Partisan waste of time

Today, the Senate came the closest it has ever come to passing a useless constitutional amendment that would reduce American's freedom of expression in order to boost partisan support. The Flag Protection Amendment failed 66-34 (it needed a 2/3 majority to be sent to the state legislatures for ratification). While Orrin Hatch, the author of the Amendment claimed on his Senate website that:

This amendment would give back to Congress the power the Supreme Court usurped from it 17 years ago when five unelected justices rejected 200 years of statutes that protected Old Glory. This amendment wouldn’t change the Constitution, it would restore it to what it was before the Supreme Court altered it.

What it really does is strip constitutional protection to those who burn the American flag in protest. It is no more a significant issue (and as much a nationalistic sham) as Congressional moves to make English the only language used by the government. Both of these share the same dishonor associated with extremist rhetoric that anyone who is not a heterosexual English-speaker with blind loyalty to Republican government ideologies (and not too many years ago, also those who were not white and Protestant) are unpatriotic and deserving of punishment. This is the same type of belief that nurtures xenophobia, racism and facism and it scares me that 66 senators (including several supposed liberals) could express support for such a repugnant amendment.

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) summed up why the anti-flag burning amendment is wrong: "This is more than a case of misplaced priorities, it is playing politics with our most fundamental freedoms".

The Real & Ignored Crisis

From BBC News
While Bush has led the U.S. into a quagmire a more pressing crisis has been brewing: North Korea. While it has managed to get in the headlines recently with the possible missle test that could reach Alaska, the Bush Administration has mishandled and ignored a country that has nuclear weapons to go after a country that didn't. But it's just another area of failure, both foreign and domestic, that litter the Bush presidency.

Pentagon a little behind the times

Photo from BBC News

The BBC reports that the Pentagon document still classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, despite the official American Psychological Association classification that explicitly state that homosexuality is not associated with mental illness:

Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bihttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.photo.gif
Add Imagesexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

23 years after the American Psychological Association realized their error in classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder, the Pentagon has not. Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) has started moving to force the Pentagon to change the document. It's well overdue.

Minimum Wage Lowest in 55 Years

The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities (CBPP) produced a table calculating the purchasing power of the minimum wage between 1947 and 2006 that shows that the current minimum wage of $5.15 per hour is the lowest since 1955, when it was $4.74 per hour in 2006 dollars ($0.75 per hour in 1955 dollars). The closest the minimum wage has been to the current low was in 1989 when it was at $5.22 per hour in 2006 dollars ($3.35 per hour in 1989 dollars). In both these cases, however, within the following year the minimum wage was raised by $1.24 and $1.26 per hour, respectively. However, unless Democrats regain control of Congress there appears little chance that the minimum wage will be increased in the next year. The table also tracks the relationship between the minimum wage and the average non-supervisory wage over the same time period. The last time it was as low as today (the minimum wage is 31 percent of the average wage) was 1949 when the minimum wage was $2.85 per hour ($0.40 in 1949 dollars). It was subsequently raised to $5.28 per hour ($0.75 in 1950 dollars) the following year.

With such a stark differerce between average and minimum wage levels, an increase in inequality will likely result. Because the minimum wage is not at a level at which it is possible to make a successful living, those who earn minimum wage are often forced to take multiple jobs to make ends meet. This reduces the time they can devote to increasing their education and skills and also reduces the time they can spend raising their children or even keeping track of what they are doing. In an era in which Republicans are supposedly supportive of family values, they don't seem to do much except rant against the supposed evils of abortion, divorce and gay marriage, while ignoring and stifling discussion on providing families with enough income from one job that could allow them to spend more time helping themselves move into better careers and also spend more time with their family. That would be supportive of family values and would also probably have a more significant reduction of abortion and divorce than the diatribes the Republicans launch, which may get votes but do not do anything to help solve the problems.

Adios DeLay, You Won't Be Missed

In his closing speech, Tom Delay (R-TX) said:
"The common lament over the recent rise in political partisanship is often nothing more than a veiled complaint about the recent rise of political conservatism".
This describes why Tom DeLay was such a destructive force for democracy in America. He would not hesitate to pull any stunt if it helped in his goal for conservative hegemony. No bribe was not worth taking, no campaign contribution not worth grabbing. DeLay was a prototype of the prostitution that occurs in the U.S. Congress. Money over principle was his motto and has sadly been embraced by much of the Congress. The dollarization he espoused has nearly destroyed the republican democracy of America. It will be a long time before America has recovered from the themes DeLay believed should run America: money and power for no other sake than their own. I'm glad he's gone. Once Bush is gone maybe America can start recovering from their legacy.

