Cardiac Life Extension Marketing Association Picks "Best New Sandwich - 2011"

It's cold today on Lake Superior's Isle Royale, the Michigan island home of the Cardiac Life Extension Marketing Association (CMDMA).  Since an unexpected warm spell last weekend, the group, some 125 strong, has conducted a surprisingly grueling period of sandwich testing, nutrition monitoring, and competition judging.  In their "day jobs," these doctors, scientists, bioengineers, and entrepeuneurs, create, test, and market life-saving products for the millions of us who need a little "boost" every now and again to keep our hearts beating.  Gadgets like pacemakers. Cardiac monitors.  Defibrillators, manual and automated, internal and external, battery-operated and wind-up.  I own and use all of these gadgets, and have them with me and attached to me wherever I go. And I can't afford to go less than first class.  Under my CLEMA-membership "medical directive," I must be "'defibbed' for a minimum of two full weeks (336 consecutive hours)"  prior to disconnecting my cords, yanking the D-sized batteries, and pulling the last plug.  .   .

FOX Announces New Dark Comedy For GOP Primary Season, "dating iowa!"

The Iowa caucus looms.  Today, never caught napping, FOX announced a new sitcom, Dating Iowa! that will air on alternate Tuesdays during the GOP primary season.  The network calls it a

"madcap adventure as seven aging college students hatch hilarious plans for bedlam that drive their landlady to her wit's end!  They each have moments when their fortunes turn up, only to see their bubbles quickly burst." 

First episode, "Iowantya," at 8:00 p.m. next Tuesday, January 3, 2012. See the FOX promo poster below. . .

Gingrich Industries Webpage - Janitorial Supplies & Programs For Grade School Age Janitors

Newt Gingrich is notorious for his "futurist" idea that the best way to destroy public school physical plant and janitorial service unions is to employ their children instead for well below minimum wage.  Gingrich is also well-known for never exuding an idea that he did not have some skins in.  We here at TWSA! found a well-designed Newt Gingrich Industries website devoted to making his dreams true . . . Christmas sales are still available, and there's plenty of time to outfit your 3rd grade son or daughter before school resumes next week! 

Rick Santorum - A Tiny Bubble Over Iowa

Rick Santorum, the former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania now facing his first electoral test among Republicans in next week's Iowa Caucus, may feel a little light in the loafers.  He's floating upwards.  In the polls, among collectors of endorsements, and in crowds a-growing at campaign stops.  Note, he's still well behind the present leaderns in Iowa, Ron Paul, Romney, and Gingrich, but his spurt (pardon the expression, Googlers) of late may be looked back upon as a harbinger of a win.  And, mind you, a "win" for Santorum would be a 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th place finish.
 
Iowa caucusers are a sturdy and radical social conservative lot.  They admire former gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats, conservative Sioux City radio host . . .

Top Four Books of 2011 By GOP Presidential Candidates

Just In: See Full Text Of Newt Gingrich's Divorce Filings Against First Wife Jacqueline. Casts Serious Doubt on Gingo's Story.

In 1980, Newt Gingrich left his wife Jacqueline. He was involved in an affair with Marianne Ginther, who would become the next Mrs. Gingrich. Newt has long maintained that it was Jacqueline, not he who wanted a divorce. The court papers below contradict this. On page six:

"Defendant [Jacqueline] shows that she has adequate and ample grounds for divorce, but that she does not desire one at this time." . . .

Nastiest Medicare Article 2011: WaPo's Robert J. Samuelson "It's The Elderly, Stupid!"

"Older Americans do not intend to ruin America,

but as a group, that’s what they’re about." 

 

Robert Samuelson, Washington Post, July 28, 2011, 

Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid.

 

Robert J. Samuelson.  He's one of the more mean-spirited of a group - right wing conservative economists. His opinion piece below represents the wild imaginings and over-the-top nastiness of the group in general. . .

Christmas Future 2022 -- Last Minute Holiday Gift Ideas For Your Young Public School Janitor's Assistant, Courtesy Of Gingrich Industries

The Ghost of Christmas Future -  It's the year 2022.  December 23rd.  Your holiday shopping deadline is as near as it can get, and you still haven't purchased a work-related gift for that Junior Assistant School Janitor in your household.  She's nine years old, a 4th grade at P.S. 666.  In a few days, on December 26th (in 2022, Christmas is a one day school holiday) she'll return to classes and to her daily four-hour after school  janitorial job. 

