EFTA01132813.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bcc: [email protected] Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 10/27/2013 Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:26:07 +0000 Attachments: 13 Things_That_Define_the_New_American_Center_Esquire_Magazone_Editors_Novemb er —2013.docx; 3 —Charts Revealing_America's_Disappearing_Middie_Class_Wall_Street_CheatSheet_10 i8_2011.docx; eonservatives_Misunderstand_What_Went_Wrong_Under_Bush_The_Atlantic_October_17 ,_2013.docx; The U.S._Blows_Everyone_Else_Out_Of_The_Water_In_l_Key_Way_Hu ff_Post_10_17_ 2013.docx; Obamacare_Not The First_New_Program_To_Have_Launch_Problems_Arthur_Delany_H uff_Post 10_23-201f.docx; Most Wlmart tore_Workers_Didn't_Eam_$25,000_Last_Year_Dave_Jamieson_Huff_Pos t 10 -23 2013.5ocx; FRI§ON-ERS_OF_PROFIT_Chris Kirkham Huff_Post 10 22_2013.docx; PRISONERS_OF_PROFIT_Part_i Chris Kirkham_Htiff_Fost 10 23_2013.docx; Bank_of America_liablefor_Couniryvvid—e_mortgage_fraud_Nite:Raymond_Reuters_10_2 3 2013.ciocx; Eric Holder Finally_Gets Tough_On Banksionathan_Weil_Huff Post 10 25_2013.docx; JPMorgan_$31.28billioni_n_fnes_and other legal costs since 2009 Huff Post 10_24 2 013.docx; bordon:Lightfoot_bio.docx Inline-Images: image.png; image(1).png; image(2).png; image(3).png; image(4).png; image(5).png; image(6).png; image(7).png; image(8).png; image(9).png; image(10).png; image(11).png; image(12).png; image(13).png; image(14).png; image(15).png; image(16).png; image(17).png; image(18).png; image(19).png; image(20).png; image(21).png; image(22).png; image(23).png; image(24).png; image(25).png; image(26).png; image(27).png; image(28).png; image(29).png; image(30).png; image(31).png; image(32).png DEAR FRIEND Last weekend I had the pleasure of attending a wonderful party in Houston, Texas at the St. Regis Hotel celebrating the sixteenth birthday of Rachel and Tamara Coleman, twin daughters of my dear friends Mayada and Thomas Coleman. On the flight Saturday morning from Los Angeles to Houston I sat next to a young man who turned out to be Justin Nguyen, one of the biggest pop stars in Viet Nam. He was articulate, engaging and fun to talk with, so last Sunday I looked forward to meeting and speaking with my travel-mate on the return flight, who turned out to be a white man, fifty years older than Justin. And as most of you know, I am a political wonk so soon after the niceties of exchanging names, I asked my seat-mate, what did he think of President Obama. To which he immediately replied, "He is a disaster." To which I replied, "Why?" And his response, "is because he is a liberal and incompetent." I then ran- off a litany of the President's actions; expanded the troop surge in Afghanistan, kept Guantanamo Bay EFTA01132813 open, gave Wall Street a pass, went after Bin Laden, bombed Libya, etc. His response then was, "yeah, but he did Obamacare." I then reminded him that Obamacare was actually the brainchild of The Heritage Foundation, a highly regarded Conservative think-tank, which was then enacted by a Republican Governor in Massachusetts to huge success and lauded as the blue-print for the rest of American until President Obama embraced it instead of a single-payer national health plan that almost every other industrialized country in the world has, including Canada. And having suffered two strokes and unable to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, I was able to speak personally of the obvious benefits of Obamacare, to which he had not coherent response. I then asked my seat-mate, what else he disliked about our President. To which he replied, "He's done nothing except to make things worse." I then reminded him that on January 20, 2009, the day that President Obama assumed office, the country was experiencing a 750,000 a month in job-loss, the financial markets were in a free-fall, the major banks were on the verge of collapse, the housing market had tanked, the federal debt had ballooned from a $230 billion surplus to $1.1 trillion yearly deficit under the eight years of the Bush/Cheney Administration, the country was in two wars without an end and the country's international prestige was at an all-time low. And since then we have had 42 straight months of job growth, the federal yearly deficit has been cut by more than 25%, the housing market has turned around, banks are solvent, our major corporations are making more money than ever, we are no longer in the war in Iraq and by years-end the country will have wound down our military involvement in Afghanistan to a token assistance, the big-three American automakers have been saved and Bin Laden is dead, but most importantly, we have stayed out of wars in Libya, Syria and Iran, which Conservative hawks including Richard Pearle, John McCain would have wanted. My coup de gras was to then invoke Ronald Regan's re-election slogan, "are we better off now than we were four years ago." After that there was no need to beat this dead horse anymore.... To move the conversation along, I asked my seat companion after telling him that I would vote for Hillary in 2016, who would he support? He immediately answered Marco Rubio, the junior Senator from Florida who came to office in January 2011. To which I asked why? He replied, "Because he is a doer." To which I asked, "what has he done?" And when he could not come up with one single achievement, I knew that I was talking to a lost-soul, so I changed subjects. And then when he told me that Global Warming was a hoax perpetuated by liberals, I decided forget thinking of this guy as a lost-soul, because he is intellectually illiterate. The problem with that