“It’s what you get when day after day after day after day you just sit there and take it”

Republican racists threw nuts at a black CNN camerawoman, shouting, “this is how we feed the animals.” In response CNN cowers, does nothing, officially says nothing. Their employees are furious.
CNN and America’s “news media” should not be surprised — this is, after all, the “let him die!” party, the party that booed a soldier because he is gay — when the wingnuts do things like this, they are helping bring this treatment on themselves by doing nothing about it, not warning the public about gthe hate this crowd is spewing.
Seriously, read this: First Draft: Making You Inferior With Your Explicit Consent,

It’s what you get when you take somebody who says the New York Times building should be blown up, and put her on the cover of a magazine because she’s influential and controversial and maybe hey, she’s just kidding around!
It’s what you get when you hire people as your commentators and consultants who think urinating on corpses is hilarious, and call Supreme Court justices “goat-fucking child molester”s.
It’s what you get when you pay sex tourists with drug problems insane amounts of money to spend hours on the radio calling the president of the United States everything right up to the very edge of nigger, and then quote him as if he’s a person whose opinion matters.
It’s what you get when you invite people on the air who hate you. Who hate what you do. Who hate what you stand for. Who hate everything you are. Who say, out loud, that the world would be better off without you. Who think you’re a detriment to society. Who “joke” about killing you.
It’s what you get when day after day after day after day you just sit there and take it. You’ve been ignoring the bully for three decades now. Has he gone away yet? Has he stopped?

Seriously, go read the whole thing.
AND PLEASE read Angry Black Lady Chronicles, The Line Of The Convention So Far,

Staggering racism aside, “This is how we feed the animals” pretty much sums up the entire GOP mindset for the the last 32 years, doesn’t it?
Feed red meat to the base. Feed lies to the press and the middle. Feed contempt and hatred to the rest. And look at the animals, the 99%, eat it up. Durr hurr, stupid man animals will eat anything we throw at them. Let’s keep the dangerous ones locked up so we can gawk at them, and be sure to slaughter a few fatted calves so we eat well and they can rot in their pens and cages. We’re on display for their enjoyment, but never forget they’ll put us down if we bite the hand that feeds us.

Go read the rest.

Republicans Again Use Race, And It’s OUR Fault That It Still Works

Since forever, the Republican message is STILL “Dems take your money and give it to black people.” Doesn’t change. Doesn’t have to. It’s OUR fault.

Since Forever

I am not young. I remember when Nixon campaigned with his racially divisive “Southern Strategy.” Nixon campaigned on “crime” – fear of black people – and on the claim that Dmeocrats take “your” money and give it to black people. It worked.
It worked for Reagan, too, when he talked about “welfare queens” and “welfare Cadillacs.” Here is part of a Reagan campaign stump speech,

“She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.”

(Please read what Terrance Heath has to say about welfare queens in, Romney And Ryan: The Right Kind Of “Welfare Queens”.)
HW Bush used the infamous Willie Horton ad. Watch it with the sound off.

Bush II beat back John McCain in the primaries by circulating stories that he had “fathered a black child” and “terrorists.” (But correct me if I’m wrong, Bush II didn’t appear to use race against Gore, instead preempting potential attacks on his own character and honesty by hammering Gore’s “character” and making him out to be a liar – both with the help of the media. His later use of “terrorists” (brown people) is another story entirely…)

Prediction

So I’m going to go way out on a limb here. I predict that Republicans will use race and other terribly divisive tactics to distract us from the real situation — the draining of the wealth of 99% of us and the country for the benefit of an already-wealthy few — in the 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 and every campaign after that. They will say that “Democrats take your money and give it to black people.” They will campaign against “union thugs” and “union bosses” and say paying fair wages “hurts business” and we need to be more “business friendly.” They will say “government takes money out of the economy” and helping each other “makes people dependent.” They will say “cutting taxes increases government revenue.” They will say a lot of nonsense, and their policies when enacted will always, always benefit an already-wealthy few at the expense of the rest of us, our economy, our country and our planet.
They will say all kinds of stuff to keep We, the People from seeing what is in front of our faces.
That is who they are and that is what they do.
Unless we do something about it.

