EFTA01184165.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bcc: [email protected] Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 2/1/2015 Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 09:30:04 +0000 Attachments: ost_01.12.2015.docx; Bill_Moyers'sjoumalismiegacy_Katrint=?WINDOWS-1252?Q? _vanden_Heuvel=5FTWP=5FJanuary_13,2015.docx?=; Obamacare_Has_Reversed_A_Negative_Trend._Researchers_Call_ICRemarkable_Tara_C ulp-Ressler_ThinkProgress_01.15.2015.docx; 2014 Was The Hottest Year Since At Least 1880 James Gerken Huff Post 01.16.2015 .docx; What's_So_Bad About_Cheap_Oil_Gretchen_Morgenson_NfT OC17.2515.docx; State_Of The_Unionfanuary_20,_2015.docx; 2Pac_Shakur bio.docx; Election_victory_by_Syriza_puts_country_on_collision_course_with_intemational_creditors _Al_Jareera_01.26.2015.docx; Koch_brothers_set_$889_million_budgetfor 2016_Fredreka_Schouten_USA_Today_01.27 .2015.docx Inline-Images: image.png; image(I).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(I3).png; image(I4).png; image(I5).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 DEAR FRIEND OUTRAGEOUS The Kochs to spend $889 million on the 2016 Election Cycle EFTA01184165  Inline image 1 The Koch brothers' operation intends to spend $889 million in the run-up to the 2016 elections — a historic sum that in many ways would mark Charles and David Koch and their fellow conservative megadonors as more powerful than the official Republican Party. The figure, which more than doubles the total amount spent by the Republican National Committee during the last presidential election cycle, prompted cheers from some in the GOP who are looking for all the help they can get headed into a potentially tough 2016 election landscape. What Do the Koch Brothers Want? According to Forbes Magazine, the Koch brothers are now worth $8o billion, and have increased their wealth by $12 billion since last year alone. For the Koch brothers, $8o billion in wealth, apparently, is not good enough. Owning the second largest private company in America is, apparently, not good enough. It doesn't appear that they will be satisfied until they are able to control the entire political process from the Presidency on down. Let's be honest people don't spend almost one billion dollars without expecting. In 1980, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in 1980. Let's take a look at the 1980 Libertarian Party platform. Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980: • "We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission." • "We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs." • "We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services." • "We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry." • "We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary." • "We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service." EFTA01184166 • "We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes." • "We support the eventual repeal of all taxation." • "As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately." • "We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws." • "We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended." • "We condemn compulsory education laws ... and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws." • "We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit." • "We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency." • "We support abolition of the Department of Energy." • "We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation." • "We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system." • "We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets." • "We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration." • "We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration." • "We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children." • "We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and 'aid to the poor' programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals." • "We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households." • "We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act." • "We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission." • "We support the repeal of all state usury laws." EFTA01184167 In other words, the agenda of the Koch brothers is not only to defund Obamacare. The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 8o years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country. It is clear that the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires are calling the shots and are pulling the strings of the Republican Party. And because of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, they now have the power to spend an unlimited amount of money to buy the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the next President of the United States. If they are allowed to hijack the American political process to defund Obamacare they will be back for more. Tomorrow it will be Social Security, ending Medicare as we know it, repealing the minimum wage. It seems to me that the Koch brothers will not be content until they get everything they believe they are entitled to. We can't allow our country to be hijacked by anyone right or left. And for the sake of our children and grandchildren, for the sake of our economy, we have to make sure that the Kochs and they moneyed interests fail. ****** How Did Applying For College Become Such A Nightmare? 