Foreign Affairs: Robert Greenstein: 'Prosperity Isn't Free'

Source:Foreign Affairs- This just in: people in San Francisco calling for higher taxes on themselves. Also in the news: if you go days without breathing, you could suffocate.

"A group of upper income professionals who call themselves "Tax-Us" rally in San Francisco. (Robert Galbraith / Courtesy Reuters)

Efforts to address the "fiscal cliff" -- the combination of tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts that will come into effect around the first of the new year if policymakers don't avert them -- should center around two related goals: protect the economic recovery in the short term, and promote growth, opportunity, and shared prosperity in the long term.

The most urgent short-term goal is for the United States to avoid the sizeable risk of returning to recession. If the scheduled tax"  

From Foreign Affairs

Just to talk about the photo and the caption of the cover photo of Robert Greenstein's article: people in San Francisco, perhaps especially wealthy people in San Francisco, since San Francisco is one of the wealthiest big cities in America with a very high cost of living, with the high quality of life, etc. So when even rich people there call for higher taxes and not just the hippie-leftists who are still stuck in the 1960s culturally, ideologically, and everything else, I'm not surprised by that. Now, if people in let's say Mobile, Alabama or Biloxi, Mississippi. anywhere in Utah, Nevada, or Arizona, we're calling for higher taxes on themselves and not just the man or woman standing next to them, I might be impressed by that.  

As far as the so-called fiscal cliff: if Democrats and Republicans in Congress believe that avoiding the fiscal cliff would help them politically and blaming the other side if and when we hit the cliff could hurt them politically, then a good deal will be struck. And that probably means some form of tax reform that eliminate loopholes that benefits mostly wealthy people, including wealthy people in hippie-leftist San Francisco. And you might see some agriculture and Welfare reform involving new work requirements for people receiving any form of public assistance, on the spending side of the Federal budget. Otherwise, we're headed for another recession in 2013.

The New Republic: Richard D. Kahlenberg & Moshe Z. Marvit: 'Right To Work Isn't A Civil Right. But Unionizing Should Be'

Source:The New Republic- as it's still called, but it's no longer a great liberal publication. It's not even a liberal publication anymore.

"The adoption of so-called "right to work" legislation in Michigan, of all places, represents an historic setback for organized labor. First, Republicans went after public employees in the birthplace of public unions, Wisconsin. And now they have taken the fight to private employee unions in the cradle of modern industrial unionism. Conservatives are right that, if they can win in Michigan, they can win almost anywhere.

Despite the arguments advanced by right to work proponents that they are trying to make Michigan more attractive to businesses, this legislation was a calculated effort by conservatives and business interests like the Koch brothers to redistribute political power from Democrats to Republicans (hence the exemption for police and firefighters, who are friendlier to Republicans) and from workers to employers. Previously in Michigan, no one was forced to join a union, but workers who benefited from collective bargaining were required to pay fees to cover the cost of that bargaining. The new law eliminates that requirement, allowing employees to benefit without paying a fee, thereby weakening unions’ ability to participating in politics and negotiate for better wages. As President Obama noted, right to work legislation is really about "the right to work for less money."

Nevertheless, there is an important lesson for liberals and labor in the Michigan story about the power of rhetoric. "Right to work" is a mendacious slogan but a politically resonant one. It's mendacious because everyone in every state has the right to work; the legislation simply gives employees the right to be free riders--to benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it. Yet members of the media mostly employ the phrase without qualification. (Even those that say "so-called" right to work repeat the phrase over and over again.) This past Saturday, the Washington Post'sfront page featured stories on gay marriage going before the U.S. Supreme Court and the right to work debate in Michigan--and a casual reader could assume that both stories were about "rights" ascendant.

The brilliance of the slogan is that it pits the individual's "right" to choose whether to pay dues (and who likes paying dues?) against the interests of large institutions (labor unions). Labor responds with a justifiable plea about the need for workers to be united and pay their fair share for representation (and, ultimately, better wages). But when the fight is framed as individual rights vs. solidarity, rights usually win. Indeed, when asked to identify government's most important role, 59 percent said in a 2010 Rasmussen poll that it is to protect individual rights and liberty.