Look Where We Are & At What Romney Is Doing

Look where we are: Deregulation pretty much destroyed the economy. Tax cuts have partially defunded the government’s ability to empower and protect We, the People. The 1% and their giant corporations get so much of the benefits of our economy now. The climate is obviously getting worse and worse, already risking crop failures, incredible heat waves and terribly destructive storms. And with all of this going on one party blocks efforts to improve things, so they can campaign saying nothing is getting done. Yet with all that going on, the election so far is all coming down to billionaires spending hundreds of millions to run ads that say Obama is taking your money and giving it to black people.
Look what Romney is doing! He is running ads that come pretty close to the “welfare queen” messaging, pretty much saying that Democrats take your money and give it to black people. He is running ads about Medicare that pretty much say the same thing. And now he is even going “birther.” Thomas Edsall explains today in the NY Times, in Making The Election About Race,

The Republican ticket is flooding the airwaves with commercials that develop two themes designed to turn the presidential contest into a racially freighted resource competition pitting middle class white voters against the minority poor.
… The racial overtones of Romney’s welfare ads are relatively explicit. Romney’s Medicare ads are a bit more subtle. … Obamacare, described in the Romney ad as a “massive new government program that is not for you,” would provide health coverage to a population of over 30 million that is not currently insured: 16.3 percent of this population is black; 30.7 percent is Hispanic; 5.2 percent is Asian-American; and 46.3 percent (less than half) is made up of non-Hispanic whites.
… The Romney campaign is willing to disregard criticism concerning accuracy and veracity in favor of “blowing the dog whistle of racism” – resorting to a campaign appealing to racial symbols, images and issues in its bid to break the frustratingly persistent Obama lead in the polls, which has lasted for the past 10 months.

Once again, Republicans are saying, “Democrats take your money and give it to black people.”
And just like they do every time it works they take our money and give it to rich people instead.

It’s Our Fault

Here’s the thing. This is our fault. Fool me once, shame on you. We were fooled once, when Nixon did it. Shame on Nixon. But … We were fooled twice, when Reagan did it. We were fooled again and again, and apparently never caught on that this is what they do.
And if this is what they do, we should have taken steps after, maybe, the fifth or sixth or seventh or eighth time? This is our fault.
WHY are Republicans still able to use race in their campaigns to deflect attention from their ongoing campaign to turn the wealth and management of our country over to the 1%? Because we have not organized ourselves to reach out to regular people around the country and help them to understand what is happening to them. Instead we (progressives) have largely focused our on changing things through elections. But we have not done the hard work between elections to set the stage for elections. We have not been very good at reaching out to tens and tens of millions of regular people and helping them to understand and appreciate the benefits to them of a progressive approach to solving our problems.
I mean, a lot of us do get this and try. This is a big part of what Campaign for America’s Future does – or tries to do with the very limited resources it has. But a real national, between-elections, ongoing — decades-long — campaign takes real resources, facilities, coordination, supplies, management, researchers, writers, talkers, technologists, and the rest. And that takes real money. The kind of money conservatives have been willing to put into such and effort, and progressives have not.

Let’s Finally Do Something About It

When are we going to recognize that this is what they do, and do something about it? They use race. They divide us. They make shit up, and spend millions and millions on blasting their made-up shit into people’s brains. Then they enrich the 1% at the expense of the rest of us, and use part of that to do it more. This is what they do. And very little is done to counter it. (Some say the problem is, “democracy does not have an advertising budget.”)
What if we had started 4 years ago to get ready for this campaign of lies and division, knowing full well that they are going to use race and lies and the rest against We, the People? What if we had started then to reach and educate millions and millions of working people, bring them together, help them see the bigger picture? What if we had reached out to millions of disaffected white voters and explained directly to them, in language that reaches them, with stories that resonate with them, so they would be ready for it when they are told “Democrats take your money and give it to black people,” and why believing it hurts them.
What if we did this between elections, and kept doing it after elections, and explained and reinforced the concepts of democracy so that people’s understanding and appreciation of democracy and what it really means increased year after year after year?
What if we had started doing this 8 years ago? 12 years ago? After Nixon’s election? What if we had started to dedicate a percentage of progressive-aligned funding and organizing toward a centrally organized, well-funded campaign of reaching regular people and explaining the harm conservatives are doing, and the benefits to them of democracy and a We, the People approach to our mutual problems?
How well would their campaign of racism and lies and division work, if we had done that? How well will it work if we do it.
What would it have done for the goals of environmentalists if we had put serious money into a coordinated, values-based approach that helped people understand and appreciate the meaning and benefits to them of truly honoring We, the People “we are in this together” democracy over the prevailing corporate/conservative, Randian, “you should be on your own”?
What would it have done for the goals of labor unions if we had used this approach?
What would it have done for the goals of consumer attorneys if we had used this approach?
What would it have done for the goals of Medicare-For-All advocates if we had used this approach?
And what could it do for all of these if we started today?