1 issA\iikkaarta=zill As someone who is currently witnessing the nightmare of a seventeen year old high school senior applying to colleges I was drawn to Amanda Scherker's article — How Did Applying For College Become Such A Nightmare? - in the Huffmgton Post. I remember back in the 196os when applying to a college was relatively low-key. And as someone who attended both Hunter College and New York University and was offered the opportunity to study at UMass in Amherst and Cal Arts in Southern California even though I didn't have a high diploma, I can assure you that the process was not the painstakingly brutal one that it is today. It use to not be this way. And if you were rich getting into college was often a call to the right person. And even if you weren't rich the process was still fairly simple and often you only felt the need to apply to one or two colleges. However today, I see upper- middle-class kids with good grades applying eight, ten and twelve colleges and stressing that they EFTA01184168 might only get into their safety-net schools. How did getting into college become more difficult than opening night as Studio 54? Because if you were an 18-year-old in the 1800s, getting into college was as easy as streaming "Orange Is The New Black" on Netflix today. In The Atlantic, Julia Ryans describes the process of getting into schools like Tufts University. She explains that in the 19th century, if you could afford the $200 down payment (about $5,000 by today's standards) and had graduated from a top high school, you would have been accepted. At worst, you had to take a entrance exam. If you passed, you were in. If you didn't attend an elite high school, no worries: Ryan says that all you would have to do is take a pretty simple entrance exam, pay the down payment and show "good moral character." And at most universities, the process remained fairly simple through the first decades of the loth century. Here's a sample application from Elon College from 1922, found by an archivist at the college who posted on Reddit: Is LInline image 2 A five dollar down payment, and you were already reserving a dorm room! As John Thelin, University of Kentucky professor and author of "A History ofHigher Education"tells The Chronicle, 'Most colleges would essentially admit any applicant who could reasonably do the work, especially if they could pay." The admissions process began to change when "undesirable" students started passing those entrance exams. College officials at Harvard, Yale and Princeton in the early '20s were shocked as immigrants, particularly Jews, started making up larger and larger proportions of their student body, according to Jerome ICarabel's book, "The Chosen." Some administrators even referred to the trend as the "Jewish invasion," according to NYU professor Harold Weschler. One Harvard president wanted to impose a quota on Jewish students -- but instead, schools found more subtle ways to handpick their student bodies. Over the next decades, elite college admissions redefined "merit" to include subjective personal qualities. Karabel says that throughout the '20s, "An entirely new system of admissions was invented, with emphasis on such things as character, leadership, personality, alumni parentage, athletic ability, geographical diversity. They started,for thefirst time, to do interviews." According to Karabel, the purpose of these policies was to subtly reduce the number of minority students. Over the next few decades, colleges stared emphasizing "subjective character," that was determined from interviews with applicants. These interviews screened students for qualities like being well- dressed, well-spoken and generally likable. In his book, Karabel describes how these standards favored wealthy students. These standards for applicants maintained college as a place for the wealthy elite, typically white man. EFTA01184169  Total Ivy League material In the '5os, applicants who exuded "manliness" were favored. According to Karabel, one student, described as academically "mediocre," was admitted because "we just thought he was more of a guy." Karabel says the "manliness" quota purposely excluded applicants who were suspected to be gay. Sometimes, admission details were comically superficial. Karabel says that he found notes on one rejected student that read, "Short with big ears." But as the social movements of the '6os and '7os transformed America, colleges finally started recruiting more diverse student bodies. Karabel tells Bloomberg that the brave activism, and the social turbulence, of the Civil Rights Movement pressured colleges to admit more diverse student bodies. For example, from 1968 to 1969, Karabel says, the number of black students at Ivy League colleges doubled. Many schools started using affirmative action to reverse the racial biases that had always dominated American colleges. Over the next few decades, the population of college students soared: Figure 1. College