Under former President Newt Gingrich (impeached and removed from office in the seventh year of his two terms), public school work programs staffed by children aged five through 12 replaced all union jobs, including school janitors, most school administrators, and teachers (many of which were occupations formerly held by the students' parents).  Upon his forcible removal from the White House, former President Gingrich and his fifth wife, the former Mrs. Michelle Bachmann, retired to pursue a full-time effort developing Gingrich Industries, devoted to providing the consultation, educational, and equipment needs of the youthful public school labor force.    

The following web page represents Gingrich Industries' 2022 Christmas offerings of their Janitorial Services department.  Here, you, a parent of an elementary school student, may satisfy all your last minute holiday gift needs for your hard-working child . . . Take a while to review the products and services offered. . . You can even purchase former President Gingrich's new book, and the former First Lady's as well . . .  

I Had A Bad Dream About America's Future - And Former President Newt Gingrich's 2022 Book Was NOT The Worst Part.

Oh, my aching head. . . No more Nicholas cage movies before bed time.

A GingriNch Christmas Carol

Move over Grinch . . . Meet . . . The Gingrich!

Happy Holidays! The House GOP Sucker Punches The President, Their Own Senate Republican Colleagues, And The Anerican People.

I'm listening to CNN as the deplorable House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor (R-VA), talks about the House vote, just made, to force a conference on HR 3630, the payroll tax and unemployment extension proposal.  Legislative proposals must pass both the House and the Senate in identical forms to meet constitutional requirements.  A conference committee is an often used method to reach a compromise between competing House and Senate proposals.  Regarding HR 3630, Cantor and his Tea Party Congressloons did not accept the Senate version of HR 3630 that sought a two month semi-solution/compromise to the difficulties posed by widely divergent House and Senate HR 3630s.  How divergent? The Senate version of HR 3630 was 34 pages.  The House? 370 pages.  Now that's divergent. And yes, senators kicked the can down the road. But yes, a kick is better than a stomp that was, with few exceptions, the House version of HR 3630.

Last Minute Shopping Guide To The Best Holiday Pepper Spray Stocking Stuffers!

I know, I know.  Pepper spray as a holiday gift is just plain shameful. But, heck, I found out last month after the Walmart dust up that p.s. is legal!  So, how's it any different than giving Gramma a pair of earrings?  What better to fight off a bunch of rampaging third graders with earrings? I say no.  She'll be the best competitive shopper in town!  So now that we've settled the "appropriateness" argument, here's my somewhat thoroughly researched guide to the best hot pepper sprays that you can buy for Gramma! 

"Donald Twist - A Billionaire Boy's Progress" - Newest Charles Dickens Book

Yesterday, I wrote about a provision in the House version of HR 3630, the payroll tax holiday and unemployment insurance extension proposal now battling it out with the Senate version of the bill.  The provision, labeled "Ending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefits for Millionaires," was a poorly cast joke, a poorly thought out proposal, or both.  No matter.  It's clearly not a serious proposal and I wondered, if passed into law, to whom would it apply?  Millionaires denied food assistance!  Here's how it might appear to the mirror image reincarnation of Mr. Dickens ('Boz') . . . and his new novel about a young wastrel, Donald Twist . . .

GOP Payroll Tax Holiday Proposal Re-Invents Insult With Its Millionaires' Unemployment Provision

Oppression is more easily endured than insult. 

Junius 

Indeed.  Here's an example of the GOP's expertise with the insult as well as its talent for underestimating its country's anger about our social and economic situation. This example arises from the House bill, HR 3630, the 'Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011' (the payroll tax holiday being now in combat with its Senate version).  Passed by the House on December 13, 2011, it included a proposal that ought to be an unforgettable marker for the topsy turvy times we live in. . .

Egyptian Revolution Rewind

Cairo December 17, 2011. Egyptian army soldiers arrest a female protester during clashes at Tahrir Square. Soldiers beat demonstrators with batons in Cairo's Tahrir Square on Saturday in a second day of clashes that have killed nine people and wounded more than 300, marring the first free election most Egyptians can remember.

Worst Ever Source Of Praise For Newt Gingrich

Last night, former V.P. Dick Chen*y spoke with CNN's Erin Burnett about Newt Gingrich:   

. . . former Vice President Dick Cheney said he knew Gingrich well and had positive reviews of his political prowess. . .

