I know I don’t usually say this, but now seems like the perfect time: What the fuck is wrong with California?? This is just outrageous:

She was forced to have sex with him, and now she’s being forced to pay his bills.

Crystal Harris of Carlsbad, Calif., had been financially supporting her unemployed, abusive husband Shawn Harris for years. But after he sexually assaulted her in 2008, she took him to court.

The jury heard a damning audiotape of the attack secretly recorded by Crystal Harris, and her husband was convicted of forced oral copulation.

Even so, in 2010, the year their divorce became finalized, he requested spousal support. The judge awarded him $1,000 a month, and also asked Crystal Harris to pay $47,000 of her ex-husband’s legal fees from the divorce proceedings.

“It stunned me and I think it’s shocking,” said San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, who is fighting to close a loophole in the law that allows judges to exercise this kind of judicial discretion. “It’s a priority for our office.”

Did you catch that? The judge has DISCRETION in this case, and is CHOOSING to force Crystal Harris to pay her deadbeat, abusive ex-husband ALIMONY and his LEGAL bills, which he incurred from her taking him to court for RAPING HER. This is insanity. Sheer insanity.

There’s more:

Harris, who turned 39 Thursday, makes between $110,000 and $120,000 a year as a financial analyst, and says she has been supporting her husband — a former car salesman — ever since their first son was born in 2002.

Under normal circumstances, Harris would have been required to pay $3,000 a month in spousal support after the divorce, but because of the domestic violence she endured, the judge said he would lower that amount to $1,000.

“I call that the rape discount,” Harris said.

She appealed the judge’s ruling, pointing out that her ex-husband will have no expenses while he’s in jail.

The judge agreed, but when Shawn Harris, 40, is released from Donovan State Prison in 2014, he’s entitled to ask for spousal support again. And California law entitles him to have it.

[...]

In a statement received by ABCNews.com on Friday afternoon, spokeswoman Karen Dalton from the San Diego Superior Court said, “Per the California Code of Judicial Ethics, canon 3B(9), which prohibits a judge from making public comment about a pending or impending proceeding, Judge Pollack will be unable to discuss the details of the proceedings.” California family code currently states “the criminal conviction of an abusive spouse shall be considered in making a reduction or elimination of a spousal support award” and it’s that language that gives the judge discretion when making a spousal support ruling.

Holy shit, this is just crazy. The judge HAS the discretion to not compel a victim of domestic violence to pay anything. That this judge IS, after the years of abuse, is mighty telling about HIM, if you ask me. Wow.

There is much, much more to this article, including a more in-depth look into their relationship, the years of abuse, and his threats when she tried to get out (as many of you know, the most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship is when she tries to leave. That is when many women are murdered.) Click here to read the rest, if you wish. Like I said, the whole thing just makes me sick. There is something seriously, seriously wrong with this.

Incredible. Now for a complete 180, something happening in another state that is very right. Back in June, I wrote a post about an editorial a Chicago lawyer named Thomas Geoghan wrote. He was targeting Boeing for building a plant here in the Charleston, SC, area (“What A Bunch Of Southernist BS...”). I’ll sum it up for you: we dumbass Southerners ain’t capable of building our way out of a paper bag, much less one of them fancy dancy aeroplanes, dontcha know. What the sam hill was Boeing thinking dissing the union in Washington State like that by allowing us redneck yahoos who probably ain’t ever even flown to build their durn planes for ‘em? Yeah, something pretty close to that (click here if you wish to read his screed for yourselves).

Well, you wanna guess which plant is outperforming the other? Uh, yeah – the Charleston team:

Speaking to the Goldman Sachs Global Industrials Conference on Thursday, Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh said he is “very encouraged” by the South Carolina mid- and aft-body operations, which are performing above the Everett, Wash., assembly line’s production rate of 2.5 airplanes per month.

“Those two operations are performing very, very well,” Albaugh said. “In fact, many of the work cells that we have there are performing at about 3.5 airplanes a month, and we’ve also demonstrated in one or two areas that we can sustain the 10 airplanes a month rate that we’ll need when we go to peak.”

[...]

Albaugh also revealed South Carolina’s first Dreamliner, the first Boeing commercial airplane to be assembled outside of Washington state and scheduled to be the 46th 787, is officially in one piece.

“We put the airplane on the gear in the last couple of days, all the final joins have been done, and we expect to fly the first airplane out of Charleston sometime in the middle of the year,” Albaugh said, referring to 2012. (Click here to read the rest.(

Well golly gee willikers, could that really be true? Hell to the yes, it is. Just goes to show the folly of such sheer ignorance and prejudice that still exists toward the South. We got it going on, y’all, and doing pretty damn well at it, too.

Consider this an open thread, y’all. Have at it.

That hasn’t had an impact on the NLRB, though, which filed a suit against Boeing since it will not be using union labor here (SC is a “right to work” state). Bear in mind that NO union jobs were cut because of this move, Boeing still has plants in Washington State, and in fact, their union positions have increased.

This has been an on-going battle, with the tacit acceptance by the White House of the NLRB trying to dictate to what states companies can, and cannot, have their businesses.