Enrollment 1870 to 1991 Mtlllens Total 13 12 11 10 9 8 female 7 Male 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1880 1903 1920 1940 1960 1980 1991 Year en0ing Soutar U.S. Census eata co - •120 verso' A-nercai EL xat cr: A Sits:ca.:tetra t. ,sge 65,11gwe 14. EFTA01184170 The number of coveted "Ivy League" schools stayed the same, schools just had more applicants to chose from. To make the application process easier, 15 private colleges started using the Common App in 1975. Hundreds of schools would adopt the Common App over the next few decades. The Common App kept many of the "subjective" ideals of the past, like leadership positions and personality — but these factors were used to make colleges more inclusive to a wide variety of students. Thanks to increased government financial aid, more students than ever were able to go to college. Growing media frenzy surrounding top colleges only made them more competitive. U.S. News & World Report released the first "Best Colleges" rankings in 1983. Colleges with high rankings became even more competitive: By the late '80s, elite schools were rejecting students with perfect GPAs and test scores in the 98 percentile. As more students gained access to college, schools had to sift through many more applications -- and students had to do more to stand out. Some schools started using "quirkier" questions to attract their ideal student personality. In the '8os, the University of Pennsylvania popularized this approach with a prompt that offered the hypothetical: "You have just completed your 300-page autobiography. Please submit Page 217." Other colleges followed suit, most famously, the University of Chicago, which in 2002, asked "How do you feel about Wednesday?" Today, college admissions are more diverse and more competitive than ever. More students are applying to more schools than ever before, thanks in large part to the convenience of online admissions, but more importantly because a four year degree is often a requirement for most non- menial entry level jobs. As a result, a whole industry has cropped up to help students battle the competition, including the multimillion dollar test prep industry which fees can often exceed $5000. And while colleges are more diverse than ever before, the intense requirements to be admitted still puts some students at a major advantage. As a result, students from wealthy backgrounds are far more likely to get into a top college. While our media culture remains obsessed with the "Ivy League," getting in is more of a crapshoot than ever before. But remember: you can become a major league success --without going to an Ivy League school. And as I try to explain to my own children and those of my friends a college education and degree is essential if they hope to prosper and live as well as their parents. What's So Bad About Cheap Oil? EFTA01184171  Inline image 1 Pumping oil near Ms, MI. M., in March 2013. Low oilprices ore bad news for boomrowns like Willision bur could lea windfallfor the overall American economy. I was taken aback recently when I read the heading of an article in the New York Times by Gretchen Morgenson - What's So Bad About Cheap Oil? - When the obvious answer is NOTHING Because the sharp drop in oil prices is benefiting American consumers, many of the nation's businesses and the economy as a whole. So as Morgenson asks, why are stock market investors behaving as though oil under $50 a barrel and gasoline prices hovering around $2 a gallon are bad news? We understand that the overall market's recent decline reflects more than just the free fall in oil prices, as overseas economies are struggling; last week, the World Bank cut its forecast for global growth to 3 percent from 3.4 percent. But fears about losses emanating from a devastated oil patch have weighed heavily on broad stock indexes, investment strategists say. This response appears to be a case of investors seizing on the industry's highly visible losers while ignoring the far larger number of winners. 'The stock market has reacted negatively, and some of that comes down to thefact that you can see what the impact is on large energyfirms,"said Paul Ashworth, chief North American economist at Capital Economics in Toronto. "It's harder initially to see the positive impact that spreads around the rest of the economy. The big benefit to consumers is not as noticeable." Since the beginning of 2015, the broad market averages have lost roughly 2 percent of their value. The collapse in oil company shares, of course, has been far greater. The Standard & Poor's index of 80 oil and gaexploration companies is down 11.14 percent in 2015 and 35.4 percent over the last 52 weeks. The index of six large oil services companies has fallen 5.2 percent so far this year, and 12.4 percent over the last year. Both indexes reflect the undeniable pain that oil and gas producers, their investors, suppliers, service providers, workers and lenders are going to feel. Layoff announcements, disclosures of capital spending cuts and falling rig counts are all highly visible to investors. So are anecdotal tales of woe from former boomtowns in North Dakota. Less conspicuous, however, are the winners in a world