A Fight Back Strategy

Research & Development, and Action: What we need is a major, coordinated, funded, national project dedicated to researching the ways the 1% manipulates us, and developing strategics for overcoming them. This project also needs a national action arm that takes the research and strategies out to the country and continues this work for as long as it takes.
Just think about this, think about changing your orientation from election cycle to outside of the election cycle, ongoing, as-long-as-it-takes strategies. And mostly, please help and continue to help fund organizations that work outside of elections to help make these changes, so that progressive candidates and policy initiatives have fertile ground in which to do well!
Of course, this kind of work is a big part of what Campaign for America’s Future does – or tries to do with the very limited resources it has. You can and should help us with this, and you can do that right now by visiting this page. If you can give $3 right now, that helps. Seriously, if everyone reading this just gave $3 (or more) it would help.
And this is not a selfish appeal so I can get a raise (although it can’t hurt). There are a number of other organizations that are seriously working on this kind of approach. You can also give a donation to Center for American Progress here, or to the National Council of La Raza here, or to the Economic Policy Institute here, Media Matters here, to the Center for Community Change here, to Progressive Congress here, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights here, to People For the American Way here, and there are so many other organizations that are working in their own way to help. (I’ll add them as they read this and write to yell at me for leaving them out.)
There is a (somewhat out of date) page on funding progressive infrastructure here and a (somewhat out of date) list of progressive infrastructure organizations here.
We really need for progressives to understand this need, and the difference between this and election campaign contributions. Think about it, and help spread the word. Help fund it, and help others understand this need. We can beat back the conservative machine by building a machine of our own that is strong enough to do the job. This takes money.
And to keep that machine answerable to US, we have to fund it democratically, with each of us stepping up and contributing what we can. It has to be lots of people giving small and medium amounts, not depending on a few large donors. ANY organization or candidate is going to dance with the ones that brung ‘em, so WE have to bring them to the dance together. Go give $3 or $10 or $100 to any of those organizations now, and keep doing it, and get others to do it.

Cost-Effective

A dollar donated to an effort like this now is like a dollar donated again and again to each and every progressive issue campaign and candidate from now on, except that the dollar is amplified. This is because doing the work now makes elections and policy battles so much easier and less expensive.
Conservatives have developed a “brand” and their candidates and policy initiatives ride that brand like a surfer surfs a wave. They just hop on the wave and attach themselves or their issue. So much of the things we have to spend so much money on are already covered by their infrastructure of like-minded organizations, so for each candidate and policy initiative they have to spend so much less! ALL of their candidates are helped by the central branding effort.
Progressive-oriented candidates and policy initiatives start almost from scratch, and so it is tremendously expensive to get them elected or passed. We have to raise tremendous sums to do the things that conservatives have ready-to-go. And each of our candidates have to each raise that money, on their own, just to overcome the things conservatives already have in place – for all of them. One dollar spent on a core branding effort could have the same effect for all of our candidates and policy initiatives as the more-than-one-dollar spent for EACH candidate or policy initiative at election time to overcome it.
So help out, OK?
P.S. Here is a talk I gave on this subject in 2004, titled “On Our Own? that talked about how the corporate right works between elections to market their ideology, and suggesting that we should try a similar outside-the-election-cycle approach.
Here is a talk I gave to an education organization in 2007 titled, “We’re All In This Together” that described how the right uses the Overton Window to move public attitudes,

What can we, as supporters of public education, do about this?
The supporters of public education must join with their natural allies — the trial lawyers and the environmentalists and reproductive rights organizations and others and begin to talk to the public with a COMMON message that says WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER because we are a COMMUNITY. Only after people come to understand and appreciate this philosophy of community again, will they begin to understand and appreciate the value of public schools.
… The Right pushes an ugly message that we are each on our own, out for ourselves to get what we can, in a dog-eat-dog world. But in truth, we are really ARE all in this together, not only as being on the receiving end of similar attacks, but also because we can work together to help each other. We can work to counter the Right’s message by restoring the public’s understanding and appreciation of COMMUNITY and the value of responsible government.
How can we do this?
As I’m sure you know, frame and message development and testing are complex and require skilled professionals. Messaging efforts on behalf of public education will have the greatest effect if linked to broad frames that are developed across sectors, frames that support the value of community and government. And the messaging that supports these values will be most effective if it is delivered by multiple voices, third-party voices that are not strongly identified with public education and other interest groups. It must be coordinated with a long-term strategy.