So, it is in that framework that Thomas Geoghegan, an attorney in Chicago, wrote this WSJ editorial, “Boeing’s Threat to American Enterprise; When major firms move to the South, it’s usually a harbinger of quality decline. Why let that happen?”

I’m sorry, what? Is he really saying that companies that move their business South automatically suffer in quality? Why, yes he is:

[snip] We should be aghast that Boeing is sending a big fat market signal that it wants a less-skilled, lower-quality work force. This country is in a debt crisis because we buy abroad much more than we sell. Alas, because of this trade deficit, foreign creditors have the country in their clutches. That’s not because of our labor costs—in that respect, we can undersell most of our high-wage, unionized rivals like Germany. It’s because we have too many poorly educated and low-skilled workers that are simply unable to compete.

We depend on Boeing to out-compete Airbus, its European rival. But when major firms move South, it is usually a harbinger of quality decline. Over and over as a labor lawyer in the 1980s and ’90s, I saw companies move away from Chicago, where the pay was $28 an hour, to some place in South Carolina or Louisiana where the pay was about half that. While these moves aggrieved me as a union lawyer, it might have consoled me as an American if those companies went on to thrive globally.[snip] (Click here to read the rest of this drivel.)

See, because if you are having to pay twice as much to compensate the unions, you are better off. Uh huh.

It’s a miracle we Southerners can even get our dumb asses out of bed every day, ain’t it??

Now, I thought about going on my own little rant, and believe you me, I could – but there were a whole bunch of comments at the WSJ that really say it all:

Buck Hebner: After reading y’all’s comments, I realize what an astute move the WSJ made publishing this lawyer’s editorial. The WSJ staff must be howling with laughter. This one editorial accomplishes what a hundred conservative viewpoints fail to do, show readers the true stakes of this battle. In a few paragraphs, Mr. Geoghegan unmasks the true intentions of big Labor and progressive policy. They believe stirring up sectional hate and class-warfare will help them achieve their goals of unlimited Federal power and personal gain.

150 years after the Civil War was fought, the South is rising again. Not as an antagonist to the North, but as a economic engine that will help all of America become stronger through economic competition. The WSJ should be commended. Thank you.

Roger Simpson: First, Boeing did not “move” any work from Washington; as they have repeatedly stressed, the work to be done in South Carolina is new work, and there is nothing wrong economically with adding jobs to a state that could sure use them. Second, the notion that Washington citizens are somehow more “skilled” than South Carolinians is sheer arrogance, and has no basis in reality. Such babble was used when the auto manufacturers moved jobs there, and we have seen how ridiculous it was.

The real issue is that Big Labor cannot afford for people to find out that the work of $28/hour workers (who still are not satisfied with their lot) can be done just as well by $14/hour workers in another state, and without complaint. Especially a state which does not cater to the class of self-important, professional protesters, who take a cut from every worker’s check to line their own pockets, while presuming to negotiate en masse for an entire group of indivdual free citizens.

Wilson Jones II: I hope this cat remembers that Southerners probably made the steel that holds his building up (Nucor), made his blood pressure meds (Glaxco Smith Kline), assembled his BMW…. AND we were smart enough to put together a rocket that put man on the moon… Now give me some Kickapoo Joy Juice as i listen to the theme from Deliverence…

Millard Ramsey: I can’t stop laughing long enough to compose a response to this piece. I live in Chattanooga where VW has seen fit to invest $1 billion in a plant that will employ thousands of those “unskilled” Southern workers. Looks like VW has given up on quality too.

Alan Davis: Kia in Georgia, Hyundai in Alabama, BWM in South Carolina, and the list goes on and on. The rush to low quality must be the new business model.

I might add, Gulf Stream Jets are made in Savannah, GA, Toyotas are made in Kentucky, oh, and not only are Hyundais made in Alabama, but so are Mercedes Benz SUVs, and NASA is there, too, with Peterbilts being built in Denton, TX.

If you want some good laughs, though, go read the 40+ pages of comments about this incredibly offensive, arrogant, condescending, and flat out Southernist BS from this Chicago lawyer.

Boeing has every right to build its plants wherever the hell it sees fit. And our government should not be in the business of telling businesses where they can have those plants. Hell, even the Seattle Times is claiming that “Obama Administration Putting Politics Before The Economy” with this misguided assault against Boeing, and SC. No freakin’ kidding. This is all payback.

And speaking of payback – remember when Obama shoved the (also misguided) stimulus down our throats to bail out companies like GM? He claimed that the Administration would not be micromanaging GM? Well, hold on to your seats – he lied. Yes, Obama lied. In fact, the Treasury Department DID essentially run GM, and get this:

[snip] These messages reveal that Treasury officials were involved in decision-making that led to more than 20,000 non-union workers losing their pensions. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy shit. Well, that just goes to show you this NLRB debacle is not an aberration, but business as usual. Cutting TWENTY THOUSAND non-union pensions – are you kidding me with this?

Oh, but then again, what the hell do I know? I’m just a Southerner, after all…

You may recall during the 2008 Democratic Primary Campaign, Hillary Clinton was attacked by Barack Obama about her connections to Wal-Mart while First Lady of Arkansas. Oh, yes, he got just a tad testy as she was highlighting his constant “WORM”-ing (What Obama Really Meant). So he lashed out at her.