of cheaper oil, economists say. The good news is, they far outnumber the losers. David R. Kotok, chief investment officer at Cumberland Advisors in Sarasota, Fla., estimates that the economic output among oil companies and related businesses could decline by as much as $15o billion this year because of the oil price collapse. But an increase of about $400 billion is expected in other areas of the economy, he said. The net effect is double the annual value of the two percentage point payroll tax cut in 2011 and 2012, which provided a big increase to consumer spending. "The market's first reaction to almost any shock is not to like it because it raises the uncertainty premium," Mr. EFTA01184172 Kotok said. "Meanwhile, the beneficial effects happen over a longer period, when the change is perceived and anticipated to become more permanent. The difference between temporary and permanent may explain the behavior of the markets here." Morgenson's article suggest that investors are operating in an information vacuum: They don't yet have clarity on the full effects of under-$50 oil. News items about companies mothballing projects that are no longer economically viable have been common: Last week, for example, Royal Dutch Shell canceled a $6.5 billion petrochemical plant deal it struck with Qatar Petroleum in 2011. Still, few of the major oil companies — which must plan over a long time horizon, building in expectations that prices will eventually rebound — have disclosed their spending plans for 2015. One that has, ConocoPhillips, says it plans to invest $13.5 billion, a 20 percent drop from 2014. Much of that decline resulted from lower expenditures on unconventional energy projects, the company said. Another wild card in assessing the impact of the oil decline is the shale oil industry. Because the economics of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are not the same as those of traditional wells, it is unclear how investment and production in this industry will be affected by the price decline. Andrew Hunter at Capital Economics in London noted in an analysis last week that many shale projects had short-term variable operating costs as low as $20 a barrel. Production in such projects won't necessarily be stopped just because oil prices have fallen to $45 a barrel, he concluded. Of course, a sizable reduction in the industry's capital spending and the number of workers it employs is certainly coming. Total employment in the oil industry — including oil and gas extraction and support services — averaged 528,000 in 2014, according to Rigzone, an industry data provider. "My guess is that in 2014, energy companies spent over $200 billion, mostly on structures but also on equipment," said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. He now expects that figure to fall by half or more. That's not pocket change, but capital spending cuts will be small when set against the overall $17 trillion size of our economy. And even if the industry lost half its jobs — which it won't — that would be equivalent to less than a single month's gain for the overall economy, which added about 275,000 jobs a month last year. "That completely dwarfs any hits in the oil business, capital spending and oil services business," Mr. Shepherdson said. But it seems that investors also seem to be ignoring the benefits of lower-cost oil to small businesses. In December, as the oil price was dropping, the National Federation of Independent Business's optimism index returned to its prerecession average and rose to the highest point since October 2006. Owners of these businesses say they are increasing their capital expenditures this year. The .'s most recent quarterly survey showed capital spending among these businesses rising to a seven-year high. This, too, will help offset the drop in oil and gas expenditures. The overall economic benefits of the collapse in oil prices are significant, Mr. Shepherdson said. He The reality is that the oil business and everything to do with it is a very small share of the economy, most likely less than 5% of the GDP, so paraphrasing Morgenson again, why isn't the other 95% of the economy is saying, 'Thank you very much,' because the overall economic benefits of the collapse in oil prices are significant, especially when economist are predicting that it could add almost one percentage point to real gross domestic product growth in the United States this year. In an economy trending at 2.25 percent annual growth, that's a sizable gain. EFTA01184173 U.S. Standard of Living Index Climbs to Highest in 7 Years The Trend Line: U.S. Economic and Standard of Living Indexes Reach New Highs. Web site: htica/youtu.be/JyTY6OztfQI Story Highlights • Index reaches new high of +50 • Record 8196 ofAmericans satisfied with standard of living • Sixty-one percent say standard of living is "getting better" WASHINGTON, ii. -- Gallup's Standard of Living Index reached a new high of +50 in December, the best score found in seven years of tracking the index. Americans' improved perspective on their personal standard of living comes as they spend more money and begin to view the national economy positively. EFTA01184174  Gallup U.S. Standard of Living Index, Monthly Averages Right now, do you feel your standard of living is getting better or getting worse? Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your standard of living, all the things you can buy and do? 6o 50 47 50 43 41. Q0 36 34 35 36 29 L 31 27 30 34 20 26 28 25 10 14 0 Jan '08 Jan '09 Jan 'to Jan 'it Jan '12 Jan '13 Jan '14 Gallup Daily tracking The Standard of Living Index is based on a composite of the two questions. GALLUP' The index has labored through a long recovery from its recession-era slump, with lows of +14 in both October and November of 2008, when the global economic crisis erupted. But the latest ratings exceed even pre-crisis levels in 2008, illustrating a remarkable turnaround in how Americans view their standard of living. The year 2014 started off with better standard of living readings than practically all other monthly readings before, with a +41 in January and February. From March to November, it improved further, but remained in a narrow range of +44 to +47. The +5o rating for December brings the index to an unprecedented level in its seven-year trend. Gallup's Standard of Living Index is a composite of Americans' responses to two questions: one asking whether they are satisfied with their current standard of living, and the other asking whether their standard of living is getting better or worse. The index has a theoretical maximum of 100 (if all respondents say they are satisfied with their standard of living and say it is getting better) and a theoretical minimum of -100 (if all respondents are dissatisfied with their standard of living and say it is getting worse). The current score of +5o indicates Americans are quite positive about their standard of living, but even at its lows in the fall of 2008, Americans evaluated their standard of living positively overall. Both dimensions of the index have improved by roughly five points over the past year - however, since the nadir of these perceptions in 2008, people's outlook for their standard of living going forward has improved much more than their current satisfaction with it. Four in Five Americans Satisfied with Their Current Standard of Living A consistent majority of Americans have expressed satisfaction with their standard of living over the past seven years, ranging from 69% in late 2008 to 81% today. However, after fluctuating in an even EFTA01184175 narrower seven-point range from 2009 through 2013, it rose from 76% at the end of 2013 to 81% at the end of 2014. Americans' Satisfaction With Their Current Standard of Living Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your standard of living, all the things you can buy and do? Satisfied 90 81 So 77 75 6o 50 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 GALLUP' While Americans are becoming more satisfied with their current standard of living, they are also becoming more optimistic about its future. Sixty-one percent of Americans now say their standard of living is "getting better" -- a new high, and nearly twice the level it was at its low of 33% in October 2008. Less than a quarter of Americans (23%) say their standard of living is "getting worse." Americans' Future Expectationsfor Their Standard of Living Right now, do you feel your standard of living is getting better or getting worse? Getting better El Getting worse 70 52 50 \ 47 43 4 50 4 3 4 48 i 40 30 0 v 33 35 38 35 33 38 33 32 30 31 29 26 2 -6%-s• 20 23 10 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 GALLUP' Bottom Line Though most Americans' personal financial situation probably doesn't change dramatically from one year to the next, an improving economy and soaring stock market likely help them feel better about EFTA01184176 their own situation. To some degree, this is evident in reports from Gallup's daily tracking data of increased spending. The question defines standard of living as "all the things [they] can buy and do," so perhaps lower gas prices are freeing up dollars for Americans to spend on discretionary items. While both political parties clamor for the credit of this post-recession glow, where the index will be heading from here is better to focus on. Because how Americans view their standard of living can crumple just as quickly as the economy. "This is Good News, People...." President Obama Inline image I With those five words, President Obama made clear that he thinks it's far more important to win a long-term argument with his partisan and ideological opponents than to pretend that they are eager to seize opportunities to work with him. He decided to deal with the Republican Party he has, not the Republican Party he wishes he had. Dionne - The Washington Post - January 22, 2015 I waited a week before commenting on the President's State of the Union Address last week as I wanted to digest and see how the Republican opposition responds beyond their initial dismissals and denials. In his sixth State-of-the-Union address, Barack Obama argued for "Middle-Class economics": tax credits for child care, free community college, paid sick leave, increased infrastructure spending and a higher minimum wage. His other requests to Congress included lifting the embargo on Cuba and authorizing the use