joeldskene.com

please adjust your rss as needed.

The school gym we were stationed in had two precincts that boarder each other set up in the same room. As the day went on it was easy to see two large differences between them. First, our precinct was mostly middle aged and elderly people, and the one next to us covered a large student population from Eastern Michigan University. The second was that we had a much larger turnout than they did. I didn’t get a final number, but earlier on we were getting about ten voters for every one they had.

Then, this morning when the exit polling data came in, my experience seems to be the story nation wide.

There were of course other factors in this election, but when you look at all the demographics, the one that has the biggest change was turnout based on age.

Two years ago the voter turnout among young people was very high while many elderly folks stayed home. This year, the exact opposite happened. While working yesterday at the polls, our chairperson said that two years ago, the student precinct had actually had a higher turnout than ours, but this year they didn’t come out. It’s hard to say what the outcome would have been if young voters had shown up, but it seems the Democratic losses would have been substantially smaller.

Moral of the story: Don’t wait until your old to go vote.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Thanks Internet.

Up until the last decade or so, the majority of Americans got their national news from non partisan sources. The only easily accessible options were the major TV networks, NPR, The Associated Press, and a handfull of major newspapers. If you wanted a more liberal or conservative viewpoint you had to seek it out by subscribing to magazines like the conservative Weekly Standard or the liberal New Republic.

But then after CNN introduced us to constant news, the creation of the “24 hour political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator” began. It’s hard to argue that Fox News didn’t take the lead, but the other cable networks have followed suit, and the internet is amplifying those partisan voices.  Now it seems you have to go out of your way to find something that is focused on facts rather than an ideological narrative.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t any good reporters or work done on cable news, but the problem is bigger than any unbiased reported can fix. The medium itself necessitates outrageousness; how else can you keep people watching all day and night?

Stewart is right when he says that “If we amplify everything, we hear nothing” and when he compares the images of our political ideas in the media to fun house mirrors. People and the ideas they hold are more complicated and interesting that the boxes they are put in and labels they are given.

I think it would do all of us some good to put down the remote for a bit and listen to each other.

Donations to private charities fell by 11 percent last year. That’s the steepest one-time drop in 20 years, and it came, of course, just as the need for the services that those charities provide exploded.

Charity is counter-cyclical. When the economy is booming and there’s less need, there’s also more capacity. When the is worse and there’s more need, donations dry up and there’s less capacity. That’s not a criticism of charities: It’s hardly their fault. And nor is it a criticism of the people who donate — or stop donating — to charities. When you’re worried about paying your mortgage, it’s harder to help other people pay theirs.

But it’s a big part of why we need a robust, federal safety net that’s immune — in a way state-funded programs like Medicaid are not — from the ravages of the business cycle. One of the smartest things we could do would be to federalize the funding for Medicaid and unemployment insurance, or at least create some automatic formulas in which a rise of X amount in the unemployment rate triggered a rise of X percent in the size of the federal contribution.

Having a social safety net isn’t just good policy that makes sure people have money to put back into the economy, it’s good ethics to insure that people are taken care of when they need it most.

This graph tells me two things. The first is that the income growth rate overall is better and more even under Democratic leadership than it is under republican.  This is more obvious the lower down the income ladder you go; growth happens for all groups at a much more similar rate. The second thing is that growth for the top 5% earners in the country is still better under the Dems than the GOP. So that kind of shoots the argument that Democratic policies hurt the wealthiest in the foot.

I’ve posted it before, but the second image is worth four minutes of your time.

This is a real problem, but here’s how we talk about it.

For further reading, Slate has a really amazing series of articles on the income gap called The Great Divergence. I highly recommend it.

TARP

The Toxic Assets Relief Program or better known as (cue negative film and sinister voice) “The Bailout” has largely been a huge success. Of course no one wants to talk about it, but this bipartisan bill supported by George Bush, Barack Obama, and John McCain, has now done even better than economists had hoped. Bloomberg Businessweek (not exactly a leftist magazine) put out a report that the bank bailout has actually earned the U.S. government over $25 billion. Not to mention the whole, you know, preventing another great depression thing.