“We hadn't had the House since the 1940s. And initially, none of us believed it, but he was persistent. And he was tenacious. He kept it up and kept it up and kept it up. And finally by '94, he's the newly elected speaker of the House of Representatives with a Republican majority.”

Uh huh. . .

Four Guesses Why Newt Gingrich Constantly Promotes "Six Sigma" Management Techniques During His Presidential Campaign

A close second to Newt's kindergartners-as-janitors theme is the Six Sigma process.  Newt's constant recommendation of it to one and all as "the" approved way to improve business and governmental productivity and reliability is out-of-the-box thinking for him, but not in the usual way.  With this Six Sigma enchantment, the man who promotes himself as a futurist behaves more like an archaeologist in the Death Valley of Management. 

Below is a 2007  Bloomberg Businessweek article Six Sigma So Yesterday? that well describes the quite old-fashioned method it employs.  It's not been abandoned, but Six Sigma shows all the signs of age and impending exile, soon thereafter to be among the rocks left behind in the management process past.  In fact, in origin, it was not very innovative at all.  It's techniques existed with different names, and not much else, throughout business history. . .

Gingrich - His Anti-Palestinian Stance Buttresses Native American Claims To The United States!

Newt's claim a few days ago that "Palestinians are an invented people" has caused a bit of a furor, on all sides.  The Perfesser was attacked roundly for it by Mitt Romney at last night's debate.  Gingo didn't back down, but instead extended his swing towards Israel in the dispute to end all disputes.  In fact, though, if one "extends" Gingo's logic to what we call our own country, well, according to GingoLogic, we better pack our bags . . .

Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan In One Picture.

Paul Ryan has lately taken to defending his plan to, for all intents and purposes, end Medicare.  (The article link explains it well.)  Last night, Rachel Maddow discussed this in some detail. I agree with her, this raising the kill Medicare policy back into public discussion is great for Democrats who have lately been gaining ground on the GOP.  In addition, the GOP presidential primary debates will now have to address this, and punches aimed by Romney at Gingo are already flying, and connecting. 

In response to this, I thought it time to visually simplify the Ryan plan.  Here's a single image that I hope does just that.  Let's look ahead and visualize a United States within which people like Ryan are actually elected and re-elected. Imagine Ayn Randyism running wild.  It's nightmarish, but let's try.  Imagine it's 2018, with President Ron Paul and . . .

Callista Gingrich's Guide To Staying On Top Of Newt Gingrich

Newt's marital high jinx have long fascinated us.  Not the divorces as divorces, marriage is complicated, divorce is common.  Common as well is the way in which Newt went about those divorces via consistent and sneaky infidelity.  His  M.O., though, is uncommon in another way.  He's uncommonly cruel.  The evidence is strong that he presented his first wife, Jackie Battely, with divorce demands at her hospital bedside almost immediately after her uterine cancer surgery.  His second wife, Marianne Ginther, was put on divorce notice eight months after she revealed she may have a condition that might lead to multiple sclerosis. 

Enter Callista Bisek, now the reigning Mrs. Gingrich.  She must have worries.  Like Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII's first wife had worries.  At least Gingo doesn't have the power to execute at a whim or he'd likely be into double figures in the spouse department. 

On last night's Hardball with Chris Matthews show Callista's name came up, and a short but very interesting discussion emerged about her very hands on role in Gingo's campaign . . .

A Different Take On How Gingrich's Secretary of State Job Offer To John Bolton Violates Federal Election Law

The news yesterday from the Republican Jewish Coalition's D.C. forum centered on the GOP's presidential front runner, Newt Gingrich.  Aside from all the candidates' craven posturing and promising things they know they could not or would not deliver, one of Gingo's ex cathedra pronouncements garnered an explosively positive response:  Gingo offered John Bolton, the infamous and nearly homicidal neoconservative, a cabinet position as Secretary of State.  Soon after Gingo's announcement, some accused him of a federal election law crime.

Well, it turns out there were two crimes perpetrated with Gingo's job offer.  First, the obvious one:  knowingly and deliberately considering John Bolton for any position whatever in a Gingrich administration.  If not a federal crime, it ought to be. 

Second, some argue that Gingo violated one of the federal anti-patronage laws that applies to candidates for federal office, 18 USC § 599 (set out below).  The idea is that his offer to Bolton was an attempt to garner support from the RJC membership.  That's true, but that theory isn't on the right path to § 599. 