of force against Islamic State. More than anything, the President signaled a fresh battle for the hearts and minds of America's beleaguered Middle Class -- Yet Republicans aren't having any of it. The party of Tax Cuts, Tax Cuts, Tax Cuts have even vowed to fight the President's proposed tax cuts for the Middle Class. Obama mentioned the Middle Class at least seven times and touted "working" people at least nine as he rolled out proposals to offer new child tax credits, raise the minimum wage, extend paid family leave and make college more affordable. He mentioned 'families" i6 times. But well before Obama's speech was over, House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office EFTA01184177 was firing off responses, declaring that Obama's "regulatory onslaught squeezes the very middle-class families he claims to be trying to help," and that he was threatening to veto what Republicans consider to be jobs bills. The one thing that most likely will be remembered from this State of the Union Address is the President's proposal for making Community Colleges free. To which many Republicans immediately dismissed as too expensive and asked "how does he intends to payfor it." Obviously none of these people remember that the GI Bill was passed unanimously in 1944 and no asked "how was it going to be paidfor"because the politicians on both sides of the aisle because understood that this is an investment in the future of the country and we needed to do this to have a strong nation. This is especially true today when we are being told that within five years an associated agree or its equitant will be required for more than 5o% of the entry level jobs. Indeed, the unemployment rate confirms that tracking, almost exactly to education. Those without a high school degree, for example, had an 11 percent unemployment rate in 2013. Those with BAs, meanwhile, had just a 4 percent unemployment rate. It's not only that people with good educations have an easier time getting a job. They also earn relatively more than ever before — and those with poor educations, much less. As shown in the lower portion of the chart, back in 1975, those with lesser educations had earnings of about 84 percent of national mean incomes. Today, that figure has dropped to 66 percent. It's not just that those with lesser skills are making less. The college- educated are now making more. In 1975, for instance, employees with some post-secondary education earned about $1.55 for every $1 earned by those with only a high school education or less. In 2012, that figure had climbed to $1.80. Much of the blame for these changes goes to technology: Many lower-skilled jobs have disappeared, replaced by machines, while at the same time those with higher levels of education are able to command better salaries because technology (such as computers) allows them to be more productive. And as a result of internationalization labor has become a commodity which can easily be outsourced. One of the coolest things for supporters of the President is that he has recaptured his mojo, the swagger that got his elected. Starting with how he was able to roll off his many accomplishments that are results of his policies that both Republicans and Democrats often questioned: PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Tonight, after a breakthrough year for America, our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999. Our unemployment rate is now lower than it was before the financial crisis. More of our kids are graduating than ever before; more of our people are insured than ever before; we are as free from the grip of foreign oil as we've been in almost 3o years. Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over. Six years ago, nearly i8o,000 American troops served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, fewer than 15,000 remain. And we salute the courage and sacrifice of every man and woman in this 9/11 Generation who has served to keep us safe. We are humbled and grateful for your service. America, for all that we've endured; for all the grit and hard work required to come back; for all the tasks that lie ahead, know this: EFTA01184178 The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong. And over the past five years, our businesses have created more than ii million new jobs. We believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect our planet. And today, America is number one in oil and gas. America is number one in wind power. Every three weeks, we bring online as much solar power as we did in all of 2008. And thanks to lower gas prices and higher fuel standards, the typical family this year should save $75o at the pump. We believed we could prepare our kids for a more competitive world. And today, our younger students have earned the highest math and reading scores on record. Our high school graduation rate has hit an all-time high. And more Americans finish college than ever before. We believed that sensible regulations could prevent another crisis, shield families from ruin, and encourage fair competition. Today, we have new tools to stop taxpayer-funded bailouts, and a new consumer watchdog to protect us from predatory lending and abusive