Shot with my Hipstamatic for iPhone
Lens: John S
Flash: Off
Film: Kodot XGrizzled
If it hadn’t been raining, I might have tried to save this tree, but it was, so this tree shall soon die. I do feel guilty.
Nov 132010
(click graphic to embiggen)
Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans. The Republicans’ plan to extend the Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy would cost $36.6 billion more than the Democrats’ plan, which extends cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year and individuals making less than $200,000.
(click to continue reading Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans.)
Easy way to tell whose side each party is on, no? Republicans earnestly believe those downtrodden millionaires need more money, because somebody has to purchase all those luxuries…like Republicans in the House
A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year — and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation’s millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.
GOP tax plan would add billions to deficit Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans New data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation show that households earning more than $1 million a year would reap nearly $31 billion in tax breaks under the GOP plan in 2011, for an average tax cut per household of about $100,000.
The analysis, requested by Democrats on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, comes as debate heats up over tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, most of which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Republicans want to extend all the cuts, which would cost the Treasury Department $238 billion in 2011, according to the taxation committee. President Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to extend the cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year and individuals making less than $200,000 — 98 percent of American taxpayers — in a plan that would add about $202 billion to next year’s deficit.
(click to continue reading GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion to deficit, panel finds.)
Follow up on the ridiculous Republican rail opposition in Wisconsin
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told Wisconsin’s governor-elect, Scott Walker, that the federal government will take back the $810 million in stimulus funding granted to the state for a high-speed rail line between Milwaukee and Madison if Mr. Walker doesn’t soften his opposition to the project.
…
“I respect the power of governors to make decisions for their states,” Mr. LaHood wrote to Mr. Walker. “There seems to be some confusion, however, about how these high-speed rail dollars can be spent. For this reason, I would like to set the record straight: None of the money provided to Wisconsin may be used for road or highway projects, or anything other than high-speed rail. Consequently, unless you change your position, we plan to engage in an orderly transition to wind down Wisconsin’s project so that we do not waste taxpayers’ money.”
…The Obama administration announced in January that $8 billion of stimulus funding would go toward building 13 high-speed passenger-rail networks across the U.S. Two weeks ago, the federal government separately awarded an additional $2.4 billion for high-speed rail projects nationwide.
On Monday, the U.S. Transportation Department said that in addition to the grants for high-speed rail, Wisconsin has received more than $703.7 million in separate stimulus funding for other road, bridge, highway, transit and airport projects.
(click to continue reading Funding for Wisconsin Rail Project in Jeopardy, LaHood Warns – WSJ.com.)
Scott Walker seems to be confused, as Wisconsin already has incoming federal dollars earmarked to be used to shore up roads and bridges. I wonder if he’s even thought his opposition through, or if it just is a convenient campaign slogan, meaningless, in other words.
While I would like there to be high-speed rail to Madison (or any rail, actually), if the rail line ignored Wisconsin, and just went directly to Minneapolis, I could live with that.
Nov 112010
Kevin Drum has a good analysis of the Two Dudes1 deficit-reduction plan that the yammering class is discussing:
(click chart to embiggen)
To put this more succinctly: any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn’t maintain approximately that ratio shouldn’t be considered serious. The Simpson-Bowles plan, conversely, goes into loving detail about cuts to the discretionary budget and Social Security but turns suddenly vague and cramped when it gets to Medicare. That’s not serious.
There are other reasons the Simpson-Bowles plan isn’t serious. Capping revenue at 21% of GDP, for example. The plain fact is that over the next few decades Social Security will need a little more money and healthcare will need a lot more. That will be true even if we implement the greatest healthcare cost containment plan in the world. Pretending that we can nonetheless cap revenues at 2000 levels isn’t serious.
And their tax proposal? As part of a deficit reduction plan they want to cut taxes on the rich and make the federal tax system more regressive? That’s not serious either.
(click to continue reading Is the Deficit Commission Serious? | Mother Jones.)
Social Security is not the problem, health care costs is, especially as our population ages. However, the Republicans and their Wall Street buddies are salivating at the prospect of dismantling Social Security, and diverting the funds into the markets, so instead of talking about Medicare, they concentrate upon Social Security.
Footnotes:
- Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles [↩]
My congressman, Danny Davis, when he isn’t busy being a lapdog to Reverend Sun Moon in crazy Moonie ceremonies, is planning to run for mayor of Chicago. I don’t think he’d be a very good mayor, actually. Congressman Davis has been on the awkwardly named standing committee United States House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District of Columbia for years, even been its Chairman for a while, and Chicago’s mail is still the worst in the nation.