It is quite arguable, however, that Gingo did violate § 599 in another, less obvious, way, like Election Law Blog's Rick Hasen implies. Mr. Hasen drops the subject, however, without, as yet, a conclusion. It's not easy to deal with GingoLingo and its consequences. 

As always, it's the indirect path that must be taken to get at the truth of anything Gingrich. And I believe I may have found that hidden path where Gingo and § 599 share a tent . . .

On Pearl harbor Day, Former Illinois Guv Rod "Blago" Blagojevich Gets 14 Years In Prison For Corruption

MSNBC just reported:
 
Update, 1:30 p.m. ET:  Judge sentences ousted Ill. Gov. Rod Blagojevich to 14 years in prison for corruption.

And here's one of the many reasons why from the time he was arrested.

And here's another.

Sound Familiar? A 1910 New York Times Editorial Condemning Teddy Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" Speech.

Yesterday, President Obama delivered a major speech in Kansas, in the same city, Osawatomie, where, on August 31, 1910, "Colonel" Teddy Roosevelt gave his now immortal New Nationalism speech as part of the dedication of the John Brown ("Battle of Osawatomie") Memorial Park.  [To read both speeches]  Although the speeches were for differing purposes (TR's to unite a fractured Republican party; Obama's to urge Congress to act on his job creation proposals), both men used populism and progressivism as their context.  Both, for example, urged tax policies that require the wealthiest Americans to pay an equitable share of taxes. . .

Full Text Of Teddy Roosevelt's New Nationalism Speech (1910) & President Obama's New "New Nationalism" Speech (2011)

CNN headlined President Obama's speech from Osawatomie, Kansas Obama channels Roosevelt's 'New Nationalism', referring to "Colonel" Teddy Roosevelt's 1910 speech, also delivered in Osawatomie, during the opening ceremonies for the John Brown Memorial Park which commerates the battle between pro-enslavement forces and Brown's contingent, the "Battle of Osawatomie."  [For an excellent article about the context of TR's speech, see Kansas Historical Quarterly - Theodore Roosevelt's Osawatomie Speech by Robert S. La Forte.

Here's the full text of both speeches:

Teddy Roosevelt's New Nationalism Speech Text - 08-31-1910

And here is President Obama's speech, also in Otawatomie, Kansas:

Good afternoon. I want to start by thanking a few of the folks who’ve joined us today. We’ve got the mayor of Osawatomie, Phil Dudley; your superintendent, Gary French; the principal of Osawatomie High, Doug Chisam. And I’ve brought your former governor, who’s now doing an outstanding job as our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius.

It is great to be back in the state of Kansas. As many of you know, I’ve got roots here. I’m sure you’re all familiar with the Obamas of Osawatomie. Actually, I like to say that I got my name from my father, but I got my accent – and my values – from my mother. She was born in Wichita. Her mother grew up in Augusta. And her father was from El Dorado. So my Kansas roots run deep.

My grandparents served during World War II — he as a soldier in Patton’s Army, she as a worker on a bomber assembly line. Together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over a Depression and fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, where you came from, or how you started out.

These values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy the world has ever known. It was here, in America, that the most productive workers and innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth, and every American shared in that pride and success — from those in executive suites to middle management to those on the factory floor. If you gave it your all, you’d take enough home to raise your family, send your kids to school, have your health care covered, and put a little away for retirement.

Today, we are still home to the world’s most productive workers and innovative companies. But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefitted from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments than ever before. But everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t – and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

For many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over the harsh realities of this new economy. But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or sometimes even understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets – and huge bonuses – made with other people’s money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.

It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility across the system. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we are still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs, homes, and the basic security of millions – innocent, hard-working Americans who had met their responsibilities, but were still left holding the bag.

Ever since, there has been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity; balance and fairness. Throughout the country, it has sparked protests and political movements – from the Tea Party to the people who have been occupying the streets of New York and other cities. It’s left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock. And it’s been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women who are running for president.

But this isn’t just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make or break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that have stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for too many years. Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

Well, I’m here to say they are wrong. I’m here to reaffirm my deep conviction that we are greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. Those aren’t Democratic or Republican values; 1% values or 99% values. They’re American values, and we have to reclaim them.

You see, this isn’t the first time America has faced this choice. At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world’s industrial giant, we had to decide: would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? Would we restrict education to the privileged few? Because some people thought massive inequality and exploitation was just the price of progress.