Economic worries

There was a Washington Post article that worried me today. The article highlights the ever dim economic paths we have to walk today, largely, I think, because of Bush's economic policies. The highlight of the articles are that because of high energy prices that have been fueling inflation, the Fed will likely raise interest rates to combat inflationary pressures even when it sees a weaking economy, and particualrly housing and labor makets. That having been said, on to the specifics of the article.

Stocks plunged after Bernanke vowed to combat the recent "unwelcome" pickup in inflation, even as he told an international bankers' conference that an economic slowdown "seems now to be underway."

This to me signifies that Bernanke, while strong on fighting inflation, has lost a view on the overall economy. With energy prices higher, the housing market cooling and stagnant wages (only up 0.82 percent since Bush took office five and a half years ago), while inflation is a problem, it should be balanced against other concerns. For most Americans, inflation is important, but takes a backseat in relation to their wage growth and house value. With the refinancing boom coming to an end, consumer purchases cannot increase much unless wages increase or prices decreases. Where the most impact could be made, gasoline prices, the Bush Administration has destabilized the Middle East and fed oil companies tax cuts, which have done a lot for the oil companies' bottom line, but resulted in record high (in nominal terms) gas prices. With a stagnation of wages (the 0.82 percent over five and a half years I mentioned earlier) and a cooling housing refinancing boom, consumer spending is set to fall significantly as households try to deal with their -0.7 percent savings rate. I think that estimate is overstating the true level because of how it is distributed. At least 75 percent of Americans are in debt (negative savings), with the rest trying to make up the debt in savings (I wouldnt be surprised if the rate was more like 80+ percent in debt).

Consumer price inflation has risen this year, largely because of climbing energy prices, Bernanke said. Moreover, he added, measures of "core" inflation, which exclude traditionally volatile food and energy prices, have also moved higher in recent months. The Labor Department's core consumer price index rose at a 3.2 percent annual rate over the past three months and at a 2.8 percent pace over the past six months, he said.

This just illustrates what I said above with more clarity. Energy prices have skyrocketed, as anyone who fills up their car at a gas station can attest to, but other prices are rising too (the 'core inflation rate'). This combined with a stagnating wage means that most Americans are making less in real terms than they did last year. This is America's real problem. High gas prices are actually good in the long term because they force the U.S. to use more efficient and environmentally friendly technology. However, anyone who has seen a Ford, Chrysler or GM ad recently will know, Detroit will not get the more efficient cars to market (instead marketing Suburbans, Explorers and the like) without mandatory higher fuel efficiency standards (beyond the CAFE standards that only apply to the average across all cars made by a manufacturer. This will help the environment and the environment. This benefits us now and in the future.

Fed policymakers "must continue to resist any tendency for increases in energy and commodity prices to become permanently embedded in core inflation," Bernanke said.

This is a noble goal, but without a plan to increase wages, it won't do a damned bit of difference for American workers.

But, Bernanke said, a single economic report, such as one month's employment figures, would not by itself change the Fed's interest rate policy. Rather, because interest rate changes take effect over many months, the Fed would study how such a report affects its forecast for the economy six to 12 months down the road.

As much as I admire Bernanke as an economist, he has the market on his ass to say the "right" things and is full of shit right here. One unfavorable employment statistic won't have him bending over, but one inflation report will. The Phillips curve, which maps out unemployment as a function of inflation saying one will rise if another falls, is dead. It has not been very precient since the 1960s, but policymakers still operate as if it were valid. Then again, we have a president dead set against any gain for the middle- and lower-classes at any expense, no matter how small, to the upper classes. The money rolling around Republican Washington is a sickening corruption, stinking more than the swamps that L'Enfant conquered.

Milberg Weiss

While the Republicans, in an effort to conflate the fact that Milberg Weiss gave heavily to Democrats, suggest it equalizes the Abramoff affair, push their bullshit, it is even clearer to me than it was when I first wrote about it that the two have nothing to do with each other. As the NY Times reports, Milberg Weiss went securities litigation fishing (after a legitimate target, Oxford Health, whcih had $3 billion wiped off its market value because of a computer malfunction that they subsequently lied about).  However, they were not found to be pandering to legislators for more favorable rules.  They were simply a part of the dollarization mafia who believe giving money will help them (it usually does, but not in this case).  The desparate Republicans unintentionally reveal the seedy side of Washington.  We should decriminilize sexual prostitution while at the same time criminalizing political prostitution, but sadly the Republicans are too much of whores to do that.  Oh, the irony.  

Gay rights and fanning the flames of bigotry to bring out the base

In an effort to bring out the Republican base in the November elections, Bush and the Congress are pushing an effort to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. This is stupid for so many reasons. The main one is that no amendment that enshrines discrimination in the Constitution is legitimate, as other attempts have either been failures or later reversed when people finally realized the discrimination was wrong. Banning gay marriage is a failed policy. There are homosexuals, normal people with normal sexual urges that happen to fall outside the Christian dogma but can be fully functional, stable relationships that have the nuturing capability to last and raise children. Reuters reports that:

Several religious leaders joined [Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne] Allard to argue that the ban is needed to counteract an array of social ills, from rising divorce rates to out-of-wedlock births.