The audit found that first-class mail sent between Chicago ZIP codes made it to the correct address the next day 91 percent of the time. The cities that fared best in the audit had deliver rates of around 97 percent. The audit was for mail delivered between June and September of last year.
U.S. Rep. Danny Davis (D-Chicago), who heads a congressional subcommittee that oversees the Postal Service, said he has urged officials to do whatever they can to fix the delivery problems in Chicago.
(click to continue reading Chicago Has The Worst Mail Delivery In The US – The Consumerist.)
Doesn’t bode well for Congressman Davis’ ability to improve Chicago’s infrastructure, or be an effective mayor for that matter. When I moved to Chicago in the mid-90s, Chicago mail was a national joke1. Well, fifteen years later, Chicago USPS is still a joke.
Footnotes:
- remember reading a long article in the New Yorker about it back then, but am too lazy to locate it at the moment [↩]
John Kelso reads Governor Good Hair Perry’s book so we don’t have to, and boils down its essence to this blunt thought – stay out of Texas unless you are a Tea Partier. Such a friendly message. Texas hospitality, indeed.
Perry’s solution to all this is that if you don’t like what’s cookin’ in your state, leave. I think this is a first in American history. I don’t recall a chamber of commerce type ever telling potential customers to take a hike. I mean, I’ve done it in my column with Californians, but I was just kidding. Perry, apparently, is serious. “If you don’t support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don’t come to Texas,” Perry writes. “If you don’t like medicinal marijuana and gay marriage, don’t move to California.” This strikes me as Middle Eastern thinking, putting people in places based on their beliefs. You got your Shiites over here and your Sunnis over here. Thank you, Ayatollah Perry.
(click to continue reading Perry’s book: if you don’t like Texas, stay out | Kelso’s Cranky Corner.)
Of course, 40-some percent of Texans would disagree with Perry, but hey, as far as he’s concerned, these folk should pack up and leave, or else just shut up and enjoy it.1
Footnotes:
- It being a euphemism for whatever unpleasant act you wish to imagine. Famously, Clayton Williams once likened rape to bad weather, quipped: “If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it” [↩]
Nov 102010
Not sure if this changes anything, but amusing nonetheless:
George W. Bush’s bombastic return to the world stage has reminded me of my favourite Bush anecdote, which for various reasons we couldn’t publish at the time. Some of the witnesses still dine out on it.
The venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.
Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain’s campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.
Not a chance. “I probably won’t even vote for the guy,” Bush told the group, according to two people present.“I had to endorse him. But I’d have endorsed Obama if they’d asked me.”
Endorse Obama? Cue dumbfounded look from British officials, followed by some awkward remarks about the Washington weather. Even Gordon Brown’s poker face gave way to a flash of astonishment.
(click to continue reading Bush: “I probably won’t even vote for McCain” | Westminster Blog: The latest on UK politics | FT.com.)
(click to embiggen)
No Matter How Strenuous the action, Harris Dacron Slacks are Pressed for Life. And orgies!
Haymarket, one May Day.
I got my brown paper bag and my take-home pay
In re: nothing in particular, this photo taken while a passenger in a car, slowly creeping up Lawrence Avenue a few summers ago. Modified in Photoshop using Kodak T-Max p3200 emulation.
I know this isn’t a technically masterful photo, but I like something ineffable about it. Maybe it is the “fuck you” look, maybe the slight blur. Maybe the Dentist neon behind the dude in wife-beater wear.
Nov 092010
Won our lawsuit1, it was dismissed with prejudice.2
I am planning on filing a complaint with the ARDC upon advice of our legal counsel.
As our name implies, the ARDC is the agency of the Supreme Court of Illinois which registers attorneys and investigates complaints of misconduct filed against attorneys holding a license to practice law in Illinois.
Our principal purpose is to assist the Supreme Court to determine a lawyer’s fitness to practice law in Illinois. If a complaint is made that an attorney, licensed to practice law in Illinois, has engaged in illegal, unethical or dishonest conduct, we will investigate and, if warranted, bring formal disciplinary charges. The Supreme Court of Illinois will then ultimately decide if a lawyer should be censured (publicly rebuked), suspended (having the law license to practice either taken away for a certain period of time or placed on a probationary period) or disbarred (having the law license taken away indefinitely).
We cannot impose fines, imprison, obtain monetary damages, enforce remedies between the lawyer and client, or seek civil or criminal relief against a lawyer as part of the disciplinary process. We can affect only the lawyer’s ability to practice law in Illinois.
We are not funded by taxpayers’ money. We are funded entirely by the annual registration fees paid by attorneys authorized to practice law in Illinois.
What Is a Request for an Investigation of an Attorney?
