Occupy, Chicago!

Here's my take on our mayor's removal of 175 Occupy Protesters from Congress Plaza in the dead of night, last weekend:

Apocalyptica

Just now, introduced to this group by Jessica. Thank You, Jess! Cellos.  And they led me, through the iTunes  feature that automatically decides for you what you are likely to enjoy, to Psychgograss, and to "Midnight in Mali' by Djelmady Tounkara and Habib Koite (with whom I already was familiar). Wonderful music.

And a long way from listening to KAKC by the hour, hoping they would play "Johnny B Good." Did they invent iTunes, and YouTube, and all the rest (check out this! from Char Baho) just for the convenience of us old farts who want what we want, and now? Don't know; but, if so, Thanks! We richly deserve it. After all, haven't we fucked up the world as much as we could, during our turn? Bring on the Music!

The Lute in the Attic

Department of One Thing Leads to Another:

Reading the poem Yannis Keats by Angelos Sikelianos (tr by A.E. Stallings), a poem that left me feeling both refreshed and nostalgic (refreshed by the simplicity, the delicacy of touch and the cogency of image; nostalgic for the poetry of my youth, somehow) brought to mind instantly, and for no apparent reason, Kenneth Patchen's wonderful recording with the Chamber Jazz Sextet from, I believe, 1959 --certainly that was the year I listened to it incessantly.

Patchen's art --almost unique, to my mind-- was in taking an often dark and sort of laconic mode such as was common to the Beats (at least the ones I read), and giving it an oddly compelling beauty. Nowhere, for me, was this more true than in "The Lute in the Attic," with the music, I now learn, derived from Thomas Campion. A sample (from memory):

"Your father's gone daft, Willy.
And Iselena's flaxen hair
Is the color of the mud at the bottom of Rathbeggin Creek."

Ugly, in one way; but beautifully stark all the same, with the purposeful "Willy" (the poem had introduced the character as "William," if I recall correctly) forcing one to confront an unadorned truth. Hugely suggestive, and at the same time a kick in the teeth. Certainly to a boy of fourteen.

And with the facile, almost effortless internet at hand, I found not only the essay referenced above, but lots more on Patchen, Kenneth Rexroth, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Gregory Corso, and on and on. And eventually, a New Republic essay by Rexroth in 1960, about (of all things) the Nixon-Kennedy debates, from which these gems:

"As time goes on, television may well purge American politics of gross ill manners."


"I don't think there is any question but that it would be impossible today to run, much less elect, a gross          buffoon, a ruffian, or even a boozy, good-natured rascal."

Mercifully, perhaps, Rexroth died in 1982, a decade after Patchen, and less than a year before the much younger poet who introduced his work to me, Ted Berrigan.

So, I'll find a copy of Patchen's Selected Poems; maybe, if I'm lucky, find the recording, too. Relive my youth, and dig out of the cold earth of Foreign Affairs and The Economist, into some thick enveloping loam. Funny: never worried about Fop, then.

Republicans: Further Cuts Needed

Rep. Paul Ryan (R, WI) heralded a new round of federal austerity measures in a hastily-called news conference on the steps of the United States Capitol today.

"I was outraged to learn, in research as part of my role as Chairman of the Budget Committee, that the amount known as Avogadro's number is over six hundred sextillion," Ryan said. "We are going to look into that; and we're going to reduce it."

Ryan called for hearings, which, he promised, will be fair but uncompromising. "Waste, in a program that size, is a serious concern," he said. An aide later clarified that Ryan was not accusing anyone of any specific malfeasance, but believes that government must do more with less, given the deficit. Responding to questions about Ryan's assertion that Avogadro had been a "big-government liberal," the aide indicated that the congressman had been speaking in general terms.

"The congressman believes that nothing is off the table, nothing is sacrosanct," the aide told reporters gathered later in the congressman's office. "We're looking into E = mc2,for instance. That's a huge number. We ought to be able to get by without the exponent, in these difficult times."

When pressed by reporters about Avogadro's number, for example, being a scientific constant, the aide replied, "you mean it's in the hands of the same people who make wild claims about global warming? In the Winter!!!???"

"Don't think that we're not on to what some scientists are doing," said Ryan's appointments secretary. He pointed out that, with a simple adjustment to the Congressman's thermometer, the water for his tea now boils at 80 degrees.  "That's the kind of savings you can expect from a new approach, a conservative approach," the secretary concluded. 

Signals?

From this morning's report on NPR:

1.   Regarding the death of the musician Kurt Cobain, which was mentioned in a "preview" of some broadcast scheduled for today: A sound bite from someone who knew him (and I am paraphrasing): "I remember, I woke up the next morning and I said to myself, 'I'm waking up, and ... he's not. Wow.'"

