Skip to content

The Greatest Country on Earth

Saturday, July 9, 2016

This sort of says it all:

Over the last 30 years, local and state governments increased how much they spend on putting people in jail three times more than how much they spend on educating students, according to a new analysis by the Department of Education.

The department examined corrections spending and education spending data from 1979-1980 to 2012-2013 and found that over that time, governments increased spending on incarceration by 324 percent (from $17 to $71 billion). This is more than three times the spending increase on education, which only grew 107 percent (from $258 to $534 billion) over the same time period.

All of the 50 states had lower expenditure growth rates for PK-12 education than for corrections. Seven states increased corrections budgets more than five times as quickly than they did K-12 education budgets: ?Idaho, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia?. Texas had the largest percentage increase over 30 years, hiking incarceration spending by 850 percent.

The Department goes on to point out that there is an inverse relationship between levels of education and rates of incarceration. So, next time you here a legislator or governor telling you we have to cut education spending (ahem…Dan Malloy) ask him or her what’s happening with the prison budget.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Decline, Dysfunction | | Comments (0)

Getting easier to pass the Trump test

Friday, July 8, 2016

We folks here in Southeastern Connecticut have had to watch the slow decline of the New London Day, which used to be a good newspaper with a reasonable editorial policy. It has now become, essentially, an automatic supporter of all but the most insane Republicans, and even they get a second look. One of the worst offenders is columnist David Collins, who has this thing about state employees. He can’t understand why they should get the pensions to which their contracts entitle them. Apparently it is there fault that the State of Connecticut has not properly funded those pensions, and it is only fair that they should be screwed out of them. Who knows, maybe the Day screwed Collins out of his pension. Misery loves company, after all.

Anyway, recently Collins let it be known that though he can usually be reliably expected to heap praise on all Republican candidates, he was going to institute a new policy. No Republican would get his support who didn’t follow Chris Shays and unequivocally renounce Donald Trump:

“I would suggest calling this the Trump test, one I intend to try on every state Republican candidate I encounter this election season.

It’s pretty simple: A pledge to renounce, like Shays has, is a pass.

Everything else — like still thinking about it — is a fail.”

Three days after he wrote that column he did a puff piece about a Republican named Nicholas Mullane, who, according to Dave could pretty much do no wrong. I took keyboard in hand (I know that makes no sense) and penned this letter to the Editor:

On June 17th Dave Collins wrote one more in a series of endless columns shilling for yet another Republican candidate, this time Nicholas Mullane. We can, of course, expect more columns of this sort, one for each Republican running for office in the immediate vicinity. 

But I was a bit surprised. Just three days ago Collins announced that he would challenge each Republican candidate to denounce Donald Trump. This would be his pre-sycophancy acid test. He said: “I would suggest calling this the Trump test, one I intend to try on every state Republican candidate I encounter this election season.” Did Mullane pass the Trump test? We are not told. Perhaps Collins has decided that, after all, busting unions is more important than avoiding fascism.

After a decent waiting period, imposed on all letters written by we of the left (they once waited a month to publish one of my letters, by which time almost no one could remember the article I was writing about) the Day published the letter.

I’m not saying it was in response to that letter, but today’s Day contains a column by Collins in which he tells us he has administered the test to a number of Connecticut politicians, including Mullane. We’re not told when he tested Mullane. In any event, here’s what Collins wrote:

One of the first Connecticut Republicans I put to the Trump test was Nicholas Mullane, the former first selectman of North Stonington who is challenging state Rep. Diana Urban for her 43rd District House seat.

Mullane gets penciled in, with a crafty answer in which he said he would like Republicans to find a new candidate at a brokered convention.

He gets to stay on the list, I suppose, at least until Trump officially wins the nomination at the Ohio convention.

Well it sure has gotten easier to pass the test, hasn’t it. A few weeks ago there was this:

Everything else — like still thinking about it — is a fail.

Now, a crafty answer will do. Methinks the standard for passing the test will get even more relaxed as time goes on. Apparently it is also alright to be still thinking about it, as Collins says State Senator Paul Formica is still doing. And you don’t fail the test if you fail to return phone calls posing the Trump test from a guy who has been writing paeans to you in the past:

These include Rep. Aundre Bumgardner, Rep. John Scott and Senate candidate Heather Somers, all of Groton.