assessment is that my seat companion was a Yale educated Psychologist who has traveled extensively internationally and taught for more than thirty years at USC in Los Angeles before retiring several years ago. I am sharing this story because I am still at a loss to why someone who is highly educated dismisses the President and Democrats with the brush of incompetence and ignorance, without being able to articulate a rationale. And why someone with a PhD from one of American's foremost universities, still denies global warming (and I don't mean man-made global warming) but that the earth is getting warmer. When in a study released two months ago by a group of European, Australian and Canadian scientists who examined more than 17,00) accredited scientific papers concluded that without a doubt, the earth is warming at an alarming rate and within 20 to 3o years if this is not stopped or reversed the polar ice caps will have melted to the point that sea levels will rise by more than six feet and temperatures by four to seven degrees creating havoc on shorelines and low-lying island nations. We are living in a country where even many educated people are so in denial that they are stupid. We are living in a country where one political party says no to everything that the other party offers as a matter of course. We are living in a country where my 8o year old new-friend could justify opposition of Obamacare, but would not give up his own Medicare. We are living in a country where political EFTA01132814 leaders who shut down the government for sixteen days, causing untold pain for millions of Americans, as well as an estimated $24 billion and credibility around the world, felt comfortable saying, "wefought the goodfight." Bullshit We have to call these people out. We have to make them explain their ignorance and justify their intolerance. And yes, there is "your side, my side and the truth." But that doesn't mean that it is somewhere in the middle, since either side can be right, therefore like referees, umpires and judges, the media should call the plays for what they are, because balance reporting is only accurate when the facts are We have an increasingly dysfunctional culture in America and it isn't just in Washington And maybe we have to address it, one person at a time.... So the next time you are sitting next to a stranger on a plane, train or bus, engage them, because only through a exchange of opinions and ideas will we ever see the truth. The U.S. Blows Everyone Else Out Of The Water In 1 Key Way That one way? We're really, really good at creating really, really rich people -- like, $5o million-plus rich. Just ignore the fact that our 400 wealthiest people are worth more than the entire bottom half of the country combined. And now, the chart: igant 5 Ultra high net worth Individuals 2013: selected countries Souse: Rawo llta %led MOON Sinks. OW Suw GWal Walm Waft.* ;013 IWW Was Cam Cairn $WAM UMW KnrIcrn Japan Wren Kay Canada Alai° Pusan kid EPA ■ USD 50m - 100m Taiwan ■ USD 703m - 500 m SP/in USD 500m - 1 bn Turkey ■ >LISD1bn Kam Hag kcrog Swam 0 500D 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 45030 50000 (via Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report ****** 3 Common Breast Cancer Myths Debunked (That every Man or Women should know.) EFTA01132815 In the United States, October is celebrated as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Pink is the color used to symbolize this month, and by now, you've no doubt seen it everywhere: stores, labeled onto your favorite products, and even on the jerseys of pro football players. It's both a month-long national health campaign and reminder for women to be mindful of early detection. With so much ongoing research and coverage on the disease compared to other cancers, you'd think by now certain misconceptions would be thoroughly debunked. Yet, many myths remain that often lead people to assume something inaccurate about the disease, including these three myths: 1. Men don't get breast cancer While women are 100 times more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer, men are not exempt. Men have breast tissue too, and thus can still develop the disease. To put things in perspective, the lifetime risk of getting breast cancer is about 1 in 1,000 men. In 2013 alone, there will be an estimated 2,240 new cases of invasive breast cancer among men. However, because of the general lack of awareness about breast cancer risk in men, some individuals may delay visiting their doctor. As a result, men are often diagnosed when the disease is more advanced. 2. Ethnic groups have a higher risk of being diagnosed To clarify, there are actually several variations of this myth. The first variation is that Black and Latino women are diagnosed with the disease the most. In truth, white women are more likely to get diagnosed, while Black and Latino women are more likely to die from this disease. Conversely, there's the myth that Asian women don't have to worry about breast cancer altogether. While diagnoses for Asian women is the lowest for any ethnic group, the number of cases has increased 1.2% every year since 1988. To get even more specific, Japanese American women have the highest breast cancer rate, and the disease is the leading cause of death among Filipino women. Statistics do shed light on diagnoses rates among all groups, but taking the necessary health precautions is always important. 