Rather than continuing the losing battle of solidarity vs. rights, it's time for liberals and labor to engage in the battle over what kind of rights workers should enjoy. The most vivid way for labor to recapture the rhetoric of "rights" is to propose amending the Civil Rights Act to make it illegal to fire or otherwise discriminate against employees for trying to organize a union. Currently, employers frequently target the ringleaders in a union drive, terminate their employment, and scare everyone else, paying only very modest financial penalties for violating our labor laws. Making this behavior illegal under the Civil Rights Act would substantially toughen penalties and help Americans understand that such abusive employer behavior involves a violation of the basic individual right to choose to join a union. It would be much harder for legislators to vote against "civil rights" for workers than it is for them now to oppose "labor law reform." 

Some members of the labor movement are beginning to talk about labor organizing as a civil right.  In Canton, Mississippi, the United Auto Workers has been arguing that “worker rights is the civil rights battle of the 21st Century” as its tries to gain collective bargaining for a mostly black workforce at a Nissan Motors plant. If successful, this effort would provide a powerful response to opponents of labor – in the heart of the anti-labor South no less.

If organized labor is to survive in the United States, it can't just fight against the idea of individual rights. Instead, it needs to embrace them in a new campaign that makes Americans understand that the right to organize is being violated by employers every day -- and that the winners are the 1 Percent and their Republican allies.

Richard D. Kahlenberg is a senior fellow at The Century Foundation and Moshe Z. Marvit is a labor and civil rights attorney.  They are coauthors of Why Labor Organizing Should Be a Civil Right: Rebuilding a Middle-Class Democracy By Enhancing Worker Voice (2012)." 

From The New Republic 

I think what The New Republic is really talking about here, even though they wouldn't put it this way and aren't advocating for it, but this is really about choice. And in this case the right to be or not be part of organized labor in America and in this case in Michigan. You don't think non-union members should benefit from the benefits of unions, fine, I agree with you. So they shouldn't. The fix here is for non-union members to negotiate their own workers benefits and pay on their own and not be able to benefit from benefits that they're not paying for, which is being part of organized labor.

Washington Redskins: Slingin Sonny Jurgensen

Source:Hogs Haven- Hall of Fame QB Sonny Jurgensen, against their heated rival the New York Giants, at Yankee Stadium.

Source:The Daily Press

“Though he started his career with the Eagles, no player is more identified with the Redskins after six decades as a player and announcer than the ‘Old Redhead.’

Now in his sixth decade with the team as either a player or announcer, it seems strange to remember that Sonny Jurgensen, the quintessential Redskin, spent what by NFL standards would have been a fairly lengthy career in a different uniform.

To hear new Eagles Coach Joe Kuharich tell it in 1964, in fact, his quarterback was starting to decline at at 29. Thus Jurgensen was shipped to the Redskins in a deal for 24-year-old Norm Snead after seven turbulent years in Philadelphia.

Legend has it Philly bartenders donned black armbands the day Sonny was traded, but Eagle fans were far from crushed. Having watched the uber-intense Norm Van Brocklin lead the team to an NFL title in 1960, the transition to Jurgensen’s freewheeling style both on and off the field was difficult for many to stomach, even though he was setting team passing records that still stand.” 

From Hogs Haven 

“Decades before RGiii was even born, Sonny Jurgensen riddled enemy defenses for the Redskins with picture-perfect bullets. Host David Spada catches up with the Hall of Famer for a look back at his amazing career on Sports & Torts.” 

Source:David Spada- Redskins Hall of Fame QB Sonny Jurgensen (1964-74)

From David Spada 

Sonny Jurgensen isn’t one of the top 10-20 NFL quarterbacks because he’s one of the best winner ever. His career record doesn’t indicate that he’s one of the best winners ever. We’re not talking about Fran Tarkenton or Dan Marino, John Elway, Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubauch, Johnny Unitas, as far as the amount of games that he won. He also played for a lot of mediocre and bad teams where a good year for the Redskins in the 1960s was 6-8, 7-7, 8-6, so I’m not putting Sonny down.