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.
Sign up here for the CAF daily summary

How Long Will You Live?

m4s0n501

Any “science” story that begins like this probably isn’t worth reading, because the very first sentence gets it just wrong,

SINCE 1900, the life expectancy of Americans has jumped to just shy of 80 from 47 years. This surge comes mostly from improved hygiene and nutrition, but also from new discoveries and interventions: everything from antibiotics and heart bypass surgery to cancer drugs that target and neutralize the impact of specific genetic mutations.

The implication is that people generally died at 47 years old then, and 80 now. But what really happened is fewer babies die now, so at birth the average would be 47 then and 80 now. But people then and now can live to about 80 if they aren’t killed by something like childhood illness, war, etc.
Note that this is the same fallacy that propels people to think Social Security is a problem, because life expectancy at birth is greater now. This tricks people into thinking that we pay out Social Security longer…
NY Times: How Long Do You Want to Live?

You and me, we keep walking around and we see all the bullshit around us

A long war far away (that one with a draft). Nixon campaign theme “Dems take your money and give it to black people.”
Jefferson Airplane – House at Pooneil Corners – Manhattan Rooftop Concert (1968)

You and me, we keep walking around and we see all the bullshit around us…
You try and keep your mind on what’s going down;
Cant help but see the rhinoceros around us….
Then you wonder what you can be, and you do what you can to get far and high…
And you know I’m still gonna need you around…
And you know I’m still gonna need you around….
You say it’s healing, but nobody’s feeling it;
Somebody’s dealing, somebody’s stealing,
And you say you don’t see, and you don’t;
You say you won’t know and you won’t, when it comes…
Everything, someday, will be gone except silence;
The earth will be quiet again…
Seas from clouds will wash off the ashes of violence
Left as the memory of men…
There will be no survivors, my friend.
Suddenly everyone will look surprised, stars spinning wheels in the skies,
Sun is scrambled in their eyes,
Circles like a vulture…
Some stood at the window and cried one tear;
I thought that would stop the war, but someone is killing me…
That’s the last time I do think anymore;
Jelly and juice and bubbles, bubbles on the floor…
Castles on cliffs vanished, cliffs like heaps of rubbish
Seen from the stars, hour by hour, as splinters, scraps, and black powder.
From here to heaven is a scar,
Dead center, deep as death;
All the idiots have left… (All the idiots have left…)
Cows are almost cooing, turtle doves are mooing;
Which is why a Pooh is poohing in the sun…
Sun…

What Did Mitt Learn At Bain?

Mitt Romney (or someone) writes (or writes for him) in Murdoch/Al-Waleed’s Wall Street Journal, that lessons he learned at Bain Capital will help him turn the country around if he is elected President. Is he right?
In WSJ: Mitt Romney: What I Learned at Bain Capital, Romney writes about “job creators” who are “burdened by regulations.” He writes about “today’s anti-business environment.”
In the piece, Romney uses a lot of “code words.” For example, he writes that he will “give every family access to great schools and quality teachers.” This is code for privatization, meaning he will help dismantle public schools and give people vouchers for private schools instead, just like his Medicare plan. He writes that he will, “make it easier for entrepreneurs and small businesses to get the investment dollars they need to grow, by reducing and simplifying taxes” meaning give even more tax cuts for the wealthy few, and “stemming the flood of new regulations” meaning getting democracy’s pesky protections for people’s health and safety and the environment out of the way.
Much of what Romney writes is, of course, great and impossible to argue with. Millions upon millions in corporate campaign cash give him access to the best persuasion messaging that focus groups and polling can come up with. He will tell you exactly what you want to hear. But what happens when you look deeper?
Finally, being Romney, he just lies, writing, “President Obama has piled on excessive regulations, proposed massive tax increases, added more than $5 trillion in federal debt, and failed to address the coming fiscal cliff—all of which is miring our nation in sluggish growth and high unemployment.” It was the very Bush policies that Romney advocates returning to, that caused the financial collapse, recession, high unemployment and debt. Before Bush we had a great economy and we were paying off the debt.

