Future Failure

Not sure what's going to happen, either with the supreme court [monster] nominee nor with elections this fall, but I do know that, if Democrats gain power in the house and senate, and they don't impeach Kavanaugh (assuming he'll still be confirmed), then they will have failed miserably.  They won't likely have the votes to remove him, but if they allow that horrible human to get a free pass (again, assuming he's confirmed) then it is going to further erode what trust Americans (particularly women) still have that there is anyone in Washington that actually gives a damn about them.

Programs to Help "The Poor"

I really do understand why Atrios (and his commentators) is bagging on the piece linked in his posts (one post here, the other linked in that post, and the piece referenced also linked in both).  I agree, the best aid for poor people is to just give them money.  Attaching strings and playing games about their goals and making them jump through hoops is all counterproductive, and both makes the program more complicated (and expensive, and bureaucratic) while also meaning fewer people get (as much of) the aid they need.

But the catch is that the programs are for "The Poor," and therein lies a problem.  If you have a program that is expressly for poor people the first thing you have to do is verify that they are, in fact, poor, and not just someone with low income that is sitting on piles of [cash, property, gold], and at some point you can't actually figure that out.  If someone scrimps and saves and keeps all their money in cash in garbage bags but never opens a bank account to deposit it and doesn't buy easy to track things like property, they could well have plenty of money and just lie about it and it may be impossible to find out otherwise.  I know that is a rare case, but it is one that no one (neither rich, nor poor) wants to have happen.  Making it more difficult to get access to the benefits is one way to keep people who don't really need the aid from even trying (not a good one and I don't endorse it).

I recognize that that the best real solution to that problem is: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.  So a few undeserving people get a bit of extra cash.  It isn't the end of the world, and it's not common enough to be a problem that we should make it insanely difficult for deserving people to get that money.

In the real world, however, people get more pissed off by people getting something they don't deserve than they do about the inverse, and while we can't (mostly because politicians won't) do anything about bankster bonuses and corporate vultures, we can make sure that someone with $10k in savings doesn't get food stamps, or that, if they do, they have to buy beans and rice, because if they were really hungry they wouldn't be wasting their money on shrimp (note: beef is acceptable because cattle ranchers told congress so)!

The solution is actually pretty simple: make the cash giveaway program for everyone (yes, this is secretly a universal basic income post).  If everyone (18 and over who files a tax return) gets $15k/year from the government then you don't have to worry about whether or not anyone deserves it.  Yes, you need to increase taxes to do this (quite a bit, that's a nearly $5T plan).

We're not going to do that, though, so we're stuck with a situation where our poverty amelioration programs are all directed at "The Poor" and that means every one of them is going to have some extra, stupid crap associated with it to make sure that the recipients are "legitimately" poor.

Elizabeth Warren is Awesome!

They were talking on the radio about the Wells Fargo CEO taking "responsibility" which, I thought, was odd, since, he still has the job, and all the money he's earned, and will continue to make lots of money and get a big bonus.  I'm not sure what kind of "responsibility" he is taking other than saying the words.  So Sen. Warren tore into him and I feel (somewhat) better about things.

Yes, Republicans Are Bad For Science

I know a lot of scientists who think politics is beneath them, or that politicians are all the same or some such.  It's just not true.  Demorcrats, when they have been in charge do not engage in witch hunts against scientists.  Republicans do.  Democrats do not try and hobble research institutions and federal funding agencies.  Republicans do.  These things are not the same and any scientist who either "forgets" to vote or who votes for any Republican is doing harm to science.  Full stop.

Elizabeth Warren is Awesome

I'm not really sure it's anti-government left so much as anti-establishment left, as she--and her supporters--is a very big supporter of government (to regulate, equalize, level the playing field...).  She just thinks it's currently broken.

Transit Woes

I lived in Chicago for a couple years and I thought the Chicago Card used for transit was fucking brilliant.  It was my model for how transit should be done.  I mentioned it to friends and family, I probably mentioned it on this mess of a blog a time or two.  It worked well, it was inexpensive to catch rides, encouraging more ridership, and it just made sense.  Apparently, that is no more.  And why this change from a good, functioning, efficient system:

...under the old system, rich investors didn’t get a piece of the action. Under this one, they most decidedly do.

Ah, yes: privatization makes things better dontcha know?

Debt Itself Isn't an Evil

I think a lot of the austerity push is done by people who see debt and deficits as evils in and of themselves, so wile it's nice to see papers that point out how bad austerity is, I doubt they will be considered compelling to the people who push for austerity.

My confusion is really with the bizarre notion of debt as bad being held so broadly by people in finance who pretty much require debt to survive (where do you think bank profits [traditionally] come from?).  So many of these people actually believe in debt as a beneficial force in economies...just not from governments.  But that is the worst part of it.  If you had $1M and you wanted to loan that to someone to be paid back with interest you have a lot of options: banks, businesses, individuals, and governments.  Only one of those has a near zero probability of collapse: any of the first 3 could declare bankruptcy and you'd be out some or all of your investment.  The government...not so much, and frankly, if it does (particularly if it is your own/the US) then you probably have more to worry about than loss of your money, like reavers.  (Yes, a Firefly reference.)

Assholes

There really is no other word for congressional [Tea Party] Republicans right now:

At the National Institutes of Health, nearly three-quarters of the staff was furloughed. One result: director Francis Collins said about 200 patients who otherwise would be admitted to the NIH Clinical Center into clinical trials each week will be turned away. This includes about 30 children, most of them cancer patients, he said.

Digby responded as politely as is humanly possible.