3. Young women don't have to worry about the disease Like myth number one, statistics help conclude that cases among young women are also considerably low. Breast cancer risk increases with age, and only one in eight invasive cancer diagnoses is found in women under 45. Yet, more young women who come forward to discuss their experience give this message loud and clear: no one is immune from the disease. Anything alarming should be spoken about with a physician, even if your age is atypical for certain conditions. There are many other myths that circulate around the disease, but these three are perhaps the most well-known. Breast Cancer Awareness Month is not simply about celebrating survivors and remembering who passed from the disease, but to also remind ourselves of the ongoing research and prevention efforts that need support today. While the celebration will round out by November 1 and the pink will be put away, what many survivors advocate can be applied year-round: live as healthy a lifestyle as possible, and learn to understand your body as each year passes. EFTA01132816 Much like Dwight Eisenhower speech concerning the Military Industrial Complex, this week Former defense secretary Gates warns against lure of drone warfare — that the seductive power and precision of armed drones had led many in the White House and Congress to view war as a "bloodless, painless and odorless" affair. "Remarkable advances in precision munitions, sensors, information and satellite technology and more can make us overly enamored with the ability of technology to transform the traditional laws and limits of war," Gates said in a speech to a group of current and former soldiers, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. "A button is pushed in Nevada and seconds later a pickup truck explodes in Kandahar." The former defense secretary, speaking at the Association of the U.S. Army's annual conference in Washington, suggested that the infatuation with technology had led some politicians and defense experts to believe that the military's budget can be cut deeply with little harm. He called on Republicans and Democrats to put aside partisan fighting to solve the budget crisis and reverse plans to reduce defense spending by almost $1 trillion over the next decade. Gates was especially harsh in his critique of the political climate, saying that "the biggest threat to U.S. national security is the political dysfunction within two square miles of Washington, D.C." "My hope — and it is a faint hope — is that the remaining adults in the two political parties will make the compromises necessary to put this country'sfinances back in order, end the sequestration of military dollars, and protect military capabilities that are as necessary today as they have been through the last century," he said. Gates's remarks were certain to be warmly received in the Army, which faces the deepest cuts of all the military services. Leaders in both Congress and the White House have spoken of the need to reduce ground troops and shift the focus to Asia, where air and sea power are thought to be more important. Too often, Gates said, U.S. defense experts have come to view war as a "kind of video game or action movie.... In reality, war is inevitably tragic, inefficient and uncertain." The former defense secretary also called on the military to hold on to the hard lessons it had learned during the long stretch of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially lessons involving how to fight low-tech, guerrilla wars. "It is too easy toforget that there are still tens of thousands of soldiers serving in Afghanistan; too easy toforget the tremendous sacrifices that led to the security progress of recent years," he said. What Gates didn't mention is that wars often lead to unintentional consequences and making military conflict, however framed, (i.e. going after terrorist, protecting civilians, helping friendly forces, saving democracy, etc.), often create untold misery on local populations, disabling regional balances of power and sometimes turns those are being saved into enemies. Although many took Eisenhower seriously in 1960, those in power didn't listen to the point that the United States has almost bankrupt itself financing a military whose budget is larger than the combined defense budgets of the next 13 countries and it hasn't made us any safer than Japan, Canada, Australia or Brazil. Hopefully the powers that be will listen to Gates Paraphrasing Malcolm X, in his famous December 4, 1963 speech often called "The Chickens Come Home To Roost", -- that the culture of malfeasance by the big banks has come back to them with major consequences. Much of this has been ignored because of the headline grabbing government shutdown, debt ceiling debacle and ongoing dysfunctionality in government . But this week, Bank of America Corp was found liable for fraud over defective mortgages sold by its Countrywide unit, a major win for the U.S. government in one of the few trials stemming from the financial crisis. After a EFTA01132817 four-week trial, a federal jury in New York found the bank liable on one civil fraud charge. Countrywide originated shoddy home loans in a process called "Hustle" and sold them to government mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government said. And any penalty would add to the more than $40 billion Bank of America has spent on disputes stemming from the 2008 financial crisis. Coupled with this is that JPMorgan, the nation's largest bank, was recently exposed to be liable for $31.28 billion in fines and other legal costs since 2009 as result of its illegal practices. JPMorgan spokesman points to the bank's regulatory filings, in which it periodically tells investors how much money it sets aside for legal costs. The bank earlier