Our Economy and it's Impact on 2012

via The Dish

Aside from a fun post answering 30 questions about myself, my absence amidst the pages of ethecofem has gone on now for just over 4 months.  Ever since this time there's been a great groundswell of opine, led by the impassioned musings of the incomparable Bema, including of all ethecofem's contributors sans me.  So, it's about damn time I wrote something around here...

Much like my recently lethargic attitude towards the written word, much the same can be said to describe our country's current economic situation.  It's really been a drag recently.  In fact, a year ago it forced me to take up a temp job, effectively pushing me harder than ever to seek out a real job that I hope will afford me the often overlooked benefits of paid time off and vacation.  With my attention directed towards the job hunt it has made it all the more difficult to focus on my writing.

The chief motivator for me to write, most often, is when I read or hear something that just totally pisses me off.  Such was the case on Thursday when Mitt Romney belatedly announced his candidacy for the presidency.  What really perturbed me, as it should anyone who's been paying attention the past 2 years, is when some conservative, prep-school reared stuffed shirt from New England (who should technically know better) bows to the radical elements in his party to gain their favor (see John McCain 2008 - the model for going against your own morals to win The Nomination) by making false accusations.

There is a long list of crap this man spewed on Thursday, but there were two that specifically stood out for me.  The first: "When [Obama] took office the economy was in recession. He made it worse."  And the second: "I will cap federal spending at 20% or less of the GDP and finally, finally balance the budget."

Well, when it comes to calling a man out for his lies, the Associated Press was on the ball in debunking Romney's fraudulence right off the bat... the problem is that none of those he's seeking to impress or convince will ever read this analysis, preferring instead to wallow in the spin.  But wait, Fox News actually printed AP's column amidst their own pages.  Should one see this as a "Fair and Balanced" approach or assume that it's pretty clear that Romney still isn't radical enough for their brand of conservatism?  I'll default to the latter every time.  Even though Romney has made multiple appearances on Fox since his announcement, they still prefer, as most the media has, to focus on Palin stealing his thunder in New Hampshire this week - a woman who not only isn't officially running yet, but still on the Fox News payroll.  So it's clear that not only is the conservative right not buying the crap he's trying to shill specifically to the FNC set, no one else is gonna buy it either.

Here's an excerpt of the AP's clear debunking of Romney's first claim and his chief falsehood that the president has made our economy worse:

The gross domestic product, the prime measure of economic strength, shrank by a severe 6.8 percent annual rate before Obama became president. The declines eased after he took office and economic growth, however modest, resumed. The recession officially ended six months into his presidency. Unemployment, however, has worsened under Obama, going from 7.8 percent in January 2009 to 9.1 percent last month. It hit 10.1 percent in October 2009.  

A case can be made for and against the idea that Obama's policies made the economy worse than it needed to be and that the recession lasted longer than it might have under another president. Such arguments are at the core of political debate. But Obama did not, as Romney alleged, make the economy worse than it was when he took office. 

In fact, the President came right back this morning and emphasized the progress that has been made in the manufacturing sector, chiefly the auto industry, furthering the notion that government intervention not only works (wherein the taxpayers got their money back), but that in temporary instances governments are able to add a unique perspective that supposedly self-reliant companies can actually benefit from during financial calamities.  Governments can help (see Thing #12) more than the free-marketeers are willing to admit.  Here's what President Obama had to say this morning:

Romney's second assertion that he would cap federal spending at 20% of GDP and finally (finally!) balance the budget is almost more absurd than the previous assertion, making him almost look nescient in comparison to Paul Ryan and his broken budgetary blunder.  Moderate conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan of The Dish sums this assertion up thusly:

I presume Romney intends a balanced budget within his maximum term of office. That is a staggering goal, give the structural forces propelling the debt. It's way more draconian than the Ryan plan, which won't deliver a balanced budget for more than a decade. So what would he cut? Given his pledge to abolish all the cost-controls in the ACA, how does he propose to reform Medicare? How much would he cut from defense? Which taxes would he raise? By not even suggesting a single specific to reach a truly radical goal, the pledge is basically meaningless.

So what does this all mean for those conservatives who've set their gaze upon 2012?  From what I can tell, thus far, it pretty much means that they're all fucked.  I'll explain.  And by the way, it's WAAAAYY too way early to tell what they hell is going on with 2012 polling, but currently it looks like this, via Gallup May 26th 2011:

What this polling tells me is that while it's too early to consider anyone an outright front-runner, it does speak to some potentially crazy permutations.  Let's say that someone more conservative like Herman Cain or more likely Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann (if they ever enter the race as expected) actually wins an early GOP primary in say South Carolina, New Hampshire or Iowa (all very possibly states for them to win).  This should actually help Romney, the slowly ascending Pawlenty or even the already anointed dark horse Jon Huntsman.  The GOP's more moderate candidates would actually stand to benefit from an early uber-conservative win(s) because the historically moderate and monied GOP base will freak out and run into the arms of it's more moderate candidates.  

At the same time, said moderate candidates will overreact, kowtowing to those leaning toward the extreme fringes, thus subverting future attempts to recapture the middle when the primary season has concluded.  My point here is that even if a fringe candidate is nominated, they're screwed because independents will either shift to Obama or a non-factor like Paul.  For a moderate to win, they'll have to subvert their own self-interested moderate disposition to earn it, becoming temporarily radical enough to get the nomination, thus alienating themselves from moderate voters in the general election (again, see John McCain's folly).