Staples, For Example

In So DID Mitt Romney Really “Create Jobs” At Staples? I looked into the claim that Romney “created” 100,000 jobs by starting the company. What really happened was that Romney’s company followed the Wal-Martization model, using the advantages that come with having large, national chains, putting a number of local, smaller businesses out of business, while shifting a lot of people into lower-paying jobs. From that post,

Staples grew into a major chain because they consolidated what different kinds of stores sold, offering a one-stop-shop for stationery products, office supplies, office-furniture, computers, etc. They also were able to be competitive because of the advantages of scale as they grew into a national chain, centralizing functions like accounting, purchasing, legal, marketing, etc. And never underestimate the power of having a ton of cash at your disposal. This is all just smart business, well executed.
As Staples grew it overtook competing chains like Businessland and others. In other words, Staples took business from other, existing stores — often local retailers. Staples did not “create” jobs, it shifted office-supply jobs from local stores, etc., probably to lower-paying jobs. (The former owners of local businesses certainly were worse off from this.) They likely even lowered overall office-supply, stationery, etc. employment in the larger economy.

This is in many ways just smart business. But it is so important to understand that this is not in any way about creating wealth in ways that help all of us, building up industries and helping communities and the country and the larger economy. It is about taking advantage of various loopholes and innovations that allow a few to shift wealth from the many to themselves. “Shift” is the key word, there is a difference between creating wealth and shifting wealth.

“Good Business”

So what are the “good business” practices that Romney promises to extend to the entire country?
If you can manufacture at a lower cost in another country, closing the factory here, laying the people off, devestating the surrounding community, that is “good business.”
If you can find ways to reduce staff and reduce the pay of the rest, that is “good business.”

How do these”Romney job creator” jobs stack up against other jobs? Average Staples salaries for job postings nationwide are 51% lower than average salaries for all job postings. The pay at Staples appears to be around $8-10 an hour. That’s $16-20,000 a year, certainly not enough to support a family, or even pay rent in many areas, never mind buying food. (The 2012 poverty guideline for family of four is $23,050.)

If you can find ways to scam the tax system to increase your own return on investment, that is “good business.” Private-equity companies like Bain Capital borrow tremendous amounts using the assets of the acquired company as collateral, immediately passing much of the borrowed money to themselves. The interest payments are tax deductible. Also,

These giant companies even have the power to squeeze communities and even states, demanding tax concessions with the threat of relocation. This has put our tax base in a downward spiral along with our wages.

If you can find ways to put smaller, local businesses out of business, that is “good business.”

As Staples grew it overtook competing chains like Businessland and others. In other words, Staples took business from other, existing stores — often local retailers. Staples did not “create” jobs, it shifted office-supply jobs from local stores, etc., probably to lower-paying jobs. (The former owners of local businesses certainly were worse off from this.) They likely even lowered overall office-supply, stationery, etc. employment in the larger economy.

Please read the entire post, So DID Mitt Romney Really “Create Jobs” At Staples? to understand what Mitt Romney is promising to do to our economy.
This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.
Sign up here for the CAF daily summary

Will Republican Convention Discuss Actual Jobs, Not “Tax-Cut” Jobs?

Next week the Republicans hold their convention. They will supposedly focus their message on the economy. But after four years of an agenda to block jobs and economic growth so they can campaign on complaints of no jobs and no growth, can they offer anything that might actually create jobs and improve the economy? We will see next week.