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed. He was the Republican son of a wealthy family. He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. He believed then what we know is true today: that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It’s led to a prosperity and standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you want from whoever you can. It only works when there are rules of the road to ensure that competition is fair, open, and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for customers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn’t profit by exploiting children, or selling food or medicine that wasn’t safe. And today, they still can’t.

In 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here, to Osawatomie, and laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”

For this, Roosevelt was called a radical, a socialist, even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight hour work day and a minimum wage for women; insurance for the unemployed, the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.

Today, over one hundred years later, our economy has gone through another transformation. Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere in the world. And many of you know firsthand the painful disruptions this has caused for a lot of Americans.

Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where the workers were cheaper. Steel mills that needed 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100, so that layoffs were too often permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle. These changes didn’t just affect blue-collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs or the internet. Today, even higher-skilled jobs like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like China and India. And if you’re someone whose job can be done cheaper by a computer or someone in another country, you don’t have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages and benefits – especially since fewer Americans today are part of a union.

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there’s been a certain crowd in Washington for the last few decades who respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If only we cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. Sure, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everyone else. And even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, they argue, that’s the price of liberty.

It’s a simple theory – one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. It fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.

Remember that in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history, and what did they get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class – things like education and infrastructure; science and technology; Medicare and Social Security.

Remember that in those years, thanks to some of the same folks who are running Congress now, we had weak regulation and little oversight, and what did that get us? Insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity, and denied care to the patients who were sick. Mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford. A financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.

We simply cannot return to this brand of your-on-your-own economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. We know that it doesn’t result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and its future. It doesn’t result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that’s enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.

Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top one percent has gone up by more than 250%, to $1.2 million per year. For the top one hundredth of one percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her workers now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade, the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about six percent.

This kind of inequality – a level we haven’t seen since the Great Depression – hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, it drags down the entire economy, from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity – that’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars they made. It’s also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. And it leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them – that our elected representatives aren’t looking out for the interests of most Americans.

More fundamentally, this kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise at the very heart of America: that this is the place where you can make it if you try. We tell people that in this country, even if you’re born with nothing, hard work can get you into the middle class; and that your children will have the chance to do even better than you. That’s why immigrants from around the world flocked to our shores.

And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. A few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance fell to around 40%. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it’s estimated that a child born today will only have a 1 in 3 chance of making it to the middle class.

It’s heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal. But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work? That’s inexcusable. It’s wrong. It flies in the face of everything we stand for.

Fortunately, that’s not a future we have to accept. Because there’s another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country – a view that’s truer to our history; a vision that’s been embraced by people of both parties for more than two hundred years.

It’s not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America. It’s not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all society’s problems. It’s a view that says in America, we are greater together – when everyone engages in fair play, everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share.

So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today’s economy?

It starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is, we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages or pollute as much as they want. That’s a race to the bottom that we can’t win – and shouldn’t want to win. Those countries don’t have a strong middle-class. They don’t have our standard of living.

The race we want to win – the race we can win – is a race to the top; the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security. Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers; the most advanced transportation and communication; the strongest commitment to research and technology.

The world is shifting to an innovation economy. And no one does innovation better than America. No one has better colleges and universities. No one has a greater diversity of talent and ingenuity. No one’s workers or entrepreneurs are more driven or daring. The things that have always been our strengths match up perfectly with the demands of this moment.

But we need to meet the moment. We need to up our game. And we need to remember that we can only do that together.

It starts by making education a national mission – government and businesses; parents and citizens. In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class. The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. Their income is twice as high as those who don’t have a high school diploma. We shouldn’t be laying off good teachers right now – we should be hiring them. We shouldn’t be expecting less of our schools – we should be demanding more. We shouldn’t be making it harder to afford college – we should be a country where everyone has the chance to go.

In today’s innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science, research, and the next generation of high-tech manufacturing. Our factories and their workers shouldn’t be idle. We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges, so they can learn to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries. And by the way – if we don’t have an economy built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won’t all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance. Because if we want an economy that’s built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering. This country shouldn’t be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all over the world that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America.

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, and communicate with the rest of the world. That’s why the over one million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed shouldn’t be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding our roads and bridges; laying down faster railroads and broadband; modernizing our schools – all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

Yes, businesses, not government, will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there. But as a nation, we have always come together, through our government, to help create the conditions where both workers and businesses can succeed. Historically, that hasn’t been a partisan idea. Franklin Roosevelt worked with Democrats and Republicans to give veterans of World War II, including my grandfather, the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, a proud son of Kansas, who started the interstate highway system and doubled-down on science and research to stay ahead of the Soviets.