So, it turns out that contrary to what we were told, it’s really quite hard to fail the Trump test. You have to really work at it. Here at ctblue we’ll be keeping our faithful reader(s) posted. The time, we assume, must surely come when final grades must be passed out. How, we wonder, will Collins justify his upcoming sycophancy, particularly the praise he will surely lavish on Heather Somers, a long time politician who can proudly say she has never accomplished anything of note other than winning the hearts of the folks at the Day, if she doesn’t come through on the Trump test? If I were Heather I wouldn’t worry. She will surely avoid ever answering the question, and Dave will find a way to argue that while she may not have passed the test, she hasn’t quite failed it either.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

My liberal heart is bleeding

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

I feel so bad for Gretchen Carlson:

Former “Fox & Friends” co-host Gretchen Carlson alleged in an explosive lawsuit filed Wednesday that Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes fired her for rebuffing his sexual advances and challenging a sexist newsroom culture.

Carlson, who spent 11 years at the network, described being ostracized and marginalized by Fox News for pushing back against condescending treatment. After seven and a half years as a co-host on “Fox & Friends,” the top-rated cable morning news show, Carlson was reassigned in 2013 to an early afternoon time slot. Fox News terminated her employment on June 23.

via The Huffington Post

She spent eleven years peddling the right wing line, including casting aspersions on anyone even vaguely left wing as well as deftly encouraging the racism and religious hatred that has led us to Donald Trump. She knew when she was hired that they weren’t hiring her for her brains, though I don’t doubt she has one. I wouldn’t doubt that if you went through the archives, you’d find footage of her disparaging women who made the same sort of claims she is making now.

Still, I hope she wins. Sure she’s loathsome, but no one is as loathsome as Roger Ailes.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

No, No, No, it just can’t be

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Back in 2008 I supported Obama over Hillary, and I’ve never really regretted it, though I’ve often thought that had Hillary been elected she would have entered office with a huge majority in both houses and no illusions about the prospects of forging bi-partisan agreements. She would, I thought, have known better, given her own history and that of her husband. This year, faced with the dismal prospect of her presidency, I have at least comforted myself with the thought that she would enter the presidency with none of the delusions about bi-partisanship that took Obama six years to shed. So, in the vanishingly unlikely event that the Republican Party were in fact dragged down in Trump’s undertow, I was confident that Hillary would do the right thing: stomp on their prostrate forms and use the Democratic majority to go for those incremental changes she’s always talking about. But, maybe no. Is it possible that Hillary actually shares Obama’s delusions:

Writing for the NY Times this morning, Patrick Healy makes the point that “Should she win the presidency, Hillary Clinton would quickly try to find common ground with Republicans on an immigration overhaul and infrastructure spending, risking the wrath of liberals who would like nothing more than to twist the knife in a wounded opposition party… Deeply confident that she would perform better as the president than as a political candidate, Mrs. Clinton wants to pursue a whole new approach at the White House to try to break through years of partisan gridlock, according to a dozen campaign advisers and allies who described her goals and outlook. From policy goals and personnel to her instinct for patiently cultivating the enemy, Mrs. Clinton thinks she would be a better dealmaker than President Obama if she finds willing partners on the other side.”

via Down with Tyranny

Can she possibly believe the Republicans will do anything other than make every effort to stymie every increment? They have a proven track record; a record that has worked. Should they get trounced, a frustrated and ineffective Clinton presidency will be their ticket back to majority status in 2018. The only way the Democrats could hope to hold their newly won majority would be by twisting that knife and delivering something that improves people’s lives. That is precisely what the Republicans don’t want to see happen under a Democratic president, and should she hold herself hostage to bi-partisanship, she will accomplish nothing other than delivering the country back to the Republicans in 2018, just in time to set them up for even bigger gains in 2020, which, being a year ending in zero, is one in which Democrats traditionally take a dive so that Republicans can further gerrymander themselves into power.

I suppose we can take some cold comfort from the fact that the inept Democrats, behind the “leadership” of Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Chuck Shumer, are more interested in keeping Democratic progressive candidates out of Congress than putting Democrats into Congress. So, if Trump does indeed lose in a landslide, expect him to have coat tails as small as his hands. So we will be spared the sight of Clinton failing to twist the knife.

Filed in Hillary Clinton, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Trade talk

Sunday, July 3, 2016

A diarist at Kos asks what the fact that Trump is “running to the left” of Hillary on the TPP means. I found this post interesting for a number of reasons.

First, opposition to the TPP is not necessarily a “left” position. If it is, it is a position in which the left and right meet. Trump’s fans have been against the TPP from the start, and they are not leftists.

I was also interested in the fact that the diarist really was quite ignorant about what the TPP actually does:

Among its many, many provisions, its primary goal is to reduce tariffs and promote more trade among its members.

