Boehner said Americans want government to practice the
same financial restraint they have been forced to exercise:
“It’s time
for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that
we ‘get’ it.”
and I wonder if this country can handle the crisis
we’re in.
Remember, John Boehner is, in effect, the second-most influential
member of the GDP (after Rush Limbaugh). And while Democrats hold a
majority, it’s not enough of a majority to make the minority
party
irrelevant.
So the fact that Boehner’s idea of economics is
completely insane matters.
What’s insane about Boehner’s remark?
He’s talking about the current
economic crisis as if it were a harvest failure — as if we
faced a
shortage of goods, so that the more you consume the less is left for
me. In reality — even most conservatives understand this,
when they
think about it — we’re in a world desperately short
of demand. If you
consume more, that’s GOOD for me, because it helps create
jobs and
raise incomes. It’s in my personal disinterest to have you
tighten your
belt — and that’s just as true if you’re
“the government” as if you’re
my neighbor.
Plus, who is “the government”?
It’s basically us, you know — the
government spends money providing services to the public. Demanding
that the government tighten its belt means demanding that we, the
taxpayers, get less of those services. Why is this a good thing, even
aside from the state of the economy?
Again, this is what the leaders of a powerful, if minority,
party think. Can this country be saved?
Jon Stewart, Genius of Our Time March 11, 2009 12:10 pm
No media or news organization will discuss the truth about GE's NBC network trying to turn populist anger toward the president, so it takes John Stewart to point out the obvious.
Tell the WSJ: Workers Can Already Unionize Without a Secret Ballot Election March 11, 2009 10:26 pm
--Dean Baker
Okay, let's see if we can teach the Wall Street Journal something this morning. In an article reporting on the prospects for the Employee Free Choice Act in the Senate the WSJ told readers that: "the bill would allow unions to organize workers without a secret ballot, giving employees the power to organize by simply signing cards agreeing to join."
Wrong! The current law already allows workers to organize by majority sign-up. They can also have a union de-certified by majority sign-up. The difference is that under current law it is the employer's option to accept majority sign-up or to demand an NLRB election. Employers who wish to prevent unionization can demand an election. They can then delay the actual election for several years. They can use time to require workers to attend mandatory anti-union propaganda sessions. They can also fire the key organizers, thereby undermining the organizing drive and intimidating workers.
The main change in the law under the Employee Free Choice Act is that workers, not employers, would decide the method for union certification. The WSJ should be able to get this one right.
The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off March 15, 2009 8:54 am
Frank Rich, NYT
Someday we’ll learn the whole story of why George W. Bush brushed off that intelligence briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." But surely a big distraction was the major speech he was readying for delivery on Aug. 9, his first prime-time address to the nation. The subject - which Bush hyped as "one of the most profound of our time" - was stem cells. For a presidency in thrall to a thriving religious right (and a presidency incapable of multi-tasking), nothing, not even terrorism, could be more urgent.