Of course, those productive investments cost money. And so we’ve also paid for these investments by asking everyone to do their fair share. If we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we’d never have to cut any spending. But we don’t have unlimited resources. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices.

Today that choice is very clear. To reduce our deficit, I’ve already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law, and proposed trillions more – including reforms that would lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

But in order to actually close the deficit and get our fiscal house in order, we have to decide what our priorities are. Most immediately, we need to extend a payroll tax cut that’s set to expire at the end of this month. If we don’t do that, 160 million Americans will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000, and it would badly weaken our recovery.

But in the long term, we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education, and research, and high-tech manufacturing? Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country? Because we can’t afford to do both. That’s not politics. That’s just math.

So far, most of the Republicans in Washington have refused, under any circumstances, to ask the wealthiest Americans to go the same tax rates they were paying when Bill Clinton was president.

Now, keep in mind, when President Clinton first proposed these tax increases, folks in Congress predicted they would kill jobs and lead to another recession. Instead, our economy created nearly 23 million jobs and we eliminated the deficit. Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century. This isn’t like in the early 50s, when the top tax rate was over 90%, or even the early 80s, when it was about 70%. Under President Clinton, the top rate was only about 39%. Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1%. One percent.

This is the height of unfairness. It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay a higher tax rate than somebody pulling in $50 million. It is wrong for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. And he agrees with me. So do most Americans – Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.

This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare. It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get to the middle class, and the economy as a whole.

Finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street. As infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second Depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country.

But part of the deal was that we would not go back to business as usual. That’s why last year we put in place new rules of the road that refocus the financial sector on this core purpose: getting capital to the entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and financing to millions of families who want to buy a home or send their kids to college. We’re not all the way there yet, and the banks are fighting us every inch of the way. But already, some of these reforms are being implemented. If you’re a big bank or risky financial institution, you’ll have to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail, so that taxpayers are never again on the hook for Wall Street’s mistakes. There are also limits on the size of banks and new abilities for regulators to dismantle a firm that goes under. The new law bans banks from making risky bets with their customers’ deposits, and takes away big bonuses and paydays from failed CEOs, while giving shareholders a say on executive salaries.

All that is being put in place as we speak. Now, unless you’re a financial institution whose business model is built on breaking the law, cheating consumers, or making risky bets that could damage the entire economy, you have nothing to fear from these new rules. My grandmother worked as a banker for most of her life, and I know that the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals want to do right by their customers. They want to have rules in place that don’t put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing. And yet, Republicans in Congress are already fighting as hard as they can to make sure these rules aren’t enforced.

I’ll give you one example. For the first time in history, the reform we passed puts in place a consumer watchdog who is charged with protecting everyday Americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders, payday lenders or debt collectors. The man we nominated for the post, Richard Cordray, is a former Attorney General of Ohio who has the support of most Attorneys General, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the country.

But the Republicans in the Senate refuse to let him do his job. Why? Does anyone here think the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors? Of course not. Every day we go without a consumer watchdog in place is another day when a student, or a senior citizen, or member of our Armed Forces could be tricked into a loan they can’t afford – something that happens all the time. Financial institutions have plenty of lobbyists looking out for their interests. Consumers deserve to have someone whose job it is to look out for them. I intend to make sure they do, and I will veto any effort to delay, defund, or dismantle the new rules we put in place.

We shouldn’t be weakening oversight and accountability. We should be strengthening them. Here’s another example. Too often, we’ve seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there’s no price for being a repeat offender. No more. I’ll be calling for legislation that makes these penalties count – so that firms don’t see punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business.

The fact is, this crisis has left a deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. And major banks that were rescued by the taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit. At minimum, they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crisis, and working to keep responsible homeowners in their home. We’re going to keep pushing them to provide more time for unemployed homeowners to look for work without having to worry about immediately losing their house. The big banks should increase access to refinancing opportunities to borrowers who have yet to benefit from historically low interest rates. And they should recognize that precisely because these steps are in the interest of middle-class families and the broader economy, they will also be in the banks’ own long-term financial interest.