The Auto Bailout

Even I had my doubts about this one. I hated seeing the companies that had made routine of screwing over my home state get a big taxpayer paycheck. But when a friend of mine, lost his job because his company lost work orders from GM and then went under, I saw that the ripple effects of the auto industry collapsing would be disastrous.  But it turns out that the auto bailout wasn’t a socialist takeover, in fact it worked. Even The Economist (again, not exactly a pinko rag) issued an apology to Obama admitting that they were wrong and that the White House had made the right move. But this is one more thing that Obama has gotten no credit for.

The Stimulus

Stimulus is another word that’s supposed to be toxic this election year. My problem with it was that it was too small, but it has done some good. The CBO reported back in August

CBO, Aug. 24: CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the second quarter of calendar year 2010:

• They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent,
• Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,(and)
• Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.

It’s impossible to know for sure the total effects of the Stimulus, but we do know that it has created in between one and a half to three million jobs, and lowered unemployment. Now, unemployment has been the major critism of the Stimulus. The argument goes “If it worked, why is unemployment still high?” This chart is helpful in understanding the context of just how much of a hole we have to dig ourselves out of.

Just because we got ourselves into this mess quickly doesn’t mean we can dig our way out quickly. But if the stimulus has been at least helpful, why is it something so many are trying to avoid? Because republicans have done a great job of condemning it as wasteful spending while taking credit for what it accomplished it in their districts. Calling it socialism on the hill and then handing out giant stimulus checks back home.

Health Care Reform

I’ve written about this plenty before. But I’m still baffled as to why Democrats are running away from this accomplishment that they ran their campaigns on, will cover 97% of Americans, lower costs, and reduce the deficit. Especially when considering just how moderate this plan is. It was very similar to both Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan, and to the plans put for by Republicans in 1993, and was supported by the majority of the public.

Of course now, that bill is being called all kinds of things, even unconstitutional.

Lowering Taxes

If you ask a tea partier why they don’t like Obama, I’m sure “he raised taxes” will be in there some where. What’s ironic about this is that taxes are at their lowest rate since 1959 and the average tax rate has fallen 26% in the last three years. Obama has actually cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Individuals have received a $400 income tax cut, and couples an $800 one. But no one seems to notice. In fact, the stimulus is filled with tax cuts for small businesses.

But try telling that to these folks.

Please take a second to click, read, and check out the rest of the site. It’s a really cool project.

Out of all these groups, I’ve been thinking about immigrants a lot recently.  Specifically the hypocrisy in they way we view certain kinds of immigrants versus others. Yes, of course, we are a nation almost completely descended from immigrants. And yes, of course, the stealing of land and subsequent genocide should probably classify that immigration as illegal. But there’s another kind of hypocrisy, and in this interview that GOP Whip Eric Cantor did with Jon Stewart last night lies a great example of what I’m talking about.

In case you don’t watch it, halfway through the interview Cantor tells a story commonly told when trying to convey hard work, patriotism, and pride. It always goes something like this.

Two generations ago my great-grandfather fled the horrible conditions in his home country and came on a boat to America with the dream of being free, working, and making a better life for him and his family in the land of opportunity that is The United States of America.

Now, when these same people are discussing current immigration the story is something like this.

These Mexicans come across our boarder because it stinks so bad in Mexico, and they come to take our jobs and drop their anchor babies and let their families get everything we have.

In actuality, the only real difference in these two stories is a boat.

Yes, we need comprehensive immigration reform. And that reform should include the economy improving measure that gives current undocumented residents a chance to legalize their status. But please, can we stop talking about immigration now like it’s something different that immigration a hundred years ago? It’s just people who want to come to America to have a better life. And I bet if we actually got to know them, we’ll find that the people crossing the boarder today have a lot in common with our great-grandparents.