this month said it had $23 billion in reserves for such costs. The spokesman also pointed to CEO Jamie Dimon's annual letters to investors, in which Dimon discusses the pros and cons of being ginormous. The pros obviously include being able to digest $31 billion in legal costs with hardly any discomfort. If you get all your news from the financial press, you might have the mistaken idea that these legal costs are the petty punishments of a government that hates success and redistributes wealth. Jon Stewart on Wednesday documented the spectacle of Jim Cramer, Maria Bartiromo, Charlie Gasparino and other JPMorgan apologists in financial news rushing to the bank's defense. Another member of JPMorgan's PR team, America's cuddliest capitalist, Warren Buffett, has also moaned this week about the shoddy treatment of JPMorgan and its sainted CEO. As Stewart eloquently put it, "F*ck all }'all." It is obvious that JPMorgan is getting a sweet deal in paying only $13 billion (maybe $9 billion after tax breaks) to close the books on those alleged mortgage mis-sales, even if many of them were allegedly mis-sold by Bear Steams and Washington Mutual, which JPMorgan bought during the financial crisis. JPMorgan knew the risks it was taking when it bought those companies, and has made way more cash from them than it is paying in fines. And, yes, $30 billion is a lot of money. But that $3o billion is just the cost of doing business for JPMorgan, which has netted about $82 billion in profit since 2009. That figure includes the bank's $400 million loss in the third quarter, the one time the bank's legal headaches finally hurt its bottom line. The bank's stock price is near an all-time high, proving just how much damage these costs are doing -- by which we mean none. At the time when politicians in Washington are demanding that people be fired for the Affordable Healthcare website debacle, few are calling for the firing of JP Morgan's Chairman, Jamie Dimon. But as ProPublica's Jesse Eisinger points out, Dimon's job is probably safe. Nobody at the bank is calling for his head, and if Lloyd Blankfein can survive the whole "Vampire Squid" era at Goldman Sachs, then Dimon can probably survive this. Obviously, firing Dimon and others would send a useful message, but it will probably not keep the bank out of trouble. Because, when you've got a global outfit with $2.4 trillion in assets, populated by bankers incentivized to take risks and push regulatory envelopes t o keep turning profits, you're going to break rules. The bigger the bank, the more rules get broken. So the problem is not so much Dimon, but the fact that the bank is simply too big to fail and/or jail. A mere $3o billion in fines is plainly not enough to change the bank's course significantly. Getting it to admit wrongdoing, as the Securities and Exchange Commission has admirably done, won't change much, either. Prosecuting the bank for crimes might make a difference, but it is doubtful the Justice Department is going to take that risk. If there's a silver lining, it's that the $3o billion in legal costs, along with JPMorgan's sinking reputation, have at least pushed the bank to keep a closer eye on its bankers and their rule compliance -- at least for the moment, while we're all paying attention. The bank is also dumping some EFTA01132818 businesses, including commodities warehOuSing and private equity, partly to avoid niore regulatory stinkeye. That is helping keep it from getting any bigger, at the very least. So, there's that. But the good news is that Attorney General Eric Holder is finally getting tough on these too-big-to-fail banks. And that these Masters of Universe are mere mortals, whose culture of "greed is good" is as bogus as believing that these same captains of finance are job generators, when in truth many are greedy little bastards only interested in their own self-interest. I don't want to paint everyone on Wall Street with the same brush, because I believe that those who create or work hard should definitely be reward. But the fact that JP Morgan, BofA and the other financial intuitions who were caught perpetuating hundreds of thousands if not millions of illegal acts, and only a handful of people go to jail, is a travesty. To change this culture, we need to treat these organizations like prosecutors treat drug dealers and Mafia kingpins with RICO which would allow government seizure of the assets of individuals involved as well as the kingpins, thus making these titans on Wall Street think twice when they go into the gray areas of business. A big story like the recent government shutdown and debt ceiling debacle tends to push things that often matter off the front pages and TV. Here is just one that got almost no attention. A survey out last week showed that nearly half the students in the nation's public schools, 48% come fromfamilies so poor that they qualifyforfree or reduced priced meals. And even more disgraceful is that a majority ofstudents now gual(fyforfood subsidies in 17 states across the South and West. And echoing Bob Shaffer the moderator on CBS's FACE THE NATION, Sunday morning news program said last week, "I like to see our elected officialsfocus on how we canfix things like that Because I losing interest on who wins the partisan games." THIS WEEK's READINGS I love history, even though much of it is rewritten by the winners but occasionally you can see what works and what doesn't because history often repeats itself. Over the centuries we have seen that there is a tipping point when there is too much economic inequality, with people revolting over-throwing their leadership. Ask