Investing in things like education that give everybody a chance to succeed. A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share. And laws that make sure everybody follows the rules. That’s what will transform our economy. That’s what will grow our middle class again. In the end, rebuilding this economy based on fair play, a fair shot, and a fair share will require all of us to see the stake we have in each other’s success. And it will require all of us to take some responsibility to that success.

It will require parents to get more involved in their children’s education, students to study harder, and some workers to start studying all over again. It will require greater responsibility from homeowners to not take out mortgages they can’t afford, and remember that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

It will require those of us in public service to make government more efficient, effective, and responsive to people’s needs. That’s why we’re cutting programs we don’t need, to pay for those we do. That’s why we’ve made hundreds of regulatory reforms that will save businesses billions of dollars. That’s why we’re not just throwing money at education, but challenging schools to come up with the most innovative reforms and the best results.

And it will require American business leaders to understand that their obligations don’t just end with their shareholders. Andy Grove, the former CEO of Intel put it best: “There’s another obligation I feel personally,” he said, “given that everything I’ve achieved in my career and a lot of what Intel has achieved…were made possible by a climate of democracy, an economic climate and investment climate provided by…the United States.”

This broader obligation can take different forms. At a time when the cost of hiring workers in China is rising rapidly, it should mean more CEOs deciding that it’s time to bring jobs back to the United States – not just because it’s good for business, but because it’s good for the country that made their business and their personal success possible.

I think about the Big Three Auto companies who, during recent negotiations, agreed to create more jobs and cars in America; who decided to give bonuses, not just to their executives, but to all their employees – so that everyone was invested in the company’s success.

I think about a company based in Warroad, Minnesota called Marvin Windows and Doors. During the recession, Marvin’s competitors closed dozens of plants and let go hundreds of workers. But Marvin didn’t lay off a single one of their four thousand or so employees. In fact, they’ve only laid off workers once in over a hundred years. Mr. Marvin’s grandfather even kept his eight employees during the Depression.

When times get tough, the workers agree to give up some perks and pay, and so do the owners. As one owner said, “You can’t grow if you’re cutting your lifeblood – and that’s the skills and experience your workforce delivers.” For the CEO, it’s about the community: “These are people we went to school with,” he said. “We go to church with them. We see them in the same restaurant. Indeed, a lot of us have married local girls and boys. We could be anywhere. But we are in Warroad.”

That’s how America was built. That’s why we’re the greatest nation on Earth. That’s what our greatest companies understand. Our success has never just been about survival of the fittest. It’s been about building a nation where we’re all better off. We pull together, we pitch in, and we do our part, believing that hard work will pay off; that responsibility will be rewarded; and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on.

And it is that belief that rallied thousands of Americans to Osawatomie – maybe even some of your ancestors – on a rain-soaked day more than a century ago. By train, by wagon, on buggy, bicycle, and foot, they came to hear the vision of a man who loved this country, and was determined to perfect it.

“We are all Americans,” Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. “Our common interests are as broad as the continent.” In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, or who he was talking to, all would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance.

Well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and changed in many ways since Roosevelt’s time. The world is faster. The playing field is larger. The challenges are more complex.

But what hasn’t changed – what can never change – are the values that got us this far. We still have a stake in each other’s success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule in our national life – the rule which underlies all others – is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.”

I believe America is on its way up. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Hardsell With Chris Matthews -- Hey Tweety, About Your JFK Book, Enough Already!!

I often don't follow the mind of Chris Matthews.  I don't keep track, but he appears to change his "favorites list" a bit too often.  And consistent, he ain't.  Momentarily attracted to someone, like Dubya, he then, the following show, detests him, then loves him, and on and on, off and off.  No one else seems to do this so much, perhaps Blitzer, but he's simply a shill, which Matthews is not.  But now Tweety has found someone he really favors, and for the long-term:  capital H "Himself," and particularly Himself's new book, Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero (which I won't link to, as you've maybe witnessed, he does more than enough of that himself, small "h").  Here's what he had to say about Himself, the author, this evening on Hardball:  

"I've been up here traveling in New England, by the way, with overwhelming crowds coming out to hear about my book, Jack Kennedy: The Elusive Hero.  You might expect it here in New England, the people have been wonderful, in Springfield, here in Boston, and of course with New Hampshire, and down with two big events in Rhode Island.  Tonight I'm being honored at

[Updated, 12-05-2011] -- Social Security Payroll Tax Holiday Extension? How To Tie Republican Ideology In Knots.