In case you forgot that little window into how quick Obama is to hurl accusations , here it is:

And the media, already well into Obama’s pocket, did this “expose” on Hillary Clinton’s connection to WalMart:

Gee – if they could actually do some investigative reporting on HER, and send a legion of AP reporters to Wasilla, how is it they could not be bothered to do anything of the kind to Obama? Oh, right – I forgot – the JournoListers who were protecting him from any hard writing on his unsavory connections. Silly me.

Had the media actually bothered to do their jobs, instead of reacting with glee when Obama reacts so defensively, perhaps they could have taken a little look see at what Obama’s wife’s connection was to WalMart. But, no. Why would they do anything to impede their narrative of Obama’s holiness, or in any way shift his blame off of Hillary Clinton.

So, let’s just see how the media deals with this new announcement, as reported by the Washington Post, “Michelle Obama, Wal-Mart Announce Healthy Food Campaign.” Now, on the face of it, that looks like a great thing. Except for the arrogant, condescending way Barack Obama talked to Hillary Clinton for having had ANYTHING to do with this company, and Arkansas based company, while her husband was governor. Yet, here is ol’ Michelle, teaming up with that very same company. As far as I have heard, not a whole lot has changed with Wal-Mart, how it treats women, how it treats its workers in general, or any of the other general complaints about this company.

Now to the article:

First lady Michelle Obama joined Wal-Mart executives at a Southeast Washington community center Thursday morning to announce a campaign by the low-priced retail giant to offer more healthful foods and push its suppliers to do the same.

Obama has made fighting childhood obesity and increasing nutritious food options in poor neighborhoods a top priority. She will join Wal-Mart, which recently announced plans to open its first stores in the District, to announce “a major initiative to provide its customers with healthier and more affordable food choices,” Wal-Mart said.

[...]

Wal-Mart said it will make thousands of the packaged food items that it sells more healthful over the next four years, make healthful food choices more affordable and more clearly labeled, build more stores in underserved areas and increase its charitable donations to nutrition programs.

[...]

Wal-Mart praised Obama’s “spirit of collaboration,” and called her a “catalyst that helped make today’s announcement a reality.”

Wal-Mart has drawn criticism from advocacy groups in the District and elsewhere because of its anti-union policies.

Obama resigned from the board of a Wal-Mart vendor in 2007, days after her husband – then vying for the Democratic presidential nomination – said he would not shop at the store. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

If you needed any more proof of Michelle’s connection to WalMart during the campaign, that last line should suffice. If her board position was NOT closely aligned, there would be no need for her to retire, would there?

Yes, it is amazing what just a couple of years will do. Now the once hated, despised, union busting, women hating Chinese-product selling behemoth is now the shining light for the First Lady’s pet project (not that there is anything wrong with healthy eating – I am all for it – it is the hypocrisy that bugs me).

I cannot WAIT to see how Obama’s supporters are going to spin this one. Any guesses? Feel free to talk about that, or anything else on your minds today!

NOTE: Friends, my partner and I are embarking on a major construction project at our home starting Monday, Jan. 24th. I am not sure how much this will impact my writing, but I am assuming it may affect the regularity of my posts. That is to say, I will write when I can, but no promises about how often. And, I will certainly keep checking in to see what’s going on with the awesome readers here at NQ.

Well, this will be my last post for a while. Again, I want to thank everyone for their warm support and encouragement of me as I prepare to have my knee replaced on September 9th. It means more to me than I can say.

Before I go, I want to highlight a few of the issues that we have been discussing over the past few months. First up is the Cordoba House, the mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to build close to Ground Zero. Rauf penned an Op-Ed for the NY Times on the mosque, and the desire to build it there (though it seems short on an explanation of why there). Below is a dialogue between Bill Hemmer and Father Jonathan Morris:

I think Father Morris summed it up when he said that along with rights, comes respect (paraphrasing there). Rauf’s editorial may appear to be rational and reasonable, but there seem to be a few digs in there, to be sure. Read it for yourself and decide.

Next up is the issue of Obamacare, and what it is going to mean to us in the short run. Oh, I think you can guess – it is going to cost us more money. Surprise!!! Except it isn’t to those of us who were paying attention. We knew this was going to cost more money than save it, and we knew the numbers the Democrats used to get this passed were, um, inaccurate. So, get ready to empty out your wallets:

Then there is Obama’s homage to the Unions with his new $50 billion proposal. Why is it an homage to the unions? Because the money is supposed to go for infrastructure purposes. Which is fine – we need that. But, as you may recall, in February, 2009, Obama signed an order that federal contracts have to look to the unions first. And only 16% of construction workers are unionized. Soooooo – this $50 billion is just a payback to his major supporters. It also costs more, according to this Washington Post article. Wheee!!!!

Here’s Stuart Varney to fill us in on the details:

Well, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – the unions are sure getting their money’s worth, aren’t they? Not so much the rest of us, though. Ha – there’s a surprise.

