for the general election.

This election will be true to previous form and will be decided in just a few states: Ohio, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia and Pennsylvania will likely decide the outcome. Obama won all but NC in his 2012 race against Mitt Romney.

Assume that Hillary will win the majority of blacks, Hispanics, other ethnic minorities and many white women. The biggest question is: What percentage of women will vote for Hillary? If Trump peels off enough, he may be able to win in a few of those states.

So, turnout will be key. As an example, Charlie Crist would be the current governor of Florida if just 50% of the African American voters who were registered Democrats, had voted in the last gubernatorial election. In just in one (populous) Florida County.

The gap in the primary voting numbers are a good indicator that the GOP primary voters were more enthusiastic than were Democratic voters in 2016. However, the Democrats were very good at “Get out the Vote” programs in 2008 and 2012. Can Donald Trump match that in 2016?

Hillary starts with better odds of winning since the Democrats have an Electoral College advantage. Romney won 206 Electoral College votes. He lost Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia each by between 150,000 and 250,000 votes. So, it’s conceivable that the enthusiasm for Trump in these states combined with less enthusiasm for Hillary could give him an Electoral College victory.

OTOH, Trump can’t change who he is. He’s not going to go toe to toe with Hillary on wonky policy details. So, he’ll continue the campaign that won him the primary in the general.

Will Pant Load fatigue set in? It hasn’t yet.

The Pant Suit vs. the Pant Load – Jobs

The 90% know they’ve gotten the short end of the stick for way too long. Now, with the bad May jobs report that came out last Friday, there is concern that our seven-year recovery, which has not helped everyone, may not last a lot longer.

So, a quick review of the numbers: The BLS reported that the economy had added 38,000 jobs in May, the lowest since September, 2010. Furthermore, the April job gains of 160,000 were cut by 37,000, while the March job gains of 208,000 were cut by 22,000.

So, with 59,000 jobs revised away, and with only 38,000 jobs “created” in May, the net total in today’s report was a net loss of 21,000 jobs in the last 3 months. We haven’t seen this since the 2008 Financial Crisis. And the labor participation rate dropped for the second month in a row, to 62.6%, which doesn’t bode well for the future either.

But the true bad news was that the number of temporary jobs also fell by 21,000. Temporary employment is a predictor of future employment trends, both on the way up, and on the way down.

The temporary-help sector has been the best thing about the economy; we reported in March that more than 100% of the jobs created in the US since 2005 were temp or contracting jobs. The temporary jobs sector peaked in December 2015 at 2.94 million, and has lost 63,800 jobs since then:

Temp Jobs 2006-2015

Wolf Richter thinks that the decline in temporary workers isn’t just a one-month statistical blip, but a five-month trend, and that the sector has become a warning sign that the labor market could be heading towards deeper trouble. From Richter:

This also happened in 2007, when the temporary help sector started shedding jobs even as the overall economy was still adding jobs until right up to the official beginning of the Great Recession. And it happened in 2000, before the 2001 recession kicked in.

We lost nearly 8 million jobs in the Great Recession. Since 2009, the economy has added 14.5 million new jobs. But if we subtract the 8 million jobs lost during the recession, our net job growth was 6 million added, while our population grew by 16.5 million.

Now, not all of the growth in population is a person currently looking for a job. The big contributors are immigrants (both legal and otherwise), and births. Most of the immigrants want work, but they are the smaller fraction of our population growth, while infants, toddlers, and young children do not need access to employment just yet. The Boomers are trying to stay employed and not retire, while Millennials have moved into the workforce.

All of these groups are jostling for jobs. If US job growth can’t accommodate them, their individual situations will get worse, even while the overall numbers might look acceptable on paper.

So the questions for the Pant Suit and the Pant Load are:

Do they think that the lack of GDP growth and our lack of jobs growth is politically sustainable? How long could it go on without seeing pitchforks in the streets?
Where are the jobs going to come from?
What will they do if the jobs fail to materialize?

