National Day of No Outrage

I am not a big fan of Bill Maher's but I loved his op-ed in the Times. Hilarious.

"The answer to whenever another human being annoys you is not “make them go away forever.” We need to learn to coexist, and it’s actually pretty easy to do. For example, I find Rush Limbaugh obnoxious, but I’ve been able to coexist comfortably with him for 20 years by using this simple method: I never listen to his program. The only time I hear him is when I’m at a stoplight next to a pickup truck." 

"When the lady at Costco gives you a free sample of its new ham pudding and you don’t like it, you spit it into a napkin and keep shopping. You don’t declare a holy war on ham."

Y0u can read the whole article here. 

Forget Buffett, we need the Zuckerberg tax

From the NY Times (read the whole article here):

"Some would argue that it is inherently unfair to tax “paper gains” before they are realized — Mr. Zuckerberg won’t receive $28 billion in cash; he holds only paper. Moreover, markets are inherently volatile; one year’s paper gains is another’s real losses. However, these arguments are far less credible when paper losses give rise to real tax refunds. Moreover, in a downturn, the mark-to-market tax would act as a fiscal stimulus — the cash refunds would offset a declining stock market."

... "The most profound effect of a mark-to-market tax would be to level the playing field between wage earners, on one hand, and founders and investors on the other. Superwealthy holders of publicly traded securities could no longer escape tax on their vast wealth." 

Read Paul Krugman

Panic of the Plutocrats

The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.

Please, please please read Paul Krugman

Warren Buffett's most excellent op-ed piece

Warren Buffett wrote an excellent piece outlining how Congress has coddled the wealthy to the detriment of everyone else. Here are a few of my favorite quotes...

On his own tax bill:

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

On folks who think raising rates will stop investment and job creation:

And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

On how he'd fix things so the wealthy pay their fair share:

I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Click here to read the full article. Seriously. Click here. Now. Do it. I'm not kidding.

Tax graph

They make more but pay less. Methinks it should be if you make more, you pay more.

Hat tip: Krugman

Liberty

It's pretty clear to me that I read the NY Times far too often so if anyone has the antithesis news source, please send it over. Or wait, maybe don't. In yet another editorial, I'm left wanting to quote many parts. Here's a link to the whole article. And here's a quote from Justice Brandeis:

The founders "did not exalt order at the cost of liberty...only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such...is the command of the Constitution."

Krugman's column today - ouch!

I've been wondering this as well:

The real question is what Mr. Obama and his inner circle are thinking. Do they really believe, after all this time, that gestures of appeasement to the G.O.P. will elicit a good-faith response?

You can read the rest of the article here.

Recruiting another life-form to babysit

Henry must have more bacteria in his gut than he knows what to do with. This piece in the NY Times discusses breast milk sugars that give infants a "protective coat" in their guts. Those science guys are learning that parts of breast milk that cannot be digested by babies, and previously thought to be extraneous?, are actually serving a purpose!

"Dr. German sees milk as “an astonishing product of evolution,” one which has been vigorously shaped by natural selection because it is so critical to the survival of both mother and child. “Everything in milk costs the mother — she is literally dissolving her own tissues to make it,” he said. From the infant’s perspective, it is born into a world full of hostile microbes, with an untrained immune system and lacking the caustic stomach acid which in adults kills most bacteria. Any element in milk that protects the infant will be heavily favored by natural selection.

“We were astonished that milk had so much material that the infant couldn’t digest,” Dr. German said. “Finding that it selectively stimulates the growth of specific bacteria, which are in turn protective of the infant, let us see the genius of the strategy — mothers are recruiting another life-form to baby-sit their baby.”"

Now everyone go and get married!

Let us celebrate.

Justice Stevens resigns

Bring on the liberal judges!

Paying their share

David Tepper - $4 billion ($4,000,000,000.00)

John Paulson - $2.3 billion ($2,300,000,000.00)

Kenneth Griffin - $900 million ($900,000,000.00)

Following math uses Tepper's income:

$600,000,000 tax - 15% (the above folks are currently paying)

$1,400,000,000 tax - 35% (at rate I pay)

$800,000,000 - net loss to country

Projected health care costs = (approx.) $1 trillion over next ten years

Find 100 of these gentlemen currently taking advantage of the 15% tax rate, get them to pay the 35% rate the rest of the "rich" folks pay, and you have health care paid for for THE NEXT DECADE.*

*I realize, of course, that this math is a bit fuzzy, but as Darr commented after making the calculations "things don't really work out that way in real life but it just goes to show the awesome power of some people's wealth."