Finally, the 9th anniversary of 9/11 is just a few days away. I want to leave you with this story about the World Trade Towers then, and what they plan for the future:

Brings tears to my eyes. I love the waterfalls they have planned in the foot prints of the towers. They are beautiful – soothing, yet strong.

What a day that was, one we will not soon forget. At least I hope we do not…

Again, thank you all for your loving support. It means the world to me. You will be in my heart while I am away.

I have a few tunes for you for the day. First up, the Judds back in the day:

Any Labor Day music selection must include this classic by Dolly Parton:

And just because it is a freaking awesome song by Carly Simon, “Let The River Run” from the movie, “Working Girl”:

Have a great day, friends!

And why would Malkin say such a thing in her post? This is why:

[snip] Trumka and Obama will cast Big Labor as an unassailable force for good in American history. But when it comes to terrorizing workers, Trumka knows whereof he speaks.

Meet Eddie York. He was a workingman whose story will never scroll across Obama’s teleprompter. A nonunion contractor who operated heavy equipment, York was shot to death during a strike called by the United Mine Workers 17 years ago.

Workmates who tried to come to his rescue were beaten in an ensuing melee. The head of the UMW spearheading the wave of strikes at that time? Richard Trumka.

Responding to concerns about violence, he shrugged to the Virginian-Pilot in September 1993: “I’m saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’re likely to get burned.” Incendiary rhetoric, anyone?

[...]

In Illinois, Trumka told UMW members to “kick the s**t out of every last” worker who crossed his picket lines, according to the Nashville (Ill.) News. And as the National Right to Work Foundation, the leading anti-forced unionism organization in the country, pointed out, other UMW coalfield strikes resulted in what one judge determined were “violent activities … organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah – just a bit. It goes on from there, and I recommend you read the rest.

The bottom line is this man, Trumka, who called for this level of violence, is now the head of the AFL-CIO, and hanging out with the President of the United States on a regular basis. There is something very wrong about that.

And how about Trumka’s recent target, Gov. Palin? Well, this is something that might surprise you – and then again, maybe not. Alert NQ reader Sybill highlighted just the kind of person Sarah Palin is. This video sure says a lot:

Right? About the only other person at that level I can see jumping in and doing something like this is – you got it – Hillary Clinton. Wow.

Another alert NQ reader, Yttik, provided the following video to close this out today. Given the attacks Tea Party members and Sarah Palin have been enduring since its inception, it seems a fitting end for someone who has come to represent the Tea Party movement. And it is toe-tapping good, too:

Dang straight. That’s “We, the people,” and we DO have a voice.

Thanks for the links and suggestions, folks. Talk about this, or anything else on your mind today!

One proposal is to mimic the Massachusetts’ plan. Except there are some problems with that:

Huh. Well, that sounds just perfect – go ahead and implement a program that has quickly gone into the red. Perfect management of our tax-paying dollars, right? Oh, yeah.

So, just how would we even pay for this? Oh, you are gonna love this plan by the US Senate:
Senate Health Plan Could Tax 1 in 8 Workers. One in EIGHT. 12.5% of Americans will be helping to foot the bill for everyone else. Holy smokes. Here’s the nitty gritty:

About one in eight U.S. workers who receive health benefits from an employer — more than nine million workers — could pay higher income taxes on benefits as part of a Senate proposal that aims to raise billions of dollars to finance health-care reform, according an independent analysis of the proposal.

A five-page presentation, obtained by FOX Business, was prepared by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is leading efforts by Senate Democrats to formulate funding alternatives for a reform plan. In the document, Baucus proposes “options to limit allowable tax free health benefits.”

Since World War II, when companies facing work-force shortages began offering comprehensive health-care coverage to attract and retain workers, such benefits have been tax-free to employees. Today, more than 150 million workers and their dependents receive health insurance from their current — or, if retired, former — employer.

Preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of health-care reform at $1 trillion or more over 10 years.

Read the whole presentation here.

According to the document, Sen. Baucus is looking at four ways to tax benefits starting in 2013, when many reform proposals would take full effect:

* Tax benefits of single workers who earn more than $100,000 a year and couples that earn more than $200,000. The presentation cites a previous estimate from the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation [JCT] that the proposal would raise $161.9 billion over 10 years if the changes were effective on January 1, 2010.
* Tax benefits that exceed a value of $6,182 for a single worker and a value of $15,700 for a worker who also receives coverage for his family. The document cites a previous JCT estimate that the proposal would raise $418 billion over a decade if the changes were effective January 1, 2010.
* Tax those “base” benefits plus 10%, or a value of $6,800 for an individual worker and a value of $17,240 for families. The higher cap would eliminate taxes for some workers. The document says Baucus has requested an estimate, presumably from the JCT, of how much this proposal would generate in new tax revenue with the change effective January 1, 2013.
* Tax base benefits plus 20%, or a value of $7,420 for an individual and a value of $18,840 for families, which would shelter even more workers from tax liability. Baucus also has requested, presumably from the JTC, an estimate for this proposal also effective January 1, 2013.