I’m not making excuses for Sonny, because he did play a long time without leading a team to a championship. (Eighteen seasons from 1957-74) But for the most part, he played for a lot of mediocre teams. These are records that generally doesn’t get teams to the playoffs. So even as Sonny was playing for mediocre teams, he was a great QB on those teams, the best player on these teams. Doing every he can for teams that weren’t very good, had good players, great even, but not very good all around teams. Teams that struggled to win every week.

The way I describe Sonny Jurgensen, was a championship caliber QB who played on a lot of mediocre and even bad teams. I still believe that had Sonny played in Super Bowl 7 against the undefeated Miami Dolphins the Redskins would’ve given the Dolphins only loss that year. Because the Redskins did have a great team on both sides of the ball and I believe a better all around team than the Dolphins. That at least had more talent. But of course Sonny was hurt with a busted ankle, so that didn’t happen.

The reason why the Redskins didn’t championships in the 1960s and 70s wasn’t because of Sonny Jurgensen. They weren’t very good in the mid and late 1960s because of the players they had around Sonny. No running game, a weak offensive line and a defense that probably gave up more points than Sonny and those great receivers put up every week, to where they were one of the highest scoring teams in the NFL every year, despite not having much of a running game.

I believe Dan Marino is the best QB of all time as far as just throwing the football. And had he had the running game and defense that Joe Montana had in San Francisco with the 49ers, Marino leads the Dolphins to four Super Bowl championships or more in the 1980s and 90s. We’ll never know that of course, but that’s how great Dan The Man was. But no one handled the ball better than Sonny, as far as play action and knowing exactly when to throw the ball. And what to put on the ball, then Sonny.

I don’t believe a QB ever had better eye-hand coördination than Sonny. The ability to pick spots on the field as far when to throw the ball, how much to on the ball and where to throw the football. He was sort of like the Larry Bird of the NFL when it came to ball handling. And had great eye-hand coördination which is why he was such a great QB. Even though he never led a team to winning a championship.

Brookings Institution: Russ Whitehurst- 'Explaining the Education Choice and Competition Index'

 

Source:Brookings Institution- Senior Fellow Russ Whitehurst, talking about education reform.

"Parents need to have a lot of information about schools—not just test scores—but information on a school's athletic, music and other programs so they can make an informed choice on where to send their children to school, says Senior Fellow Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst. Learn more and explore the Brown Center's 2012 Education Choice and Competition Index at:Brookings." 

From Brookings

When people speak about school choice, they are generally talking about vouchers that would go to parents who live in an area where their kids are forced to go to a bad school and can't afford to send their kids to private schools. So they would get a voucher to be able to send their kid to a private school, 

I'm not in favor of private school vouchers. If states and localities want to do this, then thats their business, unless it's Maryland or Montgomery County where I live, then that would become part of my business. 

But school choice is really about being able to send your kids to the right school for them, no matter where you live. Instead of students being assigned to a public school based on where you live. And there is something called public school choice that would allow parents to send their kids to the schools of their choice, that they believe is the right school for them, again no matter where they live, which is something I'm in favor of.

I'm in favor of public school choice because it would bring needed competition to public education in America. And have public schools literally competing with each other for students every year, rather than automatically being assigned students no matter the of level of education that they provide for their students. 

So if schools do a good job, there are, going to be plenty of students that are going to want to go to that school. But if a school is failing, then that school would end up losing a lot of students, the students they currently have. As well as new students they normally would have in the future. 

If schools were still a monopolies, choice and competition is one answer to how we reform public education in America because it would literally. Put schools against each other and make competitors out of them and force them to go a good job or end up losing students, money, and perhaps even educators in the future, because it would end up being a place where people don't want to go.