This argument is bullshit for so many reasons, I don't know where to start, but I guess I'll start with out-of-wedlock births. Gay marriage has NOTHING TO DO WITH out-of-wedlock births. By definition, gays cannot have out of wedlock children (except for the fact that they can have children together with help and the Republican bigots won't let them marry). Second, rising divorce rates are not related to gay marriage because gays cannot get married (except to the opposite sex). This may be more of a problem than gay marriage (which isn't a problem). The increasing divorce rates are more likely caused by a more relaxed stance towards two consenting adults of the same sex being able to be attracted to one another. Any higher divorce rates, aside from other factors that play a far more significant role in it, are due to the harsh cultural bigotry of the expectations that men must marry women, and then did, despite being gay. Now that some of the bigotry (at least among enlightened members of society) has been lifted, people who have been gay all their life are able to escape from the enforced heterosexual marriages in which they have been bound. Gay marriage will do more to help in terms of the (bullshit) idea of the "sanctity of marriage" and lowering divorce rates. However, it will do nothing for out-of-wedlock births, except for those involving homosexual parents. Gay marriage should be legalized, not banned.

Bush approval ratings at new lows: a look at the economy

Despite the fact that GDP grew by 5.3 percent in the first quarter of 2006 (and 3.5 percent and 4.2 percent for 2005 and 2004, respectively), a new NY Times/CBS poll shows that only 28 percent of Americans support Bush's handling of the economy (lower even than the 29 percent that approve of his handling of Iraq). I have long believed that the reason for this is the low wage growth seen by American workers, particularly over the past 5 years since Bush has been in office. While the unemployment rate has fallen from a high of 6.3 percent in June 2003 to 4.6 percent today, wage growth has been dismal. I made some calculations from Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data of average hourly wages between January 1996 and April 2006, adjusted for inflation. This measure doesn't reflect total earnings very well because the higher income brackets have higher non-wage income, so it will be biased downwards. In addition, it will be biased downwards by the reduction in average hours worked in the Bush era (between 1996 and 2000 it was 34.4 hours per week, while it was only 33.8 hours from 2001 to 2006). During recessions average hours worked usually decrease, and. Furthermore, the unemployment rate between 2001 and 2006 was higher than between 1996 to 2000 (5.4 percent versus 4.6 percent), which will also reduce average earnings. To compensate for both the hours worked per week and the unemployment rate differential, wages need to increase that much more to make a real improvement in the average American's life (which is what is being measured in these polls, the perception of well being). The bare facts are such:

Real wage growth 1996-2000: 6.23 percent
Real wage growth 2001-2006: 0.82 percent
Real wage growth 2001-2005: 0.72 percent

I will deal with the distributional impacts later, but the difference between the last 5 years of the Clinton Administration versus the years until now (and the first 5 years) of the Bush Administration. Real wages were actually significantly increasing under Clinton. Furthermore, average hours were higher and unemployment was lower so more people were benefiting from the average wage growth than under Bush. This explains why Bush has not gotten "credit" for the economy. For most Americans the economy stinks. Either they are working for not much more than they were 5 or 6 years ago, they are unemployed (like me) or are working fewer hours with no increase in wages and therefore taking home less than they were under Clinton. As much as the Bushies hate to admit it, most of America is seeing a stagnation of wages along with higher unemployment and fewer hours than under Clinton. As a reference point, the nominal growth rates of corporate profits are 12.6 percent between 2003 and 2004 and 16.4 percent between 2004 and 2005 (Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis). Even if you knock off a few points for inflation, this is tremendous compared to wage growth. When one is looking at wage data, there is an implicit bias in the distributional allocation of corporate profits and wages. The upper classes hold significantly more in stocks and bonds than the lower classes, and therefore benefit significantly more from higher corporate profits (and are less reliant on wages as a percentage of their income). Therefore, higher corporate profits or lower wages will tend to increase the gap between rich and poor. Under Clinton, corporate profits were increasing quickly, but so were wages (and hours worked were higher and unemployment lower), so the income gap didn't increase as much as it has now with higher unemployment, lower average hours, low wage growth and high corporate profit growth. The reason Bush's approval rating for his handling of the economy is at 28 percent is because that is what he deserves. Most people don't see the economy improving over the past 5 years.

Was the 2004 election stolen

There is an interesting article in Rolling Stone (via CommonDreams.org) by Robert Kennedy Jr. about the many signs (confirmed by statistical analysis) that the 2004 election was marred by many instances of electoral fraud that benefited Bush and hurt Kerry. Had Kerry not been so quick to concede, maybe we would have a different president.