In the end, especially amidst today's information seeking populace, even Fox News is exposing liars like Romney and will eventually become critical of even their former employees like Palin and Newt.  While a lot of bullshit can be slung in the interim, our elections focus most, as they should, on "what have you done or what experience do you have to prove your assertions?" Simultaneously, history has proven that incumbent candidates, especially those with both economic and militaristic successes, have a much greater chance at reclaiming the presidency.

Unless our economy takes a huge tumble between now and November 2012, something I don't see happening, the presidency will be nearly impossible for the GOP to capture. Unless they can prove to the American people that they possess actual means by which to improve the state of our country (something that may not even be in question 15 months from now), not more false assertions and broken promises, I see no reason to believe any of the bloviations we'll be subjected to for the next 18 months.  What a long, strange, lying trip it will be... 

On annoying people for a good cause.

(via.)

A few years ago, I was sitting in my suburban apartment complex alone, while my then-partner was at work, enjoying a couple beers mid-afternoon, when I heard a knock at the door.  I opened it to find two young guys, around 20 or 21, standing at the door holding clipboards.  They went into their sales pitch about magazines and a contest between the guys and gals in the group for who could sell the most subscriptions and win some kind of trip that probably didn't exist, and, uninterested in overpriced magazines and happily buzzed, I told them no and invited them in for a beer, instead.  They looked back and forth down the hallway looking for their fellow magazine-peddlers, found none, and quickly accepted the invitation.  We sat around in my living room for a half hour or so, bullshitting about boyfriends and girlfriends and the strictness of their job and how often they had to travel, their quotas, etc.  I announced that we were out of beer, and invited them to walk across the street to the liquor store with me.  They happily obliged, but once we were near the complex garages, they saw their employer's van and had to duck out of sight, ultimately deciding that they'd better just go back to work, as they'd be in big trouble for hanging out in some random girl's apartment drinking beers (while one of them was not legally allowed to be doing such things for another year).

I share this fun little tidbit as an example of the positive things that can occur when you do a job that requires you to talk to scores of people about something you want from them.  After those guys left my apartment, other magazine peddlers came knocking on the door in the following months, and were much less friendly and much more inclined to pressure me and use some manipulative tactic to try and sell me their overpriced garbage.  I did not buy their magazines, and I did not invite them in for beer.  I scowled and made them leave.

I also ignore phone calls from Planned Parenthood, various Democratic campaigns, and other places to whom I've donated in the past and who want more money from me.  I ignore these calls not necessarily because I don't have the money to give them (although this is often the case), or because I don't want to continue supporting them, but because I would personally rather do such things on my own time, and on my own terms.  I'm sensitive to feeling pressured by people, and I never, ever appreciate another person's attempt to manipulate me -- or anyone else -- for their own financial gain.  I also admittedly have a difficult time keeping separate the individual employees of said organizations from the deceptive tactics implemented by their employer.  And this is why I feel so conflicted about my current job.

I was recently hired on for training with a non-profit organization who lobbies for various environmental issues.  My job, specifically, was to call people who've donated in the past to ask them to donate again to help our current campaign.  Now, I don't mean to equate magazine-peddlers with canvassers who fight for stricter environmental regulations and other worthy causes.  They're not the same.  One works for a company's profit, one works for legislative efforts for under-funded projects, fighting against big business interests and in favor of the preservation of our drinking water.  The problem is that they use the same tactics to get donations as the magazine-peddlers use to get subscriptions.  And those tactics are manipulative, deceptive, and rely on vague, empty rhetoric to get their point across.  Vague, empty rhetoric that insults the intelligence of everyone on whom they use it.  "The fight for our future is now!" is a phrase that would make me laugh in the face of anyone who said it to me unironically.  Using it over the phone makes me feel like an emotional manipulator, an asshole, an idiot, and a complete dork.

But anyway.  Non-profits such as the one I worked for rely heavily on donations from members and new memberships, and the only way to get those donations is to ask for them, because while many people (like myself) spontaneously give money to organizations or campaigns when we can, they can't rely on something so inconsistent by itself.  And someone has to ask for them.  It's an important job, and a very difficult one.  Many people don't appreciate being called and asked for money, though... under any circumstance.  I'm one of them... hence my internal conflict.

I'm not doing so well there, and I'm not sure that I'm really going to last much longer.  I'm deeply uncomfortable pressuring people about their money, and while I'm quite aware of how important it is that this work be done, I'm not sure I feel badly about not feeling comfortable pressuring people in this manner.  While it may be necessary to some degree or another, I just... don't like doing it.

So, I quit.

I didn't talk to more than a handful of people who weren't openly irritated about my calling them.  I'd get a similar reaction from bank customers back at Wells Fargo when I would go into a required sales pitch over the phone, just trying to get them to give a verbal affirmative that they would at least consider whatever I was trying to sell.

Seeing as how uncomfortable this particular approach makes the majority of people its presented to, even if they eventually buy the product or donate money, are there any reasonable alternatives that would produce similar (if not better) results, while eliminating the practice of transparent psychological manipulation and appeal to the lowest common denominator?  I have yet to come across anything else.