You can still be in favor of teachers unions and the right to organize, as a Liberal or Progressive and still be favor of quality public education, as long as you are in the business of public education. Rather than teacher unions and be in favor of reforms that would bring about better schools in this country. And school choice is just one example of a reform that would improve our public schools.

The Hill: Judd Gregg: 'Time for President Obama & GOP Leaders to Stand and Deliver on Deficit Deal'

Source:Wikipedia- former U.S. Senator Judd Gregg (Republican, New Hampshire)

"We are now in one of the unique times in American governance. The music has stopped and everyone either has their chair … or has none.  The players know and understand their portfolio of power.

This is important.   

Under our system, unlike a parliamentary system, there are only narrow windows of time when the people who govern can actually govern free of the need to focus primarily on the next election.

{mosads}President Obama, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the leaders of the Senate — Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — must understand that this is a time of political opportunity that will not occur again for four years.

It is truly their chance to leave a significant and constructive mark on America.

In the parlance of John Wayne, it is a time to stand and deliver.

“Stand” in this context means “stand up to” Republican and Democrat special interests. 

Both parties have, as part of their core elements, groups that do not wish to govern.    

Rather, they wish to stay in the corners of the ring and shout — artificially firing up their constituencies so that they can mine their followers for contributions and power.   

On the left, this is the cause of big labor and the AARP. On the right, it is the cause of the self-anointed definers of religious purity and the anti-tax cabal.

These groups do not want action. 

They have no interest in solving America’s most obvious problem — the danger of our growing and debilitating federal debt, and its implications for the future of the nation.    

These groups dominate the politics of upcoming elections.  

They cannot, and do not, wish to contribute to solutions that involve governing, because governing in our system — by definition and experience — requires compromise.

For the president, these groups are more difficult than for Republicans — because the Democratic base played such a large role in securing his victory.   

But President Obama hopefully will appreciate the folly of following the course they demand. It would spark a fiscal crisis and lead to the potential failure of his presidency. 

The opportunity to actually govern has a very short shelf life.  It will be squandered if the president allows these folks to call in their political debt in an aggressive and unrelenting way.   

Such action would lead to no action, and no action will lead to calamity for the nation. 

The Speaker and Senate Minority Leader McConnell simply need to tell their base groups that governing well on issues such as entitlements and tax reform — the big issues — is the only path way to restoring the credibility of the GOP as an organization that the American people can respect and trust.   

Let the interest groups send out their fundraising letters so they can maintain their employment and income. They did us no good on Nov. 6, and they will not be contributors to the Republican Party’s resurrection now.

There are clear and reasonable paths to a major and effective agreement on spending, revenues and the debt.   

None of these would have draconian impacts on the recipients of benefits, today or in the future. And on the revenue side, real reform will lead to a stronger, market-oriented tax law that generates more revenues.   

In the context of our economy and the size of our government, we do not need, nor should we pursue, harsh actions on benefits or excessive tax increases.  

We can deliver better programs involving less spending and growth-oriented tax policies, which will do a great deal of the needed work of debt and deficit reduction. 

Here are two approaches. They can be varied and adjusted, but would accomplish real governance on the basic issue of producing a survivable fiscal policy.

First, take the Romney proposal on deduction caps and couple it with a chained consumer price index  for spending. Keep and extend the discretionary cap from the August 2011 budget agreement, and you have the makings of real progress.   

It is also simple and clean.

Second, adopt a Bowles-Simpson-plus plan by taking the original proposal and adding healthcare savings.    

This is more complex and would need more legislative work, but it certainly gets us where we need to be on deficit reduction.

There are other good ideas, too, like those being proposed by Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) or those that combine some of the work of the Senate supercommittee and the Gang of Six.  

The pathways to success are there.

The time to govern is here.

Let’s hope the president and the Republican leadership appreciate how rare and important this time is.

Judd Gregg is a former governor and three-term senator from New Hampshire who served as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Foreign Operations. He also is an international adviser to Goldman Sachs." 