It reducing tariffs were in fact the primary goal, the TPP might (I say “might”) be more defensible. But that is not its primary goal. It’s primary goal is to provide increased protection for corporate profits. For my first and only witness, I call Dean Baker:

The TPP actually does very little to advance free and open trade, primarily because the trade barriers between the countries in the pact are already low. This is why the International Trade Commission (ITC) found that removal of these barriers would add just over 0.01 percentage point to annual growth over the next 16 years.

In fact, because it increases barriers in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protection, the TPP may on net actually increase protectionism among the countries in the pact. (The ITC did not factor in the impact of higher prices for prescription drugs and other protected products in its analysis.)

In addition to these protectionist measures, the TPP may also restrict labor mobility through its clause on industrial secrets. This could require states to enforce non-compete agreements that prevent workers from moving from one company to another or starting their own business.

The TPP also effectively brings in through the backdoor, the far right-wing legal doctrine of regulatory takings. Under the rules in the TPP, foreign investors would have to be compensated for any regulatory action that reduced their profits. This is a major issue for many opponents of the deal.

via Beat the Press

It’s hard to believe that anyone who regularly reads the Daily Kos would be unaware of the clear and present danger the TPP poses to national sovereignty, not to mention the environment. Consider that right now, the US is being sued by TransCanada for rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. Our government is being sued in a kangaroo court set up under the NAFTA agreement. The “judges” hearing the case will be corporate lawyers. This is the primary reason why the Obama administration made it so difficult for anyone to actually read the text of the agreement.

Perhaps the most disheartening thing about this post was the comments. I started looking through the 401 comments that had been posted as of the time I reviewed them, to see if anyone made the obvious point that the TPP is not really about reducing tariffs. Maybe someone did, but I didn’t see it. Instead, the conversation degenerated into a ridiculous argument between Hillary fans and not so Hillary fans about her “opposition” to the TPP. We Democrats are supposed to be realists. Whatever your opinion of Hillary, you are deluding yourself if you actually believe that her “opposition” to the TPP is anything other than campaign rhetoric, something that has been laden with escape clauses from the start. Our best hope, should she get elected (and assuming it isn’t snuck through in the pre-inauguration period), is that the Republicans will be so anxious to prevent her getting her way that enough of them will combine with progressive Democrats to reject the treaty. If that happens, it will be the first time in years that the term “bi-partisan” will be applied to something that actually benefits the country.

Filed in Economics, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Strange Mugfellows

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Today my family celebrated three birthdays that occur around this time of year, mine being one of them. My son and daughter in law, along with a real gift, gave me a mug, which they got at the Vermont Country Store of all places, which bears the pictures of various Democrats.

Suffice to say, they gave the mug to me because they knew I’d get a laugh out of it. The mug does not say “Made in China” on it, but it’s hard to believe it was made here, and if it was, it can’t have been created by anyone who knows the slightest thing about what we Democrats are thinking about. You have to wonder how Bernie Sanders would feel if he knew he was right beneath Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But it isn’t only Debbie. What’s Chuck Shumer doing there? And while I have nothing against Loretta Lynch, is she really up there with Franklin Roosevelt? Of course, we’re lucky the names are printed underneath the caricatures, because while I think I’d recognize Eleanor, I’d have a tough time with Franklin, and I’d never get JFK.

I understand that there’s a Republican mug as well, but unfortunately, my son and daughter in law didn’t recall who was on it. We can only hope that Honest Abe was spared the humiliation of being on the same piece of pottery with the presumptive 2016 Republican nominee.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

No surprises here

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Americans have differing opinions about torture:

“Remarkably, the gap between torture supporters and opponents widens between voters who are Christian and those who are not religious. Just 39% of white evangelicals believe the CIA’s treatment of detainees amounted to torture, with 53% of white non-evangelical Protestants and 45% of white Catholics agreeing with that statement. Among the non-religious, though, 72% said the treatment amounted to torture. (The poll did not break down non-Christian religions in the results.)

Sixty nine percent of white evangelicals believe the CIA treatment was justified, compared to just 20% who said it was not. (Those numbers, incidentally, roughly mirror the breakdown of Republican versus Democratic voters among white evangelicals.) A full three-quarters (75%) of white non-evangelical Protestants outnumber the 22% of their brethren in saying CIA treatment was justified. White Catholics believe the treatment was justified by a 66-23% margin.”

 

via Religion Dispatches and Hullabaloo

These are the people who expect us to believe that they think life is so sacred that a fertilized egg has constitutional rights.