Hillary Clinton has the bigger problem, since she is presenting herself as the heir of Obama’s (and earlier, Bill Clinton’s) economic policies. She has to play defense on the economy. Trump can jump on the bad data, saying he can fix it, and many people will accept that uncritically.

But don’t count on hearing either candidate say anything that you think is useful. They will look for, and fail to find, “market” solutions to this dilemma created by the “market.”

And market solutions are what they will tell us we must wait for.

What does “To Serve” mean in the Senate?

There is an illuminating Op-Ed in today’s NYT by Frank Bruni that tells two stories, one about Cassandra Butts who was nominated by Mr. Obama to be our Ambassador to the Bahamas. She was never confirmed due to holds placed on the nomination by Republican Senators.

Butts died suddenly at 50 years old from leukemia, after waiting more than 820 days to be confirmed.

The second story is about the Senate’s process and specifically, GOP Senators who no longer even try to work across the aisle. From Bruni’s article:

The Senate held a hearing about her nomination in May 2014, and then… nothing. Summer came and went. So did fall. A new year arrived. Then another new year after that.

Bruni continues:

The delay had nothing to do with her qualifications, which were impeccable. It had everything to do with Washington. She was a pawn in its power games and partisanship.

At one point Senator Ted Cruz, (R-TX) had a “hold” on all political nominees for State Department positions, partly as a way of punishing President Obama for the Iran nuclear deal.

Later, Senator Tom Cotton, (R-AK), specifically placed a hold on Butts and on nominees for the ambassadorships to Sweden and Norway. He had a gripe with the Obama administration over a Secret Service leak of private information about a fellow member of Congress; and he was trying to pressure Obama to take punitive action. But that issue was unrelated to Butts and the Bahamas.

From Bruni: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

Cotton eventually released the two other holds, but not the one on Butts. She told me that she once went to see him about it, and he explained that he knew that she was a close friend of Obama’s — the two first encountered each other on a line for financial-aid forms at Harvard Law School, where they were classmates — and that blocking her was a way to inflict special pain on the president.

Bruni says that in a subsequent call to Sen. Cotton’s office, his spokeswoman did not dispute Butts’s characterization of that meeting, and stressed, in separate emails, that Cotton had enormous respect for her and her career.

There we have our two stories. In one, a Harvard educated lawyer, a classmate of the president, who could have cashed in by joining the private sector. But instead, she worked in DC, for the N.A.A.C.P.’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund, for the Center for American Progress and for Obama, including time as deputy White House counsel.

Tom Cotton on the other hand, is a Harvard educated lawyer. He was in the US Army. He did stints in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he earned a Bronze Star. He is a Tea Party Republican who is likely to be a candidate for president in 2020.

Cotton’s actions were not tied to ideology. Apparently, he just wanted to hurt President Obama. He is a US Senator. Think about the oath of office for the Senate. Mr. Cotton’s duty is to defend the Constitution, and to serve his constituents and the people of this nation, not to act out his retribution fantasies. The oath a Senator takes does not include ‘inflicting special pain on the president’. It does not include stymieing foreign relations or, in the case of Merrill Garland and 83 other judicial vacancies, our justice system.

Remember this when Sen. Cotton positions himself for his own quest for the White House. Think of the opportunities he would have for enhanced retribution, should he reach the Oval Office.

Senators from both parties use holds on nominations for leverage with the White House. But it has become extreme and egregious: a tactic that’s turned into a tantrum. Politicians sometimes do bad things. Usually, for money, or power, or to assist an ally. Cotton’s action was none of those. It was done purely for spite.

These Senatorial blocking privileges are being abused and should end. They are helping the Senate become a body of obstructionists for whom the verb “to serve” no longer has meaning.

In addition, why not change the Senate’s rules so that any nomination not acted upon for a reasonable time (90-120 days?) should be automatically approved.

It wouldn’t take a Constitutional amendment to accomplish this, just a change in Senate rules.

However, changing the rules in a body that has no accountability will require a “political revolution”, and as we have said before, the revolution has to be won precinct-by-precinct.