It is a request to us that we look into the conduct of an attorney who you believe has acted improperly. We will review your request to determine if an investigation is warranted. In most cases, we will initiate an investigation where the information you provide us suggests that the attorney engaged in illegal, dishonest or unethical conduct. Filing a request accusing an attorney of unethical conduct is a serious matter to the lawyer. We recommend that, whenever practical, you try to resolve any differences or disputes that do not concern claims of unethical conduct directly with the lawyer.
(click to continue reading ARDC | How to Submit a Request For Investigation.)
Easily could see how the attorney for the plaintiff could be cited for conflict of interest, unethical behavior, dishonest conduct, and probably some other things too. Asshole.
Footnotes:
- if you knew about it, if not, well, I’ll tell you privately [↩]
- Meaning:
A dismissal with prejudice is dismissal of a case on merits after adjudication.The plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it.
A court has inherent power to dismiss an action with prejudice if it is vexatious, brought in bad faith, or when there has been a failure to prosecute it within a reasonable time. When a plaintiff who has commenced an action fails to comply with discovery devices, a court, which has issued the order of compliance, may sua sponte dismiss the case with prejudice.
[↩]
Fox News gets subpoena power via its client, the Republican Party. Oh, how lovely.
Fox News figures are telling the incoming Republican House majority how to use its investigative authority, compiling a growing list of targets in the Obama administration.
Fox Nation highlights “GOP’s First 4 Potential Investigations of Obama.” Fox Nation trumpeted a November 3 BusinessInsider.com article that discusses four possible House investigations into “criticisms of administration officials and their decisions,” including the phony New Black Panthers scandal, conversations between the White House and Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) leading up to his Democratic Senate primary, funding of ACORN and its successor groups, and the administration’s response to the BP oil spill. Many of these investigations are based on phony scandals that have been aggressively promoted by Fox News.
(click to continue reading Fox News gets subpoena power | Media Matters for America.)
In other words, the next two years are going to be devoted to fake scandals, played out in the conservative media and echo chamber, and not to doing the people’s business. Can’t wait.
Doonesbury isn’t on vacation today
Despite what the Chicago Tribune claims (click to embiggen).
Here’s a link to today’s seemingly innocuous Doonesbury. Weird. If the comic editors wanted to replace Doonesbury (or some other, lesser comic, like Prickly CIty), why not just do it?
David Corn notices a key point in George W. Bush’s new selective autobiography: GWB still is pushing the line about Saddam Hussein’s pursuit of WMD, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Bush is mounting a defense, as selective as it might be, of the Iraq war. He acknowledges that he experiences “a sickening feeling every time” he recalls the absence of WMDs in Iraq, but he contends that invading Iraq was the right move because “America is safer without a homicidal dictator pursuing WMD.”
Yet that statement is flat-out wrong. Not the “safer” part, but the description of Saddam Hussein and WMDs. Bush is still trying to mislead the American public, for at the time of the invasion, Saddam, brutal dictator that he was, was not pursuing the development or production of WMDs. The Bush administration’s own investigation found this. Following the invasion, there was a probe of Iraq’s WMD activity conducted by Charles Duelfer, a hawkish fellow who had been handpicked by the administration to handle this sensitive job. In 2004, his Iraq Survey Group submitted its final report. The report noted that Saddam “aspired to develop a nuclear capability.” But it was quite clear on the key point: Iraq had not been actively working on WMD projects. The Duelfer report concluded that Iraq’s ability to produce nuclear weapons — the most troubling W in the WMD category — had “progressively decayed” since 1991 and that inspectors had found no signs of any “concerted efforts to restart the program.” In plain talk: nada on nuclear. The same was true, the report said, for biological and chemical weapons. It found that by 1995, under U.N. pressure, Iraq had abandoned its biological weapons efforts and that there was no evidence Iraq had made any chemical weapons in the preceding 12 years.
The report was blunt:
The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners. Nobody working on WMDs; no schemes to develop or obtain such weapons. The bottom line: Saddam was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. inspections of the 1990s and the international anti-Iraq sanctions had rendered Iraq’s weapons programs kaput.
(click to continue reading George W. Bush: Still Not Telling the Truth About Iraq.)
So, what are the odds that any upcoming interviews with or discussions of Bush will mention this? 3% chance? Less?
Nov 082010
-
Jim DeMint says he’d be willing to shut down the government, the country to go into default on our debt and probably throw us into a world wide great depression by refusing to raise the debt ceiling if we don’t do something to get the budget balanced. When asked by David Gregory on this weekend’s Meet the Press to name specifically what he’d cut DeMint can’t name any specifics other than earmarks. He does also cite Paul Ryan’s plan which includes privatizing Social Security and Medicare so Wall Street can get their hands on the Social Security Trust Fund.
you said