The Romney Jobs Plans

Perhaps the Republican convention will focus on the Romney jobs plan.
The Romney Jobs Plan has five parts, none of which actually involve actual job creation.
First, of course, Romney says he will create jobs by cutting taxes dramatically for the rich and giant corporations while, yes, raising them for everyone else. The Romney tax plan actually offers even more tax breaks to companies to move operations out of the country. It promises to be “revenue neutral” by getting rid of deductions and loopholes, which could well mean the mortgage interest deduction. (Romney refuses to offer specifics.)
Second, Romney says he will cut government regulations — meaning cut the ability of We, the People (democracy) to keep companies from doing things that hurt us, hurt smaller companies and hurt the economy. Democracy’s oversight is a “burden on the economy” the plan says. Specifically cited in the Romney plan are the new regulations on Wall Street passed in reaction to the deregulated Wall Street crashing the economy, the regulations enacfted after Enron scammed so many people, and efforts to protect our environment and reign in the oil companies after the Deepwater Horizon disaster and because of the terrible oncoming effects of climate change. The Romney plan says these “drive up costs.” By getting rid of these “costs” he says jobs will be created. It is possible that he means temporary oil-spill cleanup jobs will be created.
Third, Romney promises to push for more NAFTA-style trade pacts, so even more jobs, factories and industries can be sent out of the country, making a few more Bain-style billionaires as the wages those workers were making are instead put in the pockets of a few. I guess lots of jobs are created when workers pack up machinery in a factory to ship to factories in other countries.
Fourth, Romney’s energy plan is simple: unleash oil and coal companies to do anything they want, and get rid of all those pesky alternative energy projects like solar and wind energy. Build a pipeline across our country so Canadian oil companies can sell oil to China. Stop enforcement of environmental laws that hinder oil and coal companies. And, specifically, “Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview.” Because the hottest year on record, the worst drought, states and regions on fire, terrible “100-year” storms and flood every year means … hey, look over there!
Finally, the fifth part of the plan deals with labor. Apparently the South had it right, it is much more “business friendly” when you don’t have to pay workers and they can’t quit. Seriously, read this section. Paying workers and letting them have rights will “drive up costs and introduce rigidities that harm competitiveness and frustrate innovation.” Letting workers negotiate will “reduce investment and slow job growth.”
So a guy who made a fortune by laying people off and cutting the pay of the remaining people (cutting costs), and keeping that money for himself, says that we should base our economy on doing that because it worked for him.

The House Republican Jobs Plan

Perhaps the Republican convention will instead focus on the House Republican jobs plan.
The House Republican Plan for America’s Job Creators – Summary: cut taxes for the rich, get rid of the ability of We, the People to control the giant corporations. (Special bonus: get rid of regulations that keep companies from doing harm AND get rid of our ability to sue companies that do harm!)
The introduction to the House plan says that “government takeovers of the economy” (?) have not worked. Government takeovers of the economy? What? Anyway, let’s examine the plan.
Cut Taxes: the House plan promises to “reduce the overall tax rate to no more than 25% for businesses and individuals including small business owners.” Of course, this is a huge tax cut for the wealthiest. These are the “job creators.” The definition of “job creator” is really, really rich. Paris Hilton “creates jobs.” So even more tax cuts for the rich. Because doing that created so many jobs in the Bush years…
Trade: The plan has a trade plank that actually encourages even more closing factories here and sending the jobs there. Because doing that created so many jobs in the Bush years…
Import Cheaper, Foreign Skilled Workers: The plan has a plank calling for special visas to let in foreign workers to do high-skilled jobs because they are paid less than Americans — older, experienced American tech workers in particular. Because doing that created so many jobs in the Bush years…
Austerity: The plan discusses deficits (after promising to dramatically cut taxes) — using wording implying that deficits cost jobs, which is a standard of Republican rhetoric. So after cutting taxes for the rich, starting two wars and doubling the military budget on top of that, they turned a surplus into huge deficits, and now they say this means we need to … wait for it … cut back on the things We, the People do for each other instead of undoing those things that caused the deficits. Whatever. Because doing that created so many jobs in Europe…
Drill, Baby, Drill!: And, finally, the House Republican plan say we must let the oil companies drill more. Of course. Because doing that created so many jobs in the Bush years…
So that is the House plan to “create jobs.” Do more of what they did in the prosperous, job-creating, economy-improving, deficit-reducing Bush years! This plan will create lots of “revolving door” jobs when House members and their staffs move into lucrative corporate lobbying jobs provided for them if and only if they vote for the above treats for billionaires and their corporations.

What Will They Actually Do If Actually Elected?