the royal families in Russia, France, China and the Middle East. You can also look at Ben Ali in Tunisia, Batista in Cuba and the Shah of Iran. And although I am starting this section by using economic inequality, this piece is actually about the Affordable Healthcare Act, aka, "0bamacare," which The Washington Post said last week, is now owned totally by Democrats as well as the President. And yes without a doubt the website problems that have plagued the roll-out of EFTA01132819 President Barack Obama's signature health care reform law, has become fodder for late night television comics and Republican talking heads, as my father use to say, "it doesn't matter where you start as long as you end well." Please feel free to view the video Web Link: http://www.huffingtopost.com/20 I 3/10/23/obamacare-problems_n_4148466.html As Arthur Delaney pointed out in The Huffington Post last week in his article — Obamacare Not The First New Program To Have Launch Problems - Big problems are not unusual for big, new programs. The technology involved may be different, but previous expansions of the safety net have all suffered glitches. Even Social Security, the first and arguably the most successful federal social program, faced serious challenges before the first monthly retirement checks went out in 1940. 'There was a lot of doubt about whether it was the right thing to do and whether they could do it," Edward Berkowitz, a history professor at George Washington University, said in an interview . "They somehow managed to solve the technical problem." It wasn't easy. After Congress passed the Social Security Act in 1935, a nascent Social Security Board faced a daunting task: enrolling 26 million industrial workers in less than a year, and another 2.5 million each year after that. One major problem: A lot of people had the same name. "There were, according to board calculations, hundreds of thousands of workers with the surnames Smith, Jones, Brown, Miller, and dozens of other common family names, all of whose records would have to be kept straight, their wage historiesfollowing them through all geographical and job moves," Nancy Altman, co-director of advocacy group Social Security Works, wrote in her 2005 book The Battle for Social Security. They had no computers, and no precedent for creating such a system. Board Chairman Arthur Altmeyer brought in management expert Harry Hoff, who studied the problem for months before delivering the sad news that it would not be possible. "He recommended that the board notify Congress that the government could not run the Social Security program, after all," Altman wrote. Meanwhile, Alf Landon, the Republican nominee for president in 1936, that year called the program a "cruel hoax" and a "fraud on the workingman" that could never live up to its own promises. The Social Security Board told Hoff to get back to work, and after several more months they devised a numerical system in which the first three digits of enrollees' identification numbers corresponded to their location. But how to reach the workers? he board turned to the postal system and its 45,00o offices around the country. "Letter carriers delivered applicationsfor numbers, helped peoplefill out the forms, answered questions about the program, returned theforms to typing centers where the cards could be produced, delivered the cards to the workers, and transmitted the applications of workers together with their newly-assigned Social Security numbers to [headquarters inJ Baltimore," Altman wrote. "By June 3o, 1937, the index of workers covered over an acre offloor space and contained what had now grown to about 30 million workers' names and numbers," Altman wrote. "It was so efficient, that, despite its size, a clerk could locate an individual's name and number literally in seconds." Though Social Security currently faces a financing shortfall that could lead policymakers to trim benefits, the Obama administration would be jubilant if health care reform left a similar legacy. Social Security's supporters today describe it as one of the most successful social programs in the world. The problems the administration is encountering in getting Obamacare off the ground are inherently different than what FDR encountered in the 1930s. Technologically, the construction of online exchanges is more complex. Moreover, the Affordable Care Act has a shorter lag time between when people sign up and eventually receive benefits -- just a few months. The bumpy rollout of the federal Supplemental Security Income program in the early 197os might be the closest parallel for what could go wrong with Obamacare. In 1974, officials estimated 7.2 million would be eligible for the new initiative, which absorbed state welfare programs. But by 1976, only 4.3 million had signed up. (Today the program covers 8.3 million.) EFTA01132820 The Social Security Administration had developed a new data acquisition system to transmit information about beneficiaries and claims between headquarters and various field offices. But officials said the system received more queries per day than expected. "Also, due to computer or powerfailures, the response system could not provide timely replies," the Government Accountability Office (then known as the General Accounting Office) said in a 1976 report. "This hindered district office employeesfrom completing their work promptly and imposed a longer wait on SSI applicants." Sound familiar? Berkowitz and fellow historian Larry DeWitt, who have co-authored a book on the SSI program, said in interviews that technology was key to the program's bad start. "It was a