The Republican party, whose members adamantly oppose tax hikes, has found one they really and truly want to promote.  How?  By not extending the 2011 Social Security payroll tax holiday, they would, in effect, raise it by about 50%.  And note, most American households pay less in income taxes than they do in payroll taxes dedicated to the Social Security trust fund, so the reduction from 6.2% to 4.2% of this tax in 2011 was a healthy boost to their pay checks.  Also, it exclusively benefited the working poor and what's left of the middle class since, due to a longstanding wage cap provision affecting Social Security taxes, it applies only to those earning less than a very middle classy $106,800 this year.  Employers, by the way, match these taxes, and notably, the 2011 payroll tax holiday did not include them; they pay an excise tax of 6.2% on wages paid (as well as 1.45% that is dedicated to Medicare, which also was not reduced for employees either during the holiday). . .

Cardinal Gingrich Pays Homage To The Pope Of Fifth Avenue, Seeks Permission To Employ "Poorest Children" In His Campaign.

Ego sum papa!

     On Monday, at a gold-encrusted fortress in his city-state within downtown New York City, Pope Donald Trump met with Cardinal Gingo of Georgia.  The Cardinal's purpose?  To add a highly-sought after papal blessing to his newest proposal to not merely employ children in public schools as janitors, but to do so as well in his campaign for the Presidency of the United States (a country that surrounds Pope Donald's independent and sovereign religious state headquartered at 725 5th Avenue).  Following their meeting, the Pope, with cardinal Gingo at his side, had this to annunciate, ex cathedra, as always:   

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet fore decem iuvenes mira et filii erant 'iens apprenti facere."  

[We're going to be picking ten young, wonderful children, and we're going to make them apprenti.]  

Reporters responded respectfully.  A few gasped,

Mrs. Gloria Cain Announces Herman Is NO Longer In The Race For President!

The announcement is in. Herman Cain's out. And, the biggest surprise is who made the announcement. Just a few minutes ago, Mrs. Cain took the stage at the Cain for President HQ in Atlanta, Georgia and told the large crowd assembled that Mr. Cain would be cooling his jets for the foreseeable future:

"My friends, thank you for being here today. Herman will not be able to be here today due to the simple fact that he is presently locked in the third floor bathroom of our home. Therefore, he delegated to me, his so-called wife, to speak with you today.

The man is in trouble. The man doesn't even seem to understand how much trouble he is in. He has memory problems, as we all know. Like, he can't remember a 13 year dalliance with a certain other woman during our married life. He can't seem to recall that he is presently married to me, Mrs. Gloria Cain. He does not know where Libya is. Likewise, he does not appear to know where I am half the time, and I am not hiding. 

He wants you to know that he's made some mistakes. Yes, like mistaking a bunch of other women for his wife, me. I'm standing right here in front of you good people. I ask you, do I look like any of those other women? "Mistake," my butt! A mistake is like not knowing anything at all about Libya. A mistake is making a wrong left turn in a strange town. And I'll tell you one thing, a mistake is cheating on me, Mrs. Gloria Cain.

So, for the very  long foreseeable future, Herman will be a stay home kind of guy. A man who brings his wife breakfast in bed. A man who sweeps the floor, mops the kitchen, and cleans the commode.

Unless he can run a presidential campaign from the third floor bathroom of our home, I'm here to tell you good people, Herman on the midnight train to nowhere. Via con Dios. Sayanora. And Adios."

More after reporters as exactly what Mrs. Cain's announcement means for Mr. Cain's chances in the upcoming Iowa Caucus.

Obama Proposes Building "500 Empire State Buildings"!

Earlier today, at D.C.'s Transwestern Building, President Obama and Former President Clinton formally introduced the "We Can't Wait: Better Buildings Initiative."  This project seeks to improve energy efficiency in buildings.  Clinton's own Clinton Global Initiative has been active in this effort for several years already.  Today's big announcement involved plans to retro-fit federal buildings to increase savings on energy costs.  It's clearly an example of how the presidency can, on its own, without running the congressional gauntlet: 

. . . today, I’m directing all federal agencies -- all federal agencies -- to make at least $2 billion worth of energy-efficiency upgrades over the next two years.  None of these upgrades will require taxpayer money to get them going. 

Kudos, Mr. President.  It's what he said next about the plans for private commercial energy efficiency upgrades that confused the crowd, or perhaps, just me. . .