If Republicans are put in power, what will they actually do? Will they decide to actually create jobs, or will it just be more treats for a few billionaires and their giant corporations? (Because doing that created so many jobs in the Bush years…) The existing Romney and House Republican plans focus on treats for billionaires because their election effort is almost entirely funded by billionaires and their giant corporations.
But what about after the election? Will they feel a need to actually create jobs? Will they calculate that the electorate will toss them out if they don’t bring about the promised improvements in the economy by cutting taxes and getting democracy out of the way of the big corporations?
Maybe they won’t decide to actually create jobs and grow the economy. They’ll still be able to take advantage of the revolving door jobs machine, with legislators and their staff able to move seamlessly from government jobs where they pass treats to billionaires, into lucrative jobs provided by those billionaires.
But if they calculate that they need to actually create actual jobs for actual people, and actually help our actual economy their plans offer noting that can actually accomplish this.

Creating Actual Jobs Is Actually Simple

Actually creating actual jobs and actually helping improve the economy is actually pretty simple. We have millions of jobs that need doing, and to actually create jobs all you have to do is actually hire people to do those jobs that actually need doing.
Infrastructure: We actually really, really need to invest in maintaining and modernizing our country’s infrastructure. Roads, bridges, waterways, dams, airports, ports, power grid, levees, water systems, waste treatment systems, transit systems (high-speed rail from city to city!!!) (rail systems from every city to every airport!!!) (rail systems running along every commute route!!!), and so many, many more things that need to be done here. And of course this work will pay off because it will make our economy so much more competitive. This is work that has to be done anyway, and will create millions of jobs when we finally get started on this.
Energy: Every home and every building in this country needs to be retrofitted to be energy-efficient. The payoff from this will be enormous!! Millions of jobs now and using (and paying for) so much less energy later.
Those two areas alone will create millions and millions of jobs and leave behind a vastly improved economy. In the short term that is millions of people paying taxes and participating in the economy instead of depending on the safety net. In the long term this work means our economy is in vastly better shape.
There is one and only one reason we have not done these things in the last few years, and that is the Republican strategy of blocking this, in order to keep the economy in the doldrums, so they can “talk about the bad economy.” But if they win, this is what they will have to do if they decide to actually create jobs.
This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.
Sign up here for the CAF daily summary

Why Conservative Attacks On Wind And Solar Energy?

There has been a recent flurry of propaganda attacks on wind and solar energy by oil-and-coal-backed conservatives. A vitally important tax credit to help build a renewable energy industry in this country expires at the end of this year without Congressional action, and the old oil and coal industries — along with certain other countries — want to make sure it does expire.

Background

The fossil-fuel industry is fully developed after many decades of government help. Going up against a fully-developed industry like oil and coal is enormously expensive, and the industry is trying to block We, the People from triggering private investment to help get us out from under its grip. It has nothing to do with government interfering in markets, or “picking winners and losers,” this is about us helping offset the enormous competitive advantage oil and coal have due to government investment and assistance in oil and coal in prior decades. We do this because We, the People see the benefits and prosperity that will come to us from developing these alternative energy industries.
Oil and coal are, to put it mildly, entrenched in our economy, and, to put it mildly, make out very, very well because of that. Various forms of government assistance put them there and keeps them there. Aside from direct help like the tax breaks to the companies themselves and keeping taxes low at the pump (compare the cost of gas here to other countries), there are support structures like the cost of the vast military complex that keeps the oil flowing, building roads instead of rail, etc., and then of course there’s the cost to us of that whole “let them dump their waste products into the environment for free” thing.
As a result vast ecosystem supporting the oil and coal industries has been built up over the decades. Delivery systems like pipelines, rail lines, gas stations, etc. are examples of this ecosystem that supports the fossil-fuel industry. Existing refineries were enormously expensive to build. So this industry now rests on decades of capital investment. The investment paid off, provided a vast return, and now offers a competitive advantage over other, newer forms of energy. A barrel of oil comes from the ground from an existing well, or a new well that benefited from decades of technological research and development, much of it helped along by government.
“Renewable” forms of energy do not yet have such an ecosystem. The manufacturing, power grid, etc. are all brand new technologies, that need the kind of investment that lets them build the supply chains, expertise and other things that get them to the trigger point where they can take off. This is enormously expensive to develop — no matter how great the payoff will be. Countries like China get this, and are helping build those manufacturing ecosystems in their countries. Here, however, we have the entrenched political power of the super-wealthy oil and coal companies in the way, fighting tooth and nail to stop the development of this industry. (And, of course, countries like China have every incentive to do what it takes to keep us from developing this industry here.)

