Pat Toomey and Scott Perry--My Shameful Senator and Congressman

From Pat Toomey's official Senate Web Page:

Senator Pat Toomey is a leader on economic, financial services, and budget issues.

So he voted in favor of default, and a government shutdown that cost about $24B that achieved nothing. 

My tehadist congressman, Scott Perry, likewise voted for default and to continue the disruptive shutdown.

These men claim to be concerned with improving the economic well-being of America, yet they act in ways that achieve just the opposite, adopting policies that hurt recovery from the recession, and impede the efforts of those who need to improve their ability to care for their families. Thanks a pantload, guys.

GOP's Effort to "Save Taxpayer's Money" Cost $24B

Standard and Poor's estimates that the Republican shutdown of the government cost about $24 Billion dollars. And that doesn't begin to include the costs and hardship to those affected by the shutdown.

The 1-Million Pound Platinum Bank Note

Now, I don't get around too much so I may have missed it if anyone else has covered this aspect of the arguments over minting a single, high-denomination coin as a presidential solution to the Congress's possible failure to raise the U.S. debt ceiling.

Congressional Republicans, apparently acting under the influence, very carelessly used their charge-a-plate to build up huge monetary obligations while neglecting any thought of generating income to pay for these debts. Now, as the legal limit of Federal spending for their gimcracks approaches, many of those Congressmen are threatening to let the repo man do his work and allow faith in  U.S. credit sink into the abyss, unless President Obama transfers the obligations to the elderly, sick, and poor.

Enter the notion of the Trillion Dollar Coin--a perfectly legal, albeit seemingly silly, trick to avoid default. The President can authorize the minting of an enormous-denomination coin, to be deposited at the Fed. The government would then have the cash to pay its debts. Eventually, the Treasury would buy back the coin and melt it down.

The big coin ploy could actually work better than anticipated--such an effort was documented by Samuel Clemens back in 1893. Seems he wound up in London with only a dollar in his pocket. He found himself unknowingly the subject of a bet in which he was given some money but otherwise left to his own devices. He immediately went for a meal at a cheap restaurant; only when he pulled out the banknote to pay for his meal did he discover its denomination--one million pounds--which the waiter noticed at the same time. He thought quickly, handed the banknote to the waiter and asked for his change. The small eatery could not, of course, change such a note, and so offered the meal on the house. Similarly, the former beggar advanced in society, always offering the banknote in payment and always refused, ultimately amassing a large bank account and getting the daughter of one of the bettors for his wife. (The £1,000,000 Bank-Note).

UPDATE:  At least one other has recognized the platinum coin-
£1,000,000 Bank-Note connection.

Who's Getting It All?

We often hear about how a small minority of Americans is getting the majority of the wealth in this country. Here, for example. However, I find some people can relate to those numbers a little better if explained this way:

Where is the Wealth? Here's another way to look at it. Suppose the United States comprised a group of 100 persons, and had a cumulative wealth of one hundred dollars. That money would be distributed approximately:
     1 person gets $33.40
     9 people get   $4.01 each
    40 people get  $0.70 each
    50 people get  $0.05 each.
   
What will you do with your nickel?

Who has the Spirit?

We've just celebrated America's birthday for the 236th time (more fireworks this weekend). Besides all the sales, we have been treated to speeches about the bravery of the founding fathers who dared to defy a king and an empire, as well as the brave men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend their country throughout its history.

Now America is trying to emerge from another threat, an economic threat. This is not the sort of threat that can be fought by soldiers advancing through gunfire; their noble spirit cannot help in this. But help can come, if another group could only find the spirit it takes to save the nation--if only that group were willing to sacrifice, not their lives, but a small piece of their fortunes. Are the wealthy (including the huge corporations who are, after all, "people" as we are told), who hold a vastly disproportionate share of the national wealth, willing to sacrifice, just a bit? Can they find in themselves the same Spirit that inspired so many to give everything?

"The Spirit of '76' painted by Archibald MacNeal Willard, ca. 1875.  

More PA Gov: This'll Help Keep You Poor!

Now, if you live in Pennsylvania and you need food stamps (but may not possess any assets above $2,000; see previous post), Governor Tom Corbett has figured another way to keep you in poverty--take away Medicaid benefits for poor children. As in the case of the food stamp restriction, this move was rationalized by claiming it would cut waste and fraud. And, of course, costs.
(noted at Crooks and Liars.)

I guess the Republican strategy is for states to keep children in poverty, and for the Federal government to pauperize older people.   

PA Gov to Poor: Stay Poor!

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett informed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (which oversees the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, aka Food Stamps) last December 28 that his administration will resurrect the limitation on assests the recipients may possess. Federal guidelines permit states to apply an asset limitation as long as it is not less than $2,000, a figure set in 1980. The Rendell administration dropped the limitation in 2008 because it was harmful to those who needed assistance.

What this zombie requirement does is make it much more difficult for someone to get out of poverty--and therefore more dependent on programs such as SNAP. The reason given for restarting the asset test is to see that "people with resources are not taking advantage of the food-stamp program," according to Department of Public Welfare spokesperson Anne Bale.

Bale told the Philadelphia Inquirer that approximately 2 percent of Pennsylvania's 1.8 million Food Stamp recipients would be affected by the test. Federal Statistics estimate the rate of Food Stamp fraud in Pennsylvania is 0.1 percent, among the lowest in the nation. Do the math: 1,800,000 x 0.02 x 0.001 = (State spends a whole lot of money hoping to prevent a couple dozen cases of fraud).

That's right--Pennsylvania will probably spend a lot more than it can hope to recapture. And that doesn't include the economic impact to food merchants who will also lose.

Photo "Migrant Agricultural Worker's Family," by Dorothea Lange, 1936 (Library of Congress

GOP Collects Ransom; Hostage Released, Has Bleeding Anus

The two houses of Congress have come to what some satirists call a "compromise"--along the lines of "You give us all we want, and we'll say we want more." Our system has been broken by a gaggle of right-wing extremists behaving like a couple of teenagers who have broken into their parents' liquor cabinet. 

It looks as though Republicans might achieve their goal, stated by their own leaders: ensure Barak Obama is not re-elected. Not create jobs; not strengthen the U.S. economy, not ensure the U.S. can remain a leader in scientific innovation and technology; just block Obama because, not only is he a Democrat, but also because he's, you know, different.

Luckily, We Have Hindsight

When Franklin Roosevelt came into office, he took over the presidency from a man who watched as the nation's economy collapsed around him. Roosevelt determined that in order to reinvigorate that economy, the Federal government had to spend money to stimulate it.

He was right, and his programs brought about improvement. Under pressure from the anti-stimulators, however, Federal spending was eased under the impression that the moneys spent had been sufficient. They were not, and the economy began to slump again, not to be truly repaired until World War II -- the Great Stimulus.

Thankfully, we have the hindsight to have observed Roosevelt's stumble and not repeat it. Unless, as so many would have us do, we keep our eyes tightly shut.

The right direction?

Today President Obama remarked about the latest GDP figures,

...today's GDP is an important sign that the economy is headed in the right direction...

(You can read a transcript here.)

For the second quarter of 2009, the GDP went down by 1.5 percent. I thought the right direction was "up."

Well, I guess losing by 1.5 percent is an improvement over losing by 6.3 percent, as it had in the last quarter of 2008; and better than losing by 6.4 percent as it had for the first quarter of 2009. So maybe the brakes are working and we can stop and turn around before driving off the cliff. That would be nice.