From The Hill 

"Judd Alan Gregg (born February 14, 1947) is an American politician and lawyer who served as the 76th governor of New Hampshire from 1989 to 1993 and was a United States senator from New Hampshire; in the Senate, Gregg served as chairman of the Senate Health Committee and the Senate Budget Committee. He is a member of the Republican Party and was a businessman and attorney in Nashua before entering politics. He currently serves as the Chair of the Public Advisory Board at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College.[1] Gregg was nominated for Secretary of Commerce in the Cabinet by President Barack Obama,[2] but withdrew his name on February 12, 2009.[3][4][5] He chose not to run for reelection to the Senate in 2010,[6] and former State Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, also a Republican, was elected to succeed him.[7] On May 27, 2011, Goldman Sachs announced that Gregg had been named an international advisor to the firm.[8] In May 2013, Gregg was named the CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a Wall Street lobbying group.[9] He later stepped down as CEO in December 2013 and became a senior adviser.

For the United States presidential election in 2016 Gregg endorsed former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and upon Bush's suspension of his campaign Gregg endorsed Ohio Governor John Kasich." 

From Wikipedia 

It's rare if ever, (actually it's never happened yet) that I would rather be serving in Congress (House or Senate) or anywhere in the U.S. Government, then instead of writing about it from the private sector and this is just the perfect example of that. 

The fiscal problems that America currently faces, are actually fairly simple. We have a trillion-dollar deficit, 18 trillion-dollar national debt, in a 20 trillion-dollar economy. Sounds like a gigantic problem, if you actually believe in fiscal responsibility and don't believe in borrow and spend politics and at the very least, would like to the government back to a situation where the economy at the very least, is at least growing faster than the debt and deficit. But this situation is actually fairly simple to solve. 

The U.S. Government has future obligations that it simply can't pay based on its current fiscal structure. It's also trying do too much and just in entitlements, but in other non-senior related public assistance programs, like Food Assistance and Welfare, but national defense as well. Because of our current tax code and unfunded tax cuts from 10 years ago that still have never paid for themselves, the government is not even bringing in enough revenue to pay for the things that in our Federal system, it actually has to do, like securing the border, regulating commerce, defending the homeland, etc. 

We never going to either grow our way out of our oversized deficit and debt, or going to slash and burn our way out of either, or tax our way out of it either. American taxpayers are going to have to finally understand that the U.S. Government simply can't do for them, that taxpayers don't want to pay for, but want those services anyway. We need more Americans not just working, but who are economically independent and not taking money from public assistance, including from the tax code. 

Instead of relying on old political sayings, I have a new one that hopefully one day will also become cliche: We only get and can have as much government that is first constitutional, but that we're willing to pay for. 

I think what Senator Gregg is saying here as someone who served in Congress for 26 years, who was also a governor of a state where he had to balance the budget according to the New Hampshire Constitution, that this is the time when President Obama, Speaker Boehner, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, need to become leaders and worry about the future, instead of right now. That we just had an election that left us with another divided government, including a divided Congress and they need to start leading for the good of the country, even if it can hurt politically in the present.

Joshua Tree (1993) Starring Dolph Lundgren & Kristian Alfonso

Source:IMDB- Kristian Alfonso, kicking Dolph Lundgren where it counts.

Source:The Daily Press

“A framed prison escapee unknowingly kidnaps a female cop en-route to a rendezvous with the corrupt cop who put him behind bars.”  

From IMDB 

“A Los Angeles police detective (George Segal) tracks a fugitive (Dolph Lundgren) who heads for the desert with a deputy sheriff (Kristian Alfonso) as hostage.”  

Source:Rotten Tomatoes- Dolph Lundgren

From Rotten Tomatoes 

"Dolph Lundgren stars in Joshua Tree, a high-caliber action movie where six thousand square miles of sand and dozens of turbo-charged super cars set the stage for a bloody, bullet-riddled showdown with a ruthless killer."