Why Tax Breaks?

Instead of just building up the ecosystem of an industry like alternative energy itself, our government helps trigger private investment by providing tax breaks that help overcome the competitive advantage that decades of investment has brought to established industries. Specifically, to help trigger investment in alternatives like solar and wind energy, our government gives tax credits to these industries so their product can compete now with energy products from oil and coal companies that have already made the huge capital investment (with government help) required to build their ecosystems.
Tax breaks help bring the price of a product down versus the product of an entrenched, developed industry, so new companies can grow and their supply chains and expertise and facilities can develop, until such time as they are far enough along to compete on their own. We, the People (government) do this when we feel it is to our benefit for an industry to develop here. We, the People (government) did this with aerospace, semiconductors, computers, biotech and other modern industries. These are examples of how we can trigger this effect, and then prosper because we did.
When We, the People decide that we will benefit from helping a new industry develop, then yes, We, the People pick a winner, because it benefits us and we prosper as a result.
We, the People (government) did this with these tax breaks for alternative energy. Now the entrenched interests are pulling out all the stops to try to get rid of those tax breaks before the alternative energy industry takes off here. They call it “picking winners and losers” and say it is “interfering with the market” when in fact the oil and coal ecosystem currently is “the winner” because of decades of various forms of government assistance. We, the People (government) assisted those industries because at the time we wanted to grow our economy, and now we want to assist alternatives like solar and wind, because being chained to oil and coal is holding us back and harming the environment. This is supposed to be about what We, the People benefit from, not an entrenched, wealthy few and the power they have to influence and control government decision-making.
US News offers some good background information: Wind Energy Tax Credit: More Hot Air or Key Job Creator?,

The federal renewable energy production tax credit (PTC) provides an income tax credit of 2.2 cents/kilowatt hour for the production of electricity from utility-scale wind turbines, and is set to expire on December 31, 2012.
… Without the tax credit, chances are that fewer turbines will be produced and installed. That could have devastating ripple effects on jobs, according to some experts. Last time the PTC was allowed to expire in 2004, installations of new wind turbines dropped as much as 93 percent, according to the American Wind Energy Association, throwing the industry into a perpetual boom-bust cycle that has stunted its growth.
… 37,000. That’s the number of jobs the Obama administration says are at risk without the energy tax credits, not a small number considering millions of Americans remain unemployed.

Conservative Propaganda Attacks

Here are some examples of oil-and-coal-backed (and foreign-backed) conservatives using various forms of trickery to fight againt the development of an alternative-energy industry in the United States.
Heritage Foundation: Morning Bell: Wind Energy Subsidies Are As Useful As VHS Tape Subsidies,

The wind production tax credit is set to expire at the end of this year, which has the industry crying out for continued subsidies. … The credit is a huge handout to wind producers, allowing them to sell their electricity for less than market price. …

Wall Street Journal (note – this outlet is co-owned by a Saudi oil billionaire): The Energy Subsidy Tally,

The problem is that wind and solar still can’t make a go of it without subsidies. Solyndra is merely the most famous of the solar-power failures. Earlier this month United Technologies sold its more than $300 million investment in wind power, with CFO Greg Hayes telling investors, according to press reports that: “We all make mistakes.” He added that the market for renewables like wind “as everyone knows, is stagnating.” Someone alert the White House.
… the coal, oil, and natural gas industries paid more than $10 billion of taxes in 2009. Wind and solar are net drains on the Treasury.
… Why not eliminate all federal energy subsidies? This would get the government out of the business of picking winners and losers—mostly losers.

(Note that companies like Solyndra have failed as the result of countries like China subsidizing the development of alternative-energy industries in their own countries.)
Breitbart.com: DEAR BIG WIND: IT’S NOT YOU, IT’S ME,

The industry’s taxpayer-funded subsidies are set to expire at the end of this year – and Congress shouldn’t reauthorize. Continuing to subsidize a non-profitable industry to the tune of another $1.6 billion would be throwing good money after bad.
…Meanwhile, other U.S. energy producers are competing in a market where the government has revealed a preference, allowing wind producers to take a 2.2-cent write-off for each kilowatt-hour they produce. But, neither Democrats nor Republicans want to remove the teat from which the wind industry gets its fix.

(Was that written by lobbyists, or just dictated by them?)
This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.
Sign up here for the CAF daily summary