disaster," Berkowitz said. "Maybe one of the morals is that high-tech stuff canfail." Without a doubt, it appears that the Obamacare website roll-out has been a disaster but this can and will be fixed. But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The United States is the only industrialized country on the planet that doesn't have a national healthcare system or access to affordable healthcare for its citizens. It would be unthinkable for America to not offer free K through 12 education to every American. Hopefully one day the thought that every American might not have access to world-class healthcare will be unthinkable. And like Social Security, which started out without computers, using file cards, ledgers, tens of thousands of clerks and miles of filing cabinet which has grown into one of the most successful government programs ever, it is easy to see blue skies in the future of Obamacare. Summarizing this piece, I urge my fellow Democrats, as well as Republicans and Independents to do whatever they can to make access to affordable healthcare another example of American success. Last week I ran across an interesting article by Conor Friedersdorf, who is a staff writer at The Atlantic titled - Conservatives Misunderstand What Went Wrong Under Bush, because as he points out that you would swear from today's rhetoric that the problem was too much compromise, when the truth is actually the opposite. The Tea Party which is composed largely of Republicans, supported George W. Bush when he was the GOP standard-bearer, voting for him twice and criticizing him far less frequently than they defended him, only to rebel against his record at the end of his second term. At that point, partisan loyalty and shared hatred of liberals finally gave way to the realization that the GOP's time in power was a disaster for conservatives. EFTA01132821 Friedersdorf points out that humans seldom look inward when assigning blame for bygone disasters, and the story conservatives have settled on seems to be that establishment Republicans have long been selling them out by failing to fight hard enough. As a Fox News commentator put it, echoing talking points used by many hardliners, "I'm sure we will hear establishment apologists calling the events of recent days a compromise. But seeing how the president refused to compromise, it's more likely the Grand Old Party was the only one bending. Establishment Republicans always talk about doing the right thingfor the nation, no matter the price. But when push comes to shove, they always throw in the towel." What ought to be evident, when Tea Partiers reflect on what they disliked about the Bush years, is that neither insufficient fight nor excessive compromise was the problem. The Iraq War, the most disastrous, budget-busting initiative of the aughts, occurred when the GOP establishment fought for war and didn't give up. The K Street Project involved neither capitulation nor compromising with Democrats. And conservatives were pleased when the establishment "threw in the towel" on immigration reform and the Harriet Miers nomination. Many in the Tea Party seem to have conflated compromising one's principles, a bad thing, with negotiating to reach agreements that make both sides better off. The latter kind of compromise is the only way American government can function when power is divided. There is no logical reason that it should be regarded by conservatives as a dirty word—the Bush years weren't bad for conservatives because of negotiated deals that gave both sides some of what they wanted. Pretending that compromise is what went wrong during the Bush years helps conservatives evade responsibility for supporting an agenda many parts of which they find indefensible in hindsight. It permits them to blame Democrats and establishment Republicans for events they themselves only rebelled against after the fact, and to delude themselves into thinking that everything will get better if only they vehemently insist on getting their way, sans compromise, all of the time. Who wouldn't want to believe that's all success takes? It's a pretty lie that talk-radio hosts find it easy to tell over and over again, despite contrary evidence, because conservatives want to believe that it's true. Reality is much harder to face. In order to mount a comeback and wield influence in American politics, conservatives need to face their own flaws, negotiate savvy compromises with President Obama and Democrats, build credibility and momentum with small gains in the short term, persuade people of their ideas and governing vision in the medium term, and implement their agenda by winning elections rather than brinkmanship. But hard truths don't attract a large enough audience to sustain a radio show. 3 Charts Revealing America's Disappearing Middle Class The Great Recession technically ended more than four years ago after the U.S. gross domestic product rebounded from the trough of the credit meltdown. However, high unemployment, stagnant wages, and government policy continue to weigh on living standards and economic confidence. In its most recent reading, Gallup's Standard Living Index plunged 8 points over the past month to reach 31, the lowest level since January. The index is a summary of whether Americans are satisfied with their current standard of living and perceive it as getting better or worse. The sharp move lower came as Congress created another political soap opera involving the nation's debt ceiling and budget. In comparison, the index reached an all-time high of 45 in May. "The recent decline echoes sentiments seen in Americans' broader attitudes