Take our country back from whom?

This op-ed piece by Charles Blow made me guffaw out loud when I got to this part:

"Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill's most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It's enough to make a good old boy go crazy."

I understand frustration because I felt that emotion often during G.W. Bush's time in office. I'm glad that for a bit, I get a reprieve and can enjoy the things that are to come out of this administration, like health care for all (or at least way more people than previously covered). Say all you want about how the new system is likely to fail and we won't actually achieve universal health care. I'll respond with a hearty, let's at least give it a chance. Because up until this point, the insurance companies have been actively working against Americans, many of whom learned once sick their coverage wasn't going to help and millions who were left out of the insurance loop altogether.

I think of Henry when I think of insurance. And I think of how, if Darren had changed jobs or (Gods forbid) been laid off, Henry would not have been able to obtain insurance because of his preexisting condition. And he's two. I'm convinced that our system needs to go the way of other industrialized nations. Britain's system sounds good. Let's try that and if, in ten or twenty years, folks hate having access to health care, well then we can reassess and consider allowing the insurance companies with financial stakes in the outcomes make our medical decisions for us.
For a look at Britain's system, click here.

Social security scariness

"This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

For the full article, click here.

“We’re well past 216, yes.”

Universal health care - check!

All done without the deem and pass maneuver. I don't know how you can't be for health care for everyone. I can't think of a single man, woman or child who doesn't deserve it so this makes for very happy people at the condo. This sucks, "...community health centers, which will get billions in new federal financing under the health care bill, cannot perform the procedure." But for now, I'll celebrate the win.

Obama: Game on, suckahs!

From the Office of the Press Secretary, remarks made by President Obama during his weekly address:

The other week, men and women across California opened up their mailboxes to find a letter from Anthem Blue Cross. The news inside was jaw-dropping. Anthem was alerting almost a million of its customers that it would be raising premiums by an average of 25 percent, with about a quarter of folks likely to see their rates go up by anywhere from 35 to 39 percent.

Now, after their announcement stirred public outcry, Anthem agreed to delay their rate hike until May 1st while the situation is reviewed by the state of California. But it’s not just Californians who are being hit by rate hikes. In Kansas, one insurance company raised premiums by 10 to 20 percent only after asking to raise them by 20 to 30 percent. Last year, Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield raised rates by 22 percent after asking to raise them by up to 56 percent. And in Maine, Anthem is asking to raise rates for some folks by about 23 percent.

The bottom line is that the status quo is good for the insurance industry and bad for America. Over the past year, as families and small business owners have struggled to pay soaring health care costs, and as millions of Americans lost their coverage, the five largest insurers made record profits of over $12 billion.

And as bad as things are today, they’ll only get worse if we fail to act. We’ll see more and more Americans go without the coverage they need. We’ll see exploding premiums and out-of-pocket costs burn through more and more family budgets. We’ll see more and more small businesses scale back benefits, drop coverage, or close down because they can’t keep up with rising rates. And in time, we’ll see these skyrocketing health care costs become the single largest driver of our federal deficits.

That’s what the future is on track to look like. But it’s not what the future has to look like. The question, then, is whether we will do what it takes, all of us – Democrats and Republicans – to build a better future for ourselves, our children, and our country.

That’s why, next week, I am inviting members of both parties to take part in a bipartisan health care meeting, and I hope they come in a spirit of good faith. I don’t want to see this meeting turn into political theater, with each side simply reciting talking points and trying to score political points. Instead, I ask members of both parties to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that’s been with us for generations.

It’s in that spirit that I have sought out and supported Republican ideas on reform from the very beginning. Some Republicans want to allow Americans to purchase insurance from a company in another state to give people more choices and bring down costs. Some Republicans have also suggested giving small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as big companies and labor unions do. I think both of these are good ideas – so long as we pursue them in a way that protects benefits, protects patients, and protects the American people. I hope Democrats and Republicans can come together next week around these and other ideas.

To members of Congress, I would simply say this. We know the American people want us to reform our health insurance system. We know where the broad areas of agreement are. And we know where the sources of disagreement lie. After debating this issue exhaustively for a year, let’s move forward together. Next week is our chance to finally reform our health insurance system so it works for families and small businesses. It’s our chance to finally give Americans the peace of mind of knowing that they’ll be able to have affordable coverage when they need it most.