Not exactly "In Memoriam A.H.H." But a common type of expression of the profundity of things in general, these days. We're still slightly above the level of grunting; but the progression towards monosyllabic verbalization of our understanding of life, the universe, and everything proceeds apace. We used to parody the stoned hippie's "Oh, wow!" as the height of his expressive ability; nowadays, such expressions get you on NPR.

2. Libyan rebels celebrated the news (premature, as it turned out) of the capture of Sirit, Qaddafi's hometown, with wild demonstrations of joy, principally involving the firing of automatic weapons into the air.

The use of machine guns as roman candles, of course, is a familiar sight, particularly, it seems, in Arab lands. But this does not speak well for the organization, professionalism, or even sense of purpose of the Libyan rebels. Rather, it marks them as what they are more or less acknowledged to be: ragtag assemblies of angry young men without any particular structure to their effort.

This does not bode well, either for their success, or, should they succeed, for their long-term prospects as organizers of a new government. This is particularly true given the report that followed, which focused on their ability to resupply and stated that they will, quite possibly, run out of weapons and ammunition.

If this is who we (sorry, I mean the "coalition") are sponsoring, we may come to regret it. It would appear that the Taliban are models of discipline by comparison.


Both these items are emblems of the deterioration of things in the world, as if entropy is reminding us of its inevitable triumph. Or maybe I am just an old guy who longs for President Eisenhower or something.

Lies, and Damned Lies, and Statistics

From a January 27 editorial in the Wall Street Journal:

“Eighteen months after the recession formally ended, the federal deficit for fiscal 2011 (through September) is expected to increase once again, this time to $1.48 trillion, or 9.8% of GDP. That's a share of GDP topped since World War II only by the 10% reached in Mr. Obama's first year in office, when at least the recession was an excuse. The annual deficit in the 1980s never exceeded 6% of GDP.

As the nearby chart shows, the main culprit is spending. After falling slightly last year due in part to TARP repayments, federal outlays will climb again this year to 24.7% of GDP. Overall federal spending will have increased by $1 trillion in a mere four years. Without spending cuts, outlays will remain above 23% for the rest of the decade—starting to rise again once ObamaCare becomes fully phased in. (The outlay average from 1971 to 2010 was 20.8% of GDP.)”

There are so many objectionable comments in this piece that it is hard to know where to start. So I decided to focus on what has become received wisdom on the Right these days, and, because of the feckless acceptance by the Democrats of a Republican narrative, is generally understood to be true.

It is encapsulated in these sentences from the editorial:

"After falling slightly last year due in part to TARP repayments, federal outlays will climb again this year to 24.7% of GDP."

and 

"The GOP-Obama tax deal will also keep revenues as a share of GDP below 15% in 2011."

The entire article is built on this comparison, and the accompanying chart. But it's misleading; as a look at the actual numbers would show. Here’s a summary:

GDP in 2011 is expected to be about $15 trillion. Federal Revenues will be about $2.3 trillion, or about 15% of GDP. Federal expenditures are expected to be about $3.6 trillion, or roughly 25% of GDP. So far, so good --precise numbers are surprisingly difficult to come by, at least in a half-hour of basic web-searching--, but this is as the article says, or implies.

By the way, according to the World Almanac for 2001, US federal government expenditures were $1,863,039,000,000 --about half of the projected 2011 level. Doubling in ten years sounds like a lot, but the old "Rule of 72" tells us that this would be an annual growth rate of 7% or so had it been spread evenly across the period. Still, population growth has been roughly 1% per year; so the increase is still substantial.

Federal government spending, as a percentage of GDP, was just under 18% in 2000; it grew slowly (okay, inexorably) for the first several years of the Bush II administration, until it was 19.38% in 2007, In 2009, it was 24.67% of GDP --it grew by more than four percentage points, or nearly 20%, in just one year, from 2008 to 2009 --way more than the ten-year average. 

So what happened to government spending between 2008 and 2009, to account for that enormous growth?

Well, spending grew, all right: from 2.75 trillion in 2008 to 3.2 trillion in 2009. This is nothing to sneeze at; it's an increase of 16%. But GDP fell between those 2 years, by 2.5%. This made the growth more than a full percentage point higher than it otherwise would have been: had GDP merely stayed the same, spending as a percent of GDP would have grown by almost exactly 24% --still high; and if GDP had grown by even 2% (less than its average growth during the Bush II years), spending as a percent of GDP would have grown to 23.2%. Of course, if GDP had not fallen, we wouldn't have had a recession, and substantial amounts of the spending growth would not have occurred.

Revenues, meanwhile, went from 2.5 trillion in 2008 to an estimated 2.1 trillion in 2009. Correct: a drop of 400 billion dollars, over 15%. 

So, when the WSJ article says, "As the nearby chart shows, the main culprit is spending," it is simply wrong. Revenues fell by almost the same amount that spending grew.