Source:Shout Factory- Dolph Lundgren

From Shout Factory 

I gotta admit, Joshua Tree or Army of One and this movie for some reason has two titles depending on how you see it, or what network it is on, but this movie is not a very good movie. Sure it has a decent car chase and there are some pretty good action scenes and perhaps I'm just not much of a Dolph Lundgren who is mostly famous for Rocky 4, ( sorry, I'm horrible with Roman numerals) fan. But this movie is worth watching for other reasons. George Seagal is his usual smart-ass funny self. And Kristian Alfonso plays a great sexy tough cop, looking for her big case.

Dolph Lundgren plays an escape convict who of course is innocent of why he was put in prison. But he's hardly innocent of much else and gets a break and manages to escape from prison when their bus breaks down. He is a career criminal and learns that his best friend and partner has been murdered by the crooked cop, sergeant or lieutenant that put him away played by George Segal. So while he's out of prison he's on the run and kidnaps a rookie or somewhat inexperienced police officer played by Kristian Alfonso who it out of uniform and steals her pickup with her in it.

They are on the run together because he doesn't want to go back to prison and has her as her hostage. He won't hurt her though if she doesn't give him any reason to. She later takes his side even after attempting to escape from him and gets ditched by him in the desert when he believes he doesn't need her anymore. But she now believes that he's innocent of why he was put in prison and that the crooked cop and his crew are the bad guys here and does what she can to help him as a cop.

Not a good movie except for a few parts, but Kristian Alfonso simply looked great in it. The hot sexy baby version of Kristian that I wish she brought out more on Days of Our Lives is the Kristian we see in this movie. And she looks great and adorable kicking ass in her classic Levis denim jeans and boots and plays a hot, sexy cop that I can't imagine any man his right mind would want to ditch. And she and Dolph save the day sort of and the bad guy and gal put away some bad cops. 

CSI Miami: Rest In Pieces- Raquel Welch Guess Stars (2012)

Source:CBS- CSI Miami's Eva LaRue.

Source:The Daily Press

"When the 'Miami Taunter' kills again, Horatio comes face-to-face with the matriarch of the suspected killer's family, who may or may not help his investigation, on CSI: MIAMI, Sunday, March 11 (10:00-11:00 PM, ET/PT) on CBS! Watch full episodes of your favorite show at:CBS." 

From CBS 

"Rest In Pieces" -- When the "Miami Taunter" kills again, Horatio comes face-to-face with the matriarch of the suspected killer's family, who may or may not help his investigation, on CSI: MIAMI, Sunday, March 11 (10:00-11:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.  Raquel Welch guest stars as Vina Navarro, the matriarch of a powerful Miami family." 

Source:Latest From CSI Miami- Hollywood Goddess Raquel Welch guest stars.

From Latest From CSI Miami 

I will admit, I’m willing to watch anything that has Raquel Welch in it just to see Raquel in it, at least once. And then if the show or movie sucks and even the greatest stars have done at least some garbage that they want to forget about, I’ll probably now watch it again. But CSI Miami is one of the best cop shows at least on right now, if not ever. And I really want to see this episode with Raquel. 

Source:CBS- Hollywood Goddess Raquel Welch guess-starring on CBS's CSI Miami in 2012 with David Caruso playing a bad girl. Even though she's still too cute to scare little girls.

Raquel Welch was in her early 70s at this point and I guarantee you she was the best looking woman on the show, at least that night. And CSI Miami has Eva LaRue, who is also gorgeous and baby-face and well-built. And Emily Proctor, very attractive with a nice body, whose as cute as a little girl and at times at least sounds like one.

But what makes Raquel a goddess for all-time, is that she doesn’t seem to age, at least in public. She’s always been hot and has always been baby-face adorable. It’s just that the years she’s lived have gone up every year. I haven’t actually seen this show, so I couldn’t tell you how Raquel did on it.

But I can tell you how she looked and the star power she still has on it, or CBS doesn’t promote the show the way it did. An actress at this point when this episode came out in her early 70s, who still commands that much attention and who is still a goddess physically, looking better than beautiful women young enough to be her daughter and perhaps even her grand-daughter, was probably unheard of twenty-years ago. But Raquel makes it seem so natural.