Now, I know numbers like these can make your head spin. But what they are considering is pretty important for, well, one out of EIGHT of us, who will be helping to provide health care. Ahem. It is actually important to all of us, I know. Especially since health care is an important part of many people’s benefits package:

Most of the value of amounts cited in the presentation is the cost of insurance premiums that companies pay for their employees’ health benefits. But the presentation says the total value calculated for taxation would also include supplemental health plans for vision and dental care, as well as contributions employees make to their flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts, which workers contribute to with pre-tax dollars. Baucus would also adjust benchmarks annually to inflation.

A 2008 survey of employer health benefits suggests more than nine million workers could face new tax liabilities under the Baucus proposals, according one of the survey’s authors. The survey was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, for the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Education Trust.

The survey, of 1,900 small and large companies, can be found here.

Among other things, the survey identified insurance-premium levels employers paid for their workers’ coverage last year. To analyze variations around national averages, the survey reported higher premiums due to factors such as geography and benefit differences.

Based on the survey, Jon Gabel, NORC senior fellow for health policy and evaluation in Washington, D.C., said that if the Baucus proposal to tax single workers receiving more than $6,182 in benefits were in effect today, about 15% of single workers, or 4.7 million, could face new tax payments — potentially hundreds of dollars or more per person per year, depending on tax brackets and the size of benefit packages.

Gabel estimated that about 17% of workers with family coverage, or 4.5 million workers, could face new taxes if the proposal to tax employees with families who receive more than $15,700 in health benefits were in effect today. Under the survey methodology, with family coverage defined as a policy insuring four people, the tax could affect benefits for about 18 million people, Gabel estimated.

The survey and the Baucus proposals did not address another 12 million workers who receive coverage for themselves and one dependent, usually a spouse. Presumably any tax proposal would apply to a subset of them as well.

With health care inflation, even more workers could face tax payments by 2013 as premium payments rose. But by adopting higher benchmarks, such as Baucus’ “base plus 10%” and “base plus 20%,” policymakers would narrow the number of workers required to pay taxes, if Congress adopts such proposals. Congress could also limit their impact by combining a benefits level cap with an income test — such as taxing only single workers who receive $6,182 in annual health care benefits and who earn more than $100,000 a year.

Gabel said most workers will have to ask their employer for benefit information to determine the value of their individual health care packages.

For more information on taxation of health benefits, you can read Center for Budget Policy and Priorities report here.

In these difficult economic times, I’m sure this is just what these people want to hear. But this seems to be one area in which there is agreement across the aisle:

The idea of taxing health-care benefits has bipartisan roots. Some conservative economists and Republican policymakers believe health-care costs are soaring faster then general inflation in part because such benefits are excluded from taxable income, encouraging excessive health care spending by consumers. Some Democrats agree.

During the presidential campaign last year, then-candidate Barack Obama criticized his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for proposing to tax all health-care benefits. Under his health-care reform plan, McCain would have used the new revenues to the government to fund health-care tax credits.

But in a meeting with Baucus and other senators earlier this month, President Obama signaled he would not rule out taxing benefits to help finance a reform plan.

“If I’m not mistaken, I can think of at least one Republican off the top of my head that talked about changing the tax benefits for the exclusion,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily press briefing on Friday. “I think if I sat at Google for about five minutes I could probably get you several dozen. I think one of the major reform bills that’s up there right now that’s been written by Sen. [Richard] Burr (R-N.C.) includes, if not a complete ending of the exclusion, some cap of it.”

The Obama Administration has already proposed more than $300 billion in tax increases to pay for reform, mainly by limiting deductions for wealthier families, and proposed more than $600 billion in cuts in Medicare and Medicaid spending.

But NORC’s Gabel said of specifically taxing benefits, “I think it’s very difficult to sell. As we know, Americans are almost schizophrenic in their views on taxing and spending. You name it, they think we should do more on it — spend more on education, more on defense, more on health care. On the other hand, they think taxes are too high and they don’t see a contradiction between the two.”

Well, at least this proposal would apply to everyone, right? Wrong:

The tax proposals also likely face strong opposition from some of the President’s and the Democratic party’s key supporters — unions that enjoy more generous health-care benefits won through hard-fought contact negotiations over decades. Apparently anticipating some objections about the possibility of affecting contracts already in place, Baucus has proposed protecting some union benefits by “grandfathering” collective-bargaining agreements existing on January 1, 2013, in his “base plus 10%” and “base plus 20%” options, according to his presentation.

Did you catch that? Unions may be exempt from having to pony up like everyone else will have to do. WOW – they really DID buy themselves a president, didn’t they??? I wonder how hard it would be to organize a United Office Workers Union (h/t to my partner for that union idea)?? How long are most Americans just going to accept that Union workers have far better benefits and pensions than the rest of us because we are subsidizing them? (Again, I’m not anti-union, but these things kind of stick in my craw…)

But there does seem to be agreement (more or less) that something needs to change:

On Sunday, a New York Times poll on health-care reform suggested taxing health benefits may not be as politically treacherous as assumed: the Times reported that 57% of voters said they would be willing to pay higher taxes “so that all Americans have health insurance that they can’t lose no matter what.” Just over a third — 37% — said they would not be willing to pay such taxes, and 6% had no opinion.