What’s being tested here is not just our ability to solve this one problem, but our ability to solve any problem. Right now, Americans are understandably despairing about whether partisanship and the undue influence of special interests in Washington will make it impossible for us to deal with the big challenges that face our country. They want to see us focus not on scoring points, but on solving problems; not on the next election but on the next generation. That is what we can do, and that is what we must do when we come together for this bipartisan health care meeting next week. Thank you, and have a great weekend.

*Hat tip: Paul Krugman

Playing to learn

This op-ed piece in the NY Times caught my eye (at 2:30am no less - dang insomnia). Ms. Engel sums up in one sentence why I'm leaning heavily towards placing Henry in private school.

Our current education approach - and the testing that is driving it - is completely at odds with what scientists understand about how children develop during the elementary school years and has led to a curriculum that is strangling children and teachers alike.

In her theoretical classroom, there would be a "few narrowly defined and deeply focused goals," including being immersed in the written and spoken word to increase literacy. And lots of play because "children learn best when they are interested in the material." (Well, duh.) I'm not saying these things can't be found in the public school system, there will always be amazing teachers out there that inspire the kids they teach while working within the crazy perimeters we (i.e., the government) set for our public educational institutions. There are parents (I'm thinking of one in particular, I'm sure you know who you are) who work hard and are very involved with their public schools to insure the education their children receive is the best it can be, but ineffectual government testing forced on even the youngest of children at public schools and the coinciding curriculums teachers are required to teach leave me considering sending Henry elsewhere*.

*And yes, Darr, that includes the Arbor School in Tualatin, which I have fallen in love with.

Preserve and protect, eh?

Representative Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota, is quoted as saying the following in regards to the restrictive abortion amendment:

"It is the duty of the government to preserve and protect human life."

And I read this and I think to myself, really? Really? Because as she's saying this, she's busy voting against giving all (or nearly all) Americans access to health care. Doesn't giving people access to health care go a long way to preserving and protecting human life?

Whatever.

I'm in a mood. I'm sitting here with a glass of wine, and I'm in a mood. The kind where I'd like to pick a fight. I'm willing to pay more in taxes if it means that me and everyone else has access to coverage. (When I use the word access, I'm not talking about the ability to drive to the nearest E.R. I'm talking about the ability to see a doctor as needed to get treatment without such visits bringing about financial ruin.) Here's what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't use my own moral compass to decide the procedures everyone else in the country should or shouldn't have. You don't want an abortion? Don't get one.

No Einstein here

"According to a 2003 study, a third of all babies from 6 months to 2 years old had at least one "Baby Einstein" video."

Thankfully I never got into the Baby Einstein video craze. It didn't make sense that seemingly acid trip-inspired videos set to classical music would somehow turn my child brilliant - as an aside, Huck's brilliant for an entirely different set of reasons. And apparently Disney is thinking the same thing or rather they are acting to avoid a class-action lawsuit for deceptive marketing practices. Disney is offering refunds for folks who purchased the videos under the assumption that having infants watch t.v. is a good and educational thing to do. It's not. Says Vicky Rideout, vice president of Kaiser Family Foundation,

"To me, the most important thing is reminding parents that getting down on the floor to play with children is the most educational thing they can do."

Lest you think I stand on any kind of soapbox, Henry has watched t.v. before. He's seen a couple Disney/Pixar films and has even been to the movies. (We only have basic cable and I'm scared to death he'll find and love Barney so we don't usually even turn on the t.v. when he's awake.) He prefers books to the boob tube, for now at least, and I like to encourage that because boys tend to lag behind girls when it comes to reading.

For the full article over at the NY Times, click here.

The personhood of corporations

There's a really great editorial over at The New York Times about what constitutional rights corporations should have. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing whether or not Citizens United (a corporation) had a right to air a damaging ad about Hillary Clinton. The fear is that allowing corporations to voice their opinions would damage our election system. "Since 1907, Congress has banned them [corporations] from contributing to federal political campaigns - a ban the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld." Good thing, too, given how much money corporations already use to influence our politicians. Just imagine what it would be like if they could use huge sums of money to influence the population at large. "The Constitution mentions the rights of the people frequently but does not cite corporations. Indeed, many of the founders were skeptical of corporate influence." Those behind the push to give corporations more rights? The conservative folks. Tsk tsk.

R.I.P. Senator Kennedy

Whoa. Another Kennedy is gone.