credit card practices. And in the past year alone, about ten million uninsured Americans finally gained the security of health coverage. At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious; that we would crush jobs and explode deficits. Instead, we've seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade, our deficits cut by two-thirds, a stock market that has doubled, and health care inflation at its lowest rate in fifty years. So the verdict is dear. Middle-class economics works. Expanding opportunity works. And these policies will continue to work, as long as politics don't get in the way. We can't slow down businesses or put our economy at risk with government shutdowns or fiscal showdowns. We can't put the security of families at risk by taking away their health insurance, or unraveling the new rules on Wall Street, or refighting past battles on immigration when we've got a system to fix. And if a bill comes to my desk that tries to do any of these things, it will earn my veto. Today, thanks to a growing economy, the recovery is touching more and more lives. Wages are finally starting to rise again. We 'mow that more small business owners plan to raise their employees' pay than at any time since 2007. But here's the thing—those of us here tonight, we need to set our sights higher than just making sure government doesn't halt the progress we're making. We need to do more than just do no harm. Tonight, together, let's do more to restore the link between hard work and growing opportunity for every American." EFTA01184179 How can you argue against this? In the age of the microwave, the President took a long-term view which has resulted in significant gains. Yet, in the GOP response to the address, freshman Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) suggested that the president has harmed regular people. "The new Republican Congress also understands how difficult these past six years have been," said Ernst, who first attracted attention by promising to make Washington insiders squeal like the hogs she used to castrate on a farm. "For many of us, the sting of the economy and thefrustration with Washington's dysfunction weren't things we had to read about. Wefelt them every day." It is funny to see Republican after Republican say that the biggest failure in America is economic inequality because Liberals and Progressives have been saying this same thing for years. And although the President had a consolatory tone toward the Republicans, many suggested that they were disappointed, suggesting that it was just another speech. Such sentiments were echoed widely by Republicans leaving the address, who pointed to people's struggles as evidence that the GOP's agenda will better serve most Americans. "If you look at middle-classfamilies who have lost income over the past several years, if you look at Coloradofamilies where median income has declined ... that is not a stronger place than it was, and not a stronger place than it needs to be," said Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.). "You know, I was disappointed. I was disappointed that I didn't hear morefrom the president asfar as how we were going to help those middle-classfamilies," said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R- Wash.), the top woman in the GOP leadership. "I thought he painted a little rosy picture of how things are, at a time when people continue to see their wages actually shrink, take-home pay shrinking. Job opportunities are not enough." But the tone of the GOP's response highlighted a difficult fact to deal with in the two years before the next presidential election: Republicans are making an argument that is mostly negative, leaving Obama and Democrats to strike a more positive tone as unemployment continues to fall and hiring improves. Asked for three highlights in the president's speech, Rep. Steve Israel (Da) said: 'Middle class, middle class and middle class." And asked if Republicans would be legislative partners on most of the issues Obama raised, Israel responded, "No, no and no." As a result of the buildup to President Obama's State of the Union address made it sound as if he was going to read chapter and verse from French economist Thomas Piketty's book, Capital in the nst Century - last year's 700-plus page best seller, the one that was unexpectedly all the rage as it argued that vast economic inequality is as much about wealth (what's owned) as it is about income (what's earned) a number of Progressives were disappointed with the President because he only mentioned Economic Inequality once in the hour long address... Matt Schiavenza explained Piketty's thesis in The Atlantic, "Applying data gathered across several decades throughout the world, Piketty argued that when income derivedfrom capital exceeds income derivedfrom work, inequality necessarily widens. Or, in non-economics speak: The easiest way to get rich isn't to make a lot of money. It's to have a lot of assets in thefirst place. Better yet to inherit it." As a result not that anyone really expected the president to address Congress like a tutorial in global economics, but the Piketty meme took hold in a lot of the media. "Echoes of Piketty