Filed in Hypocrisy, Religion | | Comments (0)

Refreshing

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Good for Kevin Lembo:

State Comptroller Kevin Lembo added his name to a growing list of advocates and officials asking Insurance Commissioner Katharine Wade to recuse herself from reviewing the Anthem-Cigna merger.

“With each passing day I grow more concerned about both the process by which the review is being conducted and the eventual impact of the proposed merger on the State of Connecticut and its residents,” Lembo wrote in a letter to Wade.

The concerns about Wade are related to her former employer, Cigna.

Wade last worked at Cigna in 2013 as vice president Public Policy, Government Affairs and U.S. Compliance. She was also the head of the Connecticut Association of Health Plans, the lobbying group for Connecticut’s insurance plans, from 2005 to 2013. Wade’s husband still works for Cigna.

Lembo said he understands the Office of State Ethics has been asked to consider whether Wade’s involvement conflicts with the state Code of Ethics, “however a favorable ruling from the OSE will not remove public skepticism of your role in the review of the merger.”

via Connecticut News Junkie

It’s really never a good idea to let insured industries regulate themselves, either officially, as with the Federal Reserve, or unofficially, as in this case. Just another example of the Malloy administration handing the state over to rent-seeking corporations.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

A bad idea

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

The State of Connecticut is, if every so timidly, exploring the idea of imposing a mileage tax in Connecticut.

The state of Connecticut is on the road to testing the possibility of a ‘Mileage Tax.’ The brakes were put on this plan one year ago when News 8 first reported about the idea, but now it’s back.

With GPS and smartphones, the idea of the state charging you for the number of miles you drive is technologically possible and several states in the Northeast, including Connecticut, want to give it a test

via WTNH News

The DOT is downplaying the initiative:

Judd Everhart, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, said the agency did apply for the federal grant. However, “we have no intention of moving forward with a mileage-based user fee program.”

via Connecticut News Junkie

The current gas tax is already pretty regressive, but a mileage tax would add a real ironic twist to the current situation. Assuming the tax would replace the gas tax, or at least keep that tax from rising, it would actually have the result of shifting the tax burden to people who drive fuel efficient cars. The gas tax falls most heavily on people with inefficient cars, since their tax per mile driven is greater than those who drive fuel efficient cars. As an example, if the gas tax were $.40 a gallon, and I got 40 mpg I would be paying 1 cent a mile. If you got 20 mpg, you’d be paying 2 cents a mile. That added cost is a small but nonetheless real incentive to get a fuel efficient car. If we simply tax each mile driven, my comparative advantage disappears; the tax burden has been shifted from those driving inefficient cars to people driving efficient cars. This doesn’t make any sense from a public policy perspective, but then, how much of our tax system does make sense.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Free speech in Connecticut

Monday, June 27, 2016

I did not hear about this when the issue arose in 2014:

Republican Party Chairman JR Romano said he called the State Elections Enforcement Commission earlier this week to make sure Democratic lawmakers running for re-election know the rules about using a candidate for another office in their campaign materials.

Just in case some of them may want to refer to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in those materials, Romano thought it was best for Democrats to know the rules in advance.

…

In 2014, the State Elections Enforcement Commission issued this opinion, which said that if a candidate wants to mention another candidate who is not in the race, they can, they just have to apportion the cost of the ad to the opponent in that other race.

via Connecticut News Junkie

I can understand the rationale for this sort of rule, but in the final analysis, it makes no sense. In 2014, apparently it was the Republicans who wanted to tie Malloy to the Democrats (at least in this neck of the woods they were tied already), and this year it’s the Democrats who want to tie the anvil Trump around the neck of Republicans about to enter the electoral waters.

The fact is, Trump is not just a candidate, he’s an issue to himself. It says something about a person if they can support an openly racist “tiny fingered, Cheeto-faced, ferret wearing shitgibbon”. (You can google that one yourself). It says something about a person, in my opinion, if they can remain a member of a party that puts such a shitgibbon forward as its candidate. Groucho said he refused to join any club that would have him as a member. He was a man of principle. Republicans should have to explain their willingness to join any club that would have Trump as a member, never mind its leader.

This rule allows candidates from either office to evade any issue that tangentially involves a candidate for another office, even if it’s crystal clear that the ad in question is designed solely to assist the paying candidate and harm the target. I takes an important issue off the table, or at least makes it harder to raise, and one has to wonder whether it runs afoul of the First Amendment, which is still in force, at least until January.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)