Monday Wake Up Call – June 6, 2016

We know that D-Day was June 6, 1944, but what does the “D” in D-Day, stand for?

Apparently, this is a frequently asked question by visitors to The National WWII Museum. But the answer isn’t simple. Disagreements between military historians and etymologists about the meaning of D-Day abound. Here are two explanations:

In Stephen Ambrose’s D-Day, June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II, Ambrose writes:

Time Magazine reported on June 12 1944 that ‘as far as the U.S. Army can determine, the first use of D for Day, H for Hour was in Field Order No. 8, of the First Army, A.E.F., issued on Sept. 20, 1918, which read, ‘The First Army will attack at H-Hour on D-Day with the object of forcing the evacuation of the St. Mihiel salient.’ (p. 491)

In other words, Ambrose reports the D in D-Day stands for “Day.” But In Paul Dickson’s War Slang, he quotes General Eisenhower:

When someone wrote to General Eisenhower in 1964 asking for an explanation, his executive assistant Brigadier General Robert Schultz answered: ‘General Eisenhower asked me to respond to your letter. Be advised that any amphibious operation has a ‘departed date’; therefore the shortened term ‘D-Day’ is used.’ (p.146)

It’s an enigma wrapped inside of a mystery. A continuing enigma is the lack of accountability by both our elected officials and our state and national bureaucrats. Today’s travesty was reported in the UK’s Guardian:

Despite warnings of regulators and experts, water departments in at least 33 cities used testing methods over the past decade that could underestimate lead found in drinking water.

These tests are taken annually and sent to the EPA in Washington. The 33 offending cities were in 17 different states. Of the cities, 21 used the same failed water testing methods that were used in Flint MI. Additional findings:

Michigan and New Hampshire advised water departments to give themselves extra time to complete tests so that if lead contamination exceeded federal limits, officials could re-sample and remove results with high lead levels.
Some cities denied knowledge of the locations of lead pipes, failed to sample the required number of homes with lead plumbing or refused to release lead pipe maps, claiming that would be a security risk.

Since the Flint water crisis erupted last year, school districts from coast to coast have stepped up testing of fountains and sinks. From Newark to Boston to Detroit, city after city has reported elevated levels of lead in the water of some educational buildings. The Portland OR schools have the problem and the school district has been aware of it for years. But the federal government doesn’t actually require most schools to test, so few do.

Apparently, the federal EPA has known since 2001 that its testing guidelines were weak. They are working on “long-term revisions” to its lead and copper rule, which are expected in 2017. Or sometime.

From Ian Welsh:

No regulator worth its salt, who is doing their job, could have missed entire States and large cities cheating, because any regulator worth its salt does its own audits and testing.

Republicans do not see this as a problem. Yes, there have been apologies, but no federal funding to remediate the problem. In fact, Fitch Rating Service estimates that capital costs to replace the nation’s lead water service lines could exceed $275 billion.

Republicans expect Mr. Market to take care of issues like this, once we privatize our water supply.

After all, aren’t invisible hands already cleaning the lead from the brains of America’s children?

It’s the miracle of market self-regulation.

Time for a wake-up call for all who think that business as usual is acceptable for our aging infrastructure, and in the case of our water supply, our poisonous infrastructure. Let’s look back to a time when America could do great things, even if it cost real dough. In 1977, we sent the Voyager I and II interstellar satellites off into space with a record of the things we thought made Earth unique. The music we sent was picked by Carl Sagan. This link lists all of the music we sent into the cosmos. One of his picks was by Blind Willie Johnson, “Dark Was the Night”, which has no lyrics, but creates a mood of loneliness. Here is “Dark Was the Night”:

This song will likely last longer than the human race. It’s doubtful that Blind Willie ever thought THAT was gonna happen.

What isn’t gonna happen is that our politicians decide on their own to be accountable to the rest of us.

The Wrongologist

Geopolitics, Power and Political Economy

Category: 2016 Election