in Obama Proposal to Address Income Inequality" read a headline in The New York Times previewing the address just hours before it was delivered. The Washington Post's Wonkblog predicted, "President Obamafinally has his Piketty moment." The paper's Matt O'Brien wrote, "The state of the EFTA01184180 union is pretty good, actually, but President Obama has an idea to make it better: taxing Wall Street and the super-rich to make middle-class work even more worthwhile. It's Piketty with an American accent" In fact, the president only used the word 'inequality" only once in his entire, hour-long speech: "Let's close the loopholes that lead to inequality by allowing the top one percent to avoid paying taxes on their accumulated wealth,"he said. "We can use that money to help morefamilies payfor childcare and send their kids to college. We need a tax code that truly helps working Americans trying to get a leg up in the new economy, and we can achieve that together." Administration officials said much of the $32o billion in new taxes and fees would be used for measures aimed at helping the middle class, including a $500 tax credit for some families with two spouses working and a $6o billion program to make community college free. This is, as several commentators have described it, "Piketty-lite," a start, but not enough to get the job done for a middle class clobbered by technology and globalization. "Dollar-store progressivism,"Jordan Weissman calls it at Slate. "... Big ideas with relatively small price tags." That $32o billion is spread out over a decade, or $32 billion per year: "That's just a smidge more than 1 percent of last year'sfederal tax revenue—more than a rounding error, but not much more. Obama isn't looking to soak the rich at this point so much as lightly spritz them." As E. J. Dionne pointed out — "President Obama made clear that he thinks it's far more important to win a long-term argument with his partisan and ideological opponents than to pretend that they are eager to seize opportunities to work with him. He decided to deal with the Republican Party he has, not the Republican Party he wishes he had. There is something odd in the notion that Obama is supposed to abandon his convictions because the Republicans won a low-turnout midterm election whose Senate races were fought mostly in territory hostile to Democrats. Ronald Reagan was never asked to stop being a conservative after Democrats took the Senate in the 1986 elections and emerged in control of both houses of Congress. Republicans praised George W. Bush for his courage in upping his commitment in Iraq through the troop surge, even though the Democratic sweep of 2006 was in large part a repudiation of the war on which he doubled down. Are only progressive presidents expected to trim their sails? There seemed to be a disconnect between Obama's combative opening and his close defending his signature refrain that "there wasn't a liberal America, or a conservative America." He acknowledged that many saw it as "ironic"that our politics seems more divided than ever." The President Obama hit the ball out of the park as his State of the Union Address was an optimistic view of what is possible, firmly based on what has been accomplished. And for those who say this is not enough, the President has asked them to come up with their own solutions. Repealing Obamacare because it is not perfect is not an answer unless you are going to replace it with something better. I still don't understand the Republican fascination with the Keystone Pipeline because it really is a straw employing less than 5o full timers that only benefits Canada who will use it to sell their crude to other countries. But unlike many of my Progressive friends I don't have anything against it, as we already have tens of thousands of pipelines crisscrossing the country and one more really won't make that much of a difference. But for Republicans to ignore other infrastructure projects that would upgrade our bridges, roads, ports, levees, waterways, sanitation and electric grid which would create a better environment to Americans as well as millions of new jobs.... It doesn't make sense. In the State of the Union, the President outlined a realistic agenda to benefit the Middle Class and the Poor and for Republicans to repudiate it for pure partisan reasons is my rant of the week.... EFTA01184181  WEEK's READINGS The Groovy Imitation Bands of 1.96os Japanese Rock Inline image 4 Web Link: Heavily influenced by the Beatles, Rolling Stones and American Rock & Roll, R&B and Top 40 music and psycheldelic rock, Japan had its very own `beat era' during the 1960s. It spawned an entirely new music genre known as `Group Sounds' (GS), which saw over a hundred bands release vinyl records on major labels that imitated Western rock musicians. More than often, Group Sounds records did covers of the supergroups such as The Beatles, The Bee Gees and The Rolling Stones, translating the lyrics into Japanese. But the colourful, outfit co-ordinated bands also recorded their own Western- inspired moody ballads and syrupy pop songs. Much of it was not so good, but some of it was interesting stuff with an added exotic edge of being sung in J