about the U.S. economy, although the magnitude in the decline in the Standard of Living Index is not as great,"Gallup said. "Gallup's Economic Confidence Indexfaltered during the run-up to the government shutdown in late September, and hasfallenfurther in October since the shutdown began,for a total decline of 24 points since mid-September." Here's a look at three charts from the Center for American Progress Action Fund detailing the slide in living standards for the middle class: EFTA01132822  $60.000 15 1 555,627 _Thr $55,000 IQ $51,017 $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 US. Census BlIreau:Table H-6. Regions by Median and Mean Incomeavailable at Mtp://wAvvixensus,uov/hhes/www/Incomeklalailusioncalihousehold/index.html. Median Household Income According to a recent report from the U.S. Census Bureau, millions of households are struggling in the wake of the financial crisis. Real median household income in 2O12 totaled $51,017, down slightly from $51,100 in 2O11. Incomes have been in a steady decline for the past five years, and remain 8.3 percent below 2007 levels, the year before the nation entered the worst financial downturn since the Great Depression. Between 2OO1 and 2007, incomes only grew by 1.6 percent. Lowest fifth Second fifth Third fifth Fourth fifth Highest fifth Top 5 percent 5.2% 2% -0.8% •1.2% -1.2% -12% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Table H-3. Mean Household income Received by Each Fifth and Top S Percent' available at Mtp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/datafhistoricalihouseholdfindex.htmL Income Gains Since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009, the majority of American households have seen their average annual incomes decline. The average incomes of the top 5 percent grew by 5.2 percent, but families in the middle class experienced a decline of 1.2 percent. EFTA01132823  55 53 51 49 47 45 fN 10 Q O 4N g ON ON r. ON to ou co co ot iN 4, 1 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, lable Shale of Aggiegate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Households.' available at httpiAmmv.censusgovihhesnwnoncome/datathIstoricalihouseholdilndex.html. Share of Income With stagnant incomes for many, but rising incomes for the wealthiest 5 percent, the share of national income earned by the middle 60 percent of households has been in a dear downtrend for decades. In 2012, the middle class received 45.7 percent of national income, down sharply from 53.2 percent in 1968. As Adam Grant wrote this week in The Huffmgton Post - Does Studying Economics Breed Greed? - He starts the article with Adam Smith's 1976 quote: "It is notfrom the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, butfrom their regard to their own interest." Economists have run with this insight for hundreds of years, and some experts think they've run a bit too far. Robert Frank, an economist at Cornell, believes that his profession is squashing cooperation and generosity. And he believes he has the evidence to prove it. Consider these data points: Less charitable giving: in the U.S., economics professors gave less money to charity than professors in other fields -- including history, philosophy, education, psychology, sociology, anthropology, literature, physics, chemistry, and biology. More than twice as many economics professors gave zero dollars to charity than professors from the other fields. More deception for personal gain: economics students in Germany were more likely than students from other majors to recommend an overpriced plumber when they were paid to do it. Greater acceptance of greed: Economics majors and students who had taken at least three economics courses were more likely than their peers to rate greed as "generally good," "correct," and "moral." EFTA01132824 Less concern for fairness: Students were given $10 and had to make a proposal about how to divide the money with a peer. If the peer accepted, they had a deal, but if the peer declined, both sides got nothing. On average, economics students proposed to keep 13 percent more money for themselves than students from other majors. In another experiment, students received money, and could either keep it or donate it to the common pool, where it would be multiplied and divided equally between all participants. On average, students contributed 49 percent of their money, but economics students contributed only 20 percent. When asked what a 'fair" contribution was, the non-economists were clear: too percent of them said "half or more" (a full 25 percent said "all"). The economists struggled with this question. Over a third of them refused to answer it or gave unintelligible responses. The researchers wrote that the "meaning of fairness'... was somewhat alienfor this group." But the truth could be that students who already believe in self-interest are drawn to economics. There is evidence for selection. In a study of over 28,000 students in Switzerland, 62 percent of economics students gave money at least once to help students in need, compared with 69 percent of non- economics students. These differences were already present before the students took a single economics course: students with lower giving rates were drawn to economics. As freshmen, before their first lectures, 71 percent of the students who chose economics contributed, compared with 75 percent of non-economists. But this doesn't rule out the possibility that studying economics pushes people further toward the selfish extreme. Along with directly learning about self-interest in the classroom, because selfish people are attracted to