R Stands for "Rich" and "Republican"

I've got a minor, yet essential, project to finish up, so this is probably going to be a short one, heavy on quotes. Some things just can't be put off, I guess... And then, some things can:

Huffington Post:

The House of Representatives on Thursday voted down a measure that would have reauthorized extended unemployment insurance for another three months, leaving no clear path forward to prevent the benefits from lapsing as scheduled on Nov. 30.

Without a reauthorization, the Labor Department estimates that two million long-term unemployed will prematurely stop receiving benefits before the end of the year.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Sarah Palin, Queen of Spades

An interesting set of statistics and analysis from Mark Gersh for CBS News:

Fresh off a major shift in power in the House, we might expect another volatile congressional election in 2012.

Here's why: this year, 25 races were decided by 3 percent or less in the major-party vote share (13 Democratic and 12 Republican) pending recounts and final vote totals. Another 30 were decided by three percent - eight percent (18 Democratic and 17 Republican). Forty-two more races were decided by just 8 percent - 12 percent (25 Democratic and 17 Republican).

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Let the GOP Infighting Begin

The internal battle over earmarks in the GOP seems to be all but over. Republicans have decided to unilaterally disarm. There are still a few holdouts, but with Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell caving on the issue, things are swinging the anti-earmark way. As a purple state resident, I see (a selfish) reason to cheer here. See, the bluer the state, the more money it pays to the feds in tax money. And the redder the state, the more money it takes out. I've written about it before; "In terms of federal taxes spent in their states, Mississippi gets 202% of every dollar they pay, West Virginia get 176%, Arkansas gets 141%, South Carolina gets 135%, and Kentucky gets 151%. The only state in the five wealthiest that receives more than they pay out is Maryland, at 130%." If you ban earmarks, then red states are going to see a lot less money heading their way and they're going to have to start living in the real world, where their screwy economic flateartherism is no longer subsidized by states with wiser policies. Have fun with that, guys. Enjoy funding your own projects with happy thoughts and good intentions.

Meanwhile, earmarks don't mean crap to the deficit. Earmarks make up less that 2% of federal spending, so eliminating them solves almost nothing. I hate to say it, but Mitch McConnell was right; banning earmarks is dumb -- especially for Republicans. Sure, projects like the "bridge to nowhere" are wasteful, but don't blame the process, blame the corrupt congress members gaming the process. Like a balanced budget amendment, this is a "stop us before we spend again!" measure. It's like putting the blame for running a red light on the lack of one of those railroad crossing gates at the intersection.

But hey, it's a free country. If they want to exercise their Second Amendment rights by shooting themselves in the foot, I'm not very interested in stopping them. As I said, it works out great for me. I should be seeing more Wisconsin tax money coming back to Wisconsin, for a change. States like Mississippi or Kentucky, you're on your own. The free ride is apparently over. Make sure to thank your various elected officials for that.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Private Contractors Failing Just as Spectacularly in Afghanistan

Let's talk about how superior the private sector is to the public sector for a bit. We're going to hear a lot from Republicans about how government is evil and corrupt and incompetent, and how the private sector is the only entity that can really get things done -- and does it cheaper. The first problem here is that the math doesn't work at all. Let's say a project will cost X when all is said and done. You look at materials, labor, equipment you may need, gas, etc. and that's what you wind up with. A private contractor would need X + profit to get the job done. Government can do it for X, because it doesn't have to turn a profit. Last time I checked, X + anything is more than just X, so the idea that a private company can do the same thing for less doesn't really pan out, arithmetically. The only way you can pull this off is to subtract from X -- and that means skimping on something somewhere and winding up with a cheap piece of crap. Doubt it? Then explain why military personnel were being electrocuted in showers in Iraq or why they were served rotten meat.

In 2006, Business Week reported, "The losses to fraud and waste in Iraq are almost certainly in the billions, current and former government officials agree. The Special IG for Iraq Reconstruction says it has more than 80 open investigations and has referred 20 more cases to the Justice Dept. for prosecution. A spokesman for the criminal investigative arm of the Defense Dept. says that office expects a 'rise in referrals of potential fraud or corruption cases' because of the recent deployment to Iraq of additional Pentagon investigators and FBI agents."

Billions in waste and fraud, often covered by unfinished and unusable projects, doesn't really strike me as big savings. It strikes me as waste and fraud. The military used to do a lot of this stuff themselves -- do we really need to outsource mess halls and laundry duty, for example? -- but now it has, for reasons nobody seems to be very good at explaining, become completely impossible. The military can fire a long range missile straight down the chimney of some terrorist hide out with pin-point accuracy, but they couldn't possibly cook a damned hamburger.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Lame Duck Day

Only in Madison, Wisconsin... More than once, the Statue of Liberty has appeared to be frozen in the ice of Lake Mendota, like a scene from some Japanese snow monkey version of Planet of the Apes. For years, people visiting the Capitol would drive past a giant fiberglass fish, sitting atop a two-story secondhand store called "The Buy-Sell Shop," just three blocks away. That space is now an entertainment complex housing a bar, a bar, and -- I'm pretty sure -- a bar. And one year, then-Mayor Paul Soglin showed up to a City Council meeting wearing a duck costume, complete with crutches and a prop cast on his leg, to acknowledge his status as a lame duck. It's a weird place.

Likewise, Washington DC is a weird place. Unfortunately, not in a good way -- at least, not the government part of it. Don't expect Nancy Pelosi to wear the lame duck suit anytime soon. And, let's face it, that's probably a good thing. If Republican leadership are anything, they're serious, serious people -- or, at least, serious acting people. Like funeral directors, they only seem to frown. Somehow, they'd turn a display of self-depreciating humor into an act of anti-American mockery that only helps the terrorists. This lame duck session is going to be no fun. And all that no fun starts today.

If history is any guide, we may not see much happen during this period of waiting, unless it absolutely has to happen. And even then, it may not. If Republicans are serious about a shutdown of government, it'll happen before December 2, when a spending authorization bill must be passed. If they're somewhat less serious, they'll negotiate a stopgap spending measure that will fund government at least until the new House majority is sworn in. Or, of course, there's also the possibility -- slim though it may be -- that they'll be more reasonable in victory than they have been in defeat and help pass an honest-to-goodness spending measure. We'll see. But it won't be very long before we see if they unfurl their "No Compromise!" banner or whether all that talk of being unyielding jerks about everything was just red meat for the chumps. Here's hoping it was the latter.

CONTINUE TO POST>>