In a press briefing on June 9, Baucus said he was considering either a 50-50 or 60-40 split between taxes and savings to pay for a reform plan. Baucus specifically mentioned a “grandfathering” idea that he said would help mitigate taxes to some people who receive health-insurance benefits and said he favored an income test to narrow the impact as well.

In the House, Democratic leaders announced their own draft reform plan on Friday. But they did not present any options for financing it.

Gabel said taxes on benefits could not only raise some revenue for a new government plan but could also help to reduce health care spending, and thus inflation, as some economists believe.

“People will move from rich benefits where they don’t face deductibles to higher deductibles so their premiums are lower, and this will reduce the use of services,” Gabel said. “Also, they may move back into tightly managed HMOs like Kaiser, which have shown they can deliver care at lower cost.”

Well, that would be something at least. I think it would be great if everyone had health care – as long as we can PAY for it without going further into massive debt as a country. Or without putting the lion’s share of burden on some employees while allowing others off scott free. Surely a more just proposal can be worked out, yes? Let’s hope so, otherwise, those aren’t great odds for the 12.5% of employees who will pay more…

The crusty CNN newsman/commentator Lou Dobbs takes a depressing look at unemployment figures and how taxpayers are being HAMMERED:

California’s Burden: Workers Pay the Price
Workers in California are worrying about losing even more money. The unemployment rate is in the double-digits and climbing. Those who have jobs in the state are bearing an increasingly heavy burden and their tax rates are rising as well. Casey Wian has the report.

Even Maddow had a segment on unemployment, which some have noted does NOT include all of the people forced to work at part-time jobs or those who’ve given up entirely:

The President is doing “everything in his power”? Uh, like what? Well, the unemployment benefits are good — the infusion of cash into the economy also helps. Maddow, to her credit, asks some important questions of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who supplies some solid answers but not any real solutions.

All this talk about the BIG SQUEEZE on the average working person — both from employment crises and increasing taxes — reminded me of a segment I watched earlier Tuesday evening on Hannity:

As I was preparing this story, I stopped by the YouTube channel of Rep. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan — I’ve subscribed to his channel because I KNOW that the economy and jobs are foremost in his mind — mainly the 750,000 jobs that the state of Michigan expects to lose by the end of 2009. That’s a staggering number of lost jobs. Here’s Fox News’s Geraldo interviewing Rep. McCotter over the weekend:

750,000 jobs. That’s one and a half times the entire population of Lansing, Michigan.

“A cherished way of life is being lost,” says Rep. McCotter.

And future generations will have nothing to show for current slapdash solutions except a massive debt they’ll have to try to struggle to repay through exorbitant taxes that prohibit their achieving a decent standard of living.

It’s not such a rosy picture after all, is it.

OF NOTE: Too many blogs, particularly the Hillary-friendly blogs, would never publish a Dick Morris video, solely because of what he’s said about Hillary and Bill. I think that that is a mistake. Let’s leave such strict censorship to the Daily Kos crowd. I’m willing to listen to anyone whose commentary strikes a chord within me, or at the very least raises highly important matters that — sigh — our media do not cover.

I didn’t know that Morris does videos. Here is the link to his YouTube channel.

Mr. Morris’s blog contains more interesting thoughts, including these recent posts:

• “OBAMA, GM: YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT (right on, Dick!)
• “OBAMA’S WORST JOBS-KILLER,” published April 1 in the New York Post:
  

  More than anything else, business needs a predictable environment if it is to create jobs. Changes in the regulatory environment and the tax code make it almost impossible for businesses to make investments.

  Yet President Obama seems to ignore this reality. Each day’s news brings another bold and far-reaching proposal to change the fundamentals of the US economy. And each time he indulges his personal ideology with such a pronouncement, businesses all over the world cut back on their planned investment until the dust settles.

  Most incredible was the fact that he chose the middle of a deep recession to announce a major tax-code overhaul. …

• “OBAMA SOAKS THE RICH: CHURCHES, DAY CARE, HOMELESS SHELTERS,” printed March 28th:
  

  President Obama’s glib assertion that his reduction in tax deductions will not reduce donations is absurd. His pathetic defense at his press conference – that he would still give a $100 dollar check to charity even if he only got $11 less of tax deduction from it was both disingenuous and beside the point.

  And his comment that his reduced deduction would only impact one or two percent of the nation misses the point that it is these folks who are doing almost half of the donating.

  In 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, four million taxpayers had adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more. They comprised 3% of the tax returns, made 31% of the income, but donated 44% of all charitable contributions. Together, they provided charity with $81 billion in that year. …

You can’t say we’re not eclectic in what we post here, eh?

Remember when George Bush and Dick Cheney could rely on the many in the media to help them euphemize that dirty word, “torture?” It wasn’t torture, it was “enhanced interrogation.” That’s like calling the amputation of a leg, “enhanced skin removal below the waist.”

For those of you who were hoping for a new day. For those of you wanting change you could believe in. I have three words for you.

FORGET ABOUT IT!!

Today’s headline in the Washington Post, “GM Chief to Resign at White House’s Behest.” Great Marlon Brando’s ghost!! Talk about using language to cover up the truth. I guess it could have been worse. The White House could have said it made Wagoner an offer he couldn’t refuse. Did Luca Brasi pay Wagoner a visit? (If you have not seen the movie, The Godfather, you won’t have a clue what I’m talking about.)

Let’s be clear about what happened here. Barack Obama, somehow, is now in a position to fire the CEO of a publicly traded company. The phraseology employed to describe what happened to Wagoner reminds me of an observation from my friend Janet. Janet, who is from the midwest, noted that folks on the east coast frequently will complain by stating, “I have an issue.” Janet told me:

They may be issues on the east coast but in the midwest they are fucking problems.

The firing of Rick Wagoner was not made for any rational economic reason. This is pure politics, designed in part to portray Barack as a tough guy who is taking charge on the eve of his international debut at the G20 summit. Not a single person on the Obama economic team has ever run a business or met a payroll. Barack and his team of bozos could not find a Secretary of Treasury who felt it important to pay taxes and wanted to appoint Tom Daschle to run Health and Human Services even though he was a lobbyist taking freebies on the side. And these are the people who want us to believe that they know how to run a car company?

Well Barack, it is your baby now. You are in charge of GM and its fate. If it survives and prospers you will be doing the big booty shake as you celebrate your second inauguration. But if GM falters, no amount of obfuscation and murky language will be able to mask the stink of this turd.

WackyMacky01 posted this video. He asks a great question at the end of his description:

Fox report with Bret Baier focuses on a small Albion Indiana Company with 50 employees that was pressed by UAW organizers into an open vote to unionize. Is this what we’re in for?

BELOW, you and I time-travel back to March 2008, to the sweltering primaries, to Hillary and Barack battling the “brain-spattering, windpipe-slitting art” of presidential primaries warfare. There, we see economics professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, in March 2008, sizing up and dressing down Barack Obama: “Why has Mr. Obama stumbled when it comes to economic issues?” (And has anything changed, or has he learned anything, in one short year?)

First, here’s the Nobel Laureate as a blunt instrument hammering the plan on PBS’s Charlie Rose Monday (March 23rd) for “an update on the economy with Andrew Ross Sorkin, Paul Krugman and Joe Nocera.” Krugman’s condemnation of Geithner’s recycled-from-Paulson “zombie” plan is stunning:

Paul. You’re the man. You nailed it yesterday. And, Paul, one year and 16 days ago (March 8, 2008), you had it all figured out:

Why has Mr. Obama stumbled when it comes to economic issues? Well, on health care — which is closely tied to overall concerns about financial security — there is a clear, substantive difference between the candidates, with the Clinton plan being significantly stronger.

More broadly, I suspect that the Obama mystique — his carefully created image as a transformational, even transcendent figure — has created a backlash among those unconvinced that he’s interested in the nuts-and-bolts work of fixing things.

Ohio voters were more likely to say that Mr. Obama inspires them — but more likely to say that Mrs. Clinton has a clear plan for the country’s problems.

And Mr. Obama’s attempt to win over workers by portraying himself as a fierce critic of Nafta looked, and was, deeply insincere — an appearance particularly costly for a candidate who tries to seem above politics as usual.

Isn’t that remarkable. Paul predicted — perfectly — the central problems of an Obama presidency:

1. A lack of interest in the “nuts-and-bolts work of fixing things”; and
2. A lack of sincerity — in fact, he comes across as “deeply insincere.”

That sums it up for me. The major question is why the hard left, which had adored Paul Krugman for years, turned on him immediately when he dared to criticize Obama as unreal and disinterested in WORKING at governance.

Hell, during the Tuesday night press conference, he didn’t even want to be bothered with working at explaining what he’s not doing.

Here’s a second segment from Charlie Rose’s show Monday night. “The economy continued with Daniel Alpert is a managing director of Westwood Captial and Thomas F Steyer is Co-Managing Partner of Farallon Capital Management.”

FOR INVETERATE READERS ONLY: Boy, if you want to see some historic predictions made, glance through our archives from Spring 2008 on the primary battles involving Hillary, Barack and John (Edwards), and Paul Krugman’s and our commentaries on all three.

Paul Krugman had Obama pegged, and so did we at No Quarter.

And, you know, we’re not pleased that we’re correct. For the sake of this country, we wish we had been wrong.

But you can’t take a guy who’s never worked hard at anything — except campaigning so he can win something — and turn him into an intense, involved chief executive of the most powerful nation on earth and in history.

The guy either has the work ethic, or he doesn’t.

This guy doesn’t.

Worse than his laziness are his disinterest and his disconnectedness. Which showed during the March 24th press conference, as he got restless and his answers became more and more mechanical, and it was clear he wanted to be anywhere but there because the reporters’ questions bored him. It’s hard, make that impossible, to work hard at anything if you don’t care.

The guy either has the passion, or he doesn’t.

Most certainly, they cannot be feigned. Every sentient American has the sniff and scratch ability to detect a FRAUD.

P.S. Unless they wear rose-colored glasses, but those people don’t count because they’re hopelessly clueless, and rational dialogue is impossible until they rehabilitate themselves and rediscover their critical thinking capabilities.