economics, students end up surrounded by people who believe in and act on the principle of self-interest. Extensive research shows that when people gather in groups, they develop even more extreme beliefs than where they started. Social psychologists call this group polarization. By spending time with like-minded people, economics students may become convinced that selfishness is widespread and rational -- or at least that giving is rare and foolish. To figure out whether economics education can shift people in the selfish direction, we need to track beliefs and behaviors over time -- or randomly assign them to economics exposure. Here's what the evidence shows: 1. Altruistic Values Drop Among Economics Majors At the very beginning of their freshman year, Israeli college students who planned to study economics rated helpfulness, honesty, loyalty, and responsibility as just as important as students who were studying communications, political science, and sociology. But third-year economics students rated these values as significantly less important than first-year economics students. 2. Economics Students Stay Selfish, Even Though Their Peers Become More Cooperative EFTA01132825 When faced with choices between cooperating and defecting, overall, 6o percent of economics majors defected, compared with only 39 percent of non-economics majors. For non-economists, 54 percent of freshmen and sophomores defected, while only 40 percent of juniors and seniors did. The economists, on the other hand, did not decrease in defection significantly over time. Roughly 70 percent defected across the board. Non-economists became less selfish as they matured; economists didn't. 3. After Taking Economics, Students Become More Selfish and Expect Worse of Others Frank and his colleagues studied college students in astronomy, economic game theory, and economic development classes. Self-interest was a fundamental assumption in the game theory class, but had little role in the economic development class. In all three classes, students answered questions about benefiting from a billing error where they received ten computers but only paid for nine and finding a lost envelope with Sm. They reported how likely they would be to report the billing error and return the envelope, and predicted the odds that other people would do the same. When the students answered these questions in September at the start of the semester, the estimates were similar across the three classes. When they answered the questions again in December at the end of the semester, Frank's team tracked how many students decreased their estimates. After taking the game theory course, students came to expect more selfish behavior from others, and they became less willing to report the error and return the envelope themselves. "The pernicious effects of the self- interest theory have been most disturbing," Frank writes in Passions Within Reason. "By encouraging us to expect the worst in others it brings out the worst in us: dreading the role of the chump, we are often loath to heed our nobler instincts." 4. Just Thinking about Economics Can Make Us Less Caring Exposure to economic words might be enough to inhibit compassion and concern for others, even among experienced executives. In one experiment, Andy Molinsky, Joshua Margolis, and I recruited presidents, CEOs, partners, VPs, directors, and managers who supervised an average of 140 employees. We randomly assigned them to unscramble 3o sentences, with either neutral phrases like [green tree was a] or economic words like [continues economy growing our]. Then, the executives wrote letters conveying bad news to an employee who was transferred to an undesirable city and disciplining a highly competent employee for being late to meetings because she lacked a car. Independent coders rated their letters for compassion. Executives who unscrambled sentences with economic words expressed significantly less compassion. There were two factors at play: empathy and unprofessionalism. After thinking about economics, executives felt less empathy -- and even when they did empathize, they worried that expressing concern and offering help would be inappropriate. Changing Economics and Business Education EFTA01132826 As a business school professor, these effects worry me. Economics is taught widely in business schools, providing a foundation for courses in management, finance, and accounting. Business is now the most popular undergraduate major in the U.S., and ifs growing in market share. From 1997-1998 to 2007- 2008, the number of bachelor's degrees conferred in the U.S. grew by 32 percent. In the same time period, the number of business degrees grew by roughly 45 percent. It's true at the graduate level, too: business degrees are right behind education as the most common graduate degrees conferred in the U.S. Business economics may be more devastating than other brands. When comparing students in political economics and business economics, economists found that "the willingness to contribute decreases dramatically for business students." This may be why the late Stanford professor Hal Leavitt lamented that business education distorts students into "critters with lopsided brains, icy hearts, and shrunken souls." If economics can discourage prosocial behavior, what should we do about it? I'm not suggesting that we stop teaching economics. An understanding of economics has vital importance to individuals and society. Instead, I recommend three steps for reducing the odds that economics will corrupt students: (a) Require economics majors to take courses in behavioral economics, which consid