The fact is, if we step back, we had, between Bush's final full year (2008) and Obama's first (partial) year (2009), an increase in government expenditures of $450 Billion, and a drop in revenues of $417 Billion. So it's not too hard to see why the deficit "under Obama" has ballooned. And most of us, regardless of our opinion of federal spending, would not expect, or want, to see a drop big enough to make up that difference in a single year*.

     *I would be in the minority, here: I'd be happy to see a one-year cut in defense from $700 billion to $200 billion. But then I'm a Muslim-loving socialist.

I admit that when you lay out the actual numbers it's not nearly as sexy as using the percentages. But it would be well to remember that percentages involve both a numerator and a denominator. It's easy to see what happened here; it's what anyone would expect in a huge, crashing recession. 

And as long as we're looking at that WSJ chart of "The Spending Boom," we might just notice that, according to the chart, average revenues and average expenditures, as a percent of GDP, have been, since 1971, 3 percentage points apart. That's exactly what the chart projects for the future. 

Ought Obama to have avoided spending as much as he did? Maybe you can argue that, although not many serious people do --certainly the Republicans in Congress, along with GWB, were happy to install the TARP back in the weeks before Obama was elected. But you cannot seriously argue that Obama has been on some sort of unprecedented, breakneck spending spree.

But you can make it look like that, if your political agenda requires it.

[sources for the figures: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a   and

http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php  ]

Runaway Government Spending

A refrain we have grown used to hearing: Under Obama, federal spending has gotten out of control. Obama himself, because of his spending, has added trillions to the national debt in just 2 years.

Or, as Rep. Paul Ryan (R, WI) put it in his "rebuttal" to the State of the Union speech:

Unfortunately, instead of restoring the fundamentals of economic growth, he engaged in a stimulus spending spree that not only failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs, but also plunged us even deeper into debt.

The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25% for domestic government agencies - an 84% increase when you include the failed stimulus. 

Let's ignore the "instead of restoring the fundamentals of economic growth" part, and not point out that the economy has, in fact, grown throughout all of 2010 and even the latter part of 2009 --by the measures Mr Ryan and his Republican cohort value the most, stock prices and corporate profits.

Instead, note how carefully he phrases this: "domestic government agencies." Whazzat mean, exactly? "Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25% for domestic government agencies."

What's a "domestic government agency?"

It depends on what you're talking about. For purposes of various federal privacy rules, "agency" is defined quite broadly. On the other hand, in the government's organization chart, "Agency" is shown as distinct from "Department."

Why is this important? Because we have grown used to weasel words from people who have an ax to grind and want to criticize the government. The truth is, we simply don't know what Ryan was talking about. We don't know if he means that $400 billion was suddenly increased to $500 billion (25%) or $746 billion (84%) counting "the failed stimulus." On the other hand, he could mean that $4 billion was increased to $5 billion (or to $7.46 billion).

But we have a suspicion, don't we? The use of percentages, and the precise and evidently narrow definition his choice of words involves, strongly suggests that (1) actual dollars, instead of percentages, would be a lot less impressive, and (2) using dollars would not have helped the gloss Ryan's rhetoric needs.

In other words, I'm not sure: this may be FOP. It almost certainly isn't Dapper Dan.

Second Amendment Solutions

News Flash: The House of Representatives will not take up the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" on Wednesday as originally scheduled. John Boehner? Squeamish? Perish, or rather Kill, the Thought!

In other news, the "SarahPAC" facebook page has, or perhaps has not, removed the little targets, with rifle-sight crosshairs, on its US map showing twenty congressmen, including Res. Giffords, who need to be "targeted." 

And earlier, KGUN (Really; in America you don't have to resort to fiction for this sort of thing) in Tucson reported that the sheriff of Pima county sort of lit into the radical commentariat who polarize political debate as a way of earning money. "vitriol," he called it. "It may be free speech," he said, "but it's not without consequences."

Meanwhile, a half-dozen people are dead, victims of our political culture, and of a permissive gun mindset that both Rep Giffords and Judge Roll supported in their official capacities.

Hubert Humphrey

I saw a retrospective on the "Happy Warrior" tonight. It brought back a very tumultuous time in our history, particularly when it turned to the events of the (Lyndon) Johnson Administration. Humphrey had been the liberal hero for his entire career, and Johnson's point man in the Senate, without whom the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have been passed.

But Johnson's overweening ego, and Humphrey's loyalty to a president whose policy on Viet Nam he could not support but, as Vice-President, could not publicly oppose, doomed Humphrey's candidacy in 1968. I was left, after viewing the carnage of that Chicago summer, and then the fact of Nixon's win, with the thought that Humphrey had adhered to his principles right up to the point where his ambition to be president became powerful enough to silence him, and so in the end, ironically, cost him the presidency.

I switched off the set. "Poor Hubert," I thought. And then, "Poor us."