Please join us this evening from 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. ET on No Quarter Radio for LD’s Dollars and Sense. These are truly historic times in the global economy. Let’s “navigate the economic landscape” without the pandering or nonsense found elsewhere!

We have two very interesting guests joining us. Lynn Marshall has one of the most unique backgrounds in the world of finance today. How does one develop a background that includes senior level experience in investment banking, agriculture, and community banking? Think Lynn has some amazing perspectives on the economy and markets? Don’t miss him.

Additionally, in light of the developments at Stanford Financial, we are very happy to have John Moynihan return to our show to discuss the dynamics in the world of offshore banking. Find out more than you could ever imagine by talking to these enlightened experts on LD’s Dollars and Sense, starting at 8 p.m. ET.

What are your questions and comments for me? Please share your questions and thoughts by calling in to (347) 677-0792, and also join our live chat room, which I’ll start up about 10 minutes before the show begins!

Let’s not forget that we live in a global economy. What developed overseas this week and how does it impact us here in the United States?

What is on your mind? What would you like to address? So much to talk about as we “navigate the economic landscape!!”

LD’s Dollars and Sense on NQ Radio at 8:00 p.m. ET. This show, as well as all prior shows and every show on NQ radio, is archived and can be downloaded on iTunes (see our instructions in the right column).

Look forward to hearing from you!!

LD

We’ll be departing from “LD’s Central Station” on Saturday at 9:00 am EST until 12 noon to attempt to put some clarity into this madness!!

We thought the month of January was challenging but it seems we were just getting going. With the turns on the track getting ever more challenging, we will do our best to keep you informed and ahead of the curve.

Our train was packed last week so we will make sure to keep those extra cars. Make sure you board promptly, get settled, grab a coffee, and settle down for an engaging online Q/A chat as we “navigate the economic landscape.” Bring a friend along as well.

For our newer riders, your conductor is not a professional financial planner but merely a Wall Street veteran who welcomes sharing his instincts and experience.

While we board, let me preannounce that we will have a very special show Sunday evening on LD’s Dollars and Sense on No Quarter Radio from 8-9pm.

We have two very interesting guests joining us. Lynn Marshall has one of the most unique backgrounds in the world of finance today. How does one develop a background that includes senior level experience in investment banking, agriculture, and community banking? Think Lynn has some amazing perspectives on the economy and markets? Don’t miss him.

Additionally in light of the developments at Stanford Financial, we are very happy to have John Moynihan return to our show to discuss the dynamics in the world of offshore banking. Find out more than you could ever imagine by talking to these enlightened experts on LD’s Dollars and Sense on No Quarter Radio this Sunday evening from 8-9pm.

Aaaaaaaaaaaall Aboard!!

Via one of my favorite new Web sites, for the new PBS world news show, WorldFocus, which is now airing on many PBS stations instead of BBC World News. The WorldFocus site features bloggers’ reports and videos from around the world through its “Blogwatch” so that — besides the usual top experts on the news program — we also get to hear from “real people” just like you and me on what’s happening in their countries with the recession.

HERE’s one thing that strikes me every time I visit this site, or view videos of people fighting the recession in other countries! What WE DO IN THIS COUNTRY will have an enormous effect on the lives of people in all of these other countries! Instead of dithering about condoms, our Congress needs a tight, fit, robust stimulus package that will inject a rush of adrenalin into our economic system, because of the ripple effect around the world. We are no longer just U.S. citizens. We are also citizens of the world.

Based almost entirely on bloggers’ stories and videos, this report, “Competing global forums tackle the economy,” focuses on the two world forums going on, each with different agendas:

As several nations gather in Davos, Switzerland, for the 2009 World Economic Forum, others are meeting in Brazil for the World Social Forum.

Both forums will focus on the global economy, though the Davos conference centers around policy and the Brazil meeting looks at social need.

At the World Social Forum, Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa blamed the Davos attendees for the financial crisis, saying, “They are the ones responsible for the crisis. They are not the ones to give us lessons.” Other leaders called for an overhaul of global capitalism.

(I’m not indenting the rest of “Competing global forums tackle the economy,” for ease of reading.”)

THE VIDEOS BELOW ARE QUITE INTERESTING:

The “Musings” blog writes the World Social Forum in Brazil, and argues that people who strictly oppose market-based policies are being “disingenuous.”

“The Mormon Worker” blog also reports on the forum from Brazil, discussing talks on deforestation.

Blogger “Jim Stormes” describes the opening festivities, including an energetic and diverse march.

Watch a video from YouTube user OskarPCastro featuring presentations and gatherings at the World Social Forum:

Ian Bremmer writes in Harvard’s “Davos Diary” about the gloomy mood at Davos, while Jeff Jarvis at “BuzzMachine” writes, “The snow here is much thicker than the discussion.”

Blogger “Ángel Cabrera” writes that the conference in Davos could be an effective way to examine the financial crisis from multiple lenses.

The “Scobleizer” blog writes that the Davos conference could bring about change, but that discussions have not focused enough on small businesses.

Watch a video from the Davos conference’s YouTube page featuring world